Thursday, July 12, 2012

Gatestone Update :: Khaled Abu Toameh: Why Abbas Will Never Make Peace With Israel, and more


Gatestone Institute
In this mailing:

Why Abbas Will Never Make Peace With Israel

by Khaled Abu Toameh
July 12, 2012 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Arafat had been telling his people that anyone who makes concessions to Israel is a traitor. Like Arafat, Abbas does not want to go down in history as the first Palestinian leader to make concessions, especially on sensitive issues such as refugees and Jerusalem.
What are the chances that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would ever sign a peace agreement with Israel?
The answer: zero.
Abbas, who is in his late 70s, has been in power since 2005 even though his term in office formally ended in January 2009.
If Abbas did not sign a peace agreement with Israel when he was a legitimate president during his earlier four-year term in office, he is most unlikely to strike any deal with Israel now that he does not have a mandate from his people.
If he wished, Abbas could have reached a deal with the governments of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. But Abbas, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, chose to turn down a generous offer that could have seen Israel relinquish control over most of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Abbas is not interested in reaching any deal with Israel: he knows that such a move would require him to make concessions. Abbas knows that Israel will never give him 100% of his demands; that is enough for him to refuse to sign any historic agreement.
Like Arafat, Abbas does not want to go down into history as the first Palestinian leader to make concessions, especially on sensitive issues such as refugees and Jerusalem.
In 2000, Arafat rejected Prime Minister Ehud Barak's generous offer, which included more than 90% of the territories captured by Israel in the Six Day War.
Arafat turned down the offer because he was afraid of being condemned by Arabs and Muslims for having "sold out to the Jews." Arafat was later quoted as explaining that if he made any concessions to Israel he would "end up drinking coffee with [slain Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat up there."
So if Arafat, the popular symbol and leader of the Palestinians was unable to make any concessions to Israel, who is Abbas to accept anything less than 100%?
Abbas knows that in a final deal, Israel would not permit millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps to enter the country. He also knows that Israel is planning to retain control over some parts of the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Arafat walked away from the Camp David summit in 2000 because he had been telling his people that anyone who makes concessions to Israel is a traitor.
Similarly, Abbas has also tied his hands by constantly promising the Palestinians that he would never make concessions on the "right of return" and settlements.
Abbas has even gone a step further by mobilizing Palestinian public opinion against Israel to a point where his people are not even ready to see him meeting with Vice Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz.
Abbas's Palestinian Authority has been denouncing Israel and many of its leaders, including Mofaz, as war criminals. This is why when, two weeks ago, Palestinians heard that Mofaz was planning to visit Ramallah to meet with Abbas, hundreds took to the streets to protest.
Abbas quickly succumbed, and called off the meeting with Mofaz.
The next time Abbas plans to meet with any Israeli government official, Palestinians will once again take to the streets to protest.
The motives of the protesters are understandable. Why should they approve of such meetings while Abbas himself has been telling them for many years that Israeli leaders are war criminals and do not want peace?
If Abbas is not even able to hold a meeting with a senior representative of the Israeli government, who said that he could ever reach any peace agreement with Israel?
Abbas's problem is more with his people than with Israel. Not only does Abbas not have a mandate to reach any deal with Israel, he has also lost much of his credibility among Palestinians for his failure to end his dispute with Hamas and to implement major reforms in his ruling Fatah faction
Today, Abbas is not in a position that allows him to sell to most Palestinians any agreement he reaches with Israel. Even if he were to bring home an agreement that includes 100% of his demands, most Palestinians would still receive it with full skepticism because it would be coming from a leader who does not have a mandate to make even the slightest concession.
Under the current circumstances, the wisest thing to do would be to maintain the status quo until the emergence of a new Palestinian leader who would have the true courage to make peace with Israel.
Related Topics:  Khaled Abu Toameh

France Penalizes Boycott of Israeli Products

by Peter Martino
July 12, 2012 at 4:45 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Calling for a boycott of Israeli products is treated in the same manner as would be a call for the boycott of Islamic products. Publicly calling for the boycott of Israeli products is a case of incitement to discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Last May, the Cour de Cassation, the Supreme Court of France, ruled that calls for a boycott of Israeli products constitute discrimination and as such are illegal under French law.
The verdict was the final ruling in a legal battle that went on for years. On 9 July 2005, exactly seven years ago, the Palestinian Authority called for a worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against the Jewish State. In February 2009, following the Gaza War in the winter of 2008-2009, several leftist and pro-Palestinian organizations in France convened to organize a French BDS campaign. The activists target French and international corporations that do business in Israel, French branches of Israeli companies, and supermarkets selling Israeli products.
Supermarkets are raided by commando units who block the entrances or storm the premises in order to remove the Israeli products or label them with stickers stating that Israel is an "apartheid state." Often the raids are videotaped and posted on YouTube. The French revolutionary Left considers BDS to be a huge political success. The BDS actions attract a lot of support from Muslims youths from the suburbs surrounding the French cities. It is the first time since the 1960s and 70s that the French Left has been able to mobilize large numbers of youths.
BDS activists have succeeded in intimidating a number of supermarkets to remove Israeli products from their shelves, movie theaters to stop programming Israeli movies, and universities to cancel lectures by Israeli citizens. The lectures were boycotted simply because of their nationality and their Jewish religion; not for the opinions they personally might have held about Israeli politics.
Soon after the BDS raids began, the French Bureau National de Vigilance Contre l'Antisémitisme (National Bureau of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism), a Jewish organization that was founded in 2002, started to lodge complaints against BDS at courts all over France. Sometimes the courts went along with the complaints, sometimes they did not.
In February 2010, the penal court of Bordeaux convicted Saquina Arnaud-Khimoun for labeling Israeli products with the sticker "Boycott Apartheid Israel." The court ruled that she had "hindered the normal exercise of economic activities by making a distinction on the basis of nationality." The French anti-discrimination act of 1981 prohibits "incitment to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or a group of persons on the basis of descent, ethnicity and nationality or the fact whether or not one belongs to a race or a religion." Arnaud-Khimoun was sentenced to a fine of €1,000 ($1,230). In October 2010, the Appeals Court of Bordeaux reaffirmed the verdict.
However, in July 2011, a court in Paris acquitted Olivia Zémor, a member of the group EuroPalestine, for posting a video on the internet showing Palestinian and French activists wearing t-shirts calling for a boycott of Israel. Zémor was brought to court by four organizations, including the Israeli Chamber of Commerce.
The Paris court ruled that calling for the boycott of Israeli products is not prohibited under French law. The tribunal said that "Criticism of a State or its policies cannot be regarded, in principle, as infringing the rights or dignity of its nationals, without seriously affecting freedom of expression in a world now globalized, whose civil society has become a major actor, and since no 'criminal offence against a Foreign State' has ever been established under substantive law or international common law, because this would be contrary to the commonly accepted standard of freedom to express opinions."
The court added that "Since the call of a boycott of Israeli products is formulated by a citizen for political motives and is part of a political debate relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a debate concerned with a matter of general interest with international significance – the offence of incitement to discrimination, based on the fact of belonging to a Nation, is not constituted." Moreover, the court pointed out, "certain sectors of Israeli opinion support the BDS call." In this regard, it explicitly referred to the declaration of the Israeli Women's Coalition for Peace.
The verdict in the Zémor case encouraged Arnaud-Khimoun in her decision to bring her case to the French Supreme Court. On 22 May, however, the French Cour de Cassation reaffirmed that publicly calling for the boycott of Israeli products is a case of incitement to discrimination on the basis of nationality.
This Supreme Court's ruling is in line with earlier French jurisdiction. In September 2004, a French mayor was convicted because during a session of the town council he had called to "boycott Israeli products in protest against the Israeli politics with regard to the Palestinians." This appeal was also posted on the town's internet site. The mayor was convicted by the Appeal Court and by the Supreme Court. In 2007, the French Supreme Court also convicted a French firm that had given a certificate to a company in the United Arab Emirates declaring that its goods had not been transported by an Israeli company and would not be delivered to Israel.
French BDS activists who took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strassbourg, also saw their cases turned down. On 16 July 2009, the ECHR ruled that the French verdicts prohibiting boycotts of Israeli products were not violating human rights. BDS has since tried to circumvent these verdicts by emphasizing that the BDS boycotts are limited to products from the "occupied territories." This, however, is contradicted by the website of BDS-France which calls for boycotts of Israeli products in general.
In an op-ed in the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, French lawyer Michael Ghnassia wrote that the ban on calling for a boycott of Israeli products is not an infringement of free speech because these boycotts affect all Israelis. Hence, the call to this boycott "is based on a racial, religious or national criterion and rather than representing a simple opinion, is a discriminatory action." He points out that the boycott is also inspired by "a manifest attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel."
While the ECHJ has upheld the French convictions, it should be noted that France is the only country in Europe where calling for a boycott of Israeli products has been prohibited. In other European countries, courts have so far not convicted BDS activities. It should also be noted that while in the United States the simple call for a boycott is protected by the First Amendment, European countries have restricted free speech and often convict people of incitement to discrimination and hatred for simply expressing their opinions about Islam. At least in France, calling for a boycott of Israeli products is treated in the same manner as would be a call for a boycott of Islamic products.
Related Topics:  France, Israel  |  Peter Martino

Sodomy "For the Sake of Islam"

by Raymond Ibrahim
July 12, 2012 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel "pure," anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one's intention, or niyya.
Not only did the original "underwear bomber" Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior "feigned repentance for his jihadi views"—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to "widen" his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.
A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an "innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives."
Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for "martyrdom and the virgins of paradise," one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, "Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?"
After praising Allah, the sheikh's fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,
However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.
Two important and complementary points emerge from this view: 1) that jihad is the "pinnacle" of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and 2) that "necessity makes permissible the prohibited." These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam's leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one's intention, or niyya.
From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called "martyrdom."
Indeed, the Five Pillars of Islam—including prayer and fasting—may be ignored during the jihad. So important is the duty of jihad that the Ottoman sultans—who often spent half their lives on the battlefield—were not permitted to perform the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca.
More recently, these ideas appeared in a different form during Egypt's elections, when Islamic leaders portrayed voting as a form of jihad and justified anything—including cheating, which was deemed "obligatory"—to empower Islam.
According to these two doctrines—which culminate in empowering Islam, no matter how—one may expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how dubious the effort might seem to us.
Ironically, this mentality, prevalent throughout the Islamic world, is the same mentality that many Western leaders and politicians think can be appeased with just a bit more respect, well-wishing, and concessions from the West.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Related Topics:  Raymond Ibrahim

Who Will Speak for the Ahmadi Muslims?

by Arsen Ostrovsky
July 12, 2012 at 3:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Such slaughter, however, does not occur in a vacuum. It is the direct result of a pervasive state-sponsored, indoctrinated hate – with a nation using all the force of both its exchequer and communications infrastructure to incite violence. The United Nations has been totally oblivious to the plight of the Ahmadis: it has failed to pass even a single resolution at the Security Council, General Assembly or Human Rights Council.
Rejected by many in the Islamic world as heretics and routinely persecuted because their more moderate beliefs do not accord with mainstream Islamic interpretations of the Quran, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is arguably one of the most persecuted Muslim communities in the world. However, beyond some faint pleas for better treatment from the U.S. State Department and human rights groups, the Ahmadi Muslims plight has largely gone unnoticed.
The Ahmadi Muslims trace their roots to the late nineteenth century, when the movement was founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in the Punjabi village of Qadian, now modern day India.
They share many of the basic tenets of Islam, however differ in some significant respects.
For one, the Ahmadi Muslims condemn the use of terror and reject any attempt to spread Islam through violence or coercion. According to Naseem Mahdi, national Vice President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the U.S., "there is no place or justification found in Islam for violence whatsoever," and that "Islam condemns terrorism unreservedly and totally."
The Ahmadi Muslims are also one of the few Islamic organizations to endorse a separation of Mosque and State; they believe individuals must be both "righteous souls as well as loyal citizens." Mahdi says that "Islam requires all Muslims to live in peace and harmony wherever they may be," and that "it is thus the duty and responsibility of all Muslims living in the U.S. to be loyal to the flag and to be law-abiding citizens."
Mahdi has also warned that the vast majority of reasonable, peace-loving and law-abiding population of Muslims living in the US must "speak out and speak out loudly" about the dangers of radical Islam.
Additionally, the Ahmadi Muslims advocate universal human rights and protections for religious and other minorities, including the empowerment and education of women. Contrast this to some other Muslim states, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which treat women and people of other faiths and minorities as less than second class citizens.
Yet, the singular most controversial element of the Ahmadi faith, which has riled up so many in the Islamic community, is the belief that their founder, Ahmad, was both the second coming of Jesus as well as the Mahdi (the Messiah). This contradicts a fundamental tenet of Islam: that the Prophet Mohammed was the last of the prophets sent by God (Quran 33:40).
As a result, the Ahmadi Muslims, who number globally about 10 million, have become a persecuted minority in most Muslim countries where they are not even recognized as Muslims.
Although the majority of the world's Ahmaddis are in Pakistan (where 3 to 4 million currently live), most are dispersed throughout South East Asia (India, Bangladesh, Indonesia) and in the Arab Middle East, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the disputed Palestinian Territories.
Nowhere, however, is the persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims more evident, nor blatant, than in Pakistan, where they have been stripped and denied of their most basic human rights. For example, not only are members of the Ahmadi community expressly declared non-Muslims under Pakistan's constitution, but under Section 298C of the Pakistan Penal Code, they are explicitly prohibited from "posing" as Muslim or "referring" to their faith as Islam. Likewise, preaching, making the call for Muslim prayer or using any visible representation of their faith is also prohibited and punishable by imprisonment of up to three years. At the behest of radical Islamists, Section 298C adds that any Ahmadi who "in any manner whatsoever outrages the religious feelings of Muslims" is also be liable to be imprisoned. In short, the treatment of the Ahmadi Community in Pakistan is nothing less than religious apartheid.
Of gravest concern are Pakistan's blasphemy laws, largely because under Section 295C of the Penal Code, blasphemy is an offense punishable by life imprisonment or even death. Pursuant to this law, which was created specifically against the Ahmadi Muslims, their belief in the prophethood of Ahmad is considered blasphemous insofar as it "defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad."
To date, Ahmadi Muslims account for almost 40% of all arrests under Pakistan's anti-blasphemy laws.
Ahmadi Muslims are also denied their most basic right, at least in a democracy: the right to vote -- unless they first disavow their identities and declare themselves to be a non-Muslim or that their founder was an imposter.
Not only does the government in Pakistan deny the Ahmadi Muslims the same rights afforded to other Muslim citizens, it adds fuel and justification to extremist organizations to perpetrate violent attacks against them, then looks the other way when the attacks occur.
In Lahore, for example, in May 2010, terrorists from the Pakistani Taliban attacked two Ahmadi mosques. 93 people were killed and and hundreds injured in the largest single assault ever on the Pakistan's Ahmadiyya Community. Although two men were charged after the attacks, two years later, they have still not been brought to justice and their case stands abandoned with the Pakistani government pandering to extremists and repeatedly ensuring the proceedings are adjourned. .
In March of this year, Amjad Mahmood Khan, the National Director of Public Affairs for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the U.S., testified before the House of Representatives Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, on the religious persecution facing the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in South Asia.
In his testimony, Khan said that "owing to pressure from religious extremists, Pakistani authorities have demolished, set on fire, forcibly occupied, sealed or barred the construction of over 90 Ahmadi Muslim Mosques. They have also denied the cemetery burial of 41 Ahmadi Muslims and have exhumed after burial the bodies of 28 Ahmadi Muslims. In addition, Pakistan's state security forces do not adequately protect Ahmadi Muslims from attacks by extreme religious groups."
There are, moreover, many such examples of violence in Pakistan against the Ahmadiyya community. Such slaughter, however, does not occur in a vacuum. It is the direct result of a pervasive state-sponsored, indoctrinated hate -- with a nation using all the force of both its exchequer and communications infrastructure to incite violence and deny the Ahmadis their most basic human rights.
Equally regrettable, there have been few world leaders or human rights organizations even stirred by the problem, let alone aroused to fight for justice and equality for the Ahmadiyya Community, not only in Pakistan, but the world over.
The United Nations has been totally oblivious to the plight of the Ahmadis: it has failed to pass even a single resolution at the Security Council, General Assembly or Human Rights Council.
What is needed immediately is a Special Rapporteur to investigate such human rights abuses in Pakistan: however given the dominance and control of the block of 56 nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, one should not be holding one's breath.
To (some) credit, Human Rights Watch has spoken out, saying that "the [Pakistan] government's continued use of discriminatory criminal laws against Ahmadi Muslims and other religious minorities is indefensible," adding that, "as long as such laws remain on the books, the Pakistani state will be seen as a persecutor of minorities and an enabler of abuses."
Amnesty International has also demanded that the Ahmadi Muslims be free to practise their religion, calling on the Pakistan government to "protect the Ahmaddiya community against threats of violence."
Despite the occasional condemnation from HRW and Amnesty, however, neither has taken up the Ahmadi cause with any fervor.
The Obama Administration has been even more pitiful on this issue. Notwithstanding that Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of U.S. foreign aid and a hotbed of terrorist activity, the Administration has totally failed to stand up for the Ahmadi Muslims.
Both the U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practises for 2011, and especially its Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom (Pakistan - 2011) criticize the Pakistan government over its treatment of Ahmadi Muslims (and other minorities). However, without concrete steps putting meaningful pressure on Pakistan to reform, such as withholding aid, this, as the Pakistani government knows full well -- in addition to all the other abusers of human rights -- is just empty rhetoric.
The U.S. State Department and the Obama Administration have also failed to reach out to the local American Ahamdi community, especially in the fight against radical Islam. Given that the Ahmadis represent model moderate American Muslim citizens, one would have thought this would have been elementary. Apparently not.
On June 27, 2012, the Ahmadiyya's spiritual leader, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, marked his first visit to Congress, where he met with various House and Senate members from both sides of the political aisle.
Katrina Lantos Swett, the Chair of U.S. Commission on Interreligious Freedom and daughter of former Representative, Holocaust survivor and human rights activist Tom Lantos, called for those present to stand up for the Ahmadiyya, saying, "We who believe in peace and freedom dare not be silent."
Those who believe in peace, freedom and human rights must stand up against injustice anywhere. The Ahmadi Muslims are among the most persecuted groups in South Asia; it should be expected of us all to demand respect for their dignity and rights.
Related Topics:  Pakistan  |  Arsen Ostrovsky
You are subscribed to this list as vicky13@rogers.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posted by solsticewitch13 at 2:26 PM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)