The Palestinian Civil War - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

​
by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

An article on a pro-Hamas site by a Mr. Ra'afat Mara is brought in translation. Mara expresses in print what Hamas members think of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority he chairs.

The tension between the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas Organization in Gaza is approaching the boiling point, as a result of several factors:

The dire economic situation in Gaza, the unbridgeable chasm between Hamas and Fatah's outlook,  a stalemate in Israel-PLO negotiations, the postponement of any attempts at progress between Israel and the Palestinians during the election period, the approaching date for announcing the US government's "deal of the century" - and the constant leaks about its content - the strengthening of relations between Israel and several Arab states and, of course, the lack of any chance on the political horizon that Israel will pack its bags and return to the 1949 lines.

Hamas is in financial straits because its flow of Iranian support has dried up as a result of the economic sanctions on Iran, while the economic crisis in Turkey casts a shadow on Sultan Erdogan's proteges, the heads of Hamas in Gaza. Hamas members in Judea and Samaria are being hunted down by Israeli and PA security forces, who work hand in hand 24/7 against the terror organization.   

The article I have brought below (in translation), with my clarifications in parentheses, appeared on a pro-Hamas site n early January 2019.

What lies behind Mahmoud Abbas' hysteria

An article by Ra'afat Mara.

"Anyone observing the behavior of Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, realizes very soon that he functions under tense, extremely difficult political conditions and that the decisions he has been making are bad ones and detrimental to all Palestinians.

"Anyone observing Mahmoud Abbas becomes aware of the evil impulses he harbors inside him, of how he is an extremist who thinks in terms of settling scores, is ruled by a tendency to take revenge and does not mind causing injury to every Palestinian as long as he can spew poisonous hatred in every direction. There is not one Palestinian or group of Palestinians who have been spared Mahmoud Abbas' blind hatred.

"His criminal acts have caused damage to Fatah itself, the group which has lost the most because of his unstable behavior.   

"About a year ago, Abbas made decisions and decided on punitive measures against all Palestinians, against PLO splinter groups, against the Gaza Strip and against Fatah members. He steadfastly ignored the demands of the PLO splinter groups which refused to assemble the National Palestinian Council and the PLO Central Committee while under the occupation and for as long as there is no real national understanding or peaceful relationship with Hamas.

"Abbas has ceased paying the salaries of Fatah workers, cut the salaries of prisoners, held back funds meant for the sick, suspended the agreement signed with hospital sanitation workers, and cut off Gaza's electricity. 

"Abbas publicized a decision to dissolve the Legislative Council elected by the people, thwarted peace efforts with Hamas and the establishment of an agreed upon government with them, dismissed the PA personnel at the Rafah crossing (which caused Egypt to close its side of the crossing) – and these are not the only bad decisions he has made.

"There are several reasons for this hysterical behavior on the part of Mahmoud Abbas, the most important of which are: 

"1. Hamas' ability to stand strong during the last year in the face of Abbas' sanctions and the siege he laid on Gaza. In fact, the Hamas movement withstood the pressure, managed to overcome the attempted siege whose objective was to weaken the organization, and did not give in. Hamas foiled Abbas' plans by means of good policies, national consensus and several steps that provided public services on the ground.

"2. Hamas continues to commit violent and armed terror attacks against the occupation in the West Bank.  Hamas succeeded in killing several soldiers of the occupation, raising the level of hostility in the West Bank. These operations enhance Hamas' political importance in the eyes of the public, while Abbas and his government played the role of security service providers who collaborate with the enemy and whose mandate is to protect that enemy.

"3. Hamas succeeded in creating a true Palestinian national vision that includes the vast majority of Palestinian society's components by presenting a broad nationalist  outlook vis a vis the dialogue with the PLO,  one based on reconcilitation, cooperation, free elections and building a joint government. Abbas played the part of the person who refuses to accept these suggestions, bringing the entire process to a halt.

"4. The March of Return sustained broad mass momentum involving amazing sacrifice and succeeded in achieving more against the occupation than one victorious moment because it united all the Palestinian forces and the masses of our people, in the country, and out of it in the Hamas camp.

"5. Hamas proved that it is in its power to neutralize disagreements with several influential states in the region, maintain the dialogue it began with them, and develop relations with these states. 

"6. There is a strong mutual understanding between the American government and the occupying government. It is this understanding that will bring us "the deal of the century" and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the occupation. This has put to an end to Mahmoud Abbas' hopes to begin to settle the conflict with Israel, to the idea of a Palestinian State (on a portion of Palestine), legitimized the settlements, cancelled the right of return and presented the PLO as a terror organization. What this means is the collapse of Abu Mazen's dream of negotiations.

"7.  The Palestinian public, both within Falestin and outside it, supports Hamas. This received strong expression in more than one way, from free elections held in the universities and elections taking place in countries allowing Palestinian refugees within their borders, as Hamas (as opposed to the PLO) is willing to back the refugees in their pursuit of rights and reparations as well as to protect them.

"These and other reasons contributed to turning Mahmoud Abbas into the person standing in the way of nationalist dialogue, the person destroying national Palestinian aspirations and the enemy of the opposition, without his achieving the political quid pro quo for his aid to the occupation. Over the past few weeks he has raised the level of his declarations  Protecting the occupation, careful to preserve the security coordination (with Israel) and refusing to accept any form of opposition.

"The problem is that the biggest loser as a result of Abbas' hysterical behavior is the Palestinian issue and Palestinian national aspirations as well as the heroic shaheeds, wounded and imprisoned, of whom the Barghouti and Na'alwa families are living paradigms (families of the terrorists who murdered Jews in recent months)."

Mr. Ra'afat's article ends here. He put pen to paper and expressed what Hamas members think of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority he chairs.  

Abbas and his Fatah cohorts, however, did not let him have the last word: They speak constantly about the terrible injury Hamas inflicted on the Palestinian dream when it took over Gaza by force of arms, an eye-opener that led to Israel's realizing that the same violence would occur if a Palestinian state were to be established in Judea and Samaria.

The split between the two forces limits the ability of the Palestinian Arabs to maneuver because it is not clear to the world who represents the Palestinians and who is actually responsible for their fate. The split allows hostile elements such as Iran to entrench their influence in Palestinian Arab society, against the Palestinian desire to take control of their own decision-making. As a result of the split and the accusations hurled from Gaza, as seen in the article brought here, it is clear that Hamas is supported by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, bringing the probability that Israel will allow the establishment of a Palestinian state there close to zero.

Abbas' supporters claim that Hamas is responsible for the suffering of Gaza residents, because the Hamas takeover put them in charge of what happens in the Strip. Since he has no control over what happens with the money he transfers to Gaza, Abbas, accordingly, has ceased funding the Strip. 

In the final analysis, the split between the PLO and Hamas, Ramallah and Gaza, Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, is not a controversy, but a deep chasm. And it is permanent.  The reality is one of two cultural patterns, two entities, two agendas, and the world does not contain a bridge long enough to connect the worldviews and behavior of the two sides.

The old and unanswered question lurks behind the scenes, awaiting a definitive response: Is there really a "Palestinian nation?" And the answer is in the negative. In the Middle East there are no nations, only tribes and the tribes living in Judea and Samaria are not the same as those living in the Gaza Strip. This is the incontrovertible sociological fact behind the political split between the PLO and Hamas.

Translated from the Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor Arutz Sheva.


Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23350

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Why Trump went for a 21-day suspension of the partial shutdown, and what happens next - Thomas Lifson

​
by Thomas Lifson

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation.

President Trump’s Rose Garden declaration of an end to the partial shutdown was a tactical retreat, a rejection of a Little Big Horn strategy. He found himself in a no-win situation, and rather than bear unacceptable costs, has redefined the contest on better terms: sending the issue to a House and Senate conference committee charged with coming up with a deal that prevents a resumption of the shutdown, and provides border security, something that Democrats say they believe is important. 

Making the best of a bad situation. Rose Garden speech January 25, 2019

Cropped from Fox News, via YouTube

It is important that Nancy Pelosi declined to rule out funding for a physical barrier. We do not know what was said in the process of reaching an agreement to re-start the normal operations of the federal govenrment for the next 21 days. 

Democrats naturally are gloating, calling it a surrender and admonishing Trump to “learn his lesson” and acknowledge his defeat by the wise and all-knowing Nancy Pelosi. This certainly gives them a sugar high while providing evidence for future use that their priority is humiliating Trump rather than attending to the needs of border security.

Nonetheless, as President Trump correctly noted in the Rose Garden address, it was an “agreement.” The Dems agreed to procedural rules that can be used to make the case for border barrier construction. The deal will be hashed out in the conference committee, which will then submit the same legislation to both Houses of Congress, with the 21-day clock ticking. Either chamber can modify the legislation, but that happens under the gun of the ticking clock.

Trump’s stonewall on the shutdown had to end because a choke point had been discovered by the opposition (a group that includes Congressional Democrats and government employee unions along with the media): commercial aviation. It was obvious when the Air Traffic Controllers demonstrated their ability to stymie air travel at the nation’s busiest airports that President Trump, having declared ownership of the shutdown, would be blamed for strangling the economy, and was on the hook for any air traffic control disaster that might, God forbid, happen. The Executive VP of the Air Traffic Controllers Association went on CNN to blame Trump for delays and safety issues. With the Super Bowl next weekend in the city with the world’s busiest airport, not only would business and family travel be impaired, the functioning of the nation’s premier sporting event was in peril. 

It may be coincidence, but this kill shot job action occurred in the wake of extraordinary signs that House Democrats were wavering in their support for Pelosi’s “not one dollar” opposition to a border wall – while the government is (partially) shut down. This gives Trump’s allies something to work with. Steny Hoyer, second-ranking House Democrat, already has conceded that a physical barrier is part of the solution – just not while the government is shut down. The Democrats now own the House majority because new members have been elected from historically GOP-leaning districts, and many of those freshmen fear facing voters in November next year and being painted as Pelosi’s pawns who prevented a border barrier desired by their constituents.

The Senate members of the conference committee have been announced:

The Republicans are Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Roy Blunt of Missouri and John Hoeven of North Dakota, and the Democrats are Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Jon Tester of Montana.

Tester won re-election in Montana, but cannot afford to be too far left. Leahy is the biggest camera hog in the group, and Dick Durbin is a chronic schemer. None of the Republicans are among the highest profiles in the Senate..

I have not been able to locate a full list of the House members, but Rep. Chuck Fleishmann, the Republican ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee is on it.

It is possible that the conference committee will not be able to come up with anything that satisfies both parties, in which case the partial shutdown resumes, but this time with the Democrats shown to be willing to shut down the government in order to prevent a border barrier. Trump will have met their demand to resume government funding, and they will have refused to meet him halfway. And President Trump will be delivering the State of the Union address at a date to be determined, but before the shutdown might resume. This will allow the highest possible platform for President Trump to comment on the negotiations, with Nancy Pelosi sitting behind him.

Will the Democrats refuse to give Trump funds for something his base would accept as a reasonable start on the wall he promised? They certainly might, in which case the government will partially shut down again, with federal workers having received their back pay, but facing another bout of financial stringency. Would Trump then pull the trigger on a national emergency declaration? If he does, the Democrats will find a judge in the Ninth Circuit who believes that a district court judge has the power to overrule the statutory authority clearly granted to the president to declare a national emergency. What happens then? I think it is quite possible that the Trump administration will appeal directly to the SCOTUS, bypassing the Ninth in the name of a national emergency. He might even decide to take a stand against the new concept of district court jurisdiction over the entire United States. 

I have a guess, based on the fact that Trump has not deployed insulting nicknames for either Schumer or Pelosi. I suspect that in the discussions that led to the agreement to set up a conference committee both sides agreed that another shutdown was in nobody’s interest, and that a compromise would benefit both parties. If I am wrong, the Democrats will be going to the mattresses over a barrier free border, a position that may please Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but would not help the Dems win in 2020. 

Thomas Lifson

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/why_trump_went_for_a_21day_suspension_of_the_partial_shutdown_and_what_happens_next.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Ten Truths About Hijab - Danusha Goska

​
by Danusha Goska

"Diversity" should include Muslimas who rebel against the hijab.

In a city I cannot name, on a date I cannot specify, an anonymous woman and I embarked on a risky drive to an institution whose address I cannot disclose. "Aisha" and I had eaten, gabbed, laughed, worked and dreamed together. I had met her family. They were lovely people. They planned to kill her. She had violated their Islamic expectations. Thus our drive to a remote safe house. In the United States. In the twentieth century.

In January, 2019, after Ilhan Omar [pictured above] was sworn in as a new congresswoman, my liberal Facebook friends celebrated her and Rashida Tlaib. They made three false claims: "First refugee elected to Congress! First Palestinian! We celebrate diversity!"

No, Omar was not the first refugee elected to Congress. Jewish refugees, and refugees from Communism preceded her.

No, Tlaib was not the first Palestinian. Justin Amash, a male, Christian Republican, was. Newly sworn-in Donna Shalala, like Tlaib, is an Arab. She is a Catholic who supports Israel. None of the memes celebrating Tlaib celebrated Shalala or Amash. 

The third lie is that celebrations of Omar and Tlaib were celebrations of diversity. At the same time that liberals were elevating Tlaib and Omar to meme stardom, they were maintaining complete radio silence about a story that was rocking the world. Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun is a Saudi teenager who, in early January, 2019, escaped from her family and was granted asylum in Canada. Alqunun described beatings, captivity, and the threat of death for abandoning Islam. She insisted that her case was not unique, and that women in Saudi Arabia "are treated like slaves."

Also in January, 2019, the New York Times brought attention to Loujain al-Hathloul, who has "worked relentlessly to earn Saudi women the right to drive." For her efforts, al-Hathloul has been tortured, water-boarded, and threatened with, and possibly, raped.

Narges Mohammadi and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe are imprisoned in Iran for their human rights activism. In January, Mohammadi and Zaghari-Ratcliffe began a hunger strike. Iranian women activists like Masih Alinejad may be close to ending compulsory hijab. They've been protesting for decades. My liberal friends have never, as far as I know, mentioned any of these women.

If we pull the focus back and look at Arab and Muslim-born-and-raised women liberals don't celebrate, we find Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, Anni Cyrus, Sarah Haider, and Rifqa Bary. Islam's defenders have not only not celebrated these women, some have made death threats against them, and liberal allies have prevented them from speaking publicly (see here and here). Hirsi Ali's enemies prostitute otherwise honorable liberal causes to smear her and to guarantee that she will continue to require round-the-clock armed guards for the rest of her life. They accuse Hirsi Ali of being part of "patriarchy, misogyny, and white supremacy" guilty of "wars, invasion, and genocide" and associating with "white nationalists and far-right politicians" and "colonizers." Finally, she is "not progressive." Liberals have participated in the smearing of the Muslim-born-and-raised women mentioned above, and helped to ensure that these women and their allies, on university campuses and in much media, are non-persons. This is not diversity. It is totalitarian uniformity maintained by the threat of violence. Celebration of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib was no celebration of diversity. It was a selective celebration of two women who align with anti-American, anti-Jewish rhetoric.

Ilhan Omar demanded that US law be changed so that she could wear hijab in Congress. Nancy Pelosi proposed the demanded rule change, in order to "ensure religious expression." Liberals celebrated, the very same liberals who denounced Mitt Romney as a misogynist because, when asked how he would find female candidates for his cabinet, he replied, awkwardly but innocently, that he had "binders full of women." I asked my liberal friends why they celebrated Congress's first hijab. I received no answers. I thought of Aisha. I wondered if they know the following.

1.) Hateful stereotypes are deployed to prevent discussion of hijab.

It's hard to talk about hijab. Stereotypes get in the way. Not stereotypes of Muslims. Stereotypes of non-Muslims. "You bigoted, racist, intolerant Americans are not allowed to talk about hjiab because you are all Islamophobes who want to harm me."

Above a July 1, 2018 Vice article alleging that non-Muslims are violent thugs frothing at the mouth to destroy innocent Muslim lives, Vice ran an image of a sweet and lovely hijabi surrounded by evil, Islamophobic assailants. Nasty Americans and Brits ram their grocery carts into pregnant Muslim women's bellies; they push hijabis in front of oncoming trains.

All decent people condemn real hate crimes. At the same time, one must be mindful of faked hate crimes. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. These crimes were faked to silence any discussion of gender apartheid. One can condemn hate crimes against Muslims and at the same time condemn crimes committed against Muslim women in the name of Islam.

Masih Alinejad, Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, my friend Aisha, and the unknown others like her with no access to safe houses: we speak not for these Muslim women, but with them, Muslim women whom too many choose to erase in the name of political correctness.

2.) Honest discussion of hijab does not equal an attack on Muslim women.

Not all hijabis support compulsory hijab. The My Stealthy Freedom Facebook page features images of hijabis holding signs protesting compulsory hijab. On January 31, 2018, Tarek Fatah shared an incredibly poignant video. A short, stooped Iranian woman, slowed and bent by time, climbed up a small platform in a snowy landscape. Once on the platform, she removed her hijab, wrapped it around her cane, and waved it. She was imitating the image of Vida Movahed, aka "The Girl of Enghelab Street," who gained fame through a viral photo of an anti-compulsory-hijab protest. Movahed was later imprisoned. Prison guards in Iran are alleged routinely to rape imprisoned activists. Those who oppose free speech about hijab want to force this choice on us: love Muslim women or hate Muslim women. Their choice is false. The choice is between freedom and totalitarianism. We who support freedom love Muslim women. We support free speech about hijab.

3.) Islam's canonical documents define hijab as the establishment of two tiers of women, one superior, to be safe from sexual molestation, one inferior and subject to sexual molestation.
No doubt my friends who celebrated Omar see hijab as just another lifestyle choice. Their tolerant celebration of Omar's hijab, they believe, will be reciprocated by Omar's tolerance of their choices in attire – jeans and t-shirts, say.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid is an Egyptian-born, Arabic speaking, former member of an Islamist terrorist group. In his book Inside Jihad, Dr. Hamid quotes the Koran and authoritative interpretations of it. He states that hijab's purpose "is not modesty or to encourage observers to focus on a Muslim woman's personality. Its purpose, according to the most authentic hadiths and interpretations, is to create a society where superior free Muslim women are distinguished from inferior slave women … The hijab … encourages hatred for non-Muslim women who wear modern clothing."

When Americans like Laura Bush and Nancy Pelosi wear hijab, Dr. Hamid writes, "The women seem to be operating under the false belief that the hijab is a neutral – or merely traditional – fashion statement … But the hijab is not simply a clothing accessory. It harbors deep Islamic doctrinal connections to slavery and discrimination. Western women who cover themselves are unwittingly endorsing an inhumane system."

Dr. Hamid goes on to say that when he was an Islamist, he and his fellows despised women without hijab, and cursed them to eternal hellfire. They based this belief on the hadith that says, "The denizens of Hell … [include] the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked," that is, women without hijab.

Hamid cites Koran 33:59, that is interpreted as dividing women into two classes: Muslim hijabis who are not enslaved, and who deserve respect from men, and non-Muslim women who don't wear hijab. These enslaved kufars are acceptable as sexual prey for Muslim men. "The hijab … creates a feeling of superiority among the women who wear it (and their men)." Hamid cites Tafsir ibn Kathir, that interprets Koran 33:59 thus, as Hamid puts it: a hijabi would be safe from sexual harassment, "if a woman was seen without a veil, they marked her as a slave girl and could rape her without guilt … most Islamic authorities and scholars affirm this purpose of the hijab." Hamid goes on to quote various hadiths that support the above interpretation of Koran 33:59.

The dichotomy of superior hijabis = respectable / inferior non-hijabis = sex slaves is not of the ancient past. Modern Islamic websites reinforce it with scripture and interpretation "The respectable women should not look like the slave-girls from their dress when they move out of their houses, with uncovered faces and loose hair;" "the people may know that they are not promiscuous women," non-hijabis are "women of ill repute from whom some wicked person could cherish evil hopes," reports Islamic Studies Info, quoting canonical scholars. "The hijab must not resemble the garments of the kuffar," that is, non-Muslims, counsels the University of Essex Islamic Society.

4.) Hijab covers uniquely feminine evil.

Think about two features of Muslim culture that non-Muslims find it difficult to believe, never mind understand: honor killings and female genital mutilation. All three: honor killings, FGM, and hijab are linked by the same logic.

It is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on honor killings. The UN estimates that thousands occur every year, the vast majority among Muslims. In a typical honor killing, a girl is raped and her family kills her. Daniel Akbari, an Iranian-born lawyer and expert in sharia law, writes that honor killings are not random events, and honor killers are not lone wolves, acting on passion outside of society. Rather, in his book, Honor Killing: A Professional's Guide, Akbari argues that honor killings are not just condoned, but are demanded by Islamic understandings of women.

Honor killers are often not brought to trial. If they are, sentences have often been lenient. As some courts, under international pressure, have become more strict, killers have found new approaches. One approach might be called "honor suicide." The family informs the prospective victim that she must end her life. In 2006, a 17-year-old Turkish girl received a text to her phone from her uncle. He instructed her to kill herself. Some girls are locked in rooms with rat poison, a pistol, or a rope. Another approach is to assign the task to the youngest male in the family, on the assumption that courts are less willing to sentence young boys to lengthy prison terms. Families may be reluctant to kill, but the surrounding community's "social pressure and incessant gossip" drive them to do it.
Not just families, but entire polities acting on sharia law punish women for being victims of sexual assault. In October, 2008, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a 13-year-old Somali girl, was stoned to death for being raped by three armed men. A nineteen-year-old Saudi girl was raped fourteen times by seven men. In 2007, she was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. "Up to 80 per cent of women in Pakistan's jails are charged under rules that penalize rape victims. But hardliners have vetoed an end to the Islamic laws," Dan McDougall wrote in 2006.

Female genital mutilation is practiced by some, but not all, Muslims in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, India, and Southeast Asia. Various Islamic scriptures support FGM. The process, which ranges from nicks to the clitoris to its complete excision, and removal of labia and sewing up of a female's external genital opening, astounds non-Muslims.

Approximately ninety percent of women in Egypt have undergone FGM. Egyptian physician Dr. Nawal El Saadawi described her own FGM in her book, The Hidden Face of Eve. She was six years old, in bed, when unknown persons broke into her room, grabbed her, threw her on a bathroom floor, spread her thighs apart, and mutilated her. The pain "was like a searing flame that went through my whole body … I saw a red pool of blood around my hips. I did not know what they had cut off from my body … I called out to my mother for help." Little Nawal tried to summon her mother to rescue her from these fiends; she was horrified to recognize her mother among them. Later, Nawal saw them mutilate her four-year-old sister. "Now we know what it is. Now we know where lies our tragedy. We were born of a special sex, the female sex. We are destined in advance to taste of misery, and to have a part of our body torn away by cold, unfeeling cruel hands."

Research shows that "religious justification is held to be the strongest argument in favor of FGM." In other words, people practice FGM because they believe that their religion, Islam, demands it. Communities support FGM by stigmatizing women who have intact genitalia. Hirsi Ali reports that in her native Somalia's madrassahs, "kinterleey," "girl with a clitoris," is a standard insult. "Severe stigmatization of girls and women who have not undergone FGM are well in place." Any effort to stamp out FGM should focus on convincing Muslims clerics that FGM damages "reproductive health." Note that this World Health Organization publication does not recommend that Muslim clerics be encouraged to consider how FGM hurts women and girls – only how it hurts potential breeders.

Non-Muslims are confused. How could a father murder his own daughter? How could a mother participate in the mutilation of her daughter?

The answer may be found in one of the justifications for hijab. The sight of women causes men to sin. Women are required to disguise themselves. In the logic of hijab, women caused the rapist to rape. She should have covered herself.

Recently, a Muslim preacher described a Muslima who went out in public in a jilbab, that is a long, loose coat, but allowed her face and her high-heeled shoes to be visible. This exposure, he insisted, "tortured" men, because the sight of her face and her shoes forced those men to think about sex – "even though he didn't want to…he has to struggle with himself not to look at this woman."  "All this would be in the book of deeds for this sister." Allah "would give her a double portion of punishment" in the fires of hell for the thoughts that the men thought when they saw her face and shoes. "She is making these men seduced." "She is purchasing a ticket for Jahannam," or hell.

Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, the Grand Mufti of Australia and New Zealand, preached in a 2006 Ramadan sermon that Australian women raped by Muslim rape gangs are responsible for the rapes. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street … and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? … The uncovered meat is the problem. … If she was in her room in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred … the responsibility falls ninety per cent of the time on the woman. Why? Because she possesses the weapon of enticement."
During the New Year's celebrations of 2015/16, thousands of women and girls throughout Western Europe were sexually assaulted by Muslim men. A Cologne imam, Sami Abu-Yusuf, said that the sexually assaulted women were the guilty parties. "If they're half-naked and wearing perfume, it's not surprising that such things would happen ... It's not surprising that the men attacked them. Dressing up like that is like pouring oil into the fire."

In citing perfume, the cleric echoes Mohammed himself, who said, "She is an adulteress, as she provokes the lusts of men with her perfume and compels them and whoever else to look at her." Note the word "compel." She, the woman, is responsible for men's behavior. She forced men to sin by wearing perfume. These are not ancient ideas; they are the foundation of sharia law. Men, on the other hand, are allowed to wear strong scents.

Even little girls possess the weapon of enticement. In Iran, compulsory hijab begins at age 7. Hashim Almidini, an Iraqi-born Australian, featured a hijab tutorial created by an Australian cleric using his little daughter as a model. The silent, shamed daughter appears to be six years old. The cleric, though living in Australia, says that Western culture, lead by Satan, is "invading" Muslims. "Western norms" are Satan's tool. Hijab is the key battleground between Muslims and hell. The cleric blasts his daughter for showing her neck, her earlobes, and her sock-less ankles.

In January, 2019 news broke of a Malaysian textbook that warns nine-year-old girls to wear hijab to protect the "modesty of their genitals" lest they be sexually assaulted, rejected by their friends, and bring shame onto their families. The textbook includes an image of a young girl seated in a chair, her head in her hands as she slumps in shame. Azrul Mohd Kalib posted this image from the textbook on twitter, and commented, "Not only does this put the responsibility of preventing sexual harassment solely on the shoulders of a girl, it also implies that she had it coming!" She had it coming: that's the whole idea.

5.) In the logic of hijab, women without hijab are begging to be sexually assaulted.

If wearing hijab communicates that a woman is virtuous, godly, and chaste, lack of hijab communicates that a woman is begging to be sexually assaulted. Egyptian-born Dina Torkia is a successful Muslima fashion and beauty blogger. She lives in the UK with her Pakistani husband. In late 2018, she stopped wearing hijab. On January 1, 2019, she posted a video of herself reading social media messages she received in response to her decision. Reading the messages took forty-eight minutes. Again and again, one theme repeats: she removed hijab because she wants to be sexually assaulted. "Dina didn't get banged enough when she was young. Now she's opening up sexually." "U took the hijab off next time sure would be cock riding or a porn star," "YOU ARE A HOE," "The choice you made is welcoming you to the cock carousel, slut."

Samin, an Iranian activist, created an animation to support those resisting compulsory hijab. "Girls are forced to be liars … you censor yourself when you put it on" but, "If you don't wear hijab, they think you are a whore."

Mostly Muslim grooming gangs have been raping, torturing, and sexually enslaving British girls for several decades. One asks how grown men, husbands and fathers themselves, could commit such hideous crimes against little girls, some of whom they killed. Daniel Akbari explains. "For their entire lives these men have been taught that the women who do not wear a hijab and show skin are like whores … They also assume that only Muslim women who follow sharia rules for women’s dress and conduct, wear a hijab, lower their gaze, do not laugh or eat in public, and do not go out of the house without their unmarriageable kin men escorting them deserve respect."

Indeed, a girl who was abused by a grooming gang said that hijab was used as justification for their abuse of her. "As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over one hundred times. I was called a 'white slag' and 'white c- - -' as they beat me. They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress 'modestly', that they believed I deserved to be 'punished'."

6.) Hijab limits women's entire lives, not just what they wear.

Islam demands that "hijab of the clothes should be accompanied by hijab of the eyes, hijab of the heart, hijab of thought and hijab of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he/she behaves, etc."

Many Muslims interpret hijab as including the command that women not leave their homes. Koran 33:33 commands, "stay in your homes and do not go about displaying your allurements." Islamic Studies Info teaches, "woman’s real sphere of activity is her home … she should come out of the house only in case of a genuine need."

In her book, In the Land of the Blue Burkas, author Kate McCord describes her life lived in intimate contact with Afghan women who wear sky-blue burqas that cover them from head to foot. 
Afghanistan is frequently cited as one of the worst countries on earth to be a woman. The suicide rate for women is shockingly high. Some families raise their daughters as sons, until puberty forces them to assume female roles. And, of course, some desperate boys are groomed to be girls, to serve as male prostitutes.

One Afghan woman described to McCord why she would not dare to sing, even within the confines of her own home, surrounded not only by the house walls, but also courtyard walls. "'If a woman sings and a man hears her, he will think her voice is beautiful and will lust after her. Maybe he will be on the street separated by the wall or in a neighbor's aouli [courtyard]. Maybe he will never see the woman who sings, but he hears her voice. If that happens, he will want her. The sin is hers. She will be punished. That's why a woman should never sing, even in her own aouli.' The women in that gathering agreed unanimously. It's a great sin for a woman to allow a man to hear her sing."

The conviction that women's voices engender sin is not a "long ago, far away" concept. Modern Muslims living in the West discuss, online, the female voice as a source of fitna. Linda Sarsour's voice is allowed to be heard only as long as she is bashing the kufar. Were Sarsour's voice ever used to support the White Wednesday activists in Iran, or potential victims of honor killings, Sarsour would face the same death threats as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

7.) Many Muslims understand hijab's secondary function as proselytizing for Islam.

Hijab is assessed as an effective way to carry out the Allah-given mission: to spread Islam to all people until no deity is worshipped save Allah (al-Bukhari 8:387). Islam is spread through jihad, but also through "da'wah," or proselytizing. In the article aptly titled, "Hijab Activism," Shaema Imam writes that, "With Hijab, every public moment becomes Dawa." Clothing is used "to demonstrate what groups they belong to … The Ummah must cultivate a distinct identity."

In her article, "The Hijab as Da'wah," Dr. Aisha Hamdan writes, "Many scholars agree that the only reason a Muslim may live in a non-Muslim country is to conduct dawah and bring people to the true religion … In America, where Islam is the fastest growing religion (alhumdullilah), many people are coming to know what this head covering really signifies … The hijab, in effect, is an amazingly powerful tool for dawah … Once a woman begins to wear hijab she completes a large portion of her responsibility for dawah … Each time that she goes to the grocery store, the library, to work, to school, or to any other public place, she is spreading the magnificent message of Islam." One must do this because non-Muslims "are being deluded by Satan and following paths to destruction."

A recent convert to Islam wrote that hijabis "are a walking billboard for your religion … You could be helping open someone's mind to submitting."

In a March 8, 2018 post asking, "Why do Muslim Women Actually Wear the Hijab?" Saulat Pervez wrote, "Conspicuous in their head-coverings, these women have become ambassadors of the Islamic faith."

Misbah Awan wrote in the Huffington Post that "wearing the hijab is a form of dawah … They are targeting … especially youth … It helps to avoid linking Muslims with 9/11 and terrorism. It provides a way of bringing light and warm-hearted thoughts into young minds."

8.) Hijab is kept in place with violence, terror, and intimidation.

Many hijabis insist, stridently, that they don't need to be liberated by anyone, and that hijab is their personal choice. This is no doubt true. What is also true is that hijab is kept in place through violence, terror, and intimidation. No one can ever know if any given hijabi is a hijabi because of her own choice.

Hijab is mandated by law in Saudi Arabia and Iran. In other countries, hijab is kept in place with varying degrees of social pressure, always culminating in death. In Egypt, street harassment of women is routine. In Iran, there have been numerous acid attacks in the midst of calls for punishment of "badly veiled" women.

Aqsa Parvez's father killed her over hijab in Canada in 2007. She was sixteen. Bina, a 21-year-old wife, mother, and Iranian immigrant to Sweden, was killed in 2016 by her husband because she stopped wearing hijab. "'He thought that other people were making fun of him – it was a matter of honor,' said a close friend … a family member said, 'We came here far from oppression, but some people have difficulty living freely.' After he murdered her, Bina’s husband put a hijab on her face and neck." In 2017, a fifteen-year-old Iraqi victim of an honor killing was beheaded. A hijab was wrapped around her decapitated head, which had been thrown into a garbage can.  

Turkish-born, 23-year-old Hatun Surucu, the mother of a little boy, once in Berlin, Germany, "discarded her Islamic head scarf." To her family, "such behavior represented the ultimate shame – the embrace of 'corrupt' Western ways." Hatun was murdered by family members who conspired in her murder, and who said of her, "The whore lived like a German." Her youngest brother, 18, bragged of the murder.

In 2009, in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Mohammad Shafia murdered his three daughters Zainab, Sahar, Geeti – all teens – and Rona, one of his wives. As Michael Friscolanti put it, "the Shafia sisters were caught in the ultimate culture clash, living in Canada but not allowed to be Canadian. They were expected to behave like good Muslim daughters, to wear the hijab and marry a fellow Afghan. And when they rebelled against their father’s 'traditions' and 'customs' – covertly at first, then for all the community to see – the shame became too much to bear. Only a mass execution … could wash away the stain of their secret boyfriends and revealing clothes."

All of these murders, and thousands of others like them, are part of a cultural pattern: honor killings justified with reference to a woman's refusal to wear hijab. For every such honor killing that occurs, there are millions that never happen, but that are hinted at to rebellious daughters, sisters, and wives. You don't want to end up like so-and-so.

9.) Hijab is not intended to, nor does it, create a worldview where women's individuality is valued apart from their physical attractiveness, or where women are seen as anything other than wives, mothers, and whores, all designed to please men, but capable of damning men.

In a January 7, 2016 Daily Show appearance, Muslim activist Dalia Moghed insisted that hijab teaches Muslim women to focus on their own individuality beyond their ability sexually to attract men. That is not the purpose for hijab stated in foundational scriptures. Koran 24:31 advises women wearing hijab not to allow their ornaments to make noise as they walk. That is, it is assumed that a woman in hijab is fully bejeweled underneath her cover. Anyone who has spent any time with hijabis knows that they enter the gender-mixed rooms of parties cloaked in shapeless black from head to foot, but once they are in the area reserved for women, they remove their hijabs to reveal that underneath they are dressed in fashions worthy of the hottest runway. At such parties, women dance competitively with and for other women. The dances are undeniably erotic. YouTube features endless tutorials for hijabis on how to look hot even in hijab. These videos have millions of eager fans who lavish praise on hot hijabi YouTube stars. See for example here, here, here, and here. Linda Sarsour, America's most famous hijabi, is never seen without a full face of makeup.

Hijab manufacturers do not market their products as promoting women's gender-free individuality, but rather as beautiful complements to their physical appearance. One hijab manufacturer says, "In order to build a world where women have beautiful options for every occasion, we’ve designed the standard of luxury for hijab. Crafted from the finest pure silk, tulle and lace opulently adorned with bespoke embellishments, this collection channels timeless elegance." Hijab customers praise their hijabs based on how attractive they are. "Navy is a color I always need with my floral dresses and patterned shirts," and "Beautiful color - Perfect for Fall/Winter!! It goes wonderfully with my dark skin tone and adds elegance to any outfit," and "Such a chic sophisticated color."

Too, Muslim men are quite capable of objectifying women in complete hijab. Dancers at Arab parties may be covered from head to foot, but still required to perform what some call "Arab twerking," a dance that involves highly suggestive movements with the hips and buttocks. Women in full, state-mandated cover have been sexually harassed in Saudi Arabia, including by men who follow them on the street and grab their breasts, buttocks, and groin. Videos of this harassment has been posted to YouTube and sparked public discussion. The Mosque Me Too movement has generated hundreds of accounts of Muslimas being groped, fondled, and violated in the most sacred of spaces, including during the haj. One survivor wrote, "When I visited the Jama Masjid in Delhi, the man lending modest robes to women touched my breasts." Another, "I was ten years old and I thought my sister was gripping my hips as not to lose me in the huge crowd after jumaa prayer. But my sister was next to me and those turned out not to be my sister's hands." Another, "It's a terrible situation when you are in a mosque, in front of the kaaba, where you should feel the closest to God, and the worst thing happens."

Hijab has not solved the problem of the sexual objectification and exploitation of women. It was not designed to.

10.) Hijab's defenders deploy cultural relativism selectively and inaccurately to shield hijab from critique.

"It's just like a nun's habit," they say. No, it's not. Any given nun, from any era, violates several of the criteria for hijab. One can see her face and her hands, one can discern the outline of her form, and one can not only hear her voice, but her voice steers her church. Hildegard von Bingen, Teresa of Avila, Mothers Teresa and Angelica, and Wendy Beckett clearly did not obey hijab's dictates about remaining silently at home, submissive to their earthly spouse. Too, there is no Catholic analog to acid attacks to force women to become nuns.

"It's just a piece of cloth," they say. The Confederate flag is also just a piece of cloth. We must bring the same awareness, honesty, and courage to discussion of hijab that we bring to discussion of the Confederate flag. This discussion is not Islamophobic, any more than discussion of the Confederate flag is "Confederacy-phobic." I speak not for, but with, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, and my beloved friend Aisha, who, in spite of the safe house that gave her temporary shelter, in the end, ended up losing so very much that she has never redeemed. The heartbreak – and love – I feel for this rebellious Muslima informs every word of this article. To my liberal friends I say, please expand your concept of "diversity" to include invisible, silenced women you will never meet –  the nameless fifteen-year-old Iraqi girl whose head, wrapped in a hijab, was tossed in a garbage can, Hatun Surucu, the Turkish mother whose relatives called her a whore, and my beloved friend Aisha.

* * *

Photo by Fibonacci Blue


Danusha Goska is the author of God through Binoculars. Her writing has been awarded a New Jersey State Council on the Arts Grant, the PAHA Halecki Award, and others.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272630/ten-truths-about-hijab-danusha-goska

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

A Week of Military and Diplomatic Success for Israel; Failure and Humiliation for Iran and the PA - Ari Lieberman

​
by Ari Lieberman

On the political and military fronts, Israel outmaneuvers its enemies.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu secured another diplomatic victory for Israel with the dramatic announcement that Chad and the Jewish State would be reestablishing diplomatic relations. The Muslim majority nation had severed ties in 1972 following intense pressure from Libya, its menacing neighbor to the north, which at the time was led by the dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi. But following a visit by Chad’s President Idriss Déby to Jerusalem and a reciprocating visit by PM Netanyahu to N’Djamena, forty-seven years of animosity instantly vanished.

Israel’s historic diplomatic achievement occurred despite intense efforts by the Palestinian Authority and Iran to torpedo the initiative, and reflects a rise in Israel’s standing on the African continent and in the Muslim world at large. Indeed, Israel has much to offer in terms of military expertise, cyber technology, water technology and agricultural technology, commodities that are in high demand in parched, battle-plagued Africa.

Upon Netanyahu’s return flight to Israel, Sudan granted permission for Netanyahu’s plane to fly in airspace controlled by Khartoum. This may seem to be insignificant but considering that Sudan was once firmly in Iran’s camp and served as an Iranian transit point for arms shipments to Gaza, the gesture was remarkable.

Following the breakthrough with Chad, Jerusalem announced that it is preparing to host Mali’s Prime Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maiga in the “coming weeks.” The West African Muslim majority nation severed diplomatic relations with Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War but is now set to restore full diplomatic ties.

Muslim nations from the Near East to Africa are coming to terms with the fact that the source Mideast’s instability is not Israel and its conflict with the so-called “Palestinians” but rather Islamic fundamentalism. Shia Iran is recognized as a malign regional influence while ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood represent bad actors of the Sunni persuasion. In this context, moderate Muslim nations like Oman, which recently hosted Netanyahu in a well-publicized visit, see Israel as an ally rather than a foe.

Palestinian efforts to isolate Israel have failed miserably and this is a reflection of a rejectionist, maximalist political policy rife with short-sighted, unrealistic goals. In the arena of diplomacy, Israel, led by its savvy statesman Netanyahu, has completely outmaneuvered and outclassed the PA’s crusty octogenarian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

In addition to its political fortunes, Israel this week scored impressive military successes. On January 20, in a rare daylight raid, Israel struck what was believed to be a weapons storage facility near Damascus. Iran, which provides Hezbollah with $800 million in annual military assistance, uses Syria’s Damascus airport as a waystation for transit of weapons to Hezbollah. Soon after the attack, Iranian Quds Force operatives launched a Fateh 110 short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) at northern Israel. The missile, which is made in Iran, incorporates Chinese components and carries a ½ ton warhead. Had it landed in a populated area, it could have caused massive civilian casualties.

Israeli missile defense crews detected the launch and intercepted it with a Tamir interceptor fired by an Iron Dome battery. Israeli skiers enjoying themselves at the Golan Heights ski resort watched the drama unfold as Israel’s wonder weapon blew the Iranian missile out of the sky. As an aside, the U.S. Army recently announced that it will be acquiring two Iron Dome batteries with 12 launchers, 240 interception missiles, two battle-management systems and two radar systems to shield American ground troops from missile, rocket and drone threats. On January 20, Iron Dome proved that it is as adept at shooting down ballistic missiles fired by Iran as it is at shooting down Qassam and Katyusha rockets fired by Hamas.

Israel could not let the Iranian aggression stand unanswered. In the early hours of Monday morning, Israel launched massive and successive strikes against Quds Force munition storage sites, intelligence sites and training camps, reducing them to ash. According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the attack caused the death of at least 21 enemy combatants of whom 12 were Iranian, six were Syrian regime soldiers and three were foreign mercenaries of unspecified nationality. An Israeli warning to the Syrians to keep their anti-aircraft defenses in check went unheeded and so, Israel was forced to destroy a number of Syrian anti-aircraft platforms. The Israeli Army released dramatic video footage showing the destruction of Syrian anti-aircraft batteries.

Syria’s anti-aircraft defenses are formidable but despite the presence of Russian SA-17, SA-22, S-200 and S-300 anti-aircraft batteries, Israel retains complete air supremacy over the skies of Syria. Syria’s main patron Russia responded angrily to the Israeli strikes referring to them as “arbitrary.” But the Russians, who assured Israel that they would keep Iran far from Israel’s borders, have not kept up to their end of the bargain. A report which surfaced in Arab media alleged that a visit by Quds Force Commander, Qassem Soleimani, to a location less than 40km from the Golan Heights triggered the Israeli reaction. Israel’s intelligence apparatus in Syria is excellent and Israeli intelligence units had apparently been monitoring Soleimani’s movements.

This was a good week for Israel both militarily and politically. Israel continues to charter inroads on the African continent while at the same time, its military stands ready to check aggression emanating from nefarious elements to the north, south and east. 

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.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272651/week-military-and-diplomatic-success-israel-ari-lieberman

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Macron's Dream Is Europe's Nightmare - Peter Skurkiss

​
by Peter Skurkiss

Who can doubt that the French president will sell his soul to have a Charlemagne-like united Europe, ruled by an imperial elite like himself?

Earlier this week, France and Germany signed an update to the Treaty of Aachen. The gist of this document is that brings the two powerhouses of the European Union closer together in terms of economics, politics, and defense matters. Among other things, this is the genesis of the 'real European army' which French President Emmanuel Macron previously called for and for which German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in full accord with.

The signing in Aachen is highly symbolic. Aachen, a German city bordering Belgium and the Netherlands, was the imperial residence of Charlemagne, and from 936 to 1531 A.D., the place where 31 Holy Roman Emperors were crowned kings of the Germans. One way to understand France and Germany is to know that images of Charlemagne are dancing in their heads. Here is how John Pinkerton put it in the American Conservative:

Here in the U.S., the EU is often seen as some sort of woolly-headed utopian pipe dream. However, the core of the EU has always been something different -- something hard-nosed, not soft-hearted. The EU is ultimately about European greatness, in the spirit of Charles the Great, better known as Charlemagne. And he, of course, was no peacenik.

No, Charlemagne was no peacenik. He unified Europe as the Holy Roman Empire by the sword and a sea of blood. For this, he is called the Father of Europe. 

Who can doubt that Macron will sell his soul to have, Charlemagne-like, united Europe, ruled by an imperial elite like himself according to progressive tastes? The Frenchman may indeed see himself as the new Charlemagne. 

As for the Franco-German marriage, Pinkerton writes that the French are untainted by German guilt and are thus free to use their political skills -- and German economic might -- to create the European empire of their dreams. "In fact, the French have long seen diplomatie as their special skill. As Macron's predecessor in the French presidency, François Hollande, said in 2016, 'Through its diplomacy, France means to be at the center of the world.'"

And speaking of diplomacy:

Also notable of Tuesday's signing is that the Aachen document prioritizes Germany being eventually accepted as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which it mandates as a priority for French-Germany diplomacy.

A better proposition would be for France to share its Security Council seat with Germany... or surrender it to the EU. 

Why do Macron and Merkel want a European army? Who are they afraid of? Judging by their commercial actions and NATO defense spending, it can't be the Russians. Germany is fine with being dependent on Russia for much of its energy needs and with being dependent on the U.S. for its defense. In addition, the Russians are not a great worry. They are economically anemic, and their demographic profile is so poor that it's a threat to the unity of the Russian Federation itself. China? China is half a world away. And besides, the Americans will deal with them.

No, the enemies that Merkel and Macron see are the populists within Europe, the people who chaff under globalism and dogmatic rule from Brussels, the people who love their country and culture. These include not just the 'ingrates' of Eastern Europe like the Hungarians and the Poles but also the unruly Yellow Vest protestors in France and the Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) in Germany. Those are the ones who any European army under French-German control will be designed to subdue.

If you doubt that, look at what was said at the Aachen signing. In typical twisted Gallic logic, Macron said those 'who forget the value of Franco-German reconciliation are making themselves accomplices of the crimes of the past. Those who... spread lies are hurting the same people they are pretending to defend, by seeking to repeat history." Frau Merkel added: "Populism and nationalism are strengthening in all our countries. Seventy-four years -- a single human lifetime -- after the end of the second world war, what seemed self-evident is being questioned once more."

So either you're with us and our vision, or you're against us and, incidently, retroactively complicit in starting WW II. Nationalism is the new Nazism, and one needs little justification to suppress Nazis, right?

The facts -- and history -- are before us. Pinkerton writes the European elite have been longing for an updated version of the Holy Roman Empire for the past 1,200 years. This is why the city of Aachen has been giving out its prestigious Charlemagne Prize each year since 1950 for exceptional work done in the service of European unification. Not surprisingly, Macron was awarded the prize in 2018 for offering a vision of a new Europe. Merkel got her prize in 2008. Pope Francis got his in 2016. 

Americans may look at Macron and see an effete pompous ass. He sees himself differently. To his mind, Macron is clothed in regal robes, sitting on a throne with Europe at his feet. Reality is more likely to make Macron out to be like Hans Christian Anderson's emperor in his new suit of clothes. In any event, if not Macron, then someone else in Europe will aspire to be Charlemagne 2.0, and he -- or maybe a she? -- will not let the common folk stand in the way. Charlemagne didn't. 

As time rolls on, it will be shown that Europeans are willing to move heaven and earth to achieve their empire. Maybe this is why the Poles want to build Fort Trump in their country, to defend them not from Moscow but Brussels. 

This is bad news for Europe. The last time an attempt was made to construct an empire out of the countries of Europe, World War II resulted.

Peter Skurkiss

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/macrons_dream_is_europes_nightmare.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter