RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning.” — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS “does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam” now to be considered an “Islamophobe”?

The question, naturally, is whether Canada’s motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.

In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?

As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.

On October 26, Canada’s parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The petition garnered almost 70,000 signatures.

According to the text of the petition,

“Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia”.

Chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” were heard across Iranian cities as thousands of Iranians marked the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 American hostages for 444 days by militant students.

The State Department’s reaction is classic: ignoring these developments and continuing with appeasement policies.

These anti-American demonstrations are not rhetoric, but are the cornerstone of Iran’s revolutionary principles and foreign policies, which manifest themselves in Iran’s support for terrorist proxies, support for Assad’s regime, and the scuttling of US and Israeli foreign policies in the region.

Many other Iranian officials who were engaged in attacks against the US currently serve in high positions. Hossein Salami, who enjoys one of these high-level positions, is the deputy commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. He stated at the rally: “America should know that if they do not honor their agreement in the nuclear deal, we will resume uranium enrichment…”

After eight years of President Barack Obama’s policies of appeasement, Iran’s threats, such as “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel,” have grown even louder.

This week, the Iranian government orchestrated one the largest anti-American and anti-Israeli demonstrations, since 1979, echoing Iran Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s recent messages.

The government provided facilities for the protesters. Chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” were heard across Iranian cities as thousands of Iranians marked the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the taking of 52 American hostages for 444 days by militant students.

On the anniversary of his death, it is important that we remember Yasser Arafat (8 or 9 other names, including the ubiquitous Mohammed, may be added as needed) as a murderer, a liar and a thief.

Twelve years ago, Arafat, the Egyptian terrorist leader who founded an imaginary country on mass murder and our foreign aid, died covered in his own vomit and diarrhea. The possible causes of death, in order of probability, were AIDS, according to his private doctor and the head of the PFLP terror group, an Israeli laser, according to the Palestinian ambassador to Sri Lanka, thallium poisoning by Israel, polonium poisoning by his Palestinian rivals and the trained ape from Poe’s Murders in the Rue Morgue.

The investigation into Arafat’s death went on for over a decade and dragged in the Institut de Radiophysique in Switzerland, Russia’s Federal Medical-Biological Agency and a mysteriously nameless team of French experts. Arafat’s “temporary” mausoleum, a building that looks like a Florida motel outhouse built on a giant scale, was rummaged and his rotting remains were poked over by three international teams who could agree on nothing except that the dead terrorist was probably dead.

Probably. It was hard to tell if Arafat was alive even back when he was still breathing and ranting.

After a decade of the minions of the occupying Muslim terror regime in Ramallah accusing each other, and occasionally the Jews with their lasers, the Arafat Museum has finally debuted the centerpiece of its exhibit, the dead Egyptian terrorist’s bedroom. Last month the museum managed to wrest Arafat’s Nobel Peace Prize from Hamas without anyone being dragged behind a motorcycle or thrown off a building. This marked a major improvement in relations between the two aspiring Palestinian terror states. If that doesn’t merit handing out more peace prizes to everyone involved, what would?

The United Nations continues to serve as the Palestinians’ battering ram to try and destroy the legitimacy of the Jewish state of Israel. Between the Organization of Islamic Cooperation-influenced UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, more UN resources and time are devoted to the advocacy of the Palestinian cause than to virtually any other issue.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has also been used to advance the Islamists’ Palestinian agenda, which went into high gear after the admission of Palestine to UNESCO with full membership privileges in 2011. Not satisfied with UNESCO’s recent outrageous resolution using only Arabic names for the Temple Mount and Western Wall, and condemning Israel for conducting archeological excavations in and around Jerusalem, the Palestinian Authority now wants UNESCO to demand that Israel “surrender” the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is yet another example of the Palestinians’ strategy to use UN bodies to help them rob the Jewish people of their historic association with the land of Israel.

As Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama-Hacohen was quoted in Israel Hayom as saying in criticizing the Palestinians’ latest gambit, “This is another provocative and audacious, attempt by the Palestinians to rewrite history. The Dead Sea Scrolls are factual and weighty archeological evidence of the presence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.”

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee conducted the annual ritual of adopting a series of anti-Israel resolutions. The ten resolutions – more than three times the number of resolutions condemning the other 192 member states of the UN combined – are virtually certain to be formally adopted by the General Assembly in plenary session next month.

The hypocrisy of the UN in action is staggering. Israel is repeatedly condemned in resolutions spearheaded by Islamic countries with atrocious human rights records. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for a massive number of civilian deaths in Yemen as a result of the Saudi-led coalition’s indiscriminate aerial bombing, is rewarded with a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Double standards may not be enough to describe what has become of the United Nations. In some ways it has no standards at all.

“The U.N.’s assault on Israel today with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, on November 8th. “Even as Syrian president Bashar Assad is preparing for the final massacre of his own people in Aleppo, the U.N. is about to adopt a resolution — drafted and co-sponsored by Syria — which falsely condemns Israel for ‘repressive measures’ against Syrian citizens on the Golan Heights. It’s obscene,” added Neuer.

The Assad regime’s brutal repression has led to the deaths of more than 3000 Palestinian refugees, including at least 200 children, in Syria since 2011. A thousand or so Palestinians are languishing in Syrian prisons. Yet the Palestinians lock arms with their Syrian regime oppressors to join in supporting resolutions condemning “Israel, the occupying Power.”

A number of the resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee appear to endorse the Palestinians’ demand for the right-of-return – or, as one such resolution puts it, the “protection of Arab property, assets and property rights in Israel.”

Beginning in 1977, the United Nations has sponsored the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29th, the date in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved its partition resolution, which the Jewish residents had accepted but was rejected by many Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries. The event takes place every year at UN Headquarters in New York and at the UN Offices at Geneva and Vienna and elsewhere.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called November 29th a “day of mourning and a day of grief.” In other words, every November 29th, the United Nations publicly mourns the passage of its own peaceful solution to the Arab-Jewish dispute. The UN is effectively repudiating its own original two-state solution, spurned by all of the Arab countries back in 1947, which still lies at the heart of the solution that the UN claims to support as the basis for ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict today.

In March 2014, during a political rally at The Hague, Geert Wilders asked his audience whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans” in The Netherlands. “Fewer, fewer,” his supporters chanted. And then he promised them that “then, we will arrange that.” He meant, of course, that if his party were to do well in the next election, he would limit the number of “Moroccans” entering the country. He did not denounce all “Moroccans.” He did not say he would be forcibly removing “Moroccans” from the country. All he did was utter less than a dozen words, lasting less than 30 seconds. There was no ranting, no mocking of Moroccans. But out of that briefest of exchanges with his supporters a hysterical case has been concocted by the Dutch state against Wilders, who is now on trial, put there by those who think that his question-and-answer constituted “racism” and “discrimination” and “hate speech.”

Where should we begin with this? Wilders has never made a comment on a race, though he is forever being accused of “racism.” “Moroccans” are not a “race,” and it is not “racist” for a Dutch citizen to worry aloud about the observable effect of their increasing presence in the Netherlands. Nor do Moroccans constitute an ethnicity; there are both ethnic Arabs and ethnic Berbers who are “Moroccans.” “Moroccan” signifies a national identity, albeit one that is inextricably linked to Islam. Wilders said nothing to whip up “hate” against “Moroccans.” He merely asked his audience whether, given their own experience with Moroccan immigrants, they wanted more or fewer such migrants in the Netherlands. For experience had shown that those “Moroccans” continue to make heavy demands on the generous Dutch welfare state, soaking up funds (for housing, medical care, education, unemployment benefits, etc.) that are then no longer available for needy Dutch people, and that the rates of criminality, and expensive incarceration, among “Moroccans,” have been many times larger than the rates among the native Dutch. As of 2011, 65% of all Moroccan males between 12-23 years of age have been detained by the Dutch police at least once. One third of this group has been detained five or more times. Moroccan criminals are convicted at four times the rate of Dutch suspects. These numbers were steadily increasing when reported on in 2011, and it is reasonable to conclude they have continued to rise since then, though no more recent reckoning has been made public. It may be that the Dutch government doesn’t want figures to get out that would alarm the populace still further. And European officials, including the police, often discourage the reporting of crimes by Muslim migrants.