In this mailing:
- Soeren Kern: France: Muslims Attack Police for Enforcing Burqa Ban
- Fiamma Nirenstein: Want Israeli-Palestinian Peace?
- Raymond Ibrahim: Muslim Brotherhood Kills Its Own to Demonize Egyptian Military
- Douglas Murray: "Territorios ocupados": ¿Y Chipre, Cachemira y el Tíbet?
France: Muslims Attack Police for Enforcing Burqa Ban
by Soeren Kern
July 25, 2013 at 5:00 am
July 25, 2013 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Muslims say
they are upset over police who are enforcing the secular laws of France.
Police in the suburbs of Paris are working to restore order after hundreds
of Muslims went on a rioting spree to protest the simple identity check of a
Muslim woman who was wearing a full-face Islamic veil.It is against the law to wear the face-covering niqab or the body-covering burqa in public spaces in France; violators are subject to fines of up to €150 ($200).
The latest round of violence erupted the evening of July 19 in Trappes, a gritty suburb situated 30 kilometers (20 miles) southwest of Paris. Trappes has 30,000 inhabitants, many of whom are Muslim immigrants.
Police say a crowd of possibly 400 Muslims gathered outside the Trappes police station in response to the arrest on July 18 of a man who had assaulted a police officer during an identity check on his wife, who was entirely veiled.
The niqab-wearing woman in question is 20-years-old; her 21-year-old husband, a convert to Islam, reportedly objected to the policeman interrogating his wife, and allegedly tried to strangle him, an act that lead to his arrest. Muslims insist the man was provoked.
After police in Trappes rejected Muslim demands to release the husband, the mob went on a rampage, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at police, pelting police with firecrackers from rooftops, burning cars and trucks and destroying public property, including several bus stops, before being repelled by riot police.
A nine-minute video on YouTube shows police helicopters buzzing overhead amid burning cars and trash bins, as well as a building that was torched. Photos of the unrest can be viewed here and here.
Although no one died in the disturbances, five people were injured, including four police officers and a 14-year-old boy, who lost his eyesight from a projectile.
Despite a heavily reinforced police presence, on July 20, approximately 50 people were involved in fresh clashes with riot police. Around 20 cars were torched and four people arrested. A seven-minute video of the violence can be viewed here.
The violence also spread to the surrounding towns of Elancourt and Guyancourt.
The rioting continued on July 21, when police in Trappes dispersed several dozen protesters after fireworks and other projectiles were tossed towards police lines.
At least six people have been arrested in connection with the riots, and on July 22 a French court sentenced a 19-year-old North African youth to six months in prison on charges of committing acts of violence and throwing projectiles at the police during the riot in Trappes.
Clean-up crews are now clearing away shattered glass from bus shelters, burned trash bins and stones littering the pavement; tow trucks are carting away burned cars.
A similar outbreak of unrest occurred in June, when police stopped a 25-year-old woman for wearing a niqab in Argenteuil, a suburb 12 kilometers (8 miles) northwest of Paris.
According to the French newspaper Le Parisien, the woman had initially agreed to the identity check, but a passerby got involved, saying that, in his opinion, the check was illegitimate. He then began to attack the police; apparently in almost no time, some 60 Muslims joined the melee. Outnumbered, the police were forced to call in reinforcements, who eventually used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
A local resident who witnessed the riot said Muslims attacked, insulted, beat and punched the police. Two men, including a cousin of the woman, were arrested for "provoking the crowd" and "inciting violence against police officers."
In the southern French city of Marseille, Muslims went on a rampage a year ago, in July 2012, after police ordered an 18-year-old woman Muslim woman who was wearing a niqab to show her identity card. The woman refused: "I don't obey the laws of the French Republic," she said, and allegedly bit one of the officers. Scuffles then broke out, with around 50 Muslims present, including the woman's partner. Three police officers were injured.
Four people, including the woman and her partner, were arrested and taken to a police station, but were released shortly afterwards "in a gesture of appeasement during Ramadan," according to the public prosecutor.
Marseille's deputy mayor, Nora Présozi, supported the police: "Many women wearing the burka are looking for confrontation with the police," she sad. " By doing so, they are conveying a poor image of Islam."
Rioting in French suburbs is nothing new. France has Europe's largest Muslim population, and tensions are high in all major French cities, especially in the immigrant suburbs known as banlieues.
French authorities, however, reportedly fear a repeat of the riots in 2005, when the deaths of two Muslim teenagers in Clichy near Paris sparked weeks of looting and car-burning, and led to the imposition of a state of emergency.
A car burns in Sèvres,
France, during the 2005 riots. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)
|
These laws include France's much-debated "burqa ban" which entered into force in April 2011. This law, which prohibits the wearing of burqas and niqabs in all public spaces in France, comes amid rising frustration that the country's estimated 6.5 million Muslims are not integrating into French society.
With certain exceptions, anyone in France covering her face on the street and in parks, on public transportation, in public institutions such as train stations and town halls, and in shops, restaurants and movie theaters, will be subject to a fine of €150 ($200). Exceptions to the ban include covering of one's face with a motorcycle helmet, sunglasses, a bandage, a welding mask, a fencing mask or a fancy dress mask.
More severe penalties are in store for those found guilty of forcing others to cover their faces by means of "threats, violence and constraint, abuse of authority or power for reason of their gender." Clearly aimed at Muslim fathers, husbands or religious leaders, anyone found guilty of forcing a woman to wear an Islamic veil against her will is subject to a fine of €30,000 ($40,000) and one year in jail, or €60,000 ($80,000) and up to two years in jail if the case involves a minor.
The ban does not apply in private homes, hotel rooms and office buildings, except for elevators, conference rooms and lobbies and other spaces open to the public. The law also defines the inside of an automobile as a private space, exempt from the measure.
Around 300 women have been issued fines since the face-veil ban took effect.
French Interior Minister Manuel Valls has defended the country's ban on wearing full-face veils in public. In an interview with the French radio station RTL on July 22, Valls said the "police did their job perfectly." He added: "The law banning full-face veils is a law in the interests of women and against those values having nothing to do with our traditions and values. It must be enforced everywhere."
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.
Related Topics: France
| Soeren
Kern
Want Israeli-Palestinian Peace?
by Fiamma
Nirenstein
July 25, 2013 at 3:00 am
July 25, 2013 at 3:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
How can any
public support a peace agreement with the "sons of monkeys and pigs"?
In Israel, even those who are afraid that the Israelis and the Palestinians
may leave the negotiating table are hopeful. Talks may begin. The Palestinians
waived their preconditions, which included the 1967 borders and halting
construction in the territories, but will obtain the release of dangerous
prisoners. Israel's Prime Minster, Binyamin Netanyahu, however, was
categorical: before the start of true talks, as we've seen time and time again,
the strategy has too often been "take the money (or the prisoners) and
run." So long as there are no terrorist attacks, the hint of optimism in
the air will continue. Negotiations, however, make sense only under one
condition: Stop the Hate.An agreement can be found for everything -- the territories, Jerusalem -- but not if the steady stream of fanatic hatred against the Jews continues. It forms the cornerstone of the Palestinian culture and effectively the raison d'être and the political nexus in the Islamic world. How can any public support a peace agreement with -- as the Jews are often described -- the offspring of "monkeys and pigs"? In Egypt, the only matter the supporters of former President Mohamed Morsi and Egypt's military-backed interim leader, Adly Mansour, have in common is the belief that the other side is part of a Jewish plot. The same is true of Syria's President, Bashar Assad and the rebels trying to bring down his regime.
A few random examples of antisemitic hatred among Palestinians include: on July 5, on public TV, two sisters recite a poem: "You who killed the pious prophets of Allah... sons of Zion, the most evil among creatures, barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs." Another child explains that "Jerusalem, which is pious, vomits at the impurity of the Jews." On March 7, the newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadid, features an editorial which stated 9/11 was a Western lie and was actually a plot by the Jews and Freemasons. The editorial went on to say that if Hitler were alive, it would be an honor. On July 3, the Palestinian Authorities honored terrorist Ahmad Abu Sukkar with a military funeral; in 1975, he killed 15 innocent people and wounded 60 with a refrigerator filled with explosives. On May 31, a mother on television praised her son, who had blown himself up: "I received the news of his death with a happy heart." Another mother, of suicide terrorist, Wafa Idris, wrote to her dead daughter on Facebook about the big funeral with Palestinian flags and all the tributes.
An image captured from
a July 3, 2013 broadcast of official Palestinian Authority public television,
with translation added. (Source: Palestinian Media Watch)
|
Are people serious about wanting peace? This would be a great moment for Europe to help. But so long as the the Palestinians continue to be incited, their leaders will think that his people do not want peace -- and with good reason.
This article was originally published in Italian in slightly different form in Il Giornale; English translation copyrighted by the Gatestone Institute.
Related Topics: Israel
| Fiamma
Nirenstein
Muslim Brotherhood Kills Its Own to Demonize Egyptian Military
by Raymond Ibrahim
July 25, 2013 at 2:45 am
July 25, 2013 at 2:45 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Killing
fellow Muslims, and even the most horrific crimes, are permissible so long as
they are seen as ways of advancing and empowering Islam.
New evidence indicates that some of the pro-Morsi protesters reportedly
killed by the Egyptian military, after the Muslim Brotherhood president's
ouster, were actually killed by fellow pro-Morsi protesters. They did this,
according to the report, to frame the military, incite more Islamist violence
and unrest, and garner sympathy from America, which has been extremely critical
of the military, especially in the context of the post-Morsi violence.The Arabic satellite program, Al Dalil, ("The Evidence") recently showed the evidence, which consisted mostly of video recordings.
One video records events on July 8, during pro-Morsi protests in front of the Republican Guard building in Cairo, where Morsi was being held, and where the bloodshed between the military and Brotherhood began. The video shows a young man with a shaven head and a Salafi-style beard approaching the Republican Guard barrier; he gets shot, collapses to the ground, and dies—as other protesters fly into a rage against the military. As the video plays, it seems clear that the military shot him.
However, watching the video in slow motion and in zoom clearly indicates that someone from behind him, from the pro-Morsi throng, shot him. The whole time he falls, in slow motion, he is still facing the Republican Guard. Yet when the camera zooms in, the bullet wound and blood are visibly at the back of his head; his front, facing the military even after he falls, does not appear to have a scratch. Considering that the military was facing him, it seems apparent that a fellow Morsi-supporter shot him from behind.
On the same day this man in the video and others were killed, Muhammad Mahsoub, a former Brotherhood member and politician tweeted the following: "The Brotherhood sacrifice their youth in the streets, even as the sons of their leaders are at the beach resorts… Allah curse the hypocrites [based on a Koran verse];" and "I repeatedly warned al-Baltagi against his plan to antagonize the military in order to implicate it an attack on the protesters, but he insists on his plan…"
Baltagi is a Brotherhood leader who has been especially vocal about "getting back" at the military; he apparently also enjoys close relations with the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson.
Another video shown on Al Dalil is even more obvious. An armored vehicle appears slowly driving by a group of pro-Morsi protesters, many easily discernible with their Salafi-style beards. A shot is heard and the man nearest the passing vehicle collapses. Again, at first it appears that the men in the armored vehicle shot him.
Played, again in slow motion, however, it becomes apparent that the man in a gilbab [long Muslim style robe] standing directly behind the murdered man is actually the one who shot him, then walked over to another man near him, gave him the weapon, and then quickly walked off the scene. Even the man on the roof who is taping this scene is heard to be asked, "Did the car [armored vehicle] shoot?" only to reply, "No, no."
Even so, the desired effect of all these "human sacrifices" by the Brotherhood was accomplished: as with the other man, shot in front of the Republican Guard, many other pro-Morsi protesters rushed to the fallen man, screaming Islamic slogans and vowing relentless war on the military, as it supposedly "shot first."
This second incident prompted the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood's political arm, to call for "an uprising by the great people of Egypt against those trying to steal their revolution with tanks."
To many Islamists, killing an ally to empower Islam is legitimate, especially in the context of two Islamic ideas: 1) jihad [war in the service of Islam], in Islamic jurisprudence -- for its function, under Muhammad, of making Islam supreme -- is considered the "pinnacle" of Islam; and 2) Islam's overarching juridical idea that "necessity makes the prohibited permissible" – in other words, that a pious end, such as empowering Islam, justifies the use of forbidden means. All that matters is one's intention, or niyya.
Thus, killing fellow Muslims, lying, prostitution, even sodomy all become permissible, so long as they are seen as ways of advancing and empowering Islam. Those who commit or promote even the most horrific crimes are exonerated, and those "sacrificed" to empower Islam -- as those pro-Morsi supporters killed by the Brotherhood -- are deemed martyrs who will achieve the highest level of paradise. From an Islamist point of view, it is a win-win situation.
Raymond Ibrahim is author of the new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, 2013). A Middle East and Islam expert, he is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics: Egypt
| Raymond
Ibrahim
"Territorios ocupados": ¿Y Chipre, Cachemira y el Tíbet?
por Douglas Murray
El Medio
24 de Julio de 2013
El Medio
24 de Julio de 2013
Traducción del texto original: "Occupied
Territories": What About Cyprus, Kashmir, Tibet?
|
Share:
|
Sé el primero de tus
amigos a quien le guste esto.La semana pasada la UE prohibió que se financie a, o que se coopere con, cualquier institución israelí que opere en lo que denomina los "territorios ocupados", refiriéndose a la Margen Occidental (Judea y Samaria). No importa que -como ya han reconocido grupos palestinos- la prohibición vaya a afectar a los palestinos tanto como a los israelíes. En su perpetua fiebre por encontrar nuevos dobles raseros que aplicar, la UE se ha precipitado directamente sobre éste, sin pensarlo más.
Como dijo un alto cargo de la Autoridad Palestina al hacerse pública la noticia, muchos palestinos, en Ramala y en otros lugares, se verán tan afectados por la decisión de la UE como sus vecinos israelíes. El alto cargo, que rehusó dar su nombre, afirmó:
Por nuestra parte, tanto en la Autoridad [Palestina] como en Israel, contactamos con una serie de representantes de la Unión Europea para tratar de evitar la decisión, o al menos para que ésta no fuera oficial. No sólo las empresas israelíes se van a ver afectadas económicamente, también va a ser algo desastroso, económica y socialmente, para la comunidad palestina.
Bueno, ¿y qué son unos pocos palestinos para la persistente obsesión de la UE por aislar al Estado judío? Un daño colateral asumible, ¿verdad?
Pero, ¿qué pasa con Chipre? Al fin y al cabo, hay muchos países en el mundo con disputas fronterizas. Por lo menos, hay una muy importante en las fronteras de China (la del Tíbet).Y hay otra bastante famosa que afecta a las fronteras de Pakistán (la de Cachemira). Los conflictos fronterizos no son nada inusuales. Historias similares abundan en todo el mundo, como el conflicto sin resolver en el que se halla envuelto Marruecos respecto al estatus del Sáhara Occidental. Y, sin embargo, la Unión Europea tiene plenas (cuando no serviles) relaciones diplomáticas y comerciales con estos países.
Por supuesto, lo que hace aún más delicioso el último doble rasero de la Unión Europea es el hecho de que la isla de Chipre sea miembro de la Unión. Como tal, ¿no debería exigir la más minuciosa y persistente atención por parte de este organismo internacional?
Pues bien, no es así. Turquía se ha anexionado ilegalmente la parte norte de Chipre durante las últimas cuatro décadas. No es como si los turcos compartieran frontera con la isla. Y tampoco tienen -como tiene Israel con la Margen Occidental- ningún legítimo derecho histórico, político o territorial sobre la parte norte de la isla. No hay motivos de seguridad que sustenten la ocupación turca, a diferencia de la evidente necesidad que tiene Israel de poseer fronteras defendibles que no permitan a los terroristas de la Margen disparar cohetes sobre su territorio, como hacen sus amigos de la Gaza posterior a la retirada, o los del sur del Líbano.
Pero, a diferencia del caso de Israel y la Margen Occidental, la invasión turca de Chipre no es ni siquiera una cuestión disputada. Ciertamente, no fue ninguna comprensible ganancia territorial obtenida tras una agresiva guerra librada contra Grecia. Fue, lisa y llanamente, un robo, una anexión: terrorismo de Estado. Toda la comunidad internacional lo reconoce como tal. Pero, en 2013, Turquía no sólo no es un enemigo de la UE, ni un país que goza de plenas relaciones diplomáticas y comerciales con la Unión: es un país al que muchos miembros destacados y dirigentes de la institución desean convertir en Estado miembro de pleno derecho de la Unión Europea.
En la quinta década de ocupación turca de Chipre, aún no hay ninguna imposición seria de la UE a los turcos respecto a lo que deben hacer en el norte de la isla. Ankara no siente la más mínima presión internacional para abandonar su ocupación ilegal. Y eso es porque, por alguna inexplicable razón, la UE no considera imperativo que Turquía cese dicha ocupación ilegal de un Estado miembro de la Unión. No considera que el futuro de una región dependa de ello. Y, pese a ello, aún persiste en su idea de que puede dar órdenes a Israel respecto a sus fronteras. Y que puede desempeñar un papel constructivo al hacerlo. De todas las falacias de la Unión Europea ésta es, ciertamente, la mayor de todas.
La UE no sólo tiene una visión equivocada del pasado de Israel; tiene una completamente desencaminada de su futuro.
Hoy en día, Israel está muy al final de la lista de países que suponen una preocupación, incluso en su propia región, y mucho menos en el mundo entero, con 100.000 muertos en Siria, Egipto que atraviesa una contra-contrarrevolución, y cuando el conflicto chií-suní parece que vaya a alcanzar uno de sus intermitentes puntos de ebullición en Siria con el choque entre los ejércitos chiíes de Hezbolá y las fuerzas suníes de la oposición. En medio de todo esto, dónde deban vivir o no los judíos en su hogar histórico es una cuestión de mínimo interés internacional.
Pero la Unión Europea, a la que siempre le gusta considerarse una institución progresista, demuestra, una vez más, estar estancada en un pasado errado y lleno de prejuicios. Israel no es el problema en Oriente Medio. Israel es hoy, de hecho, prácticamente lo único que no es un problema en la región.
Sin embargo, éste es el país en cuya soberanía la Unión Europea decide una y otra vez que puede inmiscuirse. Su última decisión no nos descubre nada de Israel o de la Margen Occidental, pero nos dice todo lo que necesitamos saber de la propia Unión Europea.
Categoría del Artículo: Israel
| Douglas
Murray
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment