Behind the French "Peace Initiative" - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

• It is a desperate attempt by the French government to buy a few more days of quiet from its Muslim community, especially from the members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist organizations to which it gave birth -- all waiting for the order to run riot through the streets of France.
• If it succeeds, may Allah prevent it, it will lead to an ISIS and Hamas takeover of every inch of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws if coerced by the initiative.
• It is evidently too frustrating and unrewarding just to sit in the U.N. and not think of some project supposedly to spread beneficence that could make your country look important to the other 190 members -- even if this beneficence is lethal to its recipient.
• When the Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Empire, the churches, including the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were turned into mosques; that is the dream of the Islamists today, to turn the Vatican into a mosque.
• Currently, Qatar is currently investing millions to overthrow the Egyptian regime. It is investing millions to finance incitement among Muslims around the globe by means of its Islamist network and da'wah, the cunning preaching of the Muslim Brotherhood's variety of Islam.
• The Arabs always secretly believed that anyone who hated their mutual enemies, the Jews, as deeply as the Europeans did, and who actually tried to achieve their total physical destruction during the Second World War, would be their ally and help to expel them from occupied Palestine.
• Apparently, the commonly-held hatred between the Europeans and the Arabs was not enough to halt the Jews, so now the Arabs pay huge sums to bribe the leaders of Europe to help them get rid of the Jews now.

The latest missile to split the skies over the Middle East is not a rocket; it is the French "peace" initiative.

No one in the Middle East has the slightest doubt that whatever its objective may be, it will not promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a desperate attempt by the French government to buy a few more days of quiet from its Muslim community, especially from the members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist organizations to which it gave birth -- all waiting for the order to run riot through the streets of France.

We, the Palestinians, have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the creation of the Islamist terrorist organizations within the Palestinian Authority territory; it is they who keep us from reaching a peace agreement with the Jews.

One has to be deaf, dumb and blind -- or genuinely desperate, which is more likely -- to present a unilateral peace agreement like the French one. If it succeeds, may Allah prevent it, it will lead to an ISIS and Hamas takeover of every inch of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws if coerced by the initiative.

One also has to be simply ignorant not to understand that the Middle East is going up in flames and that the Arab states are disintegrating. There is no logical reason, therefore, to construct a new state, which will be both unstable and prey to local and regional subversion. It will also be subject to a quick takeover, and the first people who will suffer will be the Palestinians in the occupied [sic]  territories.

The Israelis know how to look out for themselves, but we will be left to the tender mercies of Hamas and ISIS mujahedeen. Just as they have done in Iraq and Syria, they will slaughter us without thinking twice, on the grounds that as we did not all become shaheeds ["martyrs" for Islam] trying to kill the Zionists, and even tried to reach a peace agreement with them, we are not sufficiently Muslim.

The French initiative is not a benevolent gesture meant to help the Palestinians. Without a doubt, the French government and its intelligence services know full well that the secret of the Palestinian Authority's existence today -- and its ability to function as a sovereign entity, demilitarized and de facto recognizing the State of Israel -- is its security collaboration with the Israelis. It serves the interests of both sides. When, therefore, a Palestinian state is declared unilaterally, as the French propose, Israel will stop collaborating with it and the state, not even fully formed, will almost instantly fall prey to Islamist extremists. That is obvious to us: even our institutions of higher learning are ruled by Hamas today, as can be seen by Hamas's landslide victory in the recent student elections in Bir Zeit University.

The recent visit of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham to Israel helped the Palestinians understand even more thoroughly that behind the French initiative is an attempt, as with many members of the U.N., to "be a player." It is evidently too frustrating and unrewarding just to sit in the U.N. and not think of some project supposedly to spread beneficence that could make your country look important to the other 190 members -- even if this beneficence is lethal to its recipient. One way of doing [sic] spreading such beneficence is to take over the peace process through the Security Council, force both sides into a unilateral solution, and not even to feign dismay when its first victims are the Palestinians.

Senator Graham referred to the drastic nature of the initiative and stressed that the United States supported the solution of two states for two peoples, according to the vision of Israel's current Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. It favors a demilitarized Palestinian state that would recognize Israel as a Jewish state and make it possible for everyone, both Jews and Palestinians, to live with self-respect and independence.

Graham threatened the UN, saying that if promotes the French initiative, he would bid to halt American funding for the UN -- nearly a quarter of its budget.

Today, the UN's funds are twisted into sending peacekeepers, who have diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be sued, out to Africa to demand sex, often from children, in exchange for food or other necessities; and to passing resolutions aimed at harming Israel, while the organization callously ignores floggings in Saudi Arabia, slavery in Mauritania; escalating executions, calls for genocide and violations of nuclear treaties in Iran, just for a start.

The situation is grotesque. They are basically accusing Israel of "terrorism" for defending itself against by rockets fired from Hamas, in a confrontation where Gazan children were hurt because Hamas used them as human shields -- while ignoring the real terrorism against the children of Africa committed by the U.N.'s own peacekeepers, Boko Haram, Iran and Sudan. When they so twist logic as to accuse Israel of "terrorism," while turning their back on the horrendous abuses by other states, they are essentially giving paedophile UN "peacekeepers," Iran's torturers, executioners, and nuclear weapons factories a green light.

Graham was very clear about the American point of view. He said that any country that tried to bring Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague would have sanctions imposed on it by the United States.

The parade of the grotesque is the direct result of the Western surrender to Islamic terrorism. Now, sadly, the Vatican has also joined France. The assumption that the Islamists can be pandered to and propitiated by harming the Jews is yet another prevalent misconception. Every gesture to the Islamists, even if it is aimed at "helping" the Palestinians, sends a message of weakness and vulnerability, and increases the Islamists' aggression against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

In the Middle East, anyone who "turns the other cheek," such as the Pope saying that the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, could be "an angel of peace," will find his neck under the sword. When Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Empire, its churches, including the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were turned into mosques; that is the dream of the Islamists today, to turn the Vatican into a mosque.

The dangerous European surrender to radical Islam is not only an attempt to hold off its threat to the free society of Europe just a little longer. It is also the result of the economic distress of the Western world, which is seeking to keep afloat by selling itself, literally, for petro-dollars. The Vatican is in desperate financial straits -- there are fewer practicing Catholics and therefore fewer donating Catholics. It is hard not to feel that the anti-Israel manipulations of the Vatican administration are motivated not by a genuine desire to help the Palestinians or to save Christians in the Middle East, but by a genuine desire to extricate itself from its financial straits.

Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver; Boko Haram sells girls for the price of a pack of cigarettes, and Europe is selling itself and the Israelis to Qatar.

Europe is in the same situation as the Vatican; and so are many American universities, which are selling radical Islamist education for petro-dollars from the Persian Gulf. This enables the Islamists to rewrite history and endanger the open way of life in the gullible West.

There is already a Muslim Brotherhood lobby in the United States, a syndicate trying to force the administration to undermine the current Egyptian president, who is an enemy of the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. Their aim is to restore to power the Islamist dictator Mohamed Morsi (who is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), and to sabotage the measures Egypt is currently taking to rehabilitate itself.

The ease with which Qatar, the petro-dollar heavyweight, manipulates terrorist organizations in the Middle East is unnerving. The country both hosts and finances senior Muslim Brotherhood figures such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others responsible for spreading the doctrine of radical Islamism and terrorism around the world.

Qatar finances a wide range of subversive Islamist terrorist organizations, among them ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and various other global jihad organizations operating under the aegis of the Arab-Muslim regimes. Qatar also seeks to carve out enclaves in Africa and the West, and to turn the West's pluralistic melting pot into a seething cauldron of terrorist operatives who will, when given the signal, bludgeon Europe and America to the ground.

The petro-dollars of the Qatari feudal lords, totalitarians who dictate their whims to a population with no rights, direct a global network of propaganda and incitement, through vehicles such as Al-Jazeera TV in Arabic, light years more toxic than Al Jazeera in English. It crowns kings and topples regimes throughout the Middle East, as it did by endlessly replaying the self-immolation of the young Tunisian fruit vendor who could not get a license, until it whipped up the Tunisians and Egyptians to start the "Arab Spring." Currently, Qatar is investing millions to overthrow the Egyptian regime. It is investing millions to finance incitement among Muslims around the globe by means of its Islamist network and da'wah, the cunning preaching of the Muslim Brotherhood's variety of Islam.

The Arabs always felt that the Europeans had a soft spot in their hearts for them. They always secretly believed that anyone who hated their mutual enemies, the Jews, as deeply as the Europeans did, and who actually tried to achieve their total physical destruction during the Second World War, would be their ally and help to expel them from occupied [sic] Palestine. Apparently, the commonly-held hatred between the Europeans and the Arabs was not enough to halt the Jews, so now the Arabs pay huge sums to bribe the leaders of Europe to help them get rid of the Jews now.

Just look at the extensive corruption of the heads of FIFA, bought and paid-for by Qatar. All it took was $100 million, and Qatar could host the World Cup. It makes one wonder what Qatar would be willing to pay for other projects, doesn't it?

Now where did that envelope of cash go...? Joseph "Sepp" Blatter (R), then president of FIFA, is pictured patting his jacket pocket a moment after awarding the hosting of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (L), on December 2, 2010. (Image source: PBS Newshour video screenshot)

 

 

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6029/french-peace-initiative

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

Who is Responsible for the Atrocities in the Muslim World? - Uzay Bulut

by Uzay Bulut

• If colonialism were the main problem, Muslims, too, still are, colonizers -- and not particularly "humanitarian" ones, at that.
• Islamic jihad and Islamic violence; the sanctioning of sex slavery; dehumanization of women; hatred and persecution of non-Muslims have been commonplace in the Islamic world ever since the inception of the religion. Deny everything and blame "the infidel."
• But is it America that tells these men to treat their wives or sisters as less than fully human? If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.
• Trying to whitewash the damage that the Islamic ideology has done to the Muslim world, while putting the blame of Islamic atrocities on the West, will never help Muslims face their own failures and come up with progressive ways to resolve them.
  

Every time the ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, or any terrorist group in the Muslim world is discussed, many people tend to hold the West responsible for the devastation and murders they commit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blaming the failures in the Muslim world on Western nations is simply bigotry and an attempt to shift the blame and to prevent us from understanding the real root cause of the problem.

When these Islamic terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or "wives;" conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious minorities and demolish irreplaceable archeological sites, the idea that this is the fault of the West is ludicrous, offensive and wrong.

Western states, like many other states, try to protect the security of their citizens. What they essentially need, therefore, are peaceful states as partners with which they can have economic, commercial and diplomatic relations. They do not need genocidal terrorist groups that destroy life, peace and stability in huge swaths across the Muslim world.

Western states also have democratic and humanitarian values, which Islamic states do not. The religious and historical experiences of the Western world and the Islamic world are so enormously different that they ended up having completely different cultures and values.

The West, established on Jewish, Christian and secular values, has created a far more humanitarian, free and democratic culture. Sadly, much of the Muslim world, under Islamic sharia law, has created a misogynistic, violent and totalitarian culture.

This does not mean that the West has been perfect and sinless. The West still commits some appalling crimes: Europe is guilty of paving the way for the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust, and for still not protecting its Jewish communities. Even today, many European states contort logic to recognize Hamas, which openly states that it aims to commit genocide against Jewish people.

The West, however, accepts responsibility for the failures in its own territories: for instance, not being able to protect European women from Muslim rapists. These men have moved to Europe to benefit from the opportunities and privileges there, but instead of showing gratitude to European people and government, they have raped the women there, and tried to impose Islamic sharia law.

If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.

The West, and particularly the U.S., should use all of its power to stop them -- especially the genocides committed against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims in the Muslim world.

We should also criticize the West -- and others, such as the United Nations and its distorted Gaza War report -- for supporting those who proudly commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, and we should criticize the West for not siding with the state of Israel in the face of genocidal Jew-hatred.

We should criticize the West for letting Islamic anti-Semitism grow in Europe, making lives unbearable for Jews day by day.

We should criticize the West for having accepted without a murmur the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus for more than 40 years.

We should also criticize the West for leaving the fate of Kurds, a persecuted and stateless people, to the tender mercies of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria -- and now the Islamic State (ISIS). On June 25, ISIS carried out yet another deadly attack, killing and wounding dozens of people in the Kurdish border town of Kobani, in Syrian Kurdistan.

And we should criticize especially the current U.S. government for not being willing to take serious action to stop ISIS, Boko Haram and other extremist Islamic groups.[1]

The list could go on and on. Moreover, it would not be realistic to claim that these groups or regimes all misunderstand the teachings of their religion in exactly the same way.

It would also not be realistic to claim that the West has created all these hundreds of Islamic terror groups across the Muslim world.

The question, then, is: Who or what does create all these terrorist groups and regimes?

In almost all parts of the Muslim world, systematic discrimination, and even murder, are rampant -- especially of women and non-Muslims. Extremist Islamic organizations, however, are not the only offenders. Many Muslim civilians who have no ties with any Islamist group also commit these offenses daily. Jihad (war in the service of Islam) and the subjugation of non-Muslims are deeply rooted in the scriptures and history of Islam.

Ever since the seventh century, Muslim armies have invaded and captured Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands; for more than 1400 years since, they have continued their jihad, or Islamic raids, against other religions.

Many people seem to be justifiably shocked by the barbarism of ISIS, but Islamic jihad does not belong just to ISIS. Violent jihad is a centuries-long tradition of Islamic ideology. ISIS is just one jihadist army of Islam. There are many.

All of this is an Islamic issue. The free West has absolutely nothing to do with the creation and preservation of this un-free culture.

The West has, on the contrary, been the victim of Islamic military campaigns and imperialistic pursuits: Christian peoples of Europe have been exposed to Ottoman invasions and subjugation for centuries. The fall of Byzantine Empire marked the peak of Islamic Jihad in Christian lands. Many places in Europe -- including Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, and Cyprus, among others -- were all invaded and occupied by the Ottoman armies. Other targets, including Venice, Austria, and Poland, had to fight fierce defensive wars to protect their territories.

The historical and current troubles in the Muslim world are not, therefore, problems "imported" from an outside source; they are internal cultural and political problems, which Muslim regimes and peoples have reproduced for centuries.

Some of the things that women in Saudi Arabia may not do were listed in The Week magazine: Saudi women are not allowed to "go anywhere without a male chaperone, open a bank account without their husband's permission, drive a car, vote in elections, go for a swim, compete freely in sports, try on clothes when shopping, enter a cemetery, read an uncensored fashion magazine and buy a Barbie and so on."

Of course, there is nothing specific in Islamic scriptures about cars, fashion magazines or Barbie Dolls. But there is enough there that indicates why all of these abuses, and more, are widespread across the Islamic world, and why the clerics, imams and muftis approve them.

The central issue is to see how the lines that the Islamic theology draws seed the soil in which this kind of discrimination systematically buds, why it is extolled and how it is advocated.

Saudi Arabia is not the only Muslim country where women are dehumanized. Throughout almost the almost the entire Muslim world -- including Turkey, considered one of the most "liberal" Muslim countries -- women are continually abused or killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers or other males. [2]

Is it America that tells these men to treat their wives or sisters as less than fully human?

Is the West really what stops them from respecting human rights or resolving their political matters through diplomatic and peaceful ways? Are Muslims too stupid to make wise decisions, and act responsibly? Why should Americans or Europeans have evil wishes for the rest of the world?

Demonizing Western nations -- even after all of their cultural, scientific and rational progress -- is simply pure racism.

"The belief that the West is always guilty is among the dozen bad ideas for the 21st century," wrote the Australian pastor, Dr. Mark Durie. "This irrational and unhelpful idea is taught in many schools today and has become embedded in the world views of many. It is essentially a silencing strategy, sabotaging critical thinking."

Another term that prevents one from understanding the root causes of the conflicts in the Muslim world is "moral relativism" -- a politically correct term that really means moral cowardice.

Defending "moral relativism" and saying that "all cultures are equal" really means saying a culture that encourages child marriages, beating women and selling girls on slave markets has a value equal to a culture that respects women and recognizes their rights, and which renounces wanton violence.

Another popular target of blame for the failures in the Muslim world is historical British colonialism.

If colonialism were the main problem, however, Muslims, too, were, and still are, colonizers -- and not particularly "humanitarian" ones, at that. The Muslim colonizers do not even seem to have contributed much to the culture of the places they invaded and colonized. In fact, they have actually delayed the progress of the areas they colonized. The printing press, for instance, came to the Ottoman territories almost 200 years later than to Europe.

"Books... undermine the power of those who control oral knowledge, since they make that knowledge readily available to anyone who can master literacy," wrote Professor Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. This threatened to undermine the existing status quo, where knowledge was controlled by elites. The Ottoman sultans and religious establishment feared the creative destruction that would result. Their solution was to forbid printing." [3]

"European Empires -- the British, French and Italians -- had a short-lived presence in North Africa and the Middle East compared with the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over that region for more than 500 years," said the historian Niall Ferguson.

"The culture that exists in the greater Middle East and North Africa today bears very, very few resemblances to the culture that Europeans tried to implement there, beginning in the late 19th century and carrying on through to the mid-20th century.
"You can't say it is the fault of imperialism and leave out the longest living empire in the Middle East, which was the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim Empire, which went back much farther than any of the European Empires mentioned in that piece."

Muslim states continue to occupy and colonize various territories -- including Kurdistan, Baluchistan and the northern part of Cyprus, an EU member state.

"One of the most tragic consequences of the 1974 Turkish invasion," according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus, "and the subsequent illegal occupation of 36.2% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, is the violent and systematic destruction of the cultural and religious heritage in the occupied areas.

"Hundreds of historic and religious monuments in various regions of the occupied areas have been destroyed, looted and vandalized. Illegal 'excavations' have been carried out and cultural treasures have been stolen from museums and private collections and were sold abroad."

Muslim groups and regimes continue to persecute indigenous peoples such as Assyrians, Chaldeans, Mandaeans, Shabaks, Copts, Yezidis, and Bedoon, among many others.

"A substantial segment of the Bedoon population lives with the constant threat of deportation hanging over it," according to the analyst Ben Cohen. "Around 120,000 Bedoon live without nationality and with none of the rights that flow from citizenship."

"Its members cannot obtain birth or marriage certificates, or identity cards, or driving licenses. They are banned from access to public health and education services. Their second-class status means they have no access to the law courts in order to pursue their well-documented claims of discrimination. And on those rare occasions that they summon the will to protest publicly—as they did in 2011, when demonstrators held signs bearing slogans like, 'I Have a Dream'—the security forces respond with extraordinary brutality, using such weapons as water cannons, concussion grenades, and tear gas with reckless abandon."

It is not the West or Israel committing these crimes against the Bedoon community; it is Kuwait, a wealthy Islamic state, which treats defenseless people as if they are slaves.

In Qatar, another wealthy Islamic state, Nepalese migrants building a football stadium, "[h]ave died at a rate of one every two days... This figure does not include the deaths of Indian, Sri Lankan and Bangladeshi workers.... The Nepalese foreign employment promotion board said that 157 of its workers in Qatar had died between January and mid-November" last year. In 2013, the figure for that period was 168."

The family of a Nepalese migrant worker, who died in Qatar, prepares to bury him. Nepalese laborers in Qatar are forced to work in dangerous conditions, and die at the rate of one every two days. (Image source: Guardian video screenshot)

"In Libya, naturalisation is only open to a man if he is of Arab descent," reported the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). "And many Akhdam in Yemen, a small ethnic minority who may be descendants of African slaves, are reportedly unable to obtain citizenship."

Is that not apartheid?

In Kuwait, only Muslim applicants may seek naturalization, while Libya's nationality law allows for the withdrawal of nationality on the grounds of conversion from Islam to another religion."

Is that not apartheid? Apartheid laws seem to reign over many places in the Muslim world.

Trying to whitewash the damage the Islamic ideology has done to the Muslim world, while putting the blame of Islamic atrocities on the West, will never help Muslims face their own failures and come up with progressive ways to resolve them.

"All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though," wrote the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on Twitter, after which other Twitter users piled on to criticize him.

It seems that having oil reserves, per capita, that dwarf anything available to Western countries does not create leading scientific nations.

What holds Muslims back when they have unmatched advantages of underground treasures? Why did the scientific revolution not happen in the Muslim world? Why has much of Islamic history been marked by aggressive jihad?

Islamic jihad and Islamic violence; the sanctioning of sex slavery; dehumanization of women; hatred and persecution of non-Muslims and homosexuals; suppression of free speech; and forced conversions have been commonplace in the Islamic world ever since the inception of the religion.

Many teachings in the Islamic scriptures, as well as the biographies of the founder of the religion, set up the parameters where these abuses not only occur but remain protected on a gigantic scale. These are the teachings that have become the culture of the Muslim world.

Sadly, most Muslims have wasted much time, energy and resources on killing and destruction, but -- with the exception of some civilization's most dazzling artistic splendors -- not on scientific and cultural advancement.

Recently, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, the former Prime Minister of Qatar, said that claims that Qatar paid bribes to win the hosting rights of the 2022 World Cup were "not fair" and stemmed from the West's Islamophobia and racism towards Arabs.

Recent events indicate that he was, at best, "misinformed."

Deny everything and blame "the infidel" for your shortcomings. Nothing is more important than your honor, and nothing worse than your shame.

If Muslims wish to create a brighter future, nothing is stopping us but ourselves. We should learn to analyze critically our present and our past.

Human rights activists and academics in the West are lying to Muslims about their culture, and bashing and threatening America, Europe or "Zionism" for the problems of Muslims; this can never lead to any positive developments in the Muslim world. It is the Islamic culture and religious ideology that are responsible for these problems

If there is ever going to be an enlightenment, reform or renaissance in the Muslim world, only a hard look and hard questioning can be its starting point.

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

---

[1] Also the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Republic of Iran, al-Qaeda, Al-Badr, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Islamic Jihad, al-Nusra Front, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Al Ghurabaa, Al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, Al-Mourabitoun, Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar, Jamaat Ul-Furquan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh, Jamiat al-Islah al-Idzhtimai, Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front, Al-Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, Supreme Military Majlis ul-Shura of the United Mujahideen Forces of Caucasus, to name just a few.
[2] See: "Gender Equality Gap Greatest in Islamic Countries, Survey Shows", by Patrick Goodenough, October 29, 2014; "The Treatment of Women In Islam," by Rachel Molschky, October 7, 2013; "Women Suffer at the Hands of Radical Islam", by Raymond Ibrahim, January 9, 2014; "As Muslim women suffer, feminists avert their gaze", by Robert Fulford, National Post; Ayse Onal, a leading Turkish journalist, says in her book, Honour Killing: Stories of Men Who Killed, that in Turkey alone honour killings average about one a day -- 1,806 were reported in the period between 2000 and 2005.
[3] Daron, Acemoglu & Robinson, James (2012), Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, Crown Publishing Group.

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.  -  Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6059/atrocities-muslim-world

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

Israel Not Getting Boycotted Where It Counts - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

Far more important than the negative results of BDS are the positive developments and increases in external relations of countries and businesses with Israel.  Two recent developments are worthy of note: water technology deals and an increasing relationship with China.

It is always a moment of amusement to read the latest fulmination of the venerable archbishop emeritus Desmond Tutu.  On June 17, 2015, he beguiled us again with his message to his dear sisters and brothers in the United Church of Christ, which is holding its general synod in Cleveland June 26-30, 2015.  He assured the congregation of his support for its divestment resolution targeting the “Israeli occupation.”  He fully endorsed the proposal to use the powerful nonviolent tools of economic leverage against the State of Israel.

Tutu is following in the footsteps of individuals and groups, all well-known and respected for their intimate knowledge and understanding of Middle East affairs, and very familiar with all the alleged misdeeds and violations of international law by the State of Israel and the diabolical enemies of peace in the Hebrew University and the Hadassah medical facilities.  The experts are too numerous to mention, but among the most knowledgeable are the executive board of the American Studies Society, most of whom specialize in gender studies; the Irish Students Union, which apparently does not have a map of Israel; the U.K. National Union of Students; Alice Walker, who views Israel as black, not the color purple; and the rock singer Roger Water, whose mission in life is apparently to call on fellow entertainers not to rock in Israel since, unlike Mick Jagger, he gets no satisfaction from this.

All these eminent scholars, who seem unaware of or silent about the war crimes, atrocities, and violations of human rights committed by Hamas in Gaza, have taken their cues from the Palestinian Campaign to Boycott Israel, the organization founded in July 2005.  The supposed objective of this campaign, political, economic, academic, and cultural, by countless NGOs and pro-Palestinian activists, is to end the occupation and colonization of all Arab lands, and to promote the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.  But all know that its real objective is the de-legitimization of Israel and the piecemeal and then final elimination of the Jewish State.

The intensive BDS campaign has gloried in its successes, both material and psychological.  Yet, if it proudly heralded the decision by the French corporate giant Veolia to sell off its business activities in Israel, it forgot that it takes two to tango.  Already, a number of authorities in the U.K., in Ireland, and in Boston have introduced policies barring Veolia from public contracts.  Other would-be boycotters should take note of such unforeseen consequences and of the increasing number of U.S. state legislatures passing anti-BDS legislation.

Far more important than the negative results of BDS are the positive developments and increases in external relations of countries and businesses with Israel.  Two recent developments are worthy of note: water technology deals and an increasing relationship with China.

One may raise a simple question: do Archbishop Tutu and Alice Water [sic], by their enthusiasm for boycott of Israeli enterprises and products, really want the poorer people of the world to die?  Do they know that Israel is preventing that from happening by its innovations, including in water supply?

On June 24, 2015 Israel announced a deal with the World Bank to provide water technology knowledge and expertise for those developing countries with troubling water security difficulties.  Israel has committed $500,000 to the responsible World Bank unit.  The agreement includes a number of activities, including study tours that aim to transfer global knowledge on water security issues.

The agreement marks a remarkable change from the time when Israel was a borrowing country from the World Bank.  Israel has been troubled with a continuous shortage of water over the last few years because of drought and its growing population.  Israel, because of this need for water, created innovative policies and solutions that have made it a water world leader, whose impressive policies are admired by the director of water at the World Bank.
Particularly important is drip irrigation, invented in Israel, through which farmers can water their crops using the precise amount of water necessary, thus saving as much as 90% of the amount of water they might otherwise use.  Two of the world’s largest drip irrigation firms, Netafim and NaanDanDanJain, which is very active in India, are Israeli.

Besides this help to India, Israel is establishing closer relations with China.  A number of examples may be mentioned.  The Chinese Railway Tunnel Group, a joint stock company, has joined with the Israeli Solel Bonneh Infrastructure firm in a $750-million tender from Israel’s Metropolitan Mass Transit System to build a Tel Aviv light rail Red Line.  It will link Petakh Tikva to the northeast of Tel Aviv with Bat Yam to the south.  Solel Boneh is a unit of Shikun and Binui, Israel’s leading infrastructure and real estate group, and has played a major role in Israel’s construction industries.

In addition, three other projects are worthy of mention.  One is the deal between Tnuva, Israel’s largest food company, and the Chinese company Bright Food.  Another is Phoenix, the insurance company, which is being acquired by China’s Fossum Group.  A third is the deal for $510 million between the Hong Kong XIO group and the Israeli Lumenis, the company for equipment for surgical and ophthalmology applications.

In March 2015, the Shanghai International Port Group, the Chinese company that operates the Shanghai deep water port and largest harbor for container cargo, won the bidding to operate the projected new port of Haifa.  Already, China Harbor is planning to build a new port in Ashdod.

No doubt, Archbishop Tutu and Alice Walker are unhappy that Chinese investment in Israeli technology start-ups has tripled since 2012.  It is not clear what long-term Chinese investment means for the Israeli economy, but it is a clear signal that China does not welcome the Palestinian BDS campaign.  It knows, as the negative two do not know, that the campaign is not only bad for business, but also is an obstacle to peace negotiations.

Michael Curtis

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/israel_not_getting_boycotted_where_it_counts.html

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

Michael Oren: I obviously touched a nerve - Israel Hayom

by Israel Hayom

After sparking controversy by saying President Barack Obama deliberately damaged U.S.-Israel ties, the former ambassador says he is anxious about Iran, questions the U.S.'s military credibility and can't keep quiet while Israel's future is in jeopardy.

Dr. Michael Oren | Photo credit: Yehoshua Yosef

Dr. Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. who is currently a member of the Knesset on the Kulanu list, published his new book this week and managed to achieve every writer's dream: It sparked an international uproar. 

Oren issued a string of articles and lectures to coincide with the launch of his book, "Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide," thus maximizing interest in this memoir from his time as ambassador (2009-2013). In his book he distills his views on U.S. President Barack Obama and his attitude toward Israel, and particularly his attitude toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Oren's article in the Wall Street Journal last week accusing Obama of "purposely damaging Israel-U.S. relations" drew outrage from the White House and from its representative in Tel Aviv, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who accused Oren of lying and catalogued his book as fiction. 

This week, while visiting New York, Oren took the time to conduct a telephone interview with Israel Hayom, saying he wrote it out of a sense of duty. 

"The book is very balanced, very fair, with a lot of subtle nuances highlighted by a process that began in 2009 when I assumed the [ambassador's] post," he says. 

"Everything that I wrote in the book is firsthand knowledge; things that I heard in intimate conversations behind the scenes. It tells what really happened there. I analyze how we got to where we are on critical issues, mainly the administration's attitude toward Iran.

"The book was meant to inspire conversation, and indeed it does. My hope is that the conversation will be to the point, not shallow or personal. It wasn't my intention for it to be like this. So far a lot of things have been said about me, including personal attacks even by American officials.

"But I have yet to see a real debate about the book itself. It has 400 pages about issues that are critical to us, to our security. I have no problem being attacked, but let's talk about the content too." 

Q: What do you think sparked the personal attacks against you?

"I obviously touched a nerve. I presented the truth, and the truth is not always easy to digest. It can hurt sometimes. But we don't have a choice -- we have to address this truth. The decision to take this path was not easy for me, it wasn't convenient, but this was the decision that I made. 

"True, it would have been easier to stay quiet. I could have avoided all the personal and direct attacks. It took me a year and a half to write the book, but the decision to publish it now, almost six months earlier than planned, was timed to encourage a debate on the eve of the signing of the nuclear agreement with Iran.

"I was labeled as someone who doesn't tell the truth. But is it not true that they held secret talks with Iran for seven months without notifying us? Come on. There are things that would be very difficult to deny." 

Research on Obama

Q: You talk about Obama and you try to analyze his personality and figure out what affected his decisions. Perhaps that was a mistake?

"No. There is an entire chapter in the book where I describe how I, an ambassador with a background as a historian and a researcher, approached fulfilling my duty as an ambassador. I researched the people I worked with. In 2009, Obama wasn't as well known as he is now, and certainly not to us.

"How did I research him? I read everything he wrote. I watched every interview he gave. I gathered all the information on anything having to do with him. I read everything that he wrote about himself, about his personal link to Islam, about his relationships with his father and his stepfather, about his time in Indonesia. If I had ignored that aspect, I would not have been fulfilling my duty as an ambassador.

"In the book I wrote about some of the findings in my research. I came to some fundamental conclusions with the aim of figuring out how to get to a point where we could not be taken off guard. It wasn't easy to relay these conclusions to officials in Israel. As a researcher, I had to piece together a sense of his worldview, from which I could derive my conclusions. Everything I did was motivated by a sense of responsibility and duty." 

Q: What were your conclusions?

"One of the conclusions, back in 2009, was that the president would do anything he could to reach an agreement with Iran. In addition, he will always revert back to the Palestinian issue. This is a core issue for him. In my book I called it a 'kishka' issue," Oren jokes, using to the Yiddish word for guts.

Q: Why did you emphasize Obama's relationship with Islam?

"I mentioned that at the start of his first term he remarked on his Muslim connection at almost every appearance, including his inauguration speech. He is the one who emphasized it all the time. Even then he was already known as Barack Hussein Obama. The middle name was dropped when Republicans began using it against him. But until then, he mentioned those things everywhere.

"His first interview with the foreign press was at a television station in Dubai. The first meetings he held as president were with Muslim leaders. The first official visits he made were to Turkey and Egypt. He defined himself as a human bridge between the U.S. and what he characterized as the Muslim world.

"It was an entirely revolutionary approach, unprecedented in American diplomatic history. As an ambassador I had to point this thing out and try to understand where it came from. I invested a lot of effort into trying to understand it." 

Q: You say that your analysis is just a product of the research tools that you are familiar with, but others have assigned a psychological and philosophical nature to your analysis, not historical. 

"It is my duty to understand what moves him; what touches his heart. He wrote a book and talked about his father. The book is difficult and painful, he himself cries in it. Even if I was researching [former Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion I would write something about his emotional side, his heart and his character, in order to understand him.

"Part of my impression of him was derived from conversations and meetings I had with him. He is physically impressive, as is the way he talks. He is very sharp. I don't have an ounce of contempt. There may be disagreements, but disagreements are legitimate and they are critical for us." 

Q: How can this debate, now, prevent a bad deal with Iran? 

"It is possible to encourage a debate on the nature of the agreement, on what led to the agreement. The prevalent assumption here, for example, is that everything began with the prime minister's address to Congress. No, no. There are much deeper roots to this situation that we are in today.

"But in order to know how to move forward, we have to understand the past. I have a lot of respect for the past as a historian, even though in this case the past is not that distant. It is important to always go back to the root. 

"In the book I checked back and looked at the Cairo speech [Obama's 2009 address at Cairo University]. Even then there were signals that he was headed toward an agreement with Iran. In that speech he said that Iran had a right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A remark like that, made by an American president in 2009, was revolutionary." 

Q: So you were the first to see it. But the bottom line is this: Is Obama a bad, problematic president for Israel?

"Everyone in Israel only reads the criticism coming from the Left, but not the Right. In the U.S. there are people who think that my book is too flattering to Obama. I wrote unequivocally that he is not anti-Israel. He helped us at critical times, like during the Carmel fire. There is a very touching passage in the book where I described how he helped Israel in those hours, but ..."

Q: Yes, but on critical issues, is he aligned with Israel's enemies? 

"Wait, I want to finish my sentence. He is a president whose worldview is very different from anything we have encountered in years. Perhaps we have never encountered anyone with his kind of worldview. This worldview challenges the entire Israeli government, even the Center-Left parties, both on the Iranian issue and on the Palestinian issue. 

"The current administration does not distinguish between someone building an extra room in Gilo and construction in a neighborhood of Itamar. It is true that the personal chemistry [between Obama and Netanyahu] hasn't helped improve relations, but people may not remember that it hasn't always been a honeymoon between the leaders of Israel and the U.S. Not between [David] Ben-Gurion and [Dwight] Eisenhower and not between [Yitzhak] Shamir and [George H.W.] Bush.

"But the bond between the two countries is deep, serious and real. It is a bond between nations, not between individuals. So what can I say? It is a challenge."

Q: You are avoiding coming out and saying that this administration is bad for Israel.

"It is challenging. What do you mean by 'bad'? On the Iranian issue, it is very, very problematic. It is not a question of legacy or respect. It is a question of our future and our children's future. It is no laughing matter." 

Q: In the book you reflect on things that you saw and analyses that you made.

"I'll tell you one thing: I would not be able to live with myself had I not said what I did, at this time. I am very anxious. I believe that Israel is facing an existential danger in the Iranian threat. As the years have gone by, that feeling has only grown stronger for me. There are those who insist that I should have kept my mouth shut. I can't even begin to understand that. How can anyone keep quiet when this is the situation we are facing?" 

Q: That is why I am asking again: Did Obama abandon Israel's security for the sake of getting closer to the Iranians? Otherwise how would you explain his conduct?

"You have to ask him. Let's put it this way: He insisted throughout the years that he has our backs. He has been saying for years that all the options are on the table. One of the statements that he kept repeating was, 'I'm not bluffing.' And suddenly, in a [recent] interview with [Israeli journalist] Ilana Dayan, he said that there is no military option." 

Q: So he was bluffing after all?

"You can draw your own conclusions. I was surprised by that remark. For me, it raised some very serious questions about the credibility of the American military threat. Now he is saying outright that there is no real military option? We as Israelis have to take these things seriously, regardless of whether we are on the left or right side of the political spectrum.

"Think back to heated debate in 2012 over whether Israel could rely on anyone else or had to rely on itself [to confront the Iranian threat].

"The same is true for one of the points of contention between Israel and the U.S.: the question whether the Iranian regime is rational. Obama gave an interview and said that they were anti-Semites but not irrational; that they operate on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis; that they would not jeopardize their survival just for the nuclear program; that they have the potential to become a stabilizing power in the Middle East.

"Meanwhile, on our side, we see a regime that is capable of taking rational steps but, in its essence, is not at all rational. It is jihadi. And when they say that they want to wipe us off the map, they are serious. It is not just rhetoric. These issues that we disagree on are fateful for us.

"It may be difficult to accept, but it is the truth. In my book I point out how honestly this president tends to speak. He exposes his true feelings on many occasions. As an ambassador, that is an enormous asset. My book has a lot less analysis than people think -- it is simply me quoting him." 

'I respect Kahlon's reaction'

Oren, 60, was born in New York but now lives in Jerusalem. He has three children. He immigrated to Israel when he was 24, enlisted in the paratroopers and fought in the First Lebanon War. He served as Yitzhak Rabin's adviser and as Israel's liaison with the U.S.'s Sixth Fleet during the Gulf War. 

During the course of the Second Lebanon War, and again during Operation Cast Lead, he was called up to engage in public diplomacy on Israel's behalf. In 2009, Netanyahu asked Oren to serve as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. 

Oren relinquished his American citizenship and accepted Netanyahu's offer. He is a well-known figure in the U.S. thanks to his books and the articles he often pens in the U.S. media. Oren has written two best-sellers: "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East," and "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present." 

Before the most recent Israeli election, Oren was a commentator on international networks like Fox News and CNN, but then he decided to join the Kulanu party and was elected to the Knesset. 

The controversy stirred by his book led the chairman of his party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to write a letter to the U.S. ambassador in which Kahlon dissociated himself from Oren and said that the former ambassador's views were his own and did not reflect the party. The Americans demanded an apology from the prime minister. None ever came.

Q: How did you feel about Kahlon's letter?

"Absolutely fine. He coordinated it with me. There was a lot of media spin suggesting that Kahlon apologized. Look for the word 'apology' in the letter, and you will see that it is not there. What it says is just the truth. The book was written before I entered politics. It represents my views as ambassador." 

Q: Do you think that Netanyahu, who appointed you ambassador, should have addressed the issue? 

"I spoke only for myself. I respect Kahlon's reaction and that of the prime minister. Every person reacts in the way that they see fit. But ultimately, it is my name on that book, not anyone else's or that of any party."

Israel Hayom

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=26463

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

Obama Refuses to Follow Law Cutting Off Aid to PLO - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Two lawmakers are warning the Palestinian Authority (PA) that its economic assistance from the United States could be suspended because of its decision to initiate charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

These days Obama following the law would be news. Obama not following the law is just business as usual. So this is another case of Obama doing what he can to help terrorists while ignoring the limits on his powers.

No wonder he likes the PLO. It too is run by an unelected dictator.

Here’s what the issue is…

Two lawmakers are warning the Palestinian Authority (PA) that its economic assistance from the United States could be suspended because of its decision to initiate charges against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“By formally submitting allegations against Israeli forces to the ICC Chief Prosecutor, President [Mahmoud] Abbas has triggered a provision in U.S. law that suspends all economic assistance to the PA,” Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.

Lowey said Congress crafted the law to prevent U.S. tax dollars from rewarding “purposely provocative, unilateral steps” that threaten peace negotiations.
“Not only do President Abbas’ actions indicate his abandonment of a two-state agreement, they reveal his willingness to try to discredit Israel in the international community at the expense of the economic and humanitarian wellbeing of the Palestinian people,” Lowey added

But Abbas need not worry. Barack has got his back.

State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez told Al-Monitor that while the United States doesn’t believe the Palestinians were eligible to accede to the Rome Statute and join the court, it will “continue to provide critical assistance to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.”

“As you are aware, US law includes certain restrictions on assistance to the Palestinian Authority,” Vasquez said. “We evaluate all planned assistance to the PA to ensure we are in full compliance with relevant legislation. We do not consider the relevant restrictions on assistance to the Palestinians to have been triggered.”

Nor will they ever be triggered unless Abbas converts to Judaism, dances the Hora and begins fighting terrorism. Then suddenly there will be a reason to deny aid, just as Obama refused to stop aid to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist government in Egypt, but slammed the brakes when its leader was replaced by the anti-terrorist leader Al-Sisi.

Still Obama will condemn it in the mildest terms possible.

The White House said on Thursday that the Palestinians’ efforts to prosecute Israel for war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague are “counterproductive”, and stressed Washington’s strong opposition.
“The United States has made it clear that we oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive,” National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said.

It’s counterproductive… which is right between unhelpful and “Ah come on.”
Take it from the Counterproductive-in-Chief.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/obama-refuses-to-follow-law-cutting-off-aid-to-plo/

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

Presidential Race 2016 Candidate Profile – Bobby Jindal by Ryan Mauro

by Ryan Mauro

Views the conflict as ideological and defines the enemy as "all forms of radical Islam" and sharia law.

The presidential race for 2016 is gearing up and candidates are preparing themselves for the upcoming campaign. As each candidate announces their intention to run, Clarion Project will provide a summary of each candidate’s positions on issues relating to Islamic extremism in order to help our readers make the most informed possible choice on Bobby Jindalvoting day. Should there be any significant changes, we intend to update our readers on the positions of any given candidate.

As Clarion is a bipartisan organization, we will not be endorsing any party or any candidate. All information provided is intended as informative only and should not be taken as evidence of Clarion’s preference for any given candidate.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination on June 24, 2015. The following is the Clarion Project's compilation of Governor Jindal's positions on Islamist extremism. It will be updated as the campaign develops.
Relevant Experience

• Two-term Louisiana Congressman (2005-2008)
• Two-term Louisiana Governor (2008-Current)

View of Islamism

• Views the conflict as ideological and defines the enemy as "all forms of radical Islam" and sharia law.
• The West must promote assimilation and stop non-violent Islamists who use democratic freedoms to advance radical Islam and the implementation of sharia law.
• "In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provide them a new home. It is startling to think that any country will allow, even unofficially, for a so-called 'no-go zone.'"
• "Sharia law is not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women, treats them as property and is antithetical to value all human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression."
• U.S. should ban the immigration of Islamist radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State (ISIS). “So in other words we shouldn’t tolerate those who want to come and try to impose some variant of, some version of sharia law."
• "We've said you can't come here in years past if you were here to promote communism. If you're coming here to undermine America's foreign policy; if you're supporting a group that's an enemy of the United States."
• Jindal clarified he would ban leaders of the Brotherhood but not necessarily members of Brotherhood affiliates.

Domestic Islamists

• The  Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and designated terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates, condemned Jindal's January 2015 speech about the dangers of sharia law and non-violent Islamists in the West.
• CAIR said, "Governor Jindal's anti-Muslim diatribes are a desperate attempt to pander to society's margins as he hopes to regain the GOP spotlight and crawl away from being nearly dead last in the U.S. presidential polls."
• CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor said the U.S. government should only look at "criminal activity, not thought," and that Jindal was "pick[ing] on minorities."

Iran

• Opposes the nuclear deal and would not honor it as President.

Egypt & the Muslim Brotherhood

• U.S. should ban the immigration of Islamist radicals like members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State (ISIS). Jindal clarified he would ban leaders of the Brotherhood but not necessarily members of Brotherhood affiliates.

ISIS, Iraq and Syria

• U.S. should have supported moderate elements of the Syrian rebels and helped them fight terrorists and overthrow the Bashar Assad dictatorship.
• Supported the bill to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels.
• U.S. should work with Turkey to establish a buffer zone in Syria.
• Our long-term strategy should include removing Assad from power.
• Won't say whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein was a mistake in hindsight.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/presidential-race-2016-candidate-profile-%E2%80%93-bobby-jindal-r

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