World Shrugs as Hizballah Prepares Massive Civilian Deaths

by Noah Beck
Special to IPT News
March 21, 2017

Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah recently warned Israel that his Iran-backed terror group could attack targets producing mass Israeli casualties, including a huge ammonia storage tank in Haifa, and a nuclear reactor in Dimona.

Also last month, Tower Magazine reported that, since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, Iran provided Hizballah with a vast supply of “game-changing,” state-of-the art weapons, despite Israel’s occasional airstrikes against weapons convoys.

In a future conflict, Hizballah has the capacity to fire 1,500 rockets into Israel each day, overwhelming Israel’s missile defense systems. Should such a scenario materialize, Israel will be forced to respond with unprecedented firepower to defend its own civilians.

Hizballah’s advanced weapons and the systems needed to launch them reportedly are embedded across a staggering 10,000 locations in the heart of more than 200 civilian towns and villages. The Israeli military has openly warned about this Hizballah war crime and the grave threats it poses to both sides, but that alarm generated almost no attention from the global media, the United Nations, or other international institutions.

Like the terror group Hamas, Hizballah knows that civilian deaths at the hands of Israel are a strategic asset, because they produce diplomatic pressure to limit Israel’s military response. Hizballah reportedly went so far as offering reduced-price housing to Shiite families who allowed the terrorist group to store rocket launchers in their homes.

But if the global media, the UN, human rights organizations, and other international institutions predictably pounce on Israel after it causes civilian casualties, why are they doing nothing to prevent them? Hizballah’s very presence in southern Lebanon is a flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which called for the area to be a zone “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons” other than the Lebanese military and the U.N. Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

The resolution also required Hizballah to be disarmed, but the terror group today has an arsenal that rivals that of most armies. Hizballah possesses an estimated 140,000 missiles and rockets, and reportedly now can manufacture advanced weapons in underground factories that are impervious to aerial attack.

“Israel must stress again and again, before it happens, that these villages [storing Hizballah weapons] have become military posts, and are therefore legitimate targets,” said Yoram Schweitzer, senior research fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS).

Meir Litvak, director of Tel Aviv University’s Alliance Center for Iranian Studies, agrees, adding that global attention would “expose Hizballah’s hypocrisy in its cynical use of civilians as… human shields.”

Even a concerted campaign to showcase Hizballah’s war preparation is unlikely to change things, said Eyal Zisser, a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies. Hizballah exploits the fact that “the international community is too busy and…weak to do something about it,” Zisser said. All of “these talks and reports have no meaning. See what is happening in Syria.”

Israel has targeted Hizballah-bound weapons caches in Syria twice during the past week. Syria responded last Friday by firing a missile carrying 200 kilograms of explosives, which Israel successfully intercepted.

If Hizballah provokes a war, Israel can legitimately attack civilian areas storing Hizballah arms if the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) first attempts to warn the targeted civilians to leave those areas, Litvak said. But “it will certainly be very difficult and will look bad on TV.”

While Sunni Arab states are generally united against the Shiite Iranian-Hizballah axis, Litvak, Zisser, and Schweitzer all agreed that Israel could hope for no more than silent support from them when the missiles fly.

Indeed, the “Sunni Arab street” is likely to be inflamed by the images of civilian death and destruction caused by Israel that international media will inevitably broadcast, further limiting support for Israel from Iran’s Sunni state foes.

Rather perversely, the Lebanese government has embraced the very terrorist organization that could cause hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilian deaths by converting residential areas into war zones. “As long as Israel occupies land and covets the natural resources of Lebanon, and as long as the Lebanese military lacks the power to stand up to Israel, [Hizballah’s] arms are essential, in that they complement the actions of the army and do not contradict them,” President Michel Aoun told Egyptian television last month. Hizballah, he said, “has a complementary role to the Lebanese army.”

Aoun’s declaration means that Lebanon “takes full responsibility for all of Hizballah’s actions, including against Israel, and for their consequences to Lebanon and its entire population, even though the Lebanese government has little ability to actually control the organization’s decisions or policy,” said INSS Senior Research Fellow Assaf Orion.

MK Naftali Bennett, a veteran of Israel’s 2006 war with Hizballah, believes that Lebanon’s official acceptance of Hizballah and its policy of embedding military assets inside residential areas removes any constraints on Israeli targeting of civilian areas. “The Lebanese institutions, its infrastructure, airport, power stations, traffic junctions, Lebanese Army bases – they should all be legitimate targets if a war breaks out,” he said. “That’s what we should already be saying to them and the world now.”

In a future war, Hizballah is certain to try bombarding Israeli civilian communities with missile barrages. Israel, in response, will have to target missile launchers and weapons caches surrounded by Lebanese civilians.

But it need not be so. Global attention by journalists and diplomats on Hizballah’s abuses could lead to international pressure that ultimately reduces or even prevents civilian deaths.

Those truly concerned about civilians do not have a difficult case to make. Hizballah has shown a callous disregard for innocent life in Syria.

It helped the Syrian regime violently suppress largely peaceful protests that preceded the Syrian civil war in 2011. Last April, Hizballah and Syrian army troops reportedly killed civilians attempting to flee the Sunni-populated town of Madaya, near the Lebanese border. In 2008, its fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods and killed innocent civilians after the Lebanese government moved to shut down Hizballah’s telecommunication network.

Hizballah terrorism has claimed civilian lives for decades, including a 1994 suicide bombing at Argentina’s main Jewish center that killed 85 people. As the IDF notes, “Since 1982, hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives and thousands more have been injured thanks to Hizballah.”

If world powers and the international media genuinely care about avoiding civilian casualties, they should be loudly condemning Hizballah’s ongoing efforts – in flagrant violation of a UN resolution – to cause massive civilian death and destruction in Lebanon’s next war with Israel.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

Also see:

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs

nikki-haley-un-sec-councio-640x480

New ambassador makes clear change has arrived.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, February 21, 2017:

The Trump administration’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has hit the ground running.  She spoke truth to power by strongly calling out the United Nations for its anti-Israel bias and double standards. Her predecessor, Samantha Power, never came close.

After attending her first regular meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to the Middle East, including the Palestinian-Israeli situation, Ambassador Haley remarked to reporters, “The first thing I want to do is talk about what we just saw in there.” Calling the meeting “a bit strange,” Ambassador Haley noted how the focus of blame for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East seemed to be placed almost entirely on Israel.

“The discussion was not about Hezbollah’s illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon,” Ambassador Haley said. “It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I’m here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias.”

Ambassador Haley was speaking against the backdrop of the anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 passed last December, which the Obama administration refused to veto. “We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel,” Ambassador Haley declared. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

How refreshing it is to hear such sincere words of support for Israel after eight years of Israel-bashing by the Obama administration. Former Ambassador Power had hypocritically mouthed some formulaic acknowledgements of bias against Israel in the Security Council and other UN forums, but while contributing strongly to that bias herself.

Resolution 2334 reeks of such bias. Yet Power strongly defended the Obama administration’s decision to abstain rather than veto it. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” Power could not defend why the resolution failed to call out the Palestinian Authority or Hamas by name for committing acts of terror, incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists. Her lame explanation to reporters at her farewell UN press conference was that Resolution 2334 “was not our resolution, so I think you can probably pose those questions to the people who were negotiating the text.” Of course, she could have insisted on including such specific references to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence in violation of international law in the resolution itself as a condition for a U.S. abstention. She didn’t. Instead, add a display of moral cowardice to Power’s list of “accomplishments” during her tenure as UN ambassador.

Things will be different from now on. And it is not just a change in words and tone. Expect concrete actions demonstrating the Trump administration’s moral clarity in holding the UN organization to account.

For example, Ambassador Haley objected to the proposed appointment of the Palestinian Authority’s former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to become the next UN envoy to Libya. Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations. It is just an observer state. Israel, on the other hand, is a full member state. Yet the new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, sought to elevate a Palestinian official to a high UN Secretariat post, while Israel has been denied the opportunity to fill such a position. Inner City Press has reported that, according to its sources, “the nomination was really by Jeffrey Feltman, the Obama administration’s appointee to head the UN Department of Political Affairs.” Feltman served previously as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Obama administration. Through Feltman, the former Obama administration would still have someone inside the UN bureaucracy to further enhance the Palestinians’ favorable position at the UN at the expense of Israel. But this appointment was not to be.

Shortly after Salam Fayyad’s proposed appointment was announced, Ambassador Haley issued a statement, which read in part: “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.”

Evidently, that was enough to block the appointment. The Palestine Liberation Organization protested, of course. It’s not used to rejection at the United Nations.

Other actions appear to be underway or are soon to come. Late last year, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the UN General Assembly approved funding for compiling a blacklist of private Israeli companies doing business in the “occupied” territories. Samantha Power claimed the Obama administration objected to the blacklist project, but did nothing to stop it from proceeding. Less than a month after President Trump took office and Nikki Haley became the U.S.’s new UN ambassador, it was reported that the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council decided to delay the publication of a report in connection with establishing the database of Israeli companies with business links to settlements in the West Bank until some unspecified time later this year. There is now a good chance the database will not see the light of day.

Blank checks for the UN’s multiple pro-Palestinian programs may finally become a thing of the past. Ambassador Haley singled out the UN Department of Political Affairs – still headed by the former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman – for having “an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs.” She added, “There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors. And it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us.”

As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley had a reputation for being a strong fiscal conservative. The United Nations is on notice that as UN ambassador of the country paying a disproportionate amount of the total UN budget, Ambassador Haley will continue to be a fiscal conservative with American taxpayers’ money. She will aim to sharply reduce the rampant waste in the UN budget, perhaps starting with the often overlapping, over-the-top pro-Palestinian agencies and programs the UN has established over the years.

U.N. leader blames ‘Islamophobia’ for rising global terror

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Feb. 17, 2017:

The United Nations — under a new leader who personally oversaw the relocation of millions of Muslim refugees into the U.S., Canada and Europe — is doubling down on its “anti-Islamophobia” campaign against the West.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a Portuguese socialist who headed the U.N’s refugee agency before being promoted to secretary general in January, traveled to Saudi Arabia this week where he sat with Saudi royals and cited “Islamophobia” as the reason for increasing terrorism around the world.

“One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches,” Guterres said at a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

Echoing the comments of Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, Guterres said Islamophobia actually helps the Islamic State or ISIS to attract new recruits.

But the way others see it, Guterres just gave a free pass to Islamic extremists to commit acts of terror throughout the world.

It’s a lot like blaming the victim, says Phillip Haney, an Islam specialist who worked for more than a decade at Homeland Security screening immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.

“So Mr. Guterres is telling you that Islamophobia is such a great crime that you will be killed for it and terrorists will rise up because of this and it will be your fault,” Haney told WND.

“Why? Because you are an Islamophobe. It’s your fault that they’re killing you,” he said. “What’s he saying if that’s not what he’s saying?”

Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who has been following Guterres’ career since he left his job as leader of the Socialist International in 2005 to head up the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said the U.N. has a very narrow focus when it comes to religious intolerance.

“He lectured the world about Islamophobia but had nothing to say, no concerns, about the Christophobia exuded by Muslims who have been wiping out entire Christian communities in the Middle East for years,” said Corcoran, who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch. “Nor did he say anything to them, the Saudis, about refusing to take any of the millions of Muslim refugees created by the Syrian civil war.”

The venue for such a lecture was curious, Corcoran said. Christians are not allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia. There are no churches and the punishment for being caught with a Bible is death.

But the U.N. began its anti- “Islamophobia” campaign back in the early 2000s. It achieved a breakthrough in 2011 when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of 56 Muslim countries seated in the U.N., to adopt U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18. This resolution encourages member states to crack down on speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to violence” based on religion.

The problem, as Haney and others point out, is who gets to define Islamophobia?

“That puts all the responsibility on the Western world to come up with a non-defined standard for free speech,” he said.

Watch the video trailer for new investigative work former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has called the “must read book of 2017”

Of course the U.S. already has its own well-defined standard. It’s called the First Amendment. So there should not have been any need for a United Nations’ standard to muddy the waters, said Haney, co-author of the book “See Something Say Nothing.”

Guilty of ‘blasphemy’

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who consults with law enforcement and blogs at Understanding the Threat, said Islamophobia is the modern term Muslim leaders use to identify people who are guilty of the Islamic blasphemy laws, also called the Islamic law of slander.

The legal principle of slander is much different under Shariah law than under U.S. law. Under Shariah, comments critical of Allah, his prophet Muhammad or the Quran do not have to be false in order to constitute slander. All they need do is “offend” a Muslim.

“It is a capital crime under Shariah,” Guandolo told WND. “This is the same nonsense being spewed from the establishment Republicans and from the Democrat Party.”

Haney says Guterres is doing a great disservice to Western civilization by holding it to a standard of Shariah law.

“If Guterres really was concerned about the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness why wouldn’t he say something like ‘there is no excuse for terrorism.’ He’s giving them an out,” Haney said. “‘It’s not your fault Islamic world, it’s their fault.’

“If they’re not required to take any responsibility for their terrorism and can simply blame the Islamophobic Western world it’s only going to get worse. It’s like telling the crack addict, it’s not your fault that you’re addicted to crack.”

How the West adopted Islamic blasphemy laws

It was not long after U.N. Resolution 16/18 was adopted in 2011 that the term “Islamophobia” started showing up everywhere in Western countries.

Countries like Germany, the U.K., Sweden and the Netherlands among others in Western Europe went full throttle in the rush to erase “Islamophobia” from their cultural landscapes. Germany has gone so far as to arrest citizens who post anti-Islamic comments on Facebook, with the full cooperation of Facebook.

The Obama administration tried to do the same through end runs around the First Amendment. After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch promised to “aggressively” prosecute any speech that “edged toward violence,” while Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys in Minnesota [Andrew Luger] and Idaho [Wendy Olson] made similarly threatening comments after Muslim terrorists were arrested in those states. Lynch and Olson were forced to walk back their comments after a backlash from First Amendment advocates on the right and the left.

It was also right around this time, in 2011, the Justice Department agreed to purge all references to Islam from FBI training manuals that were deemed offensive to Muslims.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the largest NGO in the world with direct access to the U.N., had been pushing for a U.N. anti-blasphemy law since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“They pushed for years to get that thing through and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state they were successful in finally getting it passed,” Haney said of Resolution 16/18.

Pamela Geller, a free speech advocate, blogger and author of the popular book “Stop the Islamization of America,” said all of the recent U.N. secretaries general have been shills for the global Islamic movement.

“Guterres, like all secretaries general since the fall of the USSR, is a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been running a years-long campaign against freedom of speech at the U.N.,” Geller told WND. “It is being used to deflect attention from jihad activity and portray Muslims as victims who don’t deserve counterterror scrutiny.”

Doubling down on Trump

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and a best-selling author of several books on Islam, told WND that Guterres’ statement shows he plans to continue the U.N. campaign and even increase its intensity now that Donald Trump has been elected president of the most powerful country in the world. Trump’s supporters gave him a mandate to cut off Islamic immigration and take on “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump’s election, and the success of the Brexit vote in the U.K., have emboldened the leaders of several European candidates who espouse populist, anti-globalist agendas mirroring Trump’s.

That scares the U.N. and its Islamic allies to death, he said, so look for an intensification of the “Islamophobia” drum beat.

“This statement fits into the U.N.’s ongoing efforts to compel states that protect the freedom of speech to adopt ‘hate speech’ provisions that would effectively involve their adopting Sharia blasphemy provisions,” Spencer said.

There is no other explanation, says former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, as to why the U.N. would go out of its way to influence free countries to crack down on speech deemed critical of Islam when it has said little to nothing about actual acts of brutality – forget about speech – by Muslims against Christians in the Middle East.

“Guterres is doing the bidding of Islamic jihadists and is advancing Islamic conquest by silencing truthful speech about Islam,” Bachmann told WND. “Silencing opposition is the jihadists game plan for cornering their enemies.”

Whether it is U.N. Resolution 16/18, or “false charges of a nonexistent Islamophobia,” Islamic supremacists triumph if no one is allowed to criticize Islam, she said.

“No other religion enjoys such protection from criticism,” Bachmann said. “Ironically, no other religion in current times has advanced more violence, carnage and bloodshed than Islam and yet Islam’s gatekeepers demand their religion not be criticized.

“We need to recognize this is nothing more than a well-designed strategy to achieve Islamic conquest and the U.N. Secretary General is now the jihadist’s advocate.”

Spencer believes Guterres’ comment was directed squarely at the Trump phenomenon.

“The idea is that anyone, especially President Trump, who says there is the slightest problem with Islam (or “radical Islam”) is only aiding Islamic State propaganda that the West is waging war upon Islam,” he said. “This is predicated on the further assumption that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the motivation for jihad terrorism couldn’t possibly come from within it. So the poor dears must only become terrorists when we say bad things about their religion, so if we just stop doing that, all will be well.”

The only problem with this theory, says Spencer, is that the Quran’s exhortations to the conquest and subjugation of unbelievers are not predicated on what those unbelievers say or don’t say.

Guandolo added that “This gives us the cherry on top of the argument for shutting down the United Nations and sending them back to their respective countries. It is an anti-American organization which is littered with spies and haters of liberty and justice.”

Guandolo said Guterres is a perfect example of the unholy alliance between the secular Marxist left and the Islamists.

“It is also a great example of civilization jihad, spoken of by the Muslim Brotherhood, in which the Brotherhood spoke of getting non-Muslims to do their work for them.”

UN Ambassador Invokes Reagan While Failing to Protect Israel with Veto

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Members of the United Nations Security council vote Dec. 23, 2016, in favor of condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements. (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, December 23, 2016:

WASHINGTON — The United States turned its back on Israel during a United Nations Security Council vote on settlements in what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “shameful” vote.

“The Obama administration not only failed to protect Israel against the UN’s obsession with Israel, it collaborated with the UN behind Israel’s back,” the statement continued.

The vote on the resolution drafted by Egypt, which demands Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem,” was 14 in favor and the U.S. abstention.

Netanyahu immediately began taking countermeasures, canceling foreign aid to Senegal as well as nixing a planned visit to the Security Council member. He also recalled Israeli ambassadors from Senegal and New Zealand for consultations.

During the Friday meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power quoted President Reagan from 1982 saying settlements were “in no way necessary for the security of Israel”; she added that “a routine vote for the U.S. to allow the passage of a resolution with the elements in this one” would be consistent with “familiar, well-articulated components of U.S. policy.”

“It is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground – and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administration throughout the history of the State of Israel – that the United States did not veto it,” Power said, even though the administration used its veto power in 2011 to kill a similarly worded resolution.

“The United States has consistently said we would block any resolution that we thought would undermine Israel’s security or seek to impose a resolution to the conflict,” she said. “We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which we’ve repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped.”

Power added that despite refusing to veto the resolution “Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.”

Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters on a conference call today that the administration decided to take the course it did because “one of our grave concerns is that the continued pace of settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years.”

“We therefore thought that we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that expressed concerns about the very trends that are eroding the foundation for a two-state solution,” Rhodes said. “…For us, the question here has always been about what is the best way to pursue the security that the Israeli people deserve.  And we cannot simply have a two-state solution be a slogan while the trend lines on the ground are such that a two-state solution is becoming less and less viable.”

“…But, in fact, I’d take umbrage at language that suggests that this was our preferred course of action and that we initiated it.  The fact of the matter is, we’d been warning — President Obama and Secretary Kerry publicly and privately for years — that the trend line of settlement construction and settlement activity was just increasing Israel’s international isolation.”

The administration’s action drew scorn from the soon-to-be highest-ranking Democrat in Congress. “Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding that the Administration has failed to veto the UN resolution,” tweeted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Schumer was on the phone as recently as this morning trying to persuade the White House to use America’s veto power.

“Since the days of ‘Zionism is racism,’ the UN has long shown its anti-Israel bias, and the U.S. government — both Democrats and Republicans — have admirably kept the UN out when it comes to negotiations. That tradition should continue,” Schumer said before the vote. “…An abstention is not good enough.”

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has been at odds with the administration on Iran and Cuba policy, said he was “disappointed but not surprised that the administration chose to go along with this maneuver, walking away from longstanding principles and practices that advance the goal of peace and stability.”

“The United States must use its influence and posture at the United Nations to promote our values and support our allies,” Menendez said. “It has long been a bipartisan sensible policy of the United States to support direct bilateral negotiations between the parties to find an agreement. We have long stood beside Israel in the face of these kind of politicized resolutions whose only goal is to undermine confidence in a negotiated peace process.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) noted that “Israel can’t get a fair shake at the UN, and that is why Israel has relied on the United States to protect it from the anti-Israel tendencies of some UN Security Council members.”

“This abstention represents a clear departure from convention, and I consider this a break in the Obama administration’s word that they would veto biased or one-sided anti-Israel resolutions,” Engel said.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations said this morning that the Jewish State knew the resolution condemning settlement construction was coming because the Palestinians “want to take advantage of the transition period” in the United States.

“Instead of negotiating with us, it’s easier for them to come to New York, to come to the Security Council,” Ambassador Danny Danon told MSNBC a day after an expected vote on the resolution was tabled.

Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement calling himself “a lifelong friend of Israel” and said the U.S. “acted with one primary objective in mind: to preserve the possibility of the two state solution, which every U.S. administration for decades has agreed is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

“That future is now in jeopardy, with terrorism, violence and incitement continuing and unprecedented steps to expand settlements being advanced by avowed opponents of the two state solution,” Kerry said. “That is why we cannot in good conscience stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.”

StandWithUs CEO Roz Rothstein said that “while both sides in this conflict are subject to criticism, placing most of the blame on Israel while shielding Palestinian leaders from accountability is not a path to peace or justice for either side.”

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee called it “particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress and America’s long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations.”

“Unfortunately, the UNSC today irresponsibly adopted a ruinous resolution that can only make the goal of peace even more elusive,” the AIPAC statement added.

***

***

Also see:

UNESCO Pretends Jerusalem’s Temple Mount is A Wholly Islamic Site

temple-mount

A resolution prompted by Arab nations attempts to hide the majority of the site’s history in order to defend one of Islam’s least plausible claims.

CounterJihad, October 14, 2016:

The United Nations’ agency for cultural preservation, UNESCO, has ruled that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has nothing to do with Jews or Israel — or Christians, either.  It is a site to be preserved for exclusively Islamic reasons, according to the ruling.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the resolution, sponsored by several Arab countries, was a “theatre of the absurd.”  The ruling refers to Israel as “the Occupying Power” and is generally critical of Israeli preservation efforts, Israel’s intention to build a new visitor’s center near the site, and Israeli security forces’ efforts that have allegedly led to damage to the site.  In response to the ruling, Israel’s education ministry has suspended cooperation with UNESCO.

The Vatican, which holds observer status at UNESCO, has been asked to intervene to prevent the ruling from becoming finalized.  The resolution goes so far as to deny a Jewish connection to the Western Wall, where Jews still pray as they have since the Middle Ages.

Islam’s connection to the site is one of its least plausible theological claims.  That the site housed a Jewish temple in the days of Herod is a matter plainly demonstrable by archaeology, and that it was a Jewish site long before Herod is almost certainly true from scholarship.  Islam’s claim, however, is that the site is sacred because it is where Muhammad is supposed to have literally ridden his horse to heaven, following an already miraculous ride from present day Saudi Arabia to Israel in just one night.  The Western Wall is said to be sacred because it is where he tied his horse for a while before doing that — a tradition that does not date to the time of Muhammad at all, but is first observed in the literature in the 14th century.

There is nothing particularly wrong with holding to unlikely religious claims.  Christians generally hold that Jesus was bodily assumed into heaven, and although that claim goes along with Jesus having been actually divine, Catholics at least hold to a similar claim about St. Mary.  Nevertheless, it is strange to endorse those most unlikely of claims while also dismissing the most likely, and indeed clearly provable, of the claims of other faiths.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see UNESCO’s ruling as otherwise than nakedly political.  The intent is clearly to favor Islam over Judaism and Christianity, and to favor Palestine over Israel.  It is not new for Israel to come in for hardship at the UN, nor for Muslim nations to attempt to use the United Nations to advance their religion’s primacy — or to prevent criticism of the worst practices of some of its adherents.  Nevertheless, it represents a shameful failure to live up to the United Nations’ higher ideals.

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

Hillary Clinton’s “play for pay” campaign

14470645_10154552129456585_593521090828643343_nWarsclerotic,, by Lee Kaplan, October 5 2016:

President Harry Truman once said that any politician who became wealthy as a result of being in public service was a crook. As the American presidential election looms near, Hillary Clinton is showing the former president’s statement to be true.

On leaving the White House at the end of her husband’s presidency, Hillary Clinton cried poverty. Yet today, after her stint in Congress and as the U.S. Secretary of State, her net worth is in excess of 100 billion dollars. To this day Mrs. Clinton has not openly told the truth about where all the money is coming from. Most of this largesse is the result of donations from foreign dictators (notably the Gulf Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to which these dictators belong.

What is the OIC?

It is a consortium of the Gulf Sheikjs that also became a part of the United Nations. One of its key purposes of late is to try and have blasphemy laws created in the West and worldwide when criticism of Islam is voiced. It is also designed to get the Gulf Sheiks whatever they want from pusillanimous diplomats in the West.

The crux of the matter is how Hillary Clinton criticizes her presidential opponent by trying to suggest he is xenophobic, or more specifically “islamophobic” ( a silly term touted and promoted by UC Berkeley Hamas apparatchik Hatem Bazian, who also called for an “intifada” in America).  She says this is anathema to her humanitarian concern for Syrian refugees with which she wants to flood American shores.

Whereas Barack Obama brought in 10,000 such refugees and seeks to double the numbers, Ms. Clinton insists she wants this number increased to 550,000 or possibly even 600,000. Voters should note not only the fact that such a large number is bound to have many more refugees who are not vetted for security purposes – as is already being discussed in the Press. In fact, her insistence on these increased numbers is a glaring example of her engaging in “Pay for Play”:

The OIC pays her and she promises them she will absorb the refugees so OIC member nations won’t have to do it.

While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

And one doesn’t need a deleted email to see this. To date, not one Gulf sheikh who donated to her foundation has offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The Saudis, incredibly, have housing and bedding for three million refugees in their country. Originally created to house visitors for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca every year, these domiciles have air conditioning, running water and all the facilities to take in more than the 600,000 refugees that Hillary is proposing.

But that might interfere with the solid gold faucets planned for the next palace. Just as American boys can die to save Kuwait, so to can the American taxpayer absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the Arab world.

As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a state department that somehow lost 3 billion dollars in tax dollars that are unaccounted for according to the GAO, that spent other tax dollars on building mosques overseas through USAID, that funds UNWRA “camps” where Palestinian children are taught they are to be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists, and that pays salaries to convicted terrorist murderers in Israel jails. Those salaries are sometimes greater than many Americans earn. USAID also funds 100% of Palestinian television that incites Arabs to murder the Jews.

In fairness, many of these things were started under the Bush administration, but just as many others were started or propagated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As Secretary of State she could have stopped much of this, but she chose not to do so. She let the Arab world indirectly have the US as a piggy bank for totalitarians, letting the Saudis fund world terrorism and rule the roost in Washington. All of this was part of “Pay for Play” as she solicited funds from the Sheikhs for her foundation.

One campaign clip had Clinton saying “We must not insult Islam!”  This was spoken like a true IOC campaigner and an example of a politician pandering to her money source. As terrorist attacks come to the U.S. in St. Cloud, in Phoenix and New York, we can hear Hillary carrying on about how the US must swallow up 600,000 more Muslim refugees – because she must have promised this to the Shieikhs. That’s real play for the pay.

Every one of those Syrian refugees will cost the US taxpayer dearly as well. They will require government health care that we can ill afford, plus food, education and other benefits. Even those who have no terrorists connections will bring with them anti-Semitism and a support ideology that will promote the Sheikhs and other totalitarian enemies of the United States, just as President Obama has done in surrendering nuclear control over Iran. Remember – Hillary presided over that one too. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton will be paying back her funders at the expense of the American taxpayer as billions pour into her foundation in the form of funds that she can ultimately draw on, starting with daughter Chelsea.

Harry Truman obviously knew what he was talking about.

Netanyahu: The U.N. Is a Global ‘Moral Farce’

netanyahu-unWashington Free Beacon, by Jack Heretic, Sept.22, 2016:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu castigated the United Nations on Thursday in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, calling the organization a “moral farce.”

After stating that he believes Israel has a bright future with the U.N., Netanyahu gave a scathing indictment of the international institution for having a bias against the Jewish state.

“Year after year, I’ve stood at this very podium and slammed the U.N. for its obsessive bias against Israel and the U.N. deserved every scathing word,” Netanyahu said. “For the disgrace of the General Assembly, that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic state of Israel and a grand total of three resolutions against all the other countries on the planet. Israel: 20, rest of the world: three.”

Netanyahu then lambasted two other U.N. entities, the Human Rights Council and the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

“And what about the joke called the U.N. Human Rights Council, which each year condemns Israel more than all the other countries of the world combined. As women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world, which is the only country that the U.N.’s Commission on Women chose to condemn this year? Yep, you guessed it, Israel,” Netanyahu said. “Israel, where women fly fighter jets, lead major corporations, head universities, preside, twice, over the Supreme Court, and have served as speaker of the Knesset and prime minister.”

“And this circus continues at UNESCO. UNESCO, the U.N. body charged with preserving world heritage,” he continued. “Now, this is hard to believe, but UNESCO just denied the 4,000-year connection between the Jewish people and its holiest site, the Temple Mount. That’s just as absurd as denying the connection between the Great Wall of China and China.”

Before addressing why he believes Israel has an optimistic future, citing in part the country’s robust technology sector and growing diplomatic ties around the world, Netanyahu delivered another scathing line against the international body.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the U.N., begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce.”

***

READ: Full text of Netanyahu’s speech to UN General Assembly (jpost.com)

John Bolton on Obama’s Internet Handover: ‘Within Ten Years, the Internet as We Know It Will End’

icann-tim-halesassociated-press-640x480Breitbart, by John Hayward, Sept 22, 2016:

On Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton predicted that the impending transfer of Internet domain control from American supervision to an international body will mean the end of the Internet “as we know it.”

Speaking to Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and SiriusXM host Alex Marlow, Bolton explained that we should be “very concerned” about the transfer from “a national-security perspective.”

“What we’ve gotten out of the Internet, under the shelter of a private American organization that contracts with the Commerce Department, [is] one of the few cases that I can think of in our history where we’ve had that kind of government involvement without regulation and interference,” said Bolton.

He continued:

But because it’s entirely a U.S. government proposition with U.S. people involved, the Internet has been free and open. If, as the Administration wants to do, it’s transferred to an international body, I will predict right here: within 10 years it will come under the control of the United Nations, and the Internet as we know it will end because there are governments around the world that are already doing everything they can to prevent a free and open Internet in their countries, and it will extend to ours in due course.

Bolton called the Internet handover “a mistake of such colossal proportions that you would have thought we’d have a huge debate about it in this country.”

LISTEN:

“Ted Cruz has been leading the charge in the Senate to prevent this from happening,” he said. “There may be legislation passed in these last days of this Congress, as they try and wrap the budget up. But really, people need to wake up to this. This is something from Obama I have feared for eight years, his tendencies toward global governance. I’ve been surprised to have to say he hasn’t done more, but in his last days in office, we may see the full flowering of it, and this transfer of control of the Internet is perhaps the worst example right at the moment.”

Bolton elaborated on what he meant by the Internet as we know it dying within 10 years:

What they’re talking about is succumbing to the demands of foreign governments and foreign interests who say, in what is effectively a global means of communication, it’s just wrong to have the United States in charge of it.

But the fact is, under American control, it’s had remarkable growth. It’s been kept free. It’s been able to withstand a lot of pressure to try and set rules that favor one side or another. And in an international environment, I can tell you from my own experience, when you get all kinds of governments from all over the world setting standards and making decisions, it will be far less free than it is now.

And I don’t think the particular kind of transfer we’re talking about now is the end of the game. This is a black-and-white, binary choice: it’s either under American control, or it’s not. And once we let go of it, we are never getting it back.

Marlow turned the conversation to Barack Obama’s final speech to the U.N. General Assembly, describing it as a “toned-down Obama” with a few condescending lines, but not as much “fiery rhetoric” as he anticipated.

“I think he wanted this to be his swan song,” said Bolton. “It was a very pedestrian speech, so I think he certainly failed in that effort. A lot of was just domestic American politics, which personally I think is unseemly in a speech to the U.N. or an international forum. I think the President, especially a lame duck President, should be above that.”

“I think it shows that, really, Barack Obama is not a statesman. He is a political hack, when it comes right down to it,” Bolton judged. “He was unsparing in his criticism of many countries — criticism I agree with, in the case of Russia, North Korea, and so on — but he couldn’t withstand the temptation to criticize America. Thank God he’s the smartest man in the country, and he can tell us what we’re doing wrong.”

Bolton said he was “utterly struck” by “the reaction in the hall — which was essentially no reaction.” He noted there was “very perfunctory applause by the international community, after years where they’ve repeatedly interrupted him.”

“My sense was, they understand he’s a lame duck now. Maybe they’re just as tired as many Americans of being lectured by this morally superior being, and they’re happy to see the back of him.”

Marlow asked for Bolton’s take on the state of the United Nations and if there was still anything productive emerging from its meetings. Bolton replied that “things are happening, but not because it’s the U.N.”

He explained:

This week in September is just a very convenient point, where a lot of leaders come to New York. You can do a lot of business in a short period of time without having to travel all over the world, although traffic in New York makes it feel like it takes forever to get from one place to another. But it’s less about the U.N. than it is about other forms of diplomatic business.

That said, I believe that if Hillary Clinton wins, she will do what I expected Obama to do, which is try to transfer more and more American sovereignty into international organizations across the range of issues — whether it’s climate change or the conduct of international affairs. I think Obama didn’t do as much as I expected in that vein because he really just doesn’t care about international affairs as much as he cares about ‘fundamentally transforming’ our country.

I think Hillary does have even grander ambitions, and so that’s why what we started off, the end of ICANN or the effective control of ICANN over the Internet, is an excellent example of global governance replacing American sovereignty in effect. And I think she’ll be much more on that. I hope that’s something Trump emphasizes in the upcoming debate.

Turning to last weekend’s terrorist attacks, Bolton said they were “evidence that the terrorist threat continues to increase, as senior intelligence officials of the Obama Administration itself have testified in an open session of Congress.”

“It’s a demonstration of the diversity of the sources of terrorism and the kinds of terrorism that we see,” he continued, referencing the Chelsea bomber’s evident affinity for al-Qaeda, rather than ISIS, and the Somali origins of the Minnesota mall stabber. “It doesn’t all come from Syria or Iraq in the Middle East. It comes from as far away as Somali or Afghanistan.”

“And I think it’s also a measure of the kind of terrorism, that some people want to call it ‘lone wolf’ terrorism because they’re trying to downplay its significance. But it’s not lone wolf terrorism,” Bolton argued. “We’re seeing increasingly the networks, the connections of these two terrorists. ISIS has claimed credit for the one in Minnesota. We see how the terrorist arrested in New Jersey was in communication with terrorists in Afghanistan.”

“Terrorism doesn’t look like a corporate organization chart. That doesn’t make it any easier to deal with, or any easier to prevent,” he warned. “I think it’s one reason what that issue is so important in the 2016 campaign, and it should be.”

Marlow brought up the nuclear threat from North Korea, saying that “half the time, I feel like this is a joke, and half the time I feel like this is one of the scariest things happening on Planet Earth.”

“Unfortunately, it’s the latter,” Bolton said, explaining that the Communist dictatorship in Pyongyang presents a real danger to the United States and its allies:

The regime has always struck most Americans as a joke. Who can believe these people who talk and look the way the Kim family dictatorship has over the years?

But serious military officials, both American and South Korea, have repeatedly ramped up their judgment of what the North is capable of, and they’ve been saying for some time now that it’s only a very short period of time before North Korea is able to take their nuclear devices — and they’ve now tested five — and miniaturize them, and put them under the nose cone of their increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, and hit targets on the U.S. West Coast.

So the need for missile defense, at an absolute minimum — national missile defense for the United States, a program the Obama Administration gutted when they came into office, with the full support of Hillary Clinton. Dealing more effectively with North Korea, and I think trying to get more intelligence on whether and to what extent there is a connection between the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea — because these may seem like very different threats, but we know that for 20 years, if not more, they’ve cooperated on their missile programs, and I personally think there’s every reason to believe they’re cooperating on the nuclear programs as well.

We just don’t have enough information, and people don’t take this threat of the ‘Axis of Evil’ seriously enough. But if either or both of them get the capability to deliver nuclear by ballistic missile, we’ll take it seriously then.

Bolton concluded with his thoughts on the situation in Syria, where he sees the Russians and Iranians as having a “very distinct interest,” namely keeping Bashar Assad in power, while Obama’s goals and strategies remain vague and ineffective:

The ISIS threat is something that could have been dealt with a year, year and a half ago, if the Obama Administration had had a coherent foreign policy, but it doesn’t. And I think now we’re seeing continued chaos in Syria. ISIS may have lost some territory, but it’s still there, still recruiting terrorists. The Assad regime is still in place. Russian influence has increased, Iranian has increased, American influence has decreased. Really, how could it get much worse?

Malkin: Hey, UN corruptocrats: Spare us refugee sanctimony

Sadik Gulec | Shutterstock

Sadik Gulec | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Michelle Malkin, Sept. 21, 2016:

Another United Nations summit in New York. Another finger-wagging extravaganza. Another useless “historic declaration” (nonbinding, of course) to save the world (by holding another summit … in two years).

As America reels from the latest terrorist attacks by Muslim refugees and immigrants in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, the world’s global do-gooders filled the Big Apple with their humanitarian hot air. U.N. officials convened in NYC this week to push for “collective action” to “protect the rights of refugees and migrants, to save lives and share responsibility for large movements on a global scale.”

Let me put this as politely as possible: Bug off, U.N. nitwits.

Islamic jihadists are lopping off infidels’ heads; kidnapping young African girls, Christian missionaries and Western tourists; incinerating Afghan schoolgirls; imposing mass genital mutilation on Muslim girls and marrying them off to lecherous brutes while they’re still in grade school; pushing gays off of rooftops; mob-raping European women; casting fatwas on cartoonists, filmmakers and authors; and stabbing, shooting and bombing Jews, Christians and ex-Muslim apostates all over the world.

For starters.

But the real problem, the U.N. elites tell us, is “rising xenophobia” in countries whose citizens are sick and tired of open borders. If only we uneducated heathens who oppose unfettered mass immigration to America from America-hating breeding grounds learned to appreciate “diversity” more, a Skittles-colored rainbow of peace and harmony would reign.

And yes, I know, “Skittles” is now a trigger word after Donald Trump Jr. used the treats in a completely innocuous homeland security meme on Twitter to illustrate America’s inability to separate murder-minded refujihadis from legitimate refugees escaping persecution.

To which I say: Suck it up, snowflakes. Terrorists are teaching their kids to slice throats and you’re whimpering over candy analogies? Talk about candy-asses.

Not to be outdone in the international sanctimony Olympics, President Obama used center stage at the U.N. General Assembly to rail against self-preservationism in favor of “global integration.” Instead of a full-frontal fusillade against al-Qaida, the Islamic State and all the other homicidal spreaders of Allahu Akbar-it is, Obama aimed his sharpest barbs at American supporters of Donald Trump and U.K. voters who voted to withdraw from the European Union.

“A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” he lectured.

(Pay no attention to the brand-new fence at the White House now nearly 14-feet high to protect Obama from unwanted outside “integration.”)

This week’s U.N. production of Caring Theater is just the latest attempt by the world’s most feckless social engineers to compensate for their own abject, chronic failures.

The U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, bloviated against “race-baiting bigots, who seek to gain, or retain, power by wielding prejudice and deceit, at the expense of those most vulnerable.”

What he didn’t talk about: the decades-old corruption, fraud, and abuse perpetrated by the U.N. itself and its vast refugee bureaucracy.

In Malaysia, U.N. refugee officials have been implicated in black market schemes to sell United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees cards and false identity papers in order to get resettled in the United States, Australia and Canada.

In Lebanon, Arabic-language newspaper Al Monitor reported this year that “Aid organizations have become fountains of corruption, while ‘humanitarian mafias’ accrue massive sums” through U.N. funding.

Last year, fiscal watchdogs blew the whistle on systemic management of the U.N. refugee agency’s nearly billion-dollar budget over the last two years. An internal audit deemed every measure of financial controls over refugee relief funds “unsatisfactory.” The report came just two years after another internal assessment raised red flags over “the lack of adequate managerial control” by U.N. officials contracting with third parties purportedly helping refugees.

All that came in the wake of the latest U.N. rape epidemic earlier this spring involving peacekeepers in the Central African Republican who sexually abused civilians, including more than 100 girls in one prefecture.

That outbreak follows years of brutal exploitation by U.N. staff members in Nairobi who shook down African refugees seeking resettlement in North America, Europe and Australia while the U.N. looked the other way. And that scandal ran parallel to another widespread U.N. peacekeepers’ sexual predator ring involving refugees that stretched from the Congo to Bosnia and Eastern Europe.

U.N. brass downplayed the barbaric treatment of refugees in its care as the result of a few rogues. But rape rooms and internet pedophile video productions were run by senior U.N. officials and other civilian personnel, untold numbers of whom fathered babies with young girls and teens held as prostitutes and sex slaves. Nothing has changed.

Before the world’s policemen barge in on us again to denigrate our efforts to protect our home, they should spare us the refugee sanctimony and clean up their own.

Also see:

Amidst Terror, New York Welcomes Terror-Supporting Regimes to UN

John Moore / Getty

John Moore / Getty

Breitbart, by Anne Bayefsky, Sept. 19, 2016:

The leaders of terror-sponsoring states are currently descending on Manhattan for the annual opening of the UN General Assembly and their words are guaranteed to be blasted across the global airwaves. It is about time we made the connection between the terror-enablers in Turtle Bay and the terrorism in the streets beyond.

Monday brought new meaning to the phrase “upstairs, downstairs.” Above ground, the limousines glided in and out of UN Headquarters – recently renovated with more than half a billion dollars from U.S. taxpayers alone. Below ground, millions of New York straphangers were held up in subway and train stations until police gave the all-clear.

The contrasts get even starker. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is being protected by New York’s finest, while he is endangering American sailors and pilots in the Persian Gulf.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is paying “martyrs” that kill Americans and Israelis, while Americans are paying to take good care of his health and welfare when he is in town.

Then there are the other so-called “world leaders” that New Yorkers are hosting. All have immunity to travel to and from the UN in the name of “world peace.” And yet they include despots and dictators from terror hotspots like Lebanon, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

From inside the UN there will be plenty of speeches condemning terrorism – albeit with a cynical wink-wink. Given the UN has no definition of terrorism, this bandwagon is open to all comers. Even an ISIS rep could jump on board.

And from inside New York taxis Mayor de Blasio is treating riders to an advertisement on the glories of the UN. Big-hearted New Yorkers, it says, are rolling out the welcome mat.

More accurately, short-sighted New York officials are putting “cha-ching” before safety and a moral compass. Anti-Americanism and non-stop Israel-bashing by way of the United Nations is actually not welcome by the vast majority of Americans, or would not be if they knew what was going on at their expense.

We need to connect the dots between incitement to terror and terrorism. Instead of watching pundits scratching their heads over how the latest naturalized American was radicalized, try tuning into a UN webcast. And then put an end to your contribution.

Report: United Nations-Backed Orgs Promoting Terrorism, Anti-Semitism, Violence

Flags of member states fly outside United Nations headquarters / AP

Flags of member states fly outside United Nations headquarters / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Sept. 1, 2016:

“Bigots, anti-Semites, and terrorist advocates” are “spreading hatred and inciting violence” from within the halls of the United Nations with full backing of the international organization, according to a report that shines new light on the lack of proper administrative oversight at Turtle Bay.

Accredited advocacy groups permitted to operate at the U.N. have been using the international organization as a platform to legitimize anti-Semitism, hatred of the Jewish state, and support for terrorism, according a new report issued by Human Rights Voices, a group that monitors bias at the U.N. and the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

“Most striking for an organization founded on the ashes of the Holocaust, the UN enables its accredited NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to play a central role in promoting modern anti-Semitism,” the report states. “Although the preamble of the UN Charter promises the equal rights of nations large and small, UN-accredited NGOs foster the destruction of the UN member state of Israel.”

The report provides evidence showing how a range of U.N.-backed groups use the institution to promote hatred and violence, a claim long made by supporters of the Jewish state.

“There are numerous examples of UN-accredited NGOs engaging in anti-Semitism, promoting violence and terror, demonizing the UN member state of Israel, and advocating its destruction,” according to the report, which provides screenshots and images of this behavior.

Many of the materials are still publicly accessible and continue to be distributed by these organizations, according to the report.

The report notes that many of the U.N. member states responsible for granting accreditation to these anti-Israel and anti-Western groups have questionable human rights records.

“The states running the UN accreditation processes are frequently countries that inhibit free speech and curtail the freedom of association in their own backyards, and deliberately use their UN powers to protect themselves in the international sphere,” the report noted. “Current members of the most prolific UN NGO accreditation operation include such NGO-abusing states as China, Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Sudan. Iran is currently a Vice-Chair.”

Accredited status gives these advocacy groups special access at the U.N.’s New York headquarters, permitting them to serve as observers at meetings, participate in official conferences, and consult with top U.N. officials, among other benefits.

U.N. accredited organizations flagged in the report have compared Israelis to Nazis and have claimed that Israel commits acts of genocide. Other international organizations in the report portray Israel as Nazi Germany and promulgate age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes about Jewish people.

Read more

Enjoy the Internet, Before Obama Abandons It to the UN

shutterstock_437778610.sized-770x415xcPJ MEDIA, BY CLAUDIA ROSETT, AUGUST 29, 2016:

In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist Gordon Crovitz sounds an urgent warning about President Obama’s plans, during his final months in office, to fundamentally transform the internet. It’s an intricate tale, but the bottom line is that unless Congress acts fast, the World Wide Web looks likely to end up under control of the UN.

That would be the same UN that serves as a global clubhouse for despotic regimes that like to wield censorship as a basic tool of power. Russia and China occupy two of the five veto-wielding permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Iran since 2012 has presided over one of the largest voting blocs in the 193-member General Assembly, the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement. Among the current members of the Human Rights Council are Venezuela, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia — where blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced in 2014 to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes, for blog posts the Saudi government considered insulting to Islam.

We’re talking here about the same UN which for generations has proven incorrigibly corrupt, opaque and inept at managing almost anything except its own apparently endless expansion and self-serving overreach. This is the UN of the Oil-for-Food worldwide web of kickbacks; the UN of the evidently chronic problem of peacekeepers raping minors they are sent to protect; the UN that can’t manage to adequately audit its own books, and offers its top officials an “ethics” program of financial disclosure under which they are entitled to opt out of disclosing anything whatsoever to the public.

This is the UN where a recent president of the General Assembly, John Ashe, died this June in an accident that reportedly entailed a barbell falling on his neck, while he was awaiting trial on fraud charges in the Southern District of New York — accused by federal authorities of having turned his UN position into a “platform for profit.”

So, how might this entrancing organization, the UN, end up controlling the internet? Crovitz in his Journal column explains that Obama’s administration is about to give up the U.S. government’s longstanding contract with Icann, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which, as a monopoly, operates “the entire World Wide Web root zone.”

If that sounds like a good idea, think again. This is not a case of Obama having some 11th-hour 180-degree conversion to the virtues of minimalist government. It works out to the very opposite. Here’s a link, again, to Crovitz’s column on “An Internet Giveaway to the UN.” Crovtz explains that as a contractor under government control, Icann enjoys an exemption from antitrust rules. When the contract expires, the exemption goes away, unless Icann can hook up with another “governmental group” so as to “keep its antitrust exemption.” What “governmental group” might that be? Well, some of the worst elements of the UN have already reached out. Crovitz writes:

Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

This is far from the first time the UN has cast a covetous eye at the internet. For years, there have been UN proposals, shindigs and summits looking for ways to regulate and tax the Web. Recall, as one example among many, the 2012 UN jamboree in Dubai. Or 2007 in Rio. Or the 2009 Internet Governance Forum gathering in Egypt, inspired by the 2005 conference of wannabe-be web commissars in Tunis.

All that hoopla pales next to the alarming reality of Obama’s plan to cut loose Icann this fall, and let the economic and political currents carry it straight into the waiting clutches of the United Nations. Crovitz notes that the Obama administration, while preparing to drop Icann’s contract, has already “stopped actively overseeing the group,” with dismal results inside Icann itself. Crovitz concludes, “The only thing worse than a monopoly overseen by the U.S. government is a monopoly overseen by no one — or by a Web-censoring U.N.”

Lest that sound hopeless, Crovitz adds: “Congress still has time to extend its ban on the Obama administration giving up protection of the internet.” But not a lot of time. The deadline is Sept. 30th.

***

Secure Freedom Radio with Jim Hanson, Aug. 30, 2016:

KEVIN FREEMAN, Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Creator of GlobalEconomicWarfare.com:

Podcast : Play in new window | Download

  • Open society foundation attempted to block dissenters on the Internet
  • Why ICANN must be stopped

Egyptian Ambassador Takes Aim at Top Muslim Brotherhood Jurist

ISLAMIC SCHOLAR AL-QARADAWI POSES IN LONDON. REUTERS/Toby Melville

ISLAMIC SCHOLAR AL-QARADAWI POSES IN LONDON.
REUTERS/Toby Melville

CounterJihad, by Kyle Shideler, Aug. 30, 2016:

Last week the Egyptian Ambassador to the United States Yasser Reda used the opportunity of a Wall Street Journal op-ed to focus attention on the ideologues who promote and support terrorist violence, and called for United Nations efforts to curb terroristic speech with international policy instruments in a manner similar to terror financing. For the subject of their piece, Egypt’s Ambassador focused not on Islamic State’s Al-Baghdadi, or Al Qaeda’s Al-Zawahiri, but rather a man he identified as “the pontiff of terror,” Muslim Brotherhood leading cleric and sharia jurist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

The Egyptians have good reason to fear Qaradawi, a long-accomplished jurist with “more than a hundred tomes on theological and jurisprudential issues” to his name, who in 2013 called for those who overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohammed Morsi to be killed.

Qaradawi’s proclamations played a substantial role in the Arab Spring, particular legitimizing jihad in Libya against Qaddafi and in Syria against Hezbollah and the Assad regime. Qaradawi’s pronouncements also played a role in massive and highly anti-Semitic protests in opposition to Israel Operation Protective Edge against Hamas throughout the Middle East, Europe and the United States.

Prior to the Arab Spring, Qaradawi was perhaps best known for providing fatwas authorizing suicide bombings for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and calling for the death of Americans during the occupation in Iraq in 2004.

Unfortunately Reda’s rebuttals falls into some common rhetorical pitfalls. In particular, Reda attempts to contrast Qaradawi’s support for suicide bombings with a prohibition against suicide found in Islamic law. While it’s admirable for the Egyptian diplomat to admit that Qaradawi deals in questions of Islamic jurisprudence and not an artificial “extremism” unrelated to questions of Islamic jurisprudence, Reda’s argument against Qaradawi’s positions lack a solid basis.

The very statement Reda quotes to condemn itself invokes Qaradawi’s defense against the charge. Reda quotes Qaradawi on Al Jazeera suggesting that suicide operations must be undertaken as part of a military effort by a Jamma (party or group) and not by a single individual. But Qaradawi’s formulation eliminates the possibility that a person has taken their own life only out of their own personal despair, and not in order that “they fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” (Sura: 9:39)

Even while making an effort to minimize Qaradawi’s juridical authority, Reda ultimately seems to accept that Qaradawi’s interpretation carries serious weight among his audience, and that those who hear his appeals to violence on the basis of sharia may act upon it.

Far too many western analysts cannot bring themselves to make even this reasonable concession to reality.

Reda also dispatches with the nonsense notion that Qaradawi’s views, which uphold suicide bombings, jihad and revolution are, in any way, the views of a “moderate.”

Qaradawi has been a bugbear for several Arab States, including Egypt, but also the United Arab Emirates, which designated Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) as a terrorist group.

Reda’s proposed solution raises some questions and some concerns. Reda proposes a United Nations apparatus to designate ideologues like Qaradawi, in the same manner as designating terror financiers, and to sanction them accordingly.

To begin with Qaradawi is already the head of a U.S. and Israeli-designated terrorist finance organization, the Union of the Good, as being designated by the United Arab Emirates.  Despite this no sanctions have ever been placed directly on Qaradawi or business associated with him.

Qaradawi, who has been banned from entry to numerous countries including the United States, France, and Ireland, faces an Interpol “red notice” seeking his arrest and return to Egypt to stand trial on charges of incitement to murder.

In other words, if the nations of the world were so inclined, the ability to take action against Qaradawi exists.

Yet Qaradawi continues to enjoy the patronage of Qatar and Turkey, nations that have sought to expand their prestige and position in the Muslim world through a mutually beneficial alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. As a result, it’s unlikely to see international consensus regarding an effort to sanction him for his calls to violence.

The other problem, of course is Egypt’s own history of seeking to utilize international forums to silence opponents have not always been focused on Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadist ideologues.

Instead Egypt (with the support of the United States), sponsored a 2009 resolution targeting freedom of speech under the rubric of protecting against religious discrimination. As Anne Bayesfky noted at the time:

…Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

This is particularly worrisome since the U.N.-based effort is modeled on using “incitement to violence” to trigger legal penalties, which seems similar to the sort of trigger for sanctions proposed by Reda.

While it’s possible that the current proposal by Ambassador Reda is intended only to narrowly focus on the kinds of jihadist ideology promoted by clerics like Qaradawi, it pays to be cautious.

Still Reda’s editorial displays a rare level-headedness about the depth of the problem, and a willingness to call out not just jihadists but Islamic scholars and clerics who provide legitimacy to jihadist terror.

At a minimum however cooperation between U.S. and western countries and Arab states looking to crack down on Muslim Brotherhood ideologues and their networks would be a key turning point towards responding to the current threat, and one that the U.S. has largely turned a blind eye to. Certainly expanding current terrorism laws to include those, like Qaradawi, who provide ideological and material support to terror, along with including the Muslim Brotherhood as a designated terrorist group, would be a good first step towards “countering the pontiff of terror.”

Leaked Soros Memo: Refugee Crisis ‘New Normal,’ Gives ‘New Opportunities’ For Global Influence

Billionaire investor George Soros of Soros Fund Management attends the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 26, 2013. REUTERS/Pascal Lauener

Billionaire investor George Soros of Soros Fund Management attends the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos January 26, 2013. REUTERS/Pascal Lauener

Daily Caller, by Peter Hasson, Aug. 15, 2016:

A leaked memo from left-wing financier George Soros’s Open Society Foundations argues that Europe’s refugee crisis should be accepted as a “new normal,” and that the refugee crisis means “new opportunities” for Soros’ organization to influence immigration policies on a global scale.

OSF program officer Anna Crowley and program specialist Katin Rosin co-authored the May 12 memo, titled “Migration Governance and Enforcement Portfolio Review.”

The nine-page review makes three key points: OSF — which doles out millions to left-wing causes — has been successful at influencing global immigration policy; Europe’s refugee crisis presents “new opportunities” for the organization to influence global immigration policy; and the refugee crisis is the “new normal.”

Open Society Foundations is successfully influencing global immigration policy

One of the purposes of the review, Crowley and Rosin write in the introduction, is to “consider the effectiveness of the approaches we have used to achieve change at the international level.”

A section of the review titled “Our Work” describes how America’s least transparent think tank has worked with “leaders in the field” to “shape migration policymaking and influence regional and global processes affecting the way migration is governed and enforced.”

In a section titled, “Our Ambitions,” the authors explain: “Our premise for engaging in work related to governance was that, in addition to mitigating the negative effects of enforcement, we should also be supporting actors in the field proactively seeking to change the policies, rules, and regulations that govern migration.”

“We also believed that advances at the regional or international levels could create impetus for policy change or implementation of existing norms at the national level. We deliberately avoided the term ‘global governance’ because there is no single system at the global level for managing migration.”

The same section later states that IMI “has had to be selective and opportunistic, particularly at the global level, in supporting leaders in the field to push thinking on migration and better coordinate advocacy and reform efforts. We have supported initiatives, organizations, and networks whose work ties directly to our aims in the corridors.”

“Early on, IMI identified a handful of organizations able to engage on migration globally and transnationally, elevating IMI’s corridor work beyond the national level,” reads another section of the memo, entitled “Our Place.”

“These included key think tanks such as the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) and advocacy networks such as the International Detention Coalition (IDC).” (The authors later note that MPI, a strong advocate of amnesty for illegal immigrants in America, “is sometimes criticized for its closeness to governments, [but] flexible funding from OSF has allowed it to maintain some independence from the governments it advises.”)

The memo also notes that “IMI played a central role in establishing and influencing the goals of two new [European Programme for Integration and Migration] sub-funds on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and immigration detention.”

Europe’s refugee crisis presents “new opportunities” for OSF

The memo explains how Europe’s refugee crisis is opening doors for Soros’ organization to further influence global immigration policy.

The authors note that “the current refugee crisis is creating space to reconsider the governance of migration and the international refugee regime.”

One reason for this is that the developing countries that make up the Group of 77 at the United Nations were motivated by the refugee crisis to keep immigration issues on the “global agenda,” the memo states.

“The refugee crisis and the fear that the interests of migrants fleeing poverty, climate change, generalized violence, or natural disaster would be overlooked at these fora have generated a push from G77 countries to ensure other migration issues remain on the global agenda.”

They later explain that the current crisis provides “new opportunities” for influencing immigration policy on a global scale.

“The current climate presents new opportunities for reforming migration governance at the global level, whether through the existing multi-lateral system, or by bringing together a range of actors to think more innovatively. Our long-standing interest and investment in global work means we have many of the right partners and are positioned to help others navigate this space.”

Additionally, the review states, “The refugee crisis is opening new opportunities” for “coordination and collaboration” with other wealthy donors.

Europe’s refugee crisis: the new normal

According to the review, immigration policy-makers need to accept the refugee crisis as a “new normal.”

One of the conclusions listed in the memo is, “Accepting the current crisis as the new normal and moving beyond the need to react.”

SorosNewNormal-768x143

“Observing our partners as they respond and adjust to the new reality in light of the crisis in Europe and the Mediterranean, we see little attention given to long-term planning or fundamentally new approaches to advocacy.” The conclusion also stresses the need to fight back against “growing intolerance toward migrants.”

OSF has not yet returned The Daily Caller’s request for comment.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

***

Also see: