In this mailing:

  • Raymond Ibrahim: "Jihadists Martyred Him for Refusing to Renounce Jesus Christ": The Persecution of Christians, February 2020
  • Denis MacEoin: Why Do Liberals Dismiss President Trump's Peace Plan Out of Hand?
  • Amir Taheri: The Pitfalls of a Shady Peace in Afghanistan

"Jihadists Martyred Him for Refusing to Renounce Jesus Christ": The Persecution of Christians, February 2020

by Raymond Ibrahim  •  April 12, 2020 at 5:00 am

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
  • Saleem Masih, a 22-year-old Christian farmhand, was tortured and killed for using his Muslim employer's water well.... The employer later insisted that he had committed no crime; it was the murdered Christian who had "committed a crime by dirtying" their water, his murderer insisted, and therefore his punishment — torture and death — was "justified." — CLAAS, February 28, Pakistan.

  • "Are we to deny the evidence before us, of kidnappers separating Muslims from infidels or compelling Christians to convert or die?" — Matthew Hassan Kukah, Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Zenit.org, February 12, 2020, Nigeria.

  • "Christians are losing everything they own without an actual legal basis. They are losing everything Christians have worked for over the course of history." — Fr. Slavomir Dadas, Aid to the Church in Need, February 6, 2020, Turkey.

  • "Another Christian girl aged 14 was recently abducted and gang-raped by some Muslim youths... The abductors not only raped her but also obtained her signatures and thumb impressions on some papers." Although police recovered her, the rights activist "fears the suspects will use her signed documents to produce a fake marriage certificate and religion conversion letter in a bid to escape abduction and rape charges," which, he said, "is common modus operandi of Muslims to confuse the court and avoid justice." — Napoleon Qayyum, executive director of the Pakistan Center of Law of Justice, Morningstar News, February 12, 2020, Pakistan.

In Trabzon, Turkey, locals interrupted the burial of a Christian woman — in part by shouting, "Allahu Akbar!" — at the cemetery of the Santa Maria Catholic Church on January 18, 2020. On February 14, her grave was found desecrated, its wooden cross broken and burned. Pictured: The funeral of 60 year old Italian Catholic priest Andrea Santoro at Santa Maria on February 6, 2006. Santoro was shot and murdered at the church by a 16-year-old. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

The Slaughter of Christians

Burkina Faso: On Sunday, February 16, Islamic gunmen raided a church during service and slaughtered 24 worshippers, including their pastor; 18 other congregants were injured and several others kidnapped. The terrorists torched the church building before leaving.

In a separate incident on February 10, militant Muslims abducted and slaughtered a church pastor, his son, two nephews, and another Christian clergyman. According to yet another report on February 3:

"Jihadists, claiming to be killing 'in the name of Allah,' returned to the scene of a previous atrocity ... and murdered at least ten Christian men in a village market place; some estimates have put the death toll as high as 50."

Continue Reading Article

Why Do Liberals Dismiss President Trump's Peace Plan Out of Hand?

by Denis MacEoin  •  April 12, 2020 at 4:30 am

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
  • While it is morally right to help any community or individual unjustly persecuted or forced to live in squalor, the historical record shows that Israel did not launch the wars against it, nor inspire terrorism, nor perpetuate the multi-generational refugee crisis, nor force Palestinians to remain in camps without citizenship in Lebanon, Syria, or (partly) in Jordan.

  • We must ask why so many secular liberals, Christians, and a minority of Jews do not grasp that negotiations based on... Islamic law can never play any role in current international law and can never bring peace to the Middle East. This longing to replace Western law with Islamic law inspires not just Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, and, as we have seen, the entire Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

  • It is the Jews, not the Arabs, who have been for 3,000 years, the indigenous people on that land, and it has been the Arabs, not the Jews, who are the settler-colonialists in the territory. Arabs first entered Palestine in and after the year 634, when it was invaded by Muslim conquerors -- a fact recognized by every Islamic history down the centuries.

  • "Other stateless peoples can only dream of being offered independence and $50bn by the US president... offers of a kind that Chechens, Kurds, Baluchis, Tibetans and dozens of other stateless people would have jumped at." — Tom Gross, journalist, Mideast Dispatch Archive, January 30, 2020.

After 1949, about one million Jews were driven by force out of their centuries-old homes across the Middle East and North Africa (to a lesser extent from Morocco). Unlike the Palestinians, they have never been compensated for this loss. Pictured: An Israeli maabara refugee camp for Jews who were expelled from Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, circa 1950. (Image source: Jewish Agency for Israel/Wikimedia Commons)

It was inevitable that liberal politicians, pundits and media would speedily find fault with Donald Trump and Jared Kushner's plan for peace in the Middle East, proclaimed as the "Deal of the Century". So inevitable, in fact, that the plan was condemned years before it was actually announced in 2020.

As far back as May 2017, US President Donald J. Trump had met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington, offered, to get a peace deal and had asked Abbas to end the "pay-for-slay" system of payments to families of terrorist prisoners in Israeli gaols. On May 26, 2017, The New York Times ran an op-ed by PLO representative Diana Buttu in which she dismissed any plan to bring peace, while blaming every problem faced by the Palestinians on Israel and its presence in the West Bank.

Continue Reading Article

The Pitfalls of a Shady Peace in Afghanistan

by Amir Taheri  •  April 12, 2020 at 4:00 am

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Telegram Send Print
  • There are several fundamental problems with the "deal" touted by the administration as a ticket to peace in a land torn by war since the 1970s. To start with, it is not at all certain that the cast of characters that negotiated the "deal" actually do represent the Taliban.... Like the Mafia in Italy, it included a large number of "families" who came together... to set up an "Islamic emirate...." Today, we could identify a dozen groups of different sizes claiming the brand.... The only thing that unites the cartel members is a common dream to recapture Kabul and restore the "emirate" that allowed them to rule their patches of territory as they pleased.

  • The "deal" itself is a model of dangerous naiveté. It aims at exchanging something tangible and easily verifiable, that is to say the withdrawal of American troops, against something intangible and not easily verifiable in the form of a promise to prevent terrorist acts against American interests. More importantly, there is no mechanism for making the Taliban dealmakers pay for failure to honor it.

  • Any peace deal should be aimed at finding a place for them within the new Afghanistan, not the other way around, that is to say reshaping this new Afghanistan the way the mullahs want. They should disarm, accept the constitutional frame and seek a share of power through the ballot box.

  • Next, despite zigzags, the new Afghanistan, though cumbersome, corrupt and chaotic is stumbling forward on the right path; it is far better, or less bad, than anything the Taliban could or would offer.... The US won the war and the Taliban lost. The only way to peace, since the start of history, has been for those who lost to submit to the will of those who won.

It is not at all certain that the cast of characters that negotiated the "peace deal" in Afghanistan actually do represent the Taliban. In fact, we have had a dozen statements, often on social media, by other shady characters who claim the "dealmakers" do not speak for the movement. Pictured: Afghan Taliban gunmen and villagers celebrate the deal between the US and the Taliban, in Laghman Province, Afghanistan, on March 2, 2020. (Photo by Boorullah Shirzada/AFP via Getty Images)

Even before he entered the White House, Donald Trump insisted that, as president, he would avoid the policies that led to some of his predecessor Barack Obama's glaring foreign policy failures. And, yet, he now seems set to pursue one of those failed policies with gusto by embarking on what could lead to a premature disengagement from Afghanistan.

Always enamored of the term "deal", Trump has dubbed the policy a "peace deal" with the Taliban, or a bunch of shady characters presenting themselves as leaders of the outfit that once dominated Afghanistan.

Under the "deal," the US undertakes to withdraw its remaining troops in Afghanistan within 135 days in exchange for a promise by the Taliban to fight terrorist groups that might threaten America's interests or national security.

There are several fundamental problems with the "deal" touted by the administration as a ticket to peace in a land torn by war since the 1970s.

Continue Reading Article

Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Donate
Copyright © Gatestone Institute, All rights reserved.

You are subscribed to this list as [email protected]

You can change how you receive these emails:
Update your subscription preferences or Unsubscribe from this list

Gatestone Institute
14 East 60 St., Suite 705, New York, NY 10022