Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Palestinians: Tomorrow's Secret 'Day of Rage' - Bassam Tawil




by Bassam Tawil

Once again, Abbas is playing Americans and other Westerners for fools.

  • What is really driving this Palestinian hatred of Trump and the U.S.? The Palestinians and the Arabs have long been at war with what they regard as U.S. bias in favor of Israel. What they mean is that U.S. support for Israel stands in their way of destroying Israel.
  • Abbas is not going to tell Trump about the "Day of Rage" because it flies in the face of his repeated claim that Palestinians are ready for peace and are even raising their children in a culture of peace.
  • Once again, Abbas is playing Americans and other Westerners for fools. His people remain unwilling to recognize Israel's very right to exist as a state for Jews. And so, Abbas will talk peace and coexistence while his people organize yet another "Day of Rage."
Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority (PA), preparing to welcome U.S. President Donald Trump to Bethlehem, are seeking to create the impression that their sentiments are shared by their people. Yet many Palestinians are less than enthusiastic about the visit.

It is in the best interests of Abbas and the PA to hide the truth that many Palestinians view the U.S. as an Israel-loving enemy.

While the PA president and his aides attempt to bury that inconvenient fact, they are also doing their best to cover up the truth that many Palestinians have been radicalized to a point that they would rather aim a gun or knife at Israelis than aim for peace with them.

The strongest and most vocal protests against Trump's visit have thus far come from Ramallah, the de facto capital of the Palestinians.

Ramallah is regularly described by Western journalists as a base for moderation and pragmatism. It is in this city that Abbas and the top PA leadership live and work.

In a statement published earlier this week, the National and Islamic Forces in Ramallah and El-Bireh, a coalition of various Palestinian political and terror groups, called for a "Day of Popular Rage" in the West Bank to protest the imminent presidential visit.

In Palestinian-speak, a "Day of Rage" is a call for intensified violence and terrorism directed mainly against Jews.

The term was formally introduced during the First Intifada, which erupted in late 1987, and consisted of stone and petrol-bomb attacks against Israel Defense Force soldiers and Jews residing in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Similarly, during the Second Intifada, which began in 2000, Days of Rage were associated with suicide bombings, drive-by shootings and other acts of terrorism and assorted crimes perpetrated against Jews living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as within Israel.

In recent years, Abbas's Fatah faction and other groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have used different occasions to urge Palestinians to declare a Day of Rage against Israel.

Generally speaking, such calls come in response to Jewish visits to the Temple Mount -- visits that have been taking place since East Jerusalem was liberated from Jordanian occupation in 1967.

The visits were temporarily suspended, however, for security reasons in the first years of the Second Intifada, out of concern for the safety of visitors. It is worth noting that non-Muslims are allowed to tour the Temple Mount, as has been true for the past five decades. The Palestinians, however, are specifically opposed to Jews visiting the site, under the false pretext that Jews are plotting to rebuild their Temple after destroying the Islamic holy sites there. This charge is, of course, another Palestinian blood libel against Jews.

So here we are again. Palestinians are calling for marking Trump's visit with a Day of Rage (read: heightened terrorism). The statement issued by the National and Islamic Forces in Ramallah and El-Bireh is a clear and direct invitation to Palestinians to take to the streets and mow down Jews.

What is really driving this Palestinian hatred of Trump and the U.S.?

From the Palestinian point of view, were it not for the U.S., the Palestinians and the Arabs would have succeeded long ago in achieving their goal of destroying Israel.

"We reject American bias in favor of Israel," read the statement. "We call for popular marches and rallies to affirm our people's adherence to their legitimate rights, including the right of return and self-determination." The statement also warned against U.S. pressure on Abbas and the PA leadership to return to the negotiating table with Israel.

The so-called "right of return" demanded by Palestinians means the right to flood Israel with millions of Palestinians, in order to create an Arab-majority state where Jews would live as a minority. This would come in addition to the creation of another Palestinian state alongside Israel in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

The Palestinians and the Arabs have long been at war with what they regard as U.S. bias in favor of Israel. What they mean is that U.S. support for Israel stands in their way of destroying Israel. They are saying: Only if Americans would stop supporting Israel financially, militarily and politically, we would be able to remove Israel from the face of the earth.

Neither Trump nor any members of his entourage is likely to notice the latest Palestinian Day of Rage. The strict, unprecedented security measures surrounding Trump's planned visit to Bethlehem, and the fact that the stop is to last for only for 45 minutes, will make sure of that. Trump will not see Palestinians protesting against his visit. Nor will he see, during his visit, Palestinians closing their businesses and hurling stones and petrol bombs at Jews.


(Image source: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images)

Trump's Palestinian hosts will do their utmost to disguise many unpleasant truths. For instance, they probably will not mention that Palestinians are taking to the streets to protest his visit as well as to go after Jews. Abbas is not going to tell Trump about the Day of Rage because it flies in the face of his repeated claim that Palestinians are ready for peace and are even raising their children in a "culture of peace."

The Palestinian Day of Rage during Trump's visit is a further sign of the increased radicalization among Palestinians and their unwillingness to accept Israel's right to exist as a state for Jews. Days of Rage are far from contained responses to particular Israeli policies or actions on the ground. The Day of Rage can be traced to the Arab and Muslim world with the establishment of Israel in 1948, and continues to be used by Arabs and Muslims as a tool of terrorism.

In truth, such days are an expression of rage over the presence of Jews in a sovereign state in the Middle East, and of wrath over U.S. support for Israel and of Palestinian support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups. Days of Rage will continue as long as Palestinians continue to believe that Israel can and should be destroyed.

Once again, Abbas is playing Americans and other Westerners for fools. His people remain unwilling to recognize Israel's very right to exist. And so, Abbas will talk peace and coexistence while his people organize yet another Day of Rage.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10393/palestinians-trump-rage

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Over-Dramatization of Israel’s “Dilemma“ - Max Singer




by Max Singer

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan

While there are undoubtedly peace-seeking Palestinians, as a community the Palestinians have not even begun to discuss the possibility of making a peace that accepts Israel and ends the Palestinian effort to gain all the land “from the river to the sea.”

Ehud Barak has a very long review in Haaretz of Micah Goodman’s important new book, Catch 67.  Goodman argues that Israel’s 1967 victory created a “catch” or trap reflected in Israel’s current dilemma where both sides are right.  Barak disagrees; he says the choice is clear; the left is correct.  Both Barak and his telling of Goodman ignore the reality of Israel’s actual choices today.  We are not facing a dilemma about giving up territory; we are facing a distasteful task and a need for patience (decades).

Israel does not now have any choice about giving the Palestinians land or creating a Palestinian state.  We are not facing a dilemma.


 Nor have they begun public discussion of the possibility of most of the “refugees” settling outside of Israel.  And the Arab world encourages them to reject peace with Israel.


There is zero chance that there could be a real peace agreement now regardless of how much land Israel would be willing to give up.  A true two-state solution would defeat Palestinian and Arab efforts of a century and they are not yet ready to accept defeat.  Whatever disagreement there is among Israelis about how much land, if any, Israel should give up to get peace, that disagreement is not standing in the way of peace.  

Theoretically there are two other possibilities that might create a dilemma for Israel about giving up land.  One, an agreement with the Palestinians to take over some of Judea and Samaria without making a full peace with Israel.  Second, unilateral action by Israel to separate the peoples and end the occupation, without Palestinian agreement.  For the reasons discussed below, neither of these is a realistic possibility regardless of how much of Judea and Samaria Israel is willing to give up.  Again, no real dilemma.


The Palestinians have a voice in what happens, and the choice they have made is to force Israel to “occupy” them, because they want to keep up the struggle to destroy Israel.  Being a victim, an “occupied people,” improves their diplomatic position, makes Israel feel pain, and causes internal conflict in Israel.  Just as these effects are bad for Israel they are good for Palestinians.  And the more harmful they are for Israel the more desirable they are for the Palestinians.

There would have to be a lot more disadvantages to the status quo for the Palestinians before they would give up such a weapon against Israel in order to improve their living conditions.  This is especially true for the Palestinian leadership, which suffers less from the status quo than most Palestinians and benefits more from the conflict.

    But if the Palestinians will not make an agreement now which would give up the advantages to them of continuing to force Israel to be an “occupier” while the war continues, is there any way that Israel can force them to do so by taking unilateral action to separate the peoples?  This idea appealed to Sharon and so he organized Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.  Some Israelis say the withdrawal was a good idea that only worked out badly because it was done unilaterally.  But why should we think that the Palestinians would have agreed to arrangements that would have been better for Israel?  They consider themselves to be at war with us.  They want to cause us pain and disadvantages and are willing to accept casualties and suffering to do so.


Gaza was simple and the West Bank is complicated.  There is no way that Israel can separate itself from the Palestinian population in the West Bank without Palestinian agreement.  Because of Israel’s military needs for the Jordan valley – and access to it, this would be true even if there were no settlement blocs.  And, even if all the ideological settlements and hilltop outposts were gone, no unilateral Israeli withdrawal could produce a stable new status quo that we could impose on the Palestinians.  Also, diplomatically Israel is still regarded as occupying Gaza even though it has withdrawn completely.  The same would be true for Judea and Samaria after any Israeli unilateral withdrawal.


So the Palestinians have us trapped.  Although we have committed ourselves that the occupation in Judea and Samaria is temporary, we are stuck with it for a long time.  Just as we have to continue taking casualties and needing our children to become soldiers and to kill people.  We were not given our home on a silver platter.  


This reality means that the question of what land we should give up is a question for the fairly distant future.  When there is a real possibility for improving things by giving up land, conditions in our region and perhaps the world will be unpredictably different than they are today.  Our disagreement about how much land, if any, to give up makes absolutely no difference today.  It does not present a practical dilemma.  There is no reason we should continue to beat up each other about what land, if any, we must keep, and what land, if any, we should be willing to give up, and for what benefits.


A solid majority of Israelis and our government have decided that Israel should be willing to give up most of Judea and Samaria in order to have peace – and perhaps even to separate ourselves from the Palestinians without peace.  And there is a bigger majority opposed to withdrawals while the Palestinian community is as it is now.  Therefore it is not true that our conflict with the Palestinians is the result of a stubborn or selfish insistence on holding on to all of the land of Israel.  But there is nothing we can do now to implement our willingness to give up most of the West Bank.


What can we do to make things better while we are living with the status quo?  First, if we recognize that the Palestinians will not give us any way of getting out of being “occupiers,” we can work together, left and right, to reduce the moral and other harm of the “occupation.”  And we can stop the internal name-calling and harsh charges against each other for not trying hard enough to end the occupation.  We shouldn’t be fighting with each other about something we have no power to change.  And the energy used for such fights should be used for efforts to make the occupation less harmful.


Our diplomatic position would also become better if there were not so many Israelis blaming other Israelis for the continued occupation when in fact Israel has no choice.


For the longer term we have to do whatever we can to make the Palestinians and the Arab world more willing to give up their determination to destroy us.  Perhaps being nicer to them will help, although generally that is not a very effective strategy in the Middle East.  It may be more useful to let them see that we are not riven by internal division or unable to bear the moral burden of being occupiers, and so we are as willing as they to continue living with the status quo for a long time.  And the U.S. could help by replacing false “even-handedness” with a truth-telling strategy that showed the Arab world that the U.S. will not help them to destroy Israel.


Many Israelis argue that we have to find a solution for our conflict with the Palestinians, and some insist that it is such an urgent problem that we have to do so soon.  (“Peace now.”)  But the experience of our first 60 years should teach us that patience is at least an advantage and may even be a necessity.  What entitles us to have a solution available?


This is not to argue that the status quo does not have dangers.  Israel is not safe.  We are strong but also vulnerable, and quite capable of making decisive mistakes.  But eagerness to move toward settlement with the Palestinians will not make us safe, nor is there anything else that will.  Keeping our home here requires that we accept danger and human costs of all kinds.


Max Singer

Source: Wall Street Journal

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Will Germany preserve Western culture from Islam? - Giulio Meotti




by Giulio Meotti

Germany's famed cultural icons may be on the way to oblivion.

The first to intervene, a month ago, was the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble. Muslims in Germany “must accept our way of life”, Schäuble said. And if they do not like European culture they made the “wrong” decision to come. “There are better places than Europe to live under Islamic law”.

Now another politician, the Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere,has shaken German public opinion.

He did it with an article published by Bild called “Wir sind nicht Burqa” - We are not burqa. And he promoted the revival of “Leitkultur”, the dominant culture made of hard work, respect for others, confidence in Europe, arts and education, including Bach and Goethe, and Christianity.

“We are an open society, we are part of Nato, Europe and the West; we show our face, we are not the burqa”, wrote De Maiziere. According to De Maiziere, the dominant culture must be paramount when measured against parallel Islamic societies, the “Parallelgesellschaften”.

In a Yougov survey, half of Germans agree with De Maiziere. The Berlin daily Tagesspiegel, on the other hand, accused him of flirting with the right wing Afd. Green Leader Juergen Trittin has accused him of “right wing demagoguery”. Sawsan Chebli, Berlin's state secretary, charged him of stigmatizing migrants, while former President Christian Wulff said the constitution has everything Germany needs. No Leitkultur is necessary. The Spd, a government ally of the Cdu, also attacked De Maiziere.

The term Leitkultur was not coined by a xenophobic militant, but by Bassam Tibi, a sociologist of Syrian origin, who in a 1998 book argued that Beethoven and Thomas Mann should play a more important role in Germany than foreign voices. This week, in Cicero, Bassam Tibi wrote “we in Islam call the people who speak without reading, djahil, ignorant. The integration of Muslims can not be met without a dominant culture”. The leftist philosopher Jürgen Habermas also intervened, accusing De Maiziere of being “unrealistic.” Critically, but from conservative positions, is Henryk Broder, who in the Die Welt declared: “It is about a dominant culture, but not about Islam”.

Strongly opposed is also the Federal Commissioner for Integration, Aydan Ozoguz, who in Tagesspiegel wrote that Germany must be inspired by “diversity”. “German Leitkultur is freedom, justice and a positive relationship in the community”, said Social Democrat candidate Martin Schulz.

The term entered the political debate for the first time in 2000 when Cdu politician Friedrich Merz told Welt that immigrants had to assimilate in the “liberal German culture”. The left has not moved from the positions expressed thirteen years ago by then Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who said that “Leitkultur has no meaning”. While for the liberal weekly Die Zeit “talking of a dominant culture is disturbing”, the Frankfurter Allgemeine was positive: “The unshakable conviction that after Auschwitz there is nothing specifically 'German' has affected entire generations”.

A year ago, Leitkultur's theme was revived by a great writer and playwright, Botho Strauss, who wrote in Der Spiegel: “Sometimes I have the impression that I am German only among my ancestors”. The “ancestors” he referred to are the great spirits of German culture, destined to dissolve in a multicultural society.

In 2000, the Cdu abandoned the “deutsche Leitkultur” (German dominant culture) in favor of “Leitkultur in Deutschland” (guiding culture in Germany). A sophism to mitigate the controversy.

One million migrants and several terror attacks later, the words are  somewhat blurred.

But will Germany be really able to preserve German culture from the Islamic suprematists?

German cultlure did not prevent the torture and murder of six million Jews. But Germans can prevent throwing German culture into the dustbin of history in favor of another genocidal ideology, that of Radical Islam.


Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter and of "J'Accuse: the Vatican Against Israel" published by Mantua Books.. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20534

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Trump: Iran must disarm militias, never gain nuke - debkaFile




by debkaFile

Donald Trump once again rebutted media evaluations of his trip to Israel as a demonstration of friendship without real content.


“We can declare with one voice that Iran must not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon ever, ever and must cease training terrorists and militias immediately!’ said US President Donald Trump in a statement he issued at the Israeli president’s residence in Jerusalem on Monday on May 22, shortly after arriving in Israel.

“I come her to affirm that we are not only friends, but allies and will stand together always,” he went on to say and urged: “We must strengthen our cooperation, as we both face common threats from ISIS and other terrorists who foment terrible violence all over the world. Together we can end scores of years of violence," he said.  Trump, who flew to Israel directly from Riyadh, reported on the strong consensus he found in the Muslim world on the need to stand up together against Iran.

He cited Saudi King Salman in this consensus, adding that the monarch and other Arab rulers feel strongly about the need for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Many of them, he said, expressed the will to end extremism, after hearing his speech. He also found a growing realization among the Arab and Muslim leaders he met in Riyadh Sunday of “their common cause with Israel under threat from Iran” and a willingness to help in the peace effort.

Trump said he was honored to be in the homeland of the Jewish people. He commended Israel’s commitment to peace and said he looked forward to discussing the process with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem Tuesday.


In a throwaway remark to reporters on arrival at the president’s residence, the US president said he had two first-rate envoys working on promoting a peace treaty, and named his special Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt and the new US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman. He joked: “If there is no peace, I’ll know whom to blame.”


President Reuven Rivlin said: We can’t wake up with Iran and Hizballah on our border. We want Iran out of Syria, out of Lebanon and away from our borders, and we must move forward to this goal together with America.”


debkafile:  Donald Trump once again rebutted media evaluations of his trip to Israel as a demonstration of friendship without real content. Very shortly after his arrival, he stood up at the president’sl residence in Jerusalem and delivered a string of important policy statements and new revelations:

1. Iran would not be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon.
2, Iran must dismantle the Shiite terrorists and militias.
3. Iran must remove all those same foreign militias from Syria.
4. Iran must evacuate Hizballah forces from Syria and disarm this Lebanese Shiite organization.
5.  The Saudi King Salman had told him first hand of his fervent wish for an Israeli-Palestinian peace. 

Trump heard the same sentiment from other Arab and Muslim rulers.

Our military sources add: The issue of the pro-Iranian militias ties in directly with the battlefield confrontation building up in the past fortnight along Syria’s borders with Jordan and Iraq. debkafile reports have disclosed the arrival of American and other Western special operations forces at a key crossing. They were followed this week by Russian elite contingents, who arrived nearby to support a Syrian-Iranian-Hizballah scheme to grab this vitally important border. The Americans are positioned there to prevent Iran from forging a land bridge from Tehran to Syria through Iraq by seizing control of this strategic border.


debkaFile

Source: http://debka.com/article/26068/Trump-Iran-must-disarm-militias-never-gain-nuke

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israeli minister expresses concern over US-Saudi arms deal - Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff




by Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff 

Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz says $110 billion deal "is a matter that really should trouble us" • Washington official says U.S. understands Israel's "completely legitimate" concerns, remains committed to helping Israel maintain its military advantage.



Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz
|
Photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem


Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=42563

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Dose Of Reality in Riyadh - Bruce Bawer




by Bruce Bawer


Why Trump's speech to the Muslim world is a marked improvement over Obama's 2009 "new beginning."




On June 4, 2009, Barack Obama went to Cairo and delivered a speech, addressed to the Muslim world, that was full of praise for Islam and apologies on behalf of the West. In the address, entitled “A New Beginning” (“I've come here to Cairo,” he explained, “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world”), he called the university at which he was speaking (which, if it were anywhere in the West, would probably not be able to gain accreditation) “a beacon of Islamic learning”; he blamed tensions between the West and Islam largely on Western “colonialism”; he said “Salaam aleikum” and kept referring to “the Holy Koran”; he asserted, in a ridiculous example of hyperbole, that “Islam has always been part of America's story”; he served up a big wallop of revised history, giving Islam unmerited praise for centuries-old accomplishments in science, architecture, music, art, and medicine and even holding it up as “a model of tolerance and equality” (at one point, he seemed to imply that in some ways women's rights are more advanced in the Muslim world than in the U.S.); and, with utter predictability, he quoted the the “Holy Koran” out of context, plucking out that favorite verse of all Western apologists that supposedly teaches “that if one kills an innocent, it is as if it he has killed all of mankind.”

And of course, as always, he talked about himself: a descendant of “generations of Muslims” in Kenya; a man who, in his Indonesian boyhood, daily heard the beautiful Islamic call to prayer; a president who had “known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” As someone with such intimate ties to the Religion of Peace, asserted Obama, he saw it as part of his job to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Yes, he spoke about the need to fight terror, but he was quick to maintain that “Islam is not part of the problem” but rather “an important part of promoting peace.” He defended U.S. ties to Israel and recognized the “reality of the Holocaust,” but quickly pivoted to the “suffering” of Palestinians, the “pain of dislocation” they experienced, and the “daily humiliations” of the “occupation” – preaching, in short, to Israel from a Cairo pulpit. He quoted from the Talmud, but was careful not to call it holy. He implied that the histories of the Jews and Palestinians were equally tragic. And he preached to America too, suggesting that when Americans criticize the “choice” of women – and girls (!) – to wear hijab they were disguising their “hostility” to Islam “behind the pretense of liberalism.” Similarly, instead of thundering against the evil of 9/11, Obama apologized for the supposed excesses of some Americans' responses to that atrocity, saying with nauseating chagrin that “in some cases it led us to acts contrary to our principles and our ideals.” Oh, and he vowed to close Guantánamo “by early next year.”

This Sunday, almost exactly as far into his presidency as Obama was when he gave his Cairo speech, Donald Trump spoke in Riyadh. For some of us, the very prospect of this appearance had been, to put it mildly, dismaying. Trump won the election, after all, largely because of his tough and bracingly realistic talk about Islam. Now, on his first trip abroad as president, he was going to Saudi Arabia. It was bad enough that this was a trip to a Muslim country. But Saudi Arabia isn't just any Muslim country. It's the mother of all Muslim countries. It's the single most backward of them all. It's a state sponsor of terrorism. It, and members of its royal family, have bankrolled mosques and madrassas and university departments of Middle Eastern Studies throughout the Western world – places that are nothing more than centers of Islamic propaganda. Most of the 9/11 hijackers, as the whole world knows, were Saudis. And the whole point of Trump's visit to Riyadh was to celebrate a gigantic sale of U.S. arms to the Saudis on the premise that they represent a major bulwark against an even more dire threat, namely Iran. Nor was Trump just addressing the Saudis: also in attendance were the leaders of most of the other Muslim countries on the planet – in other words, a whole boatload of really nasty customers. It was hard not to conclude that Trump, like Obama, was going to try to brown-nose his way into a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims.”

The opening minutes of Trump's speech certainly did nothing to dispel this expectation. It was gag-inducing to hear him praise the “magnificent kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, “the splendor of your country,” “the grandeur of this remarkable place,” and so on. It was absurd to hear him talk about working together with the ultra-extremist Saudis to eliminate “extremism.”

But then something happened. Even as he continued to serve up the usual glowing rhetoric about Islam being “one of the world's great faiths,” and to refer to this and that as being “holy,” he made a couple of exceedingly elegant transitions. First, he began mixing the ethereal praise with realistic businessman-type talk about the value of international partnership. “We are not here to lecture, to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship,” he said. “Instead, we are here to offer partnership” between the West and the Muslim world – a partnership that would bring prosperity to future Muslim generations. But he underscored the fact that in order for such a partnership to work, something would have to change. And it would have to change a lot. The Islamic world, he insisted, had to turn into a place where young Muslims could grow up “innocent of hatred.” And then he spelled out the results of that hatred, presenting first a roll call of some of the “barbaric attacks” on America – 9/11, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando – and then a list of other places (“Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China, and Australia”) where that hatred has manifested itself.

However delicately he worked his way around to it, it was nothing less than an accusation.

No, he didn't explicitly charge Muslim leaders with funding terrorism – but he told them, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to cut off funds to terrorists. Nor did he explicitly blame Islam for terror or explicitly call it evil (as much as some of us would have loved to hear him do so) – but he came tantalizingly close to doing so, speaking bluntly about the “vile creed,” the “wicked ideology,” the “craven ideology”, that underlies terror. He did use the word “evil.” And, yes, he spoke of “Islamic” (not “Islamist” or “radical Islamic”) terror. And he made it clear he wasn't just talking about terrorism – he was talking about Islam itself. He condemned “the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.” He warned: “barbarism will deliver you no glory. Piety to evil will bring you no dignity.”  Yes, “piety to evil.” Even as he continued to make flattering references to Islam, they felt increasingly pro forma, and it became increasingly manifest that he was identifying that religion as the root not just of terror but of all that is primitive and barbaric about that portion of the world in which it is most commonly practiced. In one remarkable passage, he listed a number of wonders of the Arab region of which his listeners should be proud. What was remarkable was that they were all wonders that dated to pre-Islamic times. In short, he was reminding these people that they had a proud history, a proud identity, that predated their prophet and that could, if they wished, help form the foundation of a new, free, forward-looking culture.

Of course, even to express such thoughts, in some Islamic countries, is considered heretical, illegal; but Trump did it in such a masterly way that you could imagine some of these Muslim big shots sitting there trying to figure out whether they should be offended or not.

In fact, it was all quite masterfully done. Early on in his speech, Trump addressed his audience as friends and partners; within a few minutes, without pointing a finger, and without abandoning the collegial tone or the complimentary language, made it clear he was lecturing them. He was the boss, the capo di tutti capi, and he was laying down terms. This wasn't Obama, who naively thought he could change the world with groveling apologies for the West, praise for Islam built on sheer fantasy, and yet another retelling of his own supposedly inspiring personal story – all the while oozing beta-male deference and docility. No; this was a man of power who – never once talking about himself – made expert use of that power, wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove. His message was unmistakable: either set aside this stupid religion (or at least rein it in, and now), join the modern world, and set your people free to dream, hope, create, grow, and prosper. Or else face the consequences. When, at the end, he summed up the assets of the Islamic world, he didn't even mention Islam: he cited, among other things, its “spirit of enterprise” and ambitious young people. Where Obama had falsely attributed all kinds of past wonders to Islam, Trump imagined an implicitly Islam-free future in which the region could finally enjoy “glorious wonders of science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire mankind.”

Yes, it would have been terrific to hear an American president spell out the truth about Islam in a less nuanced, less diplomatic fashion. And it was frankly bizarre to hear Trump, in his closing moments, singling Iran out as uniquely malevolent after having heaped praise on other equally nefarious regimes whose leaders were right there in the room with him. But we critics of Islam have our jobs and Trump has his. Given the occasion and the purpose, this was, even at its worst, an immense improvement over Obama's Cairo oration, and, at its best, a convincing assertion of authority, a strongly pitched demand for radical transformation, and a perfectly calibrated use of the carrot-and-stick approach.

No, international Islam is almost certainly beyond meaningful reform. But history has shown that it can at least be contained and controlled in ways that give citizens of Muslim-majority countries a certain degree of freedom and that keep to a minimum the scale of violence in the West originating in those countries. (The rampant Islamization of the West, and the concomitant increase in home-grown Islamic terror, are separate questions.) And no, a single speech can't accomplish much of anything. But Trump's tough presentation in Riyadh, if followed up by equally tough interactions with our “friends” in that audience, may well get a few things, here and there, moving in welcome directions.


Bruce Bawer is the author of “While Europe Slept,” “Surrender,” and "The Victims' Revolution." His novel "The Alhambra" has just been published.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266765/dose-reality-riyadh-bruce-bawer

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Peace Through Truth: One Book Dares to Tell the Truth About Israel - Daniel Greenfield




by Daniel Greenfield

A conversation with David Brog, the author of "Reclaiming Israel's History."


[The Freedom Center will host an evening reception and talk with David Brog on Thursday, June 8, 2017 (7-9pm PDT) at the Luxe Sunset Boulevard Hotel, 11461 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles. For more info: CLICK HERE.]

Editor’s note: The greatest threat to the Middle East isn’t Israel. It’s the lies that are told about the Jewish State. The spread of these lies in the Middle East has enabled terrorism and perpetuated the Arab-Israeli, fueling fanatical mass murder and genocidal plots against the Jewish people. The spread of those same lies in Europe has endangered Jews, while blinding governments to the Islamic terror threat at home. 

Now one book challenges the narrative with the truth. After decades of politicians pretending that they can achieve peace through lies, David Brog’s book, "Reclaiming Israel's History: Roots, Rights and the Struggle for Peace," fights for peace with the truth.

David Brog is the Executive Director of the Maccabee Task Force, which fights the delegitimization of Israel on campus, and was the founding executive director of Christians United for Israel. His is also the author of "Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State" (2006) and "In Defense of Faith: the Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity" (2010).
In the following interview with Frontpage Magazine's Daniel Greenfield, Brog discusses his new book and its importance for defenders of Israel today.  
*
Daniel Greenfield: Your book is titled, Reclaiming Israel's History. Your subtitle is "Roots, Rights and the Struggle for Peace." Do you feel that understanding Israel's history is vital for achieving a true peace based on truth?

David Brog: Without a doubt. The lies told about Israel poison the prospects of peace.  According to Palestinian leaders – in both Fatah and Hamas -- the Israelis are a bunch of European colonists who came to a land to which they had no connection and ethnically cleansed it of its indigenous inhabitants.  People who believe this will never see peace with Israel as a virtuous compromise.  They will view peace as a cowardly surrender.  No wonder the Palestinians have turned down five Israeli offers to create a Palestinian state.

Peace will be possible if – and only if – the Palestinians begin to accept the fact that the Jewish people have a deep connection to the Land of Israel and a legitimate claim to exercise their right to self-determination in this place.  That’s why telling the truth about Israel is not an obstacle to peace.  Quite to the contrary, a stubborn insistence on the truth is an absolute prerequisite to peace.

DG: The popular conception in the media is that the Jews of Israel are "settlers" who entered a land inhabited by another people. Yet the religious history of the world's three major religions records that Jews are actually the indigenous population of Israel. 

Are the Jews indeed the indigenous population? How did this pernicious myth take hold and why has it been so difficult to root out?

DB: Yes, the Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel.  This fact is the foundation of Israel’s right to exist.  That’s exactly why opponents of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel have always tried to deny the Jewish connection to this land.

This tactic actually dates back to the Romans.  After suppressing the Bar Kochba Revolt in the year 135, the Romans were determined to crush Jewish dreams of independence once and for all.  They destroyed 50 Jewish towns and 985 Jewish villages.  They murdered and exiled hundreds of thousands of Jews.  And they even changed the country’s name to erase its Jewish character. The country had been known as Judea, a name that emphasizes the Jewish connection.  The Romans changed the name to Palestine, which instead invokes the Jews’ historic enemy, the Philistines.

Unfortunately, many of Israel’s enemies continue to use this same tactic down to the present day.  Article 20 of the PLO Charter states that “claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history….”  Many Palestinian leaders seem to believe this ridiculous rhetoric.  During the Camp David peace negotiations in 2000, for example, Yasser Arafat actually insisted that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

DG: PLO advocates have made assorted ahistorical claims for their background. They've linked themselves to everyone from the Caananites to Jesus. When do the so-called "Palestinians" actually date back to? And how did their identity evolve over the years?

DB: There have been Arabic speakers living in this land ever since the Arabs first invaded it in 636.  But these Arabic speakers never considered themselves to be part of an “Arab people” let alone a “Palestinian people” until very recently.

During the 400 years that the Ottoman Empire ruled this area, the Arabic speakers living there viewed themselves as Ottoman subjects.  The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I left the Arabs of the Middle East in search of a new identity.  Arab nationalism grew to fill the void.  But it took a long time for pan-Arab nationalism – the idea that there is one large Arab people living in the vast region from Morocco to Iraq – to break down into smaller, local Arab identities.  It wasn’t until after 1967 that a separate Palestinian Arab identity became prevalent.

People often react with disbelief when you tell them that Palestinian identity didn’t become dominant until after the 1967 War.  Thus it’s worth remembering that the Palestinian National Charter was first drafted in 1964, just three years before that war.  The Arab League did not recognize such a thing as a Palestinian people until 1974.  Likewise the United Nations did not recognize such a thing as a Palestinian people until 1974.

DG: The invention of the "Palestinians" has been arguably one of the world's greatest marketing success stories. Do Jews have anything to learn from that about the importance of telling Israel's story from the point of view of an underdog?

DB: The most important thing Jews can do is tell the truth.  We don’t need to deny the existence or humanity of the Arabic speakers who lived in this land during the modern, Zionist immigration.  And we don’t need to ignore the fact that these Palestinians have suffered.

But while we acknowledge these truths about the Palestinians we must insist on telling the truth about Israel.  We must teach people about the 3,500-year history of Jews living in this land.  We must remind people about the repeated waves of Jewish return to this land over the centuries, culminating in the modern Zionist movement.

And most importantly, we must never allow the reality of Palestinian suffering to confuse the issue of causation.  Just because the Palestinians have suffered doesn’t mean that Israel is to blame.  On the contrary, Palestinian suffering is the direct result of Palestinian aggression.

It’s important to remember there would not have been so much as one Palestinian refugee had the Arabs of Palestine accepted their own independent state under the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947.
When they rejected this state and chose instead to launch a war to destroy the Jewish state, they were the authors of the suffering that resulted on both sides.  And when later Palestinian leaders rejected subsequent offers of Palestinian statehood, they ensured that this suffering would continue down to the present day.

DG: Israel's opponents, from the BDS movement to various diplomats, insist that Israel could have peace if it were only willing to make a deal, is it really as easy as they claim?

DB: The most dangerous of all of the anti-Israel myths is this idea that Israel could have peace tomorrow if it simply ended its “occupation” of the West Bank and let Palestinians have a state there.  This belief leads its adherents to the same flawed conclusion: if you want peace in the Middle East, you must pressure Israel to immediately leave the West Bank. J Street and Peace Now seek to do this through political pressure.  BDS seeks to do this through economic pressure.

The history of this conflict clearly disproves this premise.  Israel has actually tried to do exactly what BDS, J Street and Peace Now are calling upon it do – they’ve offered the Palestinians their own independent state in the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem.  In fact, the Jews of Palestine/Israelis have made this offer to the Arabs of Palestine/Palestinians not once, but on five separate occasions: 1937, 1947, 1967, 2000 and 20008.

Why is there still a conflict today?  Because the Palestinians turned down each and every one of these offers, often quite violently.  It is this Palestinian rejectionism that gave rise to this conflict and it is this Palestinian rejectionism that sustains this conflict.

I understand the temptation that drives so many people – including so many Israelis – to ignore harsh realities and believe that if Israel just made the right peace offer at the right time they would know war no more.  It’s an alluring fantasy.  But I’m afraid that history teaches us that there are no such easy answers here.  Unless and until the Palestinians accept and internalize Israel’s right to exist, Israeli peace offers won’t bring peace.

All of those people who are so eager to rush peace along would be wise to stop pressuring Israel and start pressuring the Palestinians to finally accept Israel’s legitimacy in both word and deed. There’s no short cut here.

DG: We know that there was both Jewish and Muslim migration to Israel during the British colonial period. Why is Jewish immigration considered illegitimate while migration by Arabs and Muslims is deemed indigenous?

DB: Great question.  This is yet another powerful example of how the truth is often the exact opposite of what the anti-Israel narrative claims.

Israel’s detractors insist that the Jews came to Israel and expelled Arabs who had been living there for centuries.  The statistics tell a very different story. During the peak years of Jewish immigration to Palestine under the British Mandate – from 1922 to 1947 – Palestine’s Arab population did not decrease.  It grew and grew quite dramatically -- from 554,500 to 1,207,600.  This is an increase of approximately 120 percent in only twenty-five years.

What’s even more remarkable is that this Arab population growth occurred at its highest rates in those parts of the country to which Jews were moving.  Between 1922 and 1947, the Arab population of Haifa grew by 290 percent. During the same period, the Arab population of Jaffa grew by 158 percent.

The Arab population grew at a far slower pace in those parts of Palestine untouched by Jewish immigration.  In Nablus, the Arab population grew by only 56 percent during this period.  In Bethlehem, it grew by a mere 37 percent.

As these numbers make clear, Arab population followed the economic opportunities created by Jewish immigration and investment.  In particular, this Arab population growth was the direct result of three factors:
  1. Arab immigration into the British Mandate for Palestine from neighboring Arab countries;
  2. Arab in-migration from those parts of Palestine without Jews to those parts of Palestine with Jews; and
  3. Increased Arab life expectancy and decreased infant mortality as a result of improved health care (in most cases provided by Jewish institutions and doctors.)
As you note, these Arab immigrants now view themselves as Palestinians and no one challenges their identity or rights.  But Jews returning to Israel during the same period – even as refugees from Arab countries – are still vilified as foreign, colonial, and even European.

This lie about Israel – like so many others – exists and thrives because there are advocates dedicated to spreading it widely. We need to be just as diligent in spreading the truth.

DG: Should Jews be ready to stop apologizing for Israel's defense of an indigenous national minority?

DB: Absolutely.  We’ve got to stop treating the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel as some sort of tedious and irrelevant ancient history. This connection is what separates Israel’s moral foundation from the injustice of European colonialism.

The Jewish people is indigenous to the Land of Israel.  In addition, most Israelis have another more immediate connection to the region. Many Israelis are Jews who fled persecution and violence in Muslim countries after the 1948 war.  These Jewish refugees --  together with their descendants -- now comprise the large majority of Israelis.

These Jewish roots in the region suggest Jewish rights in the region.  A Tunisian Jewish writer named Albert Memmi put this best when he wrote, “By what mystical geography are we not at home there [the Middle East] too, we who descend from the same indigenous populations since the first human settlements were made? Why should only the converts to Islam be the soul proprietors of our common soil.”

DG: What role can ordinary people like our readers play in getting the true story of Israel out there? And what role does Reclaiming Israel's History play in that regard?

DB: Israel’s enemies understand that Israel needs a strong alliance with the United States to survive.  That’s why they focus so much time and energy on the effort to undermine support for Israel in America, especially among our young people.  In this effort, their weapon is not the Kassam rocket or the suicide bomb, but an anti-Israel narrative built on a foundation of lies.

Those of us living outside Israel can’t do much to defend the country from physical attack.  But we are uniquely well positioned to defend Israel from these attacks on her legitimacy.  In order to do this effectively, however, we need to know enough about the conflict to make an effective case.  We’ve got to know Israel’s history.

I wrote Reclaiming Israel’s History to take all of the facts most relevant to rebutting the modern anti-Israel narrative and bring them together in one compelling, chronological account.  The book is accessible to those who are new to this topic.  But people steeped in this issue have written to tell me they they’ve learned so many things they never knew.  That might just be the best compliment of all.


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266615/peace-through-truth-one-book-dares-tell-truth-daniel-greenfield

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Sheer Lunacy on Campus - Walter Williams




by Walter Williams


When kindergarten meets totalitarianism.




Parents, taxpayers and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil and lawlessness that have become features of many of today's institutions of higher learning. Parents, taxpayers and donors who ignore or are too lazy to find out what goes on in the name of higher education are nearly as complicit as the professors and administrators who promote or sanction the lunacy, evil and lawlessness. As for the term "institutions of higher learning," we might start asking: Higher than what? Let's look at a tiny sample of academic lunacy.

During a campus debate, Purdue University professor David Sanders argued that a logical extension of pro-lifers' belief that fetuses are human beings is that pictures of "a butt-naked body of a child" are child pornography. Clemson University's chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who's paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.

To reduce angst among snowflakes in its student body, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law has added a "Chill Zone." The Chill Zone, located in its library, has, just as most nursery schools have, mats for naps and beanbag chairs. Before or after a snooze, students can also use the space to do a bit of yoga or meditate. The University of Michigan Law School helped its students weather their Trump derangement syndrome — a condition resulting from Donald Trump's election — by enlisting the services of an "embedded psychologist" in a room full of bubbles and play dough. To reduce pressure on law students, Joshua M. Silverstein, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, thinks that "every American law school ought to substantially eliminate C grades and set its good academic standing grade point average at the B- level."

Today's academic climate might be described as a mixture of infantilism, kindergarten and totalitarianism. The radicals, draft dodgers and hippies of the 1960s who are now college administrators and professors are responsible for today's academic climate. The infantilism should not be tolerated, but more important for the future of our nation are the totalitarianism and the hate-America lessons being taught at many of the nation's colleges. For example, led by its student government leader, the University of California, Irvine's student body voted for a motion, which the faculty approved, directing that the American flag not be on display because it makes some students uncomfortable and creates an unsafe, hostile environment. The flag is a symbol of hate speech, according to the student government leader. He said that the U.S. flag is just as offensive as Nazi and Islamic State flags and that the U.S. is the world's most evil nation (http://tinyurl.com/kjoax3j).

In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University provost Ulrich Baer argued: "The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community." That's a vision that is increasingly being adopted on college campuses, and it's leaking down to our primary and secondary levels of education. Baer apparently believes that the test for one's commitment to free speech comes when he balances his views with those of others. His vision justifies the violent disruptions of speeches by Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College, Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley and Charles Murray at Middlebury College. Baer's vision is totalitarian nonsense. The true test of one's commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to be free to say and write those things he finds deeply offensive.

Americans who see themselves as either liberal or conservative should rise up against this totalitarian trend on America's college campuses. I believe the most effective way to do so is to hit these campus tyrants where it hurts the most — in the pocketbook. Lawmakers should slash budgets, and donors should keep their money in their pockets.

Walter Williams

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266763/sheer-lunacy-campus-walter-williams

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israeli drug achieves dramatic results with lung, colon cancer - Mordechai Sones




by Mordechai Sones

Eliminates 70% carcinogenic cells in recent molecular biology experiments; Gammora research named 'outstanding cancer research paper'.

In recent months, the department of molecular biology in the Integrated Cancer Prevention Center headed by Prof. Nadir Arber and Dr. Shiran Shapira, head of the molecular biology laboratory, conducted trials on lung and colon cancer cells, achieving dramatic results and eliminating some 70% of the carcinogenic cells.

The scientists believe the drug will be found as effective for all cancer types.

The anti-cancer drug "Gammora" was developed by Israeli Zion Biomedic, a sister company of Zion Pharmaceuticals, which develops a drug that eliminates the Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV), in collaboration with Prof. Avraham Loyter from the Institute of Life Science in the Hebrew University who developed the drug, and Prof. Zev Sthoeger, director of the AIDS Institute at the Kaplan Medical Center.

The drug's action was described in a statement released by Zion Biomedic: "Gammora works with unique peptides (short protein segments) derived from the HIV integrase protein. This protein is expressed by the virus and is required for the viral infection process. The peptides cause multiple copies of the viral DNA to enter the infected cell instead of just one. This triggers the cell's apoptosis mechanism. The benefit of the new drug is that it targets only the cells infected by the virus while leaving the healthy ones unharmed. Hence, no harsh side effects are expected to the Gammora therapy. Moreover, introducing the peptide to carcinogenic cells with non-functional DNA will cause these cells to die so that when administered with DNA molecules to cancer patients, the tumor will be destroyed.

"Moreover, Gammora was named as outstanding cancer research paper during Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2017, the international annual conference for digestive disease held last week in Chicago. Some 4,000 papers were submitted to the conference, with approx. 5% of them winning the 'outstanding paper' recognition."

Dr. Shiran Shapira, head of the Molecular Biology laboratory in the Integrated Cancer Prevention Center at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center said, "The DDW has recognized the innovative nature and importance of our work. The considerable progress we achieved in our research and tests held to the drug's efficacy in destroying cancer cells has allowed us to submit a short summary of our findings to the Conference committee. We were then informed that our paper has been ranked among the top 5% of papers submitted from all parts of the world."

The DDW is the largest meeting forum of professionals of the digestive system health. It provides a meeting place for the target audience that fits the business goals of its members through exposure to key decision makers in the field of gastrointestinal medicine. This year's conference has attracted over 14,000 participants. During the four days of the conference, the participants listened to 5,400 original lectures, presentations and posters. Some 300 exhibitors presented the most innovative technological developments.

Several months ago, Gammora was reported to have achieved unprecedented results in HIV research held by Zion Pharmaceuticals' Chief Scientist, Dr. Eynat Finkelshtein at the Kaplan Medical Center: up to 97% of the virus was eliminated within mere 8 days of therapy given to HIV patients. Clinical trials in humans are expected to start in the coming months.

Both companies – Zion Biomedic and Zion Pharmaceuticals - are now preparing for conducting clinical trials on humans with cancer and HIV. The experts say the drug's registration process will be short, taking advantage of the FDA's accelerated registration process of six to 12 months.


Mordechai Sones

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230013

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Monday, May 22, 2017

Europe: Muslim Atrocities against Women? So What! - Uzay Bulut




by Uzay Bulut

In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, "enlightened" activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else

  • These examples are merely a sampling of what is becoming commonplace across Europe. In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, "enlightened" activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else -- and should not be tolerated.
  • Do these judges work for Islamic sharia courts or for secular European courts?
  • These court rulings are an open call to Muslim men in Europe to rape women, children, anyone they like. Those cultures in which women and children as are viewed as property deserve no respect, and certainly not preferential treatment.
It happened again last week. Two Turkish nationals in Schwerin, Germany were arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl after forcing themselves into her home.


Schwerin, Germany (Image source: Getty Images)

Recently, a judge in Germany acquitted a Turkish drug dealer of raping one of his customers last August. He had forced himself on her for four hours and left her incapacitated for weeks. He told the judge that in the culture from where he came, what she "had experienced as rape" might be considered merely "wild sex".

What "culture" is this?

According to the Turkish women's rights organization "We Will Stop the Murders of Women," which publishes monthly reports, in March of this year alone, 35 women were killed; 14 others were exposed to sexual violence, and 63 children were molested. Many children, the report said, had been sexually abused for years, and often attempted suicide.

The report also stated that the murder of women in Turkey -- 63% percent of which is committed by husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers or sons -- is spurred more than half the time by women; it is supposedly their fault: they actually wanted to make decisions about their lives, such as getting a divorce, before they were murdered.

Worse, nearly a third of those are classified by authorities as "suspicious murders," perpetrated by "unknown assailants."

Torturing women to death is also increasingly widespread, as well as killing young children along with their mothers. One case involved a man who slit the throats of his ex-wife and their five-year-old daughter.

As above, crimes against girls and women are often shrugged off by Turkey's criminal justice system. One case in point is of a man acquitted by a judge in Eskisehir; the man was accused by his cousin of repeated rape and death threats, from the time the victim was 13 years old. After a nine-month trial and massive evidence against him, the man was acquitted.

Although crimes against women take place all over the world, practices such as sexual enslavement and stoning to death are far more widespread in Islamic societies, where they are also socially and legally tolerated -- as rooted in Islamic scripture. The Quran, for instance, allows men to beat his wives.

Tragically, Europe, when Muslims are the perpetrators, seems to be adopting the sharia approach to rape.

Britain's The Independent reported in October:
"A man who raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria has had his conviction overturned after judges found he may have believed the child consented. Police said the 20-year-old Iraqi refugee, who has not been named, assaulted his victim in a toilet cubicle at the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna on 2 December last year.
"The child reported the rape to a lifeguard and his attacker was arrested at the scene, reportedly telling officers in initial interviews that he was experiencing a 'sexual emergency' after not having sex in four months. In June, he was jailed for a minimum of six years for rape and aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, and ordered to pay €4,700 (£3,700) compensation to the boy's family.
"Speaking to local media, the victim's mother revealed her son had been 'screaming and crying every night' since the attack and had talked of suicide."
This came from the UK's Daily Mail:
"A young left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the racial background of three men who raped her in case it triggered reprisals against refugees in her country.
"Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.
"The 24-year-old was ambushed late at night in a playground where she said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.
"After the assault, she went straight to the police -- but she did not tell them the ethnic make-up of the men, that they were speaking Arabic or Farsi.
"Selin, aware of the backlash that migrants suffered after the events in Cologne on New Year's Eve - when hundreds of women were sexually assaulted and robbed by marauding gangs of immigrant youths - instead said she was robbed and said her attackers spoke German.
"Now she has told Germany's Spiegel magazine why she lied...[because she] did not want to stoke 'more hatred against migrants in Germany.'"
These examples are merely a sampling of what is becoming commonplace across Europe. In the name of human rights, inclusion, diversity and equality, "enlightened" activists and judicial authorities are apologizing for and excusing Muslim criminals for behavior that would not be tolerated from anyone else -- and that should not be tolerated.

By overlooking or justifying Islamic atrocities, Europeans are not only endangering innocent women and children; they are actually encouraging rape and other forms of violence. Meanwhile, they are also complicit in destroying Western values.

If one such value is multiculturalism, sadly -- contrary to "progressive" belief -- not all cultures are necessarily equal. Those cultures in which women and children as are viewed as property deserve no respect, and certainly not preferential treatment.

Do these judges work for sharia courts or for secular European courts?

What kind of a message do these judges give to Muslim and other criminals in Europe with their decisions? These court rulings are an open call to Muslim men in Europe to rape women, children, anyone they like. What will a society be like to live in if the courts will be on the side of the rapists and they will not be held accountable?

Why not publicize that if people decide to move to a country, they must respect the citizens and laws of that country? Bringing the primitive aspects of one's culture to a host country should not be encouraged or tolerated. Rape is always rape, assault is always assault, no matter who the perpetrator is. Western countries must stop tolerating Muslim criminals because of their religion. That is not wise public policy or even justice. Cultures and religions that do not respect women and others do not deserve to be respected.

Unfortunately, these extremely basic truths haven been largely ignored. The politically correct multiculturalists have created an environment in which some Europeans have forgotten what it means to stand up for reason, truth and justice- perhaps out of fear of being called "racist"; or the very misguided desire to "prevent a backlash against Muslims." It would be nice if Muslims would help to prevent the "frontlash".

By tolerating Muslim criminals in the name of human rights, tolerance, inclusion, diversity, or equality, however, these judges or activists are actually destroying those values. By taking the side of the rapists and becoming complicit in their crimes, they are encouraging rapists and turning everyone -- including children -- into potential victims.

Trying to justify rapes and other crimes committed by Muslims is an attack against the safety and dignity of everyone.

Uzay Bulut, a journalist born and raised a Muslim in Turkey, is currently based in Washington D.C. She is a writing fellow of the Middle East Forum.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10381/europe-women-muslim-atrocities

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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