In fiery speech, Netanyahu challenges UN on moral grounds

New York – Armed with unfilltered criticism for the United Nations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an aggressive speech to the international body’s annual gathering in New York on Thursday, charging its members with hypocrisy in its treatment of Israel and with failure to contain extremism across the wider Middle East.

With defensive rhetoric, he targeted the assembly for passing more resolutions against Israel for its handling of the Palestinians last year than against the government of Syria, which has presided over a war claiming the lives of over 300,000 people. He criticized member states for “encouraging Palestinian rejectionism” instead of direct negotiations between the parties without preconditions, one day after a Palestinian flag was raised at UN headquarters.

And yet the most poignant moment of the speech involved no remarks at all, as Netanyahu, in his seventh UN General Assembly address, asked the body if it had forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust just seventy years since its founding.

He quoted from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, from its president and its military commanders, all reiterating a familiar pledge: Israel, a state where six million Jews reside, must be annihilated, sooner rather than later.

“Seventy years after the murder of six million Jews, Iran’s rulers promise to destroy my country, murder my people,” Netanyahu said. “And the response from this body— the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here— has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence.”

Silence followed the charge as the prime minister surveyed the room with a stoic stare. None spoke or moved in the audience as Netanyahu, at the lectern, remained quiet for nearly a minute.

“As someone who knows that history, I refuse to be silent,” he finally said to applause from the hall. Repeating a line he has delivered in Washington, he added: “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies— those days are over.”

The speech was Netanyahu’s first major address since the Iran nuclear deal survived a debate over its merits in the US Congress. Its architects from the United States, Europe, Russia and China met to discuss implementation of the deal earlier in the week.

“Ladies and gentlemen, check your enthusiasm at the door,” he said of the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. “It makes war more likely.​”

He warned that international investors were preparing to flood a “radical theocracy with weapons and cash” and warned that, “when bad behavior is rewarded, it only gets worse.” The deal, he said, amounts to a marriage between radical Islam and nuclear power.

“Under this deal, If Iran doesn’t change its behavior— in fact, if it becomes even more dangerous in the years to come— the most important constraints will still be automatically lifted by year 10 and by year 15. That would place a militant Islamic terror regime weeks away from having the fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs,” he said. “That just doesn’t make any sense.”

And the JCPOA, he continued, has already led Iran to rapidly expand its network of terrorist proxies worldwide and spend “billions of dollars on weapons and satellites.” As an example of that network, Netanyahu detailed a well-armed cell of Hezbollah that has been identified in Cyprus, and warned that the organization— listed by the United States and European Union as a terrorist organization— was setting up similar cells in the Western hemisphere.

“We will continue to act to stop the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Syrian territory,” he said. Israel has periodically struck convoys traversing Syrian territory, but future missions have been complicated by a growing presence of Russian forces in the region.

While acknowledging that the deal is proceeding toward implementation— he asked the UN to enforce the JCPOA with “more rigor” than the six past Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue that Iran had “systematically violated”— Netanyahu retained Israel’s option to defend itself against Iranian aggression.

“We have, we are and we will” defend ourselves, Netanyahu said, once again earning some applause.

Netanyahu personally engaged in a bruising battle on Capitol Hill over the deal, pitted against US President Barack Obama, who lobbied for its survival. The support of only one third of one house in Congress was required to preserve the agreement, and 42 senators ultimately chose to endorse it.

In Thursday’s address, he thanked Congress for debating the deal on its merits and characterized the rift with Obama as a “disagreement within the family.” And he underscored that, in spite of the public battle, the US remains Israel’s most valuable ally.

Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House next month.

After spending the majority of his speech condemning Iran and the deal over its nuclear work, he turned to the Palestinian issue, responding largely to a speech delivered the day before by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In that address, Abbas appeared to disavow commitments made between Israel and the Palestinian Authority since the Oslo Accords were first signed in 1993.

“I am prepared to immediately resume direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority without any preconditions whatsoever,” Netanyahu said. “Unfortunately, President Abbas said yesterday that he is not prepared to do this. I hope he changes his mind.”

Abbas, in his speech, said the international community should treat Palestine as an independent state occupied by a foreign power.

“Israel has destroyed the foundations upon which the political and security agreements are based,” Abbas said. “We therefore declare that we cannot continue to be bound by these agreements and that Israel must assume all its responsibilities as an occupying power.”

Shortly after Abbas’ speech, the Quartet on the Middle East— comprised of the UN, EU, US and Russia— released a statement reiterating its goals: A negotiated two-state outcome “that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for Statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967 and resolves all permanent status issues in order to end the conflict.”

The group warned that a continuation of the status quo may imperil the viability of a two-state plan.

The UN has adopted twenty resolutions condemning Israel in the past year— far more than on any other issue or against any other nation, including Syria, which has been the subject of one resolution. Netanyahu cited the figure as an example of the body’s “obsessive bashing of Israel.”

In his call for direct negotiations, Netanyahu said: “We owe it to our peoples to try.” Both he and Abbas were directly involved in a nine-month negotiations process brokered by US Secretary of State John Kerry which, in July 2014, collapsed without results.

“President Abbas, here’s a good place to begin: Stop spreading lies about Israel’s alleged intentions on the Temple Mount. Israel is fully committed to maintaining the status quo there,” he said. Both the Quartet and UN’s secretary-general Ban Ki-moon have condemned incitements to violence on the holy site in recent days.

“Don’t use the Palestinian state as a stepping stone to another Islamist dictatorship in the Middle East, but make its something real,” Netanyahu added. “We can do remarkable things.”

But the PA responded on Thursday evening by rejecting the premise of the prime minister’s argument: Netanyahu, PLO secretary general Saeb Erekat said, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of genuine interest in peace.

“Members of his camp have continually sabotaged every attempt at a meaningful peace process.  The Palestinians have never placed conditions on peace,” said Erekat. “Palestinians have demanded that Israel abide by the obligations it has already made to the Palestinians, which Israel has yet to fulfill.”

“As Mr. Netanyahu tells the world he wants to negotiate for two-states, he has built the largest illegal settlement enterprise seen in modern history,” he continued.

Debate over Israeli-Palestinian peace has been a consistent topic in the UN’s annual debate, and this year has been no exception: Speeches by leaders from France to Lesotho have called for a settlement, using their precious time on the international stage.

One leader who avoided the issue was the president of the United States. In his Monday address, Obama did not mention either Israel or the Palestinians once.

For his part, on the issues of Palestine, Iran and the role of the international community, Netanyahu’s message had a common theme: Israel remains a democracy, with values consistent with the liberal tenets of the United Nations’ founding charter.

Both in silence and with fiery rhetoric, he called on fellow members to celebrate that tradition.

“Stand with Israel because Israel is not just defending itself,” he concluded. “More than ever, Israel is defending you.”


ISIS-beheading-Christians-Libya-ap-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sep. 28, 2015:

President Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday morning was a rambling journey through a fantasy world where his foreign policy hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster.

Perhaps the most bizarre moment came when he tried to tout his Libyan adventure as asuccess.

There was plenty of tough-guy posturing that intimidated absolutely no one.  The Russian and Iranian delegations were especially good at looking bored and unimpressed when he called upon them to do this-or-that because The World supposedly demanded it. Obama hasn’t figured out he’s the only leader at the U.N. eager to sacrifice his nation’s interests to please The World.

Obama made the weird decision to vaguely threaten Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by claiming that The World would not stand idly by and allow it… when that’s exactly what The World, and especially First Citizen of the World Barack Obama, has been doing.  He essentially pleaded with Iran to stop supporting terrorist proxies and pursuing its aggressive regional ambitions, and focus on their economy instead.  (Of course, in Obama’s vigorous imagination, the U.S. has been enjoying an economic boom under his stewardship, instead of an endless grinding non-recovery and limp, sporadic growth, after Obama’s spending doubled the national debt in a single presidency.)

It was bad enough that the President talked about American troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as the triumphant conclusion of an effective policy, rather than the hideous blunder that allowed ISIS to create a terror state, al-Qaeda to rise from the ashes, and the Taliban to begin planning its return to power.  At the same moment Obama was speaking, the Taliban was conducting a major offensive in Afghanistan, on par with the importance of ISIS taking Mosul in Iraq.  Obama’s pitifully small “New Syrian Force” of U.S.-backed rebels just handed a good deal of its American equipment over to al-Qaeda, and no one really knows what became of the unit itself.  Their predecessors were destroyed by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria, with less than half a dozen survivors still on the field.

When Obama boasted of the Libyan operation as the successful removal of a tyrant, jaws must have hit the floor around the room.  Libya is an unholy disaster, a wasteland of warlords fighting to keep ISIS off their turf.  It’s a key gateway for the incredible migratory tide blasting out of Africa and the Middle East and now surging across Europe.  And yet, Obama portrays it as laudable example of tyrant removal… while modestly admitting that “our coalition could have, and should have, done more to fill a vacuum left behind.”

Of course he blamed everyone else in the “coalition” for the disaster in Libya.  He’s Barack Obama.  The day may come when he takes responsibility for something, but today is not that day, and tomorrow isn’t looking good either.

The scary thing about Obama is that he believes so completely in the power of his own rhetoric.

He thinks he can reshape reality with his words.  When he scolds the Iranians for their “Death to America!” rhetoric by saying bloodthirsty chants don’t create jobs, he’s asking Iran to live up to the silly talking points he foisted off on the American people to cover the Iranian nuclear deal.  He’s commanding Iran to act like the enlightened, responsible nation-state he gambled the future of Israel, America, and much of the Western world on.

The Iranians, on the other hand, see no reason to knock off the “Death to America!” chants, disband their theocracy, and begin spending their days arguing about stimulus bills.  Belligerence has gotten them everything so far.  They’ve been rewarded for it… by Barack Obama.  They’ve got $150 billion in sanctions relief coming their way.  They can afford to send a few guys to sit in the U.N. General Assembly with pissy expressions on their faces while Obama rambles on about how geo-political crime does not pay.  They know for a fact it pays, quite handsomely.  The Iranians are already using their Obama loot to reinforce terror proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and secure Bashar Assad in power.

Ah, yes, Bashar Assad… the dictator Obama still blathers on about removing from power, even as his own diplomatic apparatus gets used to the idea Assad is not going anywhere.  The only really good part of Obama’s speech was when he spent five seconds glaring at the Syrian ambassador before launching into his denunciation of barrel bombs and chemical weapons.  But you know what?  That Syrian ambassador gets paid enough to take a few seconds of hairy eyeball from the ineffectual American president.  The Russians are smoothly replacing American influence across the Middle East, in partnership with Iran.  The new order is taking shape.  Obama isn’t going to reverse that process by telling aggressive, bare-knuckle conquerors they should be ashamed of themselves.

The other dangerous thing about this delusional President is his belief in the “judgment of history.”

He’s constantly hitting on the idea that all of the world’s villains are on the wrong side of history, and will find themselves buried in the sands of time any day now.  It’s a dodge, a way of Obama evading responsibility.  Bashar Assad is going to remerge from the Wrong Side of History in pretty good shape.  ISIS is very comfortable there, as is Iran.  Qaddafi didn’t assume room temperature because History caught up with him. Vladimir Putin has a lovely view of Crimea from the wrong side of history.  The history of Europe is being reshaped by the tramping of a million “refugee” feet.

In every example, Obama clings to the idea that he can change the world by talking and scoring debate points, while his adversaries seize territory and control the course of events.  It’s not as though Obama has some deep-seated reluctance to use deadly force – there have been a lot of deaths by drone strike since he won that Nobel Peace Prize.  What Obama lacks is commitment.  His foreign policy is all about gestures and distractions.  He cooks up half-baked plans that will blow up a terrorist here and there, so he can’t be accused of doing “nothing,” but he won’t do anything that could cost him political capital at home.  Even Libya was half-hearted and calculated for minimum risk, which is why the place went to an even deeper Hell after Qaddafi was overthrown.

Obama talks as if he’s taken action against numerous crises, but all he ever did was talk about them.  The men of action are stacking up bodies, and raising flags over conquered cities, while this President is writing speeches and trying to win applause from editorial boards.  The men of action know that Obama’s promises all have expiration dates, his vows of action always have escape clauses, and no matter how he loves to boast that he heads up the most powerful military the world has ever seen, he’s done everything he can to make it weaker.

President Obama is still clinging to a romantic vision of the “Arab Spring” as a flourishing of democracy, despite all evidence to the contrary.  He’s giving the same foreign policy speeches he gave in 2009 because he can’t bear to live in the world he made.  He talks about filling vacuums and voids… but those voids are already filled, by hard characters with plans to make the most of the extraordinary opportunity Barack Obama afforded them.



Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth

Truth-is-the-new-hate-speechAmerican Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, July 4, 2015:

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam.  There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light.  Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth.  Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth.  Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

With the aid of leftist and Islamic policymakers shaping the course of international relations and security policies, that false narrative is finding its way into international policy to destroy the West’s hard-won, cherished core values.  Realities and facts that might tarnish Islam’s name are deemed hate speech and becoming lost through censorship. The 57-state Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that happens to be rooted in communism, and the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world pushing to criminalize any criticism of Islam, are two such policymakers who are influencing world leaders and the news media.

Most Western world leaders are bleating the same empty platitudes about the recent Ramadan terrorist attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, carefully avoiding the word “Islam.”  UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained to the media that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists who “do these things…do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology.” When asked if it’s right to say that the recent Ramadan attacks have nothing to do with Islam, UK Home Secretary Theresa May responded to BBC’s Andrew Marr in the positive, “that it has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion,” and that the terror attacks are “about a perversion of Islam.”

Instead of issuing travel warnings not to vacation in Islamic countries especially during Ramadan, the Islamic “sacred” month of feasting — a month rife with bloodshed and battle since Islam’s inception, when armed raids on Meccan trade caravans and bloody battles were waged by Mohammed and his followers (including the 1973 Yom Kippur War on the 10th of Ramadan), not to mention the ISIS Ramadan message that jihad is 10 times more obligatory during Ramadan, and that those who die will be rewarded by Allah ten times more than during the rest of the year — Western leaders like Cameron continue to nourish the official politically correct narrative of Islam being a religion of peace not linked to terrorism.

The twisted and perverted ideology to which both Cameron and May refer, pervades pages and pages of the Koran and other Islamic doctrine, inspiring jihadists and religious Muslims to “do these things,” including operating child sex slave grooming gangs throughout Europe, especially in the UK, to rape, pimp, torture and sometimes kill non-Muslim underage schoolgirls.  The Koran itself contains over 100 verses  promoting violence against non-Muslims who, to this very day, remain victims of the verse.

What lies at the heart of Islam is an antipathy towards non-Muslims, as well as a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to wage Jihad and eventually subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule in the name of Allah.  Massive street prayer is one form of subjugation conducted only to intimidate and Islamize Western society, to remind non-Muslims who’s really in control. Similarly, forcing non-Muslims in their own countries, in the UK for example, to eat halal slaughtered meat — an utterly inhumane and barbaric Islamic practice, not to mention a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by Muslim Brotherhood organizations that fund jihad worldwide — when only a mere 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and when the Koran specifically exempts its followers from eating halal if it’s not available, is another way to subjugate non-Muslims.

People are becoming sitting duck targets for Islamic terrorists in Western countries and abroad because of the little-known but powerful world policymakers like the OSCE and OIC who influence world leaders to kowtow to Islamic interests.  Western leaders fail to convey an accurate picture and understanding of what is really going on in the world because it might reflect badly on Islam, and they don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” for fear of more terrorist attacks.  By failing to report the truth, they are denying citizens the opportunity to take appropriate action that could save their lives when faced with something that could be considered a threat, such as a beach vacation in an Islamic country over Ramadan.

The dead European tourists in Tunisia might still be here today had there been an undistorted flow of information to warn them that warfare and killing in the name of Islam are encouraged during the month of Ramadan.  Furthermore, people might choose to avoid Islamic countries at all times if they were aware that these countries rely upon the most non-liberal draconian and barbaric Islamic or sharia-based corporal punishments imaginable.

The anti-blasphemy narrative pushed by the highly influential but little-known OIC, ehich speaks on behalf of over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, not only silences any expression considered to be offensive and insulting to Islam, but punishes the offenders, as Mohammed did to his dissenters and insulters.  They were either condemned to hell or killed.  Because Muslims consider Mohammed as the ideal model for mankind to follow, many Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also made blasphemy subject to the death penalty with their anti-blasphemy laws.

It is this anti-blasphemy law that the OIC is striving to legally enforce on the world in order to curtail speech and expression when it comes to Islam — not so much for religious compliance as for the global subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.  Since 2005, the OIC has been pushing relentlessly for a UN blasphemy resolution (Resolution 16/18 passed in 2011) to silence so-called Islamophobia — a term deliberately coined and marketed in the 1990s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups worldwide, to drive public discourse and policy.  However, the OIC’s top priority is to globally criminalize any criticism of Islam, and is working with the Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this. Ten years later, in 2015, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime in some European countries.

The highly influential yet little-known OSCE that is rooted in communism, is supposed to protect and promote civil liberties.  Instead, it is negotiating them away by capitulating to the OIC narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal from the 1990s is to destroy Western civilization from within.  Its goal of global domination is to be accomplished not through violence, at least not yet, but rather through the slow infiltration of Western government, military, judicial and academic institutions.

So far, there has been practically no opposition from  any Western administration in power, only cooperation from world leaders, government officials, and leftist policymakers.  In fact, the cooperation from Western leaders with OSCE and OIC policymakers has been so great, that the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan, and helped usher it through in 2011, despite this resolution being a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

At an OSCE May session in Vienna (on how the media can help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism), OSCE panelist Leila Ghandi, producer and TV show host on the most popular Moroccan TV channel (2MTV) that is over 60% government-owned, maintained that the truth or facts about “a community” can sometimes constitute hate speech when those facts are offensive and therefore should not be said.  The panelist’s words echo those of the new OIC Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, who tweeted earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, that “freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.”  In other words, truth about Islam is designated as hate speech.

Furthermore, OSCE panelist Victor Khroul, correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian state-owned international news agency, questions why the mainstream media throughout the world still refer to the “self-proclaimed self-established state in the Middle East” as the Islamic State. His words echo those of Madani, who proclaimed last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam.  Khroul claims it’s a mistake for these people to be called Muslim and their state Islamic, which only “confuses the audience with this correlation with Islam.”  He maintains that it’s still possible “to find other words to describe this so-called state and its activity,” discounting the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its motivation to Islam and its acts to Allah. The name Islamic State does not have to be rectified because it accurately reflects reality, defines the organization in question, and is therefore a correct term that would sit well in the world of Confucius and his doctrine on rectifying names.

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law and jihad (until he was dismissed in 2008 for linking Islam with terrorism with his Red Pill Briefings), stresses the urgency of defining the enemy as he defines himself:  “you cannot target what you will not define…if I can’t use the concepts of Jihad that Al-Qaeda say they rely on, then I can’t understand what they are going to do.”

Author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Coughlin attended the OSCE May session and responded to the OSCE jargon as follows:

“Once you decide that facts on the ground as they present themselves, can be considered hate speech, this is no longer about truth…you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know when they formulate their decisions, and replacing them with narratives to keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated and verified.  That can never be considered hate speech. We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”

Rather than disseminate vital information to the public that can save lives, Western world leaders are betraying their citizens by submitting to the OSCE and OIC narrative of outlawing any criticism of Islam and rendering truth illegal.  Reassuring citizens that Islam is a religion of peace merely renders them incapacitated from exercising sound judgment, crippling their ability to make the right decision in the face of potential harm.

While global institutions and national security policies are being shaped, and compromised, by highly influential but ill-known world organizations such as the OSCE and OIC, it’s critical that citizens get to know who those policymakers really are, and become more engaged in public affairs and the political process in order to arrest the Islamization process of the West…before it’s too late to reverse.


For more on how the OIC is working to criminalize criticism of islam see:

There is a new addition to the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series which has not been announced yet but is available at Amazon:


“Perversion of Truth” – UN Report on the 2014 Gaza War

Former New York Surpreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis, Chair of UN Investigation in to 2014 Gasa War

Former New York Surpreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis, Chair of UN Investigation in to 2014 Gasa War

NER, by Jerry Gordon, June 23, 2015:

In a mid-May 2015 Jerusalem Report/Jerusalem Post interview by Paul Alster, “The Redoubtable Colonel [Richard] Kemp”, anticipated the findings of the UN Task Force Commission on the 2014 Gaza War. Kemp said: “I think their staff is going to be so heavily biased against Israel that it will be quite a struggle for them to produce a fair report.” Col. Kemp, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, was present on the battle front last summer at the Israeli /Gaza frontier had presented his independent testimony to the UN Human Rights Commission investigation. It was a furtherance of his remarks to the earlier UN report following IDF Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009.  Conclusions, as Col. Kemp indicated,  rejected by Israel.

Former British Commander in Afghnistan Col. Richard Kemp (ret.)

Former British Commander in Afghnistan Col. Richard Kemp (ret.)

His predication was reflected in the UN Report by the ‘independent’ investigation released yesterday in Geneva by the Chairperson, former acting New York Supreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis. Davis has made a post retirement career after she left the bench in 1998  conducting  independent UN investigations into human rights violations. Justice Davis was member of the team that concluded the IDF had perpetrated war crimes against civilians in Gaza defending Israeli citizens from Hamas rocket terrorism in Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009. The summation of the latest UN investigation on the 2014 War in Gaza  accused both  Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes, while holding IDF to a “higher standard” of behavior.

Read more


Could Hamas be the Next Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

2009-01-08-hamas-firing-rockets-in-gaza-600CSP, by Rachel Silverman, June 10, 2015:

The United Nations and Egypt have both decided to not label Hamas a terrorist organization. When the U.S. State Department created its list of foreign terrorist organizations in 1997, Hamas was one of the first names on it. But I guess according to the UN and Egypt, they somehow don’t qualify to be grouped with armies and guerilla groups that kill and maim children in conflicts worldwide.

On Monday morning, the UN decided to leave Hamas off its blacklist of nations and armed organizations that violate children’s rights during conflict. Despite endless documentation of Hamas using hospital patients and children as human shields.

There is evidence that shows Hamas placing weapons and missile launchers in densely populated areas during Operation Protective Edge. They also sent men, women, and children to act as human shields for terrorists. Innocent bystanders were killed as a result of Hamas’ abuse of its own civilians. Instead of keeping its citizens out of harm’s way, Hamas encouraged and even forced Gazans to join its violent resistance against Israel.

During Operation Protective Edge Hamas also used hospitals as a command center and to launch attacks against Israel. Unfortunately, using hospitals as part of its human shield is not new for Hamas. A PBS report from 2007 shows how Hamas gunmen intimidated the staff at al-Shifa hospital.

During Operation Cast Lead in 2009, The New York Times reported that:

“Hamas has used the last two years to turn Gaza into a deadly maze of tunnels, booby traps, and sophisticated roadside bombs. Weapons are hidden in mosques, schoolyards and civilian houses, and the leadership’s war room is a bunker beneath Gaza’s largest hospital.”

On Saturday, the Cairo Appeal Court for Urgent Matters canceled a previous verdict labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization. The court said the lower court lacked jurisdiction to issue such a verdict in the first place, according to the report.

On February 28, the Cairo Court for Urgent Matters made the ruling after an Egyptian lawyer filed a lawsuit in last November calling for banning Hamas and classifying it as a terror organization.

Hamas, an offshoot of Egypt’s blacklisted Muslim Brotherhood group, used illegal underground tunnels connecting Egyptian Rafah to its twin Palestinian town to enter the country and smuggle weapons to attack Egyptian police and army personnel.

Hamas militants have also been accused of carrying out terrorist attacks and killing over 30 people in late October 2014 as well as carrying out an armed jailbreak to free Brotherhood members during Egypt’s popular uprising in 2011.

So tell me why Egypt thought it was a good idea to overturn a verdict that labeled Hamas a terrorist organization?

On January 31, the same court listed al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, as a terrorist organization. The court ruling came days after a series of bloody attacks occurred in Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula that killed at least 33 soldiers and policemen. So let me get this straight, Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization, but their military wing is, makes a lot of sense of to me.

The Egyptian government has been at odds with the group repeatedly, with longtime President Hosni Mubarak lashing out at the group and refusing to recognize Hamas’ rule in Gaza. In December 2014 the current Egyptian President, Abdel Fattah al-SISi, viewed Hamas’ movement as subversive, acting against Egypt’s national security and in line with its mother-movement the Muslim Brotherhood.

For years Egypt has played a major role in peace negotiations between Israel and various Palestinian factions, with Egypt being seen as fairly impartial by both sides. There is no doubt in my mind that this new ruling will affect Egypt’s position as a mediator between the two sides.

Also see:

Senate “Jihad Caucus” to bring 65,000 Syrian refugees to U.S.

Refugee_Hijra_Widget (1)CSP, June 2, 2015:

Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch warns that 14 Democratic Senators constituting a “jihad caucus” plan to aid the UN in placing 65,000 unvetted Syrian refugees into U.S. cities and towns. She also breaks down the nefarious influence of 9 unaccountable State Department contractors who control the process.

Islamic State selling, crucifying, burying children alive in Iraq – UN

Iraqi Shi'ite fighters pose with an Islamic State flag which they pulled down on the front line in Jalawla, Diyala province, November 23, 2014. CREDIT: REUTERS/STRINGER/FILES

Iraqi Shi’ite fighters pose with an Islamic State flag which they pulled down on the front line in Jalawla, Diyala province, November 23, 2014.

(Reuters) – Islamic State militants are selling abducted Iraqi children at markets as sex slaves, and killing other youth, including by crucifixion or burying them alive, a United Nations watchdog said on Wednesday.

Iraqi boys aged under 18 are increasingly being used by the militant group as suicide bombers, bomb makers, informants or human shields to protect facilities against U.S.-led air strikes, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child said.

“We are really deeply concerned at torture and murder of those children, especially those belonging to minorities, but not only from minorities,” committee expert Renate Winter told a news briefing. “The scope of the problem is huge.”

Children from the Yazidi sect or Christian communities, but also Shi’ites and Sunnis, have been victims, she said.

“We have had reports of children, especially children who are mentally challenged, who have been used as suicide bombers, most probably without them even understanding,” Winter told Reuters. “There was a video placed (online) that showed children at a very young age, approximately eight years of age and younger, to be trained already to become child soldiers.”

Islamic State is a breakaway al Qaeda group that declared an Islamic caliphate across parts of Syria and Iraq last summer. It has killed thousands and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes, in what the United Nations has called a reign of terror.

On Tuesday, the group, which is also known as ISIL, released a video showing a captured Jordanian pilot being burned alive.

The U.N. body, which reviewed Iraq’s record for the first time since 1998, denounced “the systematic killing of children belonging to religious and ethnic minorities by the so-called ISIL, including several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive”.

A large number of children have been killed or badly wounded during air strikes or shelling by Iraqi security forces, while others had died of “dehydration, starvation and heat”, it said.

ISIL has committed “systematic sexual violence”, including “the abduction and sexual enslavement of children”, it said.

“Children of minorities have been captured in many places… sold in the market place with tags, price tags on them, they have been sold as slaves,” Winter said, giving no details.

The 18 independent experts who worked on the report called on Iraqi authorities to take all necessary measures to “rescue children” under the control of Islamic State and to prosecute perpetrators of crimes.

“There is a duty of a state to protect all its children. The point is just how are they going to do that in such a situation?”, Winter said.

(Additional reporting by Marina Depetris; Editing by Crispian Balmer)

UN houses, but does not sponsor, anti-Semitism conference with keynote by Brigitte Gabriel


Times of Israel, by BY CATHRYN J. PRINCE, Sep. 9, 2014:

UNITED NATIONS, NY — On the third floor of the United Nations, just two doors down from the Security Council, more than 500 people gathered this week for a conference on the rise of anti-Semitism. For some, the location was a touch ironic

Because it wasn’t the UN that decided to address the threat global anti-Semitism posed to international peace and security. Rather, it was the UN Permanent Mission of Palau and the Aja Eze Foundation that sponsored the lunchtime conference.

“But why couldn’t the UN, founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and presently witnessing a widespread resurgence in anti-Semitism, sponsor a conference on combating global anti-Semitism?” said Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust. “The answer is clear: Because the United Nations itself is the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism.”


Bayefsky was one of eight panelists who urged the international community to recognize that as anti-Semitism rises, global security falls. They said failure to act against such bigotry enables ISIS and other fundamental Islamic groups.

The conference came after a summer that saw a sharp uptick in anti-Semitic incidents due to Israel’s war against Hamas, according to the Jerusalem-based World Zionist Organization. In July there were approximately 318 anti-Semitic incidents, compared to 66 over the same period in 2013. This represents a nearly 400 percent increase.

During July 2014, Europe saw a 436% increase, while the US saw a 130% rise. There was a 1,200% increase in anti-Semitic acts in South America and a 600% rise in South Africa, according to the organization.

“Where is the outrage? Where are the universal condemnations?” said Ambassador Ron Prosor, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations, Prosor said. “The silence is very similar to the silence of the 1930s and we all have a responsibility to stand up and fight.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor. ‘Will you stand with those who fire rockets, kidnap girls out of classrooms, and cut off the heads of journalists?’ he asked at a Global Anti-Semitism conference in the UN this week.

Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor. ‘Will you stand with those who fire rockets, kidnap girls out of classrooms, and cut off the heads of journalists?’ he asked at a Global Anti-Semitism conference in the UN this week.

“Will you stand with those who fire rockets, kidnap girls out of classrooms, and cut off the heads of journalists? Or will you stand up for freedom?” said Prosor.

Thousands in the United Kingdom and Germany recently demonstrated against a wave of anti-Semitic incidents. And US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Jewish leaders to “reiterate the US government’s deep concern about the prevalence and pervasiveness of anti-Semitic threats and attacks against Jewish individuals, houses of worship, and businesses during the past few months,” according to the US State Department.

Still more must be done, said panelists. To start, the UN must change its stance regarding Israel.

“Every nation has a right to protect themselves, yet most condemn Israel’s right to protect itself. Many condemn genocide yet do not do anything against those who seek to annihilate Israel,” said Dr. Caleb Otto, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Palau to the United Nations.

However, the UN disproportionally singles Israel out among its 193 members, Bayefsky said.

For example, the UN Human Rights Council condemned Israel in 50 resolutions between 2006 and 2014, more than the rest of the entire world. Of all the 2013 General Assembly resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights abuses, 70% were about Israel.

This kind of institutionalized anti-Semitism not only threatens Israel, it threatens regional stability, said Mark Langfan, Arutz Sheva UN Correspondent/Security Analyst.

To make his case, Langfan presented a graphic analysis of the strategic dangers to Israel and the world. The New York-based attorney said Israel is of critical strategic importance. It is a bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalism threatening to sweep across the Middle East and into southern Europe.

“Israel’s fight today will be the world’s fight tomorrow,” Langfan said.

He said a strong Israel protects Lebanon, Jordan and moderate Muslim nations from falling to groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS.

Brigitte Gabriel, founder, CEO and president of ACT! For America

Brigitte Gabriel, founder, CEO and president of ACT! For America

Wearing a Star of David, Brigitte Gabriel, founder, CEO and president of ACT! For America, decried those who questioned Israel’s right to defend itself during Operation Protective Edge. She said she found that appalling given that Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction.

“But Hamas has a problem because in Israel Jews don’t hide behind stones and trees. In Israel Jews have learned that when someone says they are going to kill you they mean it,” Gabriel said.

The twice-published author said standing against this “institutionalized” anti-Semitism is to oppose terrorist groups such as Hamas and ISIS.



Pastor Mario Bramnick, Chief Liaison for Israel and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership, said visitors to the UN “will see Israel falsely portrayed as a murderer, an illegitimate occupier and a baby killer.” They see a nation charged with apartheid and genocide.

Regardless of faith, race or creed, people must not be silent in the face of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel vitriol, Bramnick said to a standing ovation.

And so, Bramnick said, three days before the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11 and just over two weeks before Rosh Hashanah, it’s time to act, and do what was done in Biblical times to signal danger.

“If there ever was a time to sound the shofar,” Bramnick said, “it is now.”


Published on Sep 3, 2014 by apeacet

As global anti-Semitism is gaining momentum, Jewish leadership is failing. The new anti-Semitism masquerades as anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism. It is fueled by hatred of Jews and Judeo-Christian humanism. It is promoted by violent mobs of Muslim immigrants in the West. It has the full support of Leftist infrastructure in the media, the universities, NGOs and certain Christian churches. When you see Americans turning on fellow Americans, how would you respond?

UN Blacklists Islamic State Members, Threatens Sanctions On Collaborators

UN-building-APBreitbart, by FRANCES MARTEL:

The United Nations Security Council took proactive measures Friday to condemn the genocidal behavior of the jihadist terror group the Islamic State, blacklisting six individuals believed or confirmed to work with the terrorist group and threatening sanctions against those with financial or military ties to the Islamic State.

Al Arabiya reports that the Security Council issued a binding resolution that would prevent six individuals, including Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, from traveling internationally. It would also issue an arms embargo and asset freeze on them, as well as the greater organization, which had been blacklisted previously.

The resolution also takes a moral stance against the group, stating the UN “deplores and condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist acts of [the Islamic State] and its violent extremist ideology, and its continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.”

In addition to the actions by the Security Council, the United Nations generally has called the situation in Iraq a Level 3 “humanitarian emergency“, which would “facilitate mobilisation of additional resources in goods, funds, and assets, according to UN special representative Nickolay Mladenov. The organization also condemned the “barbaric” acts of the Islamic State, particularly against Iraq’s minority populations. The Islamic State has swept through northern Iraq on a mission to eliminate Shi’ite Muslims, Christians, and Yazidis in what is described with increasing frequency as a “genocide.” In Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, the Islamic State ordered Christians to accept living as second-class citizens and paying a jizya, or infidel’s tax, leave the city, or be killed. There arecurrently believed to be no Christians living in the city.

In the Sinjar area, the Islamic State has attempted to eliminate the Yazidi minority, ethnic Kurds who follow a faith that has elements of Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism. The Islamic State has been massacring Yazidi men and abducting Yazidi women, in many cases selling them into the slave trade. Thousands of Yazidis fleeing certain death climbed Mount Sinjar without food and water, finding themselves trapped between the severity of life without resources on the northern mountain or a brutal murder by Islamic State jihadists below. While the United States military and others have responded to the crisis with military air resources and humanitarian aid, it is believed that many Yazidis remain on the mountain or displaced elsewhere in the region.

Also see:

Bill Warner on the Reform of Refugee Laws

By Bill Warner:

Currently the UN determines what refugees get to come to America. Why should not we, the US, determine who gets to come here?



For good coverage of the southern border illegal alien crisis I recommend Refugee Resettlement Watch, Breitbart and The Last Refuge.

Alex Pierson on the Unnecessary & Profoundly Useless United Nations siding with Hamas


Published on Jul 24, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

The United Nations has acknowledged that its facilities in the Gaza Strip were storing Palestinian missiles and rockets.
The UN Relief and Works Agency has reported at least two incidents in which its schools were used for the storage of rockets amid the war with Israel. In both cases, the UN refused to confiscate the rockets and instead asked Hamas to retrieve the weapons.

“UNRWA strongly and unequivocally condemns the group or groups responsible for this flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law,” UNRWA said.
On July 22, the UN said it found rockets concealed in one of its vacant schools in the Gaza Strip. The UN did not say how many rockets were found or what was done with them.
“Today, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip,” the agency said. “As soon as the rockets were discovered, UNRWA staff were withdrawn from the premises, and so we are unable to confirm the precise number of rockets.”
Western diplomats, however, said the UN returned as many as 20 rockets to Hamas. Canada has called for an investigation of the UN action.
“I was appalled to hear reports, one as recent as today, of stockpiles of rockets in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza,” Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said. “Even more alarming were reports that in the first case, officials with the United Nations returned these weapons to Hamas, a listed terrorist organization, once Israeli officials discovered their location.”
The UN statement supported assertions by the Israeli military that Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies were using schools and mosques for rocket storage and attacks. In a report in mid-July, the UN said the Israeli military has been providing warning before attacks on civilian facilities
believed to contain weapons.
“Hamas has dug terrorist tunnels under hospitals, mosques, schools, homes, to penetrate our territory, to kidnap and kill Israelis,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on July 22.
The latest rockets were found between two other UN schools that sheltered 1,500 Palestinians who fled their homes during the current war.
The UN said the concealment of rockets marked a “flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law.”
“The agency immediately informed the relevant parties and is pursuing all possible measures for the removal of the objects in order to preserve the safety and security of the school,” the UN said. “UNRWA will launch a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding this incident.”


Watchdog: Al Jazeera’s Gaza Fatalities Data Indicates Israel Killed Mostly Combatant-Age Males, Not Women or Children


Who is responsible for the suffering in Gaza?

Published on Jul 22, 2014 StandWithUs

The International Holocaust Remembrance Day Charade

w-holocaust-day-450x303by :

President Barack Obama joined in the commemorations of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day (the day the Red Army liberated Auschwitz, January 27, 1945), issuing a statement that urged the nation and the world to remember the victims of the Holocaust.  His statement said “We recall six million Jews and millions of other innocent victims who were murdered in Nazi death camps. We mourn lives cut short and communities torn apart.” Obama added, “In our lives, we always have choices. In our time, this means choosing to confront bigotry and hatred in all its forms, especially anti-Semitism.” Obama’s statement talked about doing our part to ensure that survivors receive some measure of justice.

While President Obama’s words are praiseworthy, his recent actions in striking a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, and pressuring Israel to make dangerous concessions to the Palestinians, is placing the Jewish state in jeopardy. The Obama administration must recognize the fact that to ensure survivors receive ‘some measure of justice’ means protecting the Jewish state, and the living Jews from another Holocaust. The anti-Semites of this world, whether in the halls of the U.N. or in Tehran, Ramallah, or Gaza, want nothing better than to annihilate the Jewish state.

The State of Israel is the “collective Jew,” and home to the majority of Holocaust survivors. The charade that the U.N. puts on annually on January 27, called the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, cannot obscure its deliberate and vicious anti-Semitism practiced by the majority of this body, and its affiliated agencies, targeting exclusively the Jewish state.

Addressing the U.N. delegates in January, 2005, on the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, Israel’s foreign minister at the time, Sylvan Shalom reminded the delegates that the U.N. Charter meant to insure against another Holocaust. “The very first clauses of the UN Charter bear witness to the understanding of the founders, that this new international organization (The United Nations, JP) must serve as the world’s answer to evil (of the Nazi holocaust JP), that it comes, and I quote: ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person.’ ”

The current Israeli ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, had this to say on Monday, January 27, 2014. “The U.N. marks the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but the hatred that is disseminated by (certain) governments only shows that the organization (the U.N., JP) has yet to internalize the lessons of the Holocaust.  Nearly 70 years since the end of World War II, we are still witnesses to the phenomena of racism and anti-Semitism that rears its head around the world.”  Prosor pointed out that anti-Semitism has not been eradicated, and its venom is being expressed in sermons by Palestinian Authority (PA) clerics, in PA educational institutions, textbooks, and in speeches by leaders around the world. He accused Gaza based Hamas of perpetuating anti-Jewish propaganda, and specified that “Palestinian children learn that the lives of Jews are worth less.”

On the eve of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the Israeli government received its annual report on anti-Semitism worldwide. It appears from the report that there has been a worrisome increase in anti-Semitism, according to 76% of the respondents. The report presented by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, shows that the highest percentage of reported anti-Semitic activities are in Hungary, France, Belgium, and Sweden. The situation is less severe in Italy, Germany, and Britain. In Hungary, the respondents pointed to the extreme Right as the most threatening to Jews, whereas in France and Belgium, radical Muslims are the major source of anti-Semitic hate. 69 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, European Jews live once again in fear.

If aliens stumbled upon the U.N. debates, read its resolutions, or walked the U.N. halls, they would clearly conclude that the sole purpose of this world body is to censure a tiny Jewish state called Israel. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a non-voting observer to the U.N., is the second largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N, and can count on the votes of 57 Islamic states as its members. Along with the Third World member states, the OIC is almost guaranteed to master an “automatic majority.” Until the fall of the Soviet Union, that majority could add the Soviet Bloc, and in 1975, following a steady drumbeat of anti-Israel declarations, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the resolution that “Zionism is Racism.”

Read more at Front Page

Allowing Iran to fool us again

1004664107By Frank Gaffney:

Peanuts” cartoonist Charles Schulz made an enduring contribution to American political life with his famous sequence in which insistent promises by Lucy not to pull away the football overcome Charlie Brown’s hard experience with her unfailingly doing so.  This happens at the moment to be a perfect metaphor for what Iran’s newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani, has in store for Barack Obama.

We are told that Rouhani is yet-another Islamist “moderate,” that his election marks a popular repudiation of the hardline clerical regime of Ayatollah Khameini and that he is showing an unprecedented willingness to negotiate with the West.  His tweets, op.eds. and interviews ooze reasonableness.  The “smart people” say that now is the time for President Obama to meet with, shake the hand of or otherwise begin directly engaging his Iranian counterpart.

Mr. Obama has already begun this process.  He has exchanged letters with Rouhani and the administration is signaling that the two leaders’ speeches at the opening of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday may afford an opportunity to go further.  At a minimum, it seems there will be some sort of symbolic gesture.  If possible, Team Obama clearly hopes that – as with the recent initiative that purportedly will disarm Syria’s chemical arsenal – diplomacy can triumph.  In this case, that means easing sanctions in exchange for new Iranian promises about their nuclear program.

The trouble with such diplomatic fandangos is that, unlike Lucy and the football, the futility of the exercise – and, worse, its highly counterproductive costs – may not be immediately obvious, as with a mortified Charlie Brown landing flat on his back, yet again.

What we do know, though, is that Hassan Rouhani is the very personification of Lucy.  He has been associated with the theocrats of Tehran since they seized power in the wake of the 1979 revolution.  His purported “moderation” is all spin – especially since no one, not no one, is allowed to deviate from the dictates of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khameinei.  And Khameinei has been unwavering in his determination to realize the ambition of his predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, to obtain nuclear weapons.

Is there a genuine Iranian desire to reduce or eliminate economic sanctions?  Of course.  Is there a chance that this will translate into an Iranian willingness to take steps that actually and permanently derail Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program? Nope.

What is even more appalling about the Rouhani’s Lucy-and-the-football gambit is that he’s not only done it before.  He brags about it.

For example, in an interview with Iranian television, Hassan Rouhani boasted about his past success as his nation’s top negotiator in using diplomacy to buy time for the regime’s secret nuclear developments.  The video and an accompanying article by Reza Khalili, a former CIA operative once highly placed in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, appeared last week in the Daily Caller (



Khalili writes: “[Rouhani] called Iran’s claim that it stopped its nuclear program in 2003 a statement for the uneducated and admitted that the program not only continued, but was significantly expanded under his tenure. While President George W. Bush was increasing pressure on Iran in 2007, a report by American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 and that the program had remained frozen since.

“In the interview, Rouhani said that after he took over the country’s nuclear project, the country’s 150 centrifuges grew to over 1,700 by the time he left the project. Then, Rouhani made his boldest statement: ‘We did not stop; we completed the program.’” (Emphasis added.)

The old saw goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”  In fact, the Iranian regime and Hassan Rouhani himself have repeatedly perpetrated fraud on U.S. and Western leaders.  Far from feeling any shame, President Obama seems determined to double down – in the process, emboldening Iran and other adversaries, undermining and alienating our friends and diminishing our country.

Read more at Center for Security Policy

The Istanbul Process Continues

oicclintonihsanoglu by :

Almost two years ago — exactly a week before Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre in Norway — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) launched what they called the “Istanbul Process”. Their initiative was a joint project of the OIC and the USA, and was intended to bring Western nations (especially the USA) into compliance with UN Resolution 16/18, which aims to “[combat] intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion and belief.” The eventual goal is that member states of the UN will be required to pass laws criminalizing such “stereotyping” and “discrimination” based on religious belief. I don’t have to tell you that the intended primary beneficiary of Resolution 16/18 is Islam, and that all the attempts to implement the resolution are being pushed by the OIC and its Muslim Brotherhood-influenced allies in the governments and NGOs of major Western nations.

Mrs. Clinton is gone from the scene now, felled by the Benghazi scandal, but the Istanbul Process soldiers on without her. The European Union has to a large extent already complied with the demands of Resolution 16/18, and that’s why it was such a pleasant surprise to hear about the recent vote by the European Parliament.

On Tuesday June 18 the Legal Project published the following report about a very welcome resolution on free speech passed by the EP:

EU Challenges the UN and OIC on Press Freedom
by Nathaniel Sugarman

The European Parliament (EP) in Strasbourg passed two resolutions Thursday, each detailing a set of recommendations to protect the rights of journalists to speak and print freely.

“The EU, as a community of values, should aspire to lead in ensuring the free word, whether blogged or spoken, and information, whether researched or photographed, are protected. Journalists and a free, pluralist media, are essential for democracies and checks on power. Freedom of speech and freedom after speech are at the core of open and free societies,” said Marietje Schaake (ALDE, NL), rapporteur for press and media freedom in the world. The EP is the directly elected parliament of the European Union.

The first resolution (2011/2081(INI)), focusing on press freedom, “(r)ecognizes that governments have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing and protecting freedom of the press and media.” The resolution also “points out that governments also have the primary responsibility for hampering freedom of the press and media and, in the worst cases, are increasingly resorting to legal pressures in order to restrict that freedom, e.g. through the abuse of anti-terrorism or anti-extremism legislation and laws on national security, treason or subversion.” The EP endorses a “balance” between the concerns of national security and press freedom. The resolution goes further to deplore the fact that “journalists are frequently wounded or murdered or are being subjected to serious abuses throughout the world, often with impunity,” and stresses the “importance of combating impunity.”

The second resolution (2013/2082(INI)), centering on religious freedom, endorses the firm opposition of “any attempt to criminalise freedom of speech in relation to religious issues, such as blasphemy laws.” The EP predictably condemns “all forms of violence and discrimination,” but goes further to emphasize that “particular attention should be paid to the situation of those who change their religion or belief, as in practice they are subject in a number of countries to social pressure, intimidation or outright violence.”

Both moves by the EP stand in contrast to the more restrictive policies endorsed by the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC has endorsed “blasphemy laws” — the same type of law denounced by the EP in today’s resolution. Although now blasphemy laws are often euphemistically referred to as laws protecting the “defamation of religion,” the concept remains the same — laws that punish non-incitement speech about religion. The UN has worked with the OIC to help codify this type of speech restriction as international law.


Some have already opined that the European Parliament, although ideologically praiseworthy, lacks the will to implement these resolutions as law, which now only exist as recommendations. Whether or not resolutions 2081 and 2082 are eventually codified in any way, the EP’s actions remain significant in the face of UN and OIC pressure to promote a more restrictive international speech code.

What’s going oh here? Just a few days after this resolution was passed, Secretary General Ihsanoglu said the “Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation.” So what happened to the third leg of the 16/18 triad? Did the EU secede from the Istanbul Process? Or was this just a last toothless gesture of European defiance against an illiberal regime that will criminalize all thoughtcrimes concerning Islam?

Events surrounding the Istanbul Process often seem to move in a mysterious synchrony with other relevant events. Sometimes its proponents seize on a serendipitous opportunity, as seems to be the case with the Breivik massacre — which occurred just a week after the launch of the Istanbul Process. Alternatively, certain eruptions of “Islamophobia” are carefully prepared in advance, at least partially, and then used as grist for the OIC’s mill at the right moment. An example of the latter is the notorious Mohammed movie, which was obviously pushed into the Arabic-language Internet just in time for the “Free the Blind Sheikh” demos in Cairo on September 11, 2012. Events in Benghazi put a spanner in the works of that project — there’s no telling how it would have turned out if Al Qaeda hadn’t departed from the prepared script in Libya.

In another amazing coincidence, the next round of the Istanbul Process began the day after the Legal Project published its report on the EP resolution: on June 19 the OIC convened its third meeting on “Religious Hatred” in Geneva.

The Malaysian Bernama news serviceannounced the three-day event [emphasis added]:


OIC To Host 3rd Meeting On “Religious Hatred” In Geneva

KUALA LUMPUR, June 18 (Bernama) — The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) will host the third meeting of international experts on the implementation of the UN Human Rights Council resolution on combating intolerance and incitement to hatred on religious ground from June 19-21.

The meeting, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to focus on concrete steps in implementing some of the measures under the UN Resolution 16/18, which focuses on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion and belief.”

The experts will discuss issues like ‘Speaking out against intolerance, includingadvocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence‘ and ‘Adopting measures to criminalise incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief as stated under the UN Resolution, the OIC said in a statement.

One other point for discussion is ‘Recognising that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence,’ it added.

OIC secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who will be attending the three-day meeting, said that developing a better understanding among the international community on the issues and devising a suitable plan was significant.

The first meeting was held in Washington D.C. in December 2011 while the second one was held at Wilton Park in London a year later, the statement said.

The UN HRC Resolution 16/18 is within the framework of the Istanbul Process launched by the OIC secretary-general and former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July 2011.

Here is the official OIC press release saying more or less the same thing.

What is notable in these statements is the conflation of “incitement to imminent violence” with “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of, and discrimination… against persons based on religion and belief”. The stated intention of the OIC and Resolution 16/18 is to induce countries to “[adopt] measures to criminalise incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” But incitement to imminent violence is already outlawed as a criminal act throughout the West. The motive here is to first designate the criticism of Islam as “advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and then equate that with incitement to imminent violence, as if Islam-critics were exactly the same as people who stand on an overturned car and urge their fellow rioters to “kill whitey” (or “greenie” or “sambo” or whatever the hated group might be).

Following this logic, through his exposure of Islamic doctrine, Dr. Bill Warner would become as culpable for Muslim violence as if he had shouted over a megaphone for believers to go out and slit infidel throats. In fact, he would be even more culpable, since Muslims — as has become obvious from the two-tier system of British “justice” — will never be held accountable for public calls to kill infidels.

Thus, what is billed as a nice fluffy opportunity for “interfaith and intercultural dialogue” becomes a mandate for the legal suppression of all information about Islam except that which Muslims themselves choose to release.

Read more at Gates of Veinna

UN Pressures Germany to Bow to ‘Hate Speech’ Hysteria

United-Nations-signBy Andrew Harrod & Sam Nunberg:

A recent decision by the United Nation’s (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) foreshadows an ominous future for free societies should Muslim entities like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) achieve their goal of having “Islamophobia” defined internationally as a form of prejudice.

Former German central bank board member Thilo Sarrazin has got himself in trouble with the UN, as the Turkish Union in Berlin-Brandenburg (Türkischer Bund in Berlin-Brandenburg or TBB) stated with satisfaction in an April 18, 2013, German-language press release.  The spokesman of this German-Turkish interest group, Hilmi Kaya Turan, praised a February 26, 2013, “historic decision” by the CERD condemning Germany for not having prosecuted Sarrazin’s criticism of Arab and Turkish immigrants.

Sarrazin, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands or SPD), produced a storm of controversy with his August 2010 book Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab: Wie Wir Unser Land aufs Spiel Setzen (“Germany Abolishes Itself:  How We Are Risking Our Country”).  In the context of this controversy, CERD’s detailed 19-page decision extensively excerpted in English translation a fall 2009 interview with Sarrazin.  In the interview, the Berlin magazine Lettre International discussed some of the upcoming book’s themes.

CERD complained that “[i]n this interview, Mr. Sarrazin expressed himself in a derogatory and discriminatory way about social ‘lower classes’, which are not productive’ and would have to ‘disappear over time’ in order to create a city of the ‘elite’.”  Sarrazin specified that about 20% of Berlin’s population depended on welfare payments, which he wanted to cut, “above all to the lower class.”

Berlin’s indigent included within the immigrant population a “large number of Arabs and Turks in this city, whose numbers have grown through erroneous policies, have no productive function, except for the fruit and vegetable trade.” Compounding the problem for Sarrazin was a birthrate among Arabs and Turks about three times their percentage of the population.  Sarrazin thereby saw “Turks…conquering Germany just like the Kosovars conquered Kosovo: through a higher birth rate.”  Sarrazin “wouldn’t mind if” these immigrants “were East European Jews with about a 15% higher IQ than the one of Germans.”  Central to Sarrazin’s thesis was the assumption that “human ability is to some extent socially contingent and to some extent hereditary.” Sarrazin’s “solution to this problem” was “to generally prohibit influx, except for highly qualified individuals and not provide social welfare for immigrants anymore.”

As noted by CERD, Sarrazin’s interview comments prompted on October 23, 2009, a criminal complaint by the TBB under the German Criminal Code’s Article 130 against “Incitement to Hatred” (Volksverhetzung).  Yet upon review, German prosecutors suspended their investigations on November 23, 2009, deciding that Sarrazin’s views fell under the protection of free speech contained within Article 5 of Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz).  Prosecutors quoted by CERD had judged Sarrazin’s statements as a “contribution to the intellectual debate in a question…very significant for the public.”

Read more at Front Page

See also:

Muslims Demand Germany “Make Islam Equal to Christianity” (