RUTHFULLY YOURS

President Trump has made containing Iran’s regional ambitions a cornerstone of his foreign policy, and by that measure Sunday’s election in Lebanon is a setback. Not that anyone in Washington seems to have noticed.

Preliminary results indicate that Iran’s proxy Hezbollah and its allies won more than half the seats in Lebanon’s 128-seat parliament, consolidating the Shiite militia’s political grip on the country. Thanks to Lebanon’s sectarian political system, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a Sunni, will likely keep his job, but his clout will be considerably weakened given the clobbering his Future Movement took at the polls.

Voter turnout fell five percentage points from the 2009 election, mostly because Lebanese citizens didn’t have much of a choice between Hezbollah and Hezbollah-lite. Mr. Hariri threw his lot in with the terror group when he accepted a power-sharing arrangement in 2016 with former general Michel Aoun, a Hezbollah ally, to break a political stalemate. The country is overwhelmed with Syrian refugees and its economy is stagnating.

The Trump Administration seems to have adopted a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach regarding Hezbollah’s influence on Mr. Hariri and his government. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the country in February and tried to distinguish between Hezbollah, the terrorist organization, and Hezbollah, the political party. They share the same principles. Mr. Trump compounded the confusion in April by commending “the government of Lebanon’s progress” in passing a budget, deploying Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) on the Syrian border and fighting Islamic State. The LAF is outmanned and outgunned by Hezbollah.

The Western media have ignored the fate of the Kurds, the people who defeated ISIS for us.

UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted, “Turkey is right to want to keep its borders secure”. The West gave the Turks a green light to massacre the Kurds.

The Kurds today, like the Czechs in 1938, were sacrificed in vain. The West has betrayed the Kurds three times in the last three years. They were our ideal allies. They opened their cities, such as Erbil, to tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians expelled by ISIS from Mosul. Iraqi Kurdistan is today the only place in the Middle East, along with the State of Israel, that harbors and protects all religions and minorities.

A new “Munich Syndrome” is now looming over the West. The Kurds, if they did not deserve a state, were at least worthy of our protection, especially after helping us to stop those who slit our throats on the boulevards of Paris.

The Kurds have a proverb: “We have no friends but the mountains”. In Afrin, however, even the mountains could not protect them from the Turkish warplanes and the Islamist militias allied with Ankara. Although the videos of terrifying executions are certainly not new in the tragic war of Syria, in this instance the video was shot by a terror group operating under the command of a NATO country, Turkey.

The video shows members of Syrian militias abusing the corpse of Amina Omar, a female Kurdish fighter who was also known as “Barin Kobani”. She was killed defending Afrin, a city-canton in Syria attacked by the Turkish army of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In the video, Omar, who belonged to the female unit of Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), is called “female pig” and a soldier steps on her breast. The desecration of her corpse ended up symbolizing not only the ferocity of the Kurds’ enemies, but also the sense of a huge, unbearable moral and political betrayal suffered by the Kurds at the hands of their Western allies.

“Shame: the West is turning a blind eye to the fate of the Kurds” wrote Ivan Rioufol in France’s Le Figaro. “They fought alongside us in the war against ISIS. Erdogan labels as ‘terrorist’ this small people arming women, who have their hair in the wind and leave religion in the private sphere”.

The Western media have ignored the fate of the Kurds, the people who defeated ISIS for us.

In 2006, at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI gave a historic speech on faith and reason that included reflections on Islamic ideology. Quoting a medieval scholar who condemned conversion by force, or jihad, Benedict characterized Allah as transcendental and above rationality. The quote called Muhammad’s new ideas “things only evil and inhuman.”

Not surprisingly, the pope received death threats afterward and was called the “pig servant of the cross” and other derogatory epithets. Muslims protested in the streets worldwide and demanded an apology. Five churches were firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza, an Italian nun was shot dead in Somalia, a priest was beheaded in Iraq, and two Christians were stabbed and killed in Baghdad. Many feared that even more violence would erupt. Following the carnage and intense pressure, Pope Benedict yielded to the Islamists and capitulated.

Since that time, the Vatican’s agenda has been to reach an accommodation with Islam, to resist any condemnation of jihadist ideology, to promote the “progressive enculturation of Islam in Europe,” and to “engage in interreligious dialogue.” The pope went so far in his apologia as to meet with Muslim diplomats and ambassadors, including Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (M.B.). This occurred despite widespread persecution and attacks against Christians in Muslim countries by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated terrorist groups, and at a time in which Christianity is being extirpated from the region.

One year after Pope Benedict’s address, in what appeared to be a gesture of reconciliation, a group of Muslim scholars and clerics invited Christians to come together to endorse the document, “A Common Word Between Us and You,” an open letter to Christian leaders emphasizing similarities between the two faiths. Initially, 300 Christian leaders across the world approved “Common Word” and received the document with enthusiasm.

A response prepared by the Yale Center for Faith and Culture extended “our own Christian hand in return so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love G‑d and our neighbors.” The Christian letter of response apologized for the past – the Crusades (in reality an effort to regain conquered Christian land) and the present-day “excesses” of the “war on terror.” It also identified Muhammad as a prophet and went on to ask forgiveness for sinning against the worldwide Muslim community. The letter continued with a validation of the common ground between the two faiths cited by “A Common Word Between Us and You,” specifically “love of G‑d” and “love of neighbor” and agreed these similarities to “be the basis of all interfaith dialogue between us” for the sake of peace in this world and “our eternal souls.”

A 6-minute video on the Ayatollas’ threat to the US: https://bit.ly/2zNDmUX
A 6-minute video on the Ayatollahs’ anti-US curriculum: https://bit.ly/2EuJwJm

1. The tyrannical Ayatollah regime – oppressing Iran’s majority – is driven by a megalomaniacal ideology, clearly reflected by its K-12 curriculum, brainwashing Iran’s youth for full commitment to the “divine battle” against the US, “the Great Satan,” the “infidel” Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, etc.

2. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology – the leading sponsors of Islamic terrorism – is the commitment to global supremacy of Shite Islam through Jihad (“Holy War”), which is the permanent state of relations between “the believers” and the “apostates” and the “illegitimate infidels.” Hence, agreements with infidels are tenuous and non-binding. The Ayatollahs’ super-ideology is bolstered by a sacred allegiance to the fulfillment of the 2,600 year old Persian-Iranian regional and global imperialistic aspiration.

3. The Ayatollahs’ super-geo-strategic goal, which supersedes economic and social matters, is the domination of the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and beyond, irrespective of the Palestinian issue.

4. The Ayatollahs’ super-hurdle/enemy is the USA, “the Great Satan.” Irrespective of the Ayatollahs’ anti-Israel rant, the Jewish State is their second-rate target, since it does not play a major role in determining the future of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, the Ayatollahs’ machetes are at the throat of each pro-US Arab regime in the Persian Gulf region.

5. The Ayatollahs pursue super-capabilities (in collaboration with North Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, etc.) – ballistic and nuclear – in order to deter and defeat the super-enemy/hurdle and advance the super-goal, in adherence to their super-ideology. The Ayatollahs’ pursuit of super-capabilities has accelerated the proliferation of conventional and non-conventional military systems in the Middle East and beyond, adding fuel to global instability and violence.

The Christian genocide in Ottoman Turkey lasted for 10 years — from 1913 to 1923 — and targeted Armenian, Greek, Assyrian and other Christians. It resulted in the annihilation of around three million people. Sadly, Turkish aggression against the remaining Armenians continues.

According to Turkish myth, it was actually the “treacherous” Armenians who persecuted Turks; and the Turks were acting in self-defense to rid themselves of murderous Armenians. A widespread Turkish claim is, “They deserved it.”

The lies and state propaganda, which hold the victims responsible for their own annihilation, are what enable the ongoing Turkish persecution of the country’s remaining Armenians, including the conversion of their churches into mosques and the digging up of Armenian graves and churches by treasure-hunters who search for gold.

The annual Armenian Genocide commemorative event that the Istanbul branch of Turkey’s Human Rights Association (IHD) and the European Grassroots Antiracist Movement (EGAM) planned to hold on April 24 — which they have been holding every year since 2005 — was blocked by police, who seized the placards and banners about the genocide and carried out criminal record checks on participants. Three human rights activists were detained and then released.

In an exclusive interview with Gatestone, Ayşe Günaysu, an activist with the IHD’s Commission Against Racism and Discrimination, said that “on their way to police station, the detainees were made to listen to racist songs containing hostile words concerning Armenians.”

Queen Elizabeth II is a descendant of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed — The Economist, citing the Moroccan newspaper Al-Ousboue.

Nearly two-thirds of “child” refugees who were questioned about their real age after coming to Britain were found to be adults. — Report by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

In 2017, there were 620 cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) just in Birmingham and environs. FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, but there has still not been a single successful prosecution for the offense.

April 1. National Union of Teachers (NUT) delegates condemned efforts by Ofsted, the chief regulator of British schools, to ban the hijab, a Muslim head covering, in primary schools. Ofsted said the measure was aimed at promoting the integration of Muslim pupils. Teachers blasted the policy, announced by Ofsted director Amanda Spielman, as “racism dressed up as liberalism.”

Kauser Jan, a Muslim activist and teacher in Leeds, described the hijab policy as “Islamophobic” and said she would not comply:

“We have taken regressive steps where our children are now being made to feel that must leave their cultural and linguistic and religious identity at the door. I know Muslim girls and men that have shaved off beards, taken off their hijabs so they can anglicize themselves, so they can fit in and not feel they are part of the problem.”

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s declared position is that it does not want nuclear weapons and never has. Which is good, because the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) contains language declaring that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

Which is bad, because Iran cheats.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid out in detail how Iran dissembled to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the ostensible authority on Iranian compliance with the JCPOA. Iran had an active nuclear weapons program until 2003. Following the allied invasion of Iraq and fearful of its own future, Iran decided to take a multi-step approach to its nuclear ambitions. While it stopped most of the active weapons program, The New York Times reports that Iran was designing nuclear weapons until 2009. Furthermore, it worked on related capabilities including uranium enrichment and ballistic missile delivery systems (a violation of UN Resolution 2231, as acknowledged by French President Emmanuel Macron). And it kept an enormous “library” of nuclear-related programs and plans.

The JCPOA has not been much of an impediment to Iran’s progress. Despite the literal injunction against nuclear weapons for Iran, the deal (unsigned by anyone on any side) was not designed to end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability, military or civilian. The JCPOA called only for a “pause” in Iran’s enrichment of uranium and inspection of Iran’s self-declared nuclear facilities, plus self-inspection of the suspect Parchin plant. Iran proclaimed its military installations off-limits to inspectors. The restrictions were to sunset a few years down the road, making the “library” of great value to future Iranian scientists restarting the program.

“We’re told the philosophy was never the problem—that Stalin was an aberration, as were, presumably, Lenin, Trotsky, Ceausescu, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, the Kims and the Castros, not to mention the countless thousands of liquidators in the NKVD, the GRU, the KGB, the Red Guard, the Stasi, the Securitate, the Khmer Rouge, and on and on.”

May 5 marks the bicentennial of Karl Marx, who set the stage with his philosophy for the greatest ideological massacres in history. Or did he?

He did, but deniers still remain. “Only a fool could hold Marx responsible for the Gulag,” writes Francis Wheen in “Karl Marx: A Life” (1999). Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung, Mr. Wheen insists, created “bastard creeds,” “wrenched out of context” from Marx’s writings.

Marx has been accused of ambiguity in his writings. That critique is often justified, but not always. In “The Communist Manifesto,” he and Friedrich Engels were quite clear that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property,” they wrote. “But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population.” And this: “In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

Marx and Engels acknowledged that their views stood undeniably contrary to the “social and political order of things.” Communism seeks to “abolish the present state of things” and represents “the most radical rupture in traditional relations.”

Toward that end, the manifesto offers a 10-point program, including “abolition of property in land,” “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax,” “abolition of all right of inheritance,” “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly,” “centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state” and the “gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.”

In a preface to their 10 points, Marx and Engels acknowledged their coercive nature: “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.” In the close of the Manifesto, Marx said, “The Communists . . . openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.”

STOCKHOLM — The Swedish panel that awards the Nobel Prize in Literature said on Friday that it would take the extraordinary step of not naming a laureate this year — not because of a shortage of deserving writers, but because of the infighting and public outrage that have engulfed the group over a sexual abuse scandal.

The Swedish Academy said it would postpone the 2018 award until next year, when it will name two winners, making this the first year since World War II that the panel has decided not to bestow one of the world’s most revered cultural honors. The academy is involved only in the literature award, so other Nobel Prizes are not affected.

Though the prizes should be awarded annually, they can be postponed or skipped “when a situation in a prize-awarding institution arises that is so serious that a prize decision will not be perceived as credible,” Carl-Henrik Heldin, chairman of the Nobel Foundation, which governs all of the prizes, said in a statement posted online Friday morning. “The crisis in the Swedish Academy has adversely affected the Nobel Prize. Their decision underscores the seriousness of the situation and will help safeguard the long-term reputation of the Nobel Prize.”

Peter Englund, a member of the academy, wrote in an email: “I think this was a wise decision, considering both the inner turmoil of the Academy and the subsequent bloodletting of people and competence, and the general standing of the prize. Who would really care to accept this award under the current circumstances?” CONTINUE AT SITE