UN Security Council Res. 2334: A Victory of Jihadism

UN Security Council Resolution 2334, adopted on December 23, 2016, politically reinforces UNESCO’s resolution that erased the history of Israel in its historical homeland in order to replace it with the Koranic version of the Bible.

This UN resolution once again proves that there is Islamic control over the politics and culture of international institutions. Led astray from their primary mission, these international organizations have become tools of corruption or terrorism, reinforcing global Islamic power. But let us not forget that those who vote are Heads of State, fully conscious and responsible individuals, motivated by interests and ideologies that are often criminal, and not all of which represent the opinions of their people whom they tyrannize, including those from European “democracies”. Their latest resolutions not only confirm the victory of jihadism and illiteracy: they also express the success of the years of effort made by this post-war Europe that continues to destroy, defame and delegitimize the Hebrew State in the name of Islamic justice. The beginning of this long journey dates back to 1967, in France.

So what are these Israeli “settlements” that obsess nations so much? Are they vast territories thousands of kilometers from Israel, across seas and oceans? How did this so few people “conquer” them? Let us remind ourselves of the facts: in 1948, the Arab League declared jihad to destroy the Jewish State. The armies of five Arab States crossed the borders of Palestine, where the San Remo Resolution (1920) had recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish National Home. Egypt seized Gaza, Syria stood their ground on the Golan, and Transjordan colonized the Judea and Samaria Area and the old city of Jerusalem. Their Jewish inhabitants were killed or driven out by the Arab colonists, who seized their belongings and homes and destroyed their synagogues and cemeteries. Fighting ceased on armistice and cease-fire lines (1949), there was no peace and no international borders were recognized. But, to the great disappointment of millions of Nazi Europeans and their collaborators, Israel was not wiped out. It also welcomed most of the million Jews who had been robbed and driven out of Arab countries. No European nation protested against the Islamic colonization of Jewish-Palestinian areas, the expulsion of their Jewish inhabitants and the seizure of their belongings, or against the persecution of Jews in Arab countries. Between 1949 and 1967, the Israelis who had been brought together in a confined area without any international borders endured endless jihadist attacks from their neighbors.

In 1967, once again, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Transjordan invaded Israel to destroy it, but this time Israel took back all the land that had been seized in 1949, and that had become cleansed of Jews [Judenrein], Arabized and Islamized. These were areas from which the Palestinian Jews had been driven out, and to which Europe referred as Jewish “settlements” when in reality they became Arab colonies. They are called Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

The 1967 war ended with an Arab defeat. Once again, the Arab camp refused peace, and armistice lines separated the fighters. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) recommended the solution of two waves of refugees – both Arab and Jewish – and the conditions of a peace, to be negotiated between Israel and the Arab States that had occupied and colonized Palestinian territories, expelling or killing all its Palestinian Jewish inhabitants in 1949. It did not mention the Palestinians Arabs as a distinct people: they did not exist at that time. The Arabs, determined to destroy Israel, rejected this resolution.

Israel’s lightning victory in 1967 humiliated France, which, after its deadly decolonization wars and the loss of countless Muslim colonies, was keen to move closer to the Arabs by playing the anti-Semitic card. Resolution 242 had been written in English, and France translated it into French, falsifying it in the process, by inserting the word “the” before “territories”, a word that had been bitterly fought against during the negotiations to make explicit that not all of the disputed land was to be included. It is this French mistranslation that has now been imposed.

France had close links with the Palestinian leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and an ally of Hitler and the Vichy government. This alliance created the “Palestinian people”, invented by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, the nephew of the Mufti and the representative of the PLO. France, which had saved the Mufti from the Nuremberg trials by hiding him, was the first to recognize Arafat in 1969 and impose him on the still-reticent European Community. To secure recognition on an international stage, the “Palestinian people” used terror – by innovating airplane hijacking, by taking civilians hostage and by terrorist attacks in Europe.

Source: for MORE

How a pro-Palestinian American reporter changed his views on Israel and the conflict

IN THE summer of 2015, just three days after I moved to Israel for a year-and-a-half stint freelance reporting in the region, I wrote down my feelings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A friend of mine in New York had mentioned that it would be interesting to see if living in Israel would change the way I felt. My friend probably suspected that things would look differently from the front-row seat, so to speak.

Boy was he right.

Before I moved to Jerusalem, I was very pro-Palestinian. Almost everyone I knew was. I grew up Protestant in a quaint, politically correct New England town; almost everyone around me was liberal. And being liberal in America comes with a pantheon of beliefs: You support pluralism, tolerance and diversity. You support gay rights, access to abortion and gun control.

The belief that Israel is unjustly bullying the Palestinians is an inextricable part of this pantheon. Most progressives in the US view Israel as an aggressor, oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom.

“I believe Israel should relinquish control of all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank,” I wrote on July 11, 2015, from a park near my new apartment in Jerusalem’s Baka neighborhood. “The occupation is an act of colonialism that only creates suffering, frustration and despair for millions of Palestinians.”

Perhaps predictably, this view didn’t play well among the people I met during my first few weeks in Jerusalem, which, even by Israeli standards, is a conservative city. My wife and I had moved to the Jewish side of town, more or less by chance ‒ the first Airbnb host who accepted our request to rent a room happened to be in the Nachlaot neighborhood where even the hipsters are religious. As a result, almost everyone we interacted with was Jewish Israeli and very supportive of Israel. I didn’t announce my pro-Palestinian views to them ‒ I was too afraid. But they must have sensed my antipathy (I later learned this is a sixth sense Israelis have).

During my first few weeks in Jerusalem, I found myself constantly getting into arguments about the conflict with my roommates and in social settings. Unlike waspy New England, Israel does not afford the privilege of politely avoiding unpleasant political conversations. Outside of the Tel Aviv bubble, the conflict is omnipresent; it affects almost every aspect of life. Avoiding it simply isn’t an option.

During one such argument, one of my roommates ‒ an easygoing American-Jewish guy in his mid-30s ‒ seemed to be suggesting that all Palestinians were terrorists. I became annoyed and told him it was wrong to call all Palestinians terrorists, that only a small minority supported terrorist attacks. My roommate promptly pulled out his laptop, called up a 2013 Pew Research poll and showed me the screen. I saw that Pew’s researchers had done a survey of thousands of people across the Muslim world, asking them if they supported suicide bombings against civilians in order to “defend Islam from its enemies.” The survey found that 62 percent of Palestinians believed such terrorist acts against civilians were justified in these circumstances. And not only that, the Palestinian territories were the only place in the Muslim world where a majority of citizens supported terrorism; everywhere else it was a minority ‒ from Lebanon and Egypt to Pakistan and Malaysia.

Source: for MORE

False Flag Refugees, Deceits and Protests

Beyond the Cusp

Palestine, what is in a name? In that name is the greatest deceit in modern history, if not all history. What makes this deceit all the more malicious is the simple fact that everybody using or referencing this deceit are complicit in perpetuating the deceit. There may be a select ignorant few making up less than a single percentage point of the protesters throughout the world. Even the hordes of college youth caught up in the anti-Israel falsely identified pro-Palestinian demonstrations across the campuses of the developed world; certainly they are not all aware of the deceit. Well, actually, except for that single percent that are likely too simple to understand the difference between lies and truths, these protesters are also familiar with the deceit. They know that every time they chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free,” they are not calling for any compromise; they…

View original post 1,563 more words

Freedom To Offend

Canada is on the verge of passing what amounts to Islamic blasphemy laws.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Government is quickly proceeding to address unproven increases of “Islamophobia”— and he’s going to do it by curbing the right to free speech.

The government’s anti-Islamophobia initiative began in the form of a seemingly innocuous online petition presented to Canada’s House of Commons. Citing no evidence whatsoever, the petition made a bold claim that Islamic terrorism has been used as a pretext for a “notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada”.

The petition called upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.

That request — with no evidence, not a single case of Islamophobia cited, virtually no public input, and zero attention from the mainstream media — received unanimous consent by Canadian MPs.

The petition was followed in rapid-fire fashion by a second motion sponsored by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid which called for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to produce findings and recommendations within 240 calendar days of the motion’s acceptance. Titled “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination,” the Motion M-103 demands that the government not only condemn Islamophobia in word but that it also develops a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia.

Motion M-103: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

MORE…

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part VI)

30. Why have there been more than 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11/2001?
Ask those individuals. The primary victims of terrorist attacks are Muslims. Those terrorists are responsible for justifying their own actions. Islam is a religion. Religion is what is written in its scripture, which in Islam is the Quran and the authentic Ahadith that do not contradict the Quran.

Or maybe it is because of the thrice-repeated exhortation to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, and 9:5).

31. Who was Kinana, and what did Muhammad order should be done with him?
Where is this ’order’ mentioned anywhere in the six authentic books of Hadith?

Here again, Rizwan Khan hopes that you do not know that there is authentic material (considered so by Muslim scholars) outside the canonical hadith collections.

32. Does Islam have a Golden Rule?
Yes.
“O ye who believe! be steadfast in the cause of Allah, bearing witness in equity; and let not a people’s enmity incite you to act otherwise than with justice. Be always just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah. Surely, Allah is aware of what you do.” (5:9)

Khan doesn’t mention that this doesn’t apply to unbelievers: “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, ruthless to unbelievers” (Qur’an 48:29).

Source: for MORE

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part III)

  1. Why is Muhammad called the Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”), and the Model of Conduct (“uswa hasana”)?
    Because his conduct was in perfect conformity with the Quran.
    In Islam, the Quran is perfect: “This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it;” (2:3)
    Sahih Muslim narrates: “’Aishah said: The conduct of the Prophet (ﷺ) was entirely according to the Qur’an.” (https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/19/40)
    The character of Prophet Muhammad (sa), found in those narrations that do not contradict the Quran, is a Model of Conduct.

Indeed. And that is problematic given that Muhammad exhorted his followers to murder those who criticized him, consummated his marriage with a nine-year-old girl, told his followers to make war against and subjugate unbelievers, etc.

  1. Exactly how many prisoners of the Banu Qurayza tribe were killed while Muhammad watched?
    Exactly as many as the Bible commanded. The Jews of Medina insisted that they be judged according to the Bible, which was ratified in the charter of Medina. The Bible commands: “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-18)
    Sahih Bukhari narrates that “The people of Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh.” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/165) Sa’d bin Mu’adh decided according to the commandments of the Bible.

Source: for MORE

Kerry’s Speech Will Make Peace Harder

What if the Secretary of State gave a policy speech and no one cared? Because Secretary Kerry’s speech came after its abstention on the Security Council vote, few in Israel will pay any attention to anything he said. Had the speech came before the abstention, there would have been some possibility of it influencing the debate within Israel. But following the U.S. abstention, Kerry has lost all credibility with Israelis across the political spectrum.

This is why his speech wasn’t even aired live on Israeli TV.

The speech itself was as one-sided as the abstention. It failed to mention the repeated offers from Israel to end the occupation and settlements, and to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza: Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals in 2000-2001: and Abbas’ failure to respond to the Olmert offer in 2008. To fail to mention these important points is to demonstrate the bias of the speaker.

Kerry also discussed the Palestinian refugees, without even mentioning the equal member of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. If Palestinian refugees deserve compensation, why don’t Jewish refugees deserve the same?

Finally Kerry seemed to confirm that in his view any changes from the pre-1967 lines would not be recognized without mutual agreement. This means that the prayer plaza at the Western Wall, the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem are now all illegally occupied. This is, of course, a non-starter for Israelis. It is also wrong as a matter of history and law. Jordan captured these historically Jewish areas in 1948, when all the surrounding Arab countries attacked the new Jewish nation in an attempt to destroy it. Jordan’s illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Jews was accompanied by the destruction of synagogues, cemeteries, and schools, and the bringing in of Arab settlers to move into the Jewish homes. When Jordan attacked Israel again in 1967, Israel recaptured these Jewish areas and allowed Jews to return to them. That is not an illegal occupation. It is a liberation.

Source: for MORE