The world Prophecy of Majeshi Leon

Dated: Sunday, 24 July 2011. 15:11hrs The Journal Inyangenews.com interviewed MAJESHI Leon about his Prophecy which will be published in ...
Read More

Amabanga y’Ikuzimu mu karere k’Ibiyaga bigari.

Uyu muryango washinzwe nabanyafurika bakundaga umugabane wabo w'Africa, ariko uyu muryango wageze mu mabako yabayobozi bo mu karere k'ibiyaga bigari ...
Read More
USA: Imvura na Serwakira Muri Florence Bimaze Guhitana Abantu 16

USA: Imvura na Serwakira Muri Florence Bimaze Guhitana Abantu 16

Abatabara bagerageza kwifashisha imodoka zitabara abantu imyuzure, mu gisagara cya Fayetteville, N.C., itariki 16/09/2018. umukuru wa karere ka Leta ya Carolina ya ruguru muri Leta zunze ubumwe z’Amerika, Roy Cooper atangaza ko More »

 

Are You Expecting a New Iran? by Lawrence A. Franklin

    • If anyone is expecting any liberalization from Rouhani, please note that he is an even more trusted regime insider than Khatami.


    • The main reason there will not be a less aggressive foreign policy is that Iran’s Presidency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which negotiated the nuclear deal, have no power over the Islamic Republic’s military, police, and intelligence agencies. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and the Office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei control all decisions in these arenas.

    • Unfortunately, there has been no diminution of influence or resolve among Iran’s hard-liners, who control all of these institutions.

    • The military and theocratic cliques who dominate the regime will take full advantage of any opportunities created by the nuclear deal quickly and brutally to crush any attempt by Iranian reformers to expand political freedom or social reforms.

    Are you expecting a new Iran? The most optimistic scenario by supporters of the nuclear deal with Iran is that the pact will bring about better relations between Tehran and Washington.

    This presumptive script also suggests that Iranian pragmatists, emboldened by their success at the impending lifting of economic sanctions against Iran, will move to transform the regime’s overall foreign policy. It also assumes that young supporters of President Hassan Rouhani will somehow “force” the regime to institute reforms that will lead to improved human rights as well as liberalization of the country’s socially restrictive domestic policies.

    In their view, apparently, as Tehran becomes more integrated, developing normal diplomatic ties with Western nation-states, its aggressively expansionist regional policy will become more tame and “manageable.”

    Unfortunately, considering the dark nature of the regime and its behavior during its 36 years of Islamist rule in Iran, this hope lacks any credibility. Given Iran’s recent history, its unremittingly hostile statements and its continuing secretive, self-serving and antagonistic behavior, there seems ample precedent for the high-flown hopes of Western diplomats to be dashed.

    After the election of Mohammad Khatami as President of Iran in 1997, many of America’s most respected Iran analysts strenuously argued that the liberal evolution of Iran’s revolution was already underway[1] — wishful thinking that was also echoed by the United Kingdom’s Iran analysts and diplomats.[2]

    Regrettably, the opposite proved true. Scores of political dissidents were assassinated or disappeared, murdered by hard-line Iranian intelligence operatives of the Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS).[3] When liberal supporters of Khatami seized the initiative in order to accelerate the reform process, the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) published a letter threatening the dissolution of the Khatami Presidency (1997-2005). Khatami, a trusted ally and childhood friend of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, instantly stopped all attempts at reform, and watched as the MOIS and IRGC placed several of his advisors under arrest.

    After the Khatami Era, the Iranian people elected, in August, 2005, the most reactionary president in the history of the regime: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Currently, many American diplomats, Congressional lawmakers, and acquisitive international businessmen are optimistically unpacking predictions about the current Presidency of Hassan Rouhani that are similar to their predictions about Khatami. If anyone, however, is expecting any liberalization from Rouhani, please note right now that he is an even more trusted regime insider than Khatami. Rouhani has been intimately involved in all of the Islamic Republic’s military, strategic and political decisions for the last 35 years.

    The main reason there will not be a less aggressive foreign policy is that Iran’s Presidency and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which negotiated the nuclear deal, have no power over the Islamic Republic’s military, police, and intelligence agencies.

    The IRGC, MOIS, and the Office of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei control all decisions in these arenas.

    Rouhani also cannot liberalize domestic regulations unless reforms are blessed by the theocratic institutions — which have been quick to suppress any move to soften Iran’s repressive domestic social and political laws.

    These theocratic institutions — such as the Guardian Council,[4] the Assembly of Experts,[5]and the Expediency Council[6] — are the ideological watchdogs of the regime, and have more power than the Executive and Legislative branches of the Iranian government.

    Moreover, the complex and specialized system of clerically-run courts are insulated from popular pressure.

    Spot the difference…
    At left, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. At right, Iran’s President, Hassan Rouhani.

    The pipedreams of many so-called Iran experts have had their optimistic scenarios go up in smoke before. Robin Wright, writing in June 2009, the heyday of the now-crushed “Green Movement” protests, gushed, “What they are doing, however, is forcing Iran’s Islamic regime to face the same ideals that have swept across five continents over the last quarter of a century — the supremacy of popular will, justice, accountability and the transparency of power.”

    Unfortunately, there has been no diminution of influence or resolve among Iran’s hard-liners, who control all of these institutions.

    On the contrary, the military and theocratic cliques who dominate the regime will take full advantage of any opportunities created by the nuclear deal quickly and brutally to crush any attempt by Iranian reformers to expand political freedom or social reforms.

    Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.


    [1] Karim Sadjadpour, “The Future of Iran’s Islamic Republic: Evolution or Revolution?,” Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs.

    [2] Iranian Students News Agency, 15 July 2013. Jack Straw when he was the UK’s Foreign Minister under the Labor Government of Tony Blair believed that Khatami’s Presidency would usher in a new era of cooperation between Iran and the West. Now as an executive member of the Iran-Britain Parliamentary Friendship Society, straw ‘waxes poetic’ about the Rouhani Presidency in a similar manner.

    [3] Into the Shadows: Political Vigilantes in Khatami’s Iran, by Michael Rubin. The Dissident Murders, p. 90. MOIS ‘rogue operatives’ and Fida’iyan Islam murdered several liberal intellectuals in late 1998.

    [4] Council of Guardians is staffed by arch-reactionary Shia clerics and laymen who adjudicate on the Islamic and revolutionary legitimacy of all legislation passed by the Iranian Majles. The Council also passes judgment of the acceptability of every candidate for public office.

    [5] The Assembly of Experts is a body of 86 high Shia clerics who serve 8 year terms and who elect and/or depose the Supreme Leader.

    [6] The Council for the Discernment of Expediency is a body of policy experts that seeks a compromise solution when key institutions of the regime cannot resolve their differences.

Are the Hard Leftists Aligned with Radical Islamists? by Najat AlSaied

  • The leftist media and other American liberals insist on portraying President Trump’s position as a fight against Islam and Muslims. In fact, most moderate Muslims are not offended by the phrase “radical Islam,” because they are very distressed by the fact that their religion has been commandeered by the radicals and transformed from a religion of peace into a more radical version.

  • I just wonder where those feminists and John Kerry were when millions of Egyptian women needed their support when they marched against the Muslim Brotherhood, asking for America’s help. Where were they when thousands of Syrian and Iraqi women were enslaved and raped by radical ISIS militants?
  • While not a single voice among these liberal feminists spoke out against these inhumane acts perpetrated against Muslim women by radical Islamists, a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, Linda Sarsour, co-organized the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington. What’s worse, these liberal feminists want Sarsour to represent all Muslim women, while in fact she speaks for nobody except herself and those who fund her.

Since the presidential campaign began, and then right up until the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 24, 2017, President Donald Trump has kept saying the same thing: that the United States is at war with radical Islam, mainly represented by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Yet, the leftist media and other American liberals insist on portraying his position as a fight against Islam and Muslims. In fact, most moderate Muslims are not offended by the phrase “radical Islam,” because they are very distressed by the fact that their religion has been commandeered by the radicals and transformed from a religion of peace into a more radical version. Unfortunately, instead of the leftists giving a voice to and supporting these moderate Muslims, a kind of leftist-Islamist alliance has emerged.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Saudi columnist for pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, said in 2004:

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims… The majority of those who were suicide bombers on buses, other vehicles, in schools and other places, all over the world, were Muslim”.

This statement from a well-known columnist and a former General Manager of the Al Arabiya news channel demonstrates how moderate Muslims are critical of their own culture and how they are saddened by how their religion has been hijacked by radicals. However, these appeals fall on deaf ears with leftists; they call moderate Muslims passive, which instead supports and furthers the radical Islamists’ cause.

In 2009, while millions of Iranians were in the streets opposing a radical, theocratic regime as part of their Green Revolution, then U.S. President Barack Obama ignored this historic moment and continued reaching out to Iran’s rulers, who are designated by the U.S. government as sponsors of terrorism. His appeasing attitude was a clear sign that the US was so eager to reach a nuclear deal by befriending the Iranian regime, that it was willing to tolerate the mullahs’ brutal repression and its hegemonic policies across the region.

In 2011, we witnessed the Obama Administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, in the form of billions of dollars that ensured its victory, ignoring the consequences their rule has had on moderate Muslims, Coptic Christians and secular groups. Many moderate Muslim women in Egypt entreated the Obama Administration to support them against the Muslim Brotherhood’s tyranny and misogyny, but to no avail.

Gameela Ismail, an Egyptian politician activist asked John Kerry in 2013 to cease supporting the Muslim Brotherhood:

“We ask you to do nothing for us. Just stop doing anything at all in our country and stop supporting tyranny and fascism, and leave us to complete our revolution and achieve our dreams. Our dreams will not stop because of your humble perceptions of us and our future.”

Kerry responded: “The United States did not take sides but had to deal with the elected legitimate government in place.” Then Kerry announced the United States would give the Muslim Brotherhood government another $250 million.

Ironically, we saw John Kerry protest against President Trump as part of the Women’s March on Washington after Trump’s inauguration. I just wonder where those feminists and John Kerry were when millions of Egyptian women needed their support while marching against the Muslim Brotherhood and asking for America’s help. Where were they when thousands of Syrian and Iraqi women were enslaved and raped by radical ISIS militants? It seems that these liberal women do not recognize the dignity of human life beyond the wall of their uterus. Abortion and contraceptive pills are their ultimate concern.

While not a single voice among these liberal feminists spoke out against these inhumane acts perpetrated against Muslim women by radical Islamists, a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, Linda Sarsour, co-organized the anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington. What’s worse, these liberal feminists want Sarsour to represent all Muslim women, while in fact she speaks for nobody except herself and those who fund her.

Sarsour’s interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC was full of false information, yet she was still cheered by several prominent liberal leftists. She said that Muslim children are being executed in the United States [a lie], that Muslims are prohibited from practising their faith [a lie] and that there is opposition to the building of mosques [a lie: There are more than 2,106 mosques in the US]. She also admitted that she wants Islamic sharia law to be applied in the United Sates and is offended that 22 states are opposed to this. All of these lies and allegations were not challenged by MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow. In fact, she agreed with Sarsour by saying, “What is happening domestically around issues about bigotry is spooky”. This shows that she is not a tolerant, open-minded anchor, but proves that she is a professional liar, which is a million miles away from a balanced media that presents the truth.

In a recent interview on MSNBC, Linda Sarsour, a Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer, said that in the United States, Muslim children are being executed [a lie], and Muslims are prohibited from practising their faith [a lie]. Pictured above: Sarsour is interviewed in a Seriously.TV video.

This is not the only example of the liberals’ hypocrisy. Their use of the “Muslim card” went to the extent that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said she is prepared to “register as Muslim” in solidarity with Muslims against President Trump’s plans to take executive action affecting Muslim immigrants into the US. We wonder where warm-hearted Albright’s conscience was when she was asked in 1996 about the deaths of 576,000 Iraqi children under the brutal sanctions on Iraq during the Clinton Administration of the 1990s. She gave a cold-blooded response: that the price paid was worth it. Now she is heartbroken over restrictions on immigrants from seven majority-Muslim states.

Actually, there was nothing new about the three-month temporary block on those with passports from seven majority-Muslim countries. Donald Trump stated on his Facebook page:

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.”

The fact that the liberals are trying to undermine every single action Trump takes with continuous lies, is making them very hard to believe.

It is pathetic that the liberals are not only against President Trump in his fight against radical Islamists, but are also supporting those extremists at the expense of oppressed moderate Muslims. The alignment of the liberal leftists with radical Islamists, and playing the “Muslim card” hypocritically and exploitatively, will not make Muslims support liberals. On the contrary, this will encourage more moderate Muslims to align themselves with conservatives. So, let the liberals have the radicals as their lackeys.

Najat AlSaied is a Saudi American academic and the author of: Screens of Influence: Arab Satellite Television & Social Development. She is an Assistant Professor at Zayed University in the College of Communication and Media Sciences in Dubai-UAE. She can be reached at: najwasaied@hotmail.com

Are Jihadists Taking over Europe? by Giulio Meotti

  • In the four European countries most targeted by terror attacks — Britain, France, Belgium and Germany — the number of official extremists has reached 66,000. That sounds like a real army — on active duty.

  • The terrorists’ ransom is already visible: they have destabilized the democratic process in many European countries and are drafting the terms of freedom of expression. A jihadist takeover of Europe is no longer unthinkable. Islamic extremists are already reaping what they sowed: they successfully defeated Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, the only two European candidates who really wanted to fight radical Islam.
  • Europe could be taken over the same way Islamic State took over much of Iraq: with just one-third of Iraqi territory.

“Germany is quietly building a European army under its command,” according to some in the media. Apparently German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after her clash with U.S. President Donald Trump, would like to invest, along with France, in a European army.

At present, however, there is just one real army in Europe — the Jihadist Army, as in the terrorists who struck London on June 3 and murdered seven people, just two weeks after carnage in Manchester.

In the four European countries most targeted by terror attacks — Britain, France, Belgium and Germany — the number of official extremists has reached 66,000. That sounds like a real army, on active duty.

Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 Islamic extremists living in Britain as potential terrorists. The number reveals the real extent of the jihadist threat in the UK. The scale of the Islamist challenge facing the security services was disclosed after intense criticism that many opportunities to stop the Manchester suicide bomber had been overlooked.

French authorities are monitoring 15,000 Islamists, according a database created in March 2015 and managed by France’s Counter-Terrorism Coordination Unit. Different surveys estimate up to 20,000 French radical Islamists.

The number on Belgium’s anti-terror watch-list surged from 1,875 in 2010 to 18,884 in 2017. In Molenbeek, the well-known jihadist nest in the EU capital, Brussels, intelligence services are monitoring 6,168 Islamists. Think about that: 18,884 Belgian jihadists compared to 30,174 Belgian soldiers on active duty.

The number of potential jihadists in Germany has exploded from 3,800 in 2011 to 10,000, according to Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Germany’s domestic intelligence service).

These Islamists have built a powerful infrastructure of terror inside Europe’s cities. These terror bases are self-segregated, multicultural enclaves in which extremist Muslims promote Islamic fundamentalism and implement Islamic law, Sharia — with the Tower Hamlets Taliban of East London; in the French banlieues [suburbs], and in The Hague’s “sharia triangle“, known as “the mini-caliphate,” in the Netherlands. These extremist Muslims can comfortably get their weapons from the Balkans, where, thanks to Europe’s open borders, they can travel with ease. They can also get their money from abroad, thanks to countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These Islamists can self-finance through the mosques they run, as well as get “human resources,” donated by unvetted mass migration coming through the Mediterranean.

23,000 potential jihadists in the UK, 18,000 in Belgium, 10,000 in Germany, 15,000 in France. What do these numbers tell us? There might be a war in Europe “within a few years“, as the chief of the Swedish army, General Anders Brännström, told the men under his command that they must expect.

Take what happened in Europe with the terror attacks from 1970 to 2015:

“4,724 people died from bombings. 2,588 from assassinations. 2,365 from assaults. 548 from hostage situations. 159 from hijackings. 114 from building attacks. Thousands were wounded or missing”.

Terrorism across Europe has killed 10,537 people in 18,803 reported attacks. And it is getting worse:

“Attacks in 2014 and 2015 have seen the highest number of fatalities, which includes terrorists targeting civilians, government officials, businesses and the media, across Europe since 2004”.

A jihadist takeover of Europe is no longer unthinkable. Islamic extremists are already reaping what they sowed: they successfully defeated Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, the only two European candidates who really wanted to fight radical Islam. What if tomorrow these armed Islamists assault the Parliament in Rome, election polls in Paris, army bases in Germany or schools in London, in a Beslan-type attack?

The terrorists’ ransom is already visible: they have destabilized the democratic process in many European countries and are drafting the terms of freedom of expression. They have been able to pressure Europe into moving the battle-front from the Middle East to Europe itself. Of all the French soldiers engaged in military operations, half are deployed inside France; in Italy, more than half of Italian soldiers are used in “Safe Streets,” the operation keeping Italy’s cities safe.

Of all the French soldiers engaged in military operations, half are deployed inside France. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

After 9/11, the United States decided to fight the Islamists in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to have to fight them in Manhattan. Europe chose the opposite direction: it as if Europe had accepted to turn its own cities into a new Mosul.

If Europe’s leaders do not act now to destroy the enemy within, the outcome may well come to be an “Afghan scenario,” in which Islamists control part of the territory from where they launch attacks against cities. Europe could be taken over the same way Islamic State took over much of Iraq: with just one-third of Iraqi territory.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Are Jews who refuse to renounce Israel being excluded from “progressive” groups? by Alan M. Dershowitz

Hard left activists are trying to exclude Jews who do not renounce Israel from “progressive” organizations.

Last year, Rabbi Susan Talve, a longtime activist on race issues in the St. Louis area was told that her advocacy for Israel was incompatible with the objectives of Black Lives Matter: “Solidarity from Ferguson to Palestine has become a central tenet of the movement” she was informed, because “Israeli and U.S. state oppression are deeply interconnected.” Similarly, a student who attended a Black Lives Matter rally at Northwestern University last year was told “you support Israel, so you cannot also support us.”

 


Recently, that seems to be the response of many of the hard left activists who dominate so-called “progressive” social justice movements.

Over the past several years, progressive Jews, and progressive supporters of Israel have had to come to terms with the reality that those who do not reject Israel and accept Boycott Divestment Sanctions (“BDS”) and its unique brand of bigotry are no longer welcome in some progressive circles. And while both Democratic and Republican parties have embraced the importance of the U.S. alliance with Israel, that dynamic is under threat more so than at any point in my lifetime.

The self-described “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party—represented by radical and often repressive organizations such as MoveOn, CodePink, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter—has become openly opposed to the nation state of the Jewish people. Increasingly, these organizations demand that their members and “allies” renounce support for Israel and for Zionism in order to belong. Using the pretext of intersectionality—a pseudo-academic theory which insists that all social justice movements, except those supportive of Jews or Israel, are inexorably linked—anti-Israel activists have successfully made opposition to Israel and support for BDS a litmus test, especially for Jews, to belong to “progressive” movements focused on a wide range of issues.

Earlier this year, supporters of the LGBTQ community in Israel learned this lesson the hard way, when BDS activists together with a local Black Lives Matter chapter broke up a gay pride event, because it featured a presentation by an Israeli group. The protestors claimed that the event organizers had engaged in “pinkwashing” the Israeli occupation by showing solidarity with the Israeli LGBTQ community.

Members of the National Women’s Studies Association (“NWSA”) who also support Israel have been similarly excluded. Last year, that organization voted to endorse BDS, and as one pro-BDS activist explained: “What is significant about this particular resolution is the rationale; the fact that the resolution makes it explicit that BDS is a feminist issues… that one cannot call themselves a feminist… without taking a stand on what is happening in Palestine.” (Apparently, one can call oneself a feminist without taking a stand on Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that grossly violate human rights).

This type of repressive ideological packaging has left progressive Jews, and liberal supporters of Israel in an increasingly uncomfortable position. On the one hand, they care deeply about causes such as women’s rights, criminal justice reform, income inequality, environmental protection and LGBT rights. On the other, they find themselves excluded from the groups that advance those very causes, because—while they are often critical of specific Israeli policies regarding settlements and the occupation—they refuse to renounce Israel as a national liberation movement of the Jewish People.

For hard left activists, this sort of nuanced position is impossible to accept. Their hostility towards Israel does not stem from any particular Israeli actions or policies. Even if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, destroy the security barrier, and recognize Hamas as a legitimate political organization, it would still not be enough. For these radicals, it is not what Israel does; it is about what Israel is: the nation state of the Jewish people—or to use hard-left terminology: an imperialistic, apartheid and genocidal, colonialist enterprise. The recently released Black Lives Matter policy platform offers a perfect example of such extreme rhetoric: it states that U.S. military and economic support for Israel makes American citizens complicit in “the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.”

The fact that the BLM platform reads like it was lifted from a BDS screed is hardly coincidence: the two groups enjoy a longstanding relationship, and a prominent BDS activist apparently helped draft elements of the BLM declaration. But BLM is far from the only hard left organization that has been infected by BDS vitriol. In fact, BDS has pressured a wide range of progressive organizations into assuming an anti-Israel posture. The American Green Party, for example—which has become a haven for disaffected progressive activists this election cycle—recently came out in support of BDS and called for the US to end its support for “the Israeli apartheid regime”.

This trend has been particularly pronounced on college campuses, where a host of academic groups—most absurdly the Native American Scholars Association and the Americans Studies Association—have passed resolutions in favor of BDS. Many of these organizations have also endorsed the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott (“PACBI”), which encourages participants to engage in McCarthyite blacklisting of Israeli academic institutions, as well as groups and individuals who promote “Brand Israel.” This category apparently includes artists like Matisyahu, and academics like me, as I found out last year when a prominent BDS advocate refused to debate me at the Oxford Student Union.

The PACBI also explicitly denounces “normalization projects“—programs or events aimed at Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation that do not sufficiently emphasize the colonialist nature of the state of Israel. These are exactly the types of initiatives widely supported and promoted by progressives who are critical of settlements, but remain supportive of Israel and of a two state solution. It is no coincidence that BDS has singled them out for special treatment. BDS campaigners want to force any supporters of Israel—no matter their stances on other political issues—outside of the progressive tent.

This effort has proved alarmingly successful thus far, but despite the pressure from the hard left, liberals and progressives who support Israel must continue to carve out a political space for themselves. In doing so, they can follow the example of the Jewish Community Relations Council, which dissociated itself “from the Black Lives Matter platform and those BLM organizations that embrace[d] it” but committed itself “unequivocally to the pursuit of justice for all Americans, and to working together with our friends and neighbors in the African-American community, whose experience of the criminal justice system is, far too often, determined by race.” Such efforts are critical to ensure that it is not supporters of Israel but rather those repressive bigots who falsely claim the mantle of progressivism and who subscribe to the identity politics practiced by BDS that are delegitimated by mainstream progressives and liberals.

Professor Dershowitz is the author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and most recently Electyle Dysfunction.

Arabs Using Christians to Fight Israel by Shadi Khalloul

  • The Middle East has been inhabited by Jews and then Christians for nearly three thousand years; until the seventh century, Muslims did not even exist.
  • Many Christians in Arab countries and in Palestinian Authority (PA), without a state or anyone else to support them, are still behaving as dhimmis, paying lip service to Muslim Arab “lords” in exchange for protection in their original homelands.

  • The Palestinians plan activities, pay salaries and fund anti-Israeli Christian dhimmi organizations, in order to make Western Christians believe in the “Palestinian cause” — by which they mean the establishment of another Arab-Islamic dictatorship state with no human rights in it.
  • Coexistence is not the issue for Christians here, but rather fear for their own existence — based on the ruthless lack of freedom under the PA, as in all Arab states.

Christians in Holy Land, Judea and Samaria — what today is called the West Bank or the Palestinian Authority (PA) — are, with the Jews and assorted Arabs, the indigenous people of the land. The region has been inhabited by Jews and then Christians for nearly three thousand years; until the seventh century, Muslims did not even exist.

After the conquest of Jerusalem by Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula in 637 AD, the Jews and early followers of Christianity were forced either to convert to Islam or accept the rule of sharia (Islamic religious law) under the Islamic Caliphate, with its dhimmi laws designed to remind you that you are inferior. In Islam, dhimmis are non-Muslims — and therefore second-class, barely tolerated residents — who live under separate, harsher, laws and have to pay protection money (a “tax” called the jizya) to safeguard their lives and property.

These laws are imposed by Muslim conquerors against all “infidels,” both Christians and Jews, in all occupied areas, and are still valid under different guises today in Gaza and in the Palestinian Authority.

In Syria, ISIS recently sent out an Islamic decree ordering Christians in Al Raqqa to pay a tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold as part of these dhimmi rules, the same as in the earlier Muslim conquest of the Middle East.

In Gaza, Christians are persecuted by Islamic groups and the Hamas government. Rami Ayyad, a local Christian who owned a bookshop, was assassinated for refusing to close it.

Rami Ayyad, a Christian bookseller in Gaza, was murdered by Islamic extremists because he refused to close his bookshop.

In Bethlehem, in the West Bank, the Saint Charbel Monastery was set ablaze on October 8, 2015 and the car of the Jerusalem Latin Patriarch was attacked by Palestinian Islamic extremists last Christmas Eve. Luckily, we have Israeli soldiers at Rachel’s Tomb who intervened to stop the Palestinian attackers.

Now, what was the role of the Jews in all these attacks? The answer is: nothing.

With that said, we did not hear the local Christian media speaking out against this persecution and discrimination. Muslim groups certainly did not condemn these attacks. We heard silence from the majority of Palestinian Islamic society.

On the other hand, we hear loud outrage in the local Christian when some fanatic Jews, who in no way represent Israeli Zionist values, and whom the Zionists subsequently arrest, damage a monastery.

Why didn’t Christians react to both crimes equally?

Dhimmitude was once forced on both Jewish and Christian communities under Islamic sovereigns and states. The Jews now have their own strong democratic country, and feel safe. Many Christians in Arab countries and in Palestinian Authority (PA), however, without a state or anyone else to support them, are still behaving as dhimmis, and paying lip service in exchange for protection in their original homelands.

At a recent conference called “Christ at the Checkpoint,” for example, we noticed Christian dhimmis, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, acting aggressively against the sole democratic state in the region, Israel, where the Christian community is actually thriving. The Christians at “Christ at the Checkpoint” tried falsely to rewrite history. Like good dhimmis, they denied any relation of Jesus to Jewish roots — even though the Last Supper was a Jewish Passover Seder — and thereby even to our own to Christian roots, and the purpose of God’s appearance as a human on Earth, through the Jewish people, as written in the Bible.

Moreover, the conference’s organizers, like its participants, ignored any current or historic persecution of Christians by Muslims. In fact, by their announcements, they even denied their own beliefs as mentioned in the holy Bible. The only concern that led them at each step, every second and every moment, was fawningly to satisfy the Islamic Arab majority in its fight against Jewish state.

Coexistence is not the issue for Christians here, but rather fears for their own existence and total lack of freedom under the Palestinian Authority, as in all Arab states. The PA and other Arab Islamic regimes are smart enough to smell this weakness. They plan activities, pay salaries and fund anti-Israeli Christian dhimmi organizations, in order to make Western Christians believe in the “Palestinian cause” — by which they mean the establishment of another Arab-Islamic dictatorship state with no human rights in it.

Their method is to use Christians temporarily, pitting them against their Jewish brothers, with whom the Christians share the same roots and the same holy books. The Palestinian Authority constitution, in Article 4, states clearly: “The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.”

If this country is defined as Islamic, it assures Islamic superiority upon all other religions and prevents any person from ever leaving Islam. It is important for the West to understand that all matters relating to human rights and freedom of religion mentioned are irrelevant, and are there just to attract temporary Western support. The Western democratic world — with all Christian churches worldwide — should be aware of this tactic. They should also acknowledge, for their own survival, that Israel has democratically enshrined, and abides by, human rights laws for Christians and all its other citizens. The West should stop funding Palestinian Arabs so easily, and put pressure on Palestinian leaders to assure that they provide human rights, security, equality and freedom for their own people, as well as for the local Christian community. Israel is not the problem; Israel is the solution.

Shadi Khalloul, Chairman of the Aramaic Christian Association in Israel, is also a representative of Arabic-speaking Christians, and a parliamentary candidate in Israel.

Page 357 of 382
1 355 356 357 358 359 382
Skip to toolbar