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

New Year Speech to the Muslim World

Obama’s first major speech after his election in 2008 was to the Muslim world in Cairo. His speech did not deal with the harsh realities of Islam and its impact on world peace. No Muslim authority shook Obama’s hand promising change, a new relationship with the West based on mutual respect, or a reflection on what went wrong on 9/11, even if they were not directly responsible for it. No Arab leader publicly announced an end to the Islamic jihadist and anti-Western hate education and Arab media propaganda. Instead, the Muslim world got an apology from Obama.

After Obama left Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood was empowered, and military rulers weakened and brought down one after another. By Western standards, military rule is shunned as an oppressive form of government, but in the Islamic world it is the only buffer of protection from the tyranny of total sharia that must be enforced by Islamic theocracies, such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim Brotherhood and then ISIS quickly filled the vacuum and the Muslim world is now on fire.

Source: for MORE

To the Muslim Brotherhood: Quit Shouting Islamophobia and Quit Attacking Muslim Families

Islamist front groups in Canada and the West have dragged the media and the political “elites” into their extremist messaging. Rather than learning about why extremism and terrorism come out of their religion, Islamists instead concentrate on preventing the victims of their violence from speaking out. They do this by shouting “Islamophobia” at every opportunity, and do so most loudly at modernist or secular Muslims.

The Parliament of Canada, for example, passed an “anti-Islamophobia” motion on October 26, 2016. Samer Majzoub, the president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, was the person behind the Parliamentary petition against “Islamophobia”; it generated some 70,000 signatures. The sponsor of the motion in the House of Commons was MP Frank Baylis.

Both Majzoub and the Canadian Muslim Forum have a rather long list of dubious connections to Islamist groups and the foreign money used to support them. This includes the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is the real intent of Samir Majzoub, the Canadian Muslim Forum and its exploitation of the over-hyped concept of “Islamophobia”? As noted, Islamists, including Majzoub, have a long history of dragging prominent people and organizations into their arguments about extremism, terrorism and radicalization. These Islamists do not use their influence to drain the resources of Islamic terrorism in Canada and elsewhere, nor do they seek to stop young Canadians from joining ISIS. They did not stop suicide bombers in Canada such as Aaron Driver or Calgary-based Salma Ashrafi, who became a suicide bomber in Iraq. They do not use their knowledge or money to dismantle the infrastructure of extremism, nor do they attempt to dismantle the historical and religious arguments in favor of terrorism. Rather than do any of this, they instead make it their priority to intimidate, harass or sue those who speak out against Islamist extremism and its accompanying terrorism.

Source: for MORE

America’s “Arab Spring”

The goals of U.S. President Barack Obama in the Middle East ended the rule of most of the “secular” Arab leaders in the area. His views may have come, partly at least, from propaganda on why Muslim people supposedly lacked freedom there. Obama appears to have been told that if all these secular dictators could be brought down, a magnificent Arab Spring would blossom.

This was, it seems, precisely the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood: to get America’s help to topple the dictatorships — then mostly military and secular — but then to replace them with themselves, Islamists.

The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood happened to be in tune with Obama’s goals in the Middle East. Obama’s first major presidential speech took place in Cairo before a large number of Islamic sheikhs and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They were empowered and given legitimacy by Obama. A scorned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not attend; thus, with the blessing of the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power in Egypt was begun.

Today, ordinary Egyptians link the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood directly to the Obama administration. Cairo was about to become the capital of the new Islamic Caliphate if Egyptians had not, after a year, come out in the millions to stop it.

The Obama administration did not appear happy with the counter-revolution, and the rise to power of Egypt’s current president, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and began doing everything it could to thwart it.

Egypt was back to square one: a military dictatorship that it had once convinced the West was the cause of its oppression.

America’s “Arab Spring” adventure — to topple secular dictators to bring about democracies — did not exactly work as planned. Bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East failed miserably, but the tyranny of the Caliphate, which had been the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in the first place, was building. After Egypt took down the Muslim Brotherhood, the goal of establishing the Islamic Caliphate in Egypt simply moved to Syria, the only Arab nation where a secular Muslim leader had survived the Arab Spring.

Source: for MORE

Red Pill for Catholics

Interreligious Dialogue

Beneficial Catholic-Muslim dialogue requires a firm grasp of history and the other parties’ language. Participants have a duty to truth, not political correctness, as well as a duty of diligence and conscientious care for their own flock.

Moreover, since the discovery of The Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group, which details its strategy of penetration of Western organizations for the ultimate goal of establishing a global Islamic state (their words), dialogue necessitates prudence. According to Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate: “The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions.”

Analysis of the Explanatory Memorandum led former Pentagon analyst Stephen Coughlin to give this advice: “When conducting [interfaith] outreach with organizations identified as being a party to the ‘strategic goals’ identified in the Memorandum, the gain/loss assessment of associating with them should be undertaken in light of their clearly stated hostile intent…To undertake outreach…without knowledge of their objectives is to run the extreme risk of strategic manipulation….”

The Brotherhood’s goal is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.” The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, who coined the term “Industry of Death,” claiming that for a nation that perfects death and knows how to die, Allah gives rewards in both this world and the next.

Interreligious dialogue has been built on the rotting sands of cultural Marxism. In fact, a case could be made that cultural Marxism with its political correctness is the first stage in dhimmitude. The path to shariah in the U.S. is being built on these same sands, using Gramsci as a model, as Lafif Lakhdar, an Islamic scholar, acknowledged: