Posted tagged ‘Islamic supremacy’

France on the Verge of Total Collapse

November 24, 2016

France on the Verge of Total Collapse by

Guy Millière

November 24, 2016 at 6:30 am

Source: France on the Verge of Total Collapse

  • France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.
  • In the 1970s, the Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. France’s Muslim population has since grown in numbers while failing to assimilate.
  • Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.
  • “It is better to leave than flee.” — Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism. He was later mugged, and his car was torched. He left.
  • Villiers also mentions the presence in “no-go zones” of thousands of weapons of war. He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used; the Islamists have already won.
  • Originally, France’s dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism.

France is in turmoil. “Migrants” arriving from Africa and the Middle East sow disorder and insecurity in many cities. The huge slum commonly known as the “jungle of Calais” has just been dismantled, but other slums are being created each day. In eastern Paris, streets have been covered with corrugated sheets, oilcloth and disjointed boards. Violence is commonplace. The 572 France’s “no-go zones,” officially defined as “sensitive urban areas”, continue to grow, and police officers who approach them often suffer the consequences. Recently, a police car drove into an ambush and was torched while the police were prevented from getting out. If attacked, police officers are told by their superiors to flee rather than retaliate. Many police officers, angry at having to behave like cowards, have organized demonstrations. No terrorist attacks have taken place since the slaughter of a priest in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on July 26, 2016, but intelligence services see that jihadists have returned from the Middle East and are ready to act, and that riots may break out anywhere, any time, on any pretext.

Although overwhelmed by a domestic situation it barely controls, the French government still intervene in the world affairs: a “Palestinian state” is still its favorite cause, Israel its favorite scapegoat.

Last Spring, even though both France and the Palestinian territories were in terrible shape, French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault anyway declared that it was “urgent” to relaunch the “peace process” and create a Palestinian state. France therefore convened an international conference, held in Paris on June 3. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians were invited to it. The conference was a flop. It concluded with a vapid statement about the “imperative necessity” to go “forward”.

France did not stop there. The government then decided to organize a new conference in December. This time, with Israel and the Palestinians. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that Israel does not need intermediaries, refused the invitation. Palestinian leaders accepted. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority spokesman congratulated France, adding, not surprisingly, that the Palestinian Authority had “suggested” the idea to the French.

Now Donald Trump is the U.S. president-elect, and Newt Gingrich is likely to play a key role in the Trump Administration. Gingrich said a few years ago that there is no such a thing as a Palestinian people, and added last week that settlements are in no way an obstacle to peace. As such, the December conference looks as if it might be another failure.

French diplomats nevertheless are working with Palestinian officials on a UN resolution to recognize a Palestinian State inside the “1967 borders” (the 1949 armistice lines), but without any treaty of peace. They are apparently hoping that outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama will not use the American veto at the Security Council, allowing the passage of the resolution. It is not certain at all that Barack Obama will want to end his presidency on a gesture so openly subversive. It is almost certain that France will fail there too. Again.

For many years, France seems to have built its entire foreign policy on aligning itself with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): 56 Islamic countries plus the Palestinians. Originally, France’s dreams might have been of displacing America as a world power, accessing inexpensive oil, business deals with oil-rich Islamic states, and the prayer of no domestic terrorism. All four have been washouts. It is also obvious that France has more urgent problems to solve.

France persists because it is desperately trying to limit problems that probably cannot be solved.

In the 1950s, France was different from what it is now. It was a friend of Israel. The “Palestinian cause” did not exist. The war in Algeria was raging, and a large majority of French politicians would not even have shaken hands with unrepentant terrorists.

Everything changed with the end of the Algerian war. Charles de Gaulle handed Algeria over to a terrorist movement called the National Liberation Front. He then proceeded to create a strategic reorientation of the France’s foreign policy, unveiling what he called the “Arab policy of France.”

France signed trade and military agreements with various Arab dictatorships. To seduce its new friends, it eagerly adopted an anti-Israeli policy. When in the 1970s, terrorism in the form of airplane hijackings was invented by the Palestinians, and with the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, “the Palestinians” all at once became a “sacred cause” and a useful tool for leverage in the Arab world. France, adopting the “cause,” became rigidly pro-Palestinian. The Palestinians began to use international terrorism, and France chose to accept this terrorism so long as France was not affected. At the same time, France welcomed mass-immigration from the Arab-Muslim world, evidently as part of a Muslim wish to expand Islam. The Muslim population has since grown in numbers, while failing to assimilate.

France did not perceive it at the time, but it placed itself in a trap, and the trap is now closing.

France’s Muslim population seems anti-French in terms of Judeo-Christian, Enlightenment values, and pro-French only to the extent that France submits to the demands of Islam. As France’s Muslims are also pro-Palestinian, theoretically there should have been no problem. But France underestimated the effects of the rise of extremist Islam in the Muslim world and beyond.

More and more, French Muslims consider themselves Muslim first. Many claim that the West is at war with Islam; they see France and Israel as part of the West, so they are at war with them both. They see that France is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but they also see that several French politicians maintain ties with Israel, so they likely think that France is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian enough.

They see that France tolerates Palestinian terrorism, and seem not to understand why France would fight Islamic terrorism in other places.

To please its Muslims, the French government may believe it has no choice other than to be as pro-Palestinian and as anti-Israeli as possible — even though it looks as if this policy is failing badly in the polls.

The French government undoubtedly sees that it cannot prevent what increasingly looks like a looming disaster. This disaster is already taking place.

Perhaps France’s current government is hoping that it might delay the disaster a bit and avoid a civil war. Perhaps, they might hope, the “no go zones” will not explode — at least on their watch.

France today has six million Muslims, 10% of its population, and the percentage is growing. Polls show that one-third of French Muslims want the full application of Islamic sharia law. They also show that the overwhelming majority of French Muslims support jihad, and especially jihad against Israel, a country they would like to see erased from the face of earth.

The leading French Muslim organization, the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, is the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that should be listed as a terrorist organization for its open wishes to overthrow Western governments.

The Muslim Brotherhood is primarily financed by Qatar, a country that invests heavily in France — and that has the comfort of its very own U.S. airbase.

Jews are leaving France in record numbers, and these departures do not stop. Sammy Ghozlan, President of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism, repeated for many years that, “It is better to leave than flee.” He was mugged. His car was torched. He left, and now lives in Israel.

The rest of the French population clearly sees the extreme seriousness of what is happening. Some of them are angry and in a state of revolt; others seem resigned to the worst: an Islamist takeover of Europe.

The next French elections will take place in May 2017. French President François Hollande has lost all credibility and has no chance of being reelected. Whoever comes to power will have a difficult task.

The French seem to have lost confidence in Nicolas Sarkozy, so they will probably choose between Marine Le Pen, Alain Juppé or François Fillon.

Marine Le Pen is the candidate of the far-right National Front.

Alain Juppé is the mayor of Bordeaux, and often campaigns in the company of Tareq Oubrou, imam of the city. Until recently, Tareq Oubrou was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Alain Juppé seems to believe that the present disorder will calm down if France fully submits.

François Fillon will probably be the moderate-right candidate. He recently said that “Islamic sectarianism” creates “problems in France.” He also said that if a Palestinian State is not created very soon, Israel will be “the main threat to world peace.”

Three years ago, the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut published a book, The Unhappy Identity (L’identité malheureuse), describing the dangers inherent in the Islamization of France and the major disorders that stem from it. Juppé chose a campaign slogan intended to contradict Finkielkraut: “The Happy Identity“.

Since the publication of Alain Finkielkraut’s book, other pessimistic books were published that became best sellers in France. In October 2014, columnist Eric Zemmour published The French Suicide (Le suicide français). A few weeks ago, he published another book, A Five-Year Term for Nothing (Un quinquennat pour rien). He describes what he sees happening to France: “invasion, colonization, explosion.”

Zemmour defines the arrival of millions of Muslims in France during the last five decades as an invasion, and the recent arrival of hordes of migrants as the continuation of that invasion. He depicts the creation of “no-go zones” as the creation of Islamic territories on French soil and an integral part of a colonization process.

He writes that the eruptions of violence that spread are signs of an imminent explosion; that sooner or later, revolt will gain ground.

Another book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow? (Les cloches sonneront-elles encore demain?), was recently published by a former member of the French government, Philippe de Villiers.

Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. He also mentions the presence in “no-go zones” of thousands of weapons of war (AK-47 assault rifles, Tokarev pistols, M80 Zolja anti-tank weapons, etc). He adds that weapons will probably not even have to be used — the Islamists have already won.

In his new book, Will the Church Bells Ring Tomorrow?, Philippe de Villiers notes the disappearance of churches in France, and their replacement by mosques. Pictured above: On August 3, French riot police dragged a priest and his congregation from the church of St Rita in Paris, prior to its scheduled demolition. Front National leader Marine Le Pen said in fury: “And what if they built parking lots in the place of Salafist mosques, and not of our churches?” (Image source: RT video screenshot)

On November 13, 2016, France marked the first anniversary of the Paris attacks. Plaques were unveiled every place where people were killed. The plaques read: “In memory of the injured and murdered victims of the attacks.” No mention was made of jihadist barbarity. In the evening, the Bataclan Theater reopened with a concert by Sting. The last song of the concert was “Insh’ Allah”: “if Allah wills.” The Bataclan management prevented two members of the US band Eagles of Death Metal — who were on stage when the attack started — from entering the concert. A few weeks after the attack, Jesse Hughes, lead singer of the group, had dared to criticize the Muslims involved. The Bataclan’s director said about Hughes, “There are things you cannot forgive.”

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

The False Premise of Palestine and Peace

November 22, 2016

The False Premise of Palestine and Peace

by Barry Shaw

November 22, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: The False Premise of Palestine and Peace

  • If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner.
  • This should be Israel’s basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.
  • It is that simple. That is all it takes.

The notion that the creation of a state of Palestine will herald everlasting peace is naïve in the extreme.

After 50 years of a two-state failure, the French and other diplomats, in their duplicitously-named “peace initiative,” have no other idea for how to settle the Palestinian problem, except to behave like parched men trudging across a burning desert toward a distant mirage that they think is an oasis paradise. It is not, and the same diplomats will take no responsibility for cleaning up the dangerous outcome of such a disaster.

The international community is pressuring Israel to make wholesale concessions in territory and security, risking social and political upheaval, to grant the so-called Palestinians a state of their own.

The sole criterion for making this happen is for the international community to accept the Palestinian precondition of forcing Israel withdraw to pre-1967 lines, which are the 1949 armistice lines and not a defined border.

Whenever I approach a European diplomat with the following questions, none of them can give me an answer:

1) What happens when a new emboldened Palestinian government continues calls for the liberation of the “rest of Palestine”?

They call Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and the Galilee — in fact, all of Israel — “occupied Palestinian land”. Just look at any Palestinian map: it is identical to Israel.

It is little known that members of the Palestinian Authority call Israeli Arabs “Palestinians of the Interior.”

They also call Israeli Arabs the “Palestinians of ’48.” They have been joined in this by Arab Knesset Members, who also would not object to the eventual displacement of Jews by Arabs in Israel.

According to their ambition, these Israeli Arabs will be “liberated” by a new Palestine.

2) What will happen when inevitably — by the ballot or by the bullet — this Palestine is taken over by Hamas, designated an Islamic terror organization by the U.S. Department of State?

If you think this question is far-fetched, think again. The students of Bir Zeit University voted overwhelming to elect Hamas representatives to head their student body. Bir Zeit is not in the Gaza Strip. It is less than ten kilometers north of Ramallah, literally a stone’s throw from the offices of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

These Hamas-supporting students will be the Palestinians’ future opinion-makers after graduation.

And let us not forget how in the Gaza Strip, in June 2007, Hamas seized power in a bloody coup that left more than a hundred dead and more than five hundred wounded.

Hamas will continue its incendiary calls to destroy the Jewish state and to slaughter Jews.

3) Do you really think that we Israelis will call upon our government to make territorial concessions that will bring these terrorists closer to our families and homes?

So, what is the answer I get from the diplomats based in Israel to these genuine concerns? Well, nothing really. Just a throwaway line about it being up to the parties to solve their ongoing difficulties.

If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction.

This should be Israel’s basic demand: that a united Palestinian political leadership will recognize the right of all the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel to live in peace and security, alongside the State of Palestine.

It is that simple. That is all it takes.

Let the diplomatic world spend the next 50 years educating and training the divided Palestinian political leadership to come together as a force for peace.

Then Israel will be happy to consider making concessions that might well be life-threatening, as it has done before.

If the international community wants to see Israel make dangerous concessions, then they, and they alone, must ensure that Israel has a united and pragmatic peace partner, not a weak, aging, corrupt, rejectionist and undemocratic leader to our east, who constantly says he will never recognize Israel as the Jewish State, and to our south, in Gaza, a rabid Islamic terror regime bent on our destruction. (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)

Barry Shaw is a Senior Associate at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS

November 21, 2016

Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS

By Pamela Geller – on November 20, 2016

Source: Only 18 out of 57 Muslim Nations Sign UN Coalition to Fight ISIS – The Geller Report

Clearly a majority of Muslim nations do not want to fight against terror. On the contrary, they support jihad armies — in accordance with the jihadiic doctrine. “Soon shall we cast terror Into the hearts Of the unbelievers..”

The lip service that Muslim countries pay to Western elites is merely taqiya.
The Quran’s Verses of Violence – The Religion of Peace

Anger as less than A THIRD of Muslim nations sign up to coalition against ISIS
A TOP British official has taken aim at some Muslim nations during a meeting at the United Nations this week, slamming them for not clamping down on extremism.

By Siobhan McFadyen, Express UK, Nov 18, 2016  (thanks to Muslim Statistics)

Matthew Rycroft delivered a strongly worded speech at the UN this week

Matthew Rycroft delivered a strongly worded speech at the UN this week

It comes as it can be revealed just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS.

The UK’s permanent representative to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, delivered a strongly worded speech blasting what he called “evil groups” and saying not enough is being done.

The comments came as the UN general assembly supported a plan by the Islamic Development Bank to invest £7.2bn to tackle the cause of terror.

Suicide bombings are a daily issue around the globe
Suicide bombings are a daily issue around the globe.

The fact that these evil groups claim to represent Islam only makes this reality even more sickening.
– UN representative Matthew Rycroft

Britain is using its muscle at the UN to encourage more cooperation and has also pledged to invest £20m of taxpayers’ money to the Arab Women’s Enterprise Fund.

Mr Rycroft said: “One issue facing the OIC’s (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) members, indeed all members of the UN, is the growing threat of extremist ideologies and violent extremism.

Just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS
Just 18 out of 57 Muslim majority world states have signed up to a coalition against ISIS

“Sadly, as we in this Council know only too well, this threat affects Muslim majority states in a truly disproportionate way – in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, in so many places.

“Put simply and starkly, far more Muslim men, women and children have lost their lives at the hands of groups like Al Shabaab and Da’esh than any other faith or religion.

“The fact that these evil groups claim to represent Islam only makes this reality even more sickening.

“The United Kingdom is clear that we must tackle violent extremism in all its forms, whether radical Islam or neo-Nazism.”

An ISIS fighter is help by an Iraqi army official

An ISIS fighter is held by an Iraqi army official.
Worryingly, Mr Rycroft pointed out that just 18 of the 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.6 billion – that makes up the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was founded in 1969 – are members of the Global Coalition against Da’esh.

It comes after the UK set up a Strategic Communications Cell to tackle terrorists in London last year, handing over an initial £10million.

He added: “It’s no coincidence that 18 members of the OIC are also members of the Global Coalition against Da’esh.

“Among them are of course our colleagues from Egypt and I want to pay tribute to the work of those two great Egyptian institutions, Al-Azhar and Dar Al-Ifta.

“These beacons of Islamic thinking help provide a narrative of tolerance that counters the hate preached by the likes of Da’esh.

A man takes a selfie in front of a fire from oil that has been set ablaze in the Qayyarah area
A man takes a selfie in front of a fire from oil that has been set ablaze in the Qayyarah area.

Iraqi soldiers look on as smoke rises fr

Video still of militants patrolling the streets of Mosul

Militants patrolling the streets of Mosul.
“The UK is committed to help spread that narrative, to showing the reality of Da’esh’s lies.

“That’s why we’re hosting the Coalition’s Communications Cell in London.

“It draws on the expertise of Coalition members, including our partners from the United Arab Emirates, to help counter the misrepresentation of Islam and its values by Da’esh.

“Countering an ideology is part about offering a competing narrative.

“But it’s also about delivering consequences for those who join Da’esh and it’s about supporting survivors of their crimes by giving them a voice and ending impunity.

“Da’esh accountability is a top priority for the UK and we are seeking UN action to preserve evidence of Da’esh’s crimes as a first step.”

Turkey: Lies, Cheap Lies and Cheaper Lies

November 21, 2016

Turkey: Lies, Cheap Lies and Cheaper Lies

by Burak Bekdil

November 21, 2016 at 4:30 am

Source: Turkey: Lies, Cheap Lies and Cheaper Lies

  • In President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s view, Belarus is decent and peaceful, but Western Europe is not. Merely because Belarus’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, agreed to open a mosque to lure some Turkish investment.
  • Back in Turkey, things look very Belarusian — even worse — rather than Western European, a culture Erdogan despises.
  • President Erdogan’s crackdown on dissent goes at full speed. Asli Erdogan, a peace activist and novelist, worked for Ozgur Gundem, a pro-Kurdish newspaper. She has remained in prison since her August arrest. The prosecutors demand an aggravated life sentence plus 17.5 years in jail for her. How did Asli Erdogan, the novelist, “support terror”? This is from the indictment: “… in an understanding of a novelist [the accused] portrayed terrorists as citizens in her columns.”
  • “In the history of the program, there has never been such an extraordinary situation where I think we can say that a democracy is threatening to turn itself into a dictatorship.” — Frank Schwabe, German Social Democratic lawmaker and human rights expert.
  • Europe’s unpleasant game with Turkey should end at once, with Brussels and Ankara admitting that the planned marriage was an awfully bad idea from the beginning.

Reading his public speeches, one may think that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan must be joking; that he is a celebrity stand-up comedian, the best in his profession. In reality, he is not joking. He believes in what he says. And he does not want to make people laugh. He is just an Islamist strongman.

Visiting Minsk, the capital of Belarus, in the first week of November for the opening of a mosque in a dictatorial country where there are 100,000 Muslims, Erdogan accused Western Europe for “intolerance that spreads like the plague.”

Erdogan described Belarus, which Western countries describe as a dictatorship, as “a country in which people with different roots live in peace.” In Erdogan’s view Belarus is decent and peaceful, but Western Europe is not. Merely because Belarus’s dictator, Alexander Lukashenko, agreed to open a mosque to lure some Turkish investment.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko in Minsk on November 11, 2016. (Image source: TRT Haber video screenshot)

Back in Turkey, things look very Belarusian — even worse — rather than Western European, a culture Erdogan despises.

In August, an Istanbul court ordered Asli Erdogan, a prominent author and journalist, arrested on charges of membership in an armed terror organization. Asli Erdogan, a peace activist and novelist, worked for Ozgur Gundem, a pro-Kurdish newspaper. She has remained in prison since her arrest. The prosecutors demand an aggravated life sentence plus 17.5 years in jail for her.

How did Asli Erdogan the novelist “support terror”? This is from the indictment: “… in an understanding of a novelist [the accused] portrayed terrorists as citizens in her columns.” The prosecutor’s “evidence” is four columns by Asli Erdogan. Mehmet Yilmaz, a columnist, suggested that Turkish law faculties, after this indictment, should be closed down and converted into imam schools.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s crackdown on dissent goes at full speed. An opposition, pro-Kurdish party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, announced that it would suspend its legislative activity after a dozen of its lawmakers, including its co-chairpersons, were arrested on terror charges. Meanwhile Erdogan accuses Europe of abetting terrorism by supporting Kurdish militants as the Turkish government tries to suppress them. He said: “Europe, as a whole, is abetting terrorism.”

German lawmakers, including leading representatives of the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Left Party, announced an initiative to “adopt” their Turkish colleagues after Erdogan’s government rescinded the legal immunity of 53 of 59 Kurdish members of parliament and arrested dozens of lawmakers, party employees and journalists.

“In the history of the program, there has never been such an extraordinary situation where I think we can say that a democracy is threatening to turn itself into a dictatorship,” said German Social Democratic lawmaker and human rights expert Frank Schwabe. “We have a lot of Turkish opposition parliamentarians under threat, so we had to apply the parliamentary sponsorship program in an extraordinary way.”

In another speech, Erdogan said that Turkey was ready to abandon its EU candidacy if “Europe told us they do not want us.” He said he would put EU membership to referendum. It may look amusing if an applicant threatens to withdraw his application to a club he knows and declares he does not belong to. But the incompatibility between the democratic cultures of Western Europe and Turkey are now too visible to ignore or tone down in diplomatic language.

There are signs, albeit weak, in Europe that Islamist Turkey does not belong to the Old Continent. Austria’s defense minister, Hans Peter Doskozil, told the German daily, Bild, that “Turkey is on its way to becoming a dictatorship.” Past perfect tense instead of present may have described Turkey’s case better, but there is a European “awakening” on Turkish affairs.

Austria’s foreign minister, Sebastian Kurz, said: “Over recent years Turkey has moved farther and farther away from the EU, but our policy has remained the same. That can’t work. What we need are clear consequences.” He is right: “That” cannot work.

A tiny EU state was bolder in calling a cat a cat. Speaking of Erdogan’s increasingly savage crackdown on dissidents, particularly after the failed coup of July 15, Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, said: “These are methods, one must say this bluntly, that were used during Nazi rule … And there has been a really, really bad evolution in Turkey since July that we as the European Union cannot simply accept.”

Europe’s unpleasant game of pretension with Turkey should end at once, with Brussels and Ankara admitting that the planned marriage was an awfully bad idea from the beginning; that Turkey does not belong to Europe, as its leader proudly says, and that there are better formats to frame diplomatic relationships than lies, cheap lies and cheaper lies. Let Turkey go on its voyage to become another peaceful Belarus.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

November 16, 2016

Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

by Khaled Abu Toameh

November 16, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Palestinians: The Message Remains No and No

  • The position of the two Palestinian leaders, Arafat and Abbas, is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason. Abbas knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.
  • Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel.
  • The French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East.
  • Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.
  • Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to show how submissive they can be; to encourage more “business” with Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

Last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas tipped his hand concerning his ultimatum on any revival of the peace process with Israel.

“I’m 81 years old and I’m not going to end my life drooping, making concessions or selling out.”

Thus declared a defiant Abbas at a rally in Ramallah, marking the 12th anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.

Abbas in this way relayed to the hundreds of Palestinians who gathered in Ramallah to commemorate Arafat: “I have no intention of going down in history as a leader who compromised with Israel.”

Like Arafat, Abbas would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Yet the position of the two Palestinian leaders is deeply rooted in the Palestinian tradition and culture, in which any concession to or compromise with Israel is considered an act of high treason.

Upon returning to Ramallah in the summer of 2000, after following the botched Camp David summit, Arafat explained his decision to reject the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. According to Arafat, Barak wanted the Palestinians to make concessions concerning Jerusalem and its holy sites.

“He who relinquishes one grain of soil of the land of Jerusalem does not belong to our people,” Arafat announced. “We want all of Jerusalem, all of it, all of it. Revolution until victory!”

At Camp David, Arafat and his negotiators demanded full sovereignty over the entire West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, including its holy sites and the Jewish Quarter in the Old City. They also repeated their long-standing demand that the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees be fully implemented, allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flock into Israel.

Barak, for his part, is said to have offered the Palestinians a state that would be established on 91% of the West Bank, large parts of East Jerusalem and the entire Gaza Strip. What is certain is that Barak wanted the Palestinian leader to make some concessions on the explosive issues of Jerusalem and refugees.

The Camp David summit failed the moment Arafat realized that he was not going to get all of his demands met. Arafat later informed his confidants that he walked out of the summit because he did not want to go down into history as a leader who succumbed to Israeli and American pressure.

Fast-forward 16 years: Abbas stands near Arafat’s grave in Ramallah and spouts similar sentiments. Vowing to continue in Arafat’s path and honor his legacy, Abbas said that these days he was being “inspired” by his predecessor’s “determination” and “resolve.”

Abbas is at least up-front in his intentions. No one, he says unashamedly — not the Israelis nor the Americans nor the Europeans — ought to harbor any illusions. “Peace” with the Palestinians, says Abbas, means Israel fulfilling each and every demand he — and Arafat — has made. “Peace,” in other words, with no Palestinian concessions.

Arafat continues to enjoy massive popularity among Palestinians because he died without “selling out” to Israel. His hero status hinges on his rejectionism at Camp David.

Had Arafat accepted Barak’s offer at that summit, he would have been condemned as a “pawn” in the hands of the Israelis and Americans, a failed leader who betrayed his people.

Abbas’s self-fashioning himself in the guise of Arafat is not new. For many years, he has been following in the footsteps of Arafat and honoring his legacy. Moreover, Abbas is well aware that, like Arafat, he is not authorized by his people to make any concessions to Israel. This is not merely because Abbas is now in his 12th year of a four-year-term in office.

Like his predecessor Yasser Arafat (left), Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (right) would rather die intransigent than achieve a peaceful settlement with Israel.

Even if Abbas were a legitimate president, no concessions to Israel would be forthcoming. Arafat was quoted back then as saying that he rejected the Barak offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel.

Thus, Abbas is in no hurry to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Indeed, for Abbas, there is no negotiation — only demands. He knows that concessions on his part would result in being spat upon by his people — or killed.

Hence the PA president has in recent years avoided even the pretense of negotiations with Israel, and instead has poured his energies into strong-arming the international community to impose a solution on Israel — one that would indeed supply the Palestinians with nearly all their demands.

Abbas and the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah want the international community to hand them what Israel will not give them at the negotiating table. Abbas is hoping to achieve his goal through international conferences on the Middle East, like the one being floated around by France, or through the United Nations and other international agencies and institutions.

In fact, this has been Abbas’s sole strategy in recent years: a diplomatic war in the international arena that is aimed at isolating and delegitimizing Israel, in order to force it to comply with all Palestinian demands.

Of course, this strategy has its risks. Yet, if it fails, Abbas will at least depart the scene without being branded with the scarlet letter of “traitor.” His successor, he hopes, will stand next to his grave and pledge to follow in his footsteps, as he himself has done for Arafat. And this is not an idle hope.

Thanks to decades of indoctrination and anti-Israel rhetoric, for which both Arafat and Abbas are also responsible, Palestinians have been radicalized to the point where it is impossible to identify a single leader who would negotiate in good faith with Israel.

Under the current circumstances, any attempt by the Obama Administration — in its remaining months in power — to support a United Nations vote in favor of a Palestinian state will be seen as a reward to those Palestinians who are opposed to a resumption of peace negotiations with Israel.

Many in Europe, particularly France, seem be aching to do just that — as a “present” to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to show how submissive the French can be; to encourage more “business” with Arab and Muslim states, and, they might hope, to deter more terrorist attacks. Actually, if the members of the UN Security Council declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, they are encouraging more terrorist attacks: the terrorists will see that attacks “work” and embark on more of them to help the jihadi takeover of Europe go even faster.

The Obama Administration (and the next US Administration) need to make it clear to Abbas and the Palestinians that the only way to achieve a state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and not additional UN resolutions.

Similarly, the French would do well to abandon their plan for convening an international conference on peace in the Middle East. They need to understand that Abbas and the Palestinians are hoping to use the conference as an excuse to stay away from the negotiating table with Israel — the only country that could really help the Palestinians achieve a state through direct talks. Declaring a Palestinian state in the Security Council only makes them look as if their actual goal is to destroy Israel by allying “two sides of the Mediterranean” against Israel — and they know it. They would be fooling no one.

The message that needs to be relayed to the Palestinians is that UN resolutions and international conferences will not bring them closer to achieving their aspirations. Another message that needs to be driven home to the Palestinian leadership is that without preparing their people for peace and compromise with Israel, the whole idea of a two-state solution is meaningless.

An entire Palestinian generation has been raised on the poisonous idea that even the consideration of compromise with Israel is traitorous. The next US Administration might do well to consider this unpleasant reality.

 

Senior level Trump advisor says settlement building isn’t peace obstacle

November 10, 2016

Trump’s Israel advisor: “Trump doesn’t view settlement building as an obstacle for peace” Jason Greenblatt, one of Trump’s senior level advisors who will likely be appointed as Trump’s Middle East envoy, described the President-elect’s emerging policy: “It’s certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activity should be condemned.”

Nov 10, 2016, 11:00AM

Judith Abramson

Source: Senior level Trump advisor says settlement building isn’t peace obstacle – World News | JerusalemOnline

Ma’on settlement near Hebron Photo Credit: Moshe Milner, GPO/Channel 2 News

Jason Greenblatt, one of President-elect Donald Trump’s senior level advisors, will most likely be appointed as the US envoy to the Middle East and will rewrite a foreign policy differing from that of US President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. This morning (Thursday), Greenblatt was interviewed by Israel’s Army Radio explaining Trump’s stances and stressed: “He is not going to impose any solution on Israel.”

“It is certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activity should be condemned,” Greenblatt said during Israel’s Army Radio broadcast this morning. “Building over the Green Line is not an obstacle for peace.”

image description
Trump giving a speech following his victory Photo Credit: CNN/Channel 2 News

“He believes that Israel is in a very tough situation needs to defend itself,” Greenblatt added mere hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump regarding his victory during a phone conversation between the two.

Greenblatt also indicated that Trump’s stance against returning land to the Palestinians derives from Israel’s 2005 Gaza disengagement: “He does not view the settlements as an obstacle for peace. I think he would use the expulsion of Jewish communities from the Gaza Strip as proof of that.”

Contrary to the Obama administration which attempted utilizing various measures in order to renew peace talks, Greenblatt feels that Trump will act differently regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “Peace has to come from both sides and he does not plan on intervening in the matter.”

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts

November 4, 2016

Europe’s New Blasphemy Courts, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, November 4, 2016

(Please see also, America’s “Arab Spring” — DM)

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors, initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics.

By prosecuting Wilders, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or he will be committing a crime.

At no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of, say, British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalising a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

The Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

 

Europe is currently seeing the reintroduction of blasphemy laws through both the front and back doors. In Britain, the gymnast Louis Smith has just been suspended for two months by British Gymnastics. This 27-year old sportsman’s career has been put on hold, and potentially ruined, not because of anything to do with athletics but because of something to do with Islam.

Last month a video emerged online of the four-time Olympic medal-winner and a friend getting up to drunken antics after a wedding. The video — taken on Smith’s phone in the early hours of the morning — showed a friend taking a rug off a wall and doing an imitation of Islamic prayer rituals. When the video from Smith’s phone ended up in the hands of a newspaper, there was an immediate investigation, press castigation and public humiliation for the young athlete. Smith — who is himself of mixed race — was forced to parade on daytime television in Britain and deny that he is a racist, bigot or xenophobe. Notoriously liberal figures from the UK media queued up to berate him for getting drunk or for even thinking of taking part in any mockery of religion. This in a country in which Monty Python’s Life of Brian is regularly voted the nation’s favourite comic movie.

After an “investigation,” the British sports authority has now deemed Smith’s behaviour to warrant a removal of funding and a two-month ban from sport. This is the re-entry of blasphemy laws through the back door, where newspapers, daytime chat-shows and sports authorities decide between them that one religion is worthy of particular protection. They do so because they take the religion of Islam uniquely on its own estimation and believe, as well as fear, the warnings of the Islamic blasphemy-police worldwide.

The front-door reintroduction of blasphemy laws, meantime, is being initiated in a country which once prided itself on being among the first in the world to throw off clerical intrusion into politics. The Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been put on trial before. In 2010 he was tried in the courts for the contents of his film “Fitna” as well as a number of articles. The trial collapsed after one of the expert witnesses — the late, great Dutch scholar of Islam, Hans Jansen — revealed that a judge in the case had tried in private to influence him to change his testimony. The trial was transparently rigged and made Dutch justice look like that of a tin-pot dictatorship rather than one of the world’s most developed democracies. The trial was rescheduled and, after considerable legal wrangling, Wilders was eventually found “not guilty” of a non-crime in 2011.

But it seems that the Dutch legal system, like the Mounties, is intent on always getting its man. On Monday of this week the latest trial of Geert Wilders got underway in Holland. This time Wilders is being tried because of a statement at a rally in front of his supporters in March 2014. Ahead of municipal elections, and following reports of a disproportionate amount of crimes being committed in Holland by Muslims of Moroccan origin, Wilders asked a crowd, “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?” The audience responded, “Fewer, fewer.” To which Wilders responded, “Well, we’ll arrange that, then.”

1546By prosecuting Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders for making “politcially incorrect” statements, Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. (Source of Wilders photo: Flickr/Metropolico)

Opinion polls suggest that around half the Dutch public want fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands and many opinion polls going back decades suggest that the Dutch people want less immigration in general. So at the very least Wilders is being put on trial for voicing an opinion which is far from fringe. The long-term implications for Dutch democracy of criminalizing a majority opinion are catastrophic. But the trial of Wilders is also a nakedly political move.

Whether or not one feels any support for Wilders’s sentiments is not in fact the point in this case. The point is that by prosecuting someone for saying what he said, the courts in Holland are effectively ruling that there is only one correct answer to the question Wilders asked. They are saying that if someone asks you whether you would like more Moroccans or fewer, people must always answer “more,” or they will be committing a crime. What kind of way is that to order a public debate on immigration or anything else? People may say, “He wouldn’t be allowed to say that about any other group of people.” And Wilders himself may not say that about any group of people, because he has his own political views and his own interpretation of the problems facing his country.

It is worth trying a thought-experiment: If Wilders or any other politician got up and asked a crowd “Do you want more or fewer British people in Holland,” I may not — as a British person — feel terribly pleased with him for asking the question, or terribly happy with the crowd if they chanted “Fewer.” Although if British expats in Holland were responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime and disorder in the country, some mitigating sympathy for the sentiment may be forthcoming. But at no point would it occur to me that anyone saying he did not want an endless flow of British people coming into the Netherlands should be prosecuted. Nor would he be.

Like the behaviour of the British Gymnastics association, the Dutch courts are behaving like a religious court. They are trying to regulate public expression and opinion when it comes to the followers of one religion. In so doing, they obviously aspire to keep the peace in the short term, but they cannot possibly realise what trouble they are storing up for our future.

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

November 4, 2016

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

Published time: 4 Nov, 2016 05:00 Edited time: 4 Nov, 2016 09:15

Source: Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE) — RT News

 

In the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be exclusively broadcast by RT on Saturday, courtesy of Dartmouth Films, Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of misleading Americans about the true scope of Islamic State’s support from Washington’s Middle East allies.

In a 2014 email made public by Assange’s WikiLeaks last month, Hillary Clinton, who had served as secretary of state until the year before, urges John Podesta, then an advisor to Barack Obama, to “bring pressure” on Qatar and Saudi Arabia, “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Islamic State, IS, ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups.”

“I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection,” Assange, whose whistleblowing site released three tranches of Clinton-related emails over the past year, told Pilger in an exclusive interview, courtesy of Dartmouth Films.

“All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that it is the government of Saudi Arabia, and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

Assange and Pilger, who sat down for their 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the whistleblower has been a refugee since 2012, then talk about the conflict of interest between Clinton’s official post, which held throughout Obama’s first term, her husband’s nonprofit, and the Middle East officials, whose stated desire to fight terrorism may not have been sincere.

John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

JA: Yes.

READ MORE: Clinton knew Saudi Arabia, Qatar provide ‘clandestine’ support to ISIS – WikiLeaks

Pilger also questioned Assange over increasingly frequent accusations from the Clinton camp, and Western media, that WikiLeaks is looking to swing next week’s US presidential election in favor of Donald Trump – perhaps at Russia’s behest.

But Assange dismissed the prospect of Trump, who is behind in the polls, winning as unlikely – and not necessarily due to his standing with the electorate.

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

READ MORE: ‘Slaughter Donald for Putin bromance’: #Podesta15 emails reveal ISIS strategy diversion for Clinton

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him

November 2, 2016

As Geert Wilders again goes on trial for “hate speech,” European media campaigns furiously against him, Jihad Watch

Geert Wilders has yet again gone on trial in the Netherlands for “hate speech,” and this time the case against him is especially flimsy: as Europe is roiled by the criminal activity of Muslim migrants, he is being accused of “hate speech” for saying that the massive influx of immigrants from Morocco (from which most of the Muslim migrants in the Netherlands come) has to be stopped.

This trial could very easily backfire on the Dutch inquisitors, and make Wilders more popular than ever with the people of the Netherlands and Europe in general, as they are increasingly fed up with the political and media elites’ forcing them to accept a massive influx of Muslim migrants that ensures a future only of civil strife, bloodshed, and Sharia oppression.

Consequently, those elites are trying desperately to shore up their position. In this DW piece by freelance “journalist” Teri Schultz, Wilders is (of course) “far-right,” that all-purpose and meaningless semaphore that serves only to signal to right-thinking Deutsche Welle readers that Wilders must be opposed and shunned, his positions unexamined. Schultz contacted me to serve as the villain of her piece, being sure to tell her hapless readers that I am “known for extreme anti-Islam views,” to make sure that if any of them are foolish enough to find themselves agreeing with me, they will immediately reverse themselves and get their minds right. The term “extreme” also, since the Western governing class unanimously refers to jihad terrorists as “extremists,” also implies that I am a terrorist. (After the article came out, I challenged Schultz on this; she replied: “I don’t think even you would consider your views ‘mainstream’, do you?” I responded: “Absolutely yes. My views were the broad mainstream in the Western world from 632 AD until the 1960s. What changed? Not Islamic teaching.” To that she said: “Okay. You’d have to argue it with another expert, which I am not. But thanks again for contributing.” Indeed, she is just a mouthpiece for the views the political and media elites want us to hold.)

In any case, Schultz’s article merely reveals the desperation of the ruling class and the self-appointed opinion-shapers. They can call those of us who wish to defend the people and culture of Europe and North America “far-right” and “extreme” every day (and they do), but the public can see with their eyes what is happening. Wilders’ popularity isn’t growing because he is a charming fellow. It’s growing because he speaks the truths that the political and media elites are in a frenzy to obscure. And it’s only going to get worse for them: the Brexit vote and the Trump candidacy (whether he wins or loses) shows that their hegemony is beginning to be challenged. Those challenges will continue, and grow. They will before too long be decisively voted out and repudiated.

teri-schultz74

“Far-right Wilders skips hate speech trial in Amsterdam,” by Teri Schultz, DW, November 1, 2016:

On Monday, the far-right leader Geert Wilders refused to show up for his trial on charges of hate speech and incitement of violence for comments he made against ethnic Moroccans in the Netherlands.

Instead, Wilders let his legal representatives repeat the views that caused the charges to be brought against him: that the country has a “mega Moroccan problem” and that too many Moroccans get welfare benefits and commit crimes. Wilders believes that he has said “nothing wrong” as he is just vocalizing the views of his constituents….

But while judges ponder the legality of Wilders’ views their popularity grows, as evidenced by Wilders’ showing in the polls and the growth of populist, anti-immigrant parties across Europe, such as the far-right Alternative for Germany. In a world where US Republican Party nominee Donald Trump campaigns on building a wall on the US-Mexican border and a plan to block Muslims from coming to the United States, controversial commentators such Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org, promote Wilders’ perspective. Known for extreme anti-Islam views, Spencer said Wilders’ comments are not out of line.

“Moroccans don’t have some natural right to immigrate to the Netherlands any more than anyone does to anywhere,” Spencer told DW. “And so if someone expresses an opinion saying they would like to slow the rate or stop that immigration, there is nothing ipso facto hateful about that.”

Moroccans make up approximately 2 percent of the Dutch population. Asked how Wilders could consider that as excessive, Spencer said the concern centers more on the growth rate than the actual number of inhabitants at the moment.

Spencer also said since Wilders himself has shown no tendency toward violence – though the court is considering whether he’s encouraging that outcome – the greater “danger to society” would be for Wilders’ remarks to be deemed illegal hate speech.

But European Parliament lawmaker Cecile Kyenge doesn’t think remarks like Wilders’ can be explained away like that. “There has been a constant stream of concerning comments from politicians across Europe,” she said, “that fall short of the responsibilities they have as public figures and opinion leaders. In recent months, politicians have disseminated false information and engaged in hate speech against minorities for political gain. Actions such as these are all the more damaging when they are propagated by politicians.”…

Though Wilders has been acquitted on hate-speech allegations before, Spencer doesn’t necessarily think he’ll be found not guilty again, because Spencer said the ruling elite is afraid of losing power to him. “I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if he were convicted this time and if they don’t convict him this time, they’ll convict him next time. But eventually,” he predicted, “they might have a situation where they’re convicting the sitting prime minister.”

Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

October 31, 2016

Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

by Denis MacEoin

October 29, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Muslim Imperialism Reaches the United Nations

 

  • UNESCO has joined forces with Islamic State. The fundamentalists now have a new weapon: resolutions passed by servile international bodies.
  • An earlier delay and the opposition of UNESCO’s chief, Irina Bokova, had raised hopes that this act of jihadist, barbaric, unjust, and, frankly, arrogant supremacism might be voted down. It was not. Now a new lie was given the sanction of the world’s largest and most unaccountable body whose reason for being is to preserve significant sites, not to bowdlerize them.
  • Lies by UNESCO to rewrite history, erasing all traces of Judaism and Christianity to favour a jihadist Islamic fancy, were already under way in 2015. UNESCO fraudulently renamed two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs, as Islamic sites. Historically, Islam did not even exist until the seventh century.
  • This is the history of Islam, how it takes over — with both hard jihad (violence) and soft jihad (usurping history, migration [hijrah], political and cultural infiltration), and intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad underneath it). What is even more saddening is that often, as with this vote, it is done with the West’s cooperation and voluntary submission.
  • Before the United Nations, with its authoritarian, anti-democratic voting blocs, finishes eradicating Western, Judeo-Christian civilization, as it is clearly trying to do, it is high time for Western democracies to run, not walk, away, before further harm comes to them too, as it surely promises to do.

UNESCO last August planned to vote on the historical status of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount and its associated Western Wall. Back then, this author stated that UNESCO’s plan was to deny any Jewish link to this most central of all Jewish holy sites, to trash a history going back thousands of years, and to claim the Mount and the Wall as Islamic sites.

Islam believes that it is eternal and had therefore preceded the other two great monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity, even though it was only to become visible to the world through Mohammad in the seventh century AD, but entitled to elbow out the two older religions.

Lies by UNESCO to rewrite history, erasing all traces of Judaism and Christianity to favour a jihadist Islamic fancy, were already under way in 2015. UNESCO fraudulently renamed two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs — abracadabra — Islamic sites.

Historically, Islam did not even exist until the seventh century.

This is the history of Islam, how it takes over — with both hard jihad (violence) and soft jihad (usurping history, migration [hijrah], political and cultural infiltration), and intimidation (soft jihad with the threat of hard jihad underneath it). What is even more saddening is that often, as with this vote, it is done with the West’s cooperation and voluntary submission.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is now, according to this deeply compromised body, supposedly the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem is supposedly the “Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque,” even though it never could have been a mosque. As the saying goes, “calling a cat a pig does not make it one.”

UNESCO’s latest resolution to deny any Jewish link to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, the most central of all Jewish holy sites, is not the first time the body has tried to rewrite and falsify a history going back thousands of years. UNESCO had previously declared the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron (left) as the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem (right) as the “Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque.” (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Now a new lie has been given the sanction of the world’s largest and most unaccountable body, whose reason for being is to preserve significant sites, not to bowdlerize them.

On October 13, the news was broadcast that UNESCO had passed a majority vote endorsing this rape of archaeological and Biblical history. On the following Tuesday, the resolution was endorsed by the body’s executive board. If your majority, however, consists of members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the OIC, a bloc consisting of 56 Islamic states plus “Palestine”, and possibly the largest bloc at the UN), a fraudulent result such as this should probably not come as a surprise.

An earlier delay and the opposition of UNESCO’s chief, Irina Bokova, had raised hopes that this act of jihadist, barbaric, unjust, and, frankly, arrogant supremacism might be voted down. It was not. Following the vote, Bokova issued a powerful statement condemning it, saying, among other things:

“The heritage of Jerusalem is indivisible, and each of its communities has a right to the explicit recognition of their history and relationship with the city. To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.

“Nowhere more than in Jerusalem do Jewish, Christian and Muslim heritage and traditions share space and interweave to the point that they support each other. These cultural and spiritual traditions build on texts and references, known by all, that are an intrinsic part of the identities and history of peoples.”

Now the Christian and Jewish worlds will have to deal with the resolution’s ramifications, the first of which is that all democracies would be wise immediately to abandon the United Nations, or at the very least to stop funding it, before further harm comes to them too, as it surely promises to do.

The resolution was first proposed to UNESCO by seven Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Sudan on behalf of the Palestinian Authority — all OIC groupies — in October 2015. Any reputable body empowered to protect ancient religious sites would have rejected it out of hand and given those responsible a dusty answer.

UNESCO’s parent body, the United Nations, has over many years increasingly shown itself as untransparent, unaccountable and thoroughly disreputable — from its $100 billion, never-prosecuted, oil-for-food embezzlement scandal exposed in 2004, to “Peacekeepers” who demand sex from children in exchange for food; to its incessant, fabricated persecution of one member state, Israel, while giving unlimited passes to the most ostentatious violators of human rights in other nations.

Before the UN, with its authoritarian, anti-democratic voting blocs, finishes eradicating Western, Judeo-Christian civilization, as it is clearly trying to do, it is high time for Western democracies to run, not walk, away.

Of UNESCO’s 195 member states, 35 are fully Islamic nations, another 21 are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and four are OIC observer states. That makes 60 who represent a bloc favourable to Muslim-inspired resolutions, yet UNESCO’s Board consists of only 58 members. That board approved Resolution 19 with 33 votes in favour, six against and 17 abstentions. Ghana and Turkmenistan were absent altogether. Only six countries voted against the resolution — the US, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Estonia. Revealingly, France, Spain, Sweden, Russia and Slovenia were among those who supported it. It is not hard to identify the source of the majority vote.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the move as another “absurd” UN resolution:

“UNESCO ignores the unique Jewish connection to the Temple Mount, the site of two temples for 1,000 years, and the place to which Jews prayed for thousands of years… The UN is rewriting a basic part of human history and proving that there is no low to which it will not reach.”

Jewish patience in the Holy Land is being tested to the limit.

UNESCO’s vote is just the latest example of Muslim supremacism as expressed in the demolition, re-definition, or outright expropriation of the places of worship, shrines, and other buildings linked to other faiths — invariably faiths that have long preceded Islam itself, including Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as Judaism and Christianity. The process began in the year 630, two years before the prophet Muhammad’s death, when his forces conquered his hometown of Mecca. During a brief stay there, before returning to Medina, he ordered all of the 360 idols in the Ka’aba, and all those in private homes, to be destroyed. The Ka’aba itself, long a centre of pagan worship, was transformed overnight into the most important building of the Islamic faith, the Qibla or the spot towards which Muslims still turn in prayer five times a day. It sits at the heart of the Masjid al-Haram, the most important mosque in the Muslim world.[1]

Early Muslims did more than expropriate the building for their own purposes. They created a legend to justify their possession of the site.[2]

But the Qur’an and subsequent Muslim tradition are not content to re-establish history, bringing Abraham out of the Land of Canaan as far down as the Arabian Peninsula. They transform Abraham himself. According to the Qur’an (3:67): “Abraham was neither a Jew (yahudian) nor a Christian (nasranian), but was rather a pure worshipper of God (hanifan), a Muslim….”

This forms part of a broader enterprise. In Islamic doctrine, all true, monotheist religion has, from the beginning, been only Islam. Thus, Adam was the first Muslim and the first prophet. Abraham was a Muslim and a prophet. Moses was a Muslim and a prophet. Noah was a Muslim and a prophet. Jesus was a Muslim and a prophet. In the beginning, everyone was a Muslim and all land belonged to Islam. In the Qur’an, we read:

“Say, ‘We believe in God, and in that which was sent down to us, and in that which was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what Moses and Jesus were given, and in what the prophets were given form their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we submit.”

That last phrase reads nahnu lahu muslimun. It can be read generically, meaning “those who submit themselves to God”; or specifically to mean “We are Muslims.”

The belief that all true religions involve submission to God and that, in this sense, all true religion may be defined as “Islam” (literally “submission”), may be taken as a unifying, comprehensive declaration of a universal truth, without prejudice to anyone except “idolaters” such as Hindus and Buddhists.

But this generalization was soon forgotten when Muslims found themselves in competition with the followers of other faiths: Jews in Medina, Christians throughout the Byzantine empire, or Zoroastrians in Iran. Muhammad had originally preached his religion as one in harmony with the views of the “People of the Book,” the Jews and Christians who had been sent their own scriptures by God. But not long after his taking control of Medina, he turned on the city’s three important Jewish tribes, expelling two, then attacking the third, the Banu Qurayza, beheading all the men and teenage males and taking the women and children as slaves. From here on, the Qur’an is rife with condemnations of the Jews as a people and of Christians as corrupters of scripture: “O believers, do not take Jews and Christians as your friends” (Qur’an 5:51)

Once Muslim armies went out to conquer Persia, Turkey, Greece, the Levant, all of North Africa, the Balkans, Hungary, Poland and then conquered Portugal, Andalusia in Southern Spain and other Christian territories, all sense of an identity with the People of the Book as, in a sense, fellow Muslims, went out the window, to be replaced by a sense of them as dhimmi or subjected people, the preservation of whose lives and property were contingent on the payment of a protection tax (the jizya) and on agreeing to live as humiliated denizens under special laws of subjugation in lands ruled by Islamic caliphates.

One consequence of this unequal relationship were countless rules, including special, marked clothing that predated the compulsory yellow Star of David that Jews were forced to wear during Hitler’s Third Reich, and that churches and synagogues could not be founded, repaired, rebuilt or given prominence in competition with mosques; and there could be no audible summons to Jewish or Christian prayers.

More than that, the occupation and transformation of lands of earlier religions — Persia, Turkey, Greece, all of North Africa and much of Eastern Europe — proceeded apace during unstoppable Islamic conquests. In Jerusalem, two structures were erected on the Temple Mount (giving rise to the claim for UNESCO’s recognition): the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa, “the Farthest Mosque”, although no one has a clue where that might have been; very possibly in Arabia) and the Qubbat al-Sakhra, or Dome of the Rock, constructed on the alleged site of Abraham’s aborted sacrifice, no longer of Isaac but now Ishmael, the progenitor of the Arabs. Both were built within the first century of Islam.

There is no need here to list all the churches converted to mosques during succeeding centuries. Most notable are the Hagia Sophia churches of the Christian Byzantine empire in Constantinople, Eregli, Nicaea, and Trebizond, refashioned as mosques after the Ottoman conquest of 1453.[3]

Today, the Islamic State has destroyed or converted churches, shrines, and other monuments (including Muslim sites) in Iraq and Syria.

Similar devastation took place under the various Islamic states in India, with something like 2000 Hindu temples destroyed to make way for mosques and other Muslim structures, while a similar fate befell others.

This extraordinary level of fanaticism is not unique to Islam (one only has to think of Oliver Cromwell and his puritans in England), but it has been far more extensive and has continued for many more centuries.

It is a totalitarian puritanism. Today’s resolution against the Jewish faith must be put in this context.

Today, the Mecca and Medina of the first and second centuries of the Islamic faith have been all but wrecked, not by the Islamic State or any other radical entity, but by the Wahhabi Saudi government. In the past two decades, major historical sites in Mecca and Medina, all related to the lifetime of the Islamic Prophet Mohammad and shortly after, have been destroyed or disfigured to the point where neither city is recognizable save for the Ka’ba and the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. And the two major mosques are themselves much expanded modern constructions.[4]

UNESCO has put Jewish sites with Muslim names into Muslim hands, in the heart of Israel’s capital, to try slowly to destroy the Jewish state. UNESCO is not fooling anyone.

It may not be long before Christian holy places and churches in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth will also be handed over on a plate to placate the forces of Islam, fearful of what they may do not just in the Middle East, but in Europe, North America and Europe, happy to have someone finally try to eliminate those supposedly pesky Jews. All Judeo-Christian countries would be wise to pull out of the UN, or at least cease funding it — before it is too late for them, too.

Denis MacEoin is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute. He has just completed work on a large study of Western concerns about Islam.


[1] See William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 69. And see Yousef Meri, Ka’aba, Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide, Oxford University Press, 2011

[2] There is more than one version of this tale, but it is broadly this: the Ka’aba was first built by the Prophet Adam with the help of angels, then destroyed in Noah’s flood, and finally rebuilt by the Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael. The Qur’an itself advances the story about Abraham’s role:

“And [remember] when We made the House [that is, the Ka’aba] a place of visitation [a pilgrimage site] for mankind, and a sanctuary, ‘Take the place of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ And we made a covenant with Abraham and Ishmael, ‘Purify My House for those who circumambulate, those who live there in retreat, and those who bow and prostrate.” …. And [remember] when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, ‘Our Lord, accept it from us. Truly, You are the Hearing and the Knowing.'” [Qur’an 2: 125, 127]

[3] The former Portuguese cathedral of Tangier, now the city’s Great Mosque; the Christian basilica of St. John the Baptist, captured in 634 and turned into the Great Umayyad Mosque, one of the oldest, and considered the fourth holiest site in Islam; the small Catholic Basilica of Saint Vincent of Lérins, after the Umayyad conquest demolished to make way for the Great Mosque of Córdoba (restored as a cathedral after the Renconquista in 1236). Under the Ottomans, churches in Cyprus and Hungary were replaced as mosques; and as French colonies became independent in the 20th century, many churches were converted into mosques, including the St. Philip Cathedral in Algiers, the Cathédrale Notre-Dame des Sept Douleurs in Constantine (Algeria), the Tripoli Cathedral and the Benghazi Cathedral in Libya.

[4] The vast Jannat al-Baqi cemetery, which holds so many remains of Muhammad’s family, close companions and the earliest Muslim saints, has been levelled, and all domes and mausoleums turned to dust. That act followed earlier levellings by Wahhabis in 1906 and the ultra-Wahhabi Ikhwan in 1925. Those included the graves of the martyrs of the Battle of Uhud and that of Hamza, the prophet’s uncle and most beloved supporter. So too the Mosque of Fatima (Muhammad’s daughter), the Mosque of the Manaratayn (the twin minarets), and the cupola that marked the burial place of the prophet’s incisor tooth. Medina as well, the home of Muhammad’s Ethiopian wife, Maryam, where his son Ibrahim was born, has been paved over. In Mecca, the house of his first wife, Khadija, the first person to whom he divulged his mission, has been turned into public toilets. In 1998, the grave of the prophet’s mother, Amina bint Wahb, was bulldozed in Abwa, after which gasoline was poured on it and set alight.