How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We Are Failing - Jennifer Breedon

by Jennifer Breedon

Most suggestions have missed the point: We already have a legal duty to eradicate ISIS and that duty was solidified on March 17 this year.

Over the past week, many articles have been written regarding the horrific massacre by an Islamic State supporter Omar Mateen at the Orlando, Florida nightclub Pulse that left 49 people and severely injured 53 others.

Omar Mateen had pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) on his Facebook page, in a 911 call and to a local television station to ensure his murder spree was properly and publicly attributed to the organization with which he had aligned. 

Subsequent commentators and political strategists have weighed in on how to stop the violence with anything from banning guns altogether to reforming gun control policies, chastising the “right wing” for spreading hate against homosexuals, declaring war on “radical Islam,” limiting “hate crimes” and banning all Muslim refugees from entering the U.S.

While some of these suggestions are good options to create a safer America, they all miss one very simple truth: We already have a legal duty to eradicate ISIS and that duty was solidified on March 17 this year.

In 1948, Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in a book called “Nazi Rule in Occupied Germany.” World War II had just ended, and world leaders were desperate to ensure that violence intending to destroy entire people groups would never happen again.

That same year, the newly-formed United Nations immediately passed an international convention that defined genocide in the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (referred as the Genocide Convention).

Article 1 of that convention states that “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [countries] undertake to prevent and to punish.”

For those who have ever wondered why world leaders are so hesitant to label violent campaigns as “genocide,” the aforementioned provision is it.  That provision mandates that when a “genocide” is officially recognized, nations have a legal duty to prevent the campaign and punish the perpetrators.

The legal definition of genocide is “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group by means of (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Article 2 of the Genocide Convention (written very simplistically, concisely and clearly) further dictates that the following acts are punishable as genocide: “Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; Complicity in genocide” and that all involved may be punished as genocidal actors whether they be “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

In contrast, the crime of “terrorism” has no universal definition like genocide. For example, in Russia, anyone who speaks out against the government can be legally labeled as a “terrorist.”

Even if one pieces together all the similar elements of the various regional definitions of terrorism, the following results: “Terrorism is (1) violence or the threat of violence, (2) stealth conflict, (3) political motivation, (4) intent to frighten and the (5) targeting of civilians.”^[1]

Calling ISIS a terrorist group is problematic for many reasons, but mainly because it does not properly describe their goals.  Yes, language matters.  But rather than spending hours trying to argue over how to punish "terror crimes," we must look at the bigger picture here.

The Orlando massacre was a targeted attack carried out in furtherance of the genocidal campaign of ISIS.  Not only do the crimes of ISIS fall squarely under the universal definitions of genocide, but as of today, the European Union, United States, and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have all declared that ISIS is committing genocide.

All nations who have ratified the Genocide Convention have a legal duty to punish the perpetrators and prevent their intended elimination campaign regardless of who the intended target group is. 

There is not a single provision in the Genocide Convention that states that nations who have ratified the convention and declared an ongoing genocide is occurring must only prevent that genocide if the targeted group is related to them, nor does it specify any number required to be killed for “genocide” to be applicable.

While the death tolls and physical evidence to show the target of ISIS' genocidal campaign is largely based in Iraq and Syria, the Genocide Convention purposely includes the incitement to genocide and the complicity in genocide to allow nations to take all measures to “prevent” genocide.

Therefore, one must only look at the words of ISIS to identify who their intended targets are as they declare the creation of a caliphate and “cleansing the world” of evil (whom they refer to as “the West,” Christians, apostate Muslims, Jews, Yazidis, and all nations who seek to fight against them). 

These words indicate a motive that explicitly displays the intended elimination of several “nationalities, ethnicities, religious groups, and races.”

The Responsibility to Protect

One can’t help but think back to April of 1994 when the United Nations floor was overrun with resolutions regarding the mass murder taking place in Rwanda.  Although numerous resolutions passed that condemned the violence, they all purposefully omitted the word “genocide,” because if the term “genocide” had been used, the international community would have been legally obliged to act to “prevent and punish” the perpetrators.^[2]

World leaders—that had the means and might to stop the violence—remained purposely inactive as the death toll of innocent civilians rose. 

For “genocidal classification” purposes, “destruction” comes in many forms: forcible displacement of people (i.e., the mass exodus of religious minorities from Iraq, Syria and anywhere else where jihadists have taken governing control), rape and sexual abuse (the Yazidi population in Iraq) and mass executions are among a few of the ways a people group can be destroyed “in whole or in part.”

There are two things we must remember a week after the Orlando mass shooting:

 (1) ISIS is a genocidal organization with a genocidal campaign. The EU, U.S. and United Nations have all declared that they are committing genocide. Hence, that is what we must call all acts of violence committed by anyone who pledges allegiance to ISIS.

(2) The United Nations’ Responsibility to Protect Mandate following the 2005 World Summit dictates that nations must work collectively to completely eradicate a genocidal threat using “collective security.” (A/RES/60/1 (I)(9))

As the only body capable of creating international law through its resolutions, the Security Council must pass a resolution, since the collective security measures of the EU and U.S. have failed in stopping the genocidal campaign of ISIS, as noted by CIA Director John Brennan who stated “our [current] efforts have not reduced [Islamic State’s] terror reach.”

This is not a “hate crime,” nor is it a “lone wolf” attack where an individual in Miami decided one day to kill people.  This is an act based on a genocidal ideology on a mass scale, and there is a legal duty to work together with our allies to prevent further innocent bloodshed.

Redefining the ISIS campaign as genocide will accomplish two critical tasks:

(1) Ideologically: Young Westerners seeking acceptance and purpose will less likely be inclined to seek out becoming a perpetrator in a “genocidal” organization rather than a member of an infamous “terrorism” group (which many states classify simply as a group “speaking out against the government.”)

(2) Legal Duty Adherence: It will remind the member states of the United Nations that they have a legal duty to form collective security measures aimed at preventing and stopping ISIS in full.

Beyond that, no discussion of gun reform or hate crimes or “Islamophobia” is as imminent as is the duty to force ISIS to its knees in submission to the collective authority of this world’s strongest militaries.

We must act in light of our recent declarations of genocide.

---

^[1] David Luban, Julie R. O’Sullivan & David P. Stewart, International and Transnational Criminal Law 670-71 (Vicki Been et al. eds., Aspen Publishers 2010) noting that the existing treaties relating to terrorism fall short of establishing a universal system to prevent the atrocities occurring at the hands of certain extremist organizations.

^[2] 100 Days of Slaughter. PBS Documentary.


Jennifer Breedon is Clarion Project's legal analyst.

Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/how-we-can-win-war-against-isis-and-why-we-are-failing

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Muslim Terror in Israel and America Evokes Irrational Responses from the Left - Dan Calic

by Dan Calic

If America doesn’t snap to attention soon, the America we all know and have loved for 2 centuries may become a thing of the past

A murderous terror attack took place in Tel Aviv 11 days ago, ripping four innocent lives away from their loved ones forever. One moment they were sitting in a café enjoying themselves, and a split second later they were gone, lifeless, leaving only precious memories behind.

The following Sunday morning in Orlando, Florida at least 49 people in a gay nightclub were murdered in cold blood in the single worst shooting massacre in US history.

Thousands of miles apart, with different targets as victims, both attacks share at least one common element. The murderers were Muslim. In the Middle East, Muslims murdering innocent people has been common for centuries. It’s only in the past couple of decades the horrific phenomenon has reared its ugly head in the US.

There is also another enemy that Israel and the US have in common in this battle: political correctness. In the US the President steadfastly refused to use and then mocked the words “radical Islam’ when referring to any terror attack, even though everyone on planet earth knows it is radical Islam.

When it comes to Israel, many of the world’s leaders, as well as much of the media also refuse to specify radical Islam when describing the murder of innocent Jews.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no problem calling a spade a spade. I think the time has come for President Obama take a lesson from Bibi.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has expressed concern about the influx of radical Islam in America. I suspect this massacre is going to cause many voters to start listening to Trump a little more carefully going forward. He is the antithesis of political correctness at a moment in history when many seem sick and tired of classic Washington political status quo.

If America doesn’t snap to attention soon, the America we all know and have loved for 2 centuries may become a thing of the past.

Regarding the most recent terror attack in Israel, when did Tel Aviv become “disputed territory?”

In the wake of this latest in a lengthy wave of despicable attacks, Israel is left once again to wonder, when will it end? When will those who support and perpetrate such acts realize there exists no moral equivalence between murder and justice? Do these murderers actually think the Jews are going to be intimidated into giving up their rightful homeland? It’s high time they accept this and find another cause to vent their hatred. Their goal will not be realized.

Israel is the one single nation whose people were dispersed throughout the world for two millennia, only to be reborn in its original location. That cannot be coincidence.

However, while sympathetic statements poured in condemning the terrorism, there exists another chorus of voices. These voices minimize the murderous attack on innocent civilians and use the tragedy as a platform for their own agenda. At a moment when grief and shock resounds throughout the country, especially with the bereaved families, they take the opportunity to launch criticism of Israel.

For example, French Foreign Ministry Jean-Marc Ayrault said this in reaction to Israel’s decision to revoke permits for thousands of Muslims planning to enter Israel during Ramadan:

“[T]he decision by the Israeli authorities today to revoke tens of thousands of entry permits could stoke tensions which could lead to a risk of escalation….we must be careful about anything that could stoke tensions.”

Moreover, while Palestinian Arabs danced in the streets celebrating the brutal murders MSNBC ran a report on the attack, which included the following comments:

“[T]he siege that continues in Gaza….there’s a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of the Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank…..further oppression in the occupied West Bank.”

New Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman was referred to as an “extreme right winger…he’s a settler himself.”

Adding insult to injury is the ever friendly United Nations. During their 2015 session for example it passed 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism. The number of resolutions passed against the rest of the world- 3.  

Plus, the office of the UNHRC High Commissioner (United Nations Human Rights Council) Zeed Ra’ad Al Hussein released this statement:

“We are deeply concerned about the response from the Israeli authorities, which includes measures that may amount to prohibitive collective punishment and will only increase the sense of injustice felt by the Palestinians at the very tense time.”

In the totality of the collective untimely salvos at Israel where were any comments regarding the responsibility of the Palestinian Arab leadership? For example, Hamas was eager to take responsibility for the attack, offering praise to the murderers.  Mahmoud Abbas provided a general statement which criticized violence, yet offered no specific condemnation of the attack.

Am I the only one who thinks that after such an event, it might be an appropriate time to suggest Mahmoud Abbas publically condemn the murderers and announce strict measures to prevent such attacks, since the terrorists came from territory he is responsible for? Is it unreasonable to expect that mainstream media such as MSNBC include comments about how little is done by the Palestinian leadership  to prevent ongoing terror? Moreover, would be reasonable to expect that MSNBC state that murdering innocent civilians is unacceptable, period, even if their network disagrees with Israeli policies.

Might one expect that the UNCHR urge the Palestinian leadership to act more like a genuine peace partner by cracking down on the extended intifada which has pushed the prospects for peace further away than ever.  Where are such voices?

Statements from the EU, Britain and even the US did not mention a word about the need for the Palestinian Arabs and their leadership to do a better job of policing their own.  General statements condemning the violence do nothing to prevent similar murders from reoccurring. This is inexcusable.

When the response to terrorism is viewed as less acceptable than terrorism itself, it’s a welcome mat for more.

Sometimes I wonder if two Israelis were sitting in a café in Ramallah or Gaza City and suddenly without warning started shooting indiscriminately at Palestinian Arabs, murdering them in cold blood, what might world reaction be to such horror?

On second thought maybe it’s not such a good idea to wonder such things.

Dan Calic

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/muslim_terror_in_israel_and_america_evokes_irrational_responses_from_the_left.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump: We need to profile Muslims - like Israel does - Arutz Sheva Staff

by Arutz Sheva Staff

In wake of Orlando nightclub massacre, GOP nominee calls for heightened scrutiny of Muslims, pointing to Israel as 'successful example'.

Speaking over the phone to “Face the Nation” on CBS Sunday morning, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump called for increased scrutiny of Muslims in the US following a terror shooting in an Orlando nightclub that left 49 dead and 53 wounded.

While prominent Democrats, including President Obama, have called for stricter gun laws after the massacre, Trump argued the US needs to improve its tracking of potential terrorists, citing Israel as a “successful” example.

Blaming what he characterized as “political correctness” for the failure of law enforcement authorities to investigate radical mosques, Trump said that profiling Muslims, while unpleasant, may be necessary.

“I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country,” Trump said, noting that “other countries do it”, highlighting the example of Israel.

“[Y]ou look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it. And they do it successfully.”

“I hate the concept of profiling. But we have to start using common sense, and we have to use -- we have to use our heads.”

Citing security procedures at his campaign events Trump suggested profiling for potential terrorists would increase the efficacy of the kinds of screening measures already in place.

“We had tremendous numbers of people coming into a speech I was making. And people that obviously had no guns, had no weapons, had no anything… they were going through screening. And they were going through the same scrutiny, the absolute same scrutiny as somebody else that looked like it could have been a possible person. So, we really have to look at profiling. We have to look at it seriously.”

“And other countries do it. And it's not the worst thing to do. I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to use common sense. We're not using common sense.”


Arutz Sheva Staff

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/213823#.V2b01aKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Why Jihadists Kill 'Gays' - A.J. Caschetta

by A.J. Caschetta

To jihadist eyes, "gays" celebrate openly, in a very American fashion, what should be hidden.

ISIS militants stone a man accused of homosexual acts in Homs, Syria, in June 2015.

The terrorist attack by a jihadist in Orlando is not only the latest instance of an ISIS fighter killing Americans, but also a reminder that jihadists hate gays. Curiously, the organizations that fight for gay rights have been mostly silent about the dangers Islamic supremacism poses to their constituency. But then, as Douglas Murray puts it: "the battle for gay rights stop[s] at the borders of Islam."

To be clear, jihadists do not necessarily hate homosexual acts (prohibited in the Qur'an). They hate "gays." They may oppose the act, but they especially detest the "sinner" who makes the act his identity, rather than hiding and denying what most of the Muslim world tolerates as a common, if temporary, deviation.

To jihadist eyes, "gays" celebrate openly, in a very American fashion, what should be hidden. In Iraq, when the Shia militias round up and stone young males with "Emo haircuts," they justify it as eliminating satanic, Westernized homosexuals. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University in 2007, he said: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country...we do not have this phenomenon."

As veterans of the Afghan wars know, homosexuality is not unusual among our allies and enemies alike. A declassified 2010 Pentagon study indicates that "Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men...have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually – yet they completely reject the label of 'homosexual.'"

Most gay rights advocates have paid scant attention to Islam.

Long before Orlando, jihadists have publically executed gay men. In Raqqa, ISIS throws them off rooftops. Many Muslim countries rule by a version of Sharia law that imposes the death penalty for homosexuality.

Bruce Bawer, an iconic gay rights intellectual, warned of the dangers Islam posed to the West in general and to gay men in particular. Bawer witnessed rapid changes in Dutch and Norwegian society after an expansion of immigration by Muslims in the 1990s. "To them," he wrote, "the infidel's 'law' is a joke, and values such as pluralism, tolerance, and sexual equality are alien and immoral. They see Western society as the enemy, European men as wimps, European women as sluts." But there was a special disdain for gay men, and Bawer documents toleration for them in the heart of liberal Europe "slipping away like sand through the fingers."

The response to Orlando from gay rights groups has been tepid and confused. GLAAD calls the attack a "tragedy" but makes no reference to the ideology behind it. The ACLU calls it "a horrific event" and oddly ends its statement by expressing "solidarity with the Muslim community here in Florida and elsewhere" – as though Omar Mateen had targeted and killed Muslims.

Typing the word "Islam" into the search engine of the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) website yields a "No Results Found" message. The group's June 13 statement on the attack condemns "terror" but not Islamic terror. The GMHC might contemplate Bawer's warnings and consider the crisis Islamic supremacism poses to the health of gay men.

Will Hollywood celebrities' support for the LGBT community last longer than that for the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram?

And where are the Hollywood allies of the LGBT community? With very few exceptions they avoid Islam altogether. True, several made sure that cameras were present when they performed their #BringBackOurGirls routine, and many boycotted the Beverly Hills Hotel when the Sultan of Brunei (its owner) announced that he would henceforth rule his island nation with strict adherence to Sharia. But the attention span of the beautiful people seems short-lived. No one mentions the Chibok schoolgirls or their Boko Haram kidnappers anymore, and while the boycott has ended, the Sultan of Brunei still owns the Beverly Hills Hotel and still rules with Sharia.

Like most feminist organizations, most gay rights advocates have paid scant attention to Islam. Instead of (or in addition to) fighting Republicans and Evangelicals, or photographers and bakers who oppose gay marriage (Obama's position until May 9, 2012), a careful reprioritization of their foes might lead them to worthier enemies.

If so, I say welcome to the fight, and I humbly offer some unsolicited advice.

Seize the Orlando attack and turn it against Islamic supremacists. The celebrations of those killed, the concerts and telethons to benefit their families are natural educational platforms. Use them wisely. Call on your Hollywood allies and take advantage of their access to free publicity and legions of adoring fans.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, find the face of your cause. Find your Malala. It might be Hussein Sabat, Mr. Gay Syria, whose boyfriend was killed by ISIS three years ago. Sabat now leads the precarious existence of a gay rights activist from his exile in Turkey. His message is a good start: "Everyone is scared of ISIS but it doesn't stop me from living my life. I won't let them be a barrier and I hate them more than I am scared."


A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/6077/why-jihadists-kill-gays

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism on Free Speech - Denis MacEoin

by Denis MacEoin

The 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity.

• The 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried -- and are in many respects succeeding -- to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women and gays in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an "Islamophobe."
• Like almost every world leader, Obama declares, with gross inaccuracy, that "Islam is a religion of peace". It is politically expedient to deny the very real connection to jihad violence in the Qur'an, the Traditions (ahadith), shari'a law, and the entire course of Islamic history. They do this partly for political reasons, but probably more out of fear of offending Muslims. We know only too well how angry many Muslims can become at even the lightest offence.
• "If PEN as a free speech organization can't defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. ... I hope nobody ever comes after them." – Salman Rushdie, on the PEN members who objected to giving its award to Charlie Hebdo, after 12 of its staff were murdered by jihadists.
• The OIC succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution that makes "defamation of religion" a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. Last year, the US Congress introduced House Resolution 569, also purportedly intended to combat hate speech. It contains an oddity: it singles out Muslims for protection three times. It does not mention any other faith community.

One of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment in Europe and the United States is the principle of free speech and reasoned criticism. Democracy is underpinned by it. Our courts and parliaments are built on it. Without it, scholars, journalists, and advocates would be trapped, as their ancestors had been, in a verbal prison. It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, in the words

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Without full freedom to express ourselves in speech or in print, none of us could criticize a religion, an ideology, a political party, a law, an academic theorem, or anything else we might feel to be misguided, flawed, or even dangerous. Through it, we are free to worship as we choose, to preach as we see fit, to stand up in a parliament to oppose the government, to satirize the pompous, to take elites down a peg or two, to raise the oppressed to dignity, or to say that anything is nonsense.

Sir Karl Popper, the philosopher, wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies in defence of democracy, freedom and free speech. In Popper's open society, all people have to be able to think and express themselves freely, without fear of punishment or censorship.

Closed societies are totalitarian and depend on claims to absolute truth. The citizen is not free to challenge the ideas of the state. Theocracies, including past and present Islamic states, rest for their authority on the rigid application of infallible scripture and divinely revealed laws.

The chief threat to free speech today comes from a combination of radical Islamic censorship and Western political correctness. Over the past century and more, Western societies have built up a consensus on the centrality of freedom of expression. We are allowed to criticize any political system or ideology we care to: capitalism, socialism, liberalism, communism, libertarianism, anarchism, even democracy itself. Not only that, but -- provided we do not use personalized hate speech or exhortations to violence -- we are free to call to account any religion from Christianity to Scientology, Judaism to any cult we choose. Some writers, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, have been uncensored in their condemnations of religion as such.

It can be hard for religious people to bear the harsher criticisms, and many individuals would like to close them down, but lack that power. Organizations such as Britain's National Secular Society (established in 1866) flourish and even advise governments.

It used to be possible to do this with Islam as well. In some measure it still is. But many Muslim bodies -- notably the 57-member-state Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- have been working hard for years to render Islam the only religion, political system and ideology in the world that may not be questioned with impunity. They have tried -- and are in many respects succeeding -- to ring-fence Islam as a creed beyond criticism, while reserving for themselves the right to condemn Christians, Jews, Hindus, democrats, liberals, women, gays, or anyone else in often vile, even violent language. Should anyone say anything that seems to them disrespectful of their faith, he or she will at once be declared an "Islamophobe."

I am not talking here about hate literature comparable to the ubiquitous anti-Semitic writing so freely available on the internet. Much milder things have fallen and continue to fall afoul of Islamic defensiveness. We know some of the more obvious: a novel, a bunch of cartoons, some films, some political speeches, and a few blogs which have resulted in savage floggings, imprisonment, torture, death threats and murders. There is plenty of vulgar anti-Muslim comment online, just as there is plenty of everything in the public arena. But Muslim sensibilities have become so tender now that even fair, balanced, and informed questions about Muhammad, his early followers, the Qur'an, various doctrines, aspects of Islamic history, the behaviour of some Muslims, even the outrages committed by them, are rejected as Islamophobic.

Politicians and the media rush to disavow any connection between jihadi violence and Islam, and hurry to protect Muslims from the anticipated anger that massacres might provoke. Officials are not wrong to urge against reprisals or hatred targeting ordinary, uninvolved Muslims. But many often seem too quick to avoid pinning blame on actual Islamic laws and doctrines that inspire the jihad attacks.

Just after the horrendous slaughter in a gay nightclub in Orlando on June 12, U.S. President Barack Obama made a speech in which he described the attack as an "act of hate" and an "act of terror". Not "Islamic terrorism" or even the misleading phrase "Islamist terrorism". Like almost every world leader, he declares, with gross inaccuracy, that "Islam is a religion of peace". It is politically expedient to deny the very real connection to jihad violence in the Qur'an, the Traditions (ahadith), shari'a law, and the entire course of Islamic history. Obama and many others simply deny themselves the right to state what is true, partly for political reasons, but probably more out of fear of offending Muslims in general, and Muslim clerics and leaders in particular. We know only too well how angry many Muslims can become at even the lightest perceived offence.

The list of threats, attacks, and murders carried out to avenge perceived irreverence towards Islam, Muhammad, the Qur'an or other symbols of Islam is now long. Even the mildest complaints from Muslim organizations can result in the banning or non-publication of books, distancing from authors, condemnations of alleged "Islamophobes" by declared supporters of free speech, the cancellation of lectures, arrests, and prosecutions of men and women for "crimes" that were not crimes at all. There are trials, fines and sentencings for advocates of an accurate and honest portrayal of Islam, its sources, and its history.

Danish author Lars Hedegaard suffered an attack on his life and lives in a secret location. Kurt Westergaard, a Danish cartoonist, suffered an axe attack that failed, and is under permanent protection by the security services. In 2009, in Austria, the politician Susanne Winter was found guilty of "anti-Muslim incitement," for saying, "In today's system, the Prophet Mohammad would be considered a child-molester," and that Islam "should be thrown back where it came from, behind the Mediterranean." She was fined 24,000 euros ($31,000) and given a three-month suspended sentence. The phrase "child molester" was based on the fact, recorded by Muslim biographers, that Muhammad had sexual relations with his new wife A'isha when she was nine years old.

In 2011, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a former Austrian diplomat and teacher, was put on trial for "denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion," found guilty twice, and ordered to pay a fine or face 60 days in prison. Some of her comments may have seemed extreme and fit for criticism, but the court's failure to engage with her historically accurate charge that Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl and continued to have sex with her until she turned eighteen, regarding her criticism of it as somehow defamatory, and the judge's decision to punish her for saying something that can be found in Islamic sources, illustrates the betrayal of Western values of free speech in defence of something we would normally penalize.

The stories of the bounty placed on Salman Rushdie's head by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the threats and attacks against the artists who drew the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the murderous assault on the editorial team at Charlie Hebdo on January 7, 2015 are well known. Accustomed to free speech, open blasphemy, and satire, at home with irreverence for individuals and institutions, and assured of the legality of those freedoms -- threats and attacks like those terrify us. Or should.

Iran's then Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini put a cash bounty on the head of British novelist Salman Rushdie 27 years ago, because he deemed Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, offensive. In February 2016, a group of Iranian media outlets added $600,000 to the cash reward.

But even more terrifying is the way in which so many politically correct Western writers and politicians have turned their backs on our most basic values. There are many instances, but the most disturbing has to be the reaction of Pen International, the internationally acclaimed defender of free speech everywhere, to Charlie Hebdo. PEN International is known worldwide as an association of writers. Together they work tirelessly for the freedom of authors from imprisonment, torture, or other restrictions on their freedom to write honestly and controversially. In 2015, PEN's American Center planned to present its annual Freedom of Expression Award during its May 5 gala to Charlie Hebdo. The award was to be handed to Gerard Biart, the publication's editor-in-chief, and to Jean-Baptiste Thorat, a staff member who arrived late on the day when Muslim radicals slaughtered twelve of his colleagues. This is the sort of thing PEN does well: upholding everyone's right to speak out even when offence is taken.

When, however, this was announced, six PEN members, almost predictably, condemned the decision to give the award to Charlie Hebdo, and refused to attend the gala. Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi exercised their right to double standards by blaming Charlie Hebdo for its offensiveness. Kushner expressed her discomfort with the magazine's "cultural intolerance." Does that mean that PEN should never have supported Salman Rushdie for having offended millions of Muslims just to express his feelings about Islam?

Peter Carey expressed his support, not for the satirists, but for the Muslim minority in France, speaking of "PEN's seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation, which does not recognize its moral obligation to a large and disempowered segment of their population." We never heard Carey speaking out when a young Jewish man, Ilan Halimi, was tortured to death for weeks in France, or when Jews in Toulouse were shot and killed. He seems to be saying that the French government should shut up any writer or artist who offends the extreme sensitivities of a small percent of its population.

Teju Cole remarked, in the wake of the killings, that Charlie Hebdo claimed to offend all parties but had recently "gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations." But Islam is not a race, and the magazine has never been racist, so why charge that in response to the sort of free speech PEN has always worked hard to advance?

A sensible and nuanced rebuttal of these charges came from Salman Rushdie himself, a former president of PEN:

"If PEN as a free speech organization can't defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organization is not worth the name. What I would say to both Peter and Michael and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them."

Those six later morphed into something like one hundred and forty-five. By April 30, Carey and the others were joined by another one hundred and thirty-nine members who signed a protest petition. Writers, some distinguished, some obscure, had taken up their pens to defy the principle of free speech in an organization dedicated to free speech -- many of whom live in a land that protects free speech in its First Amendment precisely for their benefit.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation had succeeded in winning a UN Human Rights Council resolution (16/18, 2010) that makes "defamation of religion" (read: blasphemy in the eyes of its followers) a crime. But the OIC knows full well that only Muslims are likely to use Western laws to deny free speech about their own faith. Five years later, in December 2015, the US Congress introduced House Resolution 569, intended to combat hate speech and other crimes. Insofar as it addresses matters of genuine concern to us all, it seems beyond reproach. But it contains an oddity. It singles out Muslims for protection three times. It does not mention any other faith community.

The greatest defence of our democracy, our freedom, our openness to political and religious debate, and our longing to live in Popper's open society without hindrance -- namely freedom of expression -- is now under serious threat. The West survived the totalitarianism of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union without any loss of our freedoms. But today, a new enemy has arisen, global in its reach, more and more often militant in its expression, rooted in 1.6 billion people, seated at the UN and other international bodies, and already partially cowing us into submission to its repressive prejudices. Since the edict against Salman Rushdie, there is no way of calculating how many books have been shelved, how many television documentaries have never been aired, how many film scripts have been tossed in the waste bin, how many conferences have been cancelled or torn down, or how many killers are waiting in the wings for the next book, or poem, or song or sport that will transgress the strictures of Islamic law and doctrine.
 

 

Denis MacEoin PhD is a specialist in Islamic affairs. He is currently writing a study of concerns about Islam in the Western world.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8280/islamic-fundamentalism-free-speech

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

French-Tunisian Imam Hassen Chalghoumi: I Am Proud To Be French, I Fear A Muslim Holocaust - MEMRI

by MEMRI

If we do not reform ourselves – our moral values and our conduct – and curb the high rate of extremism in our midst... We accuse everybody of heresy. Do we represent 'a mercy for Mankind' or are we the enemies of Mankind?

French-Tunisian Imam Hassen Chalghoumi explained his interest in the Holocaust by saying that Islam "denounces violence and killing" and that the Prophet Muhammad instructed Muslims "to stand by the oppressed." In an interview with Al-Mouwatin ! Radio from Belgium, Chalghoumi, who is the imam of the Drancy mosque in Seine-Saint-Denis, said that he fears another holocaust, this time against Muslims. Chalghoumi fended off accusations of treason by contending that he was helping the Palestinian cause the way he saw fit. He denounced the "rhetoric of victimhood" and said that he was proud of his country, France. A video of the interview was posted on Al-Mouwatin Radio's YouTube channel on June 2.

Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV

Imam Hassen Chalghoumi: "As an imam, when I examine the Holocaust, I say that what fas! cist Nazism did to the Jews is condemned by religion and by humanity. Why can't I say this? Does my religion prevent me from doing so? Absolutely not. My religion denounces violence and killing. The religion in which I believe is the religion of peace and submission, the religion of the last prophet, sent by Allah as a mercy for Mankind. It was He who told me to stand by the oppressed. Besides, why mix Gaza with... Am I responsible for Gaza? In 2009, I traveled to Gaza, Allah be praised. I was in Gaza when all the troubles occurred. We are men of peace. We call for peace.

"In addition, by talking about the Holocaust, am I not protecting the Muslims at the same time? Racism and hatred of Muslims are on the rise, and with ! all the extreme right-wing parties... This should motivate us to talk [about the Holocaust]. I have said time and again that I fear a holocaust against the Muslims. Indeed, a Muslim Shoa. It is in the works now, primarily because of a small bunch of people among us, who have tarnished the image of Islam and the Muslims, and have led people to hate us.

"Take a look at the moral values of the Muslims today. Why can't we talk about the moral values of Muslims living in common neighborhoods? Must I have bad moral values just because I'm poor? Absolutely not. I've traveled to Bangladesh, where the! poverty rates are extremely high, yet their moral values are the best. Have all the people of Bangladesh followed bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? Absolutely not. It's not about poverty.

[...]

"The Lord made Islam perfect, but we have defects. If we do not reform ourselves – our moral values and our conduct – and curb the high rate of extremism in our midst... We accuse everybody of heresy. Do we represent 'a mercy for Mankind' or are we the enemies of Mankind?

"I'm somewhat against the rhetoric of victimhood. Enough with it. We are always the victims... When will this end? When will we say: 'We too are responsible?'

[...]

"My country is part of my faith. Why can't we love our country? Why can't we love Belgium or France? I am proud to be French. I have been French since 2000. My wife is second-generation French. All my children were born French. Indeed, why not take pride in our citizenship? Is my religion at odds with my country? Absolutely not! This is what citizenship means. If we have not yet turned a new leaf on French-Algerian relations – what does Islam have to do with this?!

[...]

"In what way exactly are the Westerners hostile to us? Medical care is mostly free. Education is free. Knowledge is free. Okay, so there is a problem of imbalance, there is some racism. This is the nature of man. I am of Tunisian decent, and some people there were racist against the people of south! Tunisia. The people of the north don't want the people of the south. This is the nature of man, created by Allah. But isn't it our duty to persevere?

[...]

"People sometimes call me a 'traitor.' What have I betrayed? I am not 90 years old, but some people blame me for the establishment of Israel. How stupid and ignorant they are. We must release ourselves from the confines of conspiracy theory. Enough! People say that they have done more than me for the Palestinian cause. I have gone to Gaza. I have prayed several times at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is my opinion. Respect it. This is my way of supporting the Palestinian cause, and you can support it in a different way. Must we all have the same opinion? They talk about freedom for the peoples. They can't even afford to allow freedom of other opinions. If they could restr! ain me, they would. They would kill me if they could."

View The Clip


MEMRI

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5518.htm

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Hizballah set to fight ISIS for Euphrates Valley - debkaFile

by debkaFile

The former Israel defense ministers who harangued this week against the Netanyahu government’s alleged “scaremongering” willfully ignored this dangerous development.

Hizballah this week ordered a general military call-up for their biggest combat mission in the Syrian war since their forces began fighting in support of the Assad regime in 2013, debkafile military forces report.

Iran’s Lebanese proxy has been assigned the task of expelling the Islamic State from broad areas it occupied in the Deir ez-Zor region of eastern Syria and, in particular, the Euphrates River valley which connects eastern Syria and western Iraq.

This Hizballah offensive is designed to open the way for the pro-Iranian Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces and the Badar Forces militias which entered the ISIS-held Iraqi town of Fallujah Friday June 17 to move west and up the Iraqi side of the valley. The two militias spearheaded the Fallujah operation under the command of Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani of the Revolutionary Guards and Ground Corps Brig. Gen. Mohammad Pakpour.

The plan is for Hizballah forces to meet these pro-Iranian militia forces on the Syria-Iraq border and so gain control over the most important strategic land pass between Iraq and Syria.

Whereas the pro-Iranian militias in Iraq are fighting under US air cover, Hizballah is assured of Russian air support in Syria.  And so, for the first time in the Syria conflict and its own history, Hizballah will receive air cover from both the US and Russia, the two superpowers now coordinating their military moves in Syria and Iraq.

This strategy, which essentially connects the Syrian and Iraqi campaigns against ISIS, was charted on June 9, at a secret meeting in Tehran of the Russian, Iranian and Syrian defense chiefs.

debkafile military sources in Washington say that the operation’s plan was put before President Barack Obama and he sanctioned it as part of the war on ISIS.

In the run-up to the Syrian segment of the plan, Hizballah is transferring substantial combat strength from Lebanon into Syria, and emptying its other Syrian fronts, especially around Aleppo, for the large-scale concentration around Palmyra.

The Hizballah force will start out by targeting the Syrian town of Al-Sukhna, 63km south of Palmyra and 136km north of Deir ez-Zor, thus gaining command of M20, the main highway link between northern to eastern Syria. debkafile military sources say that this military offensive by Hizballah against ISIS, with combined US-Russian support, threatens to transform a terrorist organization dedicated to fighting Israel in the service of Iran into one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East. Israel cannot stop this happening. The former Israel defense ministers who harangued this week against the Netanyahu government’s alleged “scaremongering” willfully ignored this dangerous development. They must also be held at least partly accountable for the failure of Israel’s air raids over Syria to diminish Hizballah’s military capabilities.


debkaFile

Source: http://www.debka.com/article/25490/Hizballah-set-to-fight-ISIS-for-Euphrates-Valley

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Dr. Irving Moskowitz Baruch Dayan Emet - Ronn Torossian

by Ronn Torossian

Dr. Irving Moskowitz dedicated himself thoroughly to his family and people.

The world today buries a Jewish hero, a man who has rightfully been called the Montefiore and Rothschild of our time, Dr. Irving Moskowitz.  One of the foremost philanthropists in the Jewish world, he had a steadfast dedication to the Jewish people and his commitment and legacy will live on forever.

Condolences to his wife Cherna, his wife and partner for the past sixty years, a true Eishet Chayil [Editor: woman of valor].  Dr. Irving Moskowitz was a holy man concerned with good deeds and doing the right thing. A man whose life work forever changed the map of Jerusalem. 
         
Irving Moskowitz was born on January 11, 1928 in New York City, the ninth of thirteen children. He was a semi-professional baseball player before entering the University of Wisconsin where he received the Phi Beta Sigma scholastic award for academic excellence.  After receiving his Bachelor's Degree in Medical Science, Dr. Moskowitz began practicing medicine in Long Beach, California and then transformed his career as a physician into an entrepreneurial career building and managing hospitals.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz dedicated himself thoroughly to his family and people.

As The Irving Moskowitz Foundation website notes, the man believed “…that everyone should have the opportunity to succeed in life. He believes in extending to a disadvantaged student the scholarship that will enhance his or her life by ensuring that a child experiences the pride, fun and teamwork of playing on a sports team; or in seeing that inner city sixth graders have an outdoor, hands-on learning experience at science camp.”

Dr. Moskowitz said, “I remember growing up hungry, but I cannot sit idly by and watch children in our community grow up without food to eat.”  He helped so many, so often, quietly to help people in need “regardless of race, creed, politics or religion.” 

Over the more than twenty years I knew the man, I found him to be clear minded, devoted, passionate, humble and caring. He worked tirelessly to make a difference and do the right thing.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz realized the difference every single person can make in this world.  Israel and Jewish issues were foremost on his philanthropic priorities. Dr. Irving Moskowitz was deeply influenced by the fact that he often lost 120 family members in the Holocaust, noting that his tireless work was about “doing the natural thing for a Jew – trying to save our nation.” As he said, “What could be more natural for a person with [my] upbringing than to want to help his people in Israel who are being surrounded by people that want to destroy the country?”

The great prophet Hillel noted: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?” Dr. Irving Moskowitz epitomized this quote.

Baruch Dayan Emet [Editor: Blessed be the True Judge].

May his wife Cherna, eight children and more than forty grandchildren be comforted among the mourners of Zion.  May the remarkable life and dedication of Dr. Irving Moskowitz to keeping Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel be a legacy for all of the Jewish people.


Ronn Torossian

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19056#.V2b41aKzdds

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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