Yearly Archives: 2017

False Friends: The Global War Against Israel by Guy Millière

  • Just as people in Paris were murdered one day last week, Jews in Israel are murdered virtually every day.

  • Undoubtedly, Rabin wanted peace — virtually all Israelis want peace — but not at any price. He never envisaged the creation of a Palestinian state: the Oslo Accords provided for the establishment of a “provisional self-government,” not a state.

  • Rabin did not contemplate infinite and unconditional negotiations: the Oslo Accords call for a five-year period of negotiations, and include the possibility of breaking off the talks if one of the parties does not respect the spirit in which the Accords were to be implemented.


  • In addition, Rabin, seeing the rise of violence, wanted during the last weeks of his life to break off the talks. If the Oslo talks did not live up to their expectations, it was in continuing to pursue the vain and useless negotiations — exactly the opposite of what Rabin had envisioned.

  • Palestinian leaders have an overwhelming responsibility for what has happened during the last twenty years. Not only have they continued to make the very demands that Rabin rejected — and that no leader in a comparable situation could ever accept; they have done worse.

  • Israel cannot make peace, because there is no one to make peace with.

  • Peace implies conditions. One of the first is that those with whom a country intends to make peace also want to make peace. Nothing, however, indicates that Palestinian leaders have the slightest intention of making anything that even resembles peace.

  • One hopes the French will not surrender to terrorists; neither should the Israelis.

On October 31, tens of thousands of people gathered in Tel Aviv to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the assassination of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In a pre-recorded speech, Barack Obama addressed the crowd and praised the man who had presided over the Oslo Accords. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who came in person, spokeof the need to respect “the legacy of Rabin,” and said that Israelis should “finish” what Rabin started, and choose between “the risk of peace” and “the risk of walking away from it.” He added that it was up to the Israelis to take “the right decision.”

His comments were well received both by the crowd and the media worldwide as the words of a friend of Israel. Unfortunately, and possibly unwittingly, they were the words of a false friend. They carried deeply harmful inaccuracies that serve only the enemies of Israel, and are, sadly, part of the verbal war against Israel.

Since the death of Yitzhak Rabin, a false legend has taken shape. The legend says that Rabin wanted peace and the rapid creation of a Palestinian state. It adds that Rabin’s assassination “killed a hope” that otherwise would have been fulfilled. It accuses all the Israeli prime ministers who succeeded Rabin of failing to complete his mission, and suggests that they did not live up to their task. It also infers that these succeeding Israeli prime ministers are responsible for the failure of all negotiations during the last twenty years. Above all, it exempts the Palestinian leadership from any responsibility.

The reality is quite different.

Undoubtedly, Rabin wanted peace — virtually all Israelis want peace — but not at any price. As a General in the Israel Defense Forces, he devoted his entire life to the security of Israel; he did not change his mind in the years before his assassination. He never envisaged the creation of a Palestinian state: the Oslo Accords provided for the establishment of a “provisional self-government,” not a state. Rabin rejected explicitly the idea of a “Palestinian state”.

Rabin did not contemplate infinite and unconditional negotiations: the Oslo Accords call for a five-year period of negotiations, and include the possibility of breaking off the talks if one of the parties does not respect the spirit in which the Accords were to be implemented. Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasser Arafat violated the Accords on the very first day — by trying to smuggle into Israel, under the seat of his car, an operative who had been prohibited from entering the country. In addition, Rabin, seeing the rise of violence, wanted during the last weeks of his life to break off the talks.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony on September 13, 1993. (Image source: Vince Musi / The White House)

Rabin’s successors did not break off the talks, as Rabin was planning. His successors went well beyond the five-year period of negotiations initially planned. If the Oslo talks did not live up to their expectations, it was in continuing to pursue the vain and useless negotiations — exactly the opposite of what Rabin had envisioned.

The failure of negotiations for that last twenty years has in reality come from Palestinian demands, which Rabin had explicitly rejected. Palestinian leaders have called non-stop for eliminating West Bank Jewish communities: in a speech to the Knesset nine days before his death, Rabin said that Israel would never abandon the West Bank Jewish communities. Palestinian leaders have repeatedly said they wanted a return to the 1967 borders (the armistice lines of 1949); in the same speech to the Knesset, Rabin said that Jerusalem, complete and united, was, and would remain, the capital of Israel. Palestinian leaders have ceaselessly demanded the “right of return” of Palestinian “refugees.” Rabin stated several times that he rejected the “right of return.” No Israeli leader could accept the “return” of six million Arabs — who four generations later are no longer refugees. Six hundred thousand Arabs left Israel in 1948-49, most of their own accord. Most are long gone. Arabs who stayed within the boundaries of Israel became Israeli citizens (Arabs represent 20% of Israel’s population).

In addition, Palestinian leaders have an overwhelming responsibility for what has happened during the last twenty years. Not only have they continued to make the very demands that Rabin rejected — and that no leader in a comparable situation could ever accept; they have done worse.

Since the creation of the Palestinian Authority, they have used Palestinian schools and the Palestinian media to inculcate hatred for Jews and to incite terrorism and murder against Jews. Despite the Bible and archaeological evidence unearthed daily, Palestinian leaders ceaselessly persist in trying to rewrite history, in order to deny the existence of any historical Jewish presence in the Middle East — going back thousands of years. Recently, in an act of monumental duplicity, UNESCO colluded with them to declare the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb Muslim heritage sites. The Palestinian leadership and media also practiceHolocaust denial.

In Germany now, there is apparently a movement to exempt Muslim students from field trips to sites of concentration camps, for fear of disabusing the children of the Jew-hating propaganda they are fed.

Palestinian schoolchildren are also to this day shown only maps on which all of Israel does not exist, and are raised to glorify killers of Jews as heroes and “martyrs.” Palestinian schoolchildren are, bluntly, raised to be murderers when they grow up.

Despite nearly century of being constantly attacked, Israeli leaders, although they know what the Palestinian Authority does, have nonetheless continued to negotiate. Netanyahu has repeated many times that he is open to negotiations with no preconditions.

The Israelis have taken huge risks for peace, such as the withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza, often at the cost of their lives. These gestures of good will, to allow the people there the “freedom” from a Jewish presence they said they wanted to be able to build better lives, were seen by the Arabs merely as retreats by the supposedly defeated.

Israel’s decision to build the security fence was taken in 2002, after attacks such as the bombing of the Dolphinarium discotheque in Tel Aviv in 2001, and another, two months later, at a pizzeria in Jerusalem.

Israel offered still more “land for peace.” In 2001, at the Taba summit, Israel’s Prime Pinister Ehud Barak proposed abandoning the Jordan Valley, considered crucial for the defense of Israel. He also proposed a “safe road crossing” between Gaza and the West Bank, a route that would have bisected Israel. Later, in 2008, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was ready to give up Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism.

Anyone now saying that Israelis have a choice between the “risk of peace” and the “risk to walk away from it” is sadly either idiotic or a liar. Israel cannot make peace, because there is no one to make peace with.

This stalemate is further compounded by people who seem to have a salivating appetite for Jewish blood.

Palestinian leaders have made other choices. They not only submitted to UNESCO a resolution that succeeded in relabeling ancient, indisputably Jewish, heritage sites — Rachel’s Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs — as Muslim; they also tried to have the Western Wall — all that is left of the Jews’ Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE — named part of the Islamic Al Aqsa Mosque compound (known as the Temple Mount). That effort, at least, was rejected. The same week, the Palestinian Authority security services — not Hamas — stood by as Joseph’s Tomb, which they are required to protect, was set on fire by a Palestinian mob.

Earlier, in a charming speech on September 16, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described the Jews as desecrating Al-Aqsa Mosque with their “filthy feet.”

Borrowing a pretext used to launch anti-Jewish pogroms in 1929 by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and later also a friend of Adolf Hitler, Abbas falsely accused Israel of wanting to change the status quo of the Temple Mount, and called for the killing of Jews in the name of Allah: “We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem … Every martyr will reach Paradise and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah,” he said.

Just as people in Paris were murdered one day last week, Jews in Israel are murdered virtually every day.

When Israel returns bodies of the dead murderers to their families, the Palestinian Authorityholds official funerals in their honor, calls the murderers shaheed [martyrs], and then falsely accuses Israel of harvesting organs.

As a result of Palestinian Authority indoctrination, today more than 80% of the Arab population under its control approves of terrorist attacks against Jews.

It is hard to know what this “good decision” that Israelis are supposed to make would look like. The international community, in line with Hitler’s friend, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, appears to keep calling — through recognitions of a state of “Palestine” and boycotts deep down aimed at destroying Israel — for Israel to surrender. One hopes the French will not surrender to terrorists; neither should the Israelis.

Peace implies conditions. One of the first is that those with whom a country intends to make peace also want to make peace. Nothing, however, indicates that Palestinian leaders have the slightest intention of making anything that even resembles peace.

Another condition for peace is that those with whom a country intends to make peace do not incite the people they rule to hatred and war. The Palestinian leadership has never stopped firing up Palestinian Arabs to hatred, murder and war.

A third condition for peace is that those with whom a country is supposed to make peace have a minimal legitimacy and a minimal capacity to administer a country in a civilized way.

People ruled by the Palestinian Authority have been so fired up to hatred, murder and war that, at this point, many consider the Palestinian Authority too moderate. Mahmoud Abbas is in the eleventh year of his four-year term. If elections were held today, all indications are that Hamas would win handily.

Hamas, incidentally, has always been refreshingly open about having no intention of negotiating — ever.

Western leaders who visit Israel and speak of “peace” might start to sound sincere if they would start to speak the truth, and stop trying to bamboozle themselves and everyone around them.

President Clinton, who used to be a true friend, did not speak the truth in Tel Aviv, even though, after his failed negotiations with Arafat, he should have known better. Instead of defending the legacy of Rabin, he betrayed it. Clinton did not even say a single word about the Jews murdered in recent days in Israel.

Because no one has said a single word about the Jews murdered, or about what is really going on inside Israel, the false myth about Rabin has replaced reality. For most of the evening, the ceremony in Tel Aviv did not pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin — it murdered him again.

In recent days, the State Department has condemned “all acts of violence” in Israel, and placed the victims on the same level as their killers.

European leaders also vacuously condemn “all acts of violence.” The Western mainstream media even claim as victims the Palestinians who have been killed while in the act of committing murder. The media sentimentally refer to them as the “victims of violence.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on October 4 that “violence in the region” showed “the urgency of the implementation of the vision of Rabin.” Like President Clinton, he attributed to Rabin a vision that was uninformed, totally false, and ended up making himself look, as usual, pathetic.

Those assembled were hoping for peace. If they look around, they see nothing but the many faces of Jew-hate. If they think it is the fault of the Israeli government, they should listen again to what Palestinian leaders are openly saying every day.

Rabin was no myopic dreamer. He saw the Oslo Accords for the hoax the Palestinians have unfortunately made of them. It is high time for other leaders to see it, too.

Guy Millière is a Professor at the University of Paris, and the author of 27 books on France, Europe and the United States. He is also the author of countless articles published internationally and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Fake ‘New York Times’ Newspaper Distributed by Activists to Bash Israel

Anti-Israel activists distributed a fake edition of The New York Times across the Big Apple on Tuesday morning.


Its faux front-page article states there is “vocal disagreement” among members of Congress about America’s continued aid to Israel, and claims the US has given the Jewish state more than $121 billion in bilateral assistance since its establishment in 1948. The story also notes a “growing concern about Israel’s human rights violations gaining considerable traction in Washington,” and denounces the killing of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces in the “occupied” West Bank and Gaza Strip, The Independentfirst reported.

Members of Jewish Voice for Peace New York and Jews Say No!, a New York City-based anti-Israel organization, created the paper.

The newspaper includes an infographic with data from the website howmuch.netthat says the US has given Israel $3.1 billion in military aid, while Egypt received only $1.3 billion.

 

Another front-page story announces that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has quit her run for presidency and has been appointed Director of Human Rights for All Women Foundation, “a new nonprofit organization with headquarters in Ramallah, New York City, Nairobi and Charleston, S.C.” The newspaper also features a fake ad for Skunk Perfume, “Eau de I.D.F.”

Anti-Israel campaigners handed out the paper at Grand Central station, Penn station, the Times Square subway station and outside corporate offices, among other places, according to The Independent.

A spokesperson from The New York Times commented: “We’re extremely protective of our brand and other intellectual property and object to this group (or any group’s) attempt to cloak their political views under the banner of The New York Times. We believe strongly that those advocating for political positions are best served by speaking openly, in their own voice.”

Shahar Azani, director of the pro-Israel educational organization StandWithUs, said spreading “lies” and “demonizing Israel” will not bring peace. He called it “a shame” that there are people who “waste paper and contaminate the environment with unwarranted garbage.”

“Any attempt to subvert it [shared values and strategic interests] is doomed to fail, especially in the face of a tumultuous Middle East, where Israel remains one of the only anchors of stability and the only democracy, a true and lasting friend of the American people,” he said.

By: The Algemeiner

Facing Threat of Chemical Warfare, IDF Prepares for the Worst

The IDF Home Front Command recently conducted a unique medical exercise preparing soldiers and civilians in the event of a chemical attack on Israeli population centers.


Last month, the IDF Home Front command, in line with its practice of being prepared for any scenario, staged mock casualties of a chemical attack. On a Thursday afternoon, they closed a country club in Kfar Saba, in the Tel Aviv district, where they conducted a unique exercise, beginning with a chemical rocket landing near the facility, which would be filled with people.  Several would be wounded, followed by the creation of a chemical warfare substance – a cloud-like gas which, if spread, could leave hundreds more injured.

Within minutes of the mock rocket landing, Magen David Adom (MDA) paramedics, hospital staff, Health Ministry personnel, municipal officials and the Home Front Command’s medical and rescue soldiers arrived at the scene. The wounded were taken to shower in the club in order to remove any remnants of gas from their bodies, and each victim was medically assessed.

Those classified as lightly wounded remained in the club. “The ETC (Examination and Treatment Center) is set up in just a number of hours,” explained Col. MD Eyal Furman. “It starts operating the moment we arrive. We provide the best possible treatment to those lightly wounded, so that they do not have to be treated in a crowded hospital.”

At the country club-turned-ETC, paramedics and doctors were ready to treat the wounded, psychologists treated trauma victims, and hospital workers dealt with registration and medical records.

IDF prepares for chemical warfare

Staging mock evacuation of victims of chemical attack. (IDF)

Those “seriously injured” were evacuated to Meir Hospital in Kfar Saba. “A victim sent here goes through two processes, purification and treatment, before entering the hospital,” explained Furman. “The purification includes the process of washing the material from the body and from the clothing. The treatment includes applying material that counteracts the poisonous gas. Additionally, there’s treatment for those struggling with shortness of breath.”

“A situation can arise where one is too wounded to go through the purification process. We therefore have a station with people who stabilize the wounded. First, we treat the immediate wound, and only after do we clean it,” he added.

IDF chemical warfare

Paramedics treating mock victim (IDF)

In a related exercise, IDF forces learn how to deal with the effects of nerve gas, which destroys the body’s nervous system and could be fatal.

Preliminary treatment includes Fuller’s Earth, a powder that absorbs the gas, as well as an extensive cleansing of the body with water. In the most critical cases, the treatment requires the periodic application of different materials to neutralize the gas.

Terror is all over the world, and we have to be ready,” Furman stated.

By: IDF Blog and United with Israel Staff

Facebook’s War on Freedom of Speech by Douglas Murray

  • Facebook is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might decide is racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

  • The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week came reports of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on social media.
  • In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations and only violence is left.
  • The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.

Now one of the most sinister stories of the past year was hardly even reported. In September, German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook at a UN development summit in New York. As they sat down, Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.

At the time, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this exchange was that the German Chancellor — at the very moment that her country was going through one of the most significant events in its post-war history — should have been spending any time worrying about how to stop public dislike of her policies being vented on social media. But now it appears that the discussion yielded consequential results.

Last month, Facebook launched what it called an “Initiative for civil courage online,” the aim of which, it claims, is to remove “hate speech” from Facebook — specifically by removing comments that “promote xenophobia.” Facebook is working with a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann, which aims to identify and then erase “racist” posts from the site. The work is intended particularly to focus on Facebook users in Germany. At the launch of the new initiative, Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, explained that, “Hate speech has no place in our society — not even on the internet.” She went to say that, “Facebook is not a place for the dissemination of hate speech or incitement to violence.” Of course, Facebook can do what it likes on its own website. What is troubling is what this organization of effort and muddled thinking reveals about what is going on in Europe.

The mass movement of millions of people — from across Africa, the Middle East and further afield — into Europe has happened in record time and is a huge event in its history. As events in Paris, Cologne and Sweden have shown, it is also by no means a series of events only with positive connotations.

As well as being fearful of the security implications of allowing in millions of people whose identities, beliefs and intentions are unknown and — in such large numbers — unknowable, many Europeans are deeply concerned that this movement heralds an irreversible alteration in the fabric of their society. Many Europeans do not want to become a melting pot for the Middle East and Africa, but want to retain something of their own identities and traditions. Apparently, it is not just a minority who feel concern about this. Poll after poll shows a significant majority of the public in each and every European country opposed to immigration at anything like the current rate.

The sinister thing about what Facebook is doing is that it is now removing speech that presumably almost everybody might consider racist — along with speech that only someone at Facebook decides is “racist.”

And it just so happens to turn out that, lo and behold, this idea of “racist” speech appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.

By deciding that “xenophobic” comment in reaction to the crisis is also “racist,” Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into “racist” views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as “racist.” This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Because even if some of the speech Facebook is so scared of is in some way “xenophobic,” there are deep questions as to why such speech should be banned. In lieu of violence, speech is one of the best ways for people to vent their feelings and frustrations. Remove the right to speak about your frustrations, and only violence is left. Weimar Germany — to give just one example — was replete with hate-speech laws intended to limit speech the state did not like. These laws did nothing whatsoever to limit the rise of extremism; it only made martyrs out of those it pursued, and persuaded an even larger number of people that the time for talking was over.

The sinister reality of a society in which the expression of majority opinion is being turned into a crime has already been seen across Europe. Just last week, reports from the Netherlands told of Dutch citizens being visited by the police and warned about posting anti-mass-immigration sentiments on Twitter and other social media.

In this toxic mix, Facebook has now — knowingly or unknowingly — played its part. The lid is being put on the pressure cooker at precisely the moment that the heat is being turned up. A true “initiative for civil courage” would explain to both Merkel and Zuckerberg that their policy can have only one possible result.

Douglas Murray, a British writer, journalist and commentator, is based in London, England.

Extremist Muslims’ One-Way Street by Burak Bekdil

  • Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.

  • Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.
  • Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
  • Given the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.?
  • Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the “infidels” who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same “infidels” in their own lands.

President Donald Trump’s executive order of January 27, 2017, temporarily limiting entry from seven majority-Muslim countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — for 90 days, until vetting procedures can be put in place — has caused international controversy, sparking protests both in the Western and Islamic worlds, including in increasingly Islamist Turkey.

This article does not intend to discuss whether Trump’s ban is a racist, illegal order, or a perfectly justified action in light of threatened American interests. The ban, right or wrong, has once again unveiled the hypocrisy of extremist Muslims on civil liberties and on what is and what is NOT racist. Extremist Muslims’ understanding of freedom is a one-way street: Freedoms, such as religious rights, are “good” and must be defended if they are intended for Muslims — often where Muslims are in minority. But they can simply be ignored if they are intended for non-Muslims — often in lands where Muslims make up the majority.

Muslims have been in a rage across the world. Iran’s swift and sharp answer came in a Tweet from Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who said that the ban was “a great gift to extremists.” A government statement in Tehran said that the U.S. travel restrictions were an insult to the Muslim world, and threatened U.S. citizens with “reciprocal measures.” Many Muslim countries, apparently, already have travel bans against other Muslims, in addition to banning Israelis.

Sudan, host and supporter of various extremist Muslim terror groups including al-Qaeda, said the ban was “very unfortunate.” In Iraq, a coalition of paramilitary groups called on the government to ban U.S. nationals from entering the country and to expel those currently on Iraqi soil.

In Turkey where the extremist Islamic government is unusually soft on Trump’s ban — in order not to antagonize the new president — a senior government official called the order “a discriminative decision.” Deputy Prime Minister and government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus said:

“Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that rising Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings have a great weight on this decision. Taking such a decision in a country such as America, where different ethnic and religious groups are able to co-exist, is very offensive.”

The ruling party’s deputy chairman, Yasin Aktay, called the ban “racist,” and said: “This is totally against human rights, a big violation of human rights.” Aktay also said that he had started to “worry about the future of the U.S.”

Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Mehmet Gormez, praised the Americans who rushed to the airports to protest the ban. “[This] is very important. It gives us hope,” he said — presumably meaning that non-Muslim protestors will continue to advocate for Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands.

Turkish government bigwigs and the top Islamic authority seem not to have heard of their own country’s dismal human rights record when it comes to non-Muslim minorities. Most recently, Turkey’s Association of Protestant Churches noted in a report that hate speech against the country’s Christians increased in both the traditional media and social media. It said that hate speech against Protestants persisted throughout 2016, in addition to physical attacks on Protestant individuals and their churches.

Nevertheless, the Islamist’s one-way sympathy for human rights (for Muslims) and his one-way affection for discrimination (against non-Muslims) is not just Turkish, but global. What is the treatment of non-Muslim (or sometimes even non-extremist Muslim) visitors to some of the Muslim cities and sites in the countries that decry Trump’s “racist,” and “discriminative” ban that “violates human rights?”

In a 2016 visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, the Muslim custodians of the site did not allow entry to this author, despite the Turkish passport submitted to them, saying “you do not look Muslim enough.” And Muslims now complain of “discrimination?” Incidentally, Al Aqsa Mosque is, theoretically at least, open to visits from non-Muslims, except on Fridays.

Look at Saudi Arabia. Deportation and a lifetime ban is the minimum penalty for non-Muslims trying to enter the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. In 2013, the Saudi Minister of Justice, Mohamed el-Eissi, insisted that “the cradle of the Muslim sanctities will not allow the establishment of any other places of worship.”

The Saudi ban on other religious houses of worship comes from a Salafi tradition that prohibits the existence of two religions in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Saudi kingdom, the law requires that all citizens must be Muslims; the government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion; and the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited.

In Iran, where even non-Muslim female visitors must wear the Islamic headscarf, the government continues to imprison, harass, intimidate and discriminate against people based on religious beliefs. A 2014 U.S. State Department annual report noted that non-Muslims faced “substantial societal discrimination, aided by official support.” At the release of the report, then Secretary of State John Kerry said: “Sadly, the pages of this report that are being released today are filled with accounts of minorities being denied rights in countries like Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, many others”.

In Iran, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are not recognized unless the husband produces proof that he has converted to Islam. The mullahs’ government does not ensure the right of citizens to change or renounce their religious faith. Apostasy, specifically conversion from Islam, can be punishable by death. In 2013, 79 people from religious minorities were sentenced to a total of 3,620 months in prison, 200 months of probation, 75 lashes and 41 billion rials in fines [approximately $1.3 million].

That being the state of non-Muslim religious and human rights, and the sheer lack of religious pluralism in most Muslim countries, why do Muslim nations suddenly become human rights champions in the face of a ban on travel to the U.S.? Why, for instance, does Turkey never criticizes the extreme shortcomings of freedoms in the Muslim world but calls the U.S. ban “racist?”

Why does the Iranian government think that Trump’s ban is a “gift to the [Muslim] extremists?” In claiming that travel bans would supposedly fuel extremism, how come Iran does not think that its own persecution of religious minorities is a “gift” to non-Muslims?

Such questions will probably remain unanswered in the Muslim world. Meanwhile, Muslims will keep on loving the “infidels” who support Muslim rights in non-Muslim lands, while keeping up intimidation of the same “infidels” in their own lands.

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey’s leading journalists, was just fired from Turkey’s leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Skip to toolbar