“Jihad in the UN: 57 Muslim tyrannies hijacked the UN to pass 20 anti-Israel resolutions vs only one for Iran, Syria and North Korea in 2015…”
7.5 million Chinese settlers in Tibet: UN declares claim of Israeli Golan “null and void”, Chinese Tibet OK
by Ezequiel Doiny
On April 27 the Jewish Press reported that “The UN Security Council on Tuesday dismissed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim, made before a special session of his cabinet on the grounds of the region in question earlier this month, that the Golan Heights would “forever” remain under Israel’s control, as it has been since 1967. In the 19 years from 1948 to June 9th and 10th, 1967, a succession of Syrian governments used the vantage point of the Golan heights to target the Israeli civilian population along the shores of lake Kinneret.
“It is time that the international community recognized reality,” Netanyahu said on April 17, announcing, “Whatever happens on the other side of the [Syrian] border, the border itself will not move. And secondly, the time has come after 40 years for the international community to finally recognize that the Golan Heights will remain under Israeli sovereignty forever.”
Incidentally, what happens on the other side of the border is the brutal slaughter of military and civilians that has reached, according to some estimates, half a million dead, with about ten million civilians displaced. Had any Israeli prime minister in the past acted on the insane notion of returning the heights to the Syrians, Israel would have had to deal today with the worst fighting forces humanity has to offer virtually controlling its fate from high on top of the Golan basalt hills.
After reviewing Netanyahu’s claim, the UN Security Council members “expressed deep concern” over his position and “stressed that the status of the Golan remains unchanged.” The UNSC rotating president, China’s UN envoy Liu Jieyi, told reporters that Israel’s imposing its laws in the Golan is against Council resolution 497, and is “null and void and without international legal effect…”
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/unsc-says-claim-of-israeli-golan-null-and-void/2016/04/27/
On May 24, 2016 JNS wrote “Israel slammed the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for its adoption of a measure that calls for the creation of a database of businesses “involved in activities” in Judea and Samaria.
The 47-member U.N. forum adopted the measure with 32 nations voting in favor, none against, and 15 abstaining. The council asked that the list of businesses be updated annually, and that the council be informed of the “human rights and international law violations involved in the production of settlement goods.”
Danny Danon, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., called the database a “blacklist” and said the UNHRC is acting “obsessively” on the issue of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the UNHRC an “anti-Israel circus,” echoing longstanding Israeli criticism of U.N. bias.
Netanyahu added that the UNHRC “attacks the only democracy in the Middle East and ignores the gross violations of Iran, Syria, and North Korea….Israel calls on responsible governments not to honor the decisions of the council that discriminate against Israel.”
http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2016/3/25/israel-slams-un-for-blacklist-of-israeli-businesses-measure#.Vvjs22BwVf0=
On January 31, 2016 U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times “The time has come for Israelis, Palestinians and the international community to read the writing on the wall: The status quo is untenable…Keeping another people under indefinite occupation undermines the security and the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.”
http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-chief-tells-israel-palestinians-writing-wall-141312739.html;_ylt=A0LEVriHfLBW3KYAQr4PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–
Why Ban Ki Moon never made similar comments about the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Why he never said that “”The time has come for the Chinese, the Tibetans and the international community to read the writing on the wall: The status quo is untenable…Keeping another people under indefinite occupation undermines the security and the future of both Chinese and Tibetans.”
In 1949, China invaded Tibet and initiated a massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet. In his 5-point peace plan the Dalai Lama stated:
“The massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a distinct people.”
Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent, outnumbering the Tibetan population of 6 million. In central and western Tibet, now referred to by the Chinese as the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” Chinese sources admit the 1.9 million Tibetans already constitute a minority of the region’s population. These numbers do not take the estimated 300,000-500,000 troops in Tibet into account – 250,000 of them in so-called Tibet Autonomous Region…
For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past. ”
The Dalai Lama demanded the removal of 7.5 million Chinese settlers from Tibet. Why doesn’t Ban Ki Moon condemn China as he condemns Israel? Why is Ban Ki Moon silent about the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
Obama, the EU and the UN threatened Israel with a pro-Palestinian UNSC resolution because of Israeli settlements. Will they ever threaten China with a UNSC resolution demanding that China remove 7.5 million Chinese settlers from Tibet?
UN Watch reported that in 2013 the UN passed 25 resolutions; 21 were against Israel, zero were against China.
In June 2015, Arutz 7 wrote: “Why is there no BDS against China for its Occupation of Tibet?…Why has Obama never complained about Chinese settlements in Tibet as he complains against Jewish settlements? Why didn’t [US Secretary of State John] Kerry say anything about the Chinese occupation of Tibet when he visited China last month?”
There are clear double standards in the way Israel is treated while other territorial disputes around the world are treated differently. In the case of the Chinese-Tibetan conflict, the World Powers appease China because of its vast consumer market and resources. They do not care about tiny Tibet.
In the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel’s enemies are not only the Palestinian Arabs but all Arab nations that surround it. The World Powers are sacrificing the only small Jewish state (smaller than New Jersey) to appease the Muslim nations that want to destroy it.
Ban Ki Moon blames Israeli “occupation” for the wave of violence yet the Palestinians could have had a State already if Abbas had not refused Olmert’s offer in 2008.
On November 22, the Tower Magazine reported that “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly confirmed for the first time that he turned down a peace offer in 2008 that would have provided for an independent Palestinian state containing all of the Gaza Strip, much of the West Bank (with land swaps), and a tunnel connecting the two areas.
Abbas made his comments in an interview on Israel’s Channel 10, which has been broadcasting a three-part series on the peace talks of 2000 and 2008. According to both Abbas and Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister in 2008, Olmert presented Abbas in September of that year with a map that delineated the borders of the future State of Palestine. Abbas said that he “rejected it out of hand” because he claimed not to be an expert on maps, and because Olmert’s domestic scandals meant that he would shortly leave office (Olmert was later convicted of corruption). While both Olmert and other Palestinian leaders have previously said that Abbas turned down a peace proposal, this is the first time that the Palestinian Authority president has admitted as such.
At 24:05 of the video, Channel 10 reporter Raviv Drucker asked Abbas: “In the map that Olmert presented you, Israel would annex 6.3 percent [of the West Bank] and compensate the Palestinians with 5.8 percent [taken from pre-1967 Israel]. What did you propose in return?”
“I did not agree,” Abbas replied. “I rejected it out of hand.”
At 26:53 of the video, Drucker pressed again:
Drucker: Why, really, did you not accept Olmert’s offer?
Abbas: He [Olmert] said to me, “Here’s a map. See it? That’s all.” I respected his decision not to give me the map. But how can we sign something that hasn’t been given us, that hasn’t been discussed?
The existence of the peace offer was first reported by The Tower’s Avi Issacharoff in 2013, when Olmert told him that he presented Abbas with a map proposal during talks at the Prime Minister’s Residence. Shortly after Olmert’s presentation, Abbas redrew that version of the map from memory, in order to make sure that he and Olmert were on the same page. Issacharoff acquired a photograph of that map…
As Issacharoff wrote:
Abbas silenced those present so that he could concentrate. He wanted to sketch out Olmert’s map from memory. The Israeli Prime Minister had told him that as long as Abu Mazen did not sign his initials to the map and endorse it, Olmert would not hand over a copy. Abu Mazen took a piece of letterhead of the Presidential Office and drew on it the borders of the Palestinian state as he remembered them.
Abbas marked the settlement blocks that Israel would retain: The Ariel bloc, the Jerusalem-Maaleh Adumim bloc (including E1), and Gush Etzion. A total of 6.3% of the West Bank. Then Abbas also drew the territories that Israel proposed to offer in their place: In the area of Afula-Tirat Zvi, in the Lachish area, the area close to Har Adar, and in the Judean desert and the Gaza envelope. A total of 5.8% of the West Bank. Abu Mazen wrote on the left side of the letterhead the numbers as he incorrectly remembered them (6.8% and 5.5%), and on the back he wrote the rest of the details of the proposal: Safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank via a tunnel, the pentilateral committee to administer the Holy Basin, the removal of the Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the absorption of 5,000 Palestinian refugees, 1,000 each year over five years, inside the Green Line.
Abbas’ hand-drawn map, sketched on the stationery of the Palestinian Office of the President and obtained by TheTower.org in the course of this investigative report about the clandestine negotiation between Olmert and Abbas, was published here yesterday exclusively. The two men met 36 times, mostly in Jerusalem and once in Jericho, and arrived at a formula that was to be the basis for a lasting agreement between the two parties. But in the end, peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians were not signed, despite the far-reaching proposal made by Olmert. As an official matter, the Palestinian Authority has not responded.
The next day, Abbas called off talks, saying that he had to attend a meeting in Jordan.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat had a similar recollection when interviewed by Al Jazeera in 2009:
Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: “We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.” Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: “I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign.
Abbas’ comments on Channel 10 were first picked up in English by veteran reporter Mark Lavie.
http://www.thetower.org/2580-breaking-abbas-admits-for-the-first-time-that-he-turned-down-peace-offer-in-2008/
On November 2011 the investigativeproject.org reported that “In her new memoir, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirms that Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas rejected generous territorial concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008.
When she traveled to Jerusalem in May 2008, Olmert invited Rice to dinner to outline his plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Rice recounts that she was shocked by how far the Israeli leader was willing to go. Olmert was prepared to give up nearly the entire West Bank and to divide Jerusalem with the Arab world.
Olmert offered to make Jerusalem the capital of two states – Israel in the western part and a Palestinian capital in the east. The Old City of Jerusalem would be administered by a committee made up of so-called wise people including Palestinians, Jordanians, Saudis, Americans and Israelis.
“They will oversee the city, but not in a political role,” Olmert told Rice. And he offered another concession – offering to allow 5,000 Palestinian refugees to settle in Israel.
Rice was incredulous. “Am I really hearing this? I wondered. Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites?”
The following day, Rice brought Olmert’s proposal to Abbas in Ramallah. He rejected it, telling Rice the PA could not agree to a deal that prevented nearly 4 million Palestinians from being able to “go home” (i.e., to return to their ancestors’ former homes in pre-Six Day War Israel).
On Sep. 16, 2008, Olmert presented Abbas with a similar plan for a two-state solution. The Palestinians said no, effectively killing the Olmert plan.
More detail on the breakdown of the talks comes from the Palestine Papers – documents about a decade of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations that were stolen from PA negotiator Saeb Erakat’s office, leaked to al-Jazeerah and posted on the media outlet’s website in January.
As the Jerusalem Post noted on Tuesday, these documents show that PA negotiators talked out of both sides of their mouths – speaking publicly about compromise with Israel on Palestinian refugees while privately describing the “right of return” as an individual right that must be extended to 7 million Palestinians – a formula most Israelis regard as a demographic blueprint for the destruction of their country.
The documents also show that Washington was apparently unaware that, in preparation for the September 16 meeting, the PA was trying to come up with plans to avoid reaching a binding agreement with Israel and to avoid blame for failing reach a final-status agreement with the Jewish state.”
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3373/rice-abbas-rejected-olmert-peace-plan#
Abbas rejected Olmert’s offer because it would have required him to give up on the “right of return” for most Palestinians. Lt. Col. (ret) Jonathan Halevi explained in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that Abbas supports a phased plan for Israel’s destruction “…Beneath the moderate guise that Abbas tries to project is a Palestinian leader who unreservedly supports terror and demands to implement what the Palestinians call the “right of return.”
…What the Palestinians mean by “right of return” according to Resolution 194 and the Arab Peace Initiative is simple enough and was ratified as an official law by the Palestinian parliament with Abbas’s approval.
According to the 2008 Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees:
“The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and property, while receiving compensation for their suffering, is an inalienable and enshrined right that cannot be compromised, replaced, reconsidered, interpreted otherwise, or subjected to a referendum.
The right of return is natural, personal, collective, civil, political, passed on from father to son; it is not nullified by the passage of time or by the signing of any agreement and it cannot be abolished or waived in any way.
The Palestinian refugees shall not be resettled or displaced as an alternative to the right of return.
Anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall be guilty of the crime of treason and will be subject to all criminal and civil penalties prescribed for this crime.
Anything that contradicts this law is considered null and void, and any legislation or agreement that will derogate from the right of return or contradict the provisions of this Act shall be deemed null and void.”
In other words, even after an Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders and the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state, the conflict will remain unchanged and Palestine will demand the “return” to Israel of the millions of refugees and their descendants. The Palestinian demand for “return” entails the transfer of millions of Jews from their homes and the end of the state of Israel…”
Even though it was Abbas who rejects the two state solution and rejected Olmert’s peace-offer in 2008, Obama and Kerry blame Israeli settlement construction for the collapse of talks and increase of Palestinian terror.
On October 16 Elliot Abrams wrote in Mosaic Magazine that “Secretary of State Kerry made an unhelpful, mistaken, ill-informed comment about the current wave of Palestinian violence yesterday when speaking at Harvard.
Here is the comment Kerry made:
“So here’s the deal. What’s happening is that unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody. And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years. Now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing, and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement.”
Kerry does not know what he is talking about. There has simply not been “a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years.” There has been a steady growth in settlement population, though the bulk of that growth is in the major blocs–such as Ma’ale Adumim–that Israel will clearly retain in any final agreement. Kerry’s imprecision is another problem. Does he mean there has been a massive increase in the number of settlements? That’s flatly false. Does he mean a massive increase in settlement size, as existing settlements expand physically? That’s also flatly false. The so-called “peace map” or “Google Earth map” of the West Bank has changed very little.
The frequent Palestinian claim that Israel is “gobbling up” the West Bank so that “peace will be impossible” is what Kerry is here repeating when he says “a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody.” It’s a false claim and he should know it. If that is not what Kerry meant, he should be far more careful when he speaks about such an explosive topic–and at such an explosive moment.
Moreover, his claim is plain silly. The slow but steady growth in population in settlements is a completely unpersuasive explanation for the sudden outbreak of violence. That outburst of violence and terror appears linked to lies about Israel changing the status quo at the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif. But whatever its explanation, the false linkage to settlements is of a piece with the Obama administration’s continuing obsession with that subject–despite all the evidence. It’s remarkable that the Secretary of State, who has spent so much time with Israelis and Palestinians and has visited Jerusalem repeatedly, has not bothered to learn the basic facts. He is instead parroting Palestinian propaganda. In fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been under pressure and criticism from settler groups because he has restrained settlement population growth beyond the security barrier. To suffer those political attacks and then hear criticism from the secretary of state about a “massive increase in settlements” helps explain the lack of confidence Israeli officials feel in the Obama administration.
Mr. Kerry is doing something else here that is even worse: blaming the victims. The State Department has of course condemned acts of terror, but here in a question and answer period we get beyond official statements and see what Kerry really appears to think. He seems to believe that the real culprits, when Palestinians stab Israelis to death, are people who build a new housing unit in a settlement.
The Kerry remarks at Harvard were morally obtuse and factually wrong.”
Kerry lies when he says that settlement construction is an obstacle to peace. Settlements occupy now about 1.7% of the West Bank and during Olmert’s term they occupied about 1.6%, new homes were built inside existing settlement land, no new land was taken, there was virtually no expansion outside previous areas. As blogger Elder of Zion wrote “ …how the ~1.7% of settlement land today makes peace so much harder than ~1.6% 20 years ago?”
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/bibi-demolishes-j-street-and-peace-nows.html#.VlIKAWBzNf3
On November 10 blogger Elder of Zion wrote “At Binyamin Netanyahu’s appearance at the Center for American Progress, he said that the settlements were not an obstacle to peace.
He answered that “There have been no new settlements built in the past 20 years.The additions have been in existing communities. The map has not materially changed.”
I’m not sure if that is 100% true; I know of three formerly illegal outposts that became legal, and I cannot imagine that there haven’t been more illegal outposts in 20 years that have escaped being demolished. But the larger point is true – there has been essentially no new settlements, as opposed to how they are characterized. and Netanyahu said this:
“By the way, Google this. Because this is just repeated, ad nauseum, so it assumes the cachet of self-evident truth, that we’re ‘gobbling up land’ and so on. We’re not gobbling up land….I mean the total amount of built up land is just a few percent. And the addition, if you look at it over time, it’s got to be a fraction – maybe one tenth of one percent? Maybe I’m off, maybe it’s 3/10ths of one percent. That’s the land that’s being “gobbled up.” That’s a factual question. That is not something that should be debated. And yet it’s become an axiom, that we are gobbling up land. We’re not.”
…(In response to Netanyahu’s statement, Peace Now wrote) “The “one percent argument” is a classic example of how supporters of the status-quo use a fraction of the truth to misrepresent the truth on the ground in the West Bank. Yes, the actual built-up area of West Bank settlements takes up only a little more than 1% of the West Bank. But the settlements’ built-up area is just the tip of the settlements iceberg. The impact of the settlements goes far beyond this 1%.
Almost 10% of the West Bank is included in the “municipal area,” or the jurisdictional borders of the settlements. These borders are so large that they allow settlements to expand many times over onto land that is completely off-limits to Palestinians.
In addition, almost 34% of the West Bank has been placed under the jurisdiction of the settlements’ “Regional Councils.” That is, more than an additional 1/3 of the West Bank has been placed under the control of the settlers, off-limits to Palestinians.
In total, more than 40% of the West Bank is under the direct control of settlers or settlements and off-limits to Palestinians, regardless of the fact that only a small portion of this land has been built on by settlers.”
Elder of Zion responded “Let’s say that this is 100% true. Then this means that Peace Now agrees that there has been no fundamental change in the West Bank map since the PLO rejected Israeli peace offers of 93%-95% of the land in 2001 and 2008!
Somehow, the 40% Israel controls didn’t stop Barak and Olmert from offering nearly the entire West Bank for a Palestinian state. If they could offer it, so could the current Israeli government. So the 40% figure is a red herring, meant to obscure the fact that the intransigent party is the Palestinian side.
…Peace Now and J-Street know this. If you read their literature you can see that they try very hard to distract their readers from these facts by mentioning things that aren’t relevant. Their central claim to raise cash, that Israel – and especially the reviled Likud government of Netanyahu – is gobbling up land is shown to be a lie.
Yet this Peace Now and J-Street lie of Israel “gobbling up land” is repeated without any shame by the White House, by the New York Times, and by many other sources who don’t even bother to read Peace Now reports with a critical eye. Because their own documentation proves their public lies!”
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/11/bibi-demolishes-j-street-and-peace-nows.html#.VlIKAWBzNf3
Arutz 7 reported that “US Secretary of State John Kerry asserted Wednesday that the escalating wave of Arab terror in Israel showcases what would be in store if the Palestinian Arabs were not to achieve statehood.
During a speech in Washington, Kerry emphasized the United States’ commitment to advancing the two-state solution, which he called “the only viable alternative.”
…Stressing that unrest and violence have hurt both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, Kerry contended “the current situation is simply not sustainable.”…
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202606#.VjF73ZtzPD
Kerry calls the situation “not sustainable” yet Abbas said that “…the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
On May 29, 2009 CAMERA reported that “Washington Post Deputy Editorial Editor Jackson Diehl recounts his recent conversation with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in today’s issue of the newspaper.
It seems that yet again Israel offered Palestinians a state on virtually the entire West Bank, and yet again a Palestinian leader — this time the one widely described as moderate — rejected the offer.
Diehl writes:
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank — though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert “accepted the principle” of the “right of return” of Palestinian refugees — something no previous Israeli prime minister had done — and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert’s peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it’s almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. “The gaps were wide,” he said.
Diehl also quotes Abbas as rejecting, again, the notion that he should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, and as saying that the Palestinians can wait without making concessions in part because “the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.”
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2009/05/mahmoud_abbas_acknowledges_rej.html
In 2013 Kerry told the Foreign Affairs Committee “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting,” the secretary of state said. “I think we have some period of time – a year to year-and-a-half to two years, or it’s over.”
He added: “Everybody I talk to in the region and all of the supporters globally who care … want us to move forward on a peace effort. They’re all worried about the timing here. So there’s an urgency to this, in my mind, and I intend, on behalf of the president’s instructions, to honour that urgency and see what we can do to move forward.”
Although the conflict exists since 1948, Kerry claims there is an “urgency” to solve it in a short two year window because Obama’s term in office is coming to an end. On March 2015 Newsmax reported that “The White House on Wednesday suggested it could reverse its decades-old policy of using its veto in the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel. It could refuse to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians or introduce a measure of its own, The Wall Street Journal reported. The U.S. could also lend its support to a two-state solution based on Israel’s 1967 borders, a senior White House official told The New York Times.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-un-security-council-veto/2015/03/19/id/631103/
Obama is in a rush to pass a UNSC resolution imposing a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank before his time in office ends. He knows that the next administration will not be willing to concede this to the Palestinians without taking into consideration Israel’s security needs.
Obama has to pass this UNSC urgently before his term comes to an end to tie the future US President’s hands. Future administrations will have no choice but to obey to Obama’s UNSC resolution.
To justify the UNSC resolution, Obama needs to create a sense of urgency. Abbas is escalating the violence through stabbing attacks to create the sense of urgency that Obama needs. Abbas wants to provoke an Israeli reaction which Obama can use as an excuse to justify the anti-Israel UNSC resolution.
The Palestinian Media Watch translated an interview by one of Hamas founders Mahmoud al-Zahar to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam in which he said “transfer what it has [in Gaza] or just a small part of it to the West Bank, we would be able to settle the battle of the final promise [to destroy Israel] with a speed that no one can imagine…[Some] have said Hamas wants to create an Islamic emirate in Gaza. We won’t do that, but we will build an Islamic state in Palestine, all of Palestine…”
Those who advocate for a solution in the UNSC cannot ignore that what happened in Gaza can also happen in the West Bank. After Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas took power and started missile attack against Israel. If a Palestinian State is created in the West Bank Hamas will attack Israel with missiles from the West Bank as it does from Gaza.
John Kerry is dishonest in not acknowledging that after Gaza the situation has changed and imposing a solution in the UNSC will make the situation much worse, it will make life in Israel impossible and lead to war. Only a person that does not care for the safety of Israel’s citizens would advocate for this. For Kerry it doesn’t matter this UNSC resolution will make the conflict worse and lead to war, he wants to impose it at all costs.
Demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank will make the situation far worse not better. The “Two State Solution” is not as Kerry claims the only option. There is a much better and honest option which is to recognize that the Palestinians already have a State in Jordan. Since the US/EU claim the Arab-Israeli conflict can be solved though a UNSC resolution why not submit one declaring that Jordan is Palestine?
Most of the Jordanian population is Palestinian, the previous King said “Jordan is Palestine, Palestine is Jordan”. The Queen of Jordan Rania Al-Yassin was born in Kuwait to Palestinian parents Faisal Sedki Al Yassin and Ilham Yassin from Tulkarm, Jordan has a Palestinian Queen, the next King of Jordan will be the son of a Palestinian. If Jordan is recognized as the Palestinian State the Arabs currently living in Israel can continue but they will be Jordanian Citizens.
It is not honest for those who seek a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict to ignore that Jordan was also part of British Mandate Palestine. Jordan must also be part of the solution.
_______________________________________________________________
Obama could have prevented the UN blacklist of Israeli companies
The US opposed the resolution but it could have done much more. Obama could have prevented the UN resolution by threatening the UN or the PA with economic sanctions as John Bolton revealed in 2012 when the UN changed the PA status “Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton blamed the Obama administration for failing to block the U.N.’s defacto recognition Thursday of a sovereign Palestinian state…Bolton said the Obama administration could have taken a page from the playbook of former Secretary of State James Baker more than two decades ago when a similar effort to change the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s observer status at the U.N. from an “entity” to a “non-member state,” the same status held by the Vatican.
“We’ve been through this before. We did this 20 years ago and defeated the Palestinians,” Bolton said. “And this is how we did it. Secretary of State Jim Baker issued a statement saying he would recommend to the president that the United States make no further contributions, voluntary or assessed, to any international organization which makes any change in the PLO’s status as an observer organization.
“If the administration had simply done what Jim Baker did 20 years ago, this thing would have been deader than a doornail,” Bolton added…” (3)
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/palestinian-state-bolton/2012/11/30/id/465974/
On March 2015, Amb. Ron Prosor wrote in the NY Times “The United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. It was intended to be a temple of peace, but this once great global body has been overrun by the repressive regimes that violate human rights and undermine international security.
In 1949, when the United Nations admitted Israel as a member state, it had 58 member countries and about half had a democratic orientation. Today, the landscape of the organization has changed drastically. From 51 member states at its founding in 1945, the institution has grown to 193 members — fewer than half of which are democracies.
The very nations that deny democratic rights to their people abuse the United Nations’ democratic forums to advance their interests. The largest of these groups comprises members from the 120-member-strong bloc known as the Non-Aligned Movement. Since 2012, the bloc has been chaired by Iran, which has used its position to bolster its allies and marginalize Israel.
In March, the United Nations closed the annual meeting of its Commission on the Status of Women by publishing a report that effectively singled out just one country for condemnation: Israel. The commission apparently had nothing to say about the Sudanese girls who are subjected to female genital mutilation. It also had nothing to say about the Iranian women who have been punished for crimes of “adultery” by stoning. These oversights may have something to do with the fact that both Iran and Sudan sit on the 45-member commission.
Then there is the United Nations Human Rights Council (the body that replaced the Commission on Human Rights in 2006). Its membership includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — nations where you risk life and liberty if you express dissenting opinions. Yet these governments stand in judgment on the rest of us.
In 2007, Sudan chaired a committee overseeing human rights — even as its president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was being investigated for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, for which the International Criminal Court later issued arrest warrants. Saudi Arabia — a regime notorious for public executions and floggings like that, most recently, of the blogger Raif Badawi — sits on the Human Rights Council, despite regularly receiving the worst possible ratings on civil liberties and political rights from the independent watchdog Freedom House.
In 2013, Iran was elected to the committee responsible for disarmament — even as it continued its nuclear expansion, support for terrorism and the destruction of Israel. Last year, an Iranian served as a vice chair of the General Assembly’s legal committee, an inexplicable choice given that Iranian citizens are routinely denied due process and fair trials.
Knowing this history, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that, in the 2014-15 session alone, the General Assembly adopted about 20 resolutions critical of Israel, while the human rights situations in Iran, Syria and North Korea merited just one condemnation apiece. Day after day, member states turn a blind eye to the most deplorable crimes.
Iran? Just one hostile resolution for a nation that, on average, executes citizens at a rate of two a day for “crimes” that include homosexuality, apostasy and the vague offense of being an “enemy of God.”
North Korea? Just one negative resolution even though it has imprisoned more than 200,000 citizens, throws children into forced labor camps and subjects its population to food shortages and famine as a result of government policies.
Syria? Again, just one resolution for a government that has pursued a war against its own people that has caused the deaths of at least 220,000 men, women and children — many by torture, starvation, chemical weapons and barrel bombs dropped on markets and schools.
Christians now number among the world’s most persecuted religious groups in Muslim countries, yet this human rights crisis is almost completely ignored by the United Nations. Instead, Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and an area in the region where the Christian population is actually growing, often seems to be the only nation the United Nations cares about.
Nowhere is anti-Israel bias more obvious than in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. The council addresses the human rights abuses of all countries in the world under a program known as Agenda Item 4. That is, all countries but one. Israel is the only nation that is singled out for criticism by virtue of a special program, known as Agenda Item 7. A result, according to the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, is that more than 50 percent of all condemnatory resolutions are directed at the Jewish state.
Following last summer’s conflict in Gaza, the Human Rights Council established a Commission of Inquiry and selected William Schabas, a Canadian law professor, to chair the investigation. In February, Mr. Schabas was forced to resign after documents came to light revealing that, in 2012, he had done consulting work for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Surprisingly, this fact slipped Mr. Schabas’s mind during his vetting process.
It was clear from the outset that Mr. Schabas was not an impartial arbiter since he had a record of public statements suggesting that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former president, Shimon Peres, should face trial at the International Criminal Court. When Israel protested, however, the United Nations ignored it.
I am often asked how I can stand the tide of hatred aimed at Israel. Our response to the United Nations’ accusations is to speak tirelessly for those who are denied a voice in most of the Middle East — women, minorities, the L.G.B.T. community — and to fight daily efforts by totalitarian regimes to undermine democratic societies. Based on the fact that Israel is a thriving society, I believe we are winning.
Later this year, chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement will transfer to Venezuela, Iran’s ally. For the foreseeable future, we can expect more of the same.
The problem with the United Nations is that the leaders of many of its member states do not rule with the consent of the governed. Instead, they use the body as a forum to deflect attention from their own ruthless rule. In so doing, they turn a stage for courageous statecraft into a tragic theater of the absurd.”
According to un.org, during 2015 the United States was the maximum contributor to the UN regular budget — 22%, the assessed amount is $654 million. Nine countries (United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China) contributed 75% of the UN’s budget. Saudi Arabia contributed 0.86%.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml
The 57 Muslim States members in the UN supported 20 pro-Palestinian resolutions against the only Jewish State. The US, main sponsor of the UN, shares responsibility for the bullying against the Jewish State for continuing to provide funds to the UN despite its anti-Israel bias.
The Palestinians have automatic majority in any UN vote because there are 57 Muslim Countries (see members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation) but only one Jewish State.
When the UN votes for a Jewish-Muslim dispute such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is obvious that the dozens of Muslim Nations are going to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine and their vote is going to be biased.
To avoid religious bias in the UN, in any dispute involving different religions, the UN should weight the votes based on the religion of the Nation voting. Since the Jews have only one vote, the representative of all the Muslim Nations combined should have only one vote, the representative of all the Christian Nations combined should have only one vote, the Bhuddist Nations should have only one vote, etc…that way all religions will have a proper weight in the UN.
Israel is always condemned in the UN because all 57 Muslim Nations gang together against the only Jewish State. Not taking the nation’s religion in consideration in the UN vote is a FRAUD.This must change.
The Charter of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation which was signed by all 57 member States says:
“In the name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful
We the Member States of the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation, determined:…
to be guided by the noble Islamic values of unity and fraternity, and affirming the essentiality of promoting and consolidating the unity and solidarity among the Member States in securing their common interests at the international arena;
to endeavour to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world while ensuring sustainable development, progress and prosperity for the peoples of Member States;
to enhance and strengthen the bond of unity and solidarity among the Muslim peoples and Member States;
…to support the struggle of the Palestinian people, who are presently under foreign occupation, and to empower them to attain their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, and to establish their sovereign state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (JERUSALEM) as its capital, while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein;
to create conducive conditions for sound upbringing of Muslim children and youth, and to inculcate in them Islamic values through education for strengthening their cultural, social, moral and ethical ideals;
to assist Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States to preserve their dignity, cultural and religious identity;
…To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions;
…To safeguard the rights, dignity and religious and cultural identity of Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States;”
source OIC: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/page/?p_id=53&p_ref=27&lan=en
Below is a list of the members of the of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation Member States
Republic of AZERBAIJAN
Hashemite Kingdom of JORDAN
Islamic Republic of AFGHANISTAN
Republic of ALBANIA
State of The UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Republic of INDONESIA
Republic of UZBEKISTAN
Republic of UGANDA
Islamic Republic of IRAN
Islamic Republic of PAKISTAN
Kingdom of BAHRAIN
BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM
People’s Republic of BANGLADESH
Republic of BENIN
BURKINA-FASO (then Upper Volta)
Republic of TAJIKISTAN
Republic of TURKEY
Turkmenistan
Republic of CHAD
Republic of TOGO
Republic of TUNISIA
People’s Democratic Republic of ALGERIA
Republic of DJIBOUTI
Kingdom of SAUDI ARABIA
Republic of SENEGAL
Republic of The SUDAN
SYRIAN Arab Republic
Republic of SURINAME
Republic of SIERRA LEONE
Republic of SOMALIA
Republic of IRAQ
Sultanate of OMAN
Republic of GABON
The Islamic Republic of The Gambia
Republic of GUYANA
Republic of GUINEA
Republic of GUINEA-BISSAU
State of PALESTINE
Union of The COMOROS
KYRGYZ Republic
State of QATAR
Republic of KAZAKHSTAN
Republic of CAMEROON
Republic of COTE D’IVOIRE
State of KUWAIT
Republic of LEBANON
Libya
Republic of MALDIVES
Republic of MALI
MALAYSIA
Arab Republic of EGYPT
Kingdom of MOROCCO
Islamic Republic of MAURITANIA
Republic of MOZAMBIQUE
Republic of NIGER
Federal Republic of NIGERIA
Republic of YEMEN
http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/states/
________________________________________
(see also the article below)
Saudi Arabia forbids Christianity, spends billions to sponsor Islam’s expansion
by Ezequiel Doiny
Christians do not have freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia. In an article published in Fox News by Benjamin Weinthal “Saudi anti-Christian sweep prompts calls for US involvement” on September 12, 2014 “Some 28 people were rounded up… by hard-line Islamists from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in the home of an Indian national in the eastern Saudi city of Khafji, and their current situation is unknown, according to human rights advocates.
“Saudi Arabia is continuing the religious cleansing that has always been its official policy,” Nina Shea, director of the Washington-based Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com. “It is the only nation state in the world with the official policy of banning all churches. This is enforced even though there are over 2 million Christian foreign workers in that country. Those victimized are typically poor, from Asian and African countries with weak governments.”
In Friday’s crackdown, several Bibles were confiscated, according to reports from the Kingdom.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va, told FoxNews.com he will press the U.S. ambassador in Riyadh and the State Department to assist the arrested Christians.“I hope our government will speak up,” said Wolf, adding that the anti-Christian raid was not surprising given that the Saudi regime “did not want our soldiers to wear crosses during the Desert Storm” operation in 1991…
“Such actions are especially dangerous in the current situation, where the world is seeing the rise of extreme Islamist groups in Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia and elsewhere,” Shea said. “The West should demand that its strategic ally, Saudi Arabia, release the Christians at once and allow them to pray according to their own faith traditions. Otherwise, Riyadh will appear to be validating the practices of the Islamic State in northern Iraq and Syria.””
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/14/saudi-anti-christian-sweep-prompts-calls-for-us-involvement/
“Saudi Arabia spent more than $75 billion to fund the International Expansion of Islam.”
Although Saudi Arabia does not allow freedom of religion at home, they spend billions financing the international expansion of Islam. According to Stephen Schwartz, Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, “…As to how much money Saudi officials have spent since the early 1970s to promote Wahhabism worldwide, David D. Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee in June 2004 that estimates went “north of $75 billion.” The money financed the construction of thousands of mosques, schools and Islamic centers, the employment of at least 9,000 proselytizers and the printing of millions of books of religious instruction.
According to a major investigation by Washington Post reporter David B. Ottaway published on August 19, 2004, the Saudi government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowment, Call and Guidance pays the salaries of 3,884 Wahhabi missionaries and preachers, who are six times as numerous as the 650 diplomats in Saudi Arabia’s 77 embassies. Saleh Sheik, a direct descendant of Ibn Abdul Wahab, leads the ministry – the most important Saudi institution for exporting Wahhabism. Ministry officials in Africa and Asia often have had more money to dispense than Saudi ambassadors, according to several Saudi sources. The Islamic affairs officials also act as religious commissars, keeping tabs on the moral behavior of the kingdom’s diplomats, Ottaway reported. In the United States, a 40-person Islamic Affairs Department established in the Saudi Embassy in Washington acted autonomously from the ambassador.”
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/532/al-qaeda-other-terror-groups-swim-in-global-sea-of-saudi#
Today the nations with a majority of Christian population do not officially finance the expansion of Christianity yet there are 57 Muslim Nations, members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, that officially sponsor the international expansion of Islam.
Below are parts of the Charter of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was signed by all 57 member States:
“In the name of Allah, the most Compassionate, the most Merciful
We the Member States of the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation, determined:…
to be guided by the noble Islamic values of unity and fraternity, and affirming the essentiality of promoting and consolidating the unity and solidarity among the Member States in securing their common interests at the international arena;
to endeavour to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world while ensuring sustainable development, progress and prosperity for the peoples of Member States;
to enhance and strengthen the bond of unity and solidarity among the Muslim peoples and Member States;
to foster noble Islamic values concerning moderation, tolerance, respect for diversity, preservation of Islamic symbols and common heritage and to defend the universality of Islamic religion;
to advance the acquisition and popularization of knowledge in consonance with the lofty ideals of Islam to achieve intellectual excellence;
to support the struggle of the Palestinian people, who are presently under foreign occupation, and to empower them to attain their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, and to establish their sovereign state with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character, and the holy places therein;
to create conducive conditions for sound upbringing of Muslim children and youth, and to inculcate in them Islamic values through education for strengthening their cultural, social, moral and ethical ideals;
to assist Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States to preserve their dignity, cultural and religious identity;
CHAPTER I
Objectives and Principles
Article 1
The objectives of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation shall be:
8. To support and empower the Palestinian people to exercise their right to selfdetermination and establish their sovereign State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, while safeguarding its historic and Islamic character as well as the Holy places therein;
9. To strengthen intra-Islamic economic and trade cooperation; in order to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an Islamic Common Market;
11. To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage;
12. To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue among civilisations and religions;
16. To safeguard the rights, dignity and religious and cultural identity of Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States;
source OIC: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/states/
CAIR complains about persecution of Muslims in America yet they never condemned Saudi Arabia for forbidding Christianity. No NGO calls for BDS against Saudi Arabia, the EU does not boycott Saudi products, Obama never threatened a UNSC resolution against Saudi Arabia for its persecution of Christians.
Daniel Pipes wrote an interesting article about Saudi Arabia’s funding of CAIR “A couple of items from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington concerning its support for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are worth noting and pondering. The first dates from August 15, 1999, and is listed under “IDB Approves New Projects Worldwide“:
President of the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Dr. Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ali announced today that the bank has approved a number of new grants for Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries worldwide. These include U.S. $395,000 to build a school in Tanzania, $250,000 as a contribution to the purchase of land in Washington DC to be the headquarters for an education and research center under the aegis of the Council for American Islamic Relations, and $30 million for Islamic associations in India.
For those not familiar with the Islamic Development Bank, it appears to be an international institution but is in fact an arm of Saudi foreign policy.
The second item, “MWL Delegation In Washington DC,” is dated July 8, 2002, and concerns a visit to the American capital by Abdullah bin Abdulmohsin Al-Turki, Secretary-General of the Muslim World League (MWL) – an organization which, despite its name, is openly a tool of the kingdom. The report indicates what Al-Turki did on July 5, 2002:
During a visit on Friday evening to the headquarters of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) he advocated coordination among Muslim organizations in the United States. Expressing MWL’s readiness to offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic works, he announced plans to set up a commission for this purpose.
The official Saudi newpspaer, Ain al-Yaqeen, offered a slightly more complete take on Turki’s visit to CAIR:
The Secretary General of the Muslim World League (MWL), Dr. Abdullah Ibn Abdul Mohsin Al Turki, has stressed the necessity of promoting effective coordination among Islamic organisations in the United States of America. During a visit to the Headquarters of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Dr. Al Turki said: “This coordination will achieve the best results for the future of Muslims in the U.S., strengthen relations between them, and highlight the comprehensive principles of Islam.” Dr. Al Turki and members of his accompanying delegation conducted a tour of different sections of the CAIR, during which its Director General, Dr. Nihad Awad, briefed them. Dr. Al Turki expressed the League’s readiness to offer assistance in the promotion and coordination of Islamic works, and noted that it will establish a Commission for this purpose.
In addition, Prince al-Walid Bin Talal in November 2002 gave $500.000 to CAIR.
One can only guess what these discreet and implication-laden notes are hiding, but between funds officially donated and occasional visits from Saudi officials, it’s probably correctly to figure that CAIR is yet another instrument of the Wahhabis’ foreign aspirations. (July 5, 2003)
Jan. 1, 2004 update: Muqtedar Khan stated in an interview posted today that CAIR “recently took 5 million dollars from a Saudi prince.”
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/07/cairs-saudi-masters
In 2014 Adam Savit reported in counterjihadreport.com that “Terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood front group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is hawking a new “resource” to keep journalists from running afoul of politically sanctioned speech codes when reporting on Islam and Muslims.
As with CAIR’s much-heralded “Islamophobia Report” release last October, the only TV news outlet to cover the story–at least the only one CAIR saw fit to post on their YouTube channel–was KSA-2 TV, the official English-language network of the regime of Saudi Arabia, owned and operated by the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.
“Islam for Journalists” is co-edited by Lawrence Pintak, whose works include Seeds of Hate: How America’s Flawed Middle East Policy Ignited the Jihad. The journalist primer recommends “Experts” including Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan, the married duo behind the push to erect a mega-mosque adjacent to Ground Zero (p.274, ASMA).
While a second party produced this guide, CAIR has released many similar publications meant to sanitize speech and render criticism of Islamist activities and goals impossible. They include guides for health care workers, employers and educators.
The guide for employers, meant to create a “culturally-sensitive work-place environment,” is perhaps most disturbing. One need look no further than Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hassan to see the results of employers and supervisors cowed by political correctness and unable to make the most simple judgments about who or what they deem to be threats to their employees.
The shackles put on journalists, though seemingly less acute, serve to deny policymakers and the public the opportunity to examine the most critical threats to our society and devise policies to counter them. This inability to describe the threat neuters a free citizen’s ability to confront the threat. It seems this is what CAIR is banking on.
*******************
CAIR’s Guide to Media Manipulation, by Ryan Mauro at Clarion Project on October 17, 2013
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, is a master media manipulator. And it is passing on its skills to aspiring activists in ways that should offend and wake up every journalist.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism obtained a CAIR presentation about influencing the media and presented it in an online video (see below). The presentation bears the name of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s communications director.
In 1993, Hooper was working for CAIR’s predecessor when he said, “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. In 2003, he allegedly said on a radio program that sharia law would replace the Constitution if Muslims became the majority.
One of the slides titled, “Characteristics of a Journalist,” displays the condescending attitude that CAIR has towards the media. The characteristics are as follows:
•“They will expect you to do their work. Let them.”
•“Does little primary research.”
•“Under extreme deadline pressure.”
•“Fears charges of inaccuracy.”
CAIR recognizes that journalists have to turn their stories in on time. They are often juggling multiple stories and are not encouraged to indefinitely pursue stories to their ultimate end, digging up every fact and following every lead. After all, most articles are short and are designed to only give a basic overview.
CAIR has offices around the country and staff members whose job is to develop personal relationships with media sources. Once CAIR convinces the media source that it is the authoritative spokesperson of the Muslim-American community, it becomes the spokesperson.
Through this relationship, CAIR can pitch stories complete with accompanying “facts” and quotes, offering the journalist or radio/TV producer a much-needed shortcut. The result is that CAIR, to a large degree, gets to write the narrative.
This relationship is best articulated by the words of Sarwat Husain,Vice Chair of CAIR. In 2008, she spoke at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) South Central Conference in San Antonio, Texas. ISNA is CAIR’s fellow U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and, along with CAIR, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-funding case in U.S. history which involved the Holyland Foundation.
According to the Investigative Project online video, she said:
“Media in the United States is very gullible, ok? And they will see that if you have something, especially as a Muslim, if you have something to say, they will come running to you—and take advantage of that.”
According to her bio on the CAIR website, Husain serves on the Texas Media Empowerment Project, publishes the largest Muslim newspaper in the state and frequently writes for San Antonio Express News. She even used to sit on the FBI Regional Advisory Council.
In 1993, the FBI wiretapped a secret U.S. Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas meeting in Philadelphia that was attended by two of CAIR’s future founders. One of the topics was the need to build a new front with clean hands that could influence the media, with deception as a primary tactic.
“Forming the public opinion or coming up with a policy to influence … the way the Americans deal with the Islamists, for instance. I believe that should be the goals of this stage,” said Hamas operative Abdel Haleem al-Ashqar.
CAIR was born the following year.
A Muslim Brotherhood document written as far back as 1982 (but seized in a 2001 raid by authorities in Switzerland) emphasized the need for a media offensive. Titled “The Project,” a stated goal was to “diffuse Islamic policy so that it is largely and efficiently covered by the media.”
A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo, seized in 2004 in Virginia, defines its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”
The memo states that the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has a “Media and Art Organization” that is tasked with making newspapers, magazine, radio and television programs, audio/visual centers and building a recording studio. It even says that it has producers, journalists and program anchors ready.
An undated Muslim Brotherhood document also captured in the 2004 Virginia raid and called the “Phases of World Underground Movement Plan” lists the phases of Brotherhood operations in general (not referring to America exclusively). All are done with the utmost secrecy and deception. The media plays a central part.
Phase 2, described as the “phase of gradual appearance on the public scene,” is focused on “gaining public support and sympathy.”
Phase 3, described as the “Escalation Phase, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers,” focuses on “utilizing mass media.” Another objective is “containment of the remaining influential elements in the society in preparation for the whole shake-up stage.”
The final fifth phase is, “Seizing power to establish their Islamic Nation under which all parties and Islamic groups become united…”
The internal Brotherhood documents agree: The media is a top-tier target. And based on the statements made by CAIR officials, they are happy with the results.
http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/saudi-funding-of-cair/
