When You Leave Out The Details In Order To Defame Israel

Jihad Watch posted an article today that included the following screenshot:

Wow. That’s awful. It’s very easy to sympathize with the mother. However, there is a whole lot more to the story.

The article reports:

On August 28, United States Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) ignited a firestorm after posting a claim on Twitter that Israel was dehumanizing Palestinians by not returning the body of an assailant who in June had attempted to ram a car into IDF soldiers before exiting the vehicle while wielding a knife. She was subsequently shot dead.

The assailant was Mai Afana, who had tried to kill Israeli soldiers, first with a car-ramming at a checkpoint and then with the knife she wielded after exiting the car, with which she intended to stab them.

Nevertheless, Tlaib wrote the following on the social media platform:

Meet Mai Afana’s mother, Khuloud, who is fighting to be able to bury her daughter & begin her healing. Mai was a mother, loving daughter & successful PhD student. She was killed by the Israeli government last June. Israel won’t release her body to her family.

“First, there is the obvious fact that Tlaib failed to even note that Afana had committed an act of terrorism.

In the current Palestinian culture, it is an honor to have your child die while killing or fighting Israelis. In fact, the group that rules the Palestinian territories pays families generously when one of their children is killed. Not returning the body of a terrorist is standard policy for Israel–experience tells them that returning the body will only result in more terrorism.

This tweet is an example of the way social media can be used to frame a story in a way that is totally misleading. In that tweet, Representative Tlaib is showing her support for terrorist activity. She sits in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Representative. That is not acceptable.

This Is Not Reassuring

Yesterday WND posted an article about the Afghan refugees we are screening in Qatar.

The article reports:

Among the evacuees from Kabul are as many as 100 Afghans who are on intelligence agency terrorist watch lists, including one with potential ties to ISIS, a U.S. official warned Tuesday.

The Afghans, who have been flown to Qatar, are candidates for entry to the United States through Special Immigration Visas (SIV).

The U.S. official told Defense One that at least 100 have been flagged as possible matches to intelligence agency watch lists by the Defense Department’s Automated Biometric Identification System.

A State Department spokesman told DailyMail.com that all SIV applicants are being screened before they are allowed entry into the United States.

The article notes:

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby assured reporters Monday that the Afghans allowed into the United States are undergoing “robust screening.”

However, as Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer argues, the British also have “robust screening.” But a report Tuesday by Sky News illustrates “the unavoidable difficulties involved in this process.”

The British broadcaster reported “a person from Afghanistan on the UK’s no-fly list has been flown into Birmingham as part of the British evacuation operation in a potential security breach.”

We know from experience that the leaders of terrorists groups are not stupid. Why wouldn’t they exploit the chaos in Afghanistan and the chaos at America’s southern border to bring terrorists into America? Our current President has put the lives of all Americans in danger with his domestic and foreign policies.

The True Definition Of Chutzpah

Jihad Watch posted an article today about three Palestinian NGOS who are suing Great Britain for the Balfour Declaration. This is not a joke. I guess the Palestinians are upset about being left out of the peace deals that are currently being brokered in the Middle East.

The article reports:

Actually the Balfour Declaration is the “historic precursor” to the Palestine Mandate (1922), which in turn is the real precursor of the Jewish state, setting out its territorial boundaries, and detailing the duties of Great Britain, as the holder of the Mandate, to further the establishment, through “encouraging Jewish immigration” and “close settlement by Jews on the land,” of the Jewish National Home.

In this document – the Mandate for Palestine — the League of Nations recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the “grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Thus was acknowledged the 3500-year Jewish connection to this land, where Judaism, and the Jewish people, were both formed. This historic claim thus became a legal one, for the League of Nations’ system of mandates became part of international law.

If you look at the original boundaries for Israel laid forth in the Balfour Declaration, you see that Israel was intended to be much larger than it currently is. The original boundaries of Israel included Jordan, which was later separated from Israel to become a Palestinian state for the Arabs.

The article continues:

In 1917 there were no “Palestinians.” Or rather, the word “Palestinian” was used to describe the Jews, not the Arabs, then in “Palestine.” In that land, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, there were fewer than 600,000 Arabs, none of whom were considered in 1917, or in 1937, or in 1957, to constitute a separate “Palestinian people.” They were indistinguishable in religion, language, dress, cuisine, and customs, from Arabs in neighboring lands; in fact, many of the Arabs in “Palestine” in the first half of the 20th century had recently come from Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, attracted by the economic development that the arrival of the Zionist pioneers fostered.

The article notes:

The Jews, right up to the War of Independence in 1948, paid for every dunam of private land they settled on in Mandatory Palestine. The Mandate’s explicit provisions gave Jews the right to settle on “state and waste lands,” which they also did. After the 1948 war, in which the armies of five Arab countries tried to snuff out the young life of the nascent Jewish state, Jews did settle on land that had been abandoned by their Arab owners, rather than let it remain unused. Great Britain had nothing to do with that.

As for Mahmoud Abbas’ claim about the U.K. “signing away the Palestinians’ homeland,” the “Palestinians” came into existence as a separate — if entirely factitious — people only in the late 1960s, created for propaganda purposes, to turn inside-out the Arab gang-up on Israel, which could now be presented as the struggle of a tiny people — the “Palestinians” — against the mighty Israelis.

The article concludes:

It’s not the Palestinian Arabs who have a case to bring against Great Britain. It is, rather, the Jews whom the British repeatedly betrayed, both in Mandatory Palestine and in Europe, from where so many might have escaped the Holocaust and made it to Palestine, had the British not directly violated Article 6 of the Mandate, according to which the Mandatory “shall facilitate Jewish immigration” to Palestine. Were the U.K. government to pay any attention to this ludicrous lawsuit in Nablus, it should use the occasion to tell the world all they ways His Majesty’s Government betrayed the Jews of Palestine. The opening is there — provided by those Palestinian lawyers themselves — for those home truths to be told. It’s the perfect time to tell them.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is a history lesson most of us never got in school.

Why American Isolationism Is A Really Bad Idea

On July 18th, Gates of Vienna posted an article explaining why ignoring the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East is a major mistake. In the eyes of Muslims who believe in the Koran, there are certain privileges that come with the establishment of a caliphate and the existence of a caliph in charge of that caliphate. I need to explain here that there are no ‘moderate Muslims’ who believe in the Koran–the Koran makes very clear that the obligation of Muslims is to wage war on the infidels. There are many ‘moderate Muslims’ who discount what the Koran says and have no desire to wage war on the infidels, but unfortunately, they tend to be rather quiet.

The article at Gates of Vienna explains the dangers of a Muslim caliphate. The article quotes Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the “disbelieving” world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the “Muslim world”-from Morocco to Pakistan-was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis” — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses-the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is also quoted in the article:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized — and indeed, has the responsibility — to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of “interfaith dialogue.”

Unfortunately, there will come a time in the near future when America and Western Europe will have to stand up to a Muslim caliphate. It will have to be done before the population demographic in Europe changes enough to make it automatically part of the caliphate. If we wait too long, the Muslim population in Western Europe will reach a point where it represents the majority of the people in Western Europe. At that point, America (and Canada) will stand alone.

Watching Britain Lose Its Freedom

Today’s U.K. Mail Online posted an article about the introduction of Sharia Law into the British legal system.

The article reports:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out some of the problems with Sharia Law:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

…Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

This is a serious step toward undermining the freedom of the citizens of Britain. Sharia Law includes such things as executing people for converting to Christianity and stoning rape victims. If the British embrace part of Sharia Law, will they be able to avoid having to live with all of the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech

Last night I had the privilege of attending an event in Stoughton, Massachusetts, at the Ahavath Torah Congregation. I am posting the video of the event (which is almost two hours long, but well worth watching) below, but I will also share my notes from the event.

The event was called “Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech.” The event was moderated by Michael Graham. The four speakers, who are all too familiar with the consequences of Sharia Law, were Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society, a historian and a journalist; Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers; Tiffany Gabbay, Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze; and Andrew G. Bostom, (MD, MS), author and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is also well known for his writings on Islam as the author of The Legacy of Jihad (2005).

One of the topics discussed during the event was the fact that in America we have reached the point where speech is considered offensive based on who is offended by it not by what is said–you can hurl pretty much any insult or slander at Christians and Jews, but if you say something against Islam, you are engaging in hate speech.

Andy Bostom pointed out that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, a Muslim lawyers group, has issued a fatwa demanding execution for insulting the prophet. A recent unscientific survey of 600 successful Muslims, done through trade magazines, showed that 58 percent of the Muslims surveyed felt that anyone who criticized either Islam or Mohammad should receive the death penalty. It is chilling to me that when President Obama addressed the United Nations, he included in his remarks the statement, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Does he understand that under the Islamic definition of slander, declaring that Jesus is God is slander (because it states that Mohammad is not God)? The Islamic definition of slander is not related to truth–slander is any negative comment about Islam or the prophet whether or not it is true.

Part of the problem is America’s educational system. Somehow in an effort not to offend anyone, we have declared all cultures equal. All cultures are not equal. One of the attributes of Western Culture is the problem solving process based on open debate. Western Culture embraces the scientific method; Islamic culture does not. Because of this, progress is stifled. In Islamic countries there is a very small or non-existent middle class, and little chance of upward mobility for the average person. We need to go back to teaching our children to cherish America–even though we have faults, we are one of the best countries in the world to live in. Our children need to know that.

Please watch the video above the hear the full story.Enhanced by Zemanta