*The perpetrators [State of Israel] had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part.”*
*“The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions.* *The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations.” * *THE KUALA LUMPUR WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL* *20 – 25 NOVEMBER 2013* *Case No. 3 – CHG – 2013* *The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission* *Against* *Amos Yaron* *Case No. 4 – CHG – 2013* *The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission* *Against* *The State of Israel* .. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) reconvened on 20 November 2013 to hear two charges against Amos Yaron (first Defendant) and the State of Israel (second Defendant). The first Defendant was charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, whilst the second Defendant was charged with the crime of genocide and war crimes. The charge against the first Defendant is as follows – “The Defendant Amos Yaron perpetrated War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps in violation of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907; the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; the 1948 Genocide Convention; the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950); customary international law, jus cogens, the Laws of War, and International Humanitarian Law” The charge against the second Defendant [State of Israel] is as follows – “From 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel (hereafter ‘the Defendant’) carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. The conduct of the Defendant was carried out with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people. These acts were carried out as part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct against the Palestinian people. These acts were carried out by the Defendant through the instrumentality of its representatives and agents including those listed in Appendices 1 and 2. Such conduct constitutes the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War. Such conduct by the Defendant as an occupying power also violates customary international law as embodied in the Hague Convention of 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Such conduct also constitutes War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under international law.” The charges (together with the particulars of the charges) had been duly served on the Defendants, and were read in open court by the Registrar as these proceedings commenced. Neither Defendant was present in these proceedings, but both were represented by the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team. *Read Complete <http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/KLJUDGMENT.pdf> Judgment (pdf) <http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/KLJUDGMENT.pdf>* *Selected Excerpts* *2 Prosecution’s Case* The Prosecution’s case against the first Defendant is that the first Defendant had committed War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, and Genocide in his capacity as the Commanding Israeli General in military control of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Israeli-occupied Lebanon in September of 1982 when he knowingly facilitated and permitted the large-scale Massacre of the Residents of those two camps. These crimes were in violation of, inter alia, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the 1948 Genocide Convention, jus cogens, International Humanitarian Law; and Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War. The Prosecution’s case against the second Defendant is that from 1948 and continuing to date the State of Israel had systematically carried out against the Palestinian people a series of acts namely killing, causing serious bodily harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction – with the intention of destroying in whole or in part the Palestinian people. These acts constitute the Crime of Genocide under international law including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide 1948 (‘the Genocide Convention’) in particular Article II and punishable under Article III of the said Convention. It also constitutes the crime of genocide as stipulated in Article 10 of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War. In his opening statement, the Chief Prosecutor Prof Gurdial Singh said that the Prosecution will adduce evidence to prove the counts in the indictment through oral and written testimonies of victims, witnesses, historical records, narrative in books and authoritative commentaries, resolutions of the United Nations and reports of international bodies. *6. The Defence case* Mr. Jason Kay Kit Leon of the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that in the charges against the two Defendants, the Prosecution had listed war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace. Apparently the Prosecution had abandoned these charges, concentrating only on genocide. He said that the offence of genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Genocide Convention 1948, whilst the OED defines it simply as “the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group”. He submitted that the charge of genocide is unique; it means that you don’t like a group, you kill them; you kill them in a grand manner. Genocide means that at the end of the act, you have a lesser number of victims than before the genocide started. He further submitted that when one talks of “massive killing”, it is many hundreds of thousands to millions of people. To suggest that an isolated event, the unfortunate murder of 3,000 people (Sabra and Shatila) is the same as massive killing is almost disrespectful of the true horror of massive killing (as in Rwanda, where 800,000 people were killed in 100 days). With regard to the Kahan Report, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it also identified other people as being responsible, with two other names other than Yaron still alive. The question is why only Yaron was charged? Why was Defence Minister Ariel Sharon spared? He also submitted that the PLO had repeatedly violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement. By June 1982, when the IDF went into Lebanon, the PLO had made life in northern Israel intolerable through its repeated shelling of Israeli towns. On Cast Lead, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the IDF had come out with two reports. The point is if you are going to kill people nilly willy, you do not report it. On the issue of the wall, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team submitted that the primary consideration is one of security of the Israeli settlers. The State of Israel has a duty to defend their lives, safety and well-being. On the issue of checkpoints, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said countries have a right to immigration laws. With regard to Plan Dalet, the Amicus Curiae-Defence Team said that it is subject to divergent opinions, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing. *4. Prosecution’s closing submission* In his closing submission, the Chief Prosecutor said that he had called 11 witnesses (some of whom had testified through Skype), tendered 15 exhibits and furnished several documents and reports to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings. He urged the Tribunal to bear in mind that this is a Tribunal of Conscience and the case before it is an extraordinary case, which Winston Churchill used to call as a “crime without a name”. He said that the Prosecution had provided evidence of facts which, examined as a whole, will show that the perpetrators had committed acts against the Palestinians, with intent to kill, cause serious bodily or mental harms and deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinians as a whole or in part. >From the testimony of Prof Pappe (PW8) the Prosecution had shown that before 1948, before UN Resolution 47, there was already a plan in place to take over the Palestinian territory, and this plan would be activated the moment the British relinquished its mandate over the territory. At that point in time, the Palestinians were on 94% of the land, with the Jewish population settling over a mere 6% of the land. Under the UN partition plan, more than 50% of the land was to be given to the Jews. Plan Dalet might not legally be genocidal in form at its inception, but as it took shape the ethnic cleansing metamorphised into killing, massacre and creating impossible conditions for life for the Palestinians – either they leave or they die. The Prosecution submits this is genocide within the meaning of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. On Sabra and Shatila, prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW6) had testified that the Palestinian refugees in those camps had been killed by the Phalangists, aided and abetted by the Israelis who were in complete control of the two camps. According to the Kahan Report, all of Beirut was under Israeli control, and there was clear symbiotic relationship between Israel and the Christian forces (the Lebanese Maronite Christian militia or the Phalangists or Keta’ib). On Operation Cast Lead in 2008, the Chief Prosecutor said that the Israeli Defence Force had used all kinds of weapons, including white phosphorus – which is an incendiary weapon. The use of incendiary weapons is prohibited under Protocal III on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. As a result of the Israeli occupation of Gaza, nowhere in Gaza is safe for civilians. 1.5 million Palestinians are now trapped in despair, their fragile economy ruined. Under the Dahiya Doctrine (October 2008), the complete destruction of Gaza is the ultimate objective, the whole place must be flattened. The Prosecution submits that the cumulative effect of the actions taken by the Israeli government, as shown by the Prosecution witnesses and the several documents tendered to the Tribunal, have shown beyond reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide under the Genocide Convention and the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Charter). Co-Prosecutor Tan Sri Abdul Aziz, submitting on the first charge against Amos Yaron, said that Amos Yaron was the commanding officer in charge of the Israeli Defence Force, in charge of the area of Beirut, and camps Sabra and Shatila. He said there were two issues which he has to deal with – first, whether or not there was a large scale massacre of the 10 residents of the two camps, and second, whether or not Amos Yaron facilitated and permitted such massacre, in violation of international law and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Charter? On the first issue, he submitted there was a large scale massacre, as testified by PW1. She was there, and she saw the massacre with her own eyes. There was corrobating testimony by PW6, and further acknowledged in the Kahan Report. On the second issue, Amos Yaron was in charge, to ensure that there would be peace and law and order. The Kahan Report itself concluded that anybody who knew about Lebanon would know that by releasing the Phalangists into Beirut, there would be massacre. Surely, Amos Yaron, the General in charge, must have known that by allowing the Phalangists to go into the two camps, the massacre would take place. But he decided to do nothing. He received the reports of the killing of women and children, but he did not check the report. He did not pass the report to his superiors. The co-prosecutor submits that by ignoring all this despite knowing the circumstances, he himself had the intention of causing the death of the people in the two camps. *10.3 Commission’s Register of War Criminals* Further, under Article 35 of the same Chapter, this Tribunal recommends to the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission that the names of the two convicted parties herein be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and be publicised accordingly. 10.4 The Tribunal recommends to the War Crimes Commission to give the widest international publicity to this conviction and grant of reparations, as these are universal crimes for which there is a responsibility upon nations to institute prosecutions. 10.5 The Tribunal deplores the failure of international institutions to punish the State of Israel for its crimes and its total lack of respect of International Law and the institutions of the United Nations. It urges the Commission to use all means to publicise this judgement and in particular with respect to the Parliaments and Legislative Assemblies of the major powers such as members of the G8 and to urge these countries to intervene and put an end to the colonialist and racist policies of the State of Israel and its supporters. On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: > > I don't expect you to answer because this same type of question has been > posed to you on numerous occasions, and here once again it proves your > ignorance, but for the Group; please demonstrate, give examples, or even > your opinion of "*israel's genocidal aggression toward goyim in israel"* > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:27 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> the world is just supposed to sit back, and accept acts of violence and >> aggression against Western Culture and Societies? >> --- >> no more than we're supposed to accept israel's genocidal aggression >> toward goyim in israel. >> >> so, since you have sided with the zionists, when are you self-deporting >> to israel? >> >> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-6, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> *Writing on the wall? * >>> >>> Without wishing to appear callous, the carnage in Paris could hardly be >>> considered unexpected. In many ways the writing has been on the wall for >>> several years. >>> >>> After all, it comes in the wake of a string of incidents of murderous >>> Islamic-motivated violence across the country. >>> >>> In mid-March 2012, several off-duty soldiers were gunned down in >>> Montauban and Toulouse by a French-born Muslim of Algerian origin. >>> >>> A few days later, he slaughtered a rabbi and three children, aged three >>> to eight, in an attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse. >>> >>> What totally goofy shit....So? Under this "theory"; the world is just >>> supposed to sit back, and accept acts of violence and aggression against >>> Western Culture and Societies? >>> >>> Typical far left extremist Moonbat! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:06 PM, plainolamerican <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0tGbiFbF6w >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ntHNQIkQSw >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibKWVTFSak >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VrmWgkeIVE >>>> >>>> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 9:50:49 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://jerusalemchannel.tv/islam-terror-rainfall-flooding/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Islam is to Terror as Rainfall is to Flooding >>>>> >>>>> admin <http://jerusalemchannel.tv/author/admin/> / January 23, 2015 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [image: Internet screenshot of Islamic State (ISIS) terror tactics on >>>>> the move] <http://jerusalemchannel.tv/islam-terror-rainfall-flooding/> >>>>> >>>>> *Internet screenshot of Islamic State (ISIS) terror tactics on the >>>>> move* >>>>> >>>>> *Into the Fray >>>>> <http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Into-the-fray-Its-Islam-stupid-387171>: >>>>> It’s >>>>> Islam, stupid!* >>>>> >>>>> *By Martin Sherman (reprinted with the author’s permission)* >>>>> >>>>> *One out six people all over the world is a Muslim… trying to say >>>>> anything in general about this huge community – 1.5 billion people – will >>>>> be wrong… The vast majority of these populations are not involved with >>>>> all >>>>> what’s happening with violence and terror all over the world…. I don’t >>>>> think there is anything essential that connects between this huge and >>>>> historically important religion and all the terrorism that’s going on.* >>>>> – Sami Abu Shehadeh, secretary-general of Balad, Tel Aviv-Jaffa >>>>> >>>>> With these words, Sami Abu Shehadeh, of the anti-Zionist Arab party >>>>> Balad, commenced a debate with me on “The rise of anti-Muslim sentiment >>>>> in >>>>> the West,” which took place in the i24 News studios last month. >>>>> >>>>> Clearly, recent events in Paris, in which 12 people were brutally >>>>> gunned down, gave the topic new and urgent relevance. >>>>> >>>>> *Islam is to terror as rainfall is to flooding * >>>>> >>>>> Of course, there is much truth in Abu Shehadeh’s claim that most >>>>> Muslims are not actively involved in terrorism. While this claim is >>>>> factually correct, substantively it is meaningless. >>>>> >>>>> For anyone with an iota of intellectual integrity and reasonably >>>>> informed of world affairs, the answer to whether Islam and violence and >>>>> terrorism are causally connected should be unequivocally clear. To ask >>>>> whether Islam is associated with terrorism is a little like asking if >>>>> rainfall is associated with flooding. Of course it is – as can be >>>>> irrefutably deduced from Abu Shehadeh’s attempt to exonerate it. >>>>> >>>>> After all, if one in six people in the world is a Muslim, it would >>>>> mean that five out of six are not. Right? So if there were no inordinate >>>>> affinity of Islam for violence/ terrorism, Muslim acts of terrorism >>>>> should >>>>> be one-fifth of those of non-Muslim terrorism – i.e. if Islam had no >>>>> greater propensity for terrorism, one would have to expect non-Muslim >>>>> acts >>>>> of terrorism to be five times (!) those perpetrated by Muslims. >>>>> >>>>> This is clearly not the case, and terrorist attacks committed by >>>>> adherents of Islam far outweigh those carried out by non-Muslims. >>>>> >>>>> It would therefore seem that – in stark violation of the protocols of >>>>> political correctness – there is little choice but to conclude what many >>>>> in >>>>> the West sense instinctively: There is a disproportionate causal >>>>> connection >>>>> between Islam on the one hand, and acts of ideo-politically motivated >>>>> violence against civilian populations, i.e. terrorism on the other. >>>>> >>>>> *Writing on the wall? * >>>>> >>>>> Without wishing to appear callous, the carnage in Paris could hardly >>>>> be considered unexpected. In many ways the writing has been on the wall >>>>> for >>>>> several years. >>>>> >>>>> After all, it comes in the wake of a string of incidents of murderous >>>>> Islamic-motivated violence across the country. >>>>> >>>>> In mid-March 2012, several off-duty soldiers were gunned down in >>>>> Montauban and Toulouse by a French-born Muslim of Algerian origin. >>>>> >>>>> A few days later, he slaughtered a rabbi and three children, aged >>>>> three to eight, in an attack on a Jewish day school in Toulouse. >>>>> >>>>> More recently, just before Christmas, France was racked by a spate of >>>>> “lone wolf” terrorist attacks, in Dijon, Nantes and Tours, which prompted >>>>> the British Independent to report the incidents under the ominous >>>>> headline >>>>> “France gripped by fear at Christmas after third street attack in three >>>>> days.” (December 23, 2014) In both the Dijon and Tours incidents, the >>>>> attacker is reported to have shouted “Allahu akbar,” dispelling any >>>>> suspicion that the assaults were perpetrated by Buddhist extremists. >>>>> >>>>> Muslim violence has been simmering in France for years, boiling over >>>>> regularly around Christmas and New Year, when hundreds of cars are >>>>> torched >>>>> in Muslim-majority neighborhoods to usher in the start of the Gregorian >>>>> year. >>>>> >>>>> Typically, reports in the mainstream media studiously avoid mention of >>>>> any connection between this criminal arson on a massive scale and the >>>>> culprits’ ethnic origins. >>>>> >>>>> *Catalogue of carnage * >>>>> >>>>> The slaughter in Paris takes its place in a long list of acts of >>>>> butchery, all committed in the name of Islam. >>>>> >>>>> Consider the following (and decidedly partial) catalogue of carnage, >>>>> of the gory events that took place across the globe over the past two >>>>> decades and shocked the world with their brutally. >>>>> >>>>> New York – Cataclysmic destruction of the Twin Towers Washington – >>>>> Attempt to demolish the Pentagon London – Coordinated attack on the >>>>> public >>>>> transport system; the beheading of an off duty soldier in broad daylight >>>>> in >>>>> full public view Madrid – Bombing of crowded commuter trains at rush hour >>>>> Nairobi – Seizure of Westgate shopping mall and murder of scores of >>>>> innocents Burgas, Bulgaria – Bombing of a tourist bus Mumbai – Murderous >>>>> attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel, Chabad House and other sites Boston – >>>>> Bombing of the city’s annual marathon Bali – Bombing of crowded tourist >>>>> locations Buenos Aires – Deadly attacks on Jewish institutions and the >>>>> Israeli Embassy Ottawa – Assault on the Canadian Parliament Sydney – >>>>> Recent >>>>> seizure of a downtown café and murder of two customers In-Amenas, Algeria >>>>> – >>>>> Seizure of a gas facility and murder of dozens of civilians Chibock, >>>>> Nigeria – Abduction of almost 300 schoolgirls, reportedly to serve as sex >>>>> slaves This bloodcurdling list is in no way complete, and numerous other >>>>> incidents could be added. It certainly does not include all the attempted >>>>> attacks that were foiled by security services in various countries, >>>>> preventing the commission of even more gruesome atrocities by adherents >>>>> of >>>>> Islam. >>>>> >>>>> *Horrors of intra-Muslim strife * >>>>> >>>>> Try as one may, there is no way that, in the modern world, any other >>>>> faith/creed can be associated with such violence/ terror – in scope, >>>>> size, >>>>> frequency or ubiquity of occurrence. >>>>> >>>>> But as appalling as Muslim violence against non-Muslims might be, it >>>>> pales into insignificance when compared to violence between Muslims >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> It would be impossible to give a comprehensive survey of the >>>>> intra-Muslim carnage that has raged – and still rages – across vast >>>>> swathes >>>>> of the globe, from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean to the islands of >>>>> Asia-Pacific. A brutally condensed synopsis will have to suffice. >>>>> >>>>> Even before the unspeakable barbarism of al-Nusra and Islamic State >>>>> began to sweep across much of the Levant, merciless massacres of Muslims >>>>> at >>>>> the hands of Muslims abounded. >>>>> >>>>> For example, in the almost 10-year Algerian civil war, internecine >>>>> frictions between rival Islamist factions resulted in massive fratricide >>>>> – >>>>> with a death toll reaching, by some estimates, 150,000. Acts of >>>>> unimaginable brutality were perpetrated with entire villages wiped out >>>>> and >>>>> victims’ bodies mutilated. >>>>> >>>>> Likewise, regular bombings of markets and mosques across countries >>>>> such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have produced massive loss of >>>>> Muslim >>>>> life at the hands of belligerent brethren – yet hardly generate a >>>>> footnote >>>>> in the mainstream media. The intra-Muslim conflict seems so intense and >>>>> complicated that even a reasonably informed layman would find it almost >>>>> impossible to figure out who is killing whom, and why… >>>>> >>>>> As a gauge of the scope of the slaughter, the Pakistani site Dawn >>>>> reported in a post titled “Islam at war – with itself” that al-Qaida >>>>> affiliates and other extreme Islamist groups “have perpetrated >>>>> indiscriminate violence against civilians…resulting in over 48,000 >>>>> deaths…” >>>>> >>>>> *The majority of Muslims…* >>>>> >>>>> The pervasive violence in the Muslim world inevitably raises the >>>>> question of the general character of Islam and the kind of behavioral >>>>> patterns it seems to generate. >>>>> >>>>> It also raises the thorny question of minority actions vs majority >>>>> inaction. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, while Abu Shehadeh is probably right when he claims that only a >>>>> minority of Muslims are engaged in abhorrent acts of terrorism, it is >>>>> highly unlikely they would be able to sustain this activity without the >>>>> support – or at least the tacit approval – of much larger segments of the >>>>> population. >>>>> >>>>> Even if the majority does not actively endorse the conduct of a >>>>> delinquent minority, there is little evidence of effective disapproval, >>>>> let >>>>> alone active opposition to it. (In this regard one can only hope that the >>>>> extraordinarily courageous speech by Egypt’s president Abdel Fattah >>>>> al-Sisi, calling for a “religious revolution,” will prove to be a >>>>> harbinger >>>>> of some radical change in the course Islam is currently set upon.) So, >>>>> although, as Abu Shehadeh contends, it is difficult to formulate accurate >>>>> generalizations for 1.6 billion people, several edifying measures are >>>>> available that paint a daunting picture of the views held by much of the >>>>> Muslim world. >>>>> >>>>> The reputable Pew Research Center has conducted numerous in-depth >>>>> surveys across much of the Muslim world. Its findings show solid – at >>>>> times, overwhelming – majorities in many countries (and significant >>>>> minorities in others) in favor of harsh corporal punishments >>>>> (whipping/amputation) for theft/robbery; death by stoning for adultery; >>>>> and >>>>> death for apostasy. >>>>> >>>>> With such a propensity for violence as a widely accepted cultural >>>>> norm, it is not implausible to assume that wide sections of the Muslim >>>>> population would not find the use of violence and terrorism totally >>>>> incompatible with their core beliefs. >>>>> >>>>> *Attempts at apologetics: The ‘colonialism’ canard * >>>>> >>>>> Numerous attempts have been made to explain away much of the >>>>> prevalence of violence in the Muslim world and conflict with the West. >>>>> >>>>> Arguably the most prominent among such apologists was none other than >>>>> President Barack Obama. In his 2009 “outreach address” in Cairo, he >>>>> offered >>>>> the following explanation for the sad state of affairs between the West >>>>> and >>>>> Islam which, he alleged, followed “centuries of coexistence and >>>>> cooperation.” (Really?) Obama suggested that “more recently, tension has >>>>> been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many >>>>> Muslims.” >>>>> >>>>> This of course holds no water. >>>>> >>>>> For while it is true that much of the Middle East was under imperial >>>>> rule for centuries, this was mostly Muslim imperialism – i.e. the Ottoman >>>>> Empire. >>>>> >>>>> After all, with perhaps the exception of North Africa, Western >>>>> colonialism was imposed for a relatively short period after World War I, >>>>> and ended soon after World War II. This hardly seems sufficient to >>>>> engender >>>>> the obdurate Islamic enmity we see today. >>>>> >>>>> So if complaints are to be lodged regarding colonialist deprivation of >>>>> Muslim rights and opportunities, shouldn’t they be directed at the Muslim >>>>> imperialists? Strangely, the the crucibles of today’s most extreme >>>>> anti-Western Islam were barely touched by colonialism – the Arabian >>>>> Peninsula and Iran. >>>>> >>>>> Although neither has endured any imperial – including Western – rule >>>>> of any consequence, the former birthed the Sunni-derivative version of >>>>> Islamic radicalism and the latter the Shia-derivative. This fact sits >>>>> uneasily with the diagnosis ascribing ongoing tensions between Muslims >>>>> and >>>>> the West to colonialism. >>>>> >>>>> *No call to ‘Kill for Krishna’? * >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, one might well ask why the iniquities of colonialism have >>>>> not afflicted, say, the Hindu-majority in India, whose people were >>>>> certainly “denied rights and opportunities” under the yoke of British >>>>> imperialism in the same way as the Muslims of Pakistan. >>>>> >>>>> Yet, somehow we hear no cries of “Kill for Krishna” or “Ganesh is >>>>> Great” from embittered Hindu terrorists, blowing themselves up in crowded >>>>> buses, markets, cafes and mosques, as we do across the Muslim world – >>>>> including in neighboring Pakistan. >>>>> >>>>> Nor do we see aggrieved followers of Shiva embarking on a global holy >>>>> war to subjugate all to the Hindu creed. >>>>> >>>>> Why has India been able to put its colonial past behind it, and become >>>>> a vibrant economic juggernaut? Why has it not allowed itself to remain >>>>> tethered to the past and mired in homicidal frustration? Since by far >>>>> most >>>>> victims of Muslim violence are other Muslims, rights and opportunities >>>>> allegedly denied by foreign occupiers seven decades ago seem a poor >>>>> explanation for current conduct. >>>>> >>>>> *Modernity as culprit? * >>>>> >>>>> Some have tried to contend that the onset of modernity and >>>>> globalization has created a sense of threat to Islamic values, which has >>>>> precipitated the tensions with the West. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, in Cairo, Obama suggested that “the sweeping change brought by >>>>> modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile >>>>> to >>>>> Islamic traditions.” >>>>> >>>>> This too is difficult to accept. >>>>> >>>>> After all, Islam is the youngest of all major religions, founded >>>>> centuries – even in some cases, millennia – after Hinduism, Buddhism, >>>>> Judaism and Christianity. Why would the newest religion find that the >>>>> developments of modernity threaten its traditions in a manner that, >>>>> apparently, does not threaten the traditions of faiths far more ancient? >>>>> Why do they not generate the same tensions with the West that we find in >>>>> the case of the Muslim faith? Could it perhaps be that Islam is >>>>> fundamentally incompatible not only with modernity but with anything that >>>>> is not Islam, and that many cannot – or worse, refuse to – recognize this? >>>>> >>>>> *A clarion call * >>>>> >>>>> Europe in general and France in particular are on the cusp of a grim, >>>>> probably gruesome, future. >>>>> >>>>> European leaders would do well to heed the clarion call from someone >>>>> who has intimate knowledge of Islam – the Somalian-born former Dutch MP >>>>> Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was forced flee to the US because of threats from >>>>> Muslims who objected to her criticism of Islam. She warned: “Islam is not >>>>> a >>>>> religion of peace. It’s a political theory of conquest that seeks >>>>> domination by any means it can. Every accommodation of Muslim demands >>>>> leads >>>>> to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side. They >>>>> see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands.” >>>>> (March 21, 2009) >>>>> >>>>> Europe had best heed this dire caveat and tailor its policies >>>>> accordingly, for if not, the consequences will be dire. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __._,_.___ >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected]> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Visit Your Group >>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN2RyaTU3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MjIxOTUwNTc-> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [image: Yahoo! Groups] >>>>> <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNG5vcDJjBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQyMjE5NTA1Nw--> >>>>> >>>>> • Privacy >>>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • >>>>> Unsubscribe • Terms of Use >>>>> <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> >>>>> >>>>> __,_._,___ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
