Friday, August 19, 2016

"No Room for the Zionist Entity in the Region" - Khaled Abu Toameh




by Khaled Abu Toameh

The dreamers in English still have it: "Hamas and Israel, Israel and Hamas. Maybe one day...who knows." And then the Arabic-language truth rolls in: "Death to Israel, always!"

  • "The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad." — Hamas Charter.
  • Hamas's decision to participate in the upcoming local and municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
  • "The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of our people." — Musa Abu Marzouk, senior Hamas official.
  • How precisely Hamas intends to "serve" the Palestinians by running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about "serving" the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

The dreamers in English still have it: "Hamas and Israel, Israel and Hamas. Maybe one day...who knows." And then the Arabic-language truth rolls in: "Death to Israel, always!"

Some Arab and Western political analysts have mistakenly interpreted Hamas's agreement to participate in the Palestinian local and municipal elections, scheduled for October 8, as a sign of the movement's "pragmatism" and march toward recognizing Israel's right to exist.

They falsely assume that Hamas's readiness to take part in the democratic process shows that the leaders of the extremist movement are also prepared to abandon their dream of destroying Israel and abandoning the "armed struggle" against it.

These arguments about Hamas's purported "pragmatism" and "moderation" were also made back in 2006, when Hamas contested the Palestinian parliamentary election. Then too, many political analysts claimed that Hamas's decision to run in the election was an encouraging sign that the movement has endorsed a new, moderate approach toward Israel and the peace process.

Reality, however, has proven these assumptions utterly false. Hamas's victory in the 2006 parliamentary election did not bring about any changes in its extremist ideology. Hamas did not change its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. Nor did Hamas abandon its murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis.

To recall, here is what the Hamas charter openly states about this issue:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad. The liberation of that land is an individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from rising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the Islamic Umma [nation], clash with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters."
The 2006 Hamas victory, in fact, further emboldened Hamas and increased its determination to stick to its ideology and terrorism, in addition to the indoctrination and incitement against Israel. The following year, in 2007, Hamas even waged a coup against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and seized full control over the Gaza Strip.

Likewise, Hamas's decision to participate in the upcoming local and municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

So, an electoral win or loss for Hamas is totally irrelevant. Hamas is not going to change its ideology or soften its position toward Israel and the "peace process." And, of course, Hamas is not going to recognize Israel's right to exist. Its leaders continue to assure their people of that -- in public and on a daily basis.

As in the parliamentary election, Hamas may even emerge stronger and more resolved, especially if it wins the upcoming local and municipal elections, as it seems destined to do.

Hamas sees its participation in elections as a golden opportunity for "the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad," as it clearly and unequivocally states in its charter.

In other words, Hamas sees elections as a chance to pursue its fight to eliminate Israel. So Hamas is not running in the upcoming elections in order to provide the Palestinians with improved municipal services, but, as it states in its charter, "in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war" and "until liberation is completed, the invaders are vanquished and Allah's victory sets in."


Masked Hamas members (dressed in black) prepare to execute local Palestinians who they claim spied for Israel, Aug. 22, 2014, in Gaza. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Yet, incredibly, some Western political analysts and Palestinian affairs "experts" dismiss the Hamas charter as irrelevant. This dismissal is now based on statements attributed sporadically to some Hamas leaders and spokesmen in various media outlets. These comments are, for them, "encouraging" and "positive" signs from Hamas. They even take the foolhardy step of advising world leaders to listen to these voices and take them into account when dealing with Hamas.

Let us examine, for a moment, one of those statements.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal was recently reported to have voiced his movement's readiness to recognize Israel's right to exit if it withdrew to the pre-1967 lines, namely the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (Israel already pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005).

Mashaal is reported to have told representatives of Asian media organizations during a briefing in Doha, Qatar, that he was prepared to accept Israel's right to exist and the "two-state solution."

Within hours, the Hamas leadership denied that Mashaal had made such remarks concerning Israel's right to exist. Hamas called the reports "lies" and "fabrications" and reiterated its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. "These suspicious and fabricated statements are aimed at distorting the image and positions of Hamas and its leadership," read a statement issued by the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip.
Slander and defamation: that is how Hamas views the talk about its leaders' purported readiness to recognize Israel. This, to them, is the worst thing that could happen to Hamas -- to accept the presence of Israel in the Middle East. The Hamas denial is aimed at protecting its reputation and image in the eyes of its supporters, lest they believe, God forbid, that the Islamist movement has abandoned its desire to eliminate Israel.

To set the record straight, another senior Hamas official, Musa Abu Marzouk, declared this week: "The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of our people." With tongue in cheek, Abu Marzouk, who is being groomed as a potential successor to Mashaal, stated that Hamas's goal behind its decision to participate in the October 8 local and municipal elections was to "serve our people." Addressing his rivals in President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, the top Hamas official added: "Our differences will not reach the level of enmity. Our only enemy is Israel. Our political rivalry should not exceed its limit."

How precisely Hamas intends to "serve" the Palestinians by running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about "serving" the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

In recent weeks, Hamas supporters have been launching various campaigns highlighting the Islamist movement's "achievements" in the Gaza Strip in a bid to win the hearts and minds of voters. One campaign, entitled, "A More Beautiful Gaza," features scenes of clean streets and public parks in some parts of the Gaza Strip. Yet the rosy picture that Hamas is painting is silent as to the extraordinarily high rate of unemployment and poverty in the Gaza Strip, or the fact that thousands of Palestinian families have lost their homes in wars with Israel that were the direct result of bombarding Israel with rockets and missiles. Nor does the campaign talk about Hamas's repressive measures against women and journalists.
This campaign of disinformation is aimed at persuading Palestinian voters that the two million residents of the Gaza Strip are living in a utopia under Hamas, and that this experience now needs to be copied in the West Bank.

There is no doubt that many Palestinians will fall into this trap and cast their ballots for Hamas. They will do so because they will be convinced that Hamas will solve all their economic and social problems and bring them peace and stability at home. But many Palestinians will also vote for Hamas for other reasons. The first of these is that they identify with Hamas's ideology, as expressed in its charter, and believe that jihad is the only way to "liberate Palestine." Second, Hamas has managed to convince a large number of Palestinians that a vote for another party or candidate other than Hamas would be a vote against Islam and Allah.

History seems to be repeating itself and the lessons from the Hamas victory in the 2006 parliamentary election have not been learned. Hamas is fooling not only many Palestinians by promising them a better life and prosperity under its rule; it is also fooling some Westerners, who talk about "signs of moderation and pragmatism" coming from the Islamist movement.
Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has been single-minded about its charter-documented desire to wage jihad against Israel. Its leaders continue to state this in Arabic on a daily basis. It is not rocket science: the movement has not changed and will not do so in the future, regardless of whether it wins or loses any election.

Hamas has made itself perfectly clear. What is not so clear is why some Westerners continue to talk about its "policy shifts." Also difficult to understand is why some in the West are not asking President Abbas and his Palestinian Authority what they intend to do if and when Hamas wins the local and municipal elections. Finally, why Abbas is pushing ahead with preparations for the elections, when he knows that his Fatah faction could easily lose to Hamas, is a true mystery.
  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8704/zionist-entity

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Jewish settlements are legal ‎- Yoram Ettinger




by Yoram Ettinger

According to Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, and the Mandate for Palestine, the ‎‎1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its ‎legal owner, the Jewish state


The misperceptions, misrepresentations and ignorance over the legal status of Jewish settlements in the disputed ‎area of Judea and Samaria reflect the general attitude ‎toward the unique phenomenon of the reconstruction of the Jewish national ‎home in Israel.‎

‎"Fidelity to law is the essence of peace," opined Professor Eugene Rostow, a former dean of the Yale University Law School, undersecretary of state and a co-author of ‎the Nov. 22, 1967, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. Rostow resolved ‎that under international law, "Jews have the same right to settle in the West ‎Bank as they have in Haifa." ‎

Rostow determined that according to Resolution 242, "Israel is required to withdraw 'from territories,' not 'the' territories, ‎nor from 'all' the territories, but 'some' of the territories, which included the ‎West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan ‎Heights." 

Moreover, "resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territories ‎were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. ... Israel was ‎not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [9- to 15-mile wide] lines ... but ‎to 'secure and recognized' boundaries, agreed to by the parties. ... In making ‎peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai ... [which ‎amounts to] more than 90% of the territories occupied in 1967."‎

Former International Court of Justice President Judge Stephen ‎M. Schwebel stated: "[The 1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive ‎rather than aggressive ... [as] indicated by Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of ‎Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of [Egyptian] ‎troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the U.N. Emergency Force ... [and] ‎Jordan's initiated hostilities against Israel. ... The 1948 Arab invasion of the ‎nascent State of Israel further demonstrated that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza ‎Strip, and Jordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and ‎the Old city of Jerusalem, were unlawful. ... Between Israel, acting defensively ‎in 1948 and 1967 ‎‏]‏according to Article 52 of the U.N. Charter‏[‏‎, on the one hand, ‎and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, ‎Israel has better title in the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine, ‎including the whole of Jerusalem. ... It follows that modifications of the 1949 ‎armistice lines among those states within former Palestinian territory are ‎lawful." ‎

The legal status of Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following ‎authoritative, binding, internationally ratified treaties, which recognized that ‎the area has been the cradle of Jewish history, culture, aspirations and ‎religion:‎

1. The Nov. 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, called for "the ‎establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." 

2. The April 24, 1920 resolution, adopted by the post-World War I San ‎Remo Peace Conference of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, incorporated ‎the Balfour Declaration, entrusting both sides of the Jordan River to the ‎Mandate for Palestine: "The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into ‎effect the [Balfour] declaration ... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a ‎national home for the Jewish people." It was one of over 20 mandates ‎‎(trusteeships) established following World War I, responsible for most boundaries in ‎the Middle East. 

3. The Mandate for Palestine, ratified on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the ‎League of Nations, entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire ‎area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by Article 6: "[To] encourage ... ‎close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste ‎lands." The mandate is dedicated exclusively to Jewish national rights. 

4. The Oct. 24, 1945 Article 80 of the U.N. Charter incorporated the ‎Mandate for Palestine into the U.N. Charter. Accordingly, the U.N. or any other ‎entity cannot transfer Jewish rights in Palestine, including immigration and ‎settlement, to any other party.‎

The Nov. 29, 1947 U.N. General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a ‎nonbinding recommendation -- as are all General Assembly resolutions -- ‎superseded by the binding Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice ‎Agreements between Israel and its neighbors delineated the pre-1967 ‎cease-fire -- non-ratified -- boundaries. ‎

According to Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, and the Mandate for Palestine, the ‎‎1967 war of self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its ‎legal owner, the Jewish state. Legally and geo-strategically the rules of ‎‎"belligerent occupation" do not apply to Israel's presence in Judea and ‎Samaria since the area is not "foreign territory" and Jordan did not have a ‎legitimate title over the area in 1967. Also, the rules of "belligerent occupation" ‎do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. ‎

While the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of ‎populations to areas previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power, ‎Israel has not forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan was not ‎recognized, internationally, as its legitimate sovereign power. ‎

Furthermore, the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 1995 Israel-Palestinian Authority ‎Interim Agreement do not prohibit Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, ‎stipulating that the issue will be negotiated during the permanent status ‎negotiations, enabling each party to plan, zone and build in areas under its ‎control. If Israeli construction prejudices negotiation then Arab construction -- ‎which is dramatically larger -- dramatically prejudices negotiation. ‎

Finally, the term "Palestine" was a Roman attempt -- following the 135 C.E. ‎Jewish rebellion -- to eradicate Jews and Judaism from human memory. It ‎substituted "Israel, Judea and Samaria" with "Palaestina," a derivative of the ‎Philistines, an archenemy of the Jewish people whose origin was not in ‎Arabia but the Greek Aegean islands. ‎

The campaign against legal Jewish settlements in the disputed -- rather than ‎occupied -- area of Judea and Samaria is based on gross misrepresentations, ‎fueling infidelity to law, which undermines the pursuit of peace.‎


Yoram Ettinger

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16967

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Iran: Russians Using Iranian Airbases - Lawrence A. Franklin




by Lawrence A. Franklin


  • Iran's deepening military cooperation with Russia serves as a hedge, in the Iranian calculus, against any unilateral Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities during an interregnum between the Obama era and the inauguration of the next U.S. President in January 2017.
  • Moscow probably enjoys filling a vacuum created by U.S. refusal to be drawn too deeply into Syria's civil war. Additionally, Russia's air force is profiting by targeting training under wartime conditions, with little loss of personnel and equipment. Russia also most likely hopes to become the main arms supplier to Iran.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council admitted on August 16 that Tehran is permitting Russian military aircraft to stage operations against Syrian rebels from an Iranian airbase.[1] Satellite photography previously confirmed Russian military aircraft on the tarmac of Iran's Shahid Nojeh Airfield in 2015.

This is the first time, however, that Tehran is publicly confirming that it is allowing advanced Russian long-range bombers to use its main air base in Hamadan Province.

Previously, Russia's aircraft ran bombing missions from Russian airbases in the Caspian Region and from Syria's Latakia/Hmyemim (Naval/Air) complex. While the Hmyemim Airfield was adequate for Russian fighter-bomber aircraft such as the SU-24 (Fencer), the SU-34 (Fullback) and Moscow's attack helicopters, to conduct missions inside Syria, the runway is not long enough to accommodate heavier types of bombers. The runway at Hamadan is 15,000 feet long, permitting Russia's TU-160 (Blackjack), TU-22 (Backfire), and older Bear (TU-95) long-range bombers to stage operations.[2]

The Kremlin no doubt requested access to Iranian military facilities for similar reasons that the United States sought permission from Turkey to use its base at Incirlik: The bombers would be closer to their targets, which are presumably terrorist formations amidst the anti-Assad rebel groups. Flying Russian aircraft to Syria from Iran's Hamadan airfield, rather than from Russia, cuts the distance by approximately 1000 miles. With the lessened amount of fuel needed, there is "room" for heavier payloads to use on the targets. Additionally, Hamadan airfield features several hangars for aircraft repair and bunkers for pilot rest and recreation.

A Russian bomber operating from Iran's Hamadan Airbase drops bombs over Syria, August 17, 2016. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Geopolitical reasons that are associated with this deepening Russian-Iranian cooperation include increased Iranian casualties and recent rebel gains, both causes for concern to Iran's high command. In addition, Iran's deepening military cooperation with Russia serves as a hedge in the Iranian calculus against any unilateral Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities during an interregnum between the Obama era and the inauguration of the next U.S. president in January 2017.

Moscow probably enjoys filling a vacuum created by U.S. refusal to be drawn too deeply into Syria's civil war. Additionally, Russia's air force is profiting by targeting training under wartime conditions, with little loss of personnel and equipment. Russia also most likely hopes to become the main arms supplier to Iran. Finally, both Russia and Iran view the possibility of a Sunni extremist regime in Syria as not in their interest. Russia already fears the return of thousands of Muslims who traveled from the North Caucasus and Central Asia to fight with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

There is, however a downside for the Iranian regime. Russia has had a long predatory interest in Iran. In the late 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, Russia cooperated with Great Britain in dividing Iran into spheres of interest. Soviet Russia, after World War II, even occupied northern Iran for a brief period. Tehran's granting the Kremlin access to its airfields contradicts Imam Khomeini's ideological formula: "Neither East nor West." Khomeini was contemptuous of both the United States and the Soviet Union. He promised that Iran would stand on its own and not submit to the will of either superpower.

The Iranian regime's internal opposition might exploit this concession to a foreign power in a similar manner as did the Islamists against the late Shah. The Islamic revolutionaries accused the Shah of having capitulated to America by allowing American servicemen special legal status, not being subject to Iranian law. The revolutionaries won Iranian nationalists to their side by these attacks on the Shah's alleged lack of patriotism.
Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

[1] Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani confirms the story in Iranian media.
[2] Numerous RT Russian Videos showing Russian bombing runs by various long range bombers inside Syria from Russian airbases like Lipetsk Airfield in Russia and from other bases including Hmyemim in Syria. See Open source material on NATO names of Russian bombers and use of Iran's airbase in Hamadan Province.


Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8706/iran-bases-russian

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police - Robert Spencer




by Robert Spencer

And demonstrates how the Left serves the Islamic supremacist agenda.





London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force -- and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caught classifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.


Robert Spencer

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263887/londons-muslim-mayor-introduces-thought-police-robert-spencer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

'Pro-Palestinian' Thugs Attack Jews on U.S. Campuses - P. David Hornik




by P. David Hornik

And strangely, it’s a distant country that wants to do anything about it.


Israel has a history of helping, sometimes saving, Jewish communities in distress. The idea that Israel is responsible for all Jews has a special place in the Israeli ethos.

This week the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset held a meeting to discuss the case of a Jewish community in distress. The bipartisan meeting was jointly called by MK Anat Berko of the right-of-center Likud Party and MK Nachman Shai of the left-of-center opposition party Zionist Union.
Strangely, the Jewish community in question was not one living in a failed state or an oppressive dictatorship. Instead, the focus of the meeting was on the United States—specifically, the Jewish students at its universities.

American universities are, of course, a major arena of anti-Israeli activity including Israel Apartheid Weeks, BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) advocacy, and the silencing—often through violent disruption—of Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers.

The Knesset members were told that:

· Jewish students in institutions such as NYU, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, the University of Oklahoma, Harvard, Claremont College in Los Angeles, Vassar College in New York, and many others have been subjected to harassment by BDS and Students for Justice in Palestine activists, including the taping of eviction notices to their doors. Jewish students who have approached campus administrations for help say they avoid taking action. In one case, at NYU, some anti-Jewish students who had posted “eviction notices” were expelled.

· Students for Justice in Palestine has been compiling lists of Jewish students on American and Canadian campuses with details of their dorm addresses, raising real concern about the students’ safety.

· The universities claim to oppose anti-Israeli and antisemitic activity—and, of course, abuse of any kind on a racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual-orientation basis, to the point of providing “safe spaces” and the like for students who feel they have been offended. Yet, in reality, it’s open season for students who engage in such activity as long as it’s directed at Israel or Jews. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, students and former students tied to Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Students Association have praised Hitler, threatened violence, incited violence, and endorsed terror organizations in social-media posts. Jewish groups in Tennessee have expressed “anger, disappointment and worry” at the university’s “tepid response” to complaints.

· Out of 941 reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2015, 90 occurred on university campuses. Those 90 marked an increase of almost 100% from 47 in 2014. Amnon Goldstof, head of an Israeli reserve-soldiers NGO call Reservists on Duty that has recently toured the U.S., told the Knesset committee that “Jewish students are the most persecuted minority on [U.S.] campuses.”

· MK Berko said that it has become almost impossible for Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers to address students at U.S. campuses. She told the committee that “when she was supposed to give a lecture on a US college campus, it had to be moved because protesters blocked the hall where it was supposed to take place.” Also attending the meeting was Tzahi Gabrieli of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, who “said the physical intimidation of the sort Berko faced is the most common on campuses.”

The latter part of the meeting, in which Gabrieli detailed the Strategic Affairs Ministry’s approach to countering the anti-Jewish phenomena, was held behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has signed a law prohibiting the state’s public worker pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel and support BDS.

New Jersey thereby becomes one of over a dozen states that have passed anti-BDS laws this year. This is a welcome and laudable development. It is, though, strangely discordant with a situation where “pro-Palestinian” activists are allowed to attack Jews on U.S. campuses. Even stranger is that a distant, foreign country—Israel—is taking upon itself the task of doing something about it.

The time for the U.S. authorities to crack down on these thugs is now.


P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel. His memoir, Destination Israel: Coming of Age and Finding Peace in the Middle East, is forthcoming from Liberty Island later this year.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263880/pro-palestinian-thugs-attack-jews-us-campuses-p-david-hornik

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Foreign Ministry reportedly bans contact with journalists - Arutz Sheva Staff




by Arutz Sheva Staff

Foreign Ministry director general instructs diplomats not to hold contacts with Israeli journalists over Haaretz report on IAEA conference.



Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold
Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold
Hadas Parush/Flash 90
 
The Foreign Ministry's director general, Dore Gold, on Thursday banned all Israeli diplomats in Israel and abroad from holding contacts with Israeli journalists, in the wake of a Haaretz report that Arab states would not seek a vote regarding Israel's nuclear arms at next month's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior Foreign Ministry official told Haaretz late on Thursday that Gold became furious when he saw the report and convened an urgent meeting in his office.

He reportedly raged over what he called a "leak," even though most of the information in the report was unclassified. The report had cited a cable sent to several Israeli embassies abroad.

At the end of the meeting Gold ordered the release of new rules forbidding any contact with the Israeli media, but did not extend the ban to the foreign press. Following the meeting, Gilad Cohen, the deputy director general, and Emanuel Nahshon, the ministry spokesman, sent a telegram to all Foreign Ministry workers in Israel and abroad containing the new rules.

"In light of recent events, in which unauthorized contact with Israeli journalists was made, we seek to repeat and refine the rule," the letter stated in a copy obtained by Haaretz.

"No contact is to be made by ministry workers in Israel or abroad with any representatives of the Israeli press. In any request by an Israeli journalist you must turn to the ministry spokesman and receive instructions," it added.

The move was criticized by MK Nachman Shai (Zionist Union), who heads the caucus for the strengthening of Israel's diplomatic relations.

"Hysteria is running wild at the Foreign Ministry," said Shai, according to Haaretz. "What has been left there, after they stripped [the ministry] of its power and responsibilities? To fight in the media. This is ridiculous and sad."


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/216635

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Right to Dissent - Robbie Travers




by Robbie Travers

The irony is that these censors and would-be censors, such as the European Commission, the Dutch and Austrian courts, Facebook, Twitter are using their freedom of expression to suggest that someone else be robbed of his freedom of expression.

  • Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich's mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.
  • Throughout history, it is the minorities or the lone voices that need from the majority to allow everyone to question, comment on and criticize opinions with which they disagree. Freedom to be wrong, heretical or "blasphemous" -- as we have seen with Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Darwin or Alan Turing -- is the only way that civilisation can grow.
  • Not to allow differing points of view only entrenches positions by depriving people of the opportunity to hear anything that contradicts them. For those doing the censoring, that is doubtless the point.
It would be a fair assessment to conclude that many people consider some statements not what they would like to hear -- whether by Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Ingrid Carlqvist, Douglas Murray, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammad cartoonists, Stéphane Charbonnier and other editors at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, among others. To say their remarks are sometimes regarded as controversial would be an understatement. Often, they are vociferous and vocal critics of extremist Islam, immigration, censorship and other policies -- and they have been accused of Islamophobia, hate speech, and inflaming racial and religious tensions. Several have been threatened with jail and death. Some have been murdered for their warnings.

Importantly, though, none of them has ever directly incited violence against a religion, ethnic minority, or sexual orientation.

Do not these voices, however repellent to some, deserve the chance to be heard without threat of retaliation? Their opinions are often not of the mainstream, but should that lead to censorship, death, or for Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff, court trials, for expressing their views?

On May 31, the European Commission announced its decision to control s-called "hate speech."

As democratic societies, we presumably believe that what strengthens our democracies, and separates free societies from the many authoritarian regimes, is free speech: the ability to air thoughts freely without fear of punishment. There is a saying that the founder of civilization was the first person who threw a word instead of a stone.

Throughout history, it is the minorities or the lone voices that need from the majority to allow everyone to question, comment on and criticize opinions with which they disagree. Freedom to be wrong, heretical or "blasphemous" -- as we have seen with Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Darwin or Alan Turing -- is the only way that civilisation can grow.

All of us are free not to listen to people with whom we disagree. We are also free to expose their arguments as false. Currently, those who defend free expression are not discussing ideas; they are discussing whether or not one should have a right to speak. Censorship moves debate away from the issues, then the issues remain undiscussed.

The irony is that these censors and would-be censors, such as the European Commission, the Dutch and Austrian courts, Facebook and Twitter are using their freedom of expression to suggest that someone else be robbed of his freedom of expression.

If there is no discussion of ideas, we must ask which ideas are acceptable and which are not, and with such questions, we move into the territory of Orwellian thought crime, which is where the proponents of censorship apparently want us to be. George Orwell's 1984 was not a manual; it was a stark warning about authoritarianism and censorship.

Is it possible that the censors may wish not to discuss ideas because they fear the answers?

When we present uncomfortable truths, or even untruths, they need to be heard, such as those who argued the world was flat or that vaccinations caused smallpox. It was only freedom of expression that enabled the abolition of slavery, or that supported the theory of evolution, voting rights for women, the Civil Rights Act, or equal opportunity for marriage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals.

Freedom of expression is the tool that allows those who challenge injustice, prejudice and extremism the chance at least to present their case.

If we never listened to what we find uncomfortable, we would remain stagnant, probably with unbending ideas.

As unpleasant as it may be to listen to opinions that might differ from ours, the alternative, to suffocate free speech, is worse -- and incalculably more corrosive to civilization. If the violence carried out in the name of Islam poses a serious threat to the security of the Western World, or if new arrivals in a country are heavily involved in criminal activity, such as trafficking in drugs or humans and are filling the prisons disproportionately to the rest of society, those seem problems that it should be the duty of any citizen to point out. One might wish that these were not true, but the first step in correcting any problem is to be able to state it.

Censorship, by suppressing discussion of problems, therefore fails, counter-productively, to tackle what is causing them. Stifling discussion will not make the problem go away. Meanwhile, it festers and grows worse.

One cannot have discourse if there is no opportunity for opposition. We are now seeing European courts, the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the UN Human Rights Council seek to silence those whose views they oppose.

It even turned out, at least in Germany last September, that "hate speech" apparently included posts criticizing mass migration. It would seem, therefore, that just about anything anyone finds inconvenient can be labelled as "racist" or "hate speech."

Censoring, ironically, ultimately gives the public an extremely legitimate grievance, and could even set up the beginning of a justifiable rebellion.

There is currently a worrying trend. Facebook, evidently attempting to manipulate what news people receive, recently censored the Swedish commentator Ingrid Carlqvist by deleting her account, then censored Douglas Murray's eloquent article about Facebook's censorship of Carlqvist. Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich's mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Yet, a page called "Death to America & Israel", which actively incites violence against Israel, is left uncensored. Facebook, it seems, agrees that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state is acceptable, but criticism of Islam is not. While pages that praise murder, jihadis, and anti-Semitism remain, pages that warn the public of the violence that is now often perpetrated in the name of Islam, but that do not incite violence, are removed.

Even in the United States, there was a Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 569, attempting to promote the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's Defamation of Religion/anti-blasphemy laws, to criminalize any criticism of "religion" – but meaning Islam.

Yesterday, at an airport, an advertisement for Facebook read, "A place to debate." Should it not instead have read, "A place to debate, but only if we agree with you"?


We should fear all censorship whenever and wherever we find it. We should welcome the right of anyone to speak. Not to allow differing points of view only entrenches positions by depriving people of the opportunity to hear anything that contradicts them. For those doing the censoring, that is doubtless the point.

But instead should we not be asking: who will be next? If voices, one by one, are silenced, who will be left to speak?
Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8595/right-to-dissent

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump Going After Black Votes - J. Marsolo




by J. Marsolo

Instead of pandering to blacks by promising more government benefits, which has been the policy of Democrats and most Republicans since LBJ, Trump challenged blacks to  analyze that the Democrat policies have done little to help the majority of blacks


Yesterday, in Milwaukee, Donald Trump announced a bold plan to win black votes and help blacks help themselves.   Instead of pandering to blacks by promising more government benefits, which has been the policy of Democrats and most Republicans since LBJ, Trump challenged blacks to  analyze that the Democrat policies have done little to help the majority of blacks, especially blacks in the  cities that have been governed by Democrat mayors for years, such as Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, etc.   And Democrat policies at the national level, such as “free” trade and excessive taxes and regulations on business and not enforcing immigration laws, have hurt the economy.  This has resulted in fewer jobs for black as well as whites, especially entry level jobs.

In addition to being the correct economic approach, Trump’s approach is also smart politics.  Trump has to carry the battleground states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, in addition to Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.  To win Pennsylvania, Trump has to win black votes in Philadelphia, to win in Ohio, Trump has to win black votes in Cleveland, and to win in Wisconsin, Trump has to win black votes in Milwaukee. 

Blacks are in the same position as labor unions. Both have supported and voted Democrats for so long that the Democrats’ politicians take their votes for granted and only pay lip service to them.  Part of Reagan’s winning coalition were the “Reagan Democrats” consisting of union members dissatisfied by the economy and weak foreign policy under Jimmy Carter.

Trump is attempting to get “Trump Democrats” by appealing to blacks who suffer from high crime rates and unemployment in the cities.


J. Marsolo

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/trump_going_after_black_votes.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Black Lives Matter Encourages Justifiable Homicide of Black People - William A. Levinson




by William A. Levinson

People who really believe that black lives matter will not encourage behavior that will legally get black people shot or run over.


Black Lives Matters' response to the shooting of a black suspect who allegedly pointed a firearm at a police officer is a declaration of open season on black people who act on BLM's less responsible advice.

Let's start with the incident that prompted riots in Milwaukee:
During the chase, [Sylville] Smith pulled out a stolen pistol that was fully loaded with stolen ammunition, and Smith raised the pistol to the officer. The officer ordered Smith to drop the gun and shot when he did not comply.
The police officer's restraint was excessive to the point where he jeopardized his own life.  A demonstration at FrontSight showed unequivocally why he should have fired the instant Smith began to raise the weapon.  A student asked whether one should order a suspect to drop his weapon if the suspect has the weapon down at his side and has not yet aimed it.  An instructor made sure everybody was wearing hearing protection, drew his weapon, held it down at his side, and had somebody else order him to drop it.  The other person did not complete the word "drop" before the instructor fired a round into a target in front of the backstop.  That underscores how quickly somebody can kill you with a drawn gun.  Nobody has a legal or moral obligation to find out, possibly the hard way, whether the bad guy's skills are comparable to those of an experienced firearm instructor.

It turns out, by the way, that the police officer also is black, which means that black lives seem to matter only if they are not the lives of black people whom BLM calls pigs, as in "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon."  BLM has furthermore shown its true contempt for black lives by inciting situations in which far more black people will be justifiably killed.

When Words Equal a Deadly Threat: Disparity of Force

I cannot give legal advice, but the laws on armed self-defense are largely consistent from one state to another.  You can use deadly force on another person only when you believe reasonably, as defined by law, that the individual has menaced you with death or serious bodily injury.  You can never use deadly (or other) force due to mere suspicion, or to punish another person; the latter is the prerogative of the judicial system.

It is very easy to cross the line at which the law's hypothetical reasonable person believes his or her life to be in danger.  The aggressor needs to do exactly two simple things to step over this line to be legally shot dead, or put in the hospital, on the spot.  The first is to make a verbal or visual threat ("I'm going to kill you!," "Give me your wallet!," or menace another person with a deadly weapon), and the second is to display a credible means of putting that threat into effect.

As an example, the words "I'm going to kill you!" may constitute a crime such as menacing or a terroristic threat, but they do not justify a lethal response if the speaker has no credible way to put them into effect.  An unarmed suspect, or even one who brandishes a knife from across a wide street, cannot carry out his threat.  If he brandishes a gun as Sylville Smith apparently did, the threat and the means of carrying it out become one and the same, and the target of the aggression can open fire with no discussion or delay whatsoever.

The factor that could easily kill a lot of BLM people legally is what the law calls "disparity of force."  Police instructor Massad Ayoob provides an excellent description of this concept.  It means that the law assumes that a larger and stronger assailant does not need a weapon to kill or maim his intended victim, and the same assumption applies to multiple assailants.  A 120-pound woman could easily be well within her rights to shoot a 180-pound man who assaults and batters her with nothing but his hands.  A man might similarly be entitled to shoot two or more men who attack him with nothing but their hands.

Here are actual video and audio from the recent civil disturbances in Milwaukee.  The chants of "black power!" are sanctioned and protected by the First Amendment.  At about 0:39, however, a demonstrator says something about beating up every white person.  At about 0:52, somebody yells, "He white!  Beat his head."  That's a violent threat, and the presence of more than one potential aggressor adds disparity of force.  These are the two ingredients necessary for a justifiable homicide.

This doesn't mean that the white person in question should shoot if the mob lets him walk away, but the instant one begins to rush him, he could legally shoot that individual on the spot not only because of the reasonable prospect of support from other aggressors, but also because the attack's leader could disarm him and kill him with his own weapon.  Somebody who is so deranged as to charge a drawn gun clearly means death or serious harm to its owner, which is why a police officer shot Michael Brown for allegedly trying to disarm him.  That would be my decision as a juror if a prosecutor had the poor judgment to bring the case to trial, anyway.

"They beating up every white person" from these street thugs is meanwhile to any armed Caucasian what "they lynching every n-----" from a gang of Klansmen would be to any armed black person.  While it might not, depending on the distance between the thugs and the armed citizen in question, justify gunfire, it would certainly justify a Condition Red response such as drawing and arming a weapon.  Intelligent and responsible people don't put other people into Condition Red, because doing so is a good way to end up in the hospital or in the ground.

Fire Also Is a Deadly Weapon

In this video, Sylville Smith's sister counsels other black people to burn down not their own neighborhood, but the suburbs instead.  The legality of deadly force to protect only property from arson varies from state to state.  Don't mess with Texas if you're an arsonist, though, and even anti-Second Amendment New York State says a person "may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson."  When I took a gun safety class in New York some time ago, however, the instructor said the building had to be occupied to justify deadly force.  This was clearly because arson of an empty building threatens only property unless the fire spreads, while arson of an occupied one menaces human life and safety.  Even if the arsonist is not greeted with deadly force, however, he or she is still guilty of a serious felony that is good for a long prison sentence.

The takeaway is that any BLM people who act on this woman's incitement are asking to be greeted with handgun, shotgun, or rifle fire if they set occupied homes and businesses on fire.  A firebomb through a window, unlike a prowler who lurks around a building but cannot enter, is a clear and present danger to the occupants.

Run Over Anybody Who Tries to Pull You from Your Car

Olaf Ekberg reports, "Several videos show white drivers being stopped in the middle of the street and the 'protesters' attempting to pull them out of their vehicles."  Recall that a similar gang beating sent truck driver Reginald Denny to the hospital, so we again have a threat of death or serious bodily injury plus the means (disparity of force) to put it into effect.  In this case, the law-abiding defender does not need a firearm; he needs only his car's accelerator pedal.  Massad Ayoob advises in The Gravest Extreme:

"You are controlling a two-ton bludgeon.  Put your car in gear, shout a warning, beep the horn, and drive.  Start slowly unless the rocks are already flying through the windows.  If that is the case, move.  Don't try to deliberately run anyone down; that is, don't swerve out of the way to put your wheels to your assailants."

Somebody who is not blocking your path does not threaten your safety, so you are not legally justified in going out of your way to run him down.  If, however, a rock-throwing attacker insists on blocking your path to prevent your escape, Ayoob adds, "[G]o over the man in front of you."  This policy would have saved Reginald Denny from a beating, and it will save anybody else who finds himself or herself in a similar situation.

People who really believe that black lives matter will not encourage behavior that will legally get black people shot or run over.  It is also to be remembered that Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee have both endorsed this organization, and that is something voters need to consider carefully in November.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/black_lives_matter_encourages_justifiable_homicide_of_black_people.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

When Teddy Roosevelt Banned Muslims from America - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

The bill would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world.”



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

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.”  The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors"  whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.


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

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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