Friday, April 21, 2017

Muslim Expansion and What It Can Portend!. Death To Israelis and The Wider Threat Behind The Iran Deal.

Sent to me by a dear friend, leader of our bocce team and a fellow memo reader. (See 1 below.)
Death to Israelis. (See 2 below.)
The issue regarding Iran's compliance with the nuclear provisions of Obama's deal is not the main issue.  The threat is bigger, broader and more ominous.

What I recently wrote about Iran is validated by Tobin.  (See 3 below.)
1) Here is a perspective by Dr. Peter Hammond.  Dr. Hammond's doctorate is in Theology.  He was born in Cape-town in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and
converted to Christianity in 1977. Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book:
Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..
Here's how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 3% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 2%
Australia -- Muslim 2.5%
Canada -- Muslim 2.8%
Norway -- Muslim 2.8%
China -- Muslim 2.9% 
Italy -- Muslim 2.5%
At 3% to 8%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major 
recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: 

Denmark -- Muslim 5% 
Germany -- Muslim 6.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 7.7%
Spain -- Muslim 8%
Thailand -- Muslim 7.6%
From 8% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on super- market chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: 

France -- Muslim 12% 
Philippines -- 9%
Sweden -- Muslim 8%
Switzerland -- Muslim 8.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 8.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 10.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.  The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 15% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.  In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: 

Guyana -- Muslim 15% 
India -- Muslim 19.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 18%
Russia -- Muslim 21%
After reaching 25%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burning of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%

Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7% 

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Joya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70% 

Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% 

Iran -- Muslim 98% 
Iraq -- Muslim 97% 
Jordan -- Muslim 92% 
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace..
Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:      
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos.
There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities..In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 2 billion Muslims make up 28% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's 
population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.

Fatah leader: Fatah and Hamas agree Israel has no right to exist

Fatah leader: 
“To this moment, Fatah does not recognize Israel”
Hamas leader: 
“Our principles say that our land is all of Palestine, including the land that is under occupation (i.e., Israel)” 
Talk about establishing a state in the West Bank and Gaza 
“is a tactical step”  
Fatah, which presents itself internationally as the moderate Palestinian faction, doesn't recognize Israel at all, and doesn't even hide this ideology. On official Palestinian Authority TV, Fatah Central Committee member and Commissioner of Treasury and Economy Muhammad Shtayyeh openly emphasized Fatah's refusal to recognize Israel:
“The Fatah Movement never demanded that Hamas recognize Israel. To this moment, Fatah does not recognize Israel. The topic of recognition of Israel has not been raised in any of Fatah's conferences.”
[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, March 26, 2017] 
So whereas Fatah and Hamas compete for political power, when it comes to Israel they do agree: Israel has no right to exist.
Discussing Hamas' new charter, which is purportedly under way, member of the Hamas movement's political bureau Mahmoud Al-Zahar stated on Lebanese TV that the mention in the charter of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is but “a tactical step,” and that Hamas continues to think that all of Israel is “Palestine”:
“Member of the Hamas movement's political bureau Mahmoud Al-Zahar emphasized… in an interview with the Lebanese [TV] channel Al-Mayadeen that is close to Hezbollah… that the new document that Hamas will publish does not constitute a new face, but rather explains the reality and fundamentals of the movement.
He said: 'Our principles say that our land is all of Palestine, including the land that is under occupation (i.e., Israel).' He also noted that the talk in the document about establishing a state in the West Bank and Gaza 'is a tactical step that does not harm the right of the Palestinians to all of the land of Palestine.' Al-Zahar continued: 'We are not a copy of Fatah. We are not a copy of a failed project.' He noted that only the Jews who occupied Palestine are the movement's enemies, and not all of the Jews.”
[Amad, independent Palestinian news website, March 28, 2017]
Palestinian Media Watch
 has reported that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in the past has stressed that Fatah and Hamas agree on all crucial issues:
Mahmoud Abbas: “There is no disagreement between us [Fatah and Hamas]: About belief? None! About policy? None! About resistance? None!” 
[Official PA TV Dec. 31, 2009]  
Abbas' advisor on religious affairs has emphasized that in addition to Fatah denying Israel's right to exist, Fatah agrees with Hamas that Islam “prohibits”Palestinians from accepting Israel's existence in any borders, on “even a millimeter” of land: 
Mahmoud Al-Habbash, Abbas' advisor, and head of Shari'ah courts: “According to Islamic Shari'ah law, the entire land of Palestine is waqf (i.e., an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic law) and is blessed land, and that it is prohibited to sell, bestow ownership or facilitate the occupation of even a millimeter of it.” 
[Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 22, 2014]  
Abbas' advisor on religious affairs was using almost the same words that appear in Hamas' current charter, article 11: 
“The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.” 
This ideology was repeated by official PA TV last year by another religious leader, the Head of the Waqf's Al-Aqsa Academy of Heritage and Antiquities Najeh Bakirat, who said: 
Every grain of soil in Palestine is ours… Haifa, and Jaffa, and Acre (i.e., all are cities in Israel). Every grain of soil in Palestine is part of the blessed Palestine, and holy Palestine which is a waqf (i.e., an inalienable religious endowment in Islamic law). Therefore it is forbidden to relinquish a single grain of its soil.”
[Official PA TV, Palestine in the Quran, June 11, 2016] 

3) Trump Isn’t Flip-Flopping on Iran
The administration is facing up to the implications of the mess Obama left behind.
By Jonathan S. Tobin 
When the Trump administration acknowledged this past week that Iran is currently in compliance with the nuclear deal concluded by its predecessor, the response from its critics was predictable. Obama administration veterans smirked and liberals guffawed at what they saw as yet another Trump flip-flop. The government led by the man who had damned the nuclear agreement as the worst negotiation in history was, they said, accepting that Obama’s gamble had worked.

Trump has done some 180-degree reversals on policy, but this isn’t one of them. Those who focus on Iranian compliance are missing the big picture about both the consequences of the nuclear deal and the chances for reversing the colossal mistake Obama made with Iran. As Trump and his foreign-policy team are realizing, the issue isn’t so much whether the letter of a deal that will expire within a decade is observed as it is what role Iran is playing in the region while its economy recovers and its nuclear program remains a long-term problem. The threatening talk from Washington isn’t a flimsy cover for a flip-flop. It’s a recognition that the Iranian threat was actually exacerbated by Obama’s gambit.

The argument from liberals about Trump’s stand on Iran rests on the assumption that if Tehran isn’t cheating, that proves it could be trusted to refrain from building nuclear weapons. If so, that justifies the decision to lift international sanctions and begin the process of reintegrating the Islamic republic into the global economy. Such a conclusion would give the lie to Republican campaign rhetoric. It would also mean subsequent statements from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denouncing Iranian actions and Trump’s claim at a press conference with the visiting Italian prime minister that Iran wasn’t complying with the “spirit” of the deal was just more empty talk that proved Republicans were wrong about the deal and prepared to tamely let Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement stand.

It’s not surprising that Iran is complying with the deal. Contrary to President Obama’s promises, the pact let Iran keep its nuclear infrastructure — including its most advanced equipment — and allowed it to keep enriching uranium. As even Obama was forced to acknowledge, Iran could still break out to create a weapon. If it doesn’t choose to do so now, it’s because it has already received the benefits from the pact — including renewed trade with Europe and a vast amount of cash in the frozen assets it has already been given — and can simply wait until it expires and then have the freedom to get a bomb while claiming — with justice — that the West has implicitly sanctioned that outcome. All Obama accomplished after years of negotiation and a steady stream of concessions is a piece of paper that, at best, kicks the nuclear can down the road, leaving his successors a problem without the leverage the 44th president abandoned in his desire to get a deal at any price.

More importantly, as Trump, Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis deal with other pressing problems, they’re beginning to realize the implications of Obama’s decision to decouple the nuclear question from other concerns about Iran’s behavior.

It was Obama’s State Department that, as late as 2016, continued to label Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its blatant violation of United Nations resolutions restricting its right to build and test ballistic missiles — which have little utility without nuclear warheads — as well as its military adventures in Syria and Yemen have created a situation in which, without the economic sanctions that Obama lifted, there is nothing to deter Tehran from pursuing its long-range goal of regional hegemony. Even if Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal is unquestioned, what Trump and his advisers are grasping is that their objectives of defeating ISIS and promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians will have little or no chance of success in an environment where Iran feels it can act with impunity.
It was Obama’s State Department that, as late as 2016, continued to label Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
This presents the Trump administration with an almost impossible dilemma.

No matter how flimsy the restrictions on Tehran’s program may be in the long run, Trump can’t tear up an agreement that is technically working. Nor has he much leverage to renegotiate, since America’s European allies, as well as Russia and China, won’t cooperate with such an effort and the Iranians have already been paid in full.

Just as important, Trump has a more pressing nuclear problem to deal with in North Korea. As that mad regime — which already has the nuclear weapons Iran seeks — conducts dangerous provocations, the administration badly needs the help of allies who have little interest in revisiting the pact signed in 2015. Seen in that light, Trump’s talk about Iran could be interpreted as simply blowing smoke on an issue that he knows he can’t resolve to America’s satisfaction. But rather than proving the impotence of Trump’s rhetoric, the confrontation with North Korea shows exactly why he shouldn’t shelve efforts to rethink Iran policy. North Korea’s success over the past two decades in deflecting Western and even Chinese efforts to prevent them from achieving their nuclear goal provides a daunting example of the inevitable result of attempts to buy off or appease rogue states.

But as high as the stakes are with North Korea, Washington’s problem with Iran shouldn’t be underestimated. North Korea can potentially set off a nuclear war if its unstable leader is willing to risk the survival of the communist state. Iran’s ability to throw its weight around in Syria, where its forces have, with Russian help, already secured the victory of the Assad regime in the civil war, makes it far more dangerous than it was when Obama began the nuclear talks. Tehran’s well-armed Hezbollah auxiliaries and its ties to radical Palestinian factions also give it a potential veto over any progress toward peace with Israel, despite Trump’s hopes that Sunni Arab states like Saudi Arabia could broker an agreement. Tehran’s strength will only grow as its economy recovers from the sanctions Obama lifted and as the day grows nearer when the nuclear pact will expire.

So when Trump and Tillerson say that in spite of Iran’s technical compliance with Obama’s pact, they intend to ratchet up pressure on Tehran, they are not merely attempting to distract us from an agreement they won’t tear up. Nor, despite the difficulties, are they without the ability to inflict pain on Iran.

The Iranians received a massive windfall in unfrozen assets and the gold rush for foreign businesses seeking to profit from the end of sanctions. But thanks to the refusal of a Republican Congress to repeal U.S. laws that impose penalties on entities doing business with Iran, the benefits of the deal have not been as great as Tehran hoped. That gives Trump the chance to make it even harder on Europeans looking for opportunities in Tehran. Moreover, Trump can help reshape the conversation about Iran by doing what Obama lacked the will to do: speak openly about Iran’s terror and missile violations and show a willingness to impose further penalties.

As is also true of the situations with North Korea and Syria and the impasse with the Palestinians, Trump is learning that there are no easy answers to the challenge posed by Iran. Rather than being a flip-flop, if the administration now understands that the problem is much bigger than a weak nuclear deal, that is the first step toward crafting a policy that seeks to make sense of the mess Obama left.

— Jonathan S. Tobin is the opinion editor of and a contributing writer for National Review Online. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin


No comments: