Saturday, April 28, 2018

US envoy to UN denounces use of 'human shields' in Middle East - AP and Israel Hayom Staff

by AP and Israel Hayom Staff

Nikki Haley: Nothing peaceful about planting explosives, setting off firebombs, burning tires.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley addresses the U.N. 
Security Council   Photo: AP

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley on Thursday accused Hamas of "using children as cannon fodder."

Speaking at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Haley said, "Hamas has exploited and endangered the very Palestinian people it claims to represent by locating rocket launchers near schools, apartment buildings, hotels, churches, and UN facilities. … Anyone who truly cares about children in Gaza should insist that Hamas immediately stop using children as cannon fodder in its conflict with Israel."

Haley said the use of civilians as human shields is reaching "epic proportions" in the Middle East, accusing Hamas in Gaza and militants in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen of hiding behind innocent men, women and children.

"Iran is the patron and protector of many of these groups that fight from behind the bodies of innocent civilians," she said. "Groups that Iran has sponsored or supported have perfected the tactic of using human shields and inspired others to do the same. Of course, this is part of Iran’s overarching efforts to destabilize the region – efforts that include illegal weapons shipments to Yemen, and invading Israeli airspace with armed drones from Syrian territory."

Haley called the use of human shields a "barbaric practice."

"The use of civilians to intentionally shield otherwise lawful military targets from attack is a war crime," she said.

"The use of human shields deliberately advantages those with no regard for human life, and disadvantages those who seek to minimize civilian casualties. And the use of human shields isn’t confined to any one conflict. It is present across the Middle East in virtually every conflict."

She said the civilians "either provide cover for military infrastructure, or they become victims that rally the international media to their cause."

"For humanity's sake, the Security Council must rise up to address this threat," she said.

Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon accused Hamas of orchestrating provocations and confrontations along the border fence and using women and children as human shields ahead of Friday's fifth weekly planned protests.

At least 35 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire and more than 1,500 have been wounded since the protests began March 30 – a casualty toll that drew sharp criticism of Israel from many countries at Thursday's council meeting. Israel and its close ally, the United States, countered the criticism by accusing Hamas of using innocent civilians as human shields.

Hamas "terrorists are hiding while allowing – even hoping – for their people to die," Danon said, calling this "evil in its purest form."

Danon said there is nothing peaceful about Palestinians putting explosives on the fence, firing over it, setting off firebombs, burning tires and throwing Molotov cocktails.

"Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens and we will do so while minimizing casualties to the other side," he said.

Danon also showed council members aerial footage of an Iranian military base located just 5 miles outsides of Damascus that he said serves as a recruitment center for fighters stationed in Syria and Lebanon. He said Iran had deployed around 80,000 radicals from around the Middle East to fight in Syria.

"We will not allow any regime that seeks to destroy us to acquire chemical weapons. Period," he said.

Meanwhile, the U.N.'s top Middle East envoy warned the council the Gaza Strip is "about to explode" and declared the world "must do everything possible to prevent another war" between Israel and the Palestinians as well as elsewhere in the Middle East.

Nickolay Mladenov said that "in this highly charged and dangerous environment," de-escalation is critical.

"Everyone in the Middle East needs to step back from the brink," he said.

He said there has been "an increasing number of dangerous incidents at the fence" by Palestinians, including planting improvised explosive devices – at least one which exploded – and throwing Molotov cocktails, as well as attempting to get through the fence.

Mladenov said he has engaged intensively with all sides to reduce "risks of friction" and welcomed efforts by Egypt and others.

"Israel must calibrate its use of force and minimize the use of live fire. Lethal force should be used only as a last resort," Mladenov said. "Hamas and the leaders of the demonstrations must keep protesters away from the Gaza fence and prevent all violent actions and provocations."

Israel must stop the excessive use of force by its security forces in Gaza and must hold to account those responsible for the many deaths and injuries sustained by Palestinians in the past month, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein said on Friday.

“The loss of life is deplorable, and the staggering number of injuries caused by live ammunition only confirms the sense that excessive force has been used against demonstrators – not once, not twice, but repeatedly,” Zeid said.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. ambassador, accused Israel's military forces of targeting civilians in Gaza and engaging in "terrorism."

He insisted the Friday demonstrations at the Gaza-Israel border were peaceful protests by Palestinians demanding "their dignity and freedom."

Mansour urged the Security Council to take immediate action "to de-escalate this dangerous situation."

AP and Israel Hayom Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Leaving the Democrat Plantation - Mark Tapson

by Mark Tapson

Why the attacks on Kanye West are bad for blacks.

Earlier this week I wrote an article for FrontPage Mag about rap superstar Kanye West’s controversial endorsement of black conservative commentator Candace Owens. Owens had recently issued a clarion call for a black exodus from the Democratic Party, urging blacks to abandon the victim mentality encouraged by the Party and embrace a victor mentality instead. Kanye, whose degree of fame puts him in a rather unique position to have a powerful cultural impact among young voters, tweeted a startling defense of her message. In desperate response, a panicked left unleashed a social media and news media assault on Kanye, questioning not only his allegiance to the black community but even his sanity.

Since that article, the controversy has grown exponentially, with many conservative pundits celebrating (and many others doubting) Kanye’s apparent political revelation, and with many progressive pundits smearing Kanye in an effort to minimize his potentially devastating influence.

But not all of Kanye’s supporters are necessarily conservative. One unusual voice in defense of Kanye’s independent-minded tweetstorm was that of “atonement activist” Shaka Senghor, who went to prison in Michigan for second-degree murder at the age of 19 and served a 19-year sentence, five of them in solitary. He went on to write a memoir titled Writing My Wrongs and to create The Atonement Project “as a means for beginning conversations about reconciliation among those who have committed crimes and those who have felt the impact of crimes.” Part of his work is dedicated to helping young people break out of “self-imposed prisons,” “get out of prison and stay out,” and “avoid the snares of imprisonment.”

Though not a supporter of President Trump, whom Kanye embraces as a friend and a brother in “Dragon Energy,” Senghor posted a short article at titled, “Why the Denigration of Kanye West is Bad For Us!” which succinctly sums up why the rapper’s defense of Candace Owens’ message for black Americans is so important, and why the attacks on him are counter-productive for blacks. They are, he writes,

a slap in the face of those who fight daily for the freedom of all people. To call him a coon or question his sanity without employing critical thinking is reckless and irresponsible. To propagate the idea that black people can only think one way is dangerous. A singular narrative that says that we are only allowed to think or say things that make people comfortable impedes our intellectual growth and stymies us emotionally. The belief that we can only align ourselves with one party has left us powerless and without the ability to make politicians work in our best interest, because they take our votes for granted.
There is a social media rush to judgment without about Kanye without engaging in a constructive conversation to see how he arrived at his conclusions. I personally am not a Trump supporter nor do I have blind allegiance to the Democratic Party, that has continued to ignore some of our most pressing issues. I am an advocate of freedom of speech even if I don’t like what you have to say. There are some things I agree with Kanye on like not playing the role of victims when we have an opportunity to be victors.

Senghor goes on to criticize “liberals” who “don’t fight for my liberation” and “social media demagogues” who “snuff out freedom of speech just because they disagree. Instead of bashing Kanye or questioning his mental health, we should be questioning why we go along to get along.”

Senghor urges black Americans to quit “whining and complaining” about Kanye and Trump and to ask these critical questions instead: “What are we doing to empower ourselves, what are we doing to employ ourselves, what are we doing to protect ourselves, what are doing to be fully free?”

Shaka Senghor – and Kanye West, for that matter – may or may not be intentionally urging black Democrats to convert to conservatism, but the fact remains that the very process of answering those questions for themselves will prompt black Democrats to examine what their Party is doing – or more precisely not doing – to empower and protect them. And that is the first step toward abandoning the Democrat plantation.

Read Senghor’s whole short article here.

Photo of Kanye West by Kenny Sun

Mark Tapson is the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Journalism Fellow on Popular Culture, and the Center's Director of Marketing and Media.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Danon responds to Human Rights Commissioner - Arutz Sheva North America Staff

by Arutz Sheva North America Staff

Israel’s UN Ambassador reacts to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who criticized Israel over the riots along the Gaza border.

Danny Danon

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon reacted on Friday to the statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, who criticized Israel over the riots along the Gaza border.

“The High Commissioner’s decision to condemn a democracy that is diligently defending its sovereignty, while completely ignoring the terrorists of Hamas as they use children for human shields, provides a tailwind for terror and encourages the continued exploitation of civilians,” said Danon. 

“This statement proves once again that High Commissioner is not focused on human rights, but only with obsessively criticizing Israel,” he added.

In a statement released earlier on Friday, Al Hussein urged Israeli forces to stop using force to prevent Arab rioters from charging Israel’s security fence, and demanded that Israeli troops who do use force to defend the border “be held accountable."

"Every week, we witness instances of use of lethal force against unarmed demonstrators. Warnings by the United Nations and others have seemingly gone unheeded, as the approach of the security forces from week to week does not seem to have changed," he charged.

"The staggering number of injuries caused by live ammunition only confirms the sense that excessive force has been used against demonstrators - not once, not twice, but repeatedly," said Al Hussein.

Arabs have hurled rocks, firebombs, and flaming tires at Israeli soldiers securing the border and have used makeshift “terror kites” to drop explosives on Israeli positions during the violent riots, dubbed “the March of the Return”, which began on March 30.

Last week, the UN’s Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, accused Israel of killing children following the deaths of Palestinian Arab teens in the violent riots.

Arutz Sheva North America Staff


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Human Rights: Other Views - Part I - Denis MacEoin

by Denis MacEoin

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) itself has become a prime motivator and enforcer of the rejection of human rights.

  • The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) itself has become a prime motivator and enforcer of the rejection of human rights.
  • The other charters of human rights are to be found exclusively in the Muslim world. Anything that falls within Islamic shari'a law is a human right; anything that does not fall within shari'a is not a human right.
  • "For us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a collection of mumbo-jumbo by disciples of Satan". — 'Ali Khamene'i, Iran's current Supreme Leader.
  • "The underlying thesis in all the Islamic human rights schemes is that the rights afforded in international law are too generous and only become acceptable when they are subjected to Islamic restrictions". — Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics.
The history of human rights, albeit fragmented, is a long and often honourable expression of religious and civic endeavour. The scriptures of most religions refer to the ways in which we should treat our fellow man, from the Bible in antiquity to the broadly liberal Baha'i scriptures written in Persian and Arabic in the late nineteenth century. Religious precepts have served to protect human beings from arbitrary mistreatment in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other faiths.

Modern human rights declarations and legislation developed in a secular context, above all as an expression of democratic values, and informed by Judaeo-Christian ethics. The earliest formulations of secular human rights legislation are to be found in the 1789 French Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the 1791 US Constitution, the first 10 amendments of which form the Bill of Rights.

It was not until after the Second World War, however, that an even wider formulation of human rights came into being. Like the French and American declarations, these fresh formulas had much to do with the notion of individual rights: rights that were lodged in the political and legislative strategies of modern democratic states. Prior to that, rights tended to be located in communities, with individuals being subject to the laws and pressures of the tribe – as in the limitation of rights for Jews and Christians within Muslim societies, or for Jews in Europe, notably in ghettoes. This new construction of rights -- through religious or ethnic identity -- has, for some decades now, found expression in democratic states in "multiculturalism".

The Swiss academic Elham Manea has identified this new denial of individual human rights as "essentialist multiculturalism", in her book Women and Shari'a Law.[1] This "Essentialist Multiculturalism" is defined by the notion that individuals must be understood through their culture, not as independent citizens.

According to Manea:

I use essentialist to describe this paradigm because of the prism through which it sees the world. It:
  1. Insists that a group of people have inherent unchanging characteristics because of their very religion or culture.
  2. Ignores that any group is constructed through various political, social and religious factors.
  3. Maintains that a person is first and foremost a religious entity and part of another religious whole.
  4. Fails to see the complex different layers of identity
  5. Fails to see the dynamic nature of culture, religion, society and, certainly identity.
  6. Fears imposing what it perceives as 'Western' values on the 'other' and legitimizes in the process grave human rights violations. Because it considers international standards of human rights to be 'Western' Values not applicable to other societies or groups living in Western societies, it ingeniously plays to the hand of authoritarian governments and Islamic fundamentalists, who use similar discourse to legitimise their shameful record of human rights violations.
  7. Ignores the developments and struggles taking place in Islamic countries to change family laws that discriminate against women and children; to demand states that are representative of all their citizens, and to insist on respect of freedom of expression, freedom of/from religion, and separation of religion and state. Because it considers these demands as universalistic, it dismisses them as not authentic enough. In other words, it designates itself as the arbitrator on who should speak on behalf of 'Muslims'; and 'Minorities'. [Manea, pp. 9-10]
The last one seems to mean that because these attributes apply to all people, they cannot be authentic enough for specific communities.

Manea's reference to "international standards of human rights" is particularly pertinent to democracy, a system through which it has been possible to extend rights to all individuals. The abolition of slavery, the extension of suffrage to women, and the entire civil rights movement all represent landmarks in the path towards universal rights.

The main document of that movement is, many of us might agree, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international instrument created to spread the democratic values of individualism to the world as a whole. Adopted by the United Nations at the end of 1948 and expanded as the International Bill of Human Rights, the UDHR has brought into existence a raft of organizations and legislation working to enforce the rights to which it claims all people are entitled. Of those organizations, the most influential is the UN Human Rights Council, a 47-member inter-governmental body that includes, or has included among its member states, some of the countries that most abuse human rights.

Pictured: Eleanor Roosevelt holding a Universal Declaration of Human Rights poster in Spanish, in 1949. (Image source: United Nations/Flickr)

Although the UNHRC may have done much to improve the situation for some human rights internationally, something perverse has taken place. The UNHCR itself has also become a prime motivator and enforcer of the rejection of human rights -- not only for many individuals, such as children being trained to be terrorists, but also for a single country, Israel. Much of that animus seems to have originated in the Arab and wider Muslim worlds. This is surely odd if we consider that Israel has one of the best human rights records and -- while not giving Russia, China, North Korea or Cuba a pass -- that many Arab and Muslim states (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Pakistan among others) have been among the most conspicuous violators.

Over the years, however, it is Israel -- not the dictatorships or fundamentalist regimes around it -- that has been singled out for criticism by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. In its 70th session, 2015-2016, the UN General Assembly passed a single resolutions each condemning the human rights situation in Iran, Syria and North Korea. Alongside these, it passed no fewer than 20 resolutions singling out Israel.

What are a few reasons for this disparity? If one takes the admirable resolution on human rights abuses in Iran, one can see there were 76 votes in favour, but a larger figure for the combined 'no' and 'abstain' votes: 103 in total. The 'yes' votes tended to come from Western nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland and Italy; the 'no' votes, were from majority Sunni Muslim countries or ones (such as India) with large Muslim minorities; fifteen abstentions were from Muslim majority states, including several (such as Saudi Arabia), which consider Iran their enemy.

Now take one of the resolutions directed against Israel. Resolution 70/141 , on "The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination", received far more plenary votes than the single one directed against Iran (177 as against 76). Many of these came from the EU, but it is important to note that one of the countries that proposed it was Egypt, "On behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation" -- that is to say, a bloc of 57, just under one third of the overall "yes" vote, and backed by such stalwarts of human rights as North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and "the state of Palestine".

This outcome is far from coincidental. Behind that bloc vote (and its many supporters) lurks the uncomfortable fact that there are several quite different charters of human rights in the world.

The other charters of human rights are to be found exclusively in the Muslim world. Some are presented in national constitutions such as those of Iran or Afghanistan; others in official documents that reflect a trans-national Islamic identity, expressing the principles of the umma, the international body of all Muslims construed as a unified community. On the surface, most of these charters appear to endorse much the same raft of human rights as the International Bill. In reality, however, they do not. On close examination, they do exactly the opposite -- and for a very simple reason. Every single right they claim to offer (in imitation of the wording of the UDHR and its companion charters) is made subject to the provisions of Islamic shari'a law. Anything that falls within shari'a is a human right; anything that does not fall within shari'a is not a human right. This provision makes a world of difference.

Professor Ann Elizabeth Mayer's classic study, Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics, is a painstaking study of the many Islamic Human Rights charters, in both English translations and Arabic or Persian originals. They expose serious concerns about the impact of Islam and Islamic law in both the Muslim world and increasingly in the West. The contradictions she has found between original texts on the other, is invaluable.

Mayer examines seven major Islamic declarations, including:
  1. The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (UIDHR, 1981)
  2. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1993)
Again and again, claims that Islamic values support Western human rights standards are contradicted by the texts and statements of Muslim jurists and diplomats. Here, for example, is a statement by the former Iranian representative to the United Nations, Sa'id Raja'i-Khorasani, presented before the UN General Assembly on December 7, 1984:
The new political order [in Iran] was... in full accordance and harmony with the deepest moral and religious convictions of the people and therefore most representative of the traditional, cultural, moral and religious beliefs of Iranian society. It recognized no authority... apart from Islamic law... conventions, declarations or decisions of international organizations, which were contrary to Islam, had no validity in the Islamic Republic of Iran.... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represented secular understanding of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, could not be implemented by Muslims and did not accord with the system of values recognized by the Islamic Republic of Iran; his country would therefore not hesitate to violate its provisions. (Emphasis added.)[2]
Reza Afshari, a professor of history at Pace University, New York, has documented
"how the Islamic Republic of Iran has used cultural and religious relativism to circumvent the UN Human Rights Council's attempts to inspect and report on the regime's human rights abuses, including the harassment, imprisonment, and torture of journalists and activists; and the repression of religious minorities, sexual minorities, and women. Iran has regularly denied and countered the accusations of by United Nations human rights monitors by defending its acts as authentic 'cultural practices'".
According to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "What they [Westerners] call human rights is nothing but a collection of corrupt rules worked out by Zionists to destroy all true religions".[3] Iran's current Supreme Leader, 'Ali Khamene'i, while serving as president of the republic, was even stronger in his refutation of human rights:
"When we want to find out what is right and what is wrong, we do not go to the United Nations; we go to the Holy Koran. For us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a collection of mumbo-jumbo by disciples of Satan". [4]
Strong words indeed, words that harbor no illusions about the gulf between radical Islamic values and those of the Judaeo-Christian West.

Even the more formal statements on Islamic human rights bear clear signs of this same disinclination to accept Western values. The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, for example, says much the same thing in more moderate language, first in its foreword:
Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago. These rights aim at conferring honor and dignity on mankind and eliminating exploitation, oppression and injustice.
Human rights in Islam are firmly rooted in the belief that God, and God alone, is the Law Giver and the Source of all human rights. Due to their Divine origin, no ruler, government, assembly or authority can curtail or violate in any way the human rights conferred by God, nor can they be surrendered.
These rights are not those conferred by the UDHR, but rights sanctioned by Islamic law. In the preamble, we are told that "by virtue of their Divine source and sanction these rights can neither be curtailed, abrogated or disregarded by authorities, assemblies or other institutions, nor can they be surrendered or alienated" --no trace of democracy, debate, rational planning, secular tolerance, or human rights there.

The overriding sanctity of Islamic law is reinforced by other charters and statements from individuals. For example, the Pakistani strongman, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who came to power in 1977 through a coup d'état and served as that country's president from 1978 until his death ten years later, imposed shari'a law on the country. He asserted the supremacy of Islamic law thus:
[In Islam] there are no 'human rights' or 'freedoms' admissible to man in the sense in which modern man's thought, belief, and practice understand them: in essence, the believer owes obligation or duties to God if only because he is called upon to obey the Divine Law and such Human Rights as he is made to acknowledge seem to stem from his primary duty to obey God.[5]
Restrictions on the behaviour of individuals, including non-Muslims, are characteristic of Islamic rights charters. According to Mayer:
The underlying thesis in all the Islamic human rights schemes is that the rights afforded in international law are too generous and only become acceptable when they are subjected to Islamic restrictions. Curiously, there is no explicit articulation of the thesis that international law has granted people excessive rights. Because invoking Islam either to eliminate or to narrow rights is such a central and distinctive feature of Islamic human rights schemes, it is also curious that exactly what these Islamic restrictions on rights entail is not precisely delineated. [Mayer, p. 69]
Just how do these restrictions work? Here are some statements from the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, issued by the member states of the Islamic Conference:
Article 6: Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has rights to enjoy as well as duties to perform...
Article 8: Every human being has the right to enjoy his legal capacity...
Article 11 A: Human beings are born free, and no-one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them...
Article 18 A: Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependants, his honor and his property.
Article 19 A: All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
On the surface, these and many other passages from the Cairo Declaration seem entirely consistent with the UDHR. Unfortunately, a second look shows quite the opposite. One only need look at the final two articles in Cairo: 24 and 25:
Article 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.
Article 25: The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration
In Part Two, we shall examine just how this double human rights system impacts on the West.

Dr. Denis MacEoin is a former university lecturer in Islamic Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Gatestone Institute.

[1] Her approach is echoed by Dutch political scientist Machteld Zee in another study Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, & Sharia Councils [The Hague, 2016]
[2] UN General Assembly. Thirty-Ninth Session. Third Committee. Sixty-fifth meeting, held on Friday, December 7, 1984, New York A/C.3/39/SR.65
[3] Cited Mayer, p. 36
[4] Quoted, Edward Mortimer, 'Islam and Human Rights', Index on Censorship, 12, October, 1983, p.5.
[5] Cited A. K. Brohi, 'Islam and Human Rights', PLD Lahore, 28, 1976, p. 151.

Dr. Denis MacEoin is a former university lecturer in Islamic Studies and a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Gatestone Institute.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Europe: Safeguard Values or Disappear - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

Without the courage to insist on safeguarding our values, and passing our inheritance on to our children, we Europeans will simply disappear

  • We no longer replace our numbers; instead we rely on immigration to compensate for the shortfall in births. This immigration is for the most part Muslim; the effect of our demographic decline is, therefore, the Islamization of Europe.
  • The response of members of the political class, at least in Italy, is to shrug their shoulders, and say, "So what?" European elites believe that religion is private. However, most Muslims do not believe that religion is private, and some are working hard to create a state in which Islamic law is the legal foundation for everyone. The effect of this is already being felt across the European continent. We have more Islamic veils and mosques, and fewer cartoons of Mohammed.
  • Without the courage to insist on safeguarding our values, and passing our inheritance on to our children, we Europeans will simply disappear -- as many groups have before. With us, however, will disappear the most enlightened civilization the world has ever known.
"We have to decide if our ethnicity, if our white race, if our society continues to exist -- or if it will be wiped out." This observation was recently made by Attilio Fontana, a politician with the anti-immigrant Northern League, who is running to govern the Italy's northern region of Lombardy. Fontana's remarks sparked quite a political storm. He may not have chosen the most delicate words, but he was right in pointing out the potential suicide of Europe. Italy's problem, in fact, is not the word "race", but the empty cradles and the crowded boats which have brought in 500,000 African migrants in a relatively short time.

In Milan, Italy's financial district and second-biggest city, there are more dogs than newborns. The city has literally "lost" half its births in a mere ten years. From 2006 to 2016, the number of children born in Milan has declined from 17,000 a year to fewer than 10,000. By comparison, in 1880 Milan had a population of 350,000, and that year, 10,000 children were born. Today, Milan is inhabited by 1,362,000 people with fewer than 10,000 new births. So, relatively, 138 years ago Milan had proportionately four times as many children as today. That is how Europe's indigenous population will die out.

A new report by the Dutch organization Gefira analyzes the future of the "incredibly shrinking Italian population". The number of indigenous Italians is diminishing at an astonishing rate: a quarter of a million a year. This decline is expected to accelerate:
"If the official Eurostat forecast is correct, then within 60 years or, taking into consideration the current pace of migration even sooner, 50% of Italy's inhabitants will be of African or Asian descent".
To acquire a better understanding of the demographic future of Europe, the Gefira team developed a software for demographic simulation, called Cerberus 2.0. With no immigration and the current birth rate, Cerberus 2.0 predicts that in 2080 the Italian population will be reduced to about 27 million, and in 2100 further reduced by 60% to 20 million -- the same result as Japanese statisticians predict for Japan. Despite this data, the Italian government and Eurostat expect that by 2080 there will be 53 to 60 million inhabitants in Italy. "This can only be true if the indigenous population is replenished with 25 to 30 million first-generation migrants and their offspring from Africa or Asia". That process is underway.

Gefira explains:
"German, Spanish, Norwegian, Irish and Dutch NGOs as well as the European Navy have ferried a shocking 600 thousand non-Western migrants from Libya to Italy since 2014. This has been done with the full complicity of the current Italian authorities. The grand replacement is no accident nor is it intended to be stopped. It is a well designed, devious program without the European natives having a say".
A similar scenario was also forecast by an Italian think tank. If current trends continue, according to a report by the Machiavelli Center, by 2065, first- and second-generation immigrants will exceed 22 million, or more than 40% of Italy's total population.

Migrants wait to be rescued by crewmembers from the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) Phoenix vessel on June 10, 2017 off Lampedusa, Italy. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

The statistical projections about the alarming future of the demographic decline of the indigenous European people appear irrefutable. The vice president of the European Central Bank, Viktor Constancio, called it the "demographic suicide" of Europe's aging society. The ten countries that are home to the fastest shrinking populations are all in Eastern Europe. By 2050, Bulgaria, Latvia, Moldova, Ukraine, Croatia, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia, Poland, and Hungary are likely to see their population shrink by 15% or more.

We no longer replace our numbers; instead, we rely on immigration to compensate for the shortfall in births. This immigration is for the most part Muslim; the effect of our demographic decline is therefore the Islamization of Europe. The response of the political class, at least in Italy, is to shrug their shoulders, and say, "So what?". European elites are multiculturalist and seem to think all facts are merely relative. They also believe that religion is private and that the state requires us to maintain the same level of the population as earlier. Most Muslims, however, do not believe that religion is private; some of them are working hard for a state in which Islamic law, sharia, will be the legal foundation for everyone.

The effect of this effort is already being felt across the European continent. We have more Islamic veils and mosques, and fewer cartoons of Mohammed. Italian archbishop Luigi Negri just expressed his concern over "Islam's tendency to break down the values ​​of Western civilization, especially that of the essential distinction between politics and religion" -- a key fundamental of Western rule of law.

Our failure to reproduce is not due to poverty or genetic weakness. Milan, Italy's demographic ground zero, is the country's richest city. Instead, it is due to our indolence, the advent of birth control and a loss of confidence in our Western, Judeo-Christian values.

What can be done?

Religion in the West is no longer a private matter. The values of Western civilization are now being undermined in schools, universities, the media and cultural spheres. One thing is sure: Without the courage to insist on safeguarding our values, and passing our inheritance on to our children, we Europeans will simply disappear -- as many groups have before. With us, however, will disappear the most enlightened civilization the world has ever known.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

April's Arab Summit: A surprise for PLO, Jordan and Israel - David Singer

by David Singer

Using the term “Palestine Cause” rather than “Palestinian cause” indicates the Arab world now intends focusing on recovering territory lost in the 1967 Six Day War without necessarily creating another Palestinian Arab state.

The 29th Arab Summit - concluded in Dhahran on 15 April - has presented President Trump with a wonderful opportunity to circumvent the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) refusal to consider his eagerly-awaited proposals to end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain and Sudan received scant attention - the Summit’s final communique declaring:

“We reaffirm that the Palestine Cause is the entire Arab nation's main priority, stressing the Arab identity of occupied East Al-Quds as the capital of the State of Palestine.”

Using the  term “Palestine Cause” rather than “Palestinian cause” indicates the Arab world now intends focusing on recovering territory lost in the 1967 Six Day War without necessarily creating another Palestinian Arab state – in addition to Jordan - in former Palestine.

The communique further reinforced this interpretation when adding:

“The conflict could be ended through a two-state solution that guarantees the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the borders of 4 July 1967 with East Al-Quds as its capital.”

Using the words “could be ended” rather than “can only be ended”  is highly significant in the context of this long-running conflict where every word uttered is invariably scrutinised and analysed in great detail.

The Summit’s declared “two-state solution” - pressed for the last 25 years by the PLO and the Arab League and endorsed by the United Nations and the European Union as the only solution to end the Arab-Jewish conflict – is now being seen by the Arab world as just one possible solution.

The Dhahran Communique downgraded the PLO’s sole-spokesman status:

“We consider the Jordanian authorities as the only body in charge of the administration, maintenance and access to Al-Aqsa Mosque”.

This unequivocal Arab endorsement of Jordan challenges the PLO having any future control or influence in the most sensitive area of crucial concern to the Islamic world in Jerusalem - the Moslem holy sites.

Jordan has maintained its presence in Jerusalem as Islamic Holy Shrines Custodian for the last 24 years as a result of the 1994 Peace Agreement between Jordan and Israel – article 9 declaring:

“1.​ Each Party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.

2.​ In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.

3.​ The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.”

The Washington Declaration - signed by His Majesty King Hussein and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House on July 25, 1994 in the presence of President Clinton - formally ended the 46-year state of war between Jordan and Israel.

The Washington Declaration is testament to America’s role as the only power possessing  the prestige and clout to change Arab and Jewish perceptions on resolving their long-running conflict.

Jordan’s special role in Jerusalem recognised by the Summit closely follows PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s recent assertion  that Jordanians and Palestinians are indeed one people.
Resolving the “Palestine Cause” remains more easily achievable in negotiations between Israel and Jordan within the framework of their existing peace treaty - rather than resuming fruitless negotiations pursued over the last 25 years between Israel and the PLO.

Ending the 100 years old “Palestine Curse” which has so terribly afflicted both Jews and Arabs could well be within Trump’s grasp thanks to the Dhahran Summit.

David Singer is an Australian lawyer who is active in Zionist community organizations in that country. He founded the "Jordan is Palestine" Committee in 1979.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Rich New York City liberals don't want their kids to integrate - Peter Skurkiss

by Peter Skurkiss

Well, well, well...what have we here?

A stress test is common in engineering. It is done by applying a measured amount of force to the item in question to see if it is still able to meet specification. In the wider world, stress tests can be done just by observing how people or organizations hold up when some kind of stress comes their way. Are they robust and as strong as advertised? Or are they flawed and merely putting up a front and apt to collapse at the onset of some trouble or setback? In the verbiage of the street, can they walk the walk that matches their talk?

A sociological stress test of sorts is playing out on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It seems the wealthy liberals there don't want their children to integrate with people of color.

Here's what's going on. As you can imagine, decent public schools in New York City are rare, and exceptional schools are the rarest of all. Not surprisingly, the best schools – public schools, that is – are almost always found in affluent neighborhoods, like the Upper West Side. That is the natural way of things. Entry into them is based on statewide test scores. But when the race warriors in the education bureaucracy looked, they were horrified. These high-performing schools are predominantly white.

This is 2018, and in progressive NYC, this can't be allowed to stand. Shades of Mississippi of 1960. So comes the Distinct 3 desegregation plan. This is a call to reserve 25% of the seats in the 16 high-performing schools of this Upper West Side district to students with low standardized test scores in math and English. It will be blacks slated for those 25% reserved seats. This isn't going over well with the wine and brie set. But to make matters worse for them, in order to make room for the low performers, about 25% of their kids will have to go to schools of, shall we say, color. That's a game-changer.

This controversy boiled over onto the front page of the New York Post. The Post report is about school chancellor Richard Carranza inflaming the situation by saying, "Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools." To be fair to these West-Siders – something liberals will never reciprocate to conservatives – these parents are not objecting to blacks per se. They are objecting to poorly educated kids being injected into their school, and these low performers happen to be black and brown. I am sure that well educated, mannered, and highly polished blacks would be welcomed with open arms in District 3. But that's not the issue, is it?

It may be possible for some to have mixed feeling about the fix the West Side parents are in. After all, it is only human to want the best for one's own children and to have sorrow at seeing something performing well brought down and degraded. But as the stress test here shows that the true song in the heart of these liberal hypocrites is "integration for thee, but not for me." It seems that diversity is not quite the strength they preach to us about. 

I wonder how these hypocrites would react to having some Section 8 housing plopped down in their little enclaves. Although my feelings may have some mixture in them (diversity?), I conclude by saying let these New York liberals stew in their own juices. Sweet schadenfreude.

Peter Skurkiss


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Carter Center Sued for Providing Support to Hamas - Robert Spencer

by Robert Spencer

Jimmy Carter’s unstinting hatred for Israel paved the way.

The Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that the Zionist Advocacy Center is alleging in a suit that former President Jimmy Carter’s nonprofit organization, the Carter Center, “has used taxpayer funding to provide material support to international terrorist groups, including Hamas.” Given Carter’s longstanding and abundantly established hatred for the Jewish state, this allegation is no great shock. Nonetheless, the specter of an American President’s foundation funding a jihad terrorist group demonstrates how far we have fallen.

The Zionist Advocacy Center further alleges that the Carter Center “received more than $30 million in taxpayer grants while violating federal statutes barring it from using the cash to provide material support to terror groups.” Not only that: “The plaintiffs maintain the Carter Center has violated the law by hosting designated terrorists at is facilities, as well as by providing various forms of assistance to the Palestinian terror group Hamas and other known terror entities.”

No one who has watched Carter over the years can really be surprised. Back in 2008, Carter claimed that Hamas was prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.” He had no grounds for saying so, and it wasn’t remotely true, but this claim helped him perpetuate the fiction that the Israelis, not the Palestinians, were responsible for the failure of all peace talks and the ongoing tensions between the two.

Two years before that, Carter published the notorious book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he ignored the jihad imperative to destroy Israel, and the numerous maximalist and even genocidal declarations from Palestinian leaders, and painted an outrageous fantasy of a peaceful Palestinian people, ennobled by suffering and besieged by a rapacious Israeli war machine that was imposing apartheid policies in the name of a false need for security.

In a review in the Huffington Post (of all places), Alan Dershowitz eviscerated Carter’s book, pointing out that in order to make his case, Carter not only had to ignore and misrepresent present-day realities, but rewrite history as well:

Carter repeatedly claims that the Palestinians have long supported a two-state solution and the Israelis have always opposed it. Yet he makes no mention of the fact that in 1938 the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.
He barely mentions Israel’s acceptance, and the Palestinian rejection, of the U.N.’s division of the mandate in 1948.
He claims that in 1967 Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. The fact is that Jordan attacked Israel first, Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Only then did Israel capture the West Bank, which it was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.
Carter repeatedly mentions Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores the fact that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous “no’s”: “No peace, no recognition, no negotiation” but you wouldn’t know that from reading the history according to Carter.

Many find it odd that the renowned architect of the Camp David Accords would stoop to all this; but it must be remembered that at Camp David, Israel gave up a great deal in exchange for little more than promises – promises that have been repeatedly broken. Jimmy Carter’s record of hostility toward the Jewish state spans his entire career. He has never publicly recognized that it faces the same jihad foes that attacked America on September 11, 2001, and counsels policies of appeasement and accommodation that, if fully implemented, would only embolden the jihadis and further weaken Israel.

And so now it is being claimed in a court case that the Carter Center has been aiding Hamas. Longtime Carter watchers can only say: of course.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Confessions of an Islamophobe. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel Defangs Hamas - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

The terrorist group has been methodically outmaneuvered and outsmarted by Israel.

Hamas has lost. The Islamist terrorist entity that governs the impoverished Gaza Strip has run out of military and political options. Following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas began a systematic campaign to harry and harass Israeli border communities by showering them with thousands of rockets. Soon, Hamas managed to increase the range, accuracy and payload of its rockets placing Ashqelon, Ashdod and even Tel Aviv in peril. But Israel answered the challenge by introducing its Iron Dome wonder weapon which effectively neutralized the rocket threat.

So Hamas turned to its Plan B – terror tunnels. Hamas began digging tunnels into Israel with the aim of carrying out mega attacks. In 2014, a plan was in the works to launch a massive attack on the Jewish new year of Rosh Hashanah in which Hamas would deploy hundreds of fighters who would emerge from tunnels and engage in a kidnapping-murder spree. As it would turn out, the plan never materialized. A series of Hamas provocations prior to Rosh Hashanah triggered a massive Israeli counter-insurgency operation against Hamas in the summer of 2014. 

During the course of the 50-day campaign, the Israel Defense Forces uncovered some three-dozen tunnels, many of which penetrated into Israel. They were destroyed but the revelation prompted Israel’s military planners to invest in technologies capable of detecting terror tunnels. The investment bore fruit. Israel is in the midst of constructing a massive underground barrier aimed at thwarting infiltrations. In addition, the IDF has devised methods and technologies specifically geared to detecting underground anomalies. 

In the past few months, the IDF has destroyed or caused the collapse of no less than five tunnels. Just days ago, a tunnel collapsed near the border in Deir al-Balah, in central Gaza killing a member of the so-called Al-Qassam Brigades. On April 15, the IDF destroyed a tunnel that it described as the “longest and deepest” yet uncovered. And in October 2017, the IDF destroyed a tunnel killing 14 terrorists – 12 belonging to Islamic Jihad and two from Hamas. Israel has transformed terror tunnels into giant burial chambers for terrorists.

Its rocket and tunnel threats neutralized, Hamas turned to a new tactic, one aimed at cynically employing civilians and garnering world sympathy. Three weeks ago, it began to stage mass protests along the border. These protests were anything but peaceful but the IDF was ready for all contingencies. In the first week of protests, 30,000 demonstrators, some of whom were armed, took part. That number whittled down to 20,000 in the second week and to about 5,000 in the third week. 

The downward trend is expected to continue as Gazans recognize the futility of their actions and exploitation by their government. Noteworthy is the fact that 80% of “peaceful demonstrators” killed thus far along the border actually belonged to one of three terrorist groups, the Al Qassam Brigades, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Islamic Jihad. Photos of some of them can be viewed here.

Armchair elitists who sit within confines of the Hollywood bubble have the luxury of second-guessing Israeli military decisions but those living in the Israeli community of Nir Oz, just a few hundred meters from the border, have no such luxury. For them it is a matter of life and death and they are under no illusions about what would happen to them if their genocidal neighbors just across the border breached the border, from above or below.

Having failed with rockets, terror tunnels and mass demonstrations, Hamas’s options have been severely curtailed. Hamas has invested heavily in Unmanned Aerial Drone technology but here too, Israel has stymied their efforts.

Last Saturday, 35-year-old Fadi Muhammad al-Batsh, was liquidated as he was walking from his house to a nearby mosque in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur. The assassins pumped 10 to 14 bullets into his body to ensure death. Al-Batsh, an electrical engineer, was a lecturer at the British Malaysian Institute at the University of Kuala Lumpur. But al-Batsh had a more sinister side. He was a high ranking member of Hamas and was responsible for advancing the group’s militarized UAV program. Hamas described him as its “engineer commander.” According to a New York Times report, Batsh may have also been secretly negotiating with North Korean agents, on Malaysian soil, for arms transfers to Hamas.  He thus became a legitimate target for liquidation.

In December 2016, Mohammad Zawari, another Hamas operative and an engineer who was also central to Hamas’s UAV program met a similar fate in Tunisia. In both cases, Israel remained tight-lipped but there is little doubt that Israel’s long arm of justice reached out and touched both of these menaces.

In the air and subterranean theaters, Israel has outmaneuvered Hamas and its affiliates. The Islamist group has plainly run out of options and is under extreme distress. Its negotiations to forge unity with Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (the other corrupt Palestinian entity that governs 40% of Judea and Samaria) have run into a brick wall. Graft and mismanagement are rampant in the Strip and unemployment for those between the ages of 15 to 29 hovers at an astonishing 60%. Drug addiction is prevalent as many have resorted to opioids to escape their abysmal, Hamas-created reality. Electricity and water shortages are commonplace and raw sewage remains untreated. 

Left with no viable military options to deflect Gazans’ attentions away from their hellish predicament, we can expect Hamas to resort to yet greater internal repression to maintain its vice-like hold on power.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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