web analytics
August 20, 2014 / 24 Av, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Organization of Islamic Cooperation’

Will American Envoy to OIC Address Islamists Snatching Students?

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

Rashad Hussain is America’s Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. You didn’t know the U.S. had an envoy to that special group which already dominates the United Nations? Well, it does.

Hussain will be in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on June 18-19 for the OIC’s Annual Meeting of their foreign ministers. The press release sent out by the State Department was vague on the specifics: “The ministerial will cover a range of issues involving the Muslim world and the OIC’s continuing efforts to work with international partners to address a number of global challenges.”

On an OIC website addressing the upcoming OIC foreign ministers gathering, the first issue of concern to be discussed at the meeting is “the Cause of ‘Palestine’ and the Middle East.”

Here’s guessing the esteemed ministers will not be addressing the challenge presented by Islamists kidnapping three innocent Israeli teenagers. Maybe that’s too much to hope for, but will they discuss the nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by different Islamist genocidal terrorists?

Is it too much to hope that at least one of those issues is on the OIC’s agenda, especially as the United States has its own envoy to the body?

It sure looks that way.

Israel Caves on its UN Human Rights Council Boycott

Tuesday, October 29th, 2013

It took less than a year and a half, but Israel has backed down from its position of refusing to submit its neck for the certain sharpened knife to fall: the Jewish State announced through its prime minister that it will appear before the United Nations Human Rights Council and will allow that much- and justly-maligned body pronounce on its human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review for all member nations.

The UPR was created by the same UN General Assembly resolution in March, 2006, which created the Human Rights Council. Through the UPR, each member state declares what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their own countries, and how they fulfil their human rights obligations. Of course, as far as the UN HRC and most of its member states is concerned, the process is designed to “ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.”

Except, of course, when it comes to Israel.

In March, 2012, Israel withdrew its participation from the UN Human Rights Council’s periodic review of human rights records of member states because it had habitually been singled out for unfair and utterly unbalanced review of its behavior, while its enemies have been treated with kid gloves despite years of relentless state-sponsored and state-supported terrorism against the Jewish State.

But after repeated public and relentless behind the scenes pressure, the boycott has ended.

That pressure included haranguing, vengeful floor statements at a meeting of the HRC on June 7, 2013, by representatives of many members states, including that of the United States, that Israel must cooperate with the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. There have also been reports of extra-body communications, such as a strongly worded communique directly from Germany warning of a dire diplomatic backlash unless Israel return to the fold.

And so, Israel indeed folded.

The statements by members at that June 7 meeting were remarkable given the human rights violators who had the temerity to insist that Israel bow its head before the HRC.

First, in an official statement, “Palestine” said it appreciated the efforts of the president of the HRC to “protect the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the integrity of the Human Rights Council in the face of the unprecedented non-cooperation and non-compliance of Israel.” Palestine urged Israel to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and said that an exchange of letters was not sufficient to count as engagement. Palestine said it regarded the Universal Periodic Review deadline set by the President as final and binding.

And that universal supporter of human rights and all things good and fair, Cuba, condemned Israel for boycotting the Universal Periodic Review, and said that “the attitude of Israel was deplorable and unacceptable.”

Tunisia, as was the case with most of the Arab and Muslim groups, could not even bring itself to mention the name of the Jewish State, and instead merely “regretted the continuing attitude of the country under review,” referring to that state as engaging in “persistent non-cooperation.”  As far as Tunisia was concerned, the HRC should no longer even negotiate with the recalcitrant state.

Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, Algeria claimed that its group was committed to the Universal Periodic Review’s “transparency, objectivity, equal treatment and non-selectivity.” The Arab Group also stated that the (unnamed) non-cooperating entity’s behavior was unacceptable, and stressed the importance of protecting the credibility of the HRC.

Pakistan, representing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, charged Israel’s “persistent non-compliance” as a “serious breach of United Nations system expectations” and it too suggested that the UPR should go ahead as planned whether or not Israel chose to be present.

Israel’s announcement that it would participate in its review at the seventeenth session of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review, came less than 48 hours before that process is to begin, on Tuesday, October 29, in Geneva.

Israel is still prevented from joining the Human Rights Council because it is denied a place in any regional group of nations, and the geographic groups are the entities from which HRC members are selected.  Given its location, Israel should be a part of the Asian Nations Group, as are its neighboring states. But Israel is barred from belonging to that group because the Arab nations within that bloc oppose Israel’s membership.

US Envoy to Top Islamic Group Taking Muslims to Holocaust Sites

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Rashad Hussain will join newly appointed Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Ira Forman, Ambassador Mike Kozak, and imams from around the world for a trip to Poland May 20-22 to visit Jewish communities, the site of the former Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and other Holocaust historical sites.

The trip follows up on Special Envoy Hussain’s visit to Holocaust historical sites with previous Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal and American imams in 2010, and is a part of Special Envoy Hussain’s efforts to combat Holocaust denial and to address discrimination against religious minorities around the world.

For the record, Rashad Hussain is a nice guy. He comes from a family of Muslim-Indian academics (dad a mining engineer, mom and sister MDs, brother medical student). Rashad is an over achiever (got his BA in two years, was editor of the Yale Law Journal). I wish and pray all Muslims were like him (he was born in Wyoming and was raised in Texas, by the way—can you get any more red-blooded American than that?).

The problem isn’t with Rashad Hussain, but with the OIC, which has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, and represents the world views of bastions of liberalism like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

The OIC is credited with the violence that erupted around the planet in 2005, in reaction to some Danish newspaper that published cartoons making fun of Mohammed. The extraordinary session convened the Islamic Summit Conference condemned the publication of the cartoons, which was followed by the violent demonstrations throughout the Islamic world, and a few recorded deaths. Until the OIC pointed out the cartoons, no one had heard about them.

It’s that kind of a restrained, citizen of the world kind of concern that led major Human Rights NGOs to send the OIC’s Ambassador Masood Khan a letter protesting remarks the delivered before the UN Human Rights Council, attacking Holocaust survivors for their role in “Defamation of Religions.”

Turn on your crazyscopes, this is what Amb. Khan said: “In many instances Holocaust survivors, instead of promoting [religious] harmony, are campaigning against Muslim symbols in the Western world. They should be the most ardent advocates against discrimination. Islamophobia is also a cruel form of Anti-Semitism.”

The NGOs told Khan:

We are unaware of any such “campaigning” by Holocaust survivors. Moreover, even if it were true that individuals were engaged in such an alleged effort, it would constitute unjustifiable stereotyping to label an entire group — particularly survivors of a genocide — on the basis of the alleged actions of a few.

We believe that Holocaust survivors, elderly men and women who are often frail and suffering from illness, are deserving of our sympathy and respect, not denigration in a speech at the United Nations.

So, if the very talented Rashad Hussain is able to drag at least some of these insane folks to the site of Auschwitz-Birkenau and if just a couple of them realize the magnitude of the industrial annihilation of Jews—it would possibly endow them with a new perspective on their relationship with Jews and the Jewish State.

Or—God help me—give them new ideas…

Incidentally, Amb. Khan is one of those public Muslim figures claiming he can’t possibly be an antisemite, since he is himself a Semite. This tired excuse, created more than a hundred years ago by Jew hating Arabs, is the true mark of a scoundrel.

Good luck on your version of the March of the Living, Rashad Hussain, go easy on the pierogi.

Listen to Me: Islam Does Not Command War Against Jews

Sunday, January 6th, 2013

In an op. ed. piece for the Jewish Press, I cited from the Qur’an to show that war is an exceptional matter for Muslims, an unwanted obligation to be fulfilled in limited circumstances, and for defensive purposes only.

In response, I’ve been denounced and accused of being a Trojan horse, the wolf trying to devour Little Red Riding Hood, of not being a Muslim or being the worst kind of liar, misguided, deceiver, of practicing taqiyya, of disseminating propaganda with the intention of deceiving Israelis & Westerners, of using jihadist tactics in disguise, etc.

The most moderate reaction has been that I am young, naive… and don’t know my religion and the real world.

Despite the criticism, I stand behind my words, and I say further that Hamas or any other Islamic group that uses violence against civilians is doing wrong according to the Qur’an and that Jews, Christians, and Muslims must and can live co-exist together in harmony and peace. The reactions to my statements have been along the following lines: “What about the jihad verses in Qur’an? What about taqiyyah? What about abrogation of the verses which counsel peace?”

Let me clarify these misconceptions about Islam so that there is no excuse for warmongers and those who wish to shed oceans of blood.

War and violence in the Holy Books - Admittedly, there are commandments about war in the Qur’an, and those verses pertain to self-defense. The Tanakh and the Gospel also contain provisions about war and violence, and there are verses full of killing, especially in the Torah. The passages about war in those are, just as with the Qur’an, in regard to self-defense. The Torah and the Gospel command peace and love, and contain commandments about love and affection too. A person of love will interpret that in one way, and a cruel person in another. One can interpret it truly if one looks at it sincerely. For instance the Gospel speaks of blood up to the manes of the horses; it speaks of nobody being saved apart from 144,000 Jews. These are actually metaphorical and must be elucidated within the general tone of the Gospel, which is one of love and affection prevailing. But if someone insists on interpreting it in terms of violence, if he adds additional things to it out of his own mind, then a climate of violence will of course ensue. But a real Jew or a real Christian would never murder innocent people simply because there exists verses regarding killings in their Holy Books. In the same way, people who will look at Islam and the Qur’an through the eyes of love will not come up with violent interpretations.

Dictators against Prophets’ divine message - Let us not forget that the Prophet Mohammed was a prophet who sought to spread the pure faith of the Prophet Abraham, which is faith in God, the One and Only and ascribing no equals to Him, in a pagan society which had been dominated by idol worship. Like many prophets whose names appear in the Tanakh, the Prophet Mohammad has been commissioned for transmitting the message of God. It was impossible for the prophets to make any concessions on this, and they carried the true message, even at the cost of their own lives, to the most extreme leaders of their times and the most perverse communities. Conveying this message sometimes meant to oppose the tyrant Nimrod, as in the case of the Prophet Abraham, and sometimes to oppose dictators such as Pharaoh, as with the Prophet Moses. At all such times, believers found opposition from people who sought to take their lives. Despite circumstances where no one enjoyed freedom of expression, all the prophets communicated God’s message without regard to the cost. And this is no different in Islam as well.

War (qital) and jihad are not the same - The basic claim of the accusations and reactions trying to portray Islam as violent -God forbid- is that there are verses about jihad in the Qur’an and that these speak of killing. First and foremost, jihad and war are entirely different concepts: Jihad is not synonymous with holy war, as some misguided people think. Jihad means rather exertion, which is to strive, to make effort toward some object identified to the will of God as revealed in the Qur’an. Some worthy objects of jihad include strife against one’s egoistic passions, or to make an intellectual challenge against irreligion, radicalism or fanaticism. One convinces people with scientific and intellectual evidence. To expose the signs of God’s existence, to convey His revelation, to explain the malice of atheistic ideologies etc… These are the legitimate objects of the “jihad” for a Muslim, not beating someone about the head, killing someone or forcing a person to embrace Islam as an act of coercion.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/listen-to-me-islam-does-not-command-war-against-jews/2013/01/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: