RUTHFULLY YOURS

Mayar Mohamed Mousa, a young 17-year-old girl, died the other day in a hospital in the province of Suez in Egypt while undergoing female genital mutilation surgery.

Don’t wait for Obama to repeat her name and to say that she could have been one of his daughters. If she had died while having a back-alley abortion because her evil white Christian father forbade her to have a safe one in a medical clinic, Obama would be up for it. But Mayar died at the cruel and sadistic hands of Islamic theology and so she doesn’t make the cut.

Mayar was in the process of being maimed and mutilated the way a vast number of Egyptian women are. They usually undergo the horror as young girls, but if they avoid the knife and broken glass, then they undergo the barbarity before they begin dating and get married.

A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report explains:

“Many Egyptians believe that for a girl or woman to be ‘clean,’ ‘pure’ and ‘feminine,’ she must have her genitals cut at a young age. . . .Many parents will have their daughters cut as a proactive measure so that they will be ‘marriageable’… In some communities, men refuse to marry any woman who has not been cut.”

Get ready, of course, to hear from media darling Reza Aslan and many other leftists that what happened to Mayar, and what is happening to millions of Muslim girls like her, is not because of Islam. You will be told that it is only some kind of “extreme” Muslim fringe that is supposedly practicing this crime, and, yes, you guessed it, non-Muslims do it too!

But here is a question:

If Islamic genital mutilation is not Islamic, where are all the Muslim imams, muftis and clerics in the world, and in Egypt in particular, who will be vociferously denouncing and repudiating what happened to Mayer just recently and that continues to happen to millions like her? Why aren’t they shouting from the rooftops about the un-Islamic nature of this crime and coming to the defense of Muslim girls and women? Why haven’t they shut down FGM under Islam since it is so un-Islamic?

Israel responded to a Palestinian terror attack in Tel Aviv which claimed four lives by revoking 83,000 travel permits for Palestinians to enter the country during Ramadan. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights suggests that response amounts to “collective punishment” and is, thus, illegal under international law.

High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein’s comments last week received a somewhat sympathetic ear in Washington, where State department spokesman Mark Toner refused to agree or disagree with his “collective punishment” characterization but noted the inconvenience that the travel ban would prove to Palestinians.

“We strongly support Israel’s right to ensure the security of its citizens,” Toner said, adding, “We hope that any measures that it does take will be designed to minimize the impact on the lives of Palestinian civilians who are going about their daily lives.” While “understanding the precautions and the understandable security measures that Israel is taking in the wake of these kinds of attacks,” Toner said the United States asks that “we don’t see measures taken that will add to tensions.”

Rather than fret that reasonable Israeli security efforts will somehow “add to tensions,” U.N. and U.S. officials should focus on the cause of ongoing slaughter in Israel – a Palestinian society that nurtures it. Rather than debate Israeli “collective punishment,” those truly interested in a path to Israeli-Palestinian peace should confront the reality of Palestinian “collective responsibility.”

Accept for argument’s sake that the vote on June 23 favours the Leave case, what next? No longer in the thrall of Brussels technocrats and having rejected the political project that is the EU, Britain would have a free hand to innovate. A move to a flat-tax, for example.
‘Uncertainty’ is a term in common usage. Both the Leave and Remain campaigns would have to admit to using negative tactics while economic fears are hawked in almost biblical language. Many Britons feel afraid of leaving. They have had to endure President Hollande’s “consequences”[1] and his heir apparent M. Macron warning that he will “roll out the red carpet” for the bankers who will leave London for Paris[2]. They have had warnings from the International Monetary Fund (with more yet to come), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Leader of the Free World himself[3]. President Obama’s remark that Britain would be “at the back of the queue” as regards to any trade deals was slightly at odds with his speech in Germany two days later where he said he wanted the US-EU TTIP trade deal concluded by the end of the year. How long is this queue again?

The IMF report mentions Britain only four times[4]: In the foreword; predictably in the “Outlook for Individual Countries and Regions”; that the potential of Brexit is one of the “Heightened downside risks” facing the world economy[5]; finally in a special section of a hundred odd words[6]. The actual risk from Brexit is quantified as that dreaded word “uncertainty” again as well as potential damage to trading relationships[7]. It is undermined by the report itself pointing out that Britain’s strong economic performance will offset any “heightened uncertainty ahead of the June referendum”[8]. All these are potential risks and are hedged with many ‘coulds’ and ‘likelys’. None of the report’s authors, no matter how experienced, have ever witnessed such an event and all forecasts should be treated as the worst scenario they wish to imagine.

The OECD report, while more detailed, can be dismissed out of hand. A hatchet job deliberately painting the most damaging picture. In presenting the report one almost expected that OECD head, Señor Gurría[9], would unveil the younger Bill Murray of Ghostbusters drily warning of “human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!” but relations between the US and Mexico seemed to have soured of late. The underlying assumptions of the report, in all of its scenarios, are so flawed as to be laughable. They surmise that Britain would become inward looking, with little trade, immigration or investment. Even its most neutral assessments rest on premises such as “most of this stems from the decline in trade openness” and “a failure to undertake regulatory reforms”[10] which completely misses the point of why Britain would wish to leave.

Both the OECD and the IMF base their hypotheses on the idea that Brexit is a “turn toward more nationalistic policies, including protectionist ones”[11]. The OECD do concede Britain may wish to “improve the business climate” post Brexit but even its best case assumes it would only do so at a speed it calculates partly from Mr Brown’s Ministry, hardly known as a great de-regulating one, and in its worst case that it would do nothing[12]. Its fundamentally flawed view of the UK is highlighted by its pointing out that despite business opposition to labour market regulation and the Working Time Directive, the “political constellation after Brexit” would probably not heed that[13]. Perhaps the best example of its partisan nature is in its summation of the financial sector. Highlighting the risks it then, apropos of nothing, mentions that Switzerland exports an even greater proportion of its banking services to the EU but that they got a good deal[14].

The signs near the Al-Aqsa mosque were clear: “The cameras will be broken and the hands that hung them will be cut off.”

Installing video cameras near the Al Aqsa mosque would be a painful thorn in the side of all the terrorist organizations. The immensely successful collaborations in the area — those with Jordan and Israel and Egypt and Israel — serve the security interests of all three countries, as well as the Palestinians who do not wish to be taken over by Islamic extremists even more brutal than the leaders we have now. And that is precisely why Palestinian elements, from the Palestinian Authority to Hamas, were determined to sabotage the project.

Changing the name of the Temple Mount to Haram al Sharif is another example of the treacherous United Nations’ rewriting of history. The UN move is seen even by us Muslims as a villainous lie that denies not only the historic Jewish presence in Jerusalem, but the history of Christianity as well. Do they really think we are that stupid?

Regardless of what the treacherous UN thinks, surrendering to Islamist demands will not win the war against terrorism.

An article published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi on April 20, 2016 asked why Jordanian Prime Minister Abdallah Ensour fired Salame Hamad from his post as Minister of the Interior, despite Hamad having restored internal security and causing Jordanians to feel they were living in a country of law and order.[1]

The reason, it turned out, was that he was not decisive enough in dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood. While he did close some of its offices and place strict limitations on the number of Gazans visiting Jordan, he apparently did not deal with the movement emphatically enough, and had even met with its leaders in his office twice.

One of the signs of this weakness in dealing with Islamists was Jordan’s surprising recent backpedaling on an agreement instituted by the Jordanian Wakf (office of religious endowment), which was brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. According to the agreement, video cameras would be installed in Jerusalem at the Al-Aqsa mosque. The footage would be transmitted in real time to both Israeli and the Jordanian authorities. Such an arrangement would improve security in Al-Aqsa, and expose and prevent hostile activities by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Northern Branch of Israel’s Islamic Movement and members of the Hizb al-Tahrir radical Islamist group.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, have, in fact, managed also to foul their relations with Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. After years of loyalty by Jordanian Islamists to the royal house of the Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.), in recent years Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood entered into conflict with the Jordanian government.

Signs of the conflict were quickly evident in threats plastered on Al-Aqsa mosque. They warned against the installation of cameras. The signs were clear: “The cameras will be broken and the hands that hung them will be cut off.”

It is the very existence of the Jordanian Wakf that keeps the Palestinian Authority (PA) — and subversives from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Movement, Hamas and Hizb al-Tahrir — from turning the Al-Aqsa mosque into a fulcrum for a religious war between Islam and Judaism, on the false claim that the Jews and the government of Israel are supposedly plotting to destroy the mosque.

The truth is that the cameras would finally prove, once and for all, who the genuine provocateurs are that endanger the mosque. The cameras would expose the hypocrisy of the Palestinian Authority, which pretends to care about Al-Aqsa, while actually simply wanting to keep Jews from having access to the Temple Mount.

Palestinian leaders have repeatedly shown that their priority is not peace, or a two-state solution, or a Palestinian state, but repression.

If a Palestinian state is created without correcting these destructive practices, it is highly likely that the new Palestinian regime will follow the same pattern already established, and be a hatemongering, corrupt, undemocratic, oppressive, belligerent, and ineffective regime. This would not only be a security threat for Israel, it would mean more of the same for the Palestinians.

France, with the support of the United States, is leading a new attempt at peace between Israel and the Palestinians, with the implied goal that an independent Palestinian state would be created — but what should we expect from such a state?

Although past behavior is not a perfect predictor of future behavior, it is a strong indicator of it, especially if no corrective action has been taken.
Violence

When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared, “The dawn of freedom rises with the evacuation of the last Israeli soldier and settler.” Yet, instead of using that freedom to build a successful economy, Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses that the settlers had left, and terrorists launched rocket attacks against Israel. These attacks forced Israel to institute a naval blockade of Gaza, to limit the supply of weapons to terrorists.

The Oslo Accords signed by Israel and the Palestinians in the 1990s provided a transition period meant to lead to Palestinian statehood. However, instead of peaceful coexistence with Israel, the Palestinian leadership launched an assault that became known as the Second Intifada.

During the recent stabbing attacks by Palestinian terrorists, Abbas declared, “Each drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood as long as it’s for the sake of Allah. Every shahid (martyr) will be in heaven and every wounded person will be rewarded, by Allah’s will.”

These violent actions and the incitement are not exceptions. They are part of a pattern of Arab denial of the Jews’ right to exist, which started well before Israel declared its independence, and that caused several wars and innumerable terrorist attacks against Israel.
Lack of democracy

Palestinian democracy has so far been a failure. Yasser Arafat was elected in July 1994 as president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) for a four-year term, but he stayed in power, without further elections, for more than 10 years until his death in November 2004. Mahmoud Abbas was elected President in May 2005, and is still in office, without further elections, eleven years later.

Hamas, which won the PA legislative elections of 2006, was never invited to take the PA reins of power, but it took control of the Gaza Strip through a violent overthrow of Fatah, and still controls Gaza — also without further elections — ten years later.

Fatah and Hamas have used elections to create a semblance of democracy, and both have abused their authority to go far beyond their legitimate mandates. Both routinely use control of the media, control of the education system, and violence to maintain their power, as documented extensively by Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh.