Extracts from "INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT"

 

by Ian Lacey, B.A., LL.B.

The complete text is available at

http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

 

A valuable source of authoritative, easily digestible  information on the legalities of the Arab-Israel conflict is available in a booklet by Australian lawyer and historical writer, Ian Lacey, who has given evidence on the subject to the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

 

The booklet “International Law and The Arab-Israel Conflict” contains extracts from the seminal work "Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations" by the late Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations. Lacey was a former student of Professor Stone.

 

The full text of this highly recommended booklet is available at http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

 

Below are extracts dealing with The Self-Defence Principle.

 

The basic precept of international law concerning the rights of a state victim of aggression, which has lawfully occupied the attacking state’s territory in the course of self-defence, is clear. This precept is that a lawful occupant such as Israel is entitled to remain in control of the territory involved pending A valuable source of authoritative, easily digestible  information on the legalities of the Arab-Israel conflict is available in a booklet by Australian lawyer and historical writer, Ian Lacey, who has given evidence on the subject to the Australian Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

 

The booklet “International Law and The Arab-Israel Conflict” contains extracts from the seminal work "Israel and Palestine - Assault on the Law of Nations" by the late Professor Julius Stone, one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations. Lacey was a former student of Professor Stone.

 

The full text of this highly recommended booklet is available at http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

 

Below are extracts dealing with The Self-Defence Principle.

 

The basic precept of international law concerning the rights of a state victim of aggression, which has lawfully occupied the attacking state’s territory in the course of self-defence, is clear. This precept is that a lawful occupant such as Israel is entitled to remain in control of the territory involved pending lawful, and she is entitled to negotiate the extent and the terms of her withdrawal. Third, international law would not in such circumstances require the automatic handing back of territory even to an aggressor who was the former sovereign. It requires the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties.

 

 Competing Claims to Title

 

Because the Jordanian entry onto the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 1948 was an unlawful invasion and an aggression, the principle ex iniuria non oritur ius beclouded even Jordan's limited status of belligerent occupant. Her purported annexation was invalid on that account, as well as because it violated the freezing provisions of the Armistice Agreement. Conversely Israel's standing in East Jerusalem after her lawful entry in the course of self-defence certainly displaced Jordan's unlawful possession.

  

Once this position is reached, and it is remembered that neither Jordan nor any other state is a sovereign reversioner entitled to re-enter the West Bank, the legal standing of Israel takes on new aspects. She becomes then a state in lawful control of territory in respect of which no other state can show better (or, indeed, any) legal title.

 

The general principles of international law applicable to such a situation, moreover, are well-established. The International Court of Justice, when called upon to adjudicate in territorial disputes, for instance in the Minquires and Echrehos case between the United Kingdom and France, proceeded "to appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims to sovereignty". Since title to territory is thus based on a claim not of absolute but only of relative validity, the result seems decisive in East Jerusalem. No other state having a legal claim even equal to that of Israel under the unconditional cease-fire agreement of 1967 and the rule of uti possidetis, this relative superiority of title would seem to assimilate Israel's possession under international law to an absolute title, valid erga omnes...

 

The most succinct statement of this position is in Professor Stephen Schwebel’s “What Weight to Conquest?”  published in 1970,  summarized as follows:

a) A state acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defence may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defence.

b) As a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that state may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defence.

c) Where the prior holder of the territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."

 

Lacey notes that these issues  have continuing relevance in the context of current assertions that Israeli presence in the Territories constitutes an "illegal occupation". Such assertions ignore both Israel’s underlying right to lawful possession of the Territories as outlined by Stone, and the specific rights reserved to Israel in the interim power-sharing agreements under the Oslo Accords, as extracted in Part 5 of the booklet.

 

As Stone remarks, a state victim of aggression is entitled to protect itself by retaining lawful possession of territory taken in self-defence from a defeated aggressor. The dismemberment of Germany after two world wars, as a protection against any repeated aggression, is a classic example of the operation of the customary law.

 

The legal principle is reflected in Article 75 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which declares that the provisions of the Convention governing the validity of treaties are "are without prejudice to any obligation…which may arise for an aggressor State" in consequence of measures taken by the victim of the aggression in lawful self-defence.

 

In the case of the Territories the relevant historical background includes the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948, continuing armed incursions by irregular forces after the armistice agreements of 1949, and the naval blockade and the massing of the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq in preparation for a further invasion in 1967. As President Gamal Abdel Nasser declared to the Egyptian parliament at the time:

 

"The problem before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it — but how totally to exterminate the State of Israel for all time".

 

According to Stone, demands that Israel withdraw unilaterally from the whole of the Territories, and without any peace agreement, security guarantees or border adjustments, would negate the whole basis for the negotiation of a peaceful settlement with "secure and recognized boundaries" as contemplated by UNSC Resolution 242.

 

In addition, Lacey's readable booklet deals extensively with Sovereignty in Jerusalem, The Legality of the Settlements, The Principle of Self-determination, the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap

 

The Jihad Prevention Act.

 

By Kathy Shaidle - Oct 02, 2008
FrontPageMagazine.com

[The House Bill is H.R. 6975 - To require aliens to attest that they will not advocate installing a Sharia law system in the United States as a condition for admission, and for other purposes.

This bill is especially relevant in view of the fact that more than 300 U.S. financial institutions, banks, brokerage houses, etc. are already Sharia Law compliant. The media is ignoring this issue.]

International reaction was almost uniformly negative last week when news broke that Britain had officially granted Muslim Sharia courts permission to rule on everything from divorce to domestic violence. After all, in its strictest form, Sharia law requires the stoning of women accused of adultery, and the execution of converts from Islam, among other draconian punishments for offenses that aren't even considered crimes in the West. In the U.K. and abroad, pundits and politicians denounced Britain's capitulation, but only one elected official responded with a daring proposal aimed at preventing Sharia law from gaining such a foothold in America.

That that politician was Rep. Tom Tancredo won't surprise observers of American politics. The Colorado congressman has long been an outspoken critic of the unofficial "open-borders" policy that encourages millions of undocumented immigrants – including would-be terrorists – to enter the U.S. each year. During his short-lived presidential campaign in 2007, Tancredo repeatedly raised the immigration issue during televised debates. He also aired a provocative television ad in which he promised to "stop all visas to nations that sponsor terrorism and [to] arrest and deport any alien who preaches violence and hatred."

The ad earned Tancredo scorn on the Left and also on some parts of the Right. Undaunted, he has now proposed a "Jihad Prevention Act" that "would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law [and] make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense." In his official announcement on September 18, Tancredo observed: "This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction. Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration."

"When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims," he explained, "you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty. The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place."

Tancredo hopes his bill will spur public debate, and "send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives…If you aren't comfortable with that concept, you aren't welcome in the United States."

So far, reaction to the "Jihad Prevention Act" has been muted on both sides, possibly because the media is providing wall-to-wall election coverage. Nonetheless, some prominent supporters have emerged. Having advocated similar measures in the past, the group Muslims Against Sharia praised Tancredo's initiative. So did scholar Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad. Bostom hailed Tancredo's "sane approach," adding, "Thank goodness for Congressman Tancredo's courage and clarity on this pressing matter!"

Tancredo also has an ally in columnist and author Diana West. In books like The Death of the Grown Up and in her syndicated columns, West has chronicled what she considers the decline of Western civilization, brought on by everything from a perpetually adolescent popular culture to radical Islam. "What I like about this proposed legislation," West said in an email interview, "is its clear, direct focus on Islamic law (Sharia)." Focusing on Sharia, West believes, is the "only way to grapple successfully with the repressive overlay of Islam on a society--understanding it as a function of law, and not religion." She points out that Tancredo's "bill allows us to see clearly through to the heart of the matter: the danger that unchecked Islamic immigration will bring about a constituency for Islamic law, leading to disastrous changes to our legal system."

To be sure, West does have some reservations about the bill. "I'm not sure how he proposes to determine which Muslim immigrants advocate Islamic law and which do not," she said. "I would prefer to see a general restriction on Islamic immigration to prevent the build-up of a demographic that wills Sharia. Moreover, West notes that this session of Congress is nearly over. Even if Tancredo's bill were "brought to a vote this week, I sadly doubt it will be passed." Still another problem is that there is scant enthusiasm in Congress for passing such a bill. With the notable exception of Rep. Sue Myrick, a Republican from North Carolina, the political class has failed even to address the conflicts between Islamic law and Western values – let alone to draft legislation to thwart the spread of Sharia in the U.S.

Europe may soon prove a model in this regard – the unhappy case of Britain notwithstanding. This December, Israel's Dr. Arieh Eldad, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, will host the Facing Jihad Summit in Jerusalem. The summit seeks to bring together "European lawmakers who are united in their shared belief that Islam today poses a serious threat to Western civilization." The idea is to create an alliance of politicians who can workshop legislation to prevent creeping Islamization, which they can then bring back to their home countries and create a voting block in the EU parliament. The attending parliamentarians will be joined by experts on radical Islam such as Daniel Pipes and Bat Ye'or, but bigotry will not be tolerated: Eldad emphasizes that the summit will bar "neo-Nazis and racist parties" like the British National Party. "Seven countries will be represented so far," Eldad told FrontPage.

And what of America? Eldad thought it likely that at least a few Capitol Hill politicians would attend the jihad summit. If so, Tom Tancredo might be an ideal delegate.

Kathy Shaidle runs FiveFeetOfFury.com. Her new e-book Acoustic Ladyland has been called a "must read" by Mark Steyn.

Website copyright © 2006. Unity Coalition for Israel.

 

Trail of Terror.

 

Islamic takeover of U.S. already under way

 

Expert warns 'mainstream media' providing 'talking points' of Arab countries

 

An expert on terrorism is warning the United States should be fighting Islamization, which she believes already is under way. And author Brigitte Gabriel should know: She watched it happen in her native Lebanon.

 

"Lebanon used to be the only majority Christian country in the Middle East," Gabriel told radio talk show host Andrea Shea King in a recent hour-long interview "Most people today do not know that. We were the majority, the Muslims were the minority, but as the years went by, the Muslims became the majority because of their birth rate, but also because of our open-border policy.

 

"We welcomed everyone into our country," Gabriel said, and people didn't realize that the "minority," the Muslims in the society, "was not tolerant" and "did not believe all people were equal."

 

"They tried to impose their way of thinking on us, and they succeeded," she said.

 

The result, Gabriel said, was that a radical terrorist organization tied to Islam, Hezbollah, now rules in Lebanon.

 

As WND reported, Gabriel is fearful that terrorists believe now is the time to strike at America, while it is distracted by financial tension and election turmoil. She expressed the concerns during an interview with KSFO's Barbara Simpson, when she also discussed her new book, "They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It

 

She noted it's been seven years since the Sept. 11, 2001, act of war on U.S. soil by Islamists, but America is falling to Islam's attack, and the battle already is far advanced.

 

"They do not need to fire a single bullet to destroy us," she said. "They are taking over our country culturally, just like they have taken over Europe."

 

She said Islam is being taught across the U.S. as part of world history courses for seventh graders.

 

"A three-week course is teaching students to memorize and recite Islamic prayers and verses from the Quran," she said. "Students have to adopt Islamic names, fast for a day to experience Ramadan, the holiest of Islamic religious holidays, and write about their experience as a Muslim at the end of the program. The exercises during the class include encouraging students to incorporate Arabic phrases such as Allahu Akbar in their speeches, and for students to imagine they were meeting disciples on a pilgrimage to Mecca. This is a state-approved curriculum, using state-adopted textbooks that have been part of the instructional program in California for over a decade."

 

WND reported this week that a new study shows U.S. textbooks provide "information" such as that Jesus was a Palestinian and the nation of Israel imposes terrorism on others but is not a victim a terrorism.

 

"Now it is being rolled out nationwide. One book I discuss in particular is 'Across the Centuries,' published by Houghton Mifflin. The Muslim Council on Education has been busy working with the State Department of Education and America's top three publishers who …are literally rewriting history," Gabriel said.

 

"'Across the Centuries' is a staple in the State of California. This textbook is at best, a well of misinformation. It is 558 pages long and covers the 1500 years from the fall of the Roman Empire and the French Revolution. The text includes 55 pages devoted to Islam, seven pages noting the Middle Ages in Europe, and six pages of Christian history. The chapter on the Byzantine Empire received only six pages. The chapter on Islam accounts for 10 percent of the text, while Christianity and Judaism are almost entirely absent," she said.

 

"This is public education approved by the State Board of Education nationwide! Our students are being indoctrinated into Islam in our public schools and we don't even have a clue! How can this be allowed to be taught in public schools in America? Most people do not know about it because it is flying under the radar!" she said.

 

At the university level it's worse, she said.

 

"What's been happening for the last 16 years, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states ... because of the money coming from the oil, they have been pumping millions of dollars into our universities appointing Arab professors who are anti-American, anti-Israel, who have been basically brain-washing our students into believe we are the problem," she said.

 

"The children, who have been educated in American universities for the last 16 years, have graduated and are now working ... not influenced ... by our patriotic education as Americans, but they have been influenced by Arab thinking ... [and] hatred based on revenge," she said.

 

"The writing is on the wall. Who would have thought that Shariah would come to Harvard University with regulated women-only gym hours? That an imam in Des Moines, Iowa, gave an opening prayer at the 2007 Iowa Legislature's opening session in which he called on Allah to give victory over those who disbelieve? Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota who refuse to pick up passengers carrying alcohol? The first Islamic public school, the Kahlil Gibran Academy, that opened in 2007, funded by tax dollars! American colleges designating Islamic prayer rooms on campus for use by Muslims only!" Gabriel said.

 

"Those of us who come from the Middle East and see what's happening in the U.S. ... shake our heads in amazement," she said, calling her book a warning. "We are coming up to a very important election. This is the time we need to understand what is at stake, why our voice counts, why we need to go out and vote. This is the time to make a difference before it is too late," she said.

 

She said that's why besides her book, she's launched the ActForAmerica.org website.

 

"We launched this out of American Congress for Truth as our activism and political lobbying arm because I realized talking by itself is only wasting hot air and is entertainment. Action is the only way that's going to make a difference," she said. "History reveals that the apathetic give way to the passionate, the complacent are subdued by the committed. ACT for America.org is mobilizing people all over the country and giving them the tools to resist the Islamic infiltration in our society on every level: schools, governments, universities and corporations.

 

"Our work is vital in educating the American public about what is happening behind the scenes," she said.

 

"I encourage people to go to our website Act for America.org. I know we have citizen action training seminars coming up in Kansas City and in Indianapolis within the next two weeks. Sign up and attend them if you are in those areas. And check where we have chapters across the country and either join a chapter, or if there's no chapter in your community, sign up to lead one. Organized power at the grass roots level trumps the voices of political correctness," Gabriel said.

 

"The radical Islamists promised to destroy us, and as you know from the recent war in Lebanon, that country is now nearly Islamic," she said.

 

"We are not waiting for this phenomenon to occur here in the war against Islamofascism. We are not simply hoping for spontaneous grassroots eruptions that may or may not come. We are making it occur by organizing grassroots chapters and supporters across America. We will force elected representatives to choose. To align themselves with the grassroots voices of America or the voice of political correctness."

 

Gabriel was born and raised in Lebanon. When she was 10, her home was bombed by radical Islamists. She spent two and a half months in a hospital with injuries, and then she survived with her parents for seven years hidden in an underground bomb shelter, subsisting without electricity or heat on a meager diet of rice, lentils and tufts of grass that grew outside the shelter. She crawled beneath sniper fire for sips of water from a nearby ditch.

 

Those who have lived through such experiences are horrified at Americans' attitudes, she said.

 

"I have two guests staying with me, also from Lebanon, who ran to Israel for their lives when Israel withdrew out of Lebanon. And this is their first trip to America. I took them to New York and to Washington, D.C., last week and we were walking around and they were stunned at the gullibility of Americans. I took them to an air show this past week and they saw Muslims in our military. They looked at me in utter shock and said, 'Do Americans know these same Muslims would turn their guns against their fellow Americans, military men and women in the same tents, and kill them in the name of Islam? What is America thinking?'" Gabriel said.

 

"We are not only fighting a military jihad, we are fighting a cultural jihad and we need to wake up. We are as much at war with the cultural jihad as we are with the military jihad," Gabriel said.

 

"Islam is coming to America while we are asleep at the wheel and only focusing on al-Qaida attacking us militarily. The Muslims are taking us over culturally and remember, they don't even have to fire one bullet," she said.

 

Gabriel's book, according to "American Jihad" author Steve Emerson, is "riveting, compelling and spellbinding. This is a must read for the entire American public."

 

"A compelling and captivating personal story with a powerful lesson about threats to freedom in our time," said R. James Woolsey, director of Central Intelligence from 1993-1995.

 

"There is a threat. We must do something about it. We must stop them," Gabriel said.

 

Earlier, in an interview with WND columnist Larry Elder published in two parts, "Because they hate," and "Because they hate, part 2," Gabriel said al-Qaida already is inside the U.S., as is Hezbollah.

 

"We estimate thousands have already been smuggled into America. ... Hamas is here. ... They have cells in over 40 states. ... We also need to reform our immigration and visa programs. We need to monitor who is coming into our country and why. ... We need to increase human intelligence. … I want everyone who fits the terrorist profile to be profiled. We have men between the ages of 16 and 40 who have committed terrorist acts around the world in the name of Islam. They are not little old ladies from Ohio with blue hair. They are not children going to Disney World on their Easter vacation," she said.

 

Elder asked: "What happens if a Democrat wins the 2008 election?"

 

"We are doomed. Our enemies want the Democrats to win. This last election, jihadist websites were playing victory songs and declaring the Democrats are our allies in the war against America," she said.

 

America as the last man standing Part I

 

1st part of 2

 

"In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe?"

 

Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, chairman Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem (which I hope to be attending).

 

The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute on September 25.

 

Dear friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that’s new to me.

 

It’s great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: “The sky over New York and the will of man made visible.” Of course. Without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

 

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

 

My short lecture consists of 4 parts.

 

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. The Eiffel Tower and Trafalgar Square and Rome’s ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

 

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It’s the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corner. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

 

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

 

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this.

 

Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

 

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they “understand” the 9/11 attacks.

 

Muslims demand what they call ‘respect’. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

 

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators “settlers”. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

 

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

 

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah’s personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah’s word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

 

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

 

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed.

 

Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

 

Quran as Allah’s own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means ‘submission’. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

 

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam “the most retrograde force in the world”, and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

 

Which brings me to my movie, Fitna.

 

America as the last man standing Part II.

 

2nd part of 2

 

My movie, Fitna.

 

I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about

Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

 

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders, across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack. Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

 

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of Fitna.

 

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to loose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

 

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

 

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

 

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

 

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties.

 

Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a ‘right-wing extremists’ or ‘racists’. The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

 

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe’s history, our elites are supposed to lead us. To stand up for centuries of civilization. To defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: “the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

 

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

 

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don’t think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

 

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all smililary-minded parties in Europe. They are fighting the liberal establishment, and are gaining footholds on the political arena, one voter at the time.

 

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big. Something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe’s last chance.

 

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch Fitna in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

 

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

 

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks tot its location, it is safe from jihad and shaira. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

 

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe’s children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

 

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

 

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

 

“Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy”.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAKING PEACE.

 

by Victor Sharpe

 

On September 10th, 1964, the Radio Times, a British magazine, quoted President Woodrow Wilson that, 'Right is more precious than peace.' The great humorist, Jerome K. Jerome, suggested many years before that, '... we all love peace, but not peace at any price.'

In actuality, peace is a paradox, especially when applied to the world of politics. Peace is only a reality between states that are friendly towards each other. They, after all, do not need to make peace. But the nation that strives for peace with an enemy can only find it when both parties have reached sufficient deterrent power to prevent warfare.

The peaceniks, the liberal groups, the lefties, and all those who shout out the vacuous phrase, 'peace and justice,' have turned those once noble words into soiled and tarnished rags. They have become the very folk who, through one of life's supreme ironies, shout down other voices — often attended by their own violent acts — and thus become guilty of the very behavior they claim to oppose.

The universities and colleges have become hotbeds of radicalized students who chant slogans of peace and justice yet howl down invited speakers with whom they disagree. Free speech withers on today's university campus while professors, smiling indulgently, espouse the monolithic message of the Left, which tolerates no disagreement.

That word, 'peace' has permeated the democracies for decades and flowed from numerous pulpits. But despite untold forests cut down in order to produce posters, books, banners, placards and learned tomes calling for peace, there is less peace in the world today and more hypocrites selling it like snake oil peddlers.

On the banks of the East River in New York City stands the Temple of Peace, the huge United Nations building that claims to be its repository, but which in reality is the ultimate Temple to Hypocrisy.

The worshippers of Peace are the supreme idealists who never abandon their dreams even if their naïve acts lead them to inadvertently make tyrants stronger and create living nightmares for the very victims for whom they claim they are bringing peace.

There is no such thing as making peace. If a nation desires peace with its neighbor, but that neighbor implacably rejects peace, then any imposed peace process from outside is nothing more than a handmaiden to futility or worse.

The peacemaker often creates a catastrophic erosion of security for the peace loving nation, which because of its peaceful intentions is the only party that is then leaned upon to make endless and one-sided concessions to a belligerent enemy. Such has been the curse of the peace process for Israel in its attempts to survive relentless Arab aggression.

Israel's leaders have sought peace above all else and considered its attainment with hostile neighbors as the great panacea. But making peace must never be the goal of a nation when confronted by enemies who look upon peace with contempt.

For almost a century Jews have begged the Arab world to agree to a lasting peace. They have offered what no other nation or people would dream of offering to a belligerent. But they have received nothing for the simple reason that the Muslim Arab is only interested in a limited ceasefire so as to continue aggression against the Jews as soon as he feels strong enough.

Deterrence, unwavering strength and deterrence, is the only salvation for Israel against the Islamic onslaught just as it is for an equally blinded West increasingly confronted with Islamic terrorism.

To cry peace, peace, when there is no peace, as the Jewish prophet, Jeremiah, taught us long ago, is not an expression of hope but a foolish and dangerous abrogation of reality. It dulls the mind and the aspiration of a people who then become lost and blinded under a veritable veil of deception.

Peace is impossible for a nation like Israel without its own demonstration of unassailable military strength and its utter rejection of concessions to an implacable enemy. The Arab world respects strength. It treats concessions with complete and utter scorn. It considers overtures of peace as a sign of weakness and becomes emboldened in its aggression.

When that enemy is an Arab entity unwilling to make any concession whatsoever, and when the world expects Israel always to give and the Arabs always to take, then to continue along that same path to nowhere, becomes an Israeli self-delusion, leading to worse: Self destruction.

It is high time for Israel to be making demands upon the Arabs, starting with territorial concessions from the vast Arab world. Based upon prior precedents in Muslim history going back to the time of Mohammed and his dealings with the Queresh tribe in Mecca, the Arabs will never make peace or accept a Jewish sovereign state in territory they have previously conquered in the name of Allah.

Thus, Israel should now begin reclaiming territory it has foolishly given away since the Oslo 'peace' Accords. The Arabs will be forced to accept such demands if they finally realize that the Jewish state is once again so overwhelmingly strong militarily, morally and spiritually that they simply cannot destroy it.

There is no hope for the Jewish state surviving in the nastiest neighborhood in the world if it presents itself as inwardly irresolute and unwilling to engage in war. The Arab adversary should always be fully aware that Israel is resolute, steadfast and more ready to wage war than agree to a fraudulent peace.

If the Arab and Muslim world rejects Israel, it must live with the consequences of its enmity and become the ultimate loser. A Jewish state, which no longer seeks to make peace at any price will prosper and grow. It will also engender respect from both its friends and its enemies.

As W.B Yeats once wrote, '... peace under a semblance of peace ... is but a manifold illusion.' And discussing self proclaimed peacemakers, A.N. Whitehead described their efforts as '...a deliberate aim at Peace, which very easily passes into its bastard substitute: anesthesia.'

 
Victor Sharpe is author of the book "Politicide — The attempt to murder the Jewish state" and "The Blue Hour and Other Strange Tales."

 

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.