RUTHFULLY YOURS

There are many reasons to fear that the protests will fail to achieve their goal of overthrowing the regime.

If the Iranian regime is unable to brutally stomp out the countrywide protests raging through the country, and if the protesters achieve their goal of bringing down the regime, they will go down in history as the saviors of millions of people not just in Iran but throughout the world.

Given the earth shattering potential of the protests it is extraordinary to see the liberal media in the US and Europe struggle to downplay their significance.

Aside from a lukewarm statement on Twitter from British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, as of Monday morning – five days into the protests – no senior European official had spoken in favor of the hundreds of thousands of Iranians marching throughout their country demanding freedom.

In the US, former members of the Obama administration and the liberal media have determinedly downplayed the importance of the protests. They have insisted that President Donald Trump should stop openly supporting the protesters and so adopt former president Barack Obama’s policy of effectively siding with the Iranian regime against the Iranian people who seek its overthrow.

These talking points have been pushed out into the media echo chamber by Obama’s former deputy national security adviser and strategic communications chief Ben Rhodes, his former national security adviser Susan Rice and former secretary of state John Kerry.

Obama’s Middle East coordinator Philip Gordon stated them outright in an op-ed in The New York Times on Saturday. Gordon called on Trump “to keep quiet and do nothing” in response to the protests.

In Gordon’s view, no matter how big their beef with the regime, the protesters hate the US more. And they really hate Trump.

Ryszard Legutko, a Polish political philosopher and member of the European Parliament, voiced his frustration with Brussels in late December as it gathered itself to start proceedings against his home country for undermining the rule of law. He complained of an “unprecedented obsession” with Poland among Eurocrats, even as the same turned a blind eye to what happened in Catalonia last year.

It is hard not to have some sympathy with him. Just before Christmas, the European Commission decided to go after the elected government of Poland, invoking Article Seven of the Lisbon Treaty, which if followed all the way through would strip Poland of its voting rights within the European Union. The EU has never done this before. Even when it complained about 2011 reforms in Hungary, to which the current reforms in Poland are often compared, it made no move to strip that country of its voting rights. It has taken no concrete action against EU candidate Turkey, despite the Erdogan regime’s much more worrisome descent into authoritarianism.

Europe’s leaders were supposedly invoking Article Seven for high-minded reasons, but during the session of European Parliament, Legutko found himself beating back rhetorical taunts that his post-Communist society was selfishly using the European Union as a “milk-cow” and disregarding the rules.

The Hungarian novelist Tibor Fischer, nobody’s idea of a right-winger or populist, is a keen observer of European politics. He recently wrote an essay about the newfound political assertiveness of the former members of the Habsburg Empire, and the baffled, offended reaction of Western Europe to that assertiveness. Throughout the Visegrád Four — Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia — there is frustration with “double standards,” Fisher wrote. “If you’re a former Soviet Bloc country you are subjected to frequent cavity searches, while older members of the EU don’t even have to turn out their pockets.”

Former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont has called on the Spanish government to finally and officially recognize last month’s election results in Catalonia.

From his safe haven in Brussels, the city where he’s hiding from the tyrannical Madrid government, Puigdemont said that the regional government, which was disposed of by the Spanish government, has to be reinstated. And yes, he wants to once again lead his people (to independence). “What is Prime Minister Rajoy waiting for to acknowledge the result?” Puigdemont asked out loud on Old Year’s Day.

The answer, of course, is that Rajoy is simply hoping and praying that this problem disappears all by itself. He wants to prolong possible negotiations, hoping that this will eventually enable him to ignore the election results altogether. Rajoy plans to bring pro-unity party Ciudadanos and its leader Inés Arrimadas to power.

It’s now time for the international community — and especially for the European Union — to force Madrid to take the Catalonian election results seriously and to abide by them. All EU countries have signed the UN treaties guaranteeing people “the right to self-determination.” And the EU presidency has emphasized this right several times, describing it as one of the most fundamental rights “peoples” have:

The right of peoples to self-determination features prominently in the main instruments concerning human rights, such as the United Nations Charter or the two International Covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights respectively.

As the United Nations Charter points out, the development of good relations between nations must be founded on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. This right has lost none of its relevance in the present international context and continues to claim the attention of the international community as an integral part of those human rights the observance and protection of which must be ensured by States.

This right, in accordance with which peoples freely determine their own political status and freely provide for their own economic, social and cultural development, illustrates clearly the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights recognized at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993. Making this right a reality requires full observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on the part of States.

That’s an official statement from the EU presidency on the right to self-determination. It was followed up by:

For this right to be effectively applied, a number of conditions need to be fulfilled. Freedom of expression and of opinion must be guaranteed to allow all individuals to debate public affairs and express themselves freely on the choices made by the State. Freedom of conscience and of religion must be ensured. And the importance of free and independent media becomes evident here. The opportunity to participate freely and fully in public life is also indispensable for the exercise of this right.

A further expression of the right of peoples to self-determination is the holding of free, regular and fair elections, which within the framework of a democratic society allow a country’s nationals to follow and support the action of the political institutions mandated by them to manage their interests and provide for public welfare. In this respect, each individual must be able to benefit from the right to assemble with others to defend his or her convictions. CONTINUE AT SITE

All a group has to say to garner the support of many European politicians is that its mission is to promote human rights. The words have a “halo effect,” a term used in psychology to describe the tendency to favorably judge people, companies, groups, products, and so forth, based on the image of morality or some other positive factor. In the context of NGOs, groups that claim to promote values seen as universally good — such as peace, human rights, justice and coexistence — are automatically perceived as credible and above criticism or investigation.

After World War II and the Communist period, the concept of “civil society” — later called “NGOs” by the UN — became holy in Europe. Civil society was supposed to be the antidote to manipulative democracy, like that of the Weimar Republic. But they forgot to ask what happens when civil society is itself the manipulating force. There are no checks and balances imposed on it.

The NGO lobby at the UN plays a crucial role, because it is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year business. It is an industry, and it needs to be called just that.

Last week, Professor Gerald Steinberg, founder and president of the Jerusalem-based research organization NGO Monitor, had “breaking news”: The Danish government had formalized a decision to stop funding the Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, an NGO framework established in 2013 at Birzeit University in Ramallah, with an annual budget of millions of euros, paid for by the governments of Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Switzerland.

Steinberg’s research had revealed that of the 24 core NGOs funded by the Secretariat, six have ties to the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – which is on the EU’s official list of terrorist organizations — and 15 are involved in worldwide campaigns to destroy Israel by economic means.

Denmark’s decision, according to Steinberg, came on the heels of votes in the Swiss Parliament calling on the government to cease funding “projects carried out by NGOs involved in racist, anti-Semitic or hate incitement actions.” Denmark’s decision also coincided with an investigation launched by The Netherlands into the Secretariat funding. “The Danish example is the most important,” he said, “as it is the largest chunk that has been cut in one fell swoop, and Danes were among the Secretariat’s founders.”

Now, people in Iran are demanding not just limited reforms but regime change. The government has been doing all it can to stoke the flames of hatred, but has been trying to deflect it to “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

The Trump administration is taking the right side by supporting the Iranian people; they are the principal victims of the Iranian regime and its Islamist agenda.

Let us not be on the side of history that would remain silent in the face of such crimes against humanity, let us not join the ranks of other dictators, terrorists, and criminals, that turned a blind eye to violence, and the will of brave, innocent people.

Protests have grown and have spread across Iran in cities such as Tehran, Kermanshah, Shiraz, Rasht, Qom, Hamedan, Ahvaz, Isfahan, Zahedan, Qazvin, and Sari.

The political nature of the protests has been made clear from the outset and the regime is experiencing a political earthquake. The regime’s gunmen have been out in full force. Despite the brutal power being deployed to crush these peaceful demonstrators — four protestors have already been reported killed — more people are flooding the streets in defiance of the regime.

The scale of these sudden protests is unprecedented during the last four decades of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s rule.

These demonstrations, however, are different from other protests in Iran since 1979, when the theocratic regime was established. In 2009, during the popular uprising in the name of the “Green Movement,” people were protesting against rigged elections and the presidency of the anti-Semitic politician Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chants echoed through the streets, “Where is my vote?” while the government ratcheted up its power to silence the protestors.

Reports of alleged links between Islamic charities and terrorism or extremism surged to a record high, according to the Charity Commission, a charity watchdog.

Azad Ali, an Islamist who has said that he supports killing British soldiers, was named a director of Muslim Engagement and Development (Mend), a controversial Muslim pressure group which advises the British government. Ali said that the jihadist attack at Westminster on March 22, 2017 was not an act of terrorism.

“Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections.” — Manchester-born singer Morrissey.

The British government refused to say whether telling people about Christianity could be a hate crime. Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that when he raised a question on the issue in the House of Lords, the government failed to state clearly whether Christians can be prosecuted just for stating their beliefs.

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 4.1 million in 2017 to become around 6.3% of the overall population of 64 million, according to a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

The rapid growth of Britain’s Muslim population can be attributed to immigration, high birth rates and conversions to Islam.

Islam and Islam-related issues, omnipresent in Britain during 2017, can be categorized into several broad themes: 1) Islamic extremism and the security implications of British jihadists; 2) The continuing spread of Islamic Sharia law in Britain; 3) The sexual exploitation of British children by Muslim gangs; 4) Muslim integration into British society; and 5) The failures of British multiculturalism.

JANUARY 2017

January 1. Hundreds of adult asylum seekers lied about their age in order to enter Britain “as teenagers,” according to official data provided under the Freedom of Information Act. Figures obtained by Mail on Sunday show that social workers carried out 2,028 age tests between 2013-2016, during which almost one in four of the claimants — 465 — were found to be over 18. By concealing their real age, migrants hope to improve their chances of being granted asylum.

January 1. Reports of alleged links between Islamic charities and terrorism or extremism surged to a record high, according to the Charity Commission, a charity watchdog. The number of times the Commission shared concerns about links between charities and extremism with police and other agencies nearly tripled, from 234 to 630 in just three years.

January 4. Jamshid Piruz, a 34-year-old Afghan-born Dutch citizen declared guilty of murder in the Netherlands, pled guilty to attacking two British police officers with a hammer. Piruz entered the UK unchallenged, despite being convicted of decapitating a Chinese woman in Amsterdam. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the murder, but released early. As a Dutch resident, Piruz was allowed to travel freely across the EU. “Britain has got to have tougher border controls,” said MP Henry Smith.

The statements of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — and those of Turks who share his worldview – are further evidence that fundamentalist Muslims oppose Israel’s very existence as a sovereign Jewish state. Their ire over Trump’s Jerusalem declaration has nothing to do with U.S. or Israeli policies.

Their fury stems from Jews existing in Israel as a powerful nation – not as dhimmis (second-class and persecuted people). Fanatic Muslims cannot get over the fact that Jews still live in, and are in charge of, supposedly their Muslim holy land.

To justify their rage, these radicals rewrite history. Their claims that Jerusalem is a Muslim holy city, for example, are false. While Jerusalem is mentioned 850 times in the Old Testament, it is not mentioned once in the Koran.

Although U.S. President Donald Trump’s December 6 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital drew condemnation from much of the Muslim world, one reaction stood out — that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

“Those who think they are the owners of Jerusalem today will not even be able to find trees to hide behind tomorrow,” he said, during a Human Rights Day event in Ankara on December 10.

Erdoğan was referring to a hadith (a reported saying by Islam’s prophet, Mohammed) about Judgement Day:

“Abu Huraira reported Allaah’s Messenger (sall Allaahua layhiwa sallam) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allaah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Radical Turks echoed Erdoğan’s sentiment on social media. Under the hashtag #KudüseSahipÇık (“Safeguard Jerusalem”), which quickly became a trending topic, Turkish Twitter-users expressed a seething Jew-hatred — not hatred of Israelis, but Jews. Here are some examples:

“I hope this will be a cause of war for us. I will spit on the blood of Jews.”
“[With each] Jew massacred, the world will get more relaxed, and say ‘I have got rid of those filths’.”
“The ummah [Islamic community] is ready for an intifada. They can exterminate the Jew.”
“To declare Jerusalem the capital [of Israel] means to start a new war in the Middle East. We have no fear of war. [The question is] Where will we bury millions of Jewish bodies? To touch Jerusalem means an end to Jews.”
“The Jew is cowardly. He cannot fight. He trusts his money, and recruits soldiers. But what we need is unity and livelihood.”
“For Jerusalem to belong to Muslims, not a single Jew should be left alive in Palestinian lands. It is either victory or victory.”
“Oh Allah! Do not take my soul before you grant me the privilege to engage in jihad against Israeli Jewish dogs.”
“There is only one thing to be said about Jews: There has never been a more cowardly, dishonorable, and peasant nation like them. The victory will definitely be ours.”

Medieval historians in the Middle East often used the memory of particularly great disasters as a label for a year or even a whole epoch under study. The original model came from pre-Islamic Arabia with such well known examples as “The Year of the Elephant” remembering the year in which the Abyssinians invaded the Tihama, or the Year of the Locust in which swarms of famished insects wiped out crops across a vast arc spanning from the Peninsula to the Mediterranean.

Last year we used the formula by designating 2016 as The Year of Aleppo to mark the destruction through carpet-bombing of a great Islamic city by the Russian Air Force, pushing the Syrian tragedy further down the abyss of inhumanity.

At the time we couldn’t imagine that 2017 will witness an even greater crime against humanity in the shape of what the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has dubbed “the genocide” of the Rohingya people in Burma (Myanmar).

Aleppo was crucified by a foreign power using its superior military force against a defenseless population pushed to the edge of collective nervous breakdown by years of starvation and conflict.

In the case of the Rohingya, however, the genocide was organized and carried out by what was, in theory at least, the victims’ own central government and “national” army. Worse still the government in question was, again in theory at least, headed by a woman who had been cast as an angel of compassion and crowned with a Nobel Prize for Peace.

That Russia might use massive force to crush real or imagined foes would cause little surprise for those familiar with history. It was not so long ago that the Russian air force reduced Chechnya to a pile of rubble, killed a quarter of the population and drove another quarter out of their homes.

Burma, however, was supposed to be a peaceful neck of the wood where Buddhism, supposed to be a school of peace and harmony reigned supreme.

In 1977, I interviewed the Burmese “strongman” General Ne Win who harped at length about how Buddha’s teachings could save the world from violence and war.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has a startling and consistent history of anti-Semitism, despite its founding and reputation as an “independent, neutral organization.” Although mandated to eschew taking sides in international and internal armed conflicts and to protect victims of those conflicts — including wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, refugees and civilians — ICRC anti-Semitism emerged prior to World War II, broadened to encompass anti-Israelism after creation of the Jewish state and has continued ever since.

– In the 1940, it failed to intercede on behalf of Jewish Holocaust victims and was complicit with the Vatican’s protection of Nazi war criminals and collaborators.

– It’s modern-day expression of anti-Jewish sentiment was manifested in an initial refusal to accept the symbol of Israel’s own emergency aid organization, the Magen David Adom, while welcoming the Red Crescent of Muslim countries.

– It provided solicitous aid to Arab-Palestinian terrorists whose homes were destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces in reprisal for and to prevent deadly attacks against Israel.

– The ICRC also supported and glorified terrorism in a tree-planting ceremony honoring imprisoned Islamic terrorists who were guilty of murdering Jews.

– It has unfairly singled out Israel as an “illegal occupier” and has falsely labeled Israel guilty of an apocryphal “Jenin massacre.” In addition to these actions, the ICRC has failed to condemn Hamas’ use of human shields and has not recognized Israel’s right to self-defense. Instead, it has demonstrated a complete lack of sensitivity for the plight of Israeli civilians as perennial victims of rocket attacks and suicide bombings.