Palestinians' Double-Standards Exposed Again

by Khaled Abu Toameh
March 5, 2013 at 5:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3613/palestinians-double-standards

Send

Comment

RSS

' border=0> Be the first of your friends to like this.

What is surprising — and disturbing — is that the UN, the international media and human rights groups are willing to be complicit in this effort to prevent the outside world from learning about what is going on in Palestinian prisons in the West Bank. Once again it has been proven that a story that reflects negatively on the Palestinian Authority leadership has no chance of finding its way to the international media. But a story that reflects negatively on Israel will always be welcomed by the international media, human rights organizations and the UN.

Six days after Arafat Jaradat was found dead in Israel's Megiddo Prison, another detainee died in a Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho.
Jaradat's death triggered widespread condemnations not only from Palestinians but also from international human rights organizations and the United Nations.
"The United Nations expects an independent and transparent investigation into the circumstances of Mr Jaradat's death, the results of which should be made public as soon as possible," said Robert Serry, the UN Middle East peace envoy.
Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, issued a statement also calling for an international investigation into the death of 30-year-old Jaradat.
"The death of a prisoner during interrogation is always a cause for concern, but in this case, when Israel has shown a pattern and practise of prisoner abuse, the need for outside, credible investigation is more urgent than ever," Falk said in his statement.
The case of Jaradat has also won massive coverage in the international media, including BBC, Time, The Guardian and France 24. Even Jaradat's funeral drew scores of journalists from all around the world.
But when Ayman Samara, a 40-year-old Palestinian man, died in the Palestinian Authority's Jericho Prison a few days later, neither the UN nor the international media showed the slightest interest in his case.
Many Jerusalem-based Western journalists chose to ignore the story of Samara. Some claimed they were too busy to cover the death of the Palestinian man in Jericho Prison; others admitted their editors were simply not interested in this story because it was an "internal Palestinian issue."
In a further sign of double-standards, the UN has not called for an international and independent inquiry into the death of the Palestinian man in Jericho Prison. Nor have international human rights organizations, whose representatives reacted differently to the death of Jaradat in Israeli custody.
The Palestinian Authority has actively prevented Palestinian journalists from covering the mysterious death of Samara. One Palestinian reporter, who was caught interviewing people outside Jericho Prison, was even detained for several hours by Palestinian Authority security officers.
That the Palestinian Authority has been trying to prevent the media from covering the death of a detainee in one of its prisons is not surprising.
What is surprising -- and disturbing -- is that the UN, the international media and human rights organizations are willing to be complicit in this effort to prevent the outside world from learning about what is going on in Palestinian prisons in the West Bank.
The Palestinian Authority obviously finds the story of Samara to be embarrassing, especially on the eve of US President Barack Obama's visit to the region later this month.
The Palestinian Authority leadership would like Obama and the rest of the world to think that there are no human rights abuses in Palestinian prisons and that the only "bad guys" are the Israelis.
Once again, it has been proven that a story that reflects negatively on the Palestinian Authority leadership has no chance of finding its way to the international media.
At the same time, a story that reflects negatively on Israel will always be welcomed by representatives of the international media and human rights organizations, as well as the UN.

Related Topics: Khaled Abu Toameh

Britain Legitimizes, Funds Terrorist Movement

by Samuel Westrop
March 5, 2013 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3609/britain-jamaat-islami

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Jamaat-e-Islami, an extremist Bangladeshi Islamist group responsible for mass killings in 1971, has established itself as a leading force among British Muslims.

Forty years after Pakistani forces and their Islamist collaborators slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, there is finally some semblance of justice in Bangladesh. Of the ten people indicted for acts of genocide by the Bangladeshi war crimes tribunal, eight of them are from the Islamist movement, Jamaat-e-Islami.
In the West, where many of the war criminals from the 1971 atrocities fled, the Jamaat movement has become a powerful leader within Muslim communities.
Bangladesh's official figures claim Pakistani soldiers and their Jamaat collaborators killed an estimated three million people, raped 200,000 women and forced tens of millions to flee their homes. At the time of the genocide, one US official was quoted saying, "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland."
Earlier this month, the war crimes tribunal handed a life sentence to Abdul Quader Mollah, a leading Jamaat-e-Islami figure, for his role in the 1971 atrocities. He emerged from the Supreme Court on February 4, offering a victory sign to his supporters. Known as the "Butcher of Mirpur," Mollah was convicted of beheading a poet, raping an 11 year old girl, and shooting 344 people.
Hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis have deemed a prison sentence too benign; huge protests have been taking place for several weeks outside the courthouse in Bangladesh's capital city, Dhaka. Even today, Bangladesh's other extreme Islamist groups believe Jamaat to be too violent. A journalist for the British Independent, Philip Hensher, wrote that, "The protests … are led by intelligent and liberal people; they are, however, calling with great urgency for the death penalty to be passed on Mollah and other convicted war criminals."
In Britain, however, Jamaat is not troubled by its past.
The East London Mosque and the Islamic Forum of Europe are both leading Jamaat organizers in Britain. Both institutions heavily promote the writings of Syed Mawdudi, the founder of Jamaat Islamism, whose book, Let Us Be Muslims, tells followers that, "The sacred duty of Muslims … wherever you are, in whichever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God."
One Bangladeshi Jamaat MP, Delwar Hossain Sayedee, also a war criminal, has regularly appeared at the East London Mosque and has even raised funds there for the Jamaat movement. In November 2010, the War Crimes Tribunal for the Bangladeshi genocide ordered the arrest of Sayedee for his involvement in war crimes in Pirojpur, his home district, where 30,000 people were murdered and their bodies dumped in 12 mass graves. At least 300 women were allegedly tortured and 146 houses were set on fire. The investigators visited Pirojpur and found evidence of murder, rape and genocide "committed by Sayedee."
On February 28^th Sayedee was found guilty by the Tribunal and was sentenced to death.
Other speakers at the East London Mosque have included Bilal Philips, named by the US government an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Hussein Yee, who has claimed the September 11 attacks were a Jewish conspiracy; and the late Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki, whose last video talk at the mosque in 2009 was advertised with a poster of New York under heavy bombardment.
The Islamic Forum of Europe [IFE] is another Jamaat group that also promotes extremists. Azad Ali, a leading IFE official, was previously filmed by undercover reporters stating, "Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, no one is going to agree with that." He has called for the destruction of Israel, justified the killing of British troops in Iraq and praised Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki, as well as Osama bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam.
Ali was previously a civil servant at the British Treasury. In 2010, the current leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband MP, and Harriet Harman MP attended a conference where Ali spoke. The conference, called Progressive London, was organized by the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. Ali was also the chair of the Muslim Safety Forum, another Jamaat front group that worked closely with the British Government, including the Metropolitan Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office.
Junaid Ahmed, another IFE official, is the deputy chair and a trustee of London Citizens, a group of "community organizers" which is a key supporter of the East London Mosque. Junaid has described Ahmed Yassin, the founder of the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas, as a "hero," and has praised the "steadfastness" of Hamas's murderous activities. In spite of this, London Citizens has received support from the Mayor's Fund for London and has even enjoyed partnership with a number of Jewish synagogues for interfaith initiatives.
In 2010, the UK Islamic Mission, yet another fundamentalist group that promotes Jamaat-e-Islami, organized a series of fundraising events across the UK, which prominently featured Qazi Hussain Ahmed, a former president of Jamaat-e-Islami. Ahmed, a strong supporter of Bin Laden, claims that the Jews were responsible for the September 11 attacks. He also has said, "Now is the time that we should be prepared for Jihad. This Jihad will be against oppression … And the jihad in the way of Allah is not terrorism. I salute the girl who killed five American soldiers in a suicide attack in Iraq." The Labour Party's Anas Sarwar MP was happy to speak on the same platform.
But Jamaat representation in the UK goes beyond promoting Jamaat ideology; it also includes wanted war criminals from the 1971 slaughter. In April 2012 the Sunday Telegraph reported that Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin, who was formerly the director of Muslim spiritual care provision in the National Health Service, a trustee of leading British charity Muslim Aid and a founding figure of the Muslim Council of Britain, was to be charged in connection with a series of killings of intellectuals during the 1971 atrocities. Mueen-Uddin was formerly also the vice-chairman of East London Mosque.
A Channel 4 "Dispatches" program has alleged that another leading British Islamist, Abu Sayeed, is another war criminal who fled Bangladesh to live in Britain. Sayeed was previously a "head teacher of a Muslim school and a co-opted member of Tower Hamlets Education Council." The documentary revealed that he was a senior member of the Al-Badr death squad, a Jamaat paramilitary group responsible for the mass murder and rape of Bangladeshi citizens.
While the Jamaat movement is being held to account in Bangladesh, it has established itself as a leading force among British Muslims. For years, leading Members of Parliament have spoken at events organised by Jamaat groups such as the East London Mosque. In the past seven years, the East London Mosque has received around £3 million of public funds. Further, in 2011 it was revealed that the Islamic Forum of Europe was channelling £149,627 to three organisations controlled or heavily influenced by Jamaat – the East London Mosque (£17,561), the Tower Hamlets Council of Mosques (£26,179) and the Osmani Trust (£105,887).
Such support only works to legitimize Jamaat as leaders within the British Muslim community.
British media and politicians have only just started paying proper attention to the current tumult in Bangladesh and the crimes committed by Jamaat-e-Islami. While Bangladeshis demand justice for Jamaat's crimes, the British taxpayers have been supporting Jamaat's work.

Related Topics: United Kingdom | Samuel Westrop

What if They Mean What They Say?

by Shoshana Bryen
March 5, 2013 at 4:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3611/what-if-they-mean-what-they-say

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Many people thought Hitler's words were just words. They were wrong. If he'd had nuclear weapons, he would have used them. How is it possible to believe they do not mean what they say?

The U.S. generally makes allowance for verbal excesses from foreign governments, but if expressions of hatred and incitement to violence are actually harbingers of behavior, destruction and murderousness cannot be far behind.
At the UN Alliance of Civilizations [sic], Turkey's Prime Minister equated Zionism with crimes against humanity. The American response was swift; speaking for himself and the administration, Kerry called the remark "objectionable." But after expressing dismay, he called for nicer play. "That said," he commented, "Turkey and Israel are both vital allies. We want to see them work together to go beyond rhetoric and take concrete steps to change their relationship." A State Department official concurred, saying the comment was "particularly offensive" and "complicates our ability to do all the things we want to do together."
But what if Ergodan doesn't want what the U.S. wants him to want -- that is to say, he doesn't want a changed relationship with Israel? What if harsh rhetoric and open political and financial support for Hamas -- a U.S. designated terrorist organization -- are part of Turkey's regional Sunni Islamic ambition, which does not include Israel? What if Turkey's prior cooperation was a phase to allow it to acquire political and military benefits?
In a similar vein, a few weeks ago, a North Korean diplomat told the UN Conference on Disarmament, "As the saying goes, a new-born puppy knows no fear of a tiger. South Korea's erratic behavior would only herald its final destruction." He added, "If the U.S. takes a hostile approach toward North Korea to the last, rendering the situation complicated, [we] will be left with no option but to take the second and third stronger steps in succession." A North Korean general warned of the "miserable destruction" of the United States.
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament called the comments "profoundly disturbing," and the Spanish ambassador said he was "stupefied." Why?
Beginning with President Carter, American administrations have treated North Korea's pursuit of nuclear capability as defensive: designed to keep South Korea and the U.S. from overthrowing the cultish regime of the North. The U.S. tells itself that since it harbors no plans for any such invasion, it can reassure North Korea on that point and thus lessen its determination to have nuclear capability – hence the U.S. offers food, fuel and a light water reactor, thinking those "gifts" will reassure North Korea of America's benign intentions. But what if North Korea is not defensive, but rather Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, believes that the unification of the peninsula should happen under governance of the North? How then should we understand the diplomat and the general? And how should we understand North Korea's latest nuclear test?
The British ambassador said of the North Korean diplomat's remarks, "It cannot be allowed that we have expressions which refer to the possible destruction of UN member states." That is, of course, patently untrue. The UN tolerates and sometimes applauds Iranian representatives who have called not for the "possible" destruction of a UN member state, Israel, but for its outright annihilation.
"The Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. "The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land… In the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists… Cancer must be eliminated from a body (the region)." For Qods Day last year Ahmadinejad told the Iranians, "Any freedom lover and justice seeker in the world must do its best for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the path for the establishment of justice and freedom in the world."
The P5+1, the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany who are negotiating with Iran, still seem to presume that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability for some reason other than to use it, and that it can, therefore, be dissuaded from developing it. But what if "annihilation of the Zionist regime" really is topmost in the minds of the Mullahs? What if they believe Israel has to disappear and they can make it happen? What will happen, then, when they get nuclear weapons, if they still really believe that?
The Palestinian Authority and Hamas teach raw anti-Semitism in schools, and that "Palestine" must be "liberated." Terrorists are publicly honored -- last week it was members of the DFLP who massacred 22 high school students in Ma'alot in 1974. Successive American administrations have operated on the assumption that such teachings have no impact on the "peace process."
Egypt's Mohammed Morsi has said appalling things about Jews, although he has been constrained since taking power by his need for American aid and political support. The State Department condemned Morsi's rhetorical excesses almost exactly as it did Erdogan's. Victoria Neuland told reporters, "The type of offensive rhetoric that we saw in 2010 is not acceptable, not productive, and shouldn't be part of a democratic Egypt. That said," she continued, "we look to President Mursi and Egyptian leaders to demonstrate in both word and in deed their commitment to religious tolerance and to upholding all of Egypt's international obligations" (referring to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty).
"That said." Having made her pro forma condemnation of rhetoric, she, like Secretary Kerry, wants nicer play. But what if Egyptian anti-Semitism is the reality and the Peace Treaty only a phase to allow Egypt to pile up political and military benefits from the U.S.? Like Turkey. It is not hard to believe that ideologically driven countries would do what the "civilized world" does not think logical or possible.
When Mein Kampf was published, many people thought Hitler's words were just words. They were wrong. Not only did he believe them, he put what power he had behind them; if he'd had nuclear weapons, he would have used them. How is it possible, then, to watch the acquisition of nuclear technology and more destructive means of terrorism by those who preach the annihilation of others – whether Israel, South Korea, or the United States is the object of their hatred -- and choose to believe they do not mean what they say?
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center

Related Topics: Shoshana Bryen

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

Gatestone Institute