Showing posts with label UN Resoltion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Resoltion. Show all posts

Friday, October 9, 2009

Islamophobes want to ban "anti Freedom of Religion" UN Resolution

Petition: Free to Believe - NO to suppression of religious freedom
08 October 2009

This is a crucial year in the fight to preserve religious freedom worldwide. The Defamation of Religions Resolution seeks to criminalize words or actions as attacks against a particular religion, namely Islam.

As incredible as it sounds, passing this resolution could allow a Christian to be persecuted under UN approval. We need you to voice your protest of this resolution by

signing the petition / More about this campaign

Thank you for participating in the "Free to Believe" campaign against the UN resolution that can increase persecution against those who disagree with or criticize Islam and even those who are merely accused of these actions.

Together we can protect the freedom to believe.

Source: EuropeNews



Tuesday, May 5, 2009

(ENG) Palestine & Israel: 2 States - (ITA) Palestina e Israele: 2 Stati

(ENG) Treaty 'The 2 States' Solution'
There is Nothing New Under the Sun
March 31, 2009 Eli E. Hertz

In 1947 the British put the future of western Palestine into the hands of the United Nations, the successor organization to the League of Nations which had established the Mandate for Palestine. A UN Commission recommended partitioning what was left of the original Mandate - western Palestine, into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab.

The UN Partition Plan
- (Resolution 181), was a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine - Eretz-Israel whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties - Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33 - 12, with 10 abstentions. Among the supporters were both the United States and the Soviet Union, and other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against the vision of the two state solution promising to defy its implementation by force.
Aware of Arabs’ past aggression, the resolution, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to:

“… determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” [italics by author]

The ones who sought to alter by force the settlement envisioned in the two state solutions were the Arabs, who threatened bloodshed if the UN were to adopt the Resolution:

“The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.

“Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. … The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say.”1 [italics by author]
Arabs’ intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted:

“Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 of July 7, 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine.”2

The Partition Plan of 1947 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandatory and by international commissions, plans designed to reach a historic compromise between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in western Palestine. Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation.
The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before the resolution was brought to a vote.
Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the Partition Plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation a ’still birth.’
The UN Palestine Commission’s report dated February 16, 1948 (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort

“To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly’s plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory [Eretz-Israel].”

Attempts by Palestinian Arabs to ‘roll back the clock’ and resuscitate Resolution 181 - the ‘original’ two state solution - ‘as if nothing had happened’ are a baseless ploy designed to use the resolution as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack Israel with even less defendable borders. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive behavior.
Unfortunately, the world community has been ignoring the prospect that a full-blown independent Palestinian state will become just the kind of rogue state and a home to renegade organizations the world is grappling with today.
In light of the Arab Palestinians’ history of violence, incitement against Jews, and its poor performance coping with limited freedom or autonomy - the equivalent of a ‘half-way house’ to test their readiness to join the family of nations is in order. Considering the support (rather than pressure to ‘toe the line’) that Palestinians enjoy in the international arena, Palestinian independence could very well turn into a genuine nightmare.

[1] United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948. See: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10923.htm. (10923)
[2] See among others, Security Council Resolution S/RES/ 54 (1948) at: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10894.htm. (10894)

Source: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/the-partition-plan-and-the-two-state-solution.html

(ITA) Trattato 'La Soluzione dei 2 Stati'

La Verità potrebbe non sempre vincere, ma è sempre corretta!’ – Eli E. Hertz

Il Piano di ripartizione "soluzione dei due Stati"
Niente di nuovo sotto il sole
31 marzo, 2009 Eli E. Hertz - MythsAndFacts.org
Nel 1947 i britannici hanno messo il futuro della Palestina occidentale nelle mani delle Nazioni Unite, che sono successe alla Lega delle Nazioni che aveva stabilito il Mandato di Palestina.Una Commissione delle Nazioni Unite ha raccomandato la partizione di quanto restava del Mandato originale - la Palestina occidentale da dividere in due Stati, uno ebreo e uno arabo.Il Piano di ripatizione (Risoluzione 181) era una raccomandazione NON vincolante - 'Eretz Israel', la cui implementazione dipendeva dall'accettazione di entrambi le Parti - gli arabi palestinesi e gli ebrei palestinesi.La Risoluzione è stata adottata il 29 novembre 1947, con un voto di 33 favorevoli contro 12 contrari dell'Assemblea Generale, e 10 astenuti.

Fra i favorevoli c'erano Stati Uniti e Unione Sovietica e altre Nazioni, incluse Francia e Australia. Le Nazioni arabe, incluse Egitto, Siria, Iraq e Arabia Saudita hanno denunciato il Piano all'Assemblea Generale e hanno votato in blocco contro la Soluzione dei due Stati, sostendendo che [in loro favore] avrebbero usato la forza.Consapevoli delle passate aggressioni arabe, la Risoluzione, al Paragrafo C, chiede al Concilio di Sicurezza di:

"... definire quale minaccia alla pace, rottura della pace o atto di aggressione, in accordo all'Articolo 39 della Carta, ogni tentativo di alterare con la forza l'insediamento previsto da questa Risoluzione." [grassetto dell'autore]

Coloro che avrebbero usato la forza per alterare l'insediamento previsto nella Soluzione dei due Stati, sono stati gli arabi, che hanno minacciato uno spargimento di sangue se le Nazioni Unite avessero adottato la Risoluzione:"

Il Governo[britannico] di Palestina teme che le lotte in Palestina potrebbero essere molto intensificate al termine del Mandato, e che lo status internazionale delle Nazioni Unite non significherà molto o significherà nulla per gli arabi in Palestina, per cui l'uccisione degli ebrei ora trascende qualsiasi altra considerazione."

"Perciò, la Commissione dovrà affrontare il problema di come evitare certi spargimenti di sangue ben maggiori di quelli che avvengono ora. (...) Gli arabi hanno detto piuttosto chiaramente al Governo palestinese che non si propongono di collaborare o assistere la Commissione, e che, lontano da ciò, propongono di attaccare e impedire il suo lavoro in ogni modo possibile. Non abbiamo ragione di credere che non intendano [fare] quello che dicono."1 [grassetto dell'autore]

Le intenzioni e le azioni arabe non sono migliorate dopo l'applicazione della Risoluzione 181:

"Si considera che il Governo provvisorio di Israele ha accettato il principio di prolungamneto di tregua in Palestina; che gli Stati Membri della Lega araba hanno rigettato successivi appelli del Mediatore delle Nazioni Unite, e del Concilio di Sicurezza nella sua Risoluzione 53 del 7 luglio 1948, per il prolungamento della tregua in Palestina; e che c'è stato un conseguente sviluppo delle rinnovate ostilità in Palestina."2

Il Piano di partizione del 1947 è stato l'ultimo di una serie di raccomandazioni emesse nel corso di anni dal detentore del Mandato e da Commissioni internazionali, pliani designati a raggiungere lo storico compromesso fra arabi palestinesi e ebrei palestinesi in Palestina occidentale. Ogni schema dal 1922 è stato rigettato da parte araba, incluso quello decisamente pro-arabo, perchè questi Piani riconoscevano gli ebrei quali Nazione e davano ai cittadini ebrei del Mandato di Palestina una rappresentanza politica.

Il Piano di partizione è stato rigettato da parte araba non solo verbalmente ma anche concretamente, in modo bellicoso per bloccare l'implementazione e distruggere la Comunità ebraica con la forza delle armi, un obiettivi che gli arabi dichiararono pubblicamente persino prima che la Risoluzione fosse portata al voto.Gli arabi non solo hanno rigettato il compromesso per prevenire lo stabilimento di uno Stato ebraico ma hanno anche bloccato lo stabilimento di uno Stato arabo sotto il Piano di partizione, non solo prima della Guerra israeliana d'indipendenza, ma anche dopo la Guerra, quando essi stessi controllavano il West Bank (1948-1967), rendendo le raccomandazioni 'ancora da far nascere'.

La Commissione di Palestina delle Nazioni Unite riporta il 16 febbraio 1948 (A/AC.21/9) al Concilio di Sicurezza di allora che le ostilità condotte dagli arabi erano uno sforzo"per prevenire l'implementazione del Piano di partizione dell'Assemblea [Generale], e per ostacolare i suoi obiettivi tramite minacce e atti di violenza, incluse incursioni armate nel Territorio palestinese [Eretz Israel].

"Tentativi degli arabi palestinesi di 'far tornare indietro l'orologio' e resuscitare la Risoluzione 181 - la Soluzione 'originale' dei due Stati - 'come se non fosse successo nulla', sono uno stratagemma senza fondamento designato ad usare la Risoluzione quale leva per causare un gran prelievo di parti della Palestina israeliana occidentale e guadagnare una base più vasta da cui continuare ad attaccare Israele, con confini pure meno difendibili. Sia i palestinesi che i loro oppositori arabi nei Paesi vicini, hanno reso il Piano nullo e vano tramite il loro successivo comportamento aggressivo.

Sfortunatamente, la Comunità mondiale ha mancato di prospettare che l'esplosione di uno Stato palestinese, si sarebbe trasformata nel tipo di Stato canaglia e nella Casa di Organizzazioni rinnegate, con cui il Mondo è alle prese Oggi.Alla luce della Storia arabo palestinese di violenza, di incitamento contro gli ebrei, e di sua povera produzione, avente a che fare con libertà o autonomia limitate - come avere una 'mezza casa' - il risultato dell'esame di sua prontezza a raggiungere la famiglia delle Nazioni, è chiaro.Considerando il supporto (piuttosto che 'il fiato sul collo') di cui i palestinesi godono nell'arena internazionale, l'indipendenza della Palestina potrebbe trasformarsi in un vero incubo.

[1] United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, 29 gennaio 1948. Vedere: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10923.htm. (10923)
[2] Vedere fra altri, Security Council Resolution S/RES/ 54 (1948) su: www.mefacts.com/cache/html/un-resolutions/10894.htm. (10894)

Source: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/the-partition-plan-and-the-two-state-solution.html

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Push to criminalise criticism of Islam

OIC
Christopher Hitchens | March 09

THE Muslim religion makes unusually large claims for itself. All religions do this, of course, in that they claim to know and to be able to interpret the wishes of a supreme being.

But Islam affirms itself as the last and final revelation of God's word, the consummation of all the mere glimpses of the truth vouchsafed to all the foregoing faiths, available by way of the unimprovable, immaculate text of "the recitation", or Koran.

If there sometimes seems to be something implicitly absolutist or even totalitarian in such claims, it may result not from a fundamentalist reading of the holy book but from the religion itself.

And it is the so-called mainstream Muslims, grouped in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, who are now demanding through the UN that Islam not only be allowed to make such absolutist claims, but that it be officially shielded from any criticism as a result.

Although written tongue-in-cheek in the language of human rights and of opposition to discrimination, the non-binding UN Resolution 62/154, on "combating defamation of religions", seeks to extend protection not to humans but to opinions and to ideas, granting only the latter immunity from being "offended".

The preamble is jam-packed with hypocrisies that are hardly even laughable, as in this delicious paragraph, stating that the UN General Assembly: "Underlining the importance of increasing contacts at all levels in order to deepen dialogue and reinforce understanding among different cultures, religions, beliefs and civilisations, and welcoming in this regard the Declaration and Program of Action adopted by the Ministerial Meeting on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Tehran on September 3 and 4, 2007."

Yes, I think we can see where we are going with that. The stipulations that follow this turgid preamble are even more tendentious, and become more so as the resolution unfolds.

For example, paragraph five "expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism", while paragraph six "notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001".

You see how the trick is pulled? In the same weeks this resolution comes up for its annual renewal at the UN, its chief sponsor-government (Pakistan) makes an agreement with the local Taliban forces to close girls' schools in the Swat Valley region (a mere 150km or so from the capital in Islamabad) and subject the inhabitants to sharia law.

And this capitulation comes in direct response to a campaign of horrific violence and intimidation, including public beheadings.

Yet the religion of those who carry out the campaign is not to be mentioned, lest it "associate" that faith with human rights violations or terrorism. In paragraph six, an obvious attempt is being made to confuse ethnicity with religious allegiance. Indeed this insinuation (incidentally dismissing the faith-based criminality of September 11 as merely tragic) is in fact essential to the entire scheme. If religion and race can be run together, then the condemnations that racism axiomatically attracts can be surreptitiously extended to religion, too.

This is clumsy, but it works: the useless and meaningless term Islamophobia, now widely used as a bludgeon of moral blackmail, is testimony to its success.

Just to be clear, a phobia is an irrational and unconquerable fear or dislike. However, some of us can explain with relative calm why we think faith is the most overrated of the virtues. (Don't be calling us phobic unless you want us to start whining that we have been offended.)

And this whole picture would be much less muddied and confused if the state of Pakistan, say, did not make the absurd and many-times discredited assertion that religion can be the basis of a nationality. It is such crude amalgamations -- is a Saudi or Pakistani being profiled because of his religion or his ethnicity? -- that are responsible for any overlap between religion and race. And it might help if the Muslim hadith did not prescribe the death penalty for anyone trying to abandon Islam; one could then be surer who was a sincere believer and who was not, or (as with the veil or the chador in the case of female adherents) who was a volunteer and who was being coerced by her family.

Rather than attempt to put its house in order or to confront such grave questions as the mass murder of Shia Muslims by Sunni Muslims (and vice versa), or the desecration of Muslim holy sites by Muslim gangsters, or the discrimination against Ahmadi Muslims by other Muslims, the UN resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-enlightenment democracy, where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions.

See where the language of paragraph 10 of the resolution is taking us. Having briefly offered lip service to the rights of free expression, it goes on to say that "the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."

The thought buried in this awful, wooden prose is as ugly as the language in which it is expressed: watch what you say, because our declared intention is to criminalise opinions that differ with the one true faith. Let nobody say that they have not been warned.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist with Slate.

Source: The Australian


FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Followers

Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved. E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
Stop Honorcide!



Latest Recipients of
The Dhimmi Award
Dr. Phil
George Casey


The Dhimmi Award


Previous Recipients of
The Dhimmi Award




Latest Recipient of the
World-Class Hypocrite Award
Mainstream Media


World-Class Hypocrite Award


Previous Recipients of the
World-Class Hypocrite Award




Latest Recipient of the
MASH Award
Dr. Arash Hejazi


MASH Award


Previous Recipients of the
MASH Award




Latest Recipient of the
Yellow Rag Award
CNN


Yellow Rag Award


Previous Recipients of the
Yellow Rag Award




Latest Recipient of
The Face of Evil Award
Nidal Malik Hasan


The Face of Evil Award


Previous Recipients of
The Face of Evil Award




Latest Recipients of the
Distinguished Islamofascist Award
ADC, CAIR, MAS


Distinguished Islamofascist Award


Previous Recipients of the
Distinguished Islamofascist Award




Latest Recipient of the
Goebbels-Warner Award
ISNA


Goebbels-Warner Award


Previous Recipients of the
Goebbels-Warner Award




Muslm Mafia



Latest Recipient of the
Evil Dumbass Award
Somali Pirates


Evil Dumbass Award


Previous Recipients of the
Evil Dumbass Award




Insane P.I. Bill Warner
Learn about
Anti-MASH
Defamation Campaign

by Internet Thugs




Latest Recipient of the
Retarded Rabbi Award
Shmuley Boteach


Retarded Rabbi Award


Previous Recipients of the
Retarded Rabbi Award




Latest Recipient of the
Mad Mullah Award
Omar Bakri Muhammed


Mad Mullah Award


Previous Recipients of the
Mad Mullah Award




Stop Sharia Now!
ACT! For America




Latest Recipient of the
Demented Priest Award
Desmond Tutu


Demented Priest Award


Previous Recipients of the
Demented Priest Award




Egyptian Gaza Initiative

Egyptian Gaza




Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members. Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.



HONORARY MEMBERS
of

Muslims Against Sharia
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
Hasan Mahmud

ANTI-FASCISTS of ISLAM
Prominent.Moderate.Muslims
Tewfik Allal
Ali Alyami & Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Zeyno Baran
Brigitte Bardet
Dr. Suliman Bashear
British Muslims
for Secular Democracy

Center for Islamic Pluralism
Tarek Fatah
Farid Ghadry &
Reform Party of Syria

Dr. Tawfik Hamid
Jamal Hasan
Tarek Heggy
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser &
American Islamic
Forum for Democracy

Sheikh Muhammed Hisham
Kabbani & Islamic
Supreme Council of America

Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh
Nibras Kazimi
Naser Khader &
The Association
of Democratic Muslims

Mufti Muhammedgali Khuzin
Shiraz Maher
Irshad Manji
Salim Mansur
Maajid Nawaz
Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi
& Cultural Institute of the
Italian Islamic Community and
the Italian Muslim Assembly

Arifur Rahman
Raheel Raza
Imad Sa'ad
Secular Islam Summit
Mohamed Sifaoui
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha
Amir Taheri
Ghows Zalmay
Supna Zaidi &
Islamist Watch /
Muslim World Today /
Council For Democracy And Tolerance
Prominent ex-Muslims
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Zachariah Anani
Nonie Darwish
Abul Kasem
Hossain Salahuddin
Kamal Saleem
Walid Shoebat
Ali Sina & Faith Freedom
Dr. Wafa Sultan
Ibn Warraq

Defend Freedom of Speech

ISLAMIC FASCISTS
Islamists claiming to be Moderates
American Islamic Group
American Muslim Alliance
American Muslim Council
Al Hedayah Islamic Center (TX)
BestMuslimSites.com
Canadian Islamic Congress
Canadian Muslim Union
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Dar Elsalam Islamic Center (TX)
DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc. (TX)
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (Closed)
Ed Husain & Quilliam Foundation
Islamic Association for Palestine (Closed)
Islamic Association of Tarrant County (TX)
Islamic Center of Charlotte (NC) & Jibril Hough
Islamic Center of Irving (TX)
Islamic Circle of North America
Islamic Cultural Workshop
Islamic Society of Arlington (TX)
Islamic Society of North America
Masjid At-Taqwa
Muqtedar Khan
Muslim American Society
Muslim American Society of Dallas (TX)
Muslim Arab Youth Association (Closed)
Muslim Council of Britain
Muslims for Progressive Values
Muslim Public Affairs Council
Muslim Public Affairs Council (UK)
Muslim Students Association
National Association of Muslim Women
Yusuf al Qaradawi
Wikio - Top Blogs