Levitt Letter Extra News

www.omegaletter.com

In the world according to the UN, the world’s two worst serial human rights abusers are the United States of America and the State of Israel. More UN resolutions have been passed condemning Israel than any other state — far more than those passed against all Islamic states — including Saddam’s Iraq — combined.

There are 52 Islamic states. But of the 700-plus General Assembly resolutions passed since the UN’s 1945 establishment, nearly 450 condemn Israel. There are 190 nations in the United Nations. And over sixty percent of all General Assembly resolutions condemn just ONE member, Israel!

Here are a few examples of the kinds of Israeli actions worthy of global condemnation:

• General Assembly Resolution 250 “calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.”
• General Assembly Resolution 251 “deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.”
• General Assembly Resolution 252 “declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as her capital”
• General Assembly Resolution 271 “condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”
• General Assembly Resolution 476 “reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are null and void”
• General Assembly Resolution 673 “deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations”

In 2002, the State of Israel voted WITH the United States in 92.6% of all matters the US put before the UN. It is instructive to compare Israel’s loyalty to Washington with some of America’s other ‘allies’. Great Britain, our allegedly ‘closest’ ally, voted WITH the US about 60% of the time. Australia 56% France about 54%. Neighbor and trading partner Canada voted with the US about 49% of the time. America’s second largest trading partner, Japan, sided with Washington about 42% of the time. As to our Islamic and Arab ‘allies’, the UAE voted AGAINST the US 88% of the time. The Saudis, 90%. Pakistan, 87%. Egypt (who receives $2 billion in annual US aid) 86%.

Jordan, representing ‘moderate’ Islam, votes against the US at the UN 88% of the time. In May, 2001, the United States was kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission. Amnesty International concluded in its 2002 report to the UN that the United States “leads the world in human rights violations since September 2001.”

It is important to remember that, while the UN Security Council passed resolutions demanding Saddam’s compliance with existing resolutions, the General Assembly has NEVER issued a condemnation of an Arab state, including Saddam’s Iraq. Sudan held a seat on the UNHRC while simultaneously conducting genocide against its non-Islamic population.

The same year the UN kicked the US off the UNHRC, it elected Khadaffi’s Libya (33–3) to serve as the Commission’s chair. The United Nations opposed the US invasion of Iraq, claiming the invasion was an ‘illegal violation of the UN Charter’ — a position it maintains to the present time.

One can hear it repeated in virtually every liberal news report. What is buried, however, is the UN’s multi-billion dollar stake in keeping Saddam in power and the Oil-For-Food money flowing into the UN’s unregulated ‘trust’ fund. China, France, Germany and Russia led the opposition, demanding that the UN be allowed to continue its ‘peaceful, diplomatic efforts’ — something else that makes nearly every liberal news report dealing with the events leading up to the war.

What doesn’t get mentioned is that China, France, Germany and Russia were all up to their necks in illegal deals with Saddam Hussein. US forces found brand-new German chemical-warfare suits, brand-new French communication equipment, brand-new Chinese and Russian military equipment, and even some brand-new GPS jammers that would confuse US smart bombs into hitting the wrong targets.

In the interests of global international relations, Washington is keeping a low-profile about the serial violations of existing UN sanctions by our ‘allies’ and the UN’s rape of Iraq’s treasury. America’s only genuine ally is Israel. Israel’s only genuine ally is America. Interestingly, they are the only two nations denying what is, to the rest of the world, conventional wisdom.

Assessment: Both the United States and Israel are bucking a stacked deck when it comes to the international community. In the case of the Sudan, it took the UN almost four years to acknowledge that an Islamic regime wiping out it’s non-Islamic population was a human rights violation. So far, the UN has done nothing except talk about it as the massacres continue unabated. In the case of the United States, the UN has concluded that Guantanamo Bay is a place where “illegally held detainees are routinely tortured” and no less a personage than Kofi Annan himself has demanded the prison be closed.

The report was issued by a UN group who refused to even visit Guantanamo Bay when invited to do so by the Pentagon. In its refusal, the UN gave some bizarre explanation that visiting Gitmo would “contravene UN principles of human rights investigations.” The investigators particularly denounced the use of excessive violence, citing photographs that show how detainees were shackled, chained, hooded and forced to wear earphones and goggles. Since none of them ever visiting Gitmo, the investigators don’t know if the photos were OF Gitmo, but that doesn’t matter, since the UN declined to identify the source of the pictures in the first place.

“They also showed beating, kicking, punching, but also stripping and forced shaving of detainees who resisted,” the report said. “It is of particular concern that some of these violations have even been authorized by the authorities,” the report claimed without citing specific evidence. The investigators also mentioned ‘plentiful evidence’ (again, never specified,) that prisoners suffered serious mental health problems. Remember, the UN never visited. The source of the ‘plentiful evidence’ is evidently former detainees whose credibility the UN accepted without question.

There is one Jewish state in the UN. Its only ally is a nation widely criticized as the world’s only Christian nation. There are fifty-two Islamic states, with the remainder being avowedly secular. Virtually ALL of them stand in lockstep opposition to both Israel and the United States. The press calls it a ‘coming war of civilizations’ — but only someone with an incredible capacity for self-delusion could fail to recognize it as a war between the God of the Bible and the god of Islam.

The prophet Daniel had received his vision of the ‘Seventy Weeks’ (see “Daniel’s Seventieth Week”) but it greatly troubled him. “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks.” (Daniel 10:1-2)

Daniel had seen a vision of the antichrist’s peace deal with Israel, and his abrogation of it halfway through. He prayed and fasted for three weeks as he waited for the angel to return to complete the vision. When the revealing Angel returned, he explained he had been held up in battle with the ‘Prince of Persia’ [Iran] until “Michael one of the chief princes, came to help me…” (Daniel 10:33) The Angel further reveals that Michael is “the great prince which standeth for the children of thy (Daniel’s) people.” (the Jews) (Daniel 12:1) But Daniel was concerned about the unveiling of the antichrist, an event Daniel acknowledges “was true, but the time appointed was long.”

Daniel’s understanding of the vision was delayed by the Prince of Persia. On the other end of the timeline, in this generation, we are like Daniel in that respect. Daniel was sick about the events of the tribulation as revealed to him. He waited for an explanation of the event itself, just as we are waiting for that event to take place in this generation. But the revelation to Daniel was stalled by conflict with the Prince of Persia.

On this end of the timeline, the current Prince of Persia (President Ahmadinejad of Iran) has outlined his intent to use nuclear war to start the conflict he believes will bring about the return of the Mahdi, whom Islamic scholars identify as the rider on the white horse of Revelation 6:3. The rider on the white horse of Revelation 6:3 is the same coming prince that threw Daniel into a three-week depression.

What about Daniel’s Revealing Angel? Daniel describes Him thusly: “His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.” (Daniel 10:6)

John describes the risen Christ in Revelation 1:13-15: “…One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire; And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters.” America is the world’s national Christian representative, in this generation, whether Americans want to accept the title or not.

And Daniel’s Revealing Angel is the pre Incarnate Christ, the Head of the Church, according to the Apostle John. Israel is the world’s national Jewish representative. Israel’s guardian, as revealed by the pre-Incarnate Christ, is the archangel Michael.

America and Israel are the two most hated nations on earth, currently locked in an existential war with Islam, ‘the prince of Persia.’ There is no other nation on earth that ‘holds with’ the United States at the UN with the consistent reliability of the Israelis. Now, take all this information and plug it into Daniel 10:21 and see what YOU come up with. “But I will shew thee that which is noted in the Scripture of Truth: and there is none that holdeth with Me in these things, but Michael your prince.”

The deck is stacked, all right. But against the other side.

By Daniel Pipes,
www.jewishworldreview.com

“Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.” I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.

That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

Until his would-be murderous rampage, Taheri-azar, a philosophy and psychology major, had an apparently normal existence and promising future. In high school, he had been student council president and a member of the National Honor Society. A number of UNC students told the Los Angeles Times that he “was a serious student, shy but friendly.” One fellow student, Brian Copeland, “was impressed with his knowledge of classical Western thought, adding “He was kind and gentle, rather than aggressive and violent.” The university chancellor, James Moeser, called him a good student, if “totally a loner, introverted and into himself.”

In fact, no one who knew him said a bad word about him, which is important, for it signals that he is not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person. Which raises the obvious question: why would a regular person try to kill a random assortment of students? Taheri-azar’s post-arrest remarks offer some clues.

• He told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.”
• He explained to a detective that “people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States['] turn to be killed.”
• He said he acted to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.”
• He portrayed his actions as “an eye for an eye.”
• A police affidavit notes that “Taheri-azar repeatedly said that the United States Government had been killing his people across the sea and that he decided to attack.”
• He told a judge, “I’m thankful you’re here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah.”

In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn. It’s not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the 9/11 hijackers, the London transport bombers, and Maher Hawash, the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mohammed Ali Alayed, the Saudi living in Houston fits, the pattern because he stabbed and murdered Ariel Sellouk, a Jewish man who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since 9/11.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the “new antisemitism,” or “Islamophobia” is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of “Germanophobia” or anti-Communists of “Russophobia.” Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of “infidels.”

TEHRAN (AP) Iran’s supreme leader ordered the country’s diplomats on March 14 to defend the country’s nuclear program, saying any retreat would undermine the country’s independence and Tehran’s other foreign policy goals.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue … as breaking the country’s independence which will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation,” state television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as telling diplomats brought home from Iran’s embassies across the world for consultations with Iranian leaders.

His comments echoed those of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vowed to resist pressure from the U.N. Security Council to back down.

The five veto-wielding members of the council – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France – have been weighing proposals to persuade Iran to respond to concerns about its nuclear program. They were to resume their talks at the U.N. headquarters in New York.

The United States and its European allies want Iran to permanently abandon uranium enrichment and all related activities, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for reactors or materials for a nuclear bomb. Iran denies any intention to build weapons, saying it only wants to produce energy.

China expressed optimism that negotiations could still resolve the dispute, calling on Tehran to cooperate.

“Now there is still room to solve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang. “We hope Iran can cooperate closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency and do more to build up mutual confidence to help reach a solution.”

But Iran’s president said Iraq would not abandon its drive to produce nuclear fuel by what he called the harsh statements and pressures by Washington and its allies.

“Rest assured that the technology to produce nuclear fuel today is in the hands of the youth of this land and no power can take it back from us,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech attended by thousands in northern Iran. The crowd responded with chants of “nuclear energy is our right.”

The United States and its allies, he said, are angry because Iran has made progress in its nuclear program.

“Today, unfortunately, few big powers want, through coercion and bullying, prevent progress of nations… They are really angry that this great nation (Iran) is gaining access to the peaks of progress and development.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw warned that Iran’s government is taking the country in the “wrong direction,” repressing its own people and pursuing confrontation abroad.

Britain, France, Germany and the United States successfully pressed the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report Iran to the Security Council last week after Tehran resumed nuclear research and small-scale uranium enrichment.

Iran has insisted it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. It restarted research-scale uranium enrichment in February, two years after voluntarily freezing the program during talks with Germany, Britain and France.

It also has threatened to start large-scale uranium enrichment if the council imposes any sanctions on the country. Iran only has an experimental nuclear research program and scientists say the Muslim nation is months away from resolving technical problems to launch any large-scale uranium enrichment.

IN early March, Iran offered what it called a “final proposal” to agree to suspend large-scale enrichment temporarily in return for IAEA recognition of its right to continue research-scale enrichment.