Is Iran's Rouhani A Change For The Better?

 

 By David Gerstman

It is nearly a year since Iran's President Hassan Rouhani spoke before the United Nations General Assembly.

Later this week he is scheduled to speak again before the General Assembly, but the enthusiasm expressed last year is nowhere to be seen.

In the run up to his speech there was much excitement among the chattering classes. Take, for example, a couple of paragraphs from an editorial in The New York Times from September 22, 2013, a year ago today:

The next few weeks will be critical for capitalizing on a new sense of promise created by a recent flurry of remarkable gestures: Iran’s leadership has sent Rosh Hashana greetings to Jews worldwide via Twitter, released political prisoners, exchanged letters through the Swiss with President Obama, praised “flexibility” in negotiations and transferred responsibility for nuclear negotiations from conservatives in the military to the Foreign Ministry. Mr. Obama eased restraints on humanitarian and good-will activities, including athletic exchanges between the two countries. ...

Mr. Rouhani has a sophisticated, Western-savvy team. His foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, received degrees from American universities and spent most of his adult life in the United States. Together they have raised expectations in a world eager to see Iran play a more constructive role, and the charm offensive is in full swing. Policy experts, journalists and business people are jockeying to attend a number of invitation-only breakfasts, dinners and meetings scheduled by Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Zarif while they are in New York. There’s a lot riding on their visit this week.

But the "remarkable gestures" that The New York Times cited were remarkable hollow.

Sure,  Rouhani wished Jews of the world a happy new year last year, but he also expressed his support of Hamas to defeat "the Zionist regime," and apparently re-established ties with Hamas.

Yes  Rouhani praised "flexibility" in nuclear negotiations but only demanded flexibility from the West. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran hasn't come clean about the scope of its nuclear program. (Not that Iran's record gave any hope that it would play by the rules.)

The released political prisoners were a sham; often harassed or re-arrested when they were no longer in the public eye. Irwin Cotler recently outlined how human rights have actually gotten worse under Rouhani.

 

It would be nice if, having bet on change, the editors of The New York Times would acknowledge that they judged Iran incorrectly.

The most generous interpretation is that Rouhani was simply window dressing; a kinder, gentler face on the real leader of the regime Ayatollah Khamenei. The more likely explanation is that Rouhani is every bit as extreme as the regime (he boasted of expanding Iran's enrichment capability when everyone claimed that he compromised in 2003) but is slightly more pragmatic in his willingness to deal with the West.

 

Instead of acknowledging that no real change has taken place in Iran, most of those who made the mistake are relatively silent. They know that the evidence proves them wrong, but they would prefer to ignore the evidence than to own up to their cheer-leading of one of the most disastrous foreign policy debacles of our time.

The Hypocrisy Of Obama And The EU's Concern For Human Rights

Both President Obama and the EU makes a huge amount of noise about human rights in the Middle East, especially when it happens to concern the most far fetched complaints against Israel, the only state in the region that actually operates under the western ideal of equal rule of law for all its citizens.

The primary human rights organization in the Arab Occupied areas of Judea and Samaria is the Palestinian Independent Commission For Human Rights(ICHR).

The ICHR recently published its own report citing the egregious human rights violations in both Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas' little reichlet.

During 2012, 11 of the Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians died in custody while rotting in jail in PA and Hamas custody. There were 306 complaints about torture. more than half of which came from Palestinians who had been detained or imprisoned by Abbas's PA security forces in Judea and Samaria.

Journalists who are even remotely critical of Abbas' regime have been especially targeted, and there continue to be cases of torture and even extra judicial executions for the crime of 'collaborating with Israel'. Selling land to a Jew (and the statute says 'Jew' not 'Israeli')  is a capital crime in the Palestinian Authority.

Of great interest is the reaction to this of the Obama Administration and the European Union, who fund the Palestinian Authority as well as providing substantial funds for Hamas in the guise of 'humanitarian aid'.

The Obama Administration has had no reaction at all to the report and completely ignored it.The EU missions in the region? They issued a statement 'expressing concern' but were happy with a vague pro forma statement by unelected PA President Mahmoud Abbas condemning torture in general as a “relevant and unambiguous response” and merely said “The EU will continue to promote support for human rights by all in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in particular through its regular dialogue with the Israeli authorities and the Palestinian Authority as well as support to Palestinian institutions and civil society.”

Mustn't leave a mention of those Israelis out, even though the report by the ICHR only talks about abuses by the PA and Hamas. Meanwhile, the EU response avoided referring to any of the cases documented in the ICHR report or saying anything about the report's accusations that Abbas's security forces are continuing to crack down on journalists and academics and ignore court rulings.

Instead, the EU merely gave Abbas a slap on the back and an 'attaboy' even though the torture of Arabs in PA and Hamas custody is continuing, and basic freedoms continue to be ignored.

The EU and the Obama Administration have been known to go into hysterics over Jews merely building houses in already establish communities in Jerusalem,Judea and Samaria,and one can only imagine what their response would be to documented cases of Israel ignoring Israeli court rulings, let alone torture of Arabs by the IDF. Yet their response to the PA and Hamas is essentially to ignore serious cases of human rights violations altogether while winking and saying 'boys will be boys'.

And of course, to keep the millions of dollars and euros in jizyah coming in to fund the PA and Hamas.

The EU's stance is easy to understand. Supporting 'Palestine' financially and politically and bashing Israel is a way of trying to calm those restless Arab populations they imported into their countries, although the Brits, the French and the Swedes might be starting to get a clue that buying peace for themselves isn't as easy as all that. Bullies who are successful always want more concessions. And more after that.

In President Obama's case, his stance has been consistent. He sees Israel as a 'problem' rather than an ally, was infected early on with the Leftist view of 'Palestine' and thinks that if America cozies up to Islamists and creates 'daylight' (his words, not mine) between Israel and the U.S., any problems America has with Islam and the Muslim world will magically disappear.And his administration is filled with like minded people.

What we have here is an interesting spectacle. The EU and President Obama are both known for their pious rhetoric on human rights. democracy and freedom. Yet they're willing look the other way  to fund,  aid and abet the creation of a state that is quite open about its intention to practice apartheid,  persecutes Christians and has sharia as the basis for its laws, supports terrorism, commits  serial human rights abuses,  and will be ruled by an unelected Arab dictator whose term expired four years ago.

Of course, in the case of both President Obama and the EU, there's another likely factor.

One of the classic definitions of racism and anti-semitism is when you create special rules and restrictions that apply to one select group of people and no one else.

You take it from there.

The Modern UK - Kidnapping Children for Their Parents 'Thought Crimes'

Question Britain's multiculturalism and the quasi-fascist beliefs of the ruling elite, and you risk having your child snatched away from you by the State to be more suitably indoctrinated.

As Paul Weston reveals in a great piece over at Gates of Vienna, that the reality in the UK today.And no, this is no mere hyperbole:

Multicultural Britain is becoming an ever more sinister country in which to live. I am pretty much immune to the totalitarian ideology of multiculturalism, but having said that, even I must confess to being shocked that the British state can now kidnap babies and children simply because their parents question the dictatorial and wholly unnatural orthodoxy of the ruling elites.

According to a recent article in The Daily Express, social workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s links to the English Defence League.

Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she poses a “risk of significant harm” to her baby because social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views.

To be fair, Ms McLeod is clearly not a graduate of the Cheltenham Ladies College. She has a bit of previous, as it is known in the argot of the criminal fraternity. Assaulting a police officer, setting her dog on an ex-boyfriend and alleged problems with drink and drugs are variously quoted in the article.

All in all, not the best qualifications for motherhood, but these are not the reasons behind the state sanctioned child-snatching. Ms McLeod has been presumed guilty of a far more serious crime than simply living her life as a result of liberalism’s catastrophic progressive policies.

Ms McLeod you see, is deemed a racist — and quite possibly a fascist to boot — both of which are ranked nowadays as the ultimate evil by the promoters of multiculturalism, who are trying desperately to hold together Britain’s rapidly fragmenting and fantastical multicultural Utopia.

The social worker’s report states: “Toni (Ms McLeod) clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off groups in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.”

Snatching children from parents who hold “inappropriate” political views is nothing new, although it normally requires a fully totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany or Communist Russia in order to be effected. I hope I am not alone in recognising how deeply sinister and frightening multicultural Britain has become when it seeks to emulate the ideology of such dictatorships.

To add to the irony, the child's father is a serving soldier in Afghanistan, who will be rewarded for doing his bit to fight jihad by having his child kidnapped by the state so the baby can be indoctrinated that there is no such thing. Or as Mr. Weston aptly puts it, dad is going to receive a campaign medal for fighting Islamism abroad while mom is going to have her child snatched by the state for fighting Islamism at home!

All is not totally lost however. From the Express article:

However, her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who, despite his loathing for the EDL, raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.

He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

“I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.” {...}

Mr Hemming, who chairs the Justice For Families campaign group, said yesterday: “This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.

“Toni now accepts she was wrong to have gone on EDL demonstrations but freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”

Mrs McLeod wants to move to ­Ireland for the birth to avoid England’s social services. Rifleman McLeod, 31, plans to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child.

Of course social Services would never dream of removing the children of a jihadi from their racist and violent parents. That wouldn't be politically correct!

When ordinary people who retain at least a sense of what it means to live in a free country feel they no longer have a political voice, they turn to other means to redress their grievances. Hopefully the tide can be turned before that happens.

Two American Hikers Finally Freed After Iran Receives $1 Million 'Bail'

American hikers Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer were finally released from Teheran's notorious Evin prison today after two years of imprisonment on espionage charges.

The pair were flown to Oman after a 'bail' of $500,000 apiece was paid to the Iranian government, which then commuted their sentences and will keep the money. In most circles, this would be referred to as paying ransom to kidnappers.

The families were there to greet the two released captives.

"Today can only be described as the best day of our lives," the families said in a statement. "We have waited for nearly 26 months for this moment and the joy and relief we feel at Shane and Josh's long-awaited freedom knows no bounds.

"We now all want nothing more than to wrap Shane and Josh in our arms, catch up on two lost years and make a new beginning, for them and for all of us."

Fattal and Bauer were arrested along with Sarah Shourd, Bauer's girl friend a little over two years ago when they accidentally strayed over the unmarked border with Kurdistan into Iran while on a trip in the region. Shourd was released a year ago on medical grounds...after paying a similar $500,000 'bail' of course.

The idea that these three were spies were absolutely ludicrous. None of them are fluent in Farsi (although Bauer speaks Arabic and is reportedly an Arabophile), were carrying none of the sort of advanced photographic or communications gear you would expect spies to have. And the trio were conducting their trip on a shoestring, staying in budget accommodations.

Another factor ruling out their being spies was that all three unreservedly `anti-Zionist', solidly pro-Palestinian and on the far, far Left to the point of almost being cartoonish. They also happened to be Jews, something I'm sure had a lot to do with their arrest and sentencing.

According to what the Iranian lawyer for Fattal and Bauer, Masoud Shafiee, told CNN, the $1 million 'bail' was paid by the Omani government, as was the $500,000 for Shourd. Since there's no rational reason for Oman to do so, what that means essentially is that the US government paid Iran a cool $1.5 mil in ransom money to get these three released, but used Oman as a conduit to avoid the appearance of dealing directly with Iran.

I'm certainly glad to see these people released from the clutches of the Mullahs, but I also remember when we had a very different policy towards Muslim states who kidnapped Americans.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The 'Palestinian' Plan For Jewish Holy Sites In Jerusalem

Fresh evidence, as if any more were needed that the 'Palestinian' intent is not peace, but Israel's destruction.

Unlike what they tell gullible western 'Palestinian' groupies, this is what gets pushed to the 'Palestinians' in their PA controlled media, in their mosques and in their schools.

Here's Palestinian Media Watch's translation:

"They [Israelis] know for certain that our [Palestinian] roots are deeper than their false history. We, from the balcony of our home, look out over [Islamic] holiness and on sin and filth (Jews' praying at Western Wall) in an area that used to have [Arab] people and homes.

We are drawing our new maps. When they [Israelis] disappear from the picture, like a forgotten chapter in the pages of our city's history, we will build in it a new (residential area). The Mughrabi Quarter will be built here (on the Western Wall Plaza)."

If the 'Palestinians' ever get their hands on the Old City of Jerusalem, they will demolish all Jewish Holy Sites (the Western Wall is the holiest site in Judaism), destroy all evidence of the Jews historical presence in the Holy Land and use the Western Wall for a housing project. Or as this official 'Palestinian' documentary puts it, they will get rid of the 'sin and filth' - the Jews.

Any country endorsing statehood for the 'Palestinians' is de facto endorsing this agenda.


Nor is this just an isolated bit of unpleasantness. This sort of thing gets repeated, day in and day in, and the majority of Palestinians live for the dream of "iqbal al-Yahud!" - the slaughtering of the Jews.

And of course, the Obama Administration has nothing to say about this - they're too busy having condemning Israel over building homes and badly infrastructure in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

This is the entire crux of the conflict between Israel and the 'Palestinians' in a nutshell. The 'Palestinians' demand respect from others, but have none for anyone else. They demand that their rights be recognized, but seek to deny them to others. Any they expect people to behave humanely to them while literally salivating at thoughts of theft and massacre.

That inability to live next to Jews in peace and equality is the main issue. If it didn't exist, none of the others would matter.

Sooner or later, the Israelis will be forced to deal with this problem themselves, whether they want to or not.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

The 'Human Rights' Community Refuses To Call For Gilad Shalit's Release

A large part of the so-called Human Rights community - including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - issued a statement dated June 24th, 2011 to mark the five year anniversary of the Hamas raid into Israeli territory which resulted in the kidnapping of wounded Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who remains in captivity to this day.

Shalit has been held for ransom incognito, with no contact allowed by the International Red Cross, no contact allowed with his family and no information about the conditions he's being held under and no signs that he's even still alive, except for Hamas' say so. When th eInternational Committe of the Red Cross asked Hamas for a sign of life, the only thing they got was a few photos that could have been taken years ago.

The 'Human Rights' community issued a statement today that's morally despicable, considering the harsh criticism given to Israel at every opportunity by the groups who signed on to it.

There's nothing condemning Hamas for engaging in kidnapping and holding a human being for ransom, and no call whatsoever for his release. The only thing they're calling for is for a slight improvement in the conditions under which he's being held, saying that Hamas should enable him to communicate with his family and should grant him access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, things that any civilized society understands,which ought to tell you something about Hamas. Or for that matter, about the 'Palestinian Authority', which not only hasn't called for Shalit's release but said that they were going to assume the role of holding him hostage as part of the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement, so they could get in on some of the ransom.

These so-called human rights groups claim to care about international law, but are strangely silent about it being against international law to raid a sovereign state to kidnap its citizens.

By doing so, they're revealing their true agenda, and are signing on to the Hamas position that there's no difference between Gilad Shalit and the 'Palestinian' terrorists held in Israeli jails.

In fact, those differences are substantial.

Virtually all of the 'Palestinian' prisoners in Israeli jails were apprehended for planning, aiding or executing horrendous attacks on Israeli civilians. And all of them were tried and convicted in Israeli civilian courts, with lawyers provided to them by the Israeli government free of charge. Some of the details of these attacks are astounding in their inhumane and wanton brutality, and they would be classified as crimes against humanity if the victims were other than Israelis.

Gilad Shalit, on the other hand, was deliberately kidnapped Mafia-style as a hostage to swap for the freedom of these murderers. He was never givien a trial or even the most basic of rights usually accorded prisoners. He's simply a crime victim, abducted by a vicious criminal gang, and he's being held for ransom...if indeed he's still alive.

The fact that these 'human rights groups' refuse to recognize this and refuse to call for his immediate release is the worst and most shameful hypocrisy imaginable.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!