Kick Me: European Union Backs Iran's Hezbollah

by Peter Martino
September 25, 2012 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3364/european-union-hezbollah

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

These measures indicate that Western Governments are aware of the threat Hezbollah poses to Western security. Nevertheless for reasons of appeasement, they refuse to declare the organization a terrorist group -- a classification which would allow the blocking of Hezbollah funds and the seizure of its assets.

The Lebanon-based Islamic organization Hezbollah is one of the most dangerous groups in the world. Recently, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah incited violence against American and European interests over the movie The Innocence of Muslims. And yet, the European Union refuses to follow America's example and classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization – a move that would enable the EU to freeze the group's assets in Europe.
Several people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, have been killed, ostensibly in retaliation for the movie, which is perceived to be critical of Muhammad, the 7^th century Arab warlord who founded Islam. Instead of calling for calm, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah called for prolonged protests: "The whole world needs to see your anger on your faces, in your fists and your shouts."
Hezbollah is also involved in terrorist activities in Syria. During a meeting on September 7 in Paphos, Cyprus, the foreign ministers of the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) discussed the situation in Syria, including the position which the EU should take regarding Hezbollah. While Britain and the Netherlands urged other EU governments to join the United States in imposing sanctions on Hezbollah, they were unable to convince the other EU members. Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal said that Hezbollah should, further, be branded a terrorist organization; he was, however, was isolated with this stance.
This does not come as a surprise, considering the EU's earlier refusal to condemn Hezbollah for terrorism. Last July, Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, visited the EU capital, Brussels, to persuade the EU to follow America's example and classify Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Lieberman met with resistance – a lot. He was attempting to isolate Hezbollah after the July 18 suicide bombing at the airport of the Bulgarian coastal resort of Burgas – an attack, and clearly a terrorist one – in which five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver were killed.
According to Israeli and American intelligence sources, the terrorist attack was the work of Hezbollah, upon orders from Iran. Nevertheless, the Cypriot minister of Foreign Affairs, Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, who currently holds the rotating EU presidency said that there is "no tangible evidence of Hezbollah engaging in acts of terrorism;" hence, there was "no consensus for putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations." He emphasized that Hezbollah was an organization with a political as well as an armed wing and that it has representatives in the Lebanese parliament and government.
In 2008, the Netherlands declared Hezbollah and all its branches terrorist entities. Britain considers only its armed wing a terrorist group. Consequently, Hezbollah can operate freely all over Europe, except in the Netherlands. Apart from the Netherlands and the United States, only Canada, Australia and New Zealand have classified Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The European Parliament did the same in a 2005 resolution, but as the latter was non-binding the EU has ignored it.
Jacob Campbell, a researcher at the British Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, told the Jerusalem Post: "Within just days of the Burgas bombing – almost undoubtedly perpetrated by Hezbollah – the Presidency of the EU Council explicitly ruled out the possibility of listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, insisting that there is no 'tangible evidence' to link Hezbollah to terrorism. This ludicrous statement was made despite an earlier resolution adopted by the European Parliament, which cites 'clear evidence' of terrorist acts committed by Hezbollah. On this issue, as in so many others, Brussels appears to have its head buried firmly in the sand."
France is one of the countries that oppose the efforts to blacklist Hezbollah. France, the former colonial power in Lebanon, wants to preserve its diplomatic influence in that country. In 2011, Najib Mikati, a Hezbollah-backed politician, became Prime Minister of Lebanon after Hezbollah toppled the previous government. Even deadly attacks by Hezbollah on French nationals have not persuaded the French government to designate the group as terrorist. Last year, Alain Juppé, the then Foreign Minister of France, accused Hezbollah of attacking French U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon. However, with Hezbollah constituting part of the Lebanese establishment, the French are reluctant to act against it.
The German government, too, refuses to draw the obvious conclusion regarding Hezbollah, although the German domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesverfassungsschutz, has warned that Hezbollah has over 900 active members in Germany. In 2008, the German Interior Ministry restricted the reception of the programs of the Hezbollah television station Al-Manar in German hotels. Al-Manar is used by Hezbollah to recruit terrorists and communicate with sleeper cells around the globe.
These measures indicate that Western governments are aware of the danger Hezbollah poses to Western security. Nevertheless, for reasons of appeasement they refuse to take the necessary action to declare the organization a terrorist group – a classification which would allow the blocking of Hezbollah funds and the seizure of its assets.
Meanwhile, one can only hope that the new government in the Netherlands, in which the pro-Palestinian Labor Party is likely to participate, does not reverse the current Dutch policies. The courageous stance of the past Dutch government and its willingness to face the facts, has led to a more realistic view on the part of ordinary Dutch citizens regarding politics in the Middle East. A recent poll showed that the Dutch are far more positive towards Israel than they were nine years ago. In 2003, 71% of the Dutch regarded Israel as a "threat to world peace," while today this percentage has dwindled to 35%, with 36% regarding the Palestinian Authority as a threat to peace.

Related Topics: Peter Martino

The "Offense Against the Prophet" Wars

by Douglas Murray
September 25, 2012 at 4:45 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3365/offense-against-the-prophet

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Politicians in the world's most powerful nation are trying to outdo themselves in showing they feel more offense even than those people who claim to be most offended.

If a film flops in the middle of the internet and nobody hears it, can it still be "offensive?"
"Anti-Muslim film" is by now probably one of the most Googled terms on the net. As a result, millions of people have once again been treated to the familiar thrill of looking up something we were told would be shocking and becoming, instead, bored and irritable.
Of course no round in the free speech wars ever starts in the place you wish it would. Defenders of Salman Rushdie still wish the Satanic Verses were a slightly more flowing read. Defenders of the Danish cartoons might wish that they were funnier. And there can be absolutely nobody who defends the rights of somebody to make a film without being killed without wishing that "Innocence of Muslims" weren't so completely and unremittingly terrible. But there we are: we live in a world where politicians in the world's most powerful nation are trying to outdo themselves in showing they feel more offense even than those people who claim to be most offended. As a result a principle must be defended in spite of the US government's desire to be offended.
It is true that every frame is gruesomely inept, but simply not in the way the US Secretary of State has claimed. "To us – to me personally – this video is disgusting and reprehensible," Hillary Clinton said during one denunciation last week. This is wrong in any number of ways.
"Innocence of Muslims" is simply terrible film-making: like Benny Hill on a less lavish budget. But rightly or wrongly, the maker of this film is being blamed with starting the latest round in the "Offense Against the Prophet" wars, and to date there have been protests across much of the Middle East and North Africa as well as Sydney and London. The only reason now to see the film is if you believe it is as "offensive" as everybody is saying. Because if you do then you should see what passes for "offensive" these days. I tend to find the resulting difference between imagination and reality instructive.
Some years ago I did a talk on censorship in London and in the middle of it screened – I think for the first time there in public – Theo van Gogh's film, 'Submission'. It was perhaps a couple of years since van Gogh had been murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for making the movie. Fearful of the ramifications of showing the movie, the London venue laid on some security and there was a slight samizdat frisson in the room as the lights went down. Better than the talk, indeed better even than the film, was what happened afterwards.
Because despite the film being – like this latest one – fairly easily locatable on the internet, almost nobody in the audience had actually seen "Submission" before then. Despite being an unusually cultured and well-read audience, it was something they had mainly picked things up about from the occasional politician's comments here, the odd press-summary there.
What was interesting was they all had a fixed idea in their minds of what was in the film. So intense had been the outcry and denunciations from Western politicians as well as Islamic leaders, that – even more so after van Gogh's murder – when people talked about the naked bodies in the film and the writing of Islamic scripture on the body of a woman, peoples' imaginations turned it into the sort of thing Ken Russell might have achieved if you'd let him loose with a copy of the Koran, a felt-pen and a girl's hockey team.
But that is not what "Submission" is about. On the contrary, it is a deeply serious and sobering account of a woman's experience of misogyny suffered at the hands of people who believe they find justification for their behaviour in scripture. But at the end of the evening what struck me most was the number of people who came over and said words to the effect of, "He was killed for that?"
And that is the reason why it is so important that people do not just listen to the condemnations of politicians but find these things out for themselves. If you are an American citizen or British subject, familiar with the nightly fiesta of our television schedules, your bar for what is "disgusting" and "reprehensible" is pretty high. Our cinemas and film culture have now produced a branch of movie-making which is known as "torture porn." Is the "anti-Islam film" worse than that? If it has the condemnation of all these leaders who allow the licensing boards to release all these other things, then – many people will think – it must be really bad.
If on the other hand you are in the Middle East or North Africa and have not seen the movie, but you hear people like Clinton speaking this way, then your imagination could well go in an even more extreme direction. There will be people who will think: here is the most permissive, the most louche society in the world, famous for its lax morals. And this woman Clinton is saying that this film insulting our prophet is "disgusting" even to her? It must be an outrage!
It is in just this way that the gap between reality and the popular imagination widens ever farther. The only immediate answer to it is for members of the public to inform themselves, and for politicians to consider how little will be gained from this game of offense one-upmanship. It may benefit them now, but their successors will damn them for it.

Related Topics: Douglas Murray

"Honeymoon with Galloway Nearing Its End"
Britain's Buyers' Remorse

by Shiraz Maher
September 25, 2012 at 4:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3363/george-galloway-bradford

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

"Although the women were undeniably Muslim, it was local issues we wanted to speak to Galloway about…. This is why his insistence on addressing us purely in terms of our religious identity made the meeting all the more frustrating." — Irna Qureshi

The voters of Bradford West are quickly learning what it means to have George Galloway as their Member of Parliament. At the moment, the residents of Bradford West are regretting their decision.
Constituents first became concerned with his behavior after Julian Assange sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after the British Foreign Secretary insisted that Assange should be extradited to Sweden, where he is wanted by the police to answer allegations of serious sexual assault.
Galloway trivialized the accusations against Assange, dismissing his conduct as "bad sexual etiquette;" and contended that even if the allegations against Assange were "100% true," they still do not constitute rape: "At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognize it," he concluded. In a video posted to YouTube, Galloway stated with characteristic righteousness:
Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them. It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said: "Do you mind if I do it again?" It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning.
The backlash was immediate and severe. Salma Yaqoob, who led Galloway's Respect party, was unequivocal in her denouncement of his views. Writing on her website, she slammed Galloway:
Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex. George Galloway's comments on what constitutes rape are deeply disappointing and wrong.
The trouble did not end there for Galloway. Yaqoob went on to note that "any individual who believes themselves to be a victim has a right to have their grievances heard in a fair manner and not have their allegations belittled or dismissed." By contrast, Galloway was unrepentant and used his twitter account to state, "Oh how this "liberal" chorus of Pavlovian reaction must delight the Pentagon!
Matters later worsened for Galloway when he was sacked as a political columnist for Holyrood, a Scottish magazine, after he refused to retract or apologise for his remarks. The magazine's editor, Mandy Rhodes, explained:
George Galloway is no longer a columnist for Holyrood magazine and the reasons for that, I would have thought, are fairly obvious…his recent outpourings about definitions of rape have left me, frankly gobsmacked. There is no excuse, ever, for sex without consent and regardless of the details of the Assange case, Galloway's comments and inappropriate language about rape per se are alarming.
Not known for his humility, Galloway continued attacking his critics on Twitter and eventually courted yet more controversy after calling one user a "window licker," a highly derogatory slang term for the disabled. The statement prompted an outcry from charities for the disabled. This time Galloway did back down, offering a half-apology on YouTube. He said:
It's clear that by being drawn into dialogue with a moron I have inadvertently caused a great deal of upset to the parents of disabled children, disabled people themselves and those campaigning and raising funds and awareness on their behalf, it would never knowingly be my intention to do so.
Few were ready to accept Galloway's maudlin tears, not least because he shed them them with evasions and deceit. Rather than apologize frankly for the incident and leave it there, Galloway continued to try and explain away his remarks. That was apparently the final straw for his party's chairperson, Salma Yaqoob. She resigned from the organisation, saying:
It is with deep regret that I have decided to resign from Respect. The last few weeks have been extremely difficult for everyone in the party. I feel necessary relations of trust and collaborative working have unfortunately broken down.
Although the unmistakable but unspoken implication here is that Galloway went too far, this response was not the only humiliation to be visited upon him. Days later, the Bradford Muslim Women's Circle – some of whose members Galloway is supposed to represent in parliament – summoned him to a meeting to explain his views.
Far from allaying their concerns, he only heightened them. One of those present, Irna Qureshi, declared that, "Galloway's honeymoon in Bradford appeared to be nearing its end." He constantly invoked Islam and the Quran, as if to play to the sentiments of his audience. "The only person pushing Islam to the top of the political agenda last night was Galloway himself," Qureshi noted. She went on:
Although the women were undeniably Muslim, it was local issues we wanted to speak to Galloway about…This is why his insistence on addressing us purely in terms of our religious identity, made the meeting all the more frustrating.
The crowd was horrified by Galloway's remarks over rape and noted that he should be filled with regret over Yaqoob's resignation. After all, as a Muslim woman who wears the headscarf, her support for his campaign in Bradford was critical in galvanising Muslim women voters in Galloway's favor. "It was Muslim women who were credited with being a key component of his stunning victory in Bradford West," Qureshi observed. "Galloway went from making us feel important to making us feel totally ignored. He didn't appear to be promoting our local agenda, so whose was it? Moreover, his religious tone was alienating, giving the meeting the air of a sermon rather than a Q&A session."
Whenever they pushed him to apologize for, and retract, his comments regard rape, Galloway merely obfuscated. "Rape is a vile crime," he said. But, he continued, while refusing to apologize, "Mass murder is worse. The invasion and occupation of one Muslim country after another by the United States is even worse."
Galloway has traded on his "secret Muslim" identity for years, occasionally spouting Islamic pieties in the hope of winning Muslim votes. He is an effective, if envenoming, politician, skilled at exploiting sectarian and confessional concerns.
Galloway won the seat in March after a by-election was triggered when the incumbent, Marsha Singh, was forced to step down for reasons of health. In characteristic fashion, Galloway fought a deeply divisive campaign of dog-whistle politics, exploiting the concerns of the heavily Muslim-dominated constituency.
During that campaign, he pandered to Muslim sensibilities by employing Islamic terminology, speaking of "judgement day" and declaring himself a "better" candidate than his opponent because he does not drink alcohol.
This is the same boilerplate recipe that delivered victory for Galloway in 2005 in Bethnal Green and Bow. Much like Bradford West, it is a heavily Muslim dominated constituency where anti-War sentiments were running high.
What does it say now, when the very constituency whose religious sensibilities he is trying to exploit have become bored with him and find it all a bit too much? "I'm now left wondering if Galloway's stunning victory in Bradford West will scar Bradford's memory like the 2001 riots and the 1988 Rushdie book burning," Qureshi said after his disastrous performance there. "This feels like one step forward and two steps back."

Related Topics: United Kingdom | Shiraz Maher

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php

Gatestone Institute