Friday 30 December 2016

Security Council Settlements Resolution: Shameful Betrayal by Obama | National Review

After a brief foray into the other side of the argument -- Friedman in the post below -- back to caning Obama and Kerry in the National Review.

Bibi Netanyahu Makes Trump His Chump - Thomas Friedman, NYT

Thomas Friedman puts the opposite side of the story about the Israel UN Resolution, in the New York Times. Opposite, that is, to the one I've been promoting: that UN Resolution 2334 is anti-Israel, flawed and the US should not have abstained.
But there are problems with his analysis, the main one being why didn't he -- why doesn't the UN -- put the Palestinian feet to the fire. Why is it always just Israel that's attacked and impugned? The blame may be partly theirs, but is surely not *all* theirs. Palestinian terrorism in Israel is most assuredly a factor. The failure of Hamas even to accept an Israeli state is another.
And what about the fact that Israel has at least twice, in 2000 and 2008, offered the West Bank back, and been rebuffed by Yasser Arafat and the PA. Arafat's response to the offer -- basically all that he had demanded -- was to start an intifada!
Not to mention that when Israel was established -- by the World, in the shape of the UN, in 1948 -- Israel was happy for Arabs to set up a Palestinian state next door in the internationally-designated territory -- virtually identical to what they now demand -- but were attacked instead. (And failed, as they have every time they've attacked Israel).
Not also to mention that Israel has handed back the Sinai and Gaza, both occupied in defensive wars. It's normally the losing side in a war that sues for peace. Now the World -- the UN -- expects Israel to sue for peace. To give away preemptively the land that's supposed to be on the table in the "land for peace" deal that all sides accept (or have accepted until now) as being a cardinal principle.
There are many good comments to the Friedman article.

Obama's malice, May's shame. Drain the UN swamp |

Good on yer Melanie! Another sane and sensible attack on the Obama - Kerry treachery from Melanie Phillips.

Israel’s right to build homes is settled … under international law

Look at the tiny sliver in yellow, that is Israel (you can hardly see it)
All the other lands were won by Islam in expansion "by the sword"
[Referenced in the article below]
More in this recent series of the Kerry/Obama perfidy, in the Conservative Review. This one's rather for history and legal buffs as it makes the case that there is no "occupation" and therefore no "illegal" settlements, which even to Israel supporters like me, is a bit of a long bow to draw. Mind you, only because the other side has been so successful in pushing the other side, even if flawed or even a lie.
Here we go again with the U.N. peddling the biggest geo-political hoax of all time — that Israel's control over Judea and Samaria is illegal, that it belongs to a distinct Arab people called "Palestinians," and that the source of Islamist mayhem across the globe is a smattering of Jewish homes being built in their ancestral land. Land, which by the way, is virtually invisible on a map compared to the mass of land controlled by Islam. 

Security Council Settlements Resolution: Shameful Betrayal by Obama | National Review

More on John Kerry's shameful speech on Israel. His voicing Obama's betrayal of an ally, the only democracy in the Middle East, in the National Review

Thursday 29 December 2016

Undergraduate ramble lacking context, reality. John Kerry's awful speech.

Greg Sheridan's article in The Australian
John Kerry's imitation of Fidel Castro, with a speech as long and as mournful and as useless as those the Cuban dictator frequently delivered, helps explain why he was such a dismal failure as US Secretary of State.
Kerry's meandering speech blamed Israel for the failure so far to achieve a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
The problem is, it read like the speech of an earnest undergraduate who has just come to the issue through the reporting of al-Jazeera and CNN and has no background in historic reality.
The Kerry speech lacked all context, proportion, balance, history and any sense of reality.
Australians have long understood that Kerry was an extremely mediocre choice for secretary of state. In the published diaries of former foreign minister Bob Carr there is a long cable from then ambassador Kim Beazley concerning Kerry's appointment.
Kerry, Beazley said, had very little interest in Asia and almost none at all in Australia.
Beazley predicted, correctly, that Kerry would devote his tenure to trying to get a big historic prize for himself, namely an Israeli Palestinian peace deal.
For his entire tenure, Kerry has seemed disconnected from the real world crises of the Middle East, focusing instead on his undergraduate obsessions with Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered in Syria in part because of the strategic vacuum Kerry and his boss and their feckless sermonising created; Iran and Russia become dominant strategic players; Yemen and Libya collapse, but Kerry knows what his priorities are: to beat up on Israel.
Barack Obama has taken a characteristic personal revenge on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he detests, with a profoundly destructive and irresponsible UN Security Council resolution, which declares every Israeli living anywhere beyond the 1967 borders, even in the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, to be an illegal settler.
This means the Palestinians have no incentive to compromise and the Israelis are encouraged not to compromise either, because they cannot even rely on their best friend.

Good Riddance… — Quadrant Online Re Kerry / Israel

Another on John Kerry"s shameful Israel speech, in Australia's Quadrant
Note the first comment on a Greg Sheridan article, in the Australian.

National Review | Conservative News, Opinion, Politics, Policy & Current Events

Spot on:
The world is aflame with threats and instability, yet Kerry and Obama, petulant leftists with an Israel fixation, could not resist this last kick in the teeth to the region's sole democracy. They knew it would harm Israel's moral standing – now the delegitimizers can claim that Israel is in violation of "Security Council" resolutions – and give an unmerited win to the Palestinians. Perhaps most infuriating of all, they claim to be doing it all for Israel's own good.
Too bad they couldn't follow their own advice: "Don't do stupid s**t."

Obama’s Fitting Finish - WSJ

Commentators on left and right are agreed: Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster. Eight years of in incoherence and pusillanimity 
All are agreed apart, of course, from the man himself. He remains blissfully, if perhaps willfully, ignorant. So much so that he -- incredibly -- deems his failure to act in Syria after his "red line" was crossed, to have been a success, the "right thing to do". No, it wasn't. It was a disaster heaped upon earlier disasters from Iran to Afghanistan via his refusal to acknowledge Islamic ideology as the key driving force in global mayhem. 
Bret Stephens is sound. Here in this essay in the Wall Street Journalhe concisely summarizes the case against Obama's foreign policy legacy:
Barack Obama 's decision to abstain from, and therefore allow, last week's vote to censure Israel at the U.N. Security Council is a fitting capstone for what's left of his foreign policy. Strategic half-measures, underhanded tactics and moralizing gestures have been the president's style from the beginning. Israelis aren't the only people to feel betrayed by the results.
Also betrayed: Iranians, whose 2009 Green Revolution in heroic protest of a stolen election Mr. Obama conspicuously failed to endorse for fear of offending the ruling theocracy. 
Iraqis, who were assured of a diplomatic surge to consolidate the gains of the military surge, but who ceased to be of any interest to Mr. Obama the moment U.S. troops were withdrawn, and only concerned him again when ISIS neared the gates of Baghdad.
Syrians, whose initially peaceful uprising against anti-American dictator Bashar Assad Mr. Obama refused to embrace, and whose initially moderate-led uprising Mr. Obama failed to support, and whose sarin- and chlorine-gassed children Mr. Obama refused to rescue, his own red lines notwithstanding. 
Ukrainians, who gave up their nuclear weapons in 1994 with formal U.S. assurances that their "existing borders" would be guaranteed, only to see Mr. Obama refuse to supply them with defensive weapons when Vladimir Putin invaded their territory 20 years later.
Pro-American Arab leaders, who expected better than to be given ultimatums from Washington to step down, and who didn't anticipate the administration's tilt toward the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political opposition, and toward Tehran as a responsible negotiating partner.
Most betrayed: Americans.... [more at link above]

“Sacrifice black Muslim slaves went through in this country is nothing compared to Islamophobia today”

Linda Sarsour again. Last reported on by me in 2012. Her main schtick is Muslim victimhood. Here in full paranoid, perfervid bloom....

Tuesday 20 December 2016

One Law for All: how can you argue *against* that?

Below is from Mariam Namazie, and ex-Muslim, from her organisation, One Law for All in the UK.  The UK has some 80+ Sharia courts.  A scandal that they do. There's an enquiry into them, but the feeling around the interested blogosphere is that it'll be a whitewash.

"We oppose any religious body – whether presided over by men or women – that seeks to rule over us.” So say more than 300 mostly Muslim women, but also others from different faiths who have been abused in their personal lives. From their own lived experiences, these women are voicing their alarm, through a powerful statement published today, about the growing power of religious bodies such as Sharia councils.  Read the full statement.
In a piece also published today, Southall Black Sisters Director Pragna Patel states: "Our demand is simple: no religious arbitration of any kind in family matters. We want a secular law underpinned by human rights values to be applicable to all without exception. As the One Law for All campaign has continued to assert, this is the only way to guarantee freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. The challenges we face are too important to be reduced to a crude and regressive politics of representation".  Read full article.
Also published this week is devastating new evidence submitted by One Law for All to the Home Affairs Select Committee. It reveals how Sharia councils violate human rights, how discrimination and violence lie at the heart of the courts, how they are linked to the transnational Islamist movement, and why they are a parallel legal system, which must be dismantled.  The submission also objects to Naz Shah's line of questioning of Spokesperson Maryam Namazie and accusations of "Islamophobia" and "anti-faith" to discredit secular voices.
The evidence unequivocally finds that Britain is failing to meet its obligations to gender equality in family relations as specified in CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) by permitting the continuation of these courts. Read the full submission.
Previous submissions to the Home Affairs Select Committee by One Law for All, Southall Black Sisters, IKWRO, Centre for Secular Space, Yasmin Rehman and British Muslims for Secular Democracy can be seen here.
Personal testimonies from women whose rights have been violated by Sharia courts continue to be added to our website.
We are calling on black and minority women and men as well as secularists and women's rights campaigners to highlight why they are opposed to parallel legal systems and defend one secular law for all. Post your messages on social media using the above hashtags, including with your photo. See some messages here.
Please continue to support the work of the One Law for All coalition by donating. No amount is too small and every little helps. A special thanks to those who donate on a regular basis. We can't tell you what a difference it makes.
Please don't forget to buy tickets to the 22-23 July 2017 International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression if you can make it. It will be a historic conference - one that you can join for as little as £85 a day (including refreshments, lunch, cocktails, and a brilliant line up of speakers and acts). Find out more about the conference here.
On behalf of One Law for All, we hope you have a lovely holiday and New Year.
We look forward to working with you over the next year against parallel legal systems and for one secular law for all!
Warm wishes
Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie
One Law for All
077 1916 6731

Monday 19 December 2016

Donald Trump’s sharp contrast from Obama and Bush on Islam has serious implications - The Washington Post

Was going to post this ludicrous article in the Washington Post with some comment about its spurious moral equivalence e.g. between the Koran and the Bible ("revered by many Americans"), but see that commenter "Jason Born" has made the comment for me:
Again we witness a fatuous attempt to read Islam through a relativist prism that absolves it on any responsibility for the violence committed in its name and its ideological interests. To wit: "Many of its controversial rules, like death for blasphemy and apostasy, have parallels in the Hebrew Bible, a book revered by many Americans." Yes, to a point. But when was the last time a Christian or a Jew in America or elsewhere cut the throat of an apostate? When was the last time a Christian or a Jew (or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Scientologist, for that .matter) gunned down writers and artists for committing blasphemy? This false equivalency, this peurile collapsing of history into some kind of generalised all-religions-are-equally-bad narrative, is expressly designed to prevent us asking questions of the all-too-real prevalence of Islamically inspired killing whether in Paris, London, Boston, California, Madrid, Iraq or Syria.
Again: "the kind of Sharia jihadists want is not the kind most American Muslims want" - as if Sharia comes in a choice of seventeen flavours instead of being a coherent, principle-specific body of jurisprudence defined, not by Isis, but by the hadith and rulings of classical Islamic scholars including Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others, all of whom are largely unanimous in their rulings on killing apostates, dealing with unbelievers, the second-class status of women, the sanctioning of child marriage and punishments including amputation.
McCants makes assertions certain in the knowledge that most of his audience are ignorant of the facts, creating a hollowed-out space into which he and other apologists can decant fictional and dangerous misrepresentations of a truth that we will need, sooner or later, to face up to.

Friday 16 December 2016

How Algeria could destroy the EU

Wow! I did not know this in The Spectator. That the president of Algeria is near to death and that his death may lead to Islamization of Algeria and a massive emigration to Europe.
When Bouteflika goes, Algeria will probably implode. The Islamists who have been kept at bay by his iron hand will exploit the vacuum. Tensions that have been buried since the civil war will re-emerge. And then Europe could be overwhelmed by another great wave of refugees from North Africa....An Algerian civil war would create huge numbers of refugees. One analyst told me he expects 10 to 15 million Algerians will try to leave. Given Algeria’s history, they would expect to be rescued by one nation: France. In its impact on the EU, even a fraction of this number would dwarf the effect of the Syrian civil war. Given the political trauma that the refugee crisis has already caused in Europe, a massive Algerian exodus could cause tremendous insecurity....

Thursday 15 December 2016

French Terrorism Suspects Appeared Anything But - The New York Times

Yet another case proving that Muslims don't go all jihadi because they're poor, or disenfranchised, or deprived. Remember also the 9/11 mob: every one of those mass murderers had a decent middle class job and had been well educated. Ditto the 7/7 bombers in London.
In the German case, the would be jihadis are shopkeepers and teachers. Good, friendly family men. Just that they'd got all gooey at the thought of randomly killing their countrymen.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

Sent from my iPad,en.

Monday 12 December 2016

One Plus One: Maajid Nawaz - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

My Hero, the U.K.'s Maajid Nawaz just now on the Australian show ABC's One Plus One, here in Hong Kong. He's on tour in Australia.
Maajid says that his wife left him when he left the radical Hizb-ut-Tahrir. His wife is still a member. She has brought up his son, now 15, who says that his father is "not a good Muslim" and won't talk to Maajid.
Maajid says that he speaks up for Muslims of all stripes, feminist Muslims, gay Muslims, minority-sect Muslims, and for non-Muslims too.
Then, in answer to a question whether he questions what he's doing, he says that he does that every day. But that if he stepped down from his counter extremism organization the Quilliam Foundation he doubts someone would step in to run it because there are so few Muslims who talk like him.
The interviewer didn't ask the obvious question: if that's the case isn't this a big concern for the U.K.? That Maajid's family, his friends, other Muslims, think that he's a "bad Muslim" for speaking up in support of values that we fought centuries for and which are now firmly embedded in our liberal secular societies? What about that??!
It sure worries me. Maajid is just one man. And Muslims say they simply don't want to listen to him.
What hope is there? When a guy who spent five years in an Egyptian dungeon as a radical, reforms and tries to argue for a more tolerant Islam, but is reviled by his coreligionists? What hope? For an inclusive, secular, democratic, integrated Islam?

Sent from my iPhone

The World Fears Trump’s America. That’s a Good Thing. -

An amazing article to have in the leftie New York Times: The World Fears Trump's America.  That's a Good Thing.  Unusual in that it's severely critical of Obama's foreign policy. As of course it should be. His foreign policy has been catastrophic. The "red line" on Syria, ignored by Obama when it was crossed, was also a straight  line to ISIS and the refugee crisis. For that alone he deserves to be excoriated. 
During the last eight years, President Obama showed what happens when the world's greatest power tries strenuously to avoid giving fright. He began his presidency with lofty vows to conciliate adversaries, defer to the opinions of other countries and reduce America's military commitments. Consequently, he received rapturous applause in European capitals and a Nobel Peace Prize. In the real world of geopolitics, however, the results have been catastrophic.
Mr. Obama's passivity in the face of provocations and his failure to enforce the "red line" in Syria led Russia, China and other adversaries to seek new gains at America's expense. His promises to "end the wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan satisfied the cosmopolitan chatterers of Stockholm, Paris and New York, but they deflated American allies in Baghdad and Kabul, and emboldened adversaries in Iran and Pakistan. So severe was the damage that he had to send troops back to Iraq in 2014, and had to abort his plans to withdraw all American forces from Afghanistan before leaving office.

Sunday 11 December 2016

Veiled Bigotry in Germany -

LETTER to: International New York Times:

In Veiled Bigotry in Germany (NYT Editorial, December 9), you say: 
But the truth is that the bans [on face veils] are first and foremost a direct expression of antipathy toward Muslim immigrants, usually meant to appease far-right xenophobes.
The "truth is",  just because you say it is? 
Sorry, but polls show majorities in Europe and the U.K. support bans on face veils. Are these majorities now to be smeared as "far-right xenophobes"?
I'm a leftie myself (Remainer, supported Obama/Hillary), surely not a "far-right xenophobe", and still I support the bans. 
No other group of people can wear face masks in courtrooms, in schools or in banks. Why should Muslims be exempt?  This is a case of applying the law equally, not of discrimination. 
It's also a mistake to accept, as you do, the protestations of "Islamic leaders", who claim 
....that the bans lead women to feeling excluded from society, and thus facilitate radicalization. 
[Oh, how those Islamic leaders know how to push your buttons!  ... facilitate radicalization!]
But think about it. How much more excluded can one be than to wear a mask or the full body bag in public?  And that leads to "radicalization"?  Get real. And read something about the radicalization process. Read the Koran for starters. 
Later in your Leader you say the veil "poses no threat". Again, sorry but it does. There are numerous cases of crimes committed by veiled individuals, often men dressed in women's burkas, face veils 'n all. 
It is supercilious, condescending, holier-than-thou attitudes such as yours that enabled the stampede to Brexit and vote Trump, even by good lefties. 
Again, Get real. 
Shame on you. 

Peter F.

Palestinians were always willing to go to extreme lengths in Arab-Israel peace process | South China Morning Post

Answer in today's South Chris Morning Post to my earlier letter on Israel-Palestine. 
On quick reading at least two errors which I assume are deliberate:  
1. Madrid conference of 1999:  Israel did accept, not decline. 
2. United Nations Resolution 242:  Israel did accept, not flout.
Bazarwala fails to note the second main requirement of Resolution 242: that all parties (Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria) had to recognize all the others. Had that happened then Israel would have returned the occupied lands (the first requirement). The deal was "land for peace". Not "land before peace". With the history of attacks on Israel, how could any reasonable person expect Israel to hand over land on the "promise" of peace?
As to Bazarwala's first question: "... wasn't Israel carved out of stolen land from indigenous Palestinians 70 years ago?".  The short answer: No.  Israel was crafted out of land owned by Jews (bought from expatriate Ottoman landlords, often at above-market prices), and only encompassed land that had majority Jewish demographics. There's a detailed history here.  Sure, it's Jewish source, but read around the subject, and this is the conclusion.  The trope of jews "stealing" Palestinian land is simply wrong.
Scan of Bazarwal's letter below the fold.

Sunday 4 December 2016

Arab-Israel conflict was avoidable

My letter published today in the South China Morning Post. 
Letters to the Editor, December 3, 2016: Arab-Israel conflict was avoidable.
Arab-Israel conflict was avoidable
Alon Ben-Meir urges US president-elect Donald Trump to “pressure Israel” to agree to a two-state solution (“Trump must try to get Israel’s acceptance of a two-state ­solution”, November 19).
There is little to indicate that, as president, Trump will want to tread into a dispute that has been the graveyard of hopes for 70 years.
As Ben-Meir himself notes, even outgoing US President Barack Obama has failed in the endeavour, despite “supreme efforts”.
But even if Trump were to wade into these murky waters, why is it that only Israel should be pressured?
After all, Israel has repeatedly accepted a two-state solution over the last 70 years, whereas various ­iterations of Palestine have rebuffed all solutions.
On September 1, 1947, the UN Special Committee on ­Palestine issued a report ­proposing a split of the Palestinian Mandate along lines similar to those pursued by Palestinians today.
The Jewish Agency accepted the proposal. The Arab Higher Committee rejected it.
Just imagine if the Arabs had accepted the proposal. We would have had none of the murderous mayhem of the last 70 years.
Instead of destruction, there would have been construction.
Israel has 82 companies listed on the Nasdaq, more than all countries except the US and China. Imagine if this Israeli entrepreneurial spirit had been harnessed with that of the Palestinians. They would today be the mega-Switzerland of the Middle East.
They could by now have developed an Israeli-Arab-Palestinian common market, perhaps even a federation.
Instead, we have had attacks on Israel (all unsuccessful), ­belligerent intifadas (mostly unsuccessful), and the ­infamous “Three Nos” – no peace with ­Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiations with Israel.
How is one to negotiate with such intransigent ­interlocutors? And yet it’s Israel which must be “pressured”? There’s a great deal of hypocrisy among the ­observers of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay

Saturday 3 December 2016

General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis email about being 'too busy to read' is a must-read - Business Insider

This is a great read. I agree with everything Mad Dog says. I have myself a library of thousands on the subject of Islam. Mad Dog will be fully clear on the problematic aspects of that particular ideology. 
And, most amazingly, I was directed to this viral email by a BBC journalist. And this is Trump's nominee for Secretary of defence! 
Mad Dog writes clearly, thoughtfully and cogently. 

Fidel's Legacy -- a Dissident's View. Bret Stephens, WSJ

To Justin Trudeau, Canada’s puerile prime minister, he was a “legendary revolutionary” who “made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.” To Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s Labour Party, he “will be remembered both as an internationalist and a champion of social justice.” To Michael Higgins, president of Ireland, he was a tribune “for all of the oppressed and excluded peoples on the planet.”
And for Barack Obama, still president of the United States, he was a “singular figure” whose “enormous impact” would be recorded and judged by history.

Friday 2 December 2016

Why is the DNC considering Keith Ellison as chair? Why is Maajid Nawaz promoting it?

DNC: simple. It's virtue signaling. See how open and tolerant we are. That we would have as leader of our Democratic Party a Muslim associated with the Jew hating Nation of Islam. That's how tolerant we are.

Maajid: I don't know. why is he supporting Ellison's candidacy? It seems crazy. Many Maajid fans, self included, are puzzled and upset.