Poor Arabs, being ruled by apes and pigs

Post came from the elder I had missed this lovely speech given by an elected member of the PA parliament, Hamas member Fathi Hammad, on Al-Aqsa TV last January. It just has so much good stuff that it deserves a wider audience:

The wounded men have sacrificed themselves in defense of the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation, and in defense of the holy places. They have sacrificed parts of their bodies in order to stop the advance of the Jews, who want to uproot you. As you know, the Israeli flag has a star between two blue lines. They want to establish the state of Israel between the Euphrates and the Nile. The Jews want to invade Egypt and Iraq, to destroy Saudi Arabia, and to return to Khaybar.

This is a perfect example of Muslim projection. Muslims believe that every land they ever ruled must remain Muslim forever and that they will come back to conquer it. Since Khaybar was once a Jewish province in what is now Saudi Arabia, it is logical that Arabs think that Jews are pining to avenge their loss of that land to Mohammed in 628 – exactly like many Muslims ache to return to Andalusia, Spain.

Where is your valor? Stop being such cowards. The time has come for you to awaken from this deep slumber. The time has come for your honor, dignity, and valor to awaken. Where are you, Muslims? Are you monotheistic, or not? Are you Muslims, or not? Do you love Allah, or not? Do you love the Prophet, or not? As a sign of your love for Allah and the Prophet, you should sweep away the borders, which were created by imperialism.

Notice again that Hamas is consistent in not desiring a Palestinian Arab state but a pan-Islamic ‘ummah.

We are in need of weapons, we are in need of food, we are in need of moral support, as well as support by the media, economic support, medical aid, and support in weapons.

Notice the priorities! And it seems he mentioned one of those priorities twice, just to get the point across.

Therefore, oh Arabs, who number 300 million, you cannot allow yourselves to be ruled by four million brothers of apes and pigs. Where is your nobility? Aren’t you ashamed of yourselves? Where are you, oh Muslims, who number one and a half billion, yet you are ruled by four million brothers of apes and pigs?

The hilarious part is that he is describing himself as being ruled by the hated, despised and weak Jews, giving the Jews far more real power than they have ever sought themselves.

Where is your manliness? Where is your nobility? You stand there like women and do not lift a finger. What is the meaning of this apathy? What is the meaning of this cowardice? What is the meaning of this fear?[…]Your armies have become like women, who hide and cannot lift a finger. Your armies, tanks, and planes have become rusty.

The consistent posturing of masculinity is also funny. By putting the conflict in terms of manliness, he is admitting that Israel has made the Arabs look like women in comparison. This is of course a major source of their anger – their emasculation by the hated Jews – but for all of their bluster, they themselves admit it unwittingly in speeches like these. By trying to arouse an animal-like instinctive reaction from his listeners, he is actually insulting them and strengthening the case that they are in fact inferior. Rather than frame the fiery speech in terms of how good Arab culture and the Islamic nation are, he instead unwittingly tells his audience that they are failures, lower in the evolutionary scale than apes and pigs.This is really a great speech. Watch it to see his frothing anger as he accidentally admits that he and his people cannot compete in today’s world.

Islam for Kids

Post is from Konservo’s blog 

: Here’s what the video leaves out:

He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried. Text found here

The prophet told Khalid to “be gentle” after he had just given the command to stone the woman.Now that is compassion.

Why I wouldn’t vote for Obama

Ted Belman

My post Obama will win the nomination but lose the election got a lot of attention and caused quite a stir. It informed about his views on Israel, his church and its connection to SABEEL and Farrakhan, his pastor, his statements in his book and his association with the Palestinian cause and much more.I got many emails accusing me of conducting a smear campaign, making arguments that were “nonsense” or “bullshit” and so on. Some attempted to convince me he was no different on Israel than the other candidates and was really a good guy.Today, a new video of Pastor Wright delivering a sermon hit YouTube.In it he said “Barak knows what it means to be a poor, black man in a country and culture controlled by rich white men”. He went on to draw a parallel with Jesus who was a “black man” in a country controlled by white men (Romans). And I thought Jesus was a white Jew.This sermon, and all the others that we read about, preach the same message. It is enshrined in the mission statement of Trinity United Church of Christ which Wright heads and to which Obama belongs. The mission statement includes the following“There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity . James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone’s groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement.”ABC NEWS carried the story under the title, Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11WSJ just published a new article by Ron Kessler entitled Obama and the Minister. He draws the same conclusions I do.It is too late for Obama to disavow such preachings. After all he chose this church twenty years ago and remained there ever since imbibing on the sermons. During this time he wrote two books which provide ample evidence that he shares such views. We set out a number of quotes in Obama: Why are the MSM and his opponents not on to it“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school” “I studied the Koran..”” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”“The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”“I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”This is a church that honoured Louis Farrakhan.You can decide whether that makes Obama a racist or at least prejudiced. America needs a president of all the people, one who is American first and colour blind. Wright in his sermon said “Obama doesn’t fit the mold”. I agree.What’s more, Obama’s Church is Connected to Sabeel and Naim AteekThe Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is troubled by the United Church of Christ’s continuing partnership with the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, a radicalized Palestinian Christian group whose leaders have openly questioned Israel’s right to exist.Beyond that, Ralph Nader, who hates Israel, said the Obama was always pro-Palestinian. He raised money for Palestinian causes and was friends with Edward Said.So under no stretch could I believe that Obama is pro-Israel. At best he advocates “an even handed approach” which, as we know, is a euphemism for favouring the Palestinians.It is a safe bet that Obama thinks that the Israel lobby is too strong as set out in The Israel Lobby. His crowd generally does. He didn’t hire Samantha Power, who embraces such view, for nothing. In essence the book argues that America should shake itself lose from the lobby’s influence and act in America’s interests rather than Israel’s. It ignores the reality that America supports Israel, to the extent that it does, because it is in America’s interest to do so or because the US and Israel are allies or have shared values.The Left, of which Power and Obama are part, wants to further abandon Israel so it makes the argument that “the Jews” are controlling the US to create a backlash.An Obama presidency would also be a disaster for US foreign policy. He wants to remove US troops from Iraq within a year, though he is beginning to fudge on that. He wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad and settle differences. He even suggested invading Pakistan. Like others on the left he is soft on terror and terrorists.No doubt people of like mind will vote for him. I wouldn’t. McCain recognizes the threats the US faces and is committed to dealing with them though I don’t like his respect for Baker who is a known enemy of the Jews.At least McCain would be obligated to his base which is pro-Israel, whereas Obama’s base is anything but.Now Obama’s mantra is “Change”. I shudder to think of what change he has in mind.His financial dealings and support is now coming to light which may also have a negative effect.It is for all these reasons, that I don’t believe that Middle America will vote for him. It is also why I wouldn’t vote for him.Ted Belman

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud: “

(FOX News) The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

‘Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,’ Coleman said.

‘Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,’ Coleman said. ‘I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.’

More…

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Top al Qaeda Figure Mohammad Rahim In Custody – Assisted bin Laden in 2001 Escape

Top al Qaeda Figure Mohammad Rahim In Custody – Assisted bin Laden in 2001 Escape: “

Authorities have captured a high-level Al Qaeda figure who helped Usama bin Laden escape from Afghanistan in 2001, the Pentagon announced Friday.

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to say when or where Mohammad Rahim was captured or by whom announcing only that he was handed over by the CIA to the Pentagon earlier this week and is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a memo, CIA Director Michael Hayden told agency employees that Rahim was detained in the summer of 2007.

‘Rahim is a tough, seasoned jihadist,’ Hayden said. ‘His combat experience, which dates back to the 1980s, includes plots against US and Afghan targets.’

Rahim is a close associate of bin Laden and has ties to Al Qaeda organizations throughout the Middle East, Whitman said.

He said Rahim helped prepare the Al Qaeda hideout at Tora Bora — a mountain area full of warrens used by bin Laden during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. He assisted Al Qaeda’s escape from the area during the U.S. operation to try to catch the Al Qaeda leader, officials said.

‘Rahim’s detention in the summer of 2007 was a blow to more than one terrorist network,’ Hayden said. ‘He gave aid to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other anti-Coalition militants.

Post from: Homeland Security National Terror Alert

Top al Qaeda Figure Mohammad Rahim In Custody – Assisted bin Laden in 2001 Escape

Share This

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Hamas owns up privately to Jerusalem yeshiva murders, plots more

Exclusive: Hamas owns up privately to Jerusalem yeshiva murders, plots more: “

DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that, in private conversations, top Hamas commanders are discussing the March 8 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, which left eight students dead. They are plotting to follow it up with similar terrorist atrocities while slowing down missile and rocket attacks from Gaza.

Our sources disclose the three strategic decisions taken by Hamas leaders for the near future:

“

1. To give the Gaza ceasefire understanding a chance to take hold. Jihad Islami and the Popular Resistance Committees were responsible for the 26-missile barrage fired Thursday, March 13. One of Hamas’ top men Siad Siyam warned the two groups that it was time to stop shooting and adhere to Hamas’ “resistance” strategy.
2. This requires a halt in missile and rocket fire against Israeli targets – provided that the informal negotiations brokered by Egypt made progress towards Hamas’ goals of reopening the Rafah border terminal between Gaza and Sinai and ending Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-ruled territory. Failing progress in the coming days, Hamas will go back to – and intensify – the rocket attacks on Ashkelon and missile fire on Sderot.
3. Hamas plans more high-profile terrorist attacks inside Israel on the lines of the yeshiva massacre, which they regard as a model to be followed. In private conversations, their leaders insist on these strikes being mounted from the West Bank or Jerusalem – on no account from the Gaza Strip. They boast that by engineering an unclaimed deadly terrorist strike from their haven in Gaza, they have left Israel’s security and intelligence services guessing and deprived its army of an opportunity to hit back – especially in the middle of indirect truce negotiations.

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Jihadi website posts anthrax manufacturing instructions

Jihadi website posts anthrax manufacturing instructions: “This is NOT good news.

A jihadi website has posted two methods for manufacturing anthrax, the deadly chemical that killed five people and wounded seventeen in the United States in 2001. According to the jihadi forum, the following factors make anthrax the weapon of choice:

• Anthrax is powerful, lethal, cheap and easy to prepare.
• 50 grams of anthrax, when dispersed in a 2-kilometer line,”

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Today’s lying AFP headline

Today’s lying AFP headline: “‘Muslim leaders open summit with calls to end Mideast violence’

No, they opened the summit denouncing Israeli defensive actions. They didn’t say a word against Palestinian Arab terror attacks or rocket attacks against civilians.

AFP continues in its long tradition of tilting towards terror.

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Anarchists Plan on Preventing Super Delegates From Voting

Anarchists Plan on Preventing Super Delegates From Voting: “As if the nominating process has not been stressful enough for the Democratic Party…
Now a Leftist group plans on preventing delegates from reaching the convention center to vote during the DNC National Convention in Denver this August.

** Slapstick has the full details.

Here is a map one of the groups released that pinpoints their targets including hotels, banks, military recruitment centers, and governmental and police offices:

Click to Enlarge
And, here is the announcement of their plan to disrupt the delegate voting:

**TUESDAY AUG 26: Environmental Issues/ No Global Warming Day

TUESDAY AM: STOP THE VOTE!!! WE VOTE NO!!
Tuesday is the day when all the delegates put in their vote for who will represent the Democrats in the election, BUT THEY ONLY HAVE UNTIL 6PM TO VOTE and it is a long, arduous process. We encourage people to focus on ways to stop the delegates from getting to the Pepsi center to vote.

Our targets: hotels, intersections, and transportation systems. Special attention will be given to keeping the so called ‘super-delegates’ (what funny comic book characters they would be…) from being able to attend the vote. ALL TACTICS WELCOME AND ENCOURAGED!!! Come prepared with a plan and
ready to make a stand with your affinity group and friends.

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

The OBAMA-NUTS GO AFTER AARON KLEIN Ties their hero to terrorists

The OBAMA-NUTS GO AFTER AARON KLEIN Ties their hero to terrorists: “I understand that Barak Obama’s appeal comes from the more liberal part of the Democratic party, but I just don’t get why they have to be the ‘frothing at the mouth’ crazies who support their guy without any sense of reason or logic. Yesterday, they went after Aaron Klein the WND Jerusalem Reporter who has more knowledge of terrorism in is pinkey than any of the Democratic candidates have in their entire bodies (If you haven ‘t read Klein’s book ‘Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!’ you are doing yourself a disservice, it is the story of Palestinian terror from their own mouths) .

Klein wrote an article detailing some more of Obama’s friends within the Islamo-facist community and an Obama supporter struck back in Nation but he should be careful who he attacks,as Klein dismantles the guy below:

Smeared by Obama-hacks

By Aaron Klein

I was surprised to read an article yesterday attempting to smear my factual reporting on Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, which informed readers the presidential candidate served on the board of a nonprofit as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist and granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a ‘catastrophe’ and supports intense immigration reform.

The angry smear came from The Nation, which I understand is a small-circulation extreme leftist magazine popular with philosophy majors and owners of vegan restaurants in Manhattan’s East Village. The Nation has reportedly lost money in all but three or four years of its operation and is said to be sustained in large part by donations.

The article, which reads more like a drunken tirade, was written by 20-something former blogger Ari Berman, who lists jokester Seymour Hersch as among his inspirations and once basically apologized to a local Iowa media outlet for making a comment that may have seemed mildly friendly toward Republican John McCain.

Berman targeted me because I, along with my colleagues, dared to bring to public attention the fact that the man who might become the next leader of the free world has relationships with extremely questionable, terrorist-supporting, anti-American elements.

In his piece, ironically titled ‘Smearing Obama,’ Berman writes that I penned two articles ‘wildly distorting Obama’s links … to pro-Palestinian activists like Rashid Khalidi.’

Blathered Berman: ‘Klein’s story goes something like this: Obama sat on the board of a foundation in Chicago that gave a grant to the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), run by Khalidi’s wife, which supposedly rejects Israel’s existence; and Khalidi directed the PLO’s Beirut press office and is a supporter ‘for Palestinian terror.”

Berman tries to clarify for his dozens of readers: ‘In fact, the AAAN focuses solely on social service work in Chicago and takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Khalidi says he was never employed by the PLO; he has been a harsh critic of Palestinian suicide bombings and a longtime supporter of a two-state solution, and he has never been an adviser to Obama.’

Obama-hack Berman is dead wrong.

The AAAN, which received crucial funding from the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit on which Obama sat from 1999 to 2002, takes a very public position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line.

The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit titled ‘The Subject of Palestine,’ which featured works related to what some Palestinians call the ‘Nakba’ or ‘catastrophe’ of Israel’s founding in 1948.

According to the widely discredited Nakba narrative, Jews in 1948 forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands – some Palestinians claim over 1 million – Arabs from their homes and then took over the territory.

Historically, about 600,000 Arabs fled Israel after surrounding Arab countries warned they would destroy the Jewish state in 1948. Some Arabs also were driven out by Jewish forces while they were trying to push back invading Arab armies. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or left Arab countries under threat after Israel was founded.

The theme of AAAN’s Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was ‘the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life … under [Israeli] occupation … home demolition … statelessness … bereavement … martyrdom and … the heroic struggle for life, for safety and for freedom.’

Another AAAN initiative, titled ‘Al Nakba 1948 as experienced by Chicago Palestinians,’ seeks documents related to the ‘catastrophe’ of Israel’s founding.

A post on the AAAN site asked users: ‘Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?’

That posting was recently removed. The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction.

Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who held a successful fundraiser for Obama in 2000 and whose wife’s anti-Israel AAAN was funded by the nonprofit on which Obama sat, is indeed a harsh critic of Israel and has made statements seemingly supportive of Palestinian terror. Khalidi’s pro-terror statements are so legion anyone with Internet search capabilities can verify exactly where his alliances fall. No need for me to reiterate here.

I never reported Khalidi was an Obama adviser. I also never stated anywhere as fact that Khalidi was employed by the PLO, but that he reportedly worked for the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut while the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi’s wife, AAAN President Mona Khalidi, was reportedly WAFA’s English translator during that period.

I fairly note Rashid Khalidi has denied working for the PLO.

Some reports of Khalidi working for WAFA and his associations with the PLO include a New York Times account by columnist Thomas L. Friedman who wrote on June 9, 1982, Khalidi was at that time ‘a director of the Palestinian press agency’ – Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija, or WAFA.

In a Jan. 6, 1981, article in the Christian Science Monitor, Khalidi reportedly used the word ‘we’ referring to the PLO.

A Washington Times report also alleged Khalidi worked for the PLO.

Back to Berman, the leftist activist labels me an ‘Orthodox Jew’ as if it were some disease, and falsely depicts my public relations representative, Maria Sliwa, as a ‘Christian publicist,’ when she is no such thing.

Berman continues calling my reports questionably sourced and ‘scandalous’ without offering an iota of proof.

Indeed – and this is the most telling piece of the puzzle – in trying to disprove the existence of my sources, Berman not only verified them in calls I am aware he made but then ignored information indicating another contention of mine, that terrorists favor Obama, is indeed accurate.

Among the phone calls he made in a furious attempt to slander me, Berman talked with an Arab reporter for a major Israeli daily who is known for penning articles that are routinely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and who has, incredibly, interviewed more terrorist leaders than I have.

The Arab reporter informed Berman the terrorists he talks to, as well, are rooting for Obama.

‘I explained to him how Al-Jazeera has been reporting the Zionists and conservatives are trying to destroy Obama’s campaign, so therefore the fighters in the West Bank think Obama must be good for the Palestinians,’ the reporter told me.

But Berman ignored this information and instead belted out his lying rant.

The hysterical Berman is but a symptom of a malignant messianic infatuation with Obama evidenced by the drive-by media for whom Obama can do no wrong.

That was brought home to me earlier this month when I sent my Obama piece to a friend who happens to run the newsroom at one of America’s top three television networks.

The friend conceded I had ‘important information,’ but admitted outright that ‘right now, we are treating Obama with kid gloves.’

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

“

(Via YID With LID.)

Doing it for the Cameras

Doing it for the Cameras: “For those of you who have any doubt that most of the intense rioting ‘protesting’ that goes on in the Islamic world is done purely for the sake of the media, I recommend taking a look at the foreground of this picture.

(I’d post it directly, but I still have a touch of the jitters.)

What the heck—I’ve cropped the relevant content from the photograph. Click here for the full frame.

Supporters of Jamat-e-Islami party chant slogans during a protest in Karachi March 14, 2008. Protesters in Pakistan are demanding for ties with Denmark to be severed over the republication of one of several cartoons of Prophet Mohammad that led to violence in Muslim countries two years ago. REUTERS/Athar Hussain (PAKISTAN)

If the press weren’t present in this picture, do you think the locals would still feel so compelled to march around in the streets day after day?

This does serve as a fine example of what Christopher Hitchens meant when he recommended that photographers take several steps back from the shot, incidentally.

Update: As I’ve pointed out before, Friday protests usually have a very specific origin.

Can you imagine a world in which your local Presbyterian pastor whips his congregation up into a carefully-orchestrated fury right after Sunday’s morning church service?

And your local media studiously ignores the fact that the fury is, in fact, quite orchestrated?

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

ON THE PRESENT DANGER FACING ISRAEL AND ALL JEWS

ON THE PRESENT DANGER FACING ISRAEL AND ALL JEWS: “Rachel Neuwirth

The entire body of the Jewish people today — in Israel, in Europe, in America, in Australia and New Zealand, and throughout the world — is in grave danger. Our very existence as a people and as a faith is in jeopardy. The threat to our survival has two components to it: the external siege being waged against Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world by the international jihadist movement, its sympathizers and appeasers; and the internal siege that we Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, including the United States, are waging against ourselves.

We will look first at the external siege — war that is being waged against us. It has its military, diplomatic, and ideological-propaganda aspects.

Military threat

On the ‘military’ front (if that is the right word for the front of violence and terror) we have been under constant assault since the signing of the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO in 1993.

During the past fourteen and a half years the Palestinian Arab terrorists have murdered over 1,800 Israelis, two thirds of them civilians. This is more than the total number of Israelis murdered by the Palestinian Arabs in the forty-four years preceding the ‘peace accords.’ Many of the killers have been members of the Palestinian Arab ‘police force’ established with Israel ‘s consent in Gaza, Judea and Samaria under the Oslo accords. Indeed, Palestinian ‘police’ have murdered three Israelis just over the past month.

For the past seven years, Israeli towns and villages near the border with Gaza have been subjected to rocket attacks; during the past two years, the city of Sderot, with a population of some 23,000, has been bombarded with rockets nearly every day. Its residents have about twenty seconds whenever a warning siren sounds to duck into a shelter. The missiles have killed some people; many more have been wounded; and thousands, including Sderot’s children, have suffered shock and trauma.

Egypt, supposedly at peace with Israel, has enabled the Hamas terrorists who control Gaza to move vast amounts of armaments, money and soldiers into this territory, and to transform themselves from a guerilla force into an army able to fight Israel on NEAR equal terms. The Israelis have even captured on videotape Egyptian ‘border guards’ helping to smuggle in terrorists.

Then there are the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, who killed about 140 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians in 2006, many of them with long range rockets that struck deep inside the Galilee, including Israel ‘s third largest city, Haifa. Hezbollah recently struck again with rockets at kibbutz Shlomi. Since the 2006 Lebanon war, Hezbollah has completely rearmed, and now has missiles that can strike at the heart of Tel Aviv.

Standing behind Hezbollah are Syria and Iran. Both of these hateful regimes make no bones about their desire to destroy Israel. Both are armed with chemical and biological weapons, missiles that can reach every inch of Israeli territory, the most advanced fighter jets, and numerous other ultramodern weapons. Both regimes are working at break-neck speed to develop nuclear weapons. This has been thoroughly documented, despite the attempts of the recent ‘National Intelligence Estimate’ to deny this reality.

Threat of violence

The campaign of violence against Jews has been extended to the Diaspora. There has been a massive increase in anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe. In London, Paris, and Brussels, Jews are routinely assaulted on the street and on public transportation facilities. Many synagogues have been vandalized, and some burned to the ground. Desecrations of Jewish cemeteries are so common that they have ceased to be news. In ‘peaceful’ Switzerland, a rabbi was gunned down recently in the street simply because he was wearing traditional Jewish garb.

Nor should we American Jews think that we have been immune to the spreading hatred. According to FBI statistics, of some 1,500 hate crimes connected with the religion of the victims last year, over 1,000 were directed at Jews — more than five times the number of crimes directed at the next most vulnerable group, Muslims, and more than ten times the number of hate crimes directed against Christians. On March 1, 1994, a Lebanese Muslim murdered a Jewish boy and seriously injured several others on the Brooklyn Bridge, simply because they were Jews. On July 4, 2002, at the El Al terminal of Los Angeles Airport, two Jews were killed and four wounded by an Egyptian gunman, simply because they were Jews seeking to board a plane for Israel. On July 28, 2007 an Arab Muslim man walked into a Jewish center in Seattle, murdered a Jewish woman and injured five other women simply because they were Jews.

Even more troubling, perhaps, is the strange insensitivity often displayed by our own government toward many of these hate crimes. For example, the FBI described the murder of the Jewish boy on the Brooklyn Bridge as a case of ‘road rage,’ even when the political and religious motives of the assassin were attested to by many witnesses. And when the Egyptian, Muslim fundamentalist gunman mowed down Jews at the Los Angeles El Al terminal, the FBI investigating officer asserted, ‘there is no evidence that this was terrorism.’

Diplomatic threat

On the diplomatic front, Israel has been under relentless pressure from the international community, including, sad to say, our own beloved United States, to make unilateral concessions to the Palestinian terrorists that place Israel in deadly peril. The so-called ‘Quartet’ of great powers, consisting of the United States, the European Community, the United Nations, and Russia, has bludgeoned Israel into accepting the so-called ‘Road Map’ plan, which requires Israel to withdraw more or less to its June 4, 1967 borders. The late Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, once aptly called these lines ‘the Auschwitz frontiers.’

Pressure to implement the ‘road map’ has continued relentlessly through the Annapolis conference last month and during President Bush’s recent visit to Israel . The United States has also put relentless pressure on Israel to withdraw security checkpoints that are vital to preventing the movement of terrorists and their weapons into Israel, to end all construction of Jewish housing outside the 1967 borders, including those neighborhoods of Jerusalem outside of this ‘green line,’ to acquiesce in the partition of Jerusalem, and to evacuate Jewish residents from the so-called ‘unauthorized settlements’ or ‘illegal outposts’ — many of them on land legally owned by Jews, in some cases owned by Jews for decades.

The Palestinian Arab leadership, for its part, has demanded that Israel accept within its borders all four million Arabs who claim that they are descended from refugees who left Israel sixty years ago, during her War of Independence. They also want Israel to evict the roughly 450,000 Jews who live in areas outside the 1967 lines, which would require Israel to resettle these unfortunate people, too, within its now-truncated territory. Obviously, Israel could not survive the importation of millions of Arabs who have been taught to hate her from birth. But it also would be very difficult to absorb half a million Jews forced from their homes. They would have good reason to hate their own country.

Yet the United States has given Israel little encouragement to resist these demands of the Palestinian Arabs.

Propaganda threat

But by far the most insidious and dangerous front in the war against Israel is the propaganda war. In the Arab countries and Iran, this takes the form of the crudest lies and stereotypes derived from Nazi propaganda and the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But it is also being waged in a more subtle way by the media throughout Europe, the United States, and even within Israel itself; and by the academic and educational establishments of all of these countries as well. The Western media and academic ‘experts’ portray Israel as a Western colonial implant into the Middle East that has uprooted and dispossessed the ‘indigenous’ Arab population and stolen their land. Israelis are portrayed as religious fanatics intent on seizing other people’s land in order to fulfill Biblical promises.

Nor should we overlook that the hate propaganda and libels directed against Israel are directed against the Jews of the Diaspora as well, especially American Jews. Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer and former President Jimmy Carter claim that American Jews exert excessive power over American foreign policy; that they use this power on behalf of a foreign country, Israel, to the disadvantage and injury of the United States; and that we silence anyone who criticizes Israel with threats, unfair criticism or dismissal from their jobs.

All of these allegations, both those against Israel itself and those against its Jewish supporters in the United States and elsewhere, are lies. But through constant repetition, they have been bought into by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, including Europe, the United States, and saddest of all, within Israel itself. This is the ultimate fulfillment of Hitler’s observation in Mein Kampf that the bigger the lie is, if it is repeated often enough, the more likely it is to be believed.

Internal threat

But it is we Jews’ siege of ourselves from within our own communities that presents the gravest danger to our survival as a people and as a faith community: our self-doubts; our demoralization; our loss of confidence in the righteousness of our own cause; our lack of unity; the loss of our religious beliefs, and of what is an essential part of our religion, our mission as a people.

Because so many of us have lost faith in the righteousness of our own struggle for survival, and have accepted the lies of our enemies, the government and people of Israel have been increasingly yielding to the demands of our enemies and false friends without even putting up a struggle. In order to survive, we must win a victory over the sickness of our enemies; but before we can do that, we must heal ourselves.

For some Jews, their psychological sickness has progressed to the point of outright identification with the enemies of our people, and active participation in their ideological, propaganda and political assault on us. These Jews have actively taken sides with the enemy, at least on the level of ideology, communications and propaganda — perhaps in the belief that ‘if you can’t beat them, join them.’ These Jews constitute an internal Jewish fifth column that threatens us more severely than all our external enemies combined. The anti-Israel and anti-Jewish Jews among us are like a dagger pointed directly at the heart of Israel and the Jewish people.

Thousands of Jewish journalists, academics, filmmakers, artists and ‘intellectuals’ in the United States, Canada, Europe, and within Israel itself have actively participated in the campaign of vilification and lies against Israel. There is even a ‘minyan’ of Jewish reporters working for the notorious al-Qaeda mouthpiece al-Jazeera. These Jewish haters of Zion have a greater impact and credibility than any other group of anti-Israel propagandists. Who, after all, would believe that Jews would lie about their own people and institutions? And their impact is greatest on their fellow Jews, of course; they have sapped the will of Israelis to resist the demands of their enemies, and the will of the American and other Diaspora Jews to stand behind Israel, by persuading them that Israel ‘s cause is not just.

But our internal propagandist fifth column, disastrous though its impact has been on our morale, is only one of the negative influences contributing to the collapse of the Jewish will to resist the relentless pressure of our enemies.

A tremendous, and humanly understandable, war-weariness has gripped Israelis. Prime Minister Olmert gave voice to this terrible war fatigue when he said,

‘We are tired of fighting we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want to we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies.’

We must remember that a man or woman struggling to walk to safety through numbing cold may become very tired indeed, to the point of wishing to lie down in the snow and fall asleep. But then he or she will not wake up.

Loss of faith in God and in the truths of our religion is yet another reason for our spreading defeatism and our failure to resist the assault on us as Jews. It is our religion that teaches us that we are a distinct people with a land of our own. It is our religion that teaches us that we have a unique destiny, and that we must survive as a people if we are to fulfill our mission to be ‘a light unto the nations.’ Once we forget our faith, the temptation to assimilate into our environment completely and forget about what happens to our fellow Jews becomes very great.

And for us, the Jews of the golden American Diaspora, our very comfort, prosperity and seeming security have concealed the common danger from us — much as they concealed from the Jews of Germany and elsewhere in Europe the grave danger that they faced from Nazism, until it was too late to do anything. They think, ‘What has all this got to do with me? I am leading a perfectly contented and prosperous life here in America with my family. I am very comfortable. Why should I care about what is happening to other Jewish people 6,000 miles away?’

The answer to this understandable human reaction is the answer that Mordecai sent to Esther when she expressed her fear of approaching King Ahasuerus to appeal for the life of her fellow Jews: ‘Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king’s palace. On the contrary . . .you and your father’s house will perish.’ (Esther 4:12). If Israel should fall, do not imagine that we American Jews shall escape persecution by enemies who see our vulnerability.

Our lethargy and indifference are grave mistakes that will come back to haunt us. While World War II was going on, few Jews in America even knew about, or much less reacted to, the genocide being committed against our brethren in Europe, even though the essential facts about their fate were known to American Jewish leaders as early as 1942. It was only after the war ended and photographs of the bodies of the victims appeared in the newspapers that the enormity of what had happened began to sink in with American Jews. Serious discussion and study of the Holocaust did not even begin among us until the 1960s.

This time, we will not have the luxury of a slow response to the dangers facing not only the Jews of Israel, but also ourselves.

Nor should Christians and other non-Jews in America and throughout the Western world be indifferent to what is happening. The international jihad waged by the radical Islamists targets not only Jews, but all Christians (referred to by the jihadis as ‘Crusaders’) and all of Western civilization as well. The Jews are the first on the list of groups targeted for extinction by the radical jihadis, but they are by no means the last on this list. In our vulnerability to the poisonous ideological winds sweeping in from the Middle East and South Asia, we Jews are the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ — the first to suffer the lethal effects of the poison, but not the last.

Rachel Neuwirth, an internationally recognized, political commentator and analyst. She specializes in Middle Eastern Affairs with particular emphasis on Militant Islam and Israeli foreign policy. She has been published in prominent news papers of Europe, Asia and the US. She is frequently quoted by reputable Media. http://www.MiddleEastSolutions.com

John Landau contributed to this article.

This article appeared February 3, 2008 in the American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/on_the_present_danger_facing_i.html

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Top 9 Obama Campaign Slogans As Suggested By Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Top 9 Obama Campaign Slogans As Suggested By Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.: “

Post from: The Nose On Your Face

Top 9 Obama Campaign Slogans As Suggested By Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

9. Defeat Racism, Kill A Cracker

8. There is nothing to fear but fear itself…and the bloodsucking moneylenders.

7. Ask not what your country can do for you…actually, what’s the harm in just asking? 

6. Obama In ‘08: You Jews, you lose

5. Speak Loudly And Carry A Big Di… (Editor: Our error, this was an Eliot Spitzer slogan.)

4. No Child Left Behind! Not so fast white boy.

3. I Don’t Like Kike

2. Obama in ‘08: Are you better off than you were 200 years ago?

1. A Honkey In Every Pot

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

More support for discussions with historical distorters

More support for discussions with historical distorters: “Abraham Bell

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GAZA: THE ASSAULT ON ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
* International law authorizes Israel to initiate military countermeasures in Gaza. If Gaza is seen as having independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of force is permissible on the grounds of self-defense. If Gaza is seen as lacking any independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of military force is permissible as in other non-international conflicts.

* The rule of ‘distinction’ includes elements of intent and expected result: so long as one aims at legitimate targets, the rule of distinction permits the attack, even if there will be collateral damage to civilians. The rule of ‘proportionality’ also relies upon intent. If Israel plans a strike without expecting excessive collateral damage, the rule of proportionality permits it. Israeli attacks to date have abided by the rules of distinction and proportionality.

* Israel’s imposition of economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip is a perfectly legal means of responding to Palestinian attacks. Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel or anything else with Gaza, or to maintain open borders, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion.

* The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt. None of Israel’s actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.

* There is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of a state party to the convention and the occupier ‘exercises the functions of government’ in the territory. Gaza is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government in the territory.

* The fighting in Gaza has been characterized by the extensive commission of war crimes, acts of terrorism and acts of genocide by Palestinians, while Israeli countermeasures have conformed with the requirements of international law. International law requires states to take measures to bring Palestinian war criminals and terrorists to justice, to prevent and punish Palestinian genocidal efforts, and to block the funding of Palestinian terrorist groups and those complicit with them.

Since Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, Palestinian groups including Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Resistance Committees have launched thousands of rocket attacks at Israel. All the attacks have been on civilian targets, with no more than a handful of possible exceptions. The brunt of the Palestinian assault has been borne by the town of Sderot. The attacks have killed several residents and injured dozens, struck houses and public buildings like kindergartens, and so traumatized residents that three-quarters of all Sderot children between the ages of 7 and 12 suffer from post-traumatic anxiety.

Faulty Arguments Made by Opponents of Israel

Unsurprisingly, in the wake of Israeli countermeasures, persistent critics of Israel have strongly objected to Israel’s defensive actions to date, while remaining mostly mute on the crime under international law committed daily by the Gazan militias’ attacks on Israeli civilians. As will be explained below, it is evident that the criticisms are without legal basis. Israeli responses to the Palestinian terror attacks emanating from Gaza correspond to the requirements of international law, and the claims that Israel has violated international law are without merit.

One widely reported criticism came from John Dugard, a professor of international law who has accepted a permanent appointment as special rapporteur on human rights in the ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ from the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights and its successor UN Human Rights Council. Dugard has publicly and repeatedly interpreted his mandate as requiring him to criticize only Israel and, true to form, Dugard criticized Israeli defense measures for alleged illegality in the high-profile Sunday New York Times (Jan. 20, 2008).

First, Dugard claimed that Israel’s attack on Hamas headquarters in a Palestinian Interior Ministry building in Gaza was illegal because the target was ‘near a wedding venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians.’ However, contrary to Dugard’s insinuation, the building was certainly a legitimate target under the international humanitarian legal rule of distinction as it makes a definite contribution to Hamas’ hostilities. That one Palestinian civilian lost her life in the Israeli strike is unfortunate, but not a violation of the rule of proportionality, which authorizes collateral damage to civilians where justified by military necessity.

Second, Dugard asserted that Israel’s closure of its borders with the Gaza Strip constitutes illegal ‘collective punishment.’ Yet there is nothing in international law that requires Israel to maintain open borders with such a hostile territory, whatever its sovereign status. Exercising legal counter-measures against a hostile entity does not constitute ‘collective punishment’ under international law. Dugard’s refusal to level the same charge against Egypt, which also kept closed its border with the Gaza Strip, underlines the bias that accompanies the legally inaccurate statement.

Dugard was not alone. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour denounced Israel’s ‘disproportionate use of force.’ UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe told the UN Security Council that collective penalties were prohibited under international law (Financial Times, Jan. 22, 2008). UNRWA Commissioner General Karen Koning Abu Zayd joined the chorus by criticizing Israel’s ‘sporadic’ electricity supply to Gaza and its border closures and called on the international community to act (Guardian, Jan. 23, 2008). Unfortunately, these skewed assertions and misstatements of international law by UN officials framed how international public opinion views the illegal Palestinian actions in Gaza and the merits of Israeli defensive actions, and especially Israel’s legal right to defend itself.

Some parties had the courage to reject the one-sided and faulty arguments. In the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Canada, a state that prides itself in making the defense of human rights and international law a significant factor in its foreign policy, voted against a resolution condemning Israel for the Gaza fighting. While the European state members abstained in the Human Rights Council vote, some European officials, such as Franco Frattini, European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, correctly defended the legality of the Israeli actions, and others, such as Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen, criticized UN bias against Israel. Finally, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad told the UN Security Council on January 22, 2008, that Hamas was ‘ultimately responsible’ for the current situation in Gaza.

This essay nevertheless attempts to construct a rational legal basis for evaluating Israeli behavior and potential criticisms. This is no easy task as many of the criticisms of Israel’s conduct are made in conclusory fashion, without reference to legal doctrines or legal materials in support of the charges, or, alternatively, based on a misunderstanding of the requirements of the law and the factual context.

This essay examines, in turn, the six distinct bodies of law that could potentially affect the legality of Israeli counterstrikes:

1. the laws of initiating hostilities (jus ad bellum);
2. international humanitarian law, which governs the conduct of military actions;
3. the laws of occupied territory, which some have argued applies to Israeli actions against Gaza-based terrorists;
4. human rights laws;
5. laws on genocide; and
6. anti-terror laws.

A careful examination of the relevant law demonstrates that Israeli counterstrikes to date, and its potential future counterstrikes (both economic and military), conform to the requirements of international law. Moreover, Palestinian commission of war crimes and acts considered under international conventions to be terrorist acts and acts of genocide require Israel and other countries to take steps to punish Palestinian criminals for their acts in the Gaza fighting.

A final preliminary note is in order. The legal status of the Gaza Strip is an extremely complex puzzle in international law and is beyond the scope of this essay. Fortunately, it turns out that many of the legal conclusions regarding the Gaza fighting are not affected by the precise nature of Gaza’s status. The essay notes those instances where Gaza’s status does affect the ultimate legal determination.

1. The Legality of Israeli Military Actions under Jus ad Bellum

The law of jus ad bellum, as codified by the UN Charter, prevents using military force against another state. However, Article 51 of the Charter excludes self-defense from this ban on the use of force. Furthermore, jus ad bellum does not restrict the use of force in non-international conflicts.

Israel’s right to use force in defending itself against Palestinian attacks from Gaza is clear, notwithstanding the uncertain legal status of the Gaza Strip, which makes it difficult to determine the grounds on which Israel’s actions should be analyzed. If Gaza should be seen as having independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of force is permissible on the grounds of self-defense. On the other hand, if Gaza is properly seen as lacking any independent sovereignty, Israel’s use of military force is permissible as in other non-international conflicts.

2. The Legality of Israeli Military Actions under International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law regulates the use of force once military action is underway, irrespective of its legality under jus ad bellum. The two most basic principles of international humanitarian law are the rules of distinction and proportionality. Israel’s counterstrikes have abided by both these rules.

Distinction:

The rule of distinction requires aiming attacks only at legitimate (e.g., military and support) targets. The rule of distinction includes elements of intent and expected result: so long as one aims at legitimate targets, the rule of distinction permits the attack, even if there will be collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence. Israel has aimed its strikes at the locations from which rockets have been fired, Palestinian combatants bearing weapons and transporting arms, Palestinian terrorist commanders, and support and command and control centers. Locations such as Interior Ministry buildings from which Hamas directs some military activities are objects that make a contribution to Hamas’ military actions and are therefore legitimate targets, even though they also have civilian functions.

By contrast, the Palestinian attacks are aimed at Israeli civilians and therefore violate the rule of distinction. Moreover, one of the corollaries of the rule of distinction is a ban on the use of weapons that are incapable, under the circumstances, of being properly aimed at legitimate targets. The rockets and projectile weapons being used by the Palestinian attackers are primitive weapons that cannot be aimed at specific targets, and must be launched at the center of urban areas. This means that the very use of the weapons under current circumstances violates international humanitarian law.

Proportionality:

The rule of proportionality places limits on collateral damage. While collateral damage to civilian and other protected targets is permitted, collateral damage is forbidden if it is expected to be excessive in relation to the military need. Prosecutions for war crimes on the basis of disproportionate collateral damage are rare, and it is difficult to see how a credible claim can be made that any of Israel’s counterstrikes have created disproportionate collateral damage. Moreover, like distinction, the rule of proportionality relies upon intent. If Israel plans a strike without expecting excessive collateral damage, the rule of proportionality permits it, even if, in retrospect, Israel turns out to have erred in its damage estimates.

All reported Israeli strikes in the latest round of fighting have been aimed at legitimate targets and none has caused excessive collateral damage. Legal advisors attached to Israeli military units review proposed military actions and apply an extremely restrictive standard of both distinction and proportionality, in accordance with expansive Israeli Supreme Court rulings. It is thus likely that future Israeli measures will continue to abide by the rules of distinction and proportionality.

Retorsion:

Israel’s imposition of economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip, such as withholding fuel supplies and electricity, does not involve the use of military force and is therefore a perfectly legal means of responding to Palestinian attacks, despite the effects on Palestinian citizens. The use of economic and other non-military sanctions as a means of ‘punishing’ other international actors for their misbehavior is a practice known as ‘retorsion.’ It is generally acknowledged that every country may engage in retorsion so long as the underlying acts are themselves legal. Indeed, it is acknowledged that states may even go beyond retorsion to carry out non-belligerent reprisals-non-military acts that would otherwise be illegal (such as suspending flight agreements) as countermeasures. Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel or anything else with the Gaza Strip, or to maintain open borders with the Gaza Strip, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion, even if intended as ‘punishment’ for Palestinian terrorism.

Collective Punishment:

While international law bars ‘collective punishment,’ none of Israel’s combat actions and retorsions may be considered collective punishment. The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt. None of Israel’s actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.

Examples of retorsions are legion in international affairs. The United States, for example, froze trade with Iran after the 1979 Revolution and with Uganda in 1978 after accusations of genocide. In 2000, fourteen European states suspended various diplomatic relations with Austria in protest of the participation of Jorg Haider in the government. Numerous states suspended trade and diplomatic relations with South Africa as punishment for apartheid practices. Obviously, in none of these cases was a charge raised of ‘collective punishment.’

3. The Legality of Israeli Military Actions under the Laws of Occupation

Some groups have claimed that the Gaza Strip should be considered ‘occupied’ by Israel according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in which case Israel would be required to ‘ensure the food and medical supplies of the population,’ as well as ‘agree to relief schemes on behalf of the…population’ and maintain ‘public health and hygiene.’

Due to internal political considerations as well as rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court, Israel continues to maintain the flow of basic humanitarian supplies such as food, medicine and water to the Palestinian population of Gaza. In a recent case (Albassiouni v. Prime Minister, HCJ 9132/07), the Israeli Supreme Court implied that it interpreted domestic Israeli administrative law to require the Israeli government to maintain a minimum flow of Israeli-supplied necessary humanitarian goods when engaging in retorsional acts such as cutting off the Israeli supply of electricity to Gaza. Thus, even if there were a legal basis for considering Gaza Israeli-occupied territory, Israel would be fulfilling its duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

However, there is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of another ‘High Contracting Party’ (i.e., a state party to the convention) and the occupier ‘exercises the functions of government’ in the occupied territory. The Gaza Strip is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government-or, indeed, any significant functions-in the territory. It is clear to all that the elected Hamas government is the de facto sovereign of the Gaza Strip and does not take direction from Israel, or from any other state.

Some have argued that states can be considered occupiers even of areas where they do not declare themselves in control so long as the putative occupiers have effective control. For instance, in 2005, the International Court of Justice opined that Uganda could be considered the occupier of Congolese territory over which it had ‘substituted [its] own authority for that of the Congolese Government’ even in the absence of a formal military administration. Some have argued that this shows that occupation may occur even in the absence of a full-scale military presence and claimed that this renders Israel an occupier under the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, these claims are clearly without merit. First, Israel does not otherwise fulfill the conditions of being an occupier; in particular, Israel does not exercise the functions of government in Gaza, and it has not substituted its authority for the de facto Hamas government. Second, Israel cannot project effective control in Gaza. Indeed, Israelis and Palestinians well know that projecting such control would require an extensive military operation amounting to the armed conquest of Gaza. Military superiority over a neighbor, and the ability to conquer a neighbor in an extensive military operation, does not itself constitute occupation. If it did, the United States would have to be considered the occupier of Mexico, Egypt the occupier of Libya and Gaza, and China the occupier of North Korea.

Moreover, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that foes of Israel claiming that Israel has legal duties as the ‘occupier’ of Gaza are insincere in their legal analysis. If Israel were indeed properly considered an occupier, under Article 43 of the regulations attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, it would be required to take ‘all the measures in [its] power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.’ Thus, those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias. Additionally, claims of occupation necessarily rely upon a belief that the occupying power is not the true sovereign of the occupied territory. For that reason, those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza must believe that the border between Israel and Gaza is an international border between separate sovereignties. Yet, many of those claiming that Gaza is occupied, like John Dugard, also simultaneously and inconsistently claim that Israel is legally obliged to open the borders between Israel and Gaza. No state is required to leave its international borders open.

4. The Legality of Israeli Military Actions under International Human Rights Law

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Israel is required to ensure the protection of certain rights ‘within its territory’ including the right to life. The application of the covenant to Israeli activities in the Gaza Strip is questionable as it is unlikely that the Gaza Strip should be considered Israel’s territory. Nonetheless, Israel has abided by the requirements of the convention, if it applies to Gaza. In combat situations the meaning of the rights in the convention is established by the rules of international humanitarian law. Thus, Israel is protecting the human rights of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip by abiding by international humanitarian law.

5. Duties of Israel under the Genocide Convention

Article Two of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines any killing with intent ‘to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’ as an act of genocide. Given expressions of intent by some of the Palestinian terrorist groups to kill Jews as a group due to their ethnic identity (such as the Hamas charter’s call for an armed struggle against all Jews until judgment day), all the members of such groups who carry out killings are guilty of the crime of genocide under the convention. Under Article One of the convention, Israel and other signatories are required to ‘prevent and punish’ not only persons who carry out such genocidal acts, but those who conspire with them, incite them to kill, and are complicit with their actions. The convention thus requires Israel to prevent and punish the terrorists themselves, as well as public figures who have publicly supported the Palestinian attacks.

6. Duties of Israel under Anti-Terrorism Conventions

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism requires Israel (like other state parties to the convention) to prevent the collection of funds intended to support terrorist attacks. The Palestinian attacks fall under the definition of terrorist attacks under Article 2(1)(b) of the convention because they are aimed at Israeli civilians in violation of the rule of distinction, and they are intended to kill or seriously injure civilians in order to intimidate a population. If Gaza is considered ‘territory of [the] state’ of Israel, Israel is legally required to establish jurisdiction over Palestinian terrorist crimes under the convention; if Gaza is not Israeli territory, Israel is permitted to establish jurisdiction over the terrorist crimes.

Additionally, the convention establishes that Israel is not only permitted to impose certain economic sanctions on the de facto rulers of the Gaza Strip, it is required to do so.

Under a related convention, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, it is a crime to bomb public places (such as city streets) with the intent to kill civilians, by persons who are non-nationals of the state of which the victims are nationals. Under this convention too, the Palestinian attackers must be considered international terrorists and Israel is either required or permitted (depending on whether Gaza is Israeli ‘territory’) to assume criminal jurisdiction over the Palestinian terrorists committing these acts. Additionally, other states signed on the convention-such as the United States, Russia, Turkey and France-must cooperate in helping to combat such Palestinian terrorist acts.

Finally, Security Council Resolution 1373 requires states to ‘deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens’ and ‘prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups.’ The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII and is therefore apparently binding on all states, although some have argued that the resolution is not binding because the Security Council is not authorized to enact quasi-legislation. While the resolution does not define terrorism, it references the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, making it clear that the Palestinian attackers from Gaza fall within the scope of the international terrorists covered by the resolution. Consequently, if binding, this resolution requires Israel to take steps to deny safe haven to Palestinian attackers from Gaza and to prevent their free movement.

Conclusion

The Palestinian-Israeli fighting in Gaza has been characterized by the extensive commission of war crimes, acts of terrorism and acts of genocide by Palestinian fighters, while Israeli countermeasures have conformed with the requirements of international law.

International law requires states to take measures to bring Palestinian war criminals and terrorists to justice, to prevent and punish Palestinian genocidal efforts, and to block the funding of Palestinian terrorist groups and those complicit with them.

[Editor’s Note: As a companion article, read Abraham Bell’s ‘Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?’ in Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol 7, No. 33 February 28, 2008, where Dr. Bell counters some misinformed opinions that Israel is obligated to supply Gaza with utilities, goods and services. He points out that quite the opposite is true: ‘under the relevant treaties on terrorism and relevant UN Security Council resolutions… Under Security Council Resolution 1566, Britain is required to cooperate fully in Israel’s fight against terrorism ‘in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice…any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.’

See also: Ted Belman’s ‘Bomb Gaza. Win the War,’ which asks what the principles and rules Professor Bell sets out mean in practice. Read it here. He includes an opinion by Bruce Tucker Smith, JD, LL.M. (International Law), Lt Col USAFR (ret), the Co-author of Seventh Psalm]

Dr. Abraham Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

This was published as a Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 29 28 January 2008, by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL= International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israels_Right_to_Self-Defense

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Obama and the Minister

Obama and the Minister: “RONALD KESSLER
March 14, 2008

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama’s longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president.

The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Mr. Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, gave the sermon at the school’s Andrew Rankin Memorial Chapel in Washington on Jan. 15, 2006. We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,’ he began. ‘Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.’

Mr. Wright thundered on: ‘America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.’

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, ‘We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . .’

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: ‘We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . .’

Considering this view of America, it’s not surprising that in December Mr. Wright’s church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. ‘His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening,’ Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. ‘He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.’

After Newsmax broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.

Instead, Mr. Obama said, ‘I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.’ Trumpet is owned and produced by Mr. Wright’s church out of the church’s offices, and Mr. Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor.

Meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama described Mr. Wright as being like ‘an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.’ He rarely mentions the points of disagreement.

Mr. Obama went on to explain Mr. Wright’s anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state’s support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his previous claim that his church gave the award to Mr. Farrakhan because of his work with ex-offenders, Mr. Obama appears to have made that up.

Neither the presentation of the award nor the Trumpet article about the award mentions ex-offenders, and Mr. Wright’s statements denouncing Israel have not been qualified in any way. Mr. Obama nonetheless told the Jewish leaders that the award to Mr. Farrakhan ‘showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community.’ That is an understatement.

As for Mr. Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be ‘provocative.’

Hearing Mr. Wright’s venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his ‘sounding board’ during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama’s bestseller ‘The Audacity of Hope’ comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright’s church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright’s perspective, Michelle Obama’s comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama’s close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama’s fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.

Mr. Kessler, a former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter, is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com and the author of ‘The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack’ (Crown Forum, 2007).

See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Support For War Highest Since 2006– Except Among Lunatics

Support For War Highest Since 2006– Except Among Lunatics: “TWO AMERICA’S INDEED—
The Support for the Iraq War effort is at the highest level since 2006…
Except among raging liberals who see America as an imperialistic dominating regime.

As seen at Memeorandum this morning:

(Click to Enlarge)

David Paul Kuhn at The Politico reported this morning that a majority of Americans believe the US will succeed in Iraq:

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans — a slim majority — now believe ‘the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals’ in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going ‘very well’ or ‘fairly well’ is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

But, not everyone feels that way.
Not every American supports the War in Iraq, the troops in Iraq, or even the US.
Kenneth Thiesen wrote this commentary at The Berkeley Daily Planet today:

In the recent political battle around the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley there has been much confusion around the concept or slogan of ‘supporting the troops,’ but opposing the unjust wars of the Bush regime. Many who oppose the Bush regime wars also say they ‘support the troops.’ Let me say it straight out—I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is objectively impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight.

The United States has over 700 military bases or sites located in over 130 foreign countries. The hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in these countries are not there to preserve or foster freedom and democracy as the Bush regime would like to claim, but to maintain U.S. imperialist domination of the world. The United States now spends more on its military than all the other nations of the world combined.

If you ‘support the troops’ in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other more than 100 countries in which they are located, you also objectively support U.S. hegemony in the world. I believe that the vast majority of people who say they support the troops do not wish to support U.S. imperialism, but that is what they are really doing by putting forth the slogan of ‘support the troops.’

We need to oppose the recruitment of men and women into the military. We need to support resisters within the military who have realized what they are doing and now choose to resist the role of the U.S. military. This includes people such as Lt. Ehren Watada who refused to deploy to Iraq. Watada stated, ‘Never did I imagine my president would lie to go to war, condone torture, spy on Americans…’ He was the first officer to refuse to go to Iraq and he was court-martialed. Another resister is Camilo Mejia. In 2004 Sergeant Mejia was sentenced to one year in prison when he was court-martialed for refusing to assist the military in Iraq. Mejia said, ‘I am only a regular person that got tired of being afraid to follow his own conscience. For far too long I allowed others to direct my actions even when I knew that they were wrong….’

We need to expose that those in the U.S. military are trained to be part of a ‘killing machine.’

Obviously, not everyone supports the troops.

Chicago Boyz want to know if the Democratic candidates for president will denounce this military-hating rhetoric coming from their party’s base?

Jules Crittenden notes as violence goes down there is a simultaneous increase in ‘yeah but’ reporting.

UPDATE: In related news Harvard University of all places published a report this week that concludes that the antiwar media has helped the terrorist organizations who want to end our modern ways or kill us all.”

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

Another systemic shock …Iran Schoolbooks Teach Jihad, Martyrdom, Study Shows..arent we all surprised, again?

Another systemic shock …Iran Schoolbooks Teach Jihad, Martyrdom, Study Shows..aren't we all surprised, again?: “

‘The Islamist regime does not need to be 100 percent successful, only a small portion,’ Arya said. ‘If 10 percent are exposed, that’s 5 million. If 1 percent is exposed, that’s 500,000. If it’s a half of a percent, that’s 250,000. That’s more troops than we have in Iraq.’

Washington (CNSNews.com) – When third grade school children in Iran turn to page 113 of their textbook ‘Let’s Read,’ they find a passage that says, ‘At that time, the Israeli officer pounded (three-year-old) Muhammad’s head with the rifle’s stock and his warm blood sprinkled upon his (six-year-old brother) Khaled’s hands.’

The Iranian textbook was published in 2004, before the controversial Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president of Iran in 2005. In another third-grade text, ‘Gifts of Heavan,’ an illustration of a monster wearing the Star of David is seen going through a tidy Muslim town leaving garbage everywhere.

While those examples could seem shocking to some, it gets worse, said Arnon Groiss, director of research at the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, who recently completed a study of 115 Iranian school textbooks. (Most of the books reviewed in the study had been published in 2004.)

‘Indoctrination is less felt in the lower grades and increases in the higher grades,’ Groiss said, speaking at a forum Monday on the topic at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

Let me submit, that if things changed TODAY it would take 2 generations for what has been inculcated into these kids to be diluted into some kind of normalcy.
What kind of impetus drives adults to warp children in this way?

The books are part of an overall indoctrination effort aimed at school children. This effort includes rewritten Iranian history and the inclusion of Jihadist political views in science and geography texts, he said.

The seventh grade text ‘Islamic Culture and Religious Instruction,’ which refers to the West and Israel as the ‘Arrogant Ones,’ tells students that war is unavoidable and victory is guaranteed ‘in order to continue with all our power our revolution against the Arrogant Ones and the oppressors.’

An eighth grade text says the ‘army of Islam would make the Arrogant Ones fall in holy Jihad and heavy attack.’

‘This is a form of child abuse rejected by all civilized countries,’ said Groiss, who for 30 years was an Arab-language journalist and is currently deputy director at Israel Broadcasting Authorities Arabic Radio. ‘This pictures a regime bent on global war to the point of self-destruction.’

On page 20 of the high school textbook ‘Humanities,’ the United States is described as an ‘imperialist country’ that ‘does not refrain from massacring people, from burying alive soldiers of the opposite side and from using mass-destruction weapons. It makes use of atomic bombs. … It creates the greatest dictatorships and the violent and torturous security-oriented regimes, and defends them.’

Note that this dialectic has been subtly reinforced by the attitude of the Foreign Minister of France. This is the measure of the size of what we face. Our own ‘friends’ are unable to reject the dialectic in a forthright, unembarrassed, and confident manner, because the arrogant religious superiority manifested by these people, to whom we represent all that najas stands for, strips them of the will to resist, by any and all means. The goal of the west is to be reasonable and avoid both confrontation and violence. The goal of the other side is victory for god even if confrontation and violence are needed.

The good news could be that most Iranian families dismiss the teachings in the books, telling their children to simply memorize the material for the test, but nothing else, said the Iranian-born Shayan Arya at the forum.

‘To the Iranian youth, America is the most popular country,’ said Arya, a member of the Constitutionalist Party of Iran – an international group of one-time Iranian citizens pushing for the establishment of a liberal democracy in that country. However, even a small number influenced by the books could be damaging, he said.

‘The Islamist regime does not need to be 100 percent successful, only a small portion,’ Arya said. ‘If 10 percent are exposed, that’s 5 million. If 1 percent is exposed, that’s 500,000. If it’s a half of a percent, that’s 250,000. That’s more troops than we have in Iraq.’

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

In lieu of Self Defense …. Rally for Israel

In lieu of Self Defense …. Rally for Israel: “

HAS ISRAEL LOST ITS WILL TO LIVE?
Read it. Wriiten by a shrink (shrinkwrapped), it is the most discouraging, but logical explanation to Israels tepid response to the overwhelming genocidal, barbaric siege on the tiny Jewish nation.

LOG ON TO THE BIGGEST EVER SOLIDARITY RALLY FOR ISRAEL! Dear Friends of Israel, This March 20th, the eve of Purim, help us make history in solidarity with Israel. Show up no matter where you are. All you need to do is go to http://www.together4israel.org. Seven solidarity rallies … on four continents … live on the web … one million people coming TOGETHER. Join us for this historic occasion. Jews from all over the world will come TOGETHER for the largest ever online rally. Show you support for our brothers and sisters living under the constant threat of terror. Alan Dershowitz, the renowned American international lawyer and author of, ‘The Case for Israel,’ and Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Minister of Justice, will kick off the event broadcasting live from Sderot, Israel at 11 p.m. local time, 5 p.m. EST. From Sderot we will jump to live webcasts of rallies in Jerusalem, South Africa, London, New York, Los Angeles and Australia. Be there in person or online. Everyone will be counted. Invited speakers include South Africa’s former President, Nelson Mandela; Israel’s Chief Rabbi Yonah Metzger; David Trimble, former First Minister of Ireland; the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Sir Jonathan Sacks; and Marvin Hier, Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Don’t miss this historic opportunity to come TOGETHER for Israel. On Purim night, March 20th, 11 p.m. Israel time, log on to http://www.together4israel.org and be counted. Give courage and strength to our brothers and sisters who live under fire. Make a difference today. Click here now to spread the word about our online rally at http://www.together4israel.org and to watch a short promotional video about the event. www.onefamilyfund.org

“

(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)