In Australia, Muslims Eye Senate Seats

The cartoon below, screenshot by Reader P soon after it appeared on Sunday (heaven knows how many "Likes" it may have by now) has no direct connection to the subject of this post, but I thought I'd display it in order to show the depths of depravity to which some people can sink following the atrocities in Paris.

An obscenity posted on Facebook

The founder of a so-called Australian Muslim Party, with its sights set on winning seats in the Senate, admits that his party's launch could have been better timed.  But after some hesitation he decided to go ahead anyway.

Whether the party will actually get off the ground, so to speak, is another matter, but the founder seems confident it will.

Here's a video (on the left-leaning The Age newspaper, no friend to Israel), in which the founder explains his motive and in which he makes a brief and possibly telling reference to "Palestine".

More in The Guardian.

It was surprising to see, on the Channel Ten News this evening, the urbane Dr Jamal Rifi, Sydney-based leader of and spokesman for the Muslim community, approve this divisive initiative.  If I heard him correctly, he said something along the lines of "It's acceptable; forming political parties is what we do in Muslim countries so why not here?"

Recently The Australian newspaper quoted Dr Rifi as saying that he and the Muslim community are "elated" at Malcolm Turnbull replacing Tony Abbott as prime minister, because Abbott's tough language had offended and alienated Muslims and played into radical hands.  Dr Rifi cited, inter alia, Abbott's decision to admit 12,000 refugees from Syria, but with priority given to Christians, as well as his frequent description of Islamic State as a "death cult" and use of the term "Team Australia," terms that Turnbull has evaded.

Staying with a Muslim theme, Robert Cerantonio is an Aussie of Irish/Italian Catholic heritage who dropped his baptismal name in favour of Musa following his conversion (I'm sorry, "reversion") to the Religion of Peace©

 Earlier this year the Sydney Morning Herald carried a lengthy article about him here

It seemed to present Mr Cerantonio as a bit of a buffoon, despite the authorities taking his Islamic radicalism far more seriously.

Also taking him seriously is American Graeme Wood, who in the course of a long article published last March entitled "What ISIS Really Wants," recalls his meeting with Mr Cerantonio in November last year, having been advised that he is .

'one of the two most important “new spiritual authorities” guiding foreigners to join the Islamic State...'

In an interview with Cerantonio in a multicultural neighbourhood of Melbourne where

 'young Arabs walking around in the Salafi uniform of scraggly beard, long shirt, and trousers ending halfway down the calves' 

Wood learned that Cerantonio

'hates seeing the violence, even though supporters of the Islamic State are required to endorse it. (He speaks out, controversially among jihadists, against suicide bombing, on the grounds that God forbids suicide; he differs from the Islamic State on a few other points as well.) ...

He continues:

Last June, Cerantonio and his wife tried to emigrate—he wouldn’t say to where (“It’s illegal to go to Syria,” he said cagily)—but they were caught en route, in the Philippines, and he was deported back to Australia for overstaying his visa. Australia has criminalized attempts to join or travel to the Islamic State, and has confiscated Cerantonio’s passport... If Cerantonio were caught facilitating the movement of individuals to the Islamic State, he would be imprisoned. So far, though, he is free—a technically unaffiliated ideologue who nonetheless speaks with what other jihadists have taken to be a reliable voice on matters of the Islamic State’s doctrine.

To learn what more Cerantonio said, and the rest of Graeme Wood's article, go to this link


Incidentally, regarding Muslims and their attitude to the Paris atrocities, a thought-provoking piece by a British Muslim here

David Singer: Security Council Permanent Members Herald Armed Action Against Islamic State

Photo of Assyrians in Teheran: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and internaional affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

An international conference in Vienna on 30 October – attended by all five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council – America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom – has made an important breakthrough towards defeating Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria and Iraq.
Together with Egypt, the EU, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Nations – the Permanent Members reached a mutual understanding that

“Da'esh (Islamic State), and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

This is the first time the five Permanent Members have reached such a consensus – acknowledging that prior measures not involving the use of armed force under Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 have failed to defeat Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups – a prerequisite before there can be any hope of restoring stability and reaching lasting political solutions in Syria and Iraq.

International co-operation to defeat Islamic State through a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force had previously risked being vetoed by either Russia or America in the face of earlier American objections against co-operating with any armed force which included President Assad’s troops. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, had declared as recently as 29 September. 

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

However, speaking at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry after the historic Vienna meeting,  Lavrov made an important concession to America’s stance of non-co-operation with Assad – opening the way for the passage of a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force under article 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter: of Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

“Russia is committed to fighting terrorism based on the solid basis of international law, whether we’re talking about the military interventions from air or the ground operations. These need to be conducted in agreement with the [Assad] government or with the UN Security Council.” 

Lavrov signalled an early end to the current separate American-led coalition and Russian-Iranian interventions in Syria aimed at defeating Islamic State: 

“I believe that neither the U.S. nor Russia want to go back to the so-called proxy war, but the fact that this situation makes the cooperation between the militaries ever more important is very apparent to me. We have a common enemy and we need to make sure that this enemy does not come to power in Syria or in any other country.” 

Agreement by the five Permanent Security Council Members calling for armed action by air, sea and land forces against Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups has now become a distinct possibility – meeting President Obama’s preferred position as expressed by him on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.” 

The Vienna participants reconvene within the next ten days to continue their crucial discussions.

Hopefully they will agree on pursuing the long-awaited and elusive Security Council Resolution authorising armed action  – with the long-suffering Syrian people being its ultimate beneficiaries after five horrific years of war, 250,000 deaths and millions being internally displaced and externally dispersed.

David Singer: Time to End The Reprehensible International Indifference To Islamic State Horrors

Entitled "Pope Calls On World To End Islamic State Barbarism", this is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

Pope Francis has considerably upped the ante in enlisting spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians – Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I – to sign a joint Common Declaration demanding an end to international indifference regarding Islamic State barbarism being perpetrated against religious minorities in Syria and Iraq.

The Common Declaration constitutes an impassioned plea on behalf of 1.2 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox Christians world-wide for concerted international action to eradicate Islamic State.

Whilst two seemingly indifferent Permanent UN Security Council members – Russia and China – and another 129 member States of the UN stand on the sidelines, an American-led coalition comprising the remaining 62 UN member states has been doing the heavy lifting confronting Islamic State outside United Nations' authorisation, prompting the Pope and Bartholomew to declare:  

“While recognizing the efforts already being made to offer assistance to the region, at the same time, we call on all those who bear responsibility for the destiny of peoples to deepen their commitment to suffering communities, and to enable them, including the Christian ones, to remain in their native land. We cannot resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who have professed the name of Jesus there for two thousand years. Many of our brothers and sisters are being persecuted and have been forced violently from their homes. It even seems that the value of human life has been lost, that the human person no longer matters and may be sacrificed to other interests. And, tragically, all this is met by the indifference of many.” 

The Pope and Bartholomew have demanded this shocking state of affairs be met by:  

“an appropriate response on the part of the international community.”

No nation should shirk from its duty to eradicate the threat Islamic State poses to the breakdown of world peace and security.  

“The grave challenges facing the world in the present situation require the solidarity of all people of good will”

Islamic State needed to be confronted by Muslims and Christians together:  

"Inspired by common values and strengthened by genuine fraternal sentiments, Muslims and Christians are called to work together for the sake of justice, peace and respect for the dignity and rights of every person, especially in those regions where they once lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence and now tragically suffer together the horrors of war" 

In a further pointed criticism of Russia,  the Declaration stated:  

“We also remember all the people who experience the sufferings of war. In particular, we pray for peace in Ukraine, a country of ancient Christian tradition, while we call upon all parties involved to pursue the path of dialogue and of respect for international law in order to bring an end to the conflict and allow all Ukrainians to live in harmony.”

The grim situation facing Christians in Iraq has been confirmed in a video released on the Orthodox Christian Network by Canon Andrew White, the Vicar of Baghdad.

Canon White – who was ordered to leave Iraq for his own safety by the Archbishop of Canterbury – speaks movingly of the plight of Christians there. Around 250,000 have been displaced by Islamic State in the north of the country – all that remained from the 1,500,000-strong Christian population.

He said:   

"Things were bad in Baghdad, there were bombs and shootings and our people were being killed, so many of our people fled back to Nineveh, their traditional home. It was safer, but then one day, ISIS – Islamic State. They came in and they hounded all of them out. They killed huge numbers, they chopped their children in half, they chopped their heads off, and they moved north and it was so terrible what happened."

Islamic State forced Christians to convert to Islam on pain of death, Canon White added.

He told of the fate of a group of Christian young people: 

"Islamic State turned up and said to the children, you say the words that you will follow Mohammed. The children, all under 15, four of them, said no, we love Yesua, we have always loved Yesua, we have always followed Yesua, Yesua has always been with us. They said, 'Say the words.' They said, 'No, we can't.' They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry."

Meanwhile US Secretary of State, John Kerry, was depressingly telling a meeting of the US-led coalition that the limited military action being undertaken against Islamic State could see the Coalition’s commitment being:  

“measured most likely in years …”

Kerry however left no doubt on the Coalition’s mission:  

“Our coalition does not summon hate, but rather the courage to build a future that is based on shared interests, shared values, and a shared faith in one another. That contrast in goals marks the dividing line between barbarism and civilization, and it explains both why we dare not fail and why we will succeed.”

The dividing lines have been drawn – demanding that every member state of the United Nations declares on which side it stands and what it will contribute towards eliminating Islamic State.

The international community needs to shed its present indifference and unanimously take up the call of the Pope and Bartholomew to put an end to the horrors represented by the Islamic State and those who are flocking to fight under its flag.

Time to end this reprehensible international indifference – and time to stop crying.

(Below is the Christian scholar Raymond Ibrahim talking about the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries and the western media's general apathy towards the situation, largely owing to a swallowing of Muslim propaganda against Israel and of the mischievous myth that Muslims are the underdogs, Christians the persecutors - D.A.)

David Singer On Why Obama's Plans To Destroy The Islamic State Seem Doomed To Failure

Here, entitled "Syria Hysteria Dooms Obama’s Plan To Destroy ISIL", is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

President Obama’s failed policies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt and the West Bank do not bode well for the success of the President’s current plans to end the threat to world peace posed by the meteoric rise of both the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF). That threat was articulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2701 – passed on 15 August – which expressed:

“its gravest concern that territory in parts of Iraq and Syria is under the control of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and Al Nusrah Front (ANF)“

Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council strongly condemned:

“the indiscriminate killing and deliberate targeting of civilians, numerous atrocities, mass executions and extrajudicial killings, including of soldiers, persecution of individuals and entire communities on the basis of their religion or belief, kidnapping of civilians, forced displacement of members of minority groups, killing and maiming of children, recruitment and use of children, rape and other forms of sexual violence, arbitrary detention, attacks on schools and hospitals, destruction of cultural and religious sites and obstructing the exercise of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to education, especially in the Syrian governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Deir ez-Zor, Aleppo and Idlib, in northern Iraq, especially in Tamim, Salaheddine and Niniveh Provinces;”

America has subsequently acted as though Resolution 2701 had never been passed. In his speech to the American nation on 11 September Obama declared:

'Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state… It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates.'

The President is wrong on both counts.

First, ISIL is Islamic – as its formal Declaration of Statehood on 29 June 2014 proclaims – and this analysis asserts:

“The Islamic State is not only a terrorist group. It is an extremist, Islamist, political and military organization that holds a radical interpretation of Islam as a political philosophy and seeks to impose that worldview by force on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Expelled from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, the Islamic State claims to be the legitimate ruler of all Sunni Muslims worldwide. They have established what they regard as a state which includes large swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq, governed from Raqqa in Syria.

It advances a number of theological opinions to support its claims. Its adherents hold that they are merely practising Islam fully, pronouncing those who disagree with them takfir (heretics).

This designation is used as religious justification for killing the Islamic State's opponents”

 Secondly, ISIL is a State – meeting the legal requirements of Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention:

“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Obama’s claim that ISIL is recognized by no other government is irrelevant – as Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention makes indisputably clear:

“The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."

Obama’s false assumptions are a recipe for policy failure – as the goals enunciated by Obama in the same address clearly demonstrated:

“Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.” 

Destroying the UN-condemned Al Nusrah Front did not rate a mention. A lukewarm response from 57 Islamic States to help defeat ISIL’s declared world threat to peace was not factored into Obama’s thinking.

Four days later an international conference held in Paris made it clear that Syria was not even part of the battleground where ISIL was to be confronted, degraded and destroyed.

Mouram Daoud – a member of the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change in Syria – an internal opposition coalition – opined that ISIL cannot be defeated militarily without Syria and Turkey’s backing:

“The US administration should first pressure the Turkish partner to stop the flow of jihadists through its airports and stop buying oil from IS. According to [United Nations] Resolution 2170, the US will not be able to strike IS sites in Syria without the approval of the Syrian government, which is eagerly awaiting this type of cooperation to restore its international legitimacy. 

 But the US will not include the Syrian government in this war, and will not recognize the government either. This means that the US will stick to its decision to only provide weapons to the Syrian [rebel] factions.”

 Obama’s mantra  – first delivered in August 2011 – remains unchanged:

“The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”

 Not even 200,000 deaths and the creation of millions of Syrian civilian refugees since 2011 have produced any momentum for rapprochement between Obama and Assad that would enable Assad to extend  – and Obama to accept – any invitation to confront ISIL in occupied Syria.

Any expectation that Assad and his backers – Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – will help Obama by destroying ISIL in Syria  – is a pipe dream.

Syria hysteria seems destined to entrap Obama in yet another political quagmire.