EU-Turkey Migrant Deal Unravels Plan B turns Greece into massive refugee camp by Soeren Kern

  • “It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports … or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists.” — Leaked European Commission report, quoted in the Telegraph, May 17, 2016.

  • According to the Telegraph, the EU report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo “direct territorial expansion towards the EU.”
  • “If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees.” — Burhan Kuzu, senior adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
  • Erdogan is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit. The EU insists that the funds be transferred through international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. This prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of “mocking the dignity” of the Turkish nation.

The EU-Turkey migrant deal, designed to halt the flow of migrants from Turkey to Greece, is falling apart just two months after it was reached. European officials are now looking for a back-up plan.

The March 18 deal was negotiated in great haste by European leaders desperate to gain control over a migration crisis in which more than one million migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East poured into Europe in 2015.

European officials, who appear to have promised Turkey more than they can deliver, are increasingly divided over a crucial part of their end of the bargain: granting visa-free travel to Europe for Turkey’s 78 million citizens by the end of June.

At the same time, Turkey is digging in its heels, refusing to implement a key part of its end of the deal: bringing its anti-terrorism laws into line with EU standards so that they cannot be used to detain journalists and academics critical of the government.

A central turning point in the EU-Turkey deal was the May 5 resignation of Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who lost a long-running power struggle with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Davutoglu was a key architect of the EU-Turkey deal and was also considered its guarantor.

On May 6, just one day after Davutoglu’s resignation, Erdogan warned European leaders that Turkey would not be narrowing its definition of terrorism: “When Turkey is under attack from terrorist organizations and the powers that support them directly, or indirectly, the EU is telling us to change the law on terrorism,” Erdogan said in Istanbul. “They say ‘I am going to abolish visas and this is the condition.’ I am sorry, we are going our way and you go yours.”

Erdogan insists that Turkey’s anti-terrorism laws are needed to fight Kurdish militants at home and Islamic State jihadists in neighboring Syria and Iraq. Human rights groups counter that Erdogan is becoming increasingly authoritarian and is using the legislation indiscriminately to silence dissent of him and his government.

European officials say that, according to the original deal, visa liberalization for Turkish citizens is conditioned on Turkey amending its anti-terror laws. Erdogan warns that if there is no visa-free travel by the end of June, he will reopen the migration floodgates on July 1. Such a move would allow potentially millions more migrants to pour into Greece.

European officials are now discussing a Plan B. On May 8, the German newspaper Bild reported on a confidential plan to house all migrants arriving from Turkey on Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. Public transportation to and from those islands to the Greek mainland would be cut off in order to prevent migrants from moving into other parts of the European Union.

Migrants would remain on the islands permanently while their asylum applications are being processed. Those whose asylum requests are denied would be deported back to their countries of origin or third countries deemed as “safe.”

The plan, which Bild reports is being discussed at the highest echelons of European power, would effectively turn parts of Greece into massive refugee camps for many years to come. It remains unclear whether Greek leaders will have any say in the matter. It is also unclear how Plan B would reduce the number of migrants flowing into Europe.

Thousands of newly arrived migrants, the vast majority of whom are men, crowd the platforms at Vienna West Railway Station on August 15, 2015 — a common scene in the summer and fall of 2015. (Image source: Bwag/Wikimedia Commons)

Speaking to the BBC News program, “World on the Move,” on May 16, Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of the British intelligence service MI6, warned that the number of migrants coming to Europe during the next five years could run into millions. This, he said, would reshape the continent’s geopolitical landscape: “If Europe cannot act together to persuade a significant majority of its citizens that it can gain control of its migratory crisis then the EU will find itself at the mercy of a populist uprising, which is already stirring.”

Dearlove also warned against allowing millions of Turks visa-free access to the EU, describing the EU plan as “perverse, like storing gasoline next to the fire we’re trying to extinguish.”

On May 17, the Telegraph published the details of a leaked report from the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union. The report warns that opening Europe’s borders to 78 million Turks would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the European Union. The report states:

“It can be expected that, as soon as Turkish citizens will obtain visa-free entry to the EU, foreign nationals will start trying to obtain Turkish passports in order to pretend to be Turkish citizens and enter the EU visa free, or use the identities of Turkish citizens, or to obtain by fraud the Turkish citizenship. This possibility may attract not only irregular migrants, but also criminals or terrorists.”

According to the Telegraph, the report adds that as a result of the deal, the Turkish mafia, which traffics vast volumes of drugs, sex slaves, illegal firearms and refugees into Europe, may undergo “direct territorial expansion towards the EU.” The report warns: “Suspect individuals being allowed to travel to the Schengen territory without the need to go through a visa request procedure would have a greater ability to enter the EU without being noticed.”

While the EU privately admits that the visa waiver would increase the risk to European security, in public the EU has recommended that the deal be approved.

On May 4, the European Commission announced that Turkey has met most of the 72 “benchmarks of the roadmap” needed to qualify for the visa waiver. The remaining five conditions concern the fight against corruption, judicial cooperation with EU member states, deeper ties with the European law-enforcement agency Europol, data protection and anti-terrorism legislation.

European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans said:

“Turkey has made impressive progress, particularly in recent weeks, on meeting the benchmarks of its visa liberalization roadmap…. This is why we are putting a proposal on the table which opens the way for the European Parliament and the Member States to decide to lift visa requirements, once the benchmarks have been met.”

In order for the visa waiver to take effect, it must be approved by the national parliaments of the EU member states, as well as the European Parliament.

Ahead of a May 18 debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg over Turkey’s progress in fulfilling requirements for visa liberalization, Burhan Kuzu, a senior adviser to Erdogan, warned the European Parliament that it had an “important choice” to make.

In a Twitter message, Kuzu wrote: “If they make the wrong decision, we will send the refugees.” In a subsequent telephone interview with Bloomberg, he added: “If Turkey’s doors are opened, Europe would be miserable.”

Meanwhile, Erdogan has placed yet another obstacle in the way of EU-Turkey deal. He is now demanding that the EU immediately hand over three billion euros ($3.4 billion) promised under the deal so that Turkish authorities can spend it as they see fit.

The EU insists that the funds be transferred through the United Nations and other international aid agencies in accordance with strict rules on how the aid can be spent. That stance has prompted Erdogan to accuse the EU of “mocking the dignity” of the Turkish nation.

On May 10, Erdogan expressed anger at the glacial pace of the EU bureaucracy:

“This country [Turkey] is looking after three million refugees. What did they [the EU] say? We’ll give you €3 billion. Well, have they given us any of that money until now? No. They’re still stroking the ball around midfield. If you’re going to give it, just give it.

“These [EU] administrators come here, tour our [refugee] camps, then ask at the same time for more projects. Are you kidding us? What projects? We have 25 camps running. You’ve seen them. There is no such thing as a project. We’ve implemented them.”

In an interview with the Financial Times, Fuat Oktay, head of Turkey’s Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), the agency responsible for coordinating the country’s refugee response, accused European officials of being fixated on “bureaucracies, rules and procedures” and urged the European Commission to find a way around them.

The European Commission insists that it was made clear from the outset that most of the money must go to aid organizations: “Funding under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey supports refugees in the country. It is funding for refugees and not funding for Turkey.”

The migration crisis appears to be having political repercussions for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a leading proponent of the EU-Turkey deal. According to a new poll published by the German newsmagazine Cicero on May 10, two-thirds (64%) of Germans oppose a fourth term for Merkel, whose term ends in the fall of 2017.

In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister-party to Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU), blamed Merkel for enabling Erdogan’s blackmail: “I am not against talks with Turkey. But I think it is dangerous to be dependent upon Ankara.”

Sahra Wagenknecht of the Left Party accused Merkel of negotiating the EU-Turkey deal without involving her European partners: “The chancellor is responsible for Europe having become vulnerable to blackmail by the authoritarian Turkish regime.”

Cem Özdemir, leader of the Greens Party and the son of Turkish immigrants said: “The EU-Turkey deal has made Europe subject to Turkish blackmail. The chancellor bears significant responsibility for this state of affairs.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

EU Makes Up Bogus Laws to Target — Guess Who? by Denis MacEoin

  • Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel’s rights to remain there until such time as there is a “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”


  • When the EU states that its aim is “to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967,” it refuses to recognize the validity of UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by “sovereignty.”

  • As only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated in the UN Resolution 181, which established a Jewish and an Arab state.

  • The European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India — all with territories under dispute — label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel.

  • “The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel.” — Law Professors Eugene Kontorovich (Northwestern University) and Avi Bell (University of San Diego).

On December 7, 2015, Germany, of all countries, announced its support for the EU labelling of products produced on disputed land sometimes referred to as Israeli “settlements.” Apart from the fact that Palestinians openly consider the entire country of Israel — “from the River to the Sea” — one big settlement, one can only marvel at what is now being imposed by the EU and, this week, by Germany.

Faced with the greatest crisis in its 22-year history — an influx of millions of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Afghanistan — the European Union spent much of November on its long-debated policy of the labelling of products from the disputed territories of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. On November 11, it demanded that exports (mainly fruit and vegetables) from these areas no longer be labelled “produced in Israel.”

The four-page “Interpretative Notice on indication of origin of goods from the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967“, issued by the EU’s executive body, the 28-member European Commission, makes assumptions about Israel and the territories that have already been challenged by Israeli officials. It begins with the following paragraph:

(1) The European Union, in line with international law, does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law. The Union has made it clear that it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

If this is the basis for a discriminatory measure, it has little or no legal basis. The claim that their interpretation of Israeli rights in the territories mentioned is “in line with international law” raises the simple question: “which international law?”

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel’s rights to remain there until such time as there is a “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

As no secure and recognized boundaries have been established, despite numerous attempts by the government of Israel to bring them about, Israel’s presence there remains entirely legal. And as only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated into UN Resolution 181, which called for the establishment of a Jewish and an Arab state.

Similarly, the statement that the EU “will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders” is legally invalid as well as obnoxious. No such pre-1967 borders ever existed. The armistice lines, established in 1949 on the termination of the 1948-1949 war between Israel and its several Arab enemies, are not borders. And as the 1967 war was fought by Israel as a war of defence, its alleged “occupation” (which then included the Gaza Strip) of territories previously occupied by two of the belligerent states (Egypt in Gaza, and Jordan in the West Bank) is fully legal under the international laws of armed combat, principally under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

When the EU’s Interpretative Notice goes on to state that its aim “is also to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967,” it clearly does not recognize the validity of a major international agreement, UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by “sovereignty.”

The many debates over the occupation, international law, sovereignty status and so forth need to be addressed in their own right. Suffice to say here that the EU’s blanket declaration of its enforcement of international law is seriously open to question. And, it must be added, its inclusion of Gaza in the occupied territories takes no account of the fact that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005 and that no goods exported from Gaza have been labelled “produced in Israel” for over a decade.

The Israeli response to the EU decision was swift. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahucommented:

“The EU decision is hypocritical and constitutes a double standard; it singles out Israel and not the 200 other conflicts around the world. The EU has decided to label only Israel, and we are not prepared to accept the fact that Europe is labeling the side that is being attacked by terrorism. The Israeli economy is strong and will withstand this; those who will be hurt will be those Palestinians who work in Israeli factories. The EU should be ashamed.”

Netanyahu was backed by the leader of Israel’s main opposition party, the Zionist Union, Isaac Herzog. He said that he “strongly opposes this harmful and unnecessary measure.” Herzog called the ruling “a prize that Europe is bestowing for terror,” and adding that it “serves only one purpose — continuing the hate and regional conflict. Marking these products is an act of violence by extremists who want to further inflame the situation and the EU is falling into their trap.”

Israel’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs expressed further support for the determination that the new legislation is discriminatory. It pointed out the discriminatory nature of the decision: “It is puzzling and even irritating that the EU chooses to apply a double standard concerning Israel, while ignoring that there are over 200 other territorial disputes worldwide, including those occurring within the EU or on its doorstep. The claim that this is a technical matter is cynical and baseless.”

Netanyahu and the Israeli Foreign Ministry are right. There are countless territorial disputes round the world. Ones that stand out are those in which a state illegally occupies or incorporates the territory of another people. After the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, the country was incorporated into the People’s Republic of China as an “Autonomous Region.” When Spain and Mauritania withdrew from the Western Sahara in 1976 and 1979 respectively, Morocco annexed the area. It still occupies two-thirds of this vast (100,000 square miles) territory, despite the absence of any UN resolution recognizing its sovereignty there. Kashmir is controlled by no fewer than three countries — India, Pakistan and China — each of which holds a different part of the former princely state. This division has led to two wars between India and Pakistan, and remains hotly contested, without a formal international recognition of territorial rights. In 2014, Russia dispatched armed forces, started a war, and annexed Crimea, a territory that had been formally recognized as part of Ukraine. The UN General Assembly subsequently issued a resolution that called on the international community not to recognize any change to the status of Crimea.

All of the above disputes involve territorial claims that are essentially illegal, yet the European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel. There are no labels saying “Product of Tibet (produced by Han Chinese occupiers)”, “Crimean produce under Russian occupation,” or “Western Sahara phosphates (extracted by Moroccan settlers).”

It gets worse. The European Union was a joint signatory (with the US, the UK, China, France, Russia and Germany) to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the notorious deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that permits it to build nuclear weapons, despite its decades-long repeated violations of its commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In anticipation of the lifting of the sanctions against Iran, European diplomats and businessmen have been packing their bags and heading to Tehran to set up commercial deals that will allow the export of European products to Iran and the import of Iranian goods to Europe: a “Pistachio Deal.” They are being encouraged to do so by European governments, such as the UK through its Trade and Investments wing. But Iran is the world’s biggest terrorism-supporting state, and Tehran is still deeply engaged with fighting in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while supporting Hamas in Gaza and manoeuvring to increase its influence in the West Bank.

This seemingly innocuous move, taken for purportedly “technical reasons,” clearly reveals the racist, anti-Semitic underpinnings still alive and well in members of the European Union. It singles out Israel for treatment not meted out to other, larger countries, even where their occupation and annexation has led, and still leads to, conflict, crime, terrorism, and even repeated threats of genocide. Such a singling-out reflects the many other ways in which countries, world bodies (such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, or the UN Human Rights Council) isolate Israel and hold it to arbitrary, fabricated standards not applied to any other country in the world.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, of which this European labelling is a part, takes the issue of marking products even farther. It does not just involve itself only with capriciously directing commerce; it also tries to muscle academic, cultural, and scientific spheres. The EU directive on labelling is already being cheered as a justification of BDS policy. Ramallah-based Mahmoud Nawajaa, general coordinator for the Palestinian BDS National Committee has said labelling was a “sign that European governments are reacting to public opinion, civil society campaigning and Israeli intransigence and are becoming more willing to take some basic action against Israeli violations of international law.” He did not, of course specify which laws were Israel was presumably violating.

Israel is not alone in rejecting the EU directive. On November 9, a bipartisan group of 36 U.S. Senators, led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), sent a letter to the EU’s foreign policy czar, Federica Mogherini, to protest the EU’s decision. They emphasized the potential of the directive to encourage and expand the boycott movement:

“As allies, elected representatives of the American people, and strong supporters of Israel, we urge you not to implement this labeling policy, which appears intended to discourage Europeans from purchasing these products and promote a de facto boycott of Israel, a key ally and the only true democracy in the Middle East… We are also deeply concerned that enacting this policy would lead to the broader boycott of Israel.”

Similarly, a spokesman for Germany’s ruling Social Democratic Party declared that the decision to label settlement products was not a step to protect customers, but would instead create a “stigma” against Israel. He added that the ruling was a “mistake.”

It is not just American senators who find the EU measure offensive. Several academic lawyers specializing in international law have addressed its contents, and have found them inaccurate, contradictory and lacking in justice. One such lawyer, Jonathan Turner of “UK Lawyers for Israel,” wrote in a personal communication on November 11:

Note that the Notice claims at the same time that: It is important that products from the West Bank and “East Jerusalem” cannot be labelled “product of Israel” because (1) the EU (channeling the authority to speak on behalf of “international law”) does not recognize these areas as part of Israel and (2) consumers might be confused and think that the areas are part of Israel.

It is okay for products from the West Bank, “East Jerusalem” and Gaza to be labelled “product of Palestine” because (1) even though the EU doesn’t recognize a state of Palestine, that doesn’t make a difference and (2) magically consumers will not be confused.

In October 2015, just weeks before the EU directive was issued, two international law professors wrote a 35-page summary of the legal issues involved in the process. Eugene Kontorovich, professor of international law at Northwestern University, and Avi Bell, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law and at Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law,published a paper titled “Challenging the EU’s Illegal Restrictions on Israeli Products in the World Trade Organization”. Among the points they make is that the EU labelling process is illegal according international law:

The EU’s proposed measures restrict Israeli trade in violation of international trade law found in numerous multilateral treaties, including articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; Articles IX, X and XIII of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and Article 2.3 and 5.6 of the Agreement on the Applications Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, among others.

The discriminatory nature of the legislation is made clear in a precise manner:

Any justifications the EU could adduce for its policies are undermined by their admittedly discriminatory application. The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel. This violates the fundamental rules of the GATT/WTO system, under which even otherwise valid trade restrictions are void if not applied uniformly to WTO members. Thus Israel’s successful assertion of its rights in no way involves having the WTO accept its position on the status of the territories.

Finally, they add a caveat addressing the technical point that the territories are not part of Israel:

EU arguments that these territories are not part of Israel are irrelevant in this context. The scope of the WTO agreements explicitly extend beyond a country’s sovereign territory, and include territories under its “international responsibility.” The drafting history and subsequent application of the GATT make clear that this involves territories under military occupation

In a much shorter but comprehensive piece written just after the EU announcement of its new policy, Avi Bell addresses some of the central issues. Like Jonathan Turner, he sees both contradiction and discrimination in the ruling:

The Notice says that when products from the Golan Heights, “East” Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are sold in Europe, they must not be labeled as “products of Israel” because the EU believes that these areas are not sovereign parts of Israel under international law and, therefore, consumers would be misled if they were labeled “products of Israel.” However, the Notice states that it would be lawful to label products from the West Bank and Gaza as “products of Palestine” (and maybe from “East” Jerusalem as well, though the Notice is ambiguous on this point) even though the EU does not recognize the sovereignty of a state of Palestine. This is because presumably European consumers only care that product labels reflect EU views of sovereignty under international law when this works to the disadvantage of Israel.

He also draws attention to a British legal precedent that contradicts the EU position:

The Notice claims that it is doing nothing more than providing guidance in response to “a demand for clarity from consumers, economic operators and national authorities.” Yet, the Notice not only fails to cite any evidence of this alleged demand, it ignores a British Supreme Court decision that states quite explicitly that there is no such demand — in the 2014 case of Richardson and another v. Director of Public Prosecutions, the Court ruled that “there was no basis for saying that the average consumer would be misled … simply because [a product was] described as being [made in] Israel when actually it was [made in the West Bank].”

It is worth quoting further from this well-argued document. One of Bell’s strongest points is made when he demolishes the EU’s rights to establish international borders and its ability to legislate history:

The Notice presents its position on the borders between Israel and a future state of Palestine as those of “international law” as if the EU had the authority under international law to establish Israeli-Palestinian borders. In fact, not only does the EU lack this authority under international law, the EU is signed as a witness on Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements that state that the borders are to be established only by agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Similarly, the Notice claims that the EU “will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process” even though there were no pre-1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders. In fact, by trying to establish the pre-1967 Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt armistice lines as the new Israeli-Palestinian borders, the EU is trying to force changes to the pre-1967 borders contrary to the agreement of the parties to the peace process. Ironically, the EU is trying to rewrite history as well, since there is no country in the EU that viewed the armistice lines as borders pre-1967.

In the face of so many emphatic legal red lights, it is clear is that the directive would not have been issued at all if there had not been a strong pre-existing EU bias against Israel, its government and its people. Sadly, Europe has clearly returned to its oldest racist hatred. The past decade and more has seen a marked recrudescence of not only the old anti-Semitism in European states, but also the new anti-Semitism — one motivated by a hatred of the Jewish state of Israel. The duplicitous attempt at a distinction between the hatred of individual Jews and the hatred of the Jewish state is demonstrated in the many instances above of unequal application of the law. There are means available for Israel to fight this bigoted “Jim Crow” ruling.[1]

In the 1930s, Jewish shops, businesses and goods were labelled with Jewish stars and the word “Jude.” Everyone thought that this style of crude anti-Semitism had vanished from our towns and cities. Yet today, sadly, the same racism has returned at the highest level of European government.

Denis MacEoin is a former editor of Middle East Quarterly, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gatestone Institute, and the author of numerous books and articles on the Middle East and Islam.

ESE WOWE, NYUMA YO KUVAHO KWA NYAKWIGENDERA,NI GUTE UZAYOBORA ABANYARWANDA?

 Ndagirango buri munsi nubona nyagasani aguhaye guhumeka,ujye ufata akanya,utekereze uburyo mu minsi iri mbere nuramuka ubaye umwe mu bayobozi b’igihugu,nigute uzayobora abanyarwanda?waba uzikomereza umwuka w’ikinyoma twasanze?cyangwa ushobora guhagarara kigabo nk’umuntu Imana yatoranyije mu gihe gisa nk’iki,ukarwanya ikinyoma cya repubulika!?


Reka mvuge nti,niba ugitekerereza mu moko no mu mwuka w’ikinyoma,nta mwanya ufite murwagasabo,ngirango ikinyoma cy’Abahutu+icy’Abatutsi=bingana (0) urwango rw’Abahutu+urw’Abatutsi=(0)ivangura moko ry’Abatutsi+iry’Abahutu=(0)ubwose koko dushingiye kubigaragara murabona ejo hazaza h’Urwanda,har’icyo tuzasigira abazadukomokaho?cyangwa n’uguhora mu ntambara no gusahura igihugu tukigira mu mahanga.Bitekerezeho wibaze iryo shyaka urimo urebe ko har’icyo ryageza kubanyarwanda,nusanga wibeshya,wifate utegereze igihe gikwiriye cy’Imana urebe ko Uwiteka atazaguha icyerekezo kandi gikwiriye.

UWARUSHYE NTARUHUKA!

 

Nibyo koko babivuze ukuri,uwarushye ntaruhuka,kubera iki?abakurambere baciye uyu mugani?ngo umugani ugana akariho.Urebye abanyarwanda bo mu bwoko bw’Abatutsi umuruho barushye igihe bahungaga muri 1959,ntawatekerezaga yuko bakabaye aribo bongeye guhunga ingoma y’Abega bimitse bibwira ngo n’ingoma ntutsi.Bababwiye ngo nimureke dushyireho umuhutu kugirango amahanga atatubona nabi,hanyuma tuzabone kuzana umwami kuko twebwe amahanga aratwanga kandi araturwanya,abandi nabo bati nibyo!Mu gihe abantu bagitegereje bati duteye Congo kuko abahutu bashobora kugaruka bakadusubiza ishyanga,abatutsi bati sawa!Mukanya gato bati Pasteur Bizimungu ashyigikiye abahutu benewabo abatutsi bati ntarare ku ngoma.

Bati noneho hagomba kuba amatora y’umukuru w’igihugu kugirango haboneke ubutegetsi bubereye abatutsi,kandi kagame niwe ugomba kuba umutegetsi mukuru dore igihe twaruhiye bandi bati sawa kabisa,naho ntibamenye ko Abega bibereye mu migambi yogushaka uburyo bimika “Kega ka kagara ka KAGAME”amaze kwima ingoma,ati Urwanda nta mwami rufite,ahubwo natahe nkabanyarwanda bose azahabwa aho atura naho iby’ubwami nasubize amerwe mu isaho.

Ubwo intambara yoguhiga abanyarwanda bo mu muryango w’abanyiginya iba iratangiye,nibwo ba SEBARENZI bahise bahunga nabandi bari bashyigikiye gutaha kumwami baricwa,ubwo umwakagara afatanya ikibazo cy’ubwami na jenocide yakorewe abanyarwanda bo mu bwoko bw’Abatutsi agira amahirwe haduka imvugo ivuga ko abatavuga rumwe n’ubutegetsi arabagize umutwe witera bwoba,ubwo nawe afatiraho yongezamo vitensi maze karahava,ibisasu aba abikuye mububiko Col.Karangwa John waruvuye mu mahugurwa yoguteza akavuyo no kugahosha aba abonye ikiraka ndibuka icyo gihe yari Major,ibisasu arabitera,ibinyamakuru bimushyira mu majwi bati ambara col.Uruhuke akazi ukoze abandi bazagakomeza.Ubwo Kayumba Karegeya Ingabire bashyirwa mugatebo kabaterroriste maze Gen.Nziza na Gen.Kagame babiha umugisha,none bategereje urugiye kubakura ku isi, surely will continue like this? or we need some changes? God please help us let us your will be done in our country.

 

ESE NINDE NSHUTI YA KAGAME UZASOHOZA UBUHANUZI, ABANYAWANDA BAKARUHUKA UMUNANIRO BATEWE NA REPUBULIKA ITEMEWE N’AMATEGEKO?

Nk’uko twakunze kubyandika, abantu benshi bari bazi neza ko, Gen.Kayonga ariwe uzakura Kagame ku butegetsi! Nyuma y’inyandiko nyinshi twagiye twandika, byatumye Kagame abitekerezaho, maze asanga ko ahari ibyaba bivugwa byaba bishobora kuba bifitanye isano n’ukuri kubyandikwa.

Ibyo byatumye amukura ku mwanya w’ingabo amugira ambasaderi mu gihugu cy’Ubushinwa aba amugize aka Nyamwasa, ubundi mu gitutsi babyita kwiga kubana n’Abatutsi, bivugwa ngo abatutsi n’abategetsi baba bakuyobora naho abandi bakaba arabagaragu.


 

Kugez’ubu,abanyarwanda benshi bategerejanije amatsiko,bashaka kumenya uzahitana Gen Major Paul Kagame,ariko ibyahanuwe bisobanura ko mur’ibyo bihe,uwo azaba yiringira niwe,uzamuhitana.Kuko bidashoboka ko,ubuhanuzi buhura n’ubwenge bw’abana ba bantu.

Amakuru akomeje kugera ku inyangeNews.com,aravuga yuko ngo kuva Gen.Kayunga Charles,yagirwa ambasaderi mu gihugu cy’Ubushinwa,ngo yaba arimo gutegura umutwe w’Ingabo mu gihugu cy’Ubugande.Ibyo bivuzwe mu gihe gito cyane amaze abaye umunyacyubahiro wo murwego rwa Ambasederi.

Amakuru atugeraho akomeza avuga ko perezida M7 uyoboye igihugu cya Uganda ngo yaba amaze kumenya amakuru yuko abanyayuganda ngo baba bari mumyiteguro yogukura perezida M7 kubutegetsi ngo cyane ko bamwe mubo bafatanije kubohoza igihugu cya Uganda bamae kugera mubuhungiro aribenshi.Bityo hakaba hamaze kuboneka imbaraga zihagije zizamukura kubutegetsi.

Ibyo byatumye perezida M7,ashakisha uburyo yategura umugambi wogushaka umwe mubasirikare bakomeye bayoboye leta y’Urwanda kugirango amushyigikire amushyire ku ngoma kugirangoazabone aho azahungira nyuma ykuva kubutegetsi,ngo kuko hagati ye na perezida kagame ngo ntibacana uwaka,ngo nidipromasi gusa ariko ntibabana mu gihugu kimwe kubera kutizerana kuri hagati yabo.Gen.Kayonga rero akaba ariwe perezida M7 arimo gutegura kugirango amusimbuze kagame kugirango ubwo azomeke igice cy’Urwanda kirimo nkore na masaka ku Rwanda hanyuma azabone aho azasazira.Birumvikana yuko Museveni nawe ari mubarwanya ubwami bw’Urwanda kubera inyungu ze,murumva rero ko abanyarwanda bugarijwe nabyinshi ariko reka bizabeho ubwo sakindi izaba ibyara ikindi.Natwe ntituri abana tuzamenya icyo gukora”lisemwaro lipo,na kama halipo?liko njiani!reka tubitege amaso icyo gihe cyegereje ndetse kiri hafi tuzamenya igikwiriye mu gihe gikwiriye.

BIRASHOBOKA KO ABAFARANSA BAZONGERA GUKORA GENOCIDE MU RWANDA?

Dushingiye kubuhanuzi,ndetse tukagaruka tukareba imibanire yibyo bihugu byombi,ubona har’uruntu runtu hagati y’ibihugu byombi,kuburyo abafaransa batakaje icyubahiro mu isi yabazima,nubwo ar’igihugu gikomeye ku isi,bias naho ntacyo bikibwiye,ariko iyo ukurikiranye amakuru avugwa mur’icyo gihugu usanga ishyamba atari ryeru.

Ubuhanuzi bugaragarza ko umwakagara nakurwa ku ngoma,umuryango wabibumbye uzahita uza gutabara byitwa ko baje guhosha abazaba barwana,ariko iyo usomye ubuhanuzi neza uzasanga ko bazaba baje kongera gukora ibishoboka byose ngo basubizeho ubutegetsi bwa MRND.

Na none iyo ukomeje gusoma usanga ko abanyamerica nabongereza,nabo bazaba barwana no gushyiraho ubutegetsi bw’Abatutsi bari bamaze igihe bahagarariye inyungu zabo mu karere k’ibiyaga bigari,kubera izo nyungu bose bazaba bakurikirana bazahangana,hagati aho abanyarwanda bazaba barimo kubigwamo.

Kugeza igihe abantu bazashira kubera kutumvikana ku ibihugu bikomeye bizaba birwanira inyungu zabyo,ndetse bamwe bazageregeza gushyira umuperezida uzasimbura kagame,ario nawe azahita akurwaho na kudeta kugeza igihe basanga ko ari ngombwa ko bimika Umwami w’Urwanda kuko icyo gihe niwe wenyine uzaba ugaragara ko,ntamaraso mubiganza bye,akaba ariwe uzaba akwiriye kuyobora Urwanda icyo gihe.

Aho rero niho ubuhanuzi buzaba busohoye RUKARA RW’IGISAGE RUBUNDIYE MUMAHANGA RUZAZA MUNDA Y’INYONI IFITE IBUYE RIVUZA UBUHUHA”INDEGE”nyuma yuko amahoro azagaruka mu gihugu,hazakorwa iperereza kubagize uruhare muriyo ntambara niho UBUFARANSA buzongera gushyirwa mu majwi ku nshuro ya kabiri.Ndetse na Loni icyo gihe ikazaryozwa ibyo yakoze kuba yaremeye ko hajyaho repubulika itemewe n’amategeko.

Yewe icyo gihe bizaba bibabaje,ariko kandi bizaba binashyushye,ng’uko uko Urwanda ruzasubirana ubwami bwarwo bwari bwarigaruriwe n’Abega babakagara!nibwira ko icyo gihe bazaba baracishijwe bugufi kuko igihe cyabo kizaba cyararangiye.

ESE KUTAVUGA RUMWE N’UBUTEGETSI BWA KAGAME, BIKURAHO UBUHEMU BANYARWANDA BAHEMUKWE?

Abanyarwanda mukwiye kuba maso,kuba duhuriye kukibazo cyitwa Paul Kagame,ntibivuga yuko abanyarwanda bahemukiye abandi bagahungira mu mahanga,ngo Paul Navaho bazagaruka tubane mu mahoro nibura batagejejwe imbere y’ubutabera nibura akayantero ya kagame ngo babisabire imbabazi umutima ushyitse munda ntacyo umuntu yikanga.


Har’imitungo yigabijwe nabatabikwiriye bayijyamo baravuyarara,hari abishe abavandimwe bacu babitumwe n’ubutegetsi bw’igitugu,sinzi niba bazitwaza ko babitegetswe na leta,ndibwira ko,nyuma ya jenocide buri munyarwanda yabonye isomo rihagije kuburyo ubu icyo kinyoma cy’uko bashutswe n’ubutegetsi bubi ubanza bitazabafasha.

 

Abambuwe uburenganzira bwo guhabwa impamya bumenyi bakoreye ngo ni uko batemera FPR,cyangwa ngo batakoze amahugurwa ya nd’Umunyarwanda ibi byose ntabwo byazashyirwa mubikorwa hatabayeho ubuyobozi bw’Imana mu gihugu cyacu.Ikinyamakuru inyangeNewss.com kirasaba umunyarwanda wese Imana izagirira ikizere akajya kubutegetsi agasimbura umwakagara Paul Kagame ko yazaha abanyarwanda ubutabera bukwiriye atitaye ku ndanga gaciro zabo,ahubwo azahe agaciro ubutabera kuko aribwo abanyarwanda babuze mu myaka 55 ishize.

Abanyarwanda bakoze ibyaha bamwe bashoboye guhungira mu mahanga,ndetse bagenda bahunga ubutabera bubi kuko ntaburi mu gihugu,ahari iyo haza kuba hari ubutabera ntabwo bariguhunga,tukaba dusaba abanyarwanda kuzemera kujya imbere y’ubutabera kuberako icyo gihe twiringiye neza yuko hazaba har’ubutabera buboneye abanyagihugu.

Bityo rero ntihagire uwirara ngo yumve ko,kuba yarahungiye mu mahanga,bizamusha agaciro ko kudahangarwa n’ubutabera buzaba buriho icyo gihe,kuko hazaba harabanyarwanda b’ingeri nyinshi bazaba bashakishwa n’ubutabera bw’Urwanda cyane duhereye kubambari ba FPR bazongera guhunga igihugu bakazagenda bagisahuye.

Byanze bikunze bazahigwa bukware aho bazaba bari hose ku isi,nkuko abajenocideri bakomeje guhigwa bukware kabone naho byaba bikorwa munyungu za FPR,zitari izabanyarwanda,jenocide ntabwo ijya irangira bazakomeza gukurikiranwa kugeza Umwami Yesu agarutse igihe cyose bazaba bakiri ku isi kuko ayo niyo mahame ya jenocide,nkaba mboneyeho kuburira abanyarwanda bo mu bwoko bw’Abatutsi kuba maso kuko muminsi irimbere nabo batarebye neza bashobora gusimbura abanyarwanda bo mu bwoko bw’Abahutu muri jenocide.

Page 402 of 451
1 400 401 402 403 404 451
Skip to toolbar