RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13300/iran-sanctions-palestinians

What the Hamas official is actually saying is that thanks to Iran’s backing, Hamas continues to hold hostage the two million residents of the Gaza Strip, whose lives have been literally destroyed by the Hamas leaders’ policies.

The message that Hamas and PIJ are sounding is: How dare the US administration impose sanctions on Iran, the only country that is helping us in our effort to continue our terrorist attacks against Israel?

The renewed US sanctions on Iran are good news, however, for many Arabs and Muslims who feel threatened by Tehran’s actions and rhetoric. Iran has long been systematically working towards undermining moderate Arabs and Muslims in the region.

The Palestinian Authority and Abbas are actually attacking a US administration that is seeking to undermine the enemies of Abbas: Hamas and Iran. The Palestinian Authority is, thus, aligning itself with its own enemies.

If the United States is worried about imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, it should not give those concerns a second thought. Being unpopular with people who do not wish you well is probably the price of true leadership.

Those who are worried, and should be worried, are Iran and its Palestinian allies and friends.

The US administration has decided to reinstate the sanctions against Tehran that were removed under the 2015 “nuclear deal.” These sanctions are part of Washington’s effort to curb Iran’s missile and nuclear programs and diminish its influence in the Middle East.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13299/erdogan-charm-offensive

“Turkey remains the world’s worst jailer for the second consecutive year, with 73 journalists behind bars, compared with 81 last year. Dozens more still face trial, and fresh arrests take place regularly.” — The Committee to Protect Journalists, December 2017.

For Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, apparently, as for the Saudis, there are “good journalists” and “bad journalists.” He often refers to the latter group as “terrorists” and “traitors.”

Erdoğan has tried so hard to use the murder of the Saudi journalist, Khashoggi, for a charm offensive mission to polish his badly tarnished image in the Western world. He is still trying hard to play the game. Sorry, Mr. President: It just does not work.

For weeks after the October 2 disappearance of a Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, after he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has behaved like the leader of a Western democracy: He feared there might have been a murder of the Saudi journalist, which Saudi officials later admitted; speaking loud and louder, he asked the Saudi authorities to bring the journalist’s killers to justice; he offered them a trial in Turkey, and asked for their extradition; he urged the House of Saud to find and hand over to justice those who may have ordered the murder. He also shared audio evidence of the murder with Western leaders. Yet Erdoğan’s public image in the more civilized parts of the world looks closer to that of the Saudi royals than to any Western leader. For that, he has can only himself to blame.

“Erdoğan championing the basic human rights of a journalist” sounds grossly oxymoronic. In its annual report in December, the Committee to Protect Journalists wrote:

“Turkey remains the world’s worst jailer for the second consecutive year, with 73 journalists behind bars, compared with 81 last year. Dozens more still face trial, and fresh arrests take place regularly”.

In Turkey, during the two-year state of emergency after a failed coup against Erdoğan’s government in July 2016, more than 100,000 people have been imprisoned, including academics, lawyers, journalists and opposition politicians. More than 50,000 people remain in prison, according to Amnesty International, and 100,000 have been purged from government service. The Vienna-based International Press Institute tweeted on Oct. 25: “Gruesome nature of #Khashoggi murder should not distract from #Turkey’s own persecution of journalists”.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271938/islam-classes-germany-hugh-fitzgerald

DORTMUND, Germany — It was the second week of Islam class, and the teacher, Mansur Seddiqzai, stood in front of a roomful of Muslim teens and pointed to the sentence on the chalkboard behind him: “Islam does not belong to Germany.”

He scanned the room and asked, “Who said this?”

Hands shot up. “The AfD?” one student with a navy blue headscarf said, referring to Germany’s far-right anti-refugee party. “No,” Seddiqzai shook his head. “Seehofer,” tried another. “Yes, and who is that?” “A minister,” said a third.

Finally, someone put it all together, identifying Horst Seehofer, the head of Bavaria’s conservative Christian Social Union and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s interior minister and coalition partner, who has on multiple occasions threatened to torpedo her government over the issue of immigration.

“Yes, that’s right,” Seddiqzai said, turning to the others. “And what do you think? Is he correct?”

The article on teaching Islam to Muslims in German schools starts right off the bat by affixing labels to the AfD party: “far-right” and “anti-refugee.” The party is not “far-right” in any meaningful sense, unless of course being critical of Islam is enough to make a person or a party “far right.” Nor is the party “anti-refugee,” but rather, “anti-Muslim refugees.” There is a difference.

Then comes the remark made by Horst Seehofer, a Bavarian politician and a putative poster-child for intolerance. He is quoted as saying “Islam does not belong to Germany.” We are meant to be offended by this remark, not to stop and consider what Seehofer meant. The teacher, Mansur Seddiqzai, might have told his students that Seehofer had both a historical and an ideological justification for his remarks. First, Muslims were never part of Germany’s history until the 1960s, with the influx of Turkish gastarbeiter, male guest workers, who came to work in West Germany’s mines and factories, sent money home, and upon retirement most moved back to their families in Turkey. It is only in the last few decades that vast numbers of Muslim migrants, including families, have been allowed in to Germany, with the consequences we can all see. Second, ideologically Islam was never part of Germany’s religious, political, or intellectual history, but rightly regarded as an alien creed. Third, Seehofer may also have been thinking of how Muslims themselves are taught to regard non-Muslims — that is, with contempt and hostility — and further told to keep their distance from them, not to befriend them, for “they are friends only with each other.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-bad-brexit-deal-1542239961

Theresa May has finally struck a deal with Brussels for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, and it reminds us of what Winston Churchill said about democracy—the worst form of government except for all the others.

Mrs. May sold the plan to her balky cabinet in a five-hour meeting on Wednesday. And if her plan survives vetting in Parliament, the policy outline will manage Britain’s departure from the EU, with a second round of talks on the post-Brexit trading relationship to come.

Most details aren’t controversial. Those include provisions on the status of EU citizens in Britain and Brits living in the EU, and the money Britain will contribute to the EU budget under commitments made before the 2016 Brexit referendum.

The rub concerns the indefinite trading agreement that Brussels demanded to avoid imposing a hard border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland that is remaining in the EU. Mrs. May has agreed that the entire U.K. will remain within the EU customs union if some other U.K.-EU trade deal isn’t struck. Britain will accept some EU regulations, and economic rules still could diverge over time between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K.

Pro-Brexit Tories are right to call this a bad deal—“vassal state stuff,” in the words of the always colorful Brexiteer Boris Johnson. It limits Britain’s ability to negotiate its own trade deals unless Britain can first negotiate a new trading arrangement with Brussels.

But it’s the best, and currently the only, serious option on the table. Reimposing a hard border for Northern Ireland, which would be necessary without a withdrawal deal, would renege on Britain’s commitments under the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 and risk re-igniting sectarian strife. Britain also has refused to accept a Brussels proposal to create a new customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K., though this would make the most economic sense.