Friday, July 31, 2009

Obama the Dictator

This is off-topic again but is an important issue regarding state's rights. The Justice Department is threatening to cut federal funding to Oklahoma if the state passes a constitutional amendment making English the official language. This is another thing that pisses me off and why I have grown so contemptuous of liberals. All throughout this country's history, immigrants coming here learned English, it was a given that they do so. Suddenly now to expect the same of current immigrants is deemed "racist" and a violation of their civil rights. What utter bullshit. And to those who would argue that we never before actually had an official language, well we never HAD TO. Like I said, in the past it was a GIVEN that immigrants learned English. They never demanded to be accommodated with their native language. Imagine what would have become of this country had every immigrant group kept their own language. We would have hundreds of languages being spoken and surely would not have survived as a republic. Obama, stay the hell out of the sovereign affairs of the state of OK and every other state. If I were an Oklahoman, I would just tell Washington where it could stick its funds rather than cave in to blackmail. Anyhow the Justice Department has no authority to decide how federal money gets spent.

Larry Franklin Interviewed

Larry Franklin discusses the AIPAC case in an exclusive interview with the Washington Times and says the FBI double crossed him. Instead of treating Israel as the enemy and searching for phantom Israeli moles, the FBI would do well to focus on actual threats to this country, like muslim terrorists for example. In fact it is amongst muslims working in our government where they are likely to find actual moles out to do harm to America. That is where there suspicions should be focused on.
Today’s Washington Times has a fascinating expose, “EXCLUSIVE: Defense analyst in spy case was FBI double agent”of how far the anti-Israel cabal in the FBI went when they double crossed Defense Analyst Larry Franklin. Bill Gertz, Washington Times Intelligence beat columnist,was granted an exclusive interview with Franklin. You may recall that Federal Judge T.S. Ellis, III in the Eastern Virginia District Court in May dramatically reduced his sentence against the objections by Federal prosecutors who withdrew the malformed case against AIPAC senior staffers, Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen after a Richmond Federal Appeals Court dismissed the government’s evidentiary motions. We have posted on this murky and unsettling episode for nearly four years,originally here, and more recently, here.

Ken Timmerman in his book, “Shadow Warriors” had divulged the strong arm methods the FBI used to euchre Franklin into serving as a double agent. We believe that the FBI cabal was lead by former Associate Director David Szady who had let it be known that the national law enforcement agency was intent on finding an Israeli mole inside the US government, based erroneously, as it turned out in the disastrous AIPAC case. Federal Prosecutors relied heavily on the thin reed of a 90 year Sedition law, questionable evidentiary standards in filed court motions and sought a ‘closed court’ proceeding, which ultimately was quashed by the Richmond Federal Appelate court dismissal rulings. Messrs. Weissman and Rosen were simply doing what Washington journalists, including Gertz, have done which is revealing ex parte conversations with official sources, who don’t want to go on record; i.e., ‘leaking’. However, the Federal judiciary saw through this blatant attempt by the FBI and federal prosecutors effectively stopped the failed AIPAC case in its tracks, relieving former AIPAC seniors officials Weissman and Rosen from standing trial, and reduced Franklin’s prior sentence under a plea bargain.

Here are revelations from the Exclusive Washington Times interview with Larry Franklin.
Read the rest He also claims anti-Semitism motivated the investigation into AIPAC.

Why Israel is Hated

All the losers and riffraff of the world naturally despise Israel and Jews because they envy and resent high achievers and the Jewish people and nation have achieved enormous success disproportionate to their tiny population. Not only have Jews in the diaspora contributed to science, medicine, technology and the arts, Israel as a country is only second to America in technological contributions and Israel is highest in per capita innovation. Leftists identify with losers and want to tear down doers and achievers, thus they side with the muslim world and want to destroy America and Israel.

THE ISRAEL TEST
THE NATION IS A SYMBOL OF THE GLOBAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT AND ENVY

By GEORGE GILDER

Israeli president Shimon Peres oversees a nation with a GDP of $200.7 billion (in 2088), and a per-capita income of $28,200.

Posted: 2:42 am
July 26, 2009

The central issue in international politics, dividing the world into two fractious armies, is the tiny state of Israel.

The prime issue is not a global war of civilizations between the West and Islam or a split between Arabs and Jews. These conflicts are real and salient, but they obscure the deeper moral and ideological war.

The real issue is between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it.

The test can be summarized by a few questions: What is your attitude toward people who excel you in the creation of wealth or in other accomplishments? Do you aspire to their excellence, or do you seethe at it? Do you admire and celebrate exceptional achievement, or do you impugn it and seek to tear it down?

In countries where Jews are free to invent and create, they pile up conspicuous wealth and arouse envy and suspicion. In this age of information, when the achievements of mind have widely outpaced the power of masses and material force, Jews have forged much of the science and wealth of the era. Their pioneering contributions to quantum theory enabled the digital age. Their breakthroughs in nuclear science and computer science propelled the West to victory in World War II and the cold war. Their bioengineering inventions have enhanced the health, and their microchip designs are fueling the growth of nations everywhere. Their genius has leavened the culture and economy of the world.

Israel today concentrates the genius of the Jews. Obscured by the usual media coverage of the "war-torn" Middle East, Israel's rarely celebrated feats of commercial, scientific, and technological creativity climax the Jews' twentieth-century saga of triumph over tragedy. Today tiny Israel, with its population of 7.23 million, five and one-half million Jewish, stands behind only the United States in technological contributions. In per-capita innovation, Israel dwarfs all nations. The forces of civilization in the world continue to feed upon the quintessential wealth of mind epitomized by Israel.

Assuming that wealth is distributed from above, chiefly by government, rather than generated by invention and ingenuity, Israel's critics see the world as a finite sum of resources. Believing that Israel, like the United States, has seized too much of the world's resources, they advocate vast programs of international retribution and redistribution. In their view, Israel's wealth stems not from Jewish creativity and genius but from cadging aid from the United States or seizing valuable land and other resources from Arabs.

This vision of zero-sum economics manifests itself around the globe. Perhaps some of you readers share it.

You believe that capitalist achievement comes at the expense of others or of the environment. You believe that "behind every great fortune is a great crime." You advocate the redistribution of wealth. You think we all benefit when the government "spreads the wealth around."
Continue reading

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Self-hating Leftist Jews

The San Francisco Jewish Film Festival is featuring the work of anti-Israel director Simone Bitton. He has directed a film about Rachel Corrie, who was set up by her fellow ISM members to be killed by an Israeli bulldozer for political propaganda purposes and spark international outrage at Israel. Rachel Corrie was sacrificed to further the hamas and ISM goal of obliterating Israel. The ISM must have learned from their hamas friends on the use of human shields for political gain.

To those so-called Jews who say they are embarrassed by Israel and want to see the end of it, it is not Israel that is an embarrassment, it is the vile leftist, traitorous self-hating Jews who embarrass and worst of all, gravely endanger the rest of us.

Fear and Self-Loathing at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

The festival screens a laudatory film on Rachel Corrie and invites Rachel's Hamas-supporting mother to speak. (Also read Ron Radosh: Rachel Corrie: Endless Martyr for Anti-Israel Hatred)
July 29, 2009
- by Abraham H. Miller
Page 1 of 2 Next ->




Simone Bitton is a French-Israeli director who numbers among the 479 Israelis who called for a complete boycott of Israel during the Israel Defense Forces incursion into Gaza to stop rockets from exploding in Sderot.

Obviously, Bitton exempted her own endeavors from the call.

Bitton has now directed the film Rachel, a documentary on Rachel Corrie. If there is any doubt regarding Bitton’s politics or the film’s slant, note that the documentary tours film festivals along with Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother and a propagandist for the likes of Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement — groups committed to Israel’s destruction.

One would expect Bitton’s work to be showcased by the usual gaggle of progressives and ultra-liberal church groups intent on destroying the Jewish state.

But in the San Francisco area? The Jewish Film Festival shows Bitton’s work.

Peter Stein, the festival’s director, knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this film. Stein was familiar with both Bitton’s work and her politics. He invited the American Friends Service Committee, now helping with the boycott of Israeli goods, to participate in the showing.

Stein also had on his board Rachel Pfeffer, the interim director of Jewish Voice for Peace — a group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. (Since Rachel Pfeffer’s outing as JVP director, her biography on the festival web site has been thoroughly cleansed.)

Despite protests which have further fractured a sharply divided Jewish community, Rachel and the film festival are moving forward with the film in the name of free speech and open debate. Typically worthy aspirations, but in this case? A smoke screen.

Cindy Corrie has been up and down this community more times than the Hayward geological fault. Name an Israeli-bashing leftist group, and you’ll find its headquarters lies somewhere within five miles of the Berkeley campus.

For several years, Berkeley’s Hillel didn’t celebrate Passover, but it did celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a holiday that is not even celebrated throughout Mexico. But for leftist Jews, it’s better to align oneself with the revolt of the oppressed masses in Puebla, Mexico, than with Jews throwing off Pharaoh’s yoke of slavery.

Berkeley Hillel, under the ever-vigilant eye of the Jewish community, brought in the anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, a lead organization in the anti-Israel boycott, to disseminate its propaganda to impressionable and naïve Jewish students. Berkeley Hillel could not have better served the bidding of the anti-Israel left and their Muslim allies than if it had turned over the organization to them.

If you want to get a forum in the San Francisco Bay Area Jewish community, you need to be anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or preferably both. Cindy Corrie is not the only Cindy to get access to the community calendar here — Cindy Sheehan has also been a popular speaker. Yes, the Cindy Sheehan who said that her son died because the Iraq war was fought for Israel and orchestrated by neocons. This is a message she now denies but which others persist in claiming she wrote. Cindy Sheehan got a platform at the Berkeley-Richmond Jewish Community Center.
Read the rest

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Jewish Refugees

Here's a five part series on the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries and Iran. Listen to their stories of rapes, pogroms, massacres and expulsions before the establishment of modern day Israel. So much for the notion that Israel's actions are responsible for Arab terrorism. Even pregnant women and babies were not spared, in fact they were especially targeted for the most horrific murders by these evil muslim savages. This is why I get so infuriated when ignorant, know-nothing liberals talk about the oppression of the poor palestinian refugees by Israel when they suffered nothing comparable. And when they portray Israel as the aggressor nation in the region, when it was the Jews who were and still are the victims of Arab aggression and violence.

Part I

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Obama's Assault on the Elderly

Although this is off-topic, nevertheless Obama's attempt to bring nationalized health care to America is much too important an issue to avoid. This health care bill is a catastrophe waiting to happen and we must do everything in our power to prevent it from passing. It will certainly ration health care for the elderly, essentially amounting to euthanasia. Also those of us satisfied with our current private health insurance plans will be made to give it up and forced into this government plan. So obama was also lying when he said we can keep our current health insurance plans if we choose. Here is Betsy McCaughey on The Mark Levin Radio Show discussing the plan. Americans need to be informed about the disaster awaiting us if we implement socialized medicine. Also read this more detailed article regarding what's in this health care bill.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Liberal Jews Remain Clueless About Our Enemies

Liberal Jews need to get a clue that muslims hate us no matter how much you try to reach out to them with interfaith dialogues, speak highly of them and their vile religion, provide scholarships to muslims and all of the other charitable and humane things that Jews in Israel and the diaspora do for muslims. Yet while they try in vain to get muslims to like us, at the same time liberal Jews reject and are suspicious of the sincere friendship of Evangelical Christians. Go figure.

Laura Rosen Cohen: Islam just isn't into us
Posted: July 27, 2009, 9:00 AM by NP Editor
Laura Rosen Cohen, National Post

“I have the highest respect for the religion of Islam, and recognize the heroic efforts of many religious leaders in contemporary Iran to stand up to the repressions wrought by the ruling system,” says Jewish human rights activist Irwin Cotler.

“I refuse to associate these crimes generically with the mullahs of Iran, and I deplore any attempt to do so,” he continued in his July 24th letter to the editor. And thus began yet another misguided chapter of the never-ending Jewish and liberal quest for the Islamic world to “like us”. Cotler’s bizarre statements have little to do with reality. Iran is where religious fervour , led by a religious leader-the Ayatollah Khomeni, brought upon the Islamic revolution. It is religious fervour -- inspired by a perverse interpretation of Shiia Islam -- that motivates Iran’s genocidal leader, with the continued blessings of the religious establishment.

It has been said that a definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. Certainly, there can be no better explanation for Jews, and particularly liberal Jews to keep trying new ways of currying favour in the eyes of the Islamic world.

How many strategies have been tried? Too many to list in one short article. But a few noteworthy projects deserve a mention. In Israel, the Jews have tried to give away “land for peace”, and that has failed miserably time and time again. Egypt is a despotic regime, with the fanatic Muslim brotherhood gaining more political ground each passing day. It maintains a frigid and grudging “peace” with Israel and the “peace” with Jordan is only measurably more civil. Israel sends civil aid to disaster zones all over the world, performs open-heart surgeries on Arab babies, gives Arab Israeli citizens full rights under the law, and even treats Palestinian terrorists at Israeli hospitals, but it’s still not enough. Israel has Arab members of the Knesset, and despite the terrorist threat implicit in it, successive Israeli leaders continue to commit to the founding of a Palestinian state. But that’s still not enough for the Muslim world.

In the Jewish diaspora, and under the heavy influence of socialist and Marxist dogma, liberal Jews pour small fortunes into “inter-faith” causes, conferences and dialogues in the hopes of finding “greater understanding” with the Islamic world in general-and in particular with the Palestinians.

Dear fellow Jews, what is so hard to understand about “we hate your guts, and will continue to kill and maim you”? Just last week, an “inter-faith” Rabbi, the guest speaker at an ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) conference was shocked ... shocked to hear that one of the guest imams felt that Jews deserved the Holocaust because they turned their backs against Allah. What is so hard to understand about that?

Jews continue to support the Liberal party in Canada, and the Democratic party in America, despite the obvious and undeniable evidence that their true friends are on the Christian, Zionist political right. Unfortunately, their commitment to liberalism trumps their commitment to their own people.

Here in Canada, the multi-cultural outreach by Jews to Muslim Canadians continues with the Canadian Jewish Congress funding such initiatives as scholarships for Somali Canadians. Where is the reciprocity in these activities? When was the last time you heard about the King Abdullah scholarship for Jews? Or the American Muslim scholarship fund for Jews? Have you ever been to a Jewish conference where a genocide or an individual death of a Muslim person was described, in theological terms, as being justifiable? Have you ever heard a Jew celebrate when a Muslim has been murdered? When is the last time a Jew gleefully beheaded an enemy, video taped it and uploaded it onto YouTube?

Jews: get this through your head once and for all. The Islamic world, under its current leadership, is just not into you.

National Post

Newsweek Denies islam is Endangering Europe

According to the liberal ideologues at Newsweek, islam is not a threat to Europe. To claim otherwise would be to acknowledge that the multicultural experiment that liberals have forced upon the west has failed catastrophically. The msm is out of touch with the real world and cannot be trusted to accurately report the news, especially when reality clashes with their own perceptions.
Newsweek: An Islamic Europe Is No Cause for Concern

by Carol Gould July 19, 2009

Pajamas Media

It was with astonishment that I read William Underhill’s report in the July 20 issue of [1] Newsweek, “Why Fears of a Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong,” decrying the scaremongers of the world who think radical Islam is a threat to our way of life. Underhill names and shames [2] Mark Steyn but one assumes he would also condemn [3] Melanie Phillips, [4] Phyllis Chesler, [5] Nidra Poller, [6] Bat Ye’or, [7] Daniel Pipes, and [8] little old me writing from London. Melanie, Nidra, Bat, and I have a premium on firsthand experience of radical Islam because we happen to live in Europe.

It is difficult to establish from Underhill’s screed where he lives and from what shore he writes, but his cynical piece appears to trash the views of many of the world’s most eminent scholars of modern radicalism. He asserts that the predictions by experts that Europe will soon have a significant Muslim population should be put into perspective, but then says, “Fertility rates remain higher among Muslim immigrants than among other Europeans, and Muslims may continue to arrive in Europe in large numbers.“ Being the descendant of immigrants I do not condemn this, but it is the emerging radicalism that is so perilous.

Underhill quotes a professor from Exeter University, the home of Ilan Pappe, the Israeli revisionist historian. According to Grace Davie, who is described as an expert on Europe and Islam, “The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue.”

Then he comes out with a doozy.

“The truth is that there are no powerful Muslim political movements in Europe, either continentwide or at the national level.” Is he nuts?

Here in Britain not a week goes by without a media story on an issue brought into the national discourse by the powerful [9] Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Association of Britain, or Muslim Parliament. In July a meeting at Conway Hall hosted by the Centre for Social Cohesion had to be abandoned because [10] al-Muhajiroun was successful in refusing to allow men and women to sit together. The meeting spilled out into the street and a major confrontation was narrowly avoided, but not before a huge, adoring crowd had assembled to hear the ubiquitous and influential British Muslim leader Anjem Choudhary proclaim, “We will dominate this country, my brothers, and implement the beauty and perfection of Islam,” to shouts of “Sharia for the UK!”

Why do the British tolerate this shit? Any people with a modicum of pride, self-respect and self-preservation wouldn't allow enemies within their borders, let alone allow them to openly declare they intend to take over the country, take away your freedoms and institute its own medieval laws in place of British common law. These savages have no fear of the west and its spineless leadership.

William Underhill might wish to know that my esteemed colleague Charles Moore of the Daily Telegraph [11] happened to say on BBC Question Time that the Muslim Council of Britain had refused to condemn the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The BBC panel had, incidentally, been discussing the [12] shameful demonstrations by British Muslims at a military parade in Luton in March in which the protesters had held placards referring to soldiers as “butchers.”) Underhill needs to know that the powerful MCB, demanding financial compensation from Moore, has managed to elicit an apology from the BBC on its website but is now demanding an on-air apology.

Shouldn’t the MCB be the ones to apologize for the behavior of their muslim brethren demonstrating against British soldiers rather than the BBC for simply reporting on the treasonous actions of muslims? The BBC consists of pathetic craven cowards for complying with such a ludicrious demand to apologize. They had nothing to apologize for. Charles Moore stated the facts. Read the rest

Monday, July 27, 2009

Special Rights for muslims

A Walmart in St.Paul, Minnesota caved in to pressure from terrorist front group CAIR and hired back a muslim worker who it had fired for violating his supervisor's ban on praying during work breaks. Through the craven cowardice of business and political leaders, it won't be long before we experience the same problems as Europe has with the existence of a separate islamic sub-culture rapidly engulfing and supplanting European culture. Don't these businesses understand that they are contributing to such an eventuality here by giving in to the demands of islamic pressure groups, or don't they care? They don't understand anything about islam and see it as just another personal faith, unaware that it is a totalitarian political ideology which seeks to dominate us. Allowing prayer may not sound like a big issue to some, but once you allow any, even seemingly minor accommodations to muslims, the demands will grow. This is why we need to end muslim immigration.

Prayer dispute settled: Walmart rehires fired Muslim worker
By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune
Last update: July 21, 2009 - 12:00 PM

A major retail chain has rehired a fired Muslim employee in the Twin Cities and is now accommodating his right to pray in the workplace, an Islamic civil rights organization in Minnesota is reporting.

The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations announced Monday that Walmart agreed to the accommodation after CAIR-MN intervened on behalf of employee Abdi Abdi, who was fired from his job in February as a stocker and loader at the Woodbury store.

CAIR-MN says that Abdi, a four-year employee with Walmart, was let go for violating a new supervisor's ban on prayer during work breaks. A previous supervisor had allowed him to perform his daily prayers, the organization said.

Abdi was rehired last month at a Walmart in St. Paul and is now allowed to pray during breaks, following negotiations between CAIR-MN and local and national representatives of Walmart, the St. Paul-based rights group said.

"We appreciate Walmart's handling of this case and its willingness to accommodate the religious practices of employees," CAIR-MN Civil Rights Coordinator Zahra Aljabri said.

Abdi was rehired at the Walmart in the Midway area of St. Paul because it is closer to his home, his wife works there and managers at that store are "more familiar with the prayer schedule," Aljabri said. "At least a dozen" Muslims work at the Midway Walmart, she said.

As part of the agreement, Walmart has agreed to send about 10 of their employees for diversity training next month that CAIR-MN is conducting, Aljabri said.

A spokeswoman for Walmart has been contacted for comment today, and a response is pending.

Aljabri noted that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act protect the right of any employee with a bona fide religious belief to have accommodation in the workplace as long as that accommodation does not cause "undue hardship" for the employer.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Haveil Havalim

Edition #227 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is being hosted by Jew School.

Jordan Strips Palestinians of Citizenship

I'm sick of Israel being slammed for its supposed mistreatment of Arabs, especially Palestinians. Israel has treated Palestinians far better than their Arab brethren throughout the region. Palestinian refugees in Arab countries are treated like shit, they are denied jobs, education and even access to hospitals. When Judea and Samaria came under Israeli control, hospitals and universities were built, the standard of living and life expectancy was greatly increased after 1967. In 1970 thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered by the Heshemite regime and now Palestinians in Jordan have recently been stripped of their citizenship to the silence of the human rights crowd, the UN, EU, and the Obama administration. Where are all those champions of Palestinian rights now?

A grave injustice is being committed against the Palestinian people -- perhaps among the greatest in their history. Thousands are being systematically robbed of their citizenship, made stateless once more by a hard-hearted government that pays lip service to peace and the two-state solution, but which seems determined to undermine both.

Israel? No -- the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the monarchy that occupied the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and which has long had an uneasy relationship with its Palestinian majority. Now, cynically claiming that it has the Palestinians' best interests at heart, the regime of King Abdullah II has begun removing the citizenship of Palestinians with roots in the West Bank.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

The Jordanian policy is a clear violation of these fundamental rights. Thus far, it has been met with protest in Amman and mild complaint from the Jordanian media. Yet the rest of the world has been silent.
Continue reading

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Another Nail in the Coffin for the UK

Yet another reason to detest England. Is it any wonder why the British won't take Israel's side when they even lack the guts to stand up for themselves and their way of life, preferring to allow an islamic cultural takeover to mounting any resistance. I'm not exaggerating when I say England will someday become an islamic state. It turns out that non-muslims are now using sharia courts to resolve civil disputes.

LONDON - An increasing number of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters.

A report in The Times has quoted the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) as saying that five per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.

Anti-Sharia campaigners, who claim that the Islamic system is radical and biased against women, expressed alarm at the news.

Denis MacEoin, who wrote a recent report for the think-tank Civitas examining the spread of Sharia in Britain, said: “You really need to ask why. What advantages could that possibly have for them going to an Islamic court? Any [Sharia] court is going to be implementing aspects of a law that runs contrary to British law, because of the way it treats women for example.”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said that organisations should be free to conduct arbitration under Sharia, provided that it did not infringe British law and was a voluntary process.

Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, who is Muslim, said that there were many forums for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution in Britain. “There is no problem with that, as long as it is always subject to English law,” she said.

The Times has also learnt that the MAT is planning to triple the number of its courts by setting up in ten new British cities by the end of the year. It will expand its network further by acting as an advisory body to dozens of other Islamic courts, with the intention of achieving national consensus over rulings and procedures.

Although Sharia courts have been operating in the civil jurisdiction since the early 1980s, they have been doing so only in the shadows and in an ad-hoc fashion. The Civitas report estimated that there were 85 Sharia councils in Britain. (ANI)

Arab Columnist Defends IDF

How's this for a breath of fresh air. A courageous Kuwaiti columnist, Abdallah al–Hadlaq, condemns Breaking the silence's accusations against the IDF as "unfair, unbalanced and lacking in proof".

A non-governmental Israeli organization claims that the IDF that attacked Gaza and the ostracized Hamas used local civilians as human shields and opened fire indiscriminately. The report by “Breaking the Silence” says the IDF destroyed buildings, mosques and private homes, and includes testimonies by 30 soldiers who participated in the attack on Gaza (2008/12/27–18/1/2009), but without revealing their names or unit affiliation.

However these allegations are to be rejected because the IDF has proved that its troops follow international law and obey orders despite the stress of battle. These testimonies lack sourcing or corroboration, thus preventing any conclusions from being drawn... Furthermore, it was the ostracized Hamas that caused much grief when it fired dozens of Qassam missiles at innocent civilians in the southern towns and villages of Israel. The IDF had no choice but to fight back causing the deaths of 1400 Palestinians, half of them civilians used as human shields by Hamas, in addition to the 5,000 wounded. Israel lost just 10 soldiers and 3 civilians.

The IDF defended innocent Israeli civilians against Hamas attacks and did all it could to prevent harming any civilians, targeting just the Hamas men, to disarm them by aerial bombing, shelling, and the use of heavy tractors, while maintaining the humane principles of the IDF that seeks to win with minimal human cost to either side.

The report by “Breaking the Silence” was unfair, unbalanced, and lacking in proof, so one wonders where it was when Hamas used schools and homes for weapons storage or for missile launchers. Israeli pilots reported many secondary explosions after they hit Hamas targets. Where was that organization when Hamas smuggled tons of illicit weapons through a network of tunnels from Egypt?

Friday, July 24, 2009

Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin

Why are liberals offended by Sarah Palin? It is because they see her as representing everything they despise about America. She is a plain old white American not a multicultural or a third world person. She’s rural and working class rather than being from an upper class and urban background. She’s a gun owner and is a devout Christian. The only time its acceptable to be a churchgoer as far as liberals are concerned is if you are black and belong to a fake Christian church that hates white people and America. Otherwise religion is bad unless you are a muslim. She didn’t graduate from an ivy league university and doesn’t have a law degree. She believes in American exceptionalism and doesn’t think we should become like Europe. Liberals think Europeans are more intelligent, sophisticated and enlightened because of their moral ambiguity while they look upon Americans as stupid bible believing, gun toting hicks who believe in moral absolutes. And for liberals, to believe in moral absolutes is to be ignorant and unenlightened. Liberals aspire for us to adopt Europe’s economic system and cultural values. Sarah believes in free markets instead of socialism. She doesn’t believe America is guilty of a myriad of sins in which we should apologize to the world for. She knows America has been a force for good in the world. And the most offensive thing of all which she has done was to give life to her downs syndrome son instead of getting an abortion. These are some of the reasons why she is despised by the liberal cultural elites. So fuck you Bob Franken and your sarcasm along with the rest of your elitist colleagues in the media and the democrats.

I've Had Enough of the "Peace Now" Crowd

President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, Debra DeLee, spews the typical liberal democratic tripe about Obama and the fraudulent peace process. I'm so sick of these "peace" process people. Their repeatedly failed ideas bring anything but peace. And they aren't the ones who have to suffer the consequences from the catastrophes they bring about through appeasement and emboldening of terrorists.

Obama is leading. He is doing so boldly and transparently, with the kind of credibility and charisma--both domestically and internationally--that many of his predecessors lacked. I believe that if regional and international leaders rise to the challenge and the promise of President Obama, they may find in him the one who will finally broker lasting peace between Jews and Arabs.

If Netanyahu and his team seriously consider the president's agenda, they may realize--as well they should--that it constitutes a rare opportunity for ending, once and for all, the Arab-Israel conflict, including Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. President Obama clearly stated why a freeze on settlements is imperative. He is seeking meaningful negotiations toward a final resolution of the conflict.

More like the final solution.

For such negotiations to be held in earnest, Israel cannot take measures that prejudge their outcome and should not engage in actions that Palestinians and their Arab brethren throughout the Middle East view as provocative and aggressive.

Aren't the palestinians taking measures that prejudge the outcome of negotiations, such as demanding the dismantlement of Jewish communities? How about for the palestinians and their arab brethren to stop engaging in actions provocative and aggressive toward Israel? As always with liberals, its a one-way street where the onus for creating peace is placed entirely upon Israel. As if Arab behavior such as hatred, incitement and terrorism have no bearing on the situation.

Obama's "Green" Czar

I was listening to a little bit of Glen Beck on the radio this morning and he believes that the real purpose for Obama's universal health care plan, universal college and green jobs programs is about stealth reparations for blacks since they are the ones who disproportionately can't afford health care and college. He also said that obama's "green czar", Van Jones was a guy who got mixed up in the Rodney King situation and served time in prison. The guy admitted that when he went to jail he was angry but when he came out he had become a radical communist and then got involved in the environmental movement. Beck then said that what Obama is doing has gone way beyond socialism and into black nationalism.

It's clear that obama is every bit the radical that we said he was during the campaign, warnings which were dismissed as smears.


From a 2005 interview with East Bay Express:

ones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an
apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of
color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like,
`This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket,
he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life
working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary."
In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might
fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then
the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

It gets better, Van Jones Green Jobs Czar Communist (self-proclaimed), founded
an organization called Storm. From the same interview:

In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to
Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the
theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

British Hatred of Israel

Israel should be seen by England as a natural ally, an outpost of freedom, democracy and civility in an otherwise barbaric region. Yet instead of making common cause with Israel against the islamic jihadists, the British establishment is overtly hostile to Israel and has sold its soul to the devil by choosing to align with the savages who seek its destruction and who also seek England's and the entire free world's destruction. You would think that the problems they are having with muslim immigrants would make Brits more empathetic with Israel, but the more trouble they have with muslims, the more hostile Britain is to Israel and Jews. You would think that by now they would see the folly of this outlook. Has England's anti-Israel stance made it less of a target of the islamic jihadists? Absolutely not, on the contrary. So why do they persist? With regard to that terrorist george galloway, rather than serving in Parliament, the guy should be imprisoned for treason. I have come to believe England is getting everything it deserves for becoming a nation of cowards and moral degenerates.

It has been a terrible month for Israel's reputation in Great Britain. The government has announced a partial arms embargo in protest of Operation Cast Lead. The Charity War on Want has held a launch event for a new book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide. The Guardian has featured commentaries promoting the apartheid analogy as well as accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using Nazi language to defend settlement policy. The BBC and other media outlets have given massive coverage to the recent Breaking the Silence report slamming the IDF for committing "war crimes." Barely a day goes by without a new front being opened against the Jewish state.

Those of us who follow such matters are always in danger of getting too close to our subject. But, given that the IDF is not involved in combat operations, I for one have never seen a period like it. On Friday, the Guardian ran two anti-Israel opinion pieces on one and the same day.

There's something in the air. The Israel-haters smell blood, and they're going in for the kill. It could be that we are on the threshold of a new era. But why now?

The simplest explanation is that the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so was always going to reach critical mass at some point. There is nothing particularly significant about the timing. The clock has been ticking for years. Israel's time has simply come.

ULTIMATELY, THE simple explanation may be the best explanation. But there are a number of other factors now at play which may have helped bring the situation to a head.

First, the election of Barack Obama is perceived by many British opinion formers as heralding a refreshing new approach to Israel from the United States. For linguistic and historical reasons, political change in America is keenly felt in Britain. Obama's comments calling for a freeze on the settlements have provided the pretext for a renewed assault on Israel in general using the American president's huge popularity as cover.

Second, the election of Netanyahu combined with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister have offered new opportunities to make the attack personal. Even for Israel's most virulent detractors, it was not easy to mount a hate campaign against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu has been demonized in Britain for years. Lieberman is portrayed as little better than a skinhead. The wolves have been thrown fresh meat.
Read the rest

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Nations Lining Up Against Israel

As Iran gets ever closer to obtaining nuclear weapons capability, the west is placing increasing pressure... on Israel.
A top conservative German politician is making headlines on Tuesday for his unusually sharp stance against Israel’s settlement-building policies. Ruprecht Polenz, who is chairman of the Bundestag’s foreign policy committee and a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union party, has warned Israel that it will be committing “political suicide” if it doesn’t cease construction of settlements in the Palestinian territories.

If the government in Jerusalem continues with construction, Polenz told the Düsseldorf daily Rheinische Post, it would run the danger “of gradually committing suicide as a democratic state.”

If Israel listens to Europe, it will be committing physical suicide.

Israel’s goal of living within secure borders, he warned — speaking as a “friend of Israel” — will only be possible with a two-state solution. And that, he said, would only be conceivable if East Jerusalem could be used as the capital of a Palestinian state. With its continuing settlement construction efforts, Polenz argued, Israel is attempting to cut East Jerusalem off from the West Bank.

All those making demands on Israel to hand over its territory, including half of Judaism's holiest city to sworn enemies and allow an adjacent terror state to be created always say they are doing this as a “friend” of course.

In doing so, he cautioned, Israel was overlooking the fact that neither the Palestinians nor the Arab states would accept a solution without East Jerusalem. In Islam, Jerusalem is the third most important holy city after Mecca and Medina.

Excuse me but Jerusalem is the HOLIEST city in Judaism. Since when does third take precedence over first?

Furthermore why is it necessary for eastern Jerusalem to be the capital of a palestinian state? When was Jerusalem ever the capital of any muslim state?

Obama Picks a Fight With Israel

Obama is certainly attempting to turn Americans against Israel. By picking a fight with Israel on something he knows it will not and cannot concede, he is counting on Americans to side with their president regardless of the injustice of his demands upon Israel, and therefore leave Israel completely isolated. Divide and conquer is obama’s MO, he did that during the campaign, dividing Americans along racial lines while pretending to be a post-racial candidate. And by his choosing of Sotomayor for the SC, cornering Republicans into a no-win situation by daring them to publicly oppose and vote against placing the first Hispanic on the SC or keep quiet and allow a leftist to be seated. So you can see how this sort of divisive strategy is a pattern with hussein obama.

How ironic that liberals throw around the apartheid label against Israel when it is THEY who support the concept of apartheid by advocating a policy of ethnically cleansing Jews and barring them from living in certain parts of Israel. Meanwhile the state of Israel does not bar Arabs from living anywhere in the country.

Netanyahu: Obama Crossed a Red Line

Israel's prime minister publicly rebukes Obama for asking him to halt a construction project within Israel proper.
July 21, 2009
- by P. David Hornik

For those wondering what President Obama meant when he reportedly told American Jewish leaders that Israel needs to “engage in serious self-reflection,” the answer wasn’t long in coming.

Tensions have now emerged over building homes for Jews — not in large West Bank settlements, but in East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel in 1967 and ever since has been part of a united Jerusalem in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims live and worship freely.

On Thursday, someone in the State Department — responding to pressure from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — told Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren that the Obama administration wanted Israel to put a halt to a housing project in East Jerusalem. The plan is to build 20 apartments in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. The site is near Mount Scopus (home to the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital) and Israel’s national police headquarters, has been in private hands since it was bought by U.S. millionaire Irving Moskowitz in 1985, and was a border police station from 1987 to 2002.

It was Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government that reportedly decided to go public with the matter, as a way of conveying that when it comes to construction, Jerusalem is a red line.

Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday:

We cannot accept the fact that Jews wouldn’t be entitled to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem. I can only imagine what would happen if someone suggested Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in New York, London, Paris or Rome. … United Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel, and our sovereignty over the city is not subject to appeal. … There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.

On Monday, U.S.-Israeli tensions appeared to be flaring on another front as well. With Defense Secretary Robert Gates reportedly planning to visit Israel next week to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program, a “senior U.S. defense official” was quoted as coming out strongly against an Israeli strike on Iran:

“A unilateral third-party attack on Iran’s nuclear program,” the official reportedly said, “could have profoundly destabilizing consequences. … It would affect Israel’s security and it would affect our interests, and the safety of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. … It’s a pretty big deal, and given the closeness of our relationship with Israel, I think we would hope that they would take those strategic calculations into account.”

The statement contrasts sharply with Vice President Joseph Biden’s assertion just two weeks ago that “Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.” In hindsight, Biden’s words were either a gaffe or part of an attempt by the administration to sow confusion in the minds of the mullahs; the former seems more likely.
Read the rest

European Court Rules in Favor of Israel

Here's a pleasant surprise. An international human rights court for once actually ruled in favor of Israel. A European Court ruled that it is discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods. And it is indeed discriminatory since Israel is singled out. Those who urge boycotts of Israel do not advocate the same when it comes to true human rights violators like China, Russia, Venezuela, saudi arabia, Syria, Iran, and just about every muslim country in the world.

Israel finally won one last week in an international human rights court.

On Thursday, the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights upheld a French ruling that it was illegal and discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods, and that making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods did not constitute a violation of one's freedom of expression.

The Council of Europe is based in Strasbourg, has some 47 member states and is independent of the European Union. The court is made up of one judge from each member state, and the rulings of the court carry moral weight throughout Europe.

On Thursday the court ruled by a vote of 6-1 that the French court did not violate the freedom of expression of the Communist mayor of the small French town of Seclin, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products.

Jews in the region filed a complaint with the public prosecutor, who decided to prosecute Willem for "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." Willem was first acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal in September 2003 and he was fined €1,000.

His appeal to a higher French court was unsuccessful, and as a result he petitioned the European Court of Human rights in March 2005, saying his call for a boycott of Israeli products was part of a legitimate political debate, and that his freedom of expression had been violated.

The court, made up of judges from Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macedonia and the Czech Republic ruled that interference with the former mayor's freedom of expression was needed to protect the rights of Israeli producers.
Read the rest

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

White House Warns Israel About Striking Iran

Amid reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to Israel next week for talks on Teheran’s nuclear program, a senior US defense official has told The Jerusalem Post that an Israeli strike on Iran could be profoundly destabilizing and would affect US interests.

Israel needed to take its relationship with America into account in contemplating any such attack, he warned.

Gates, who last week described the Islamic republic’s nuclear drive as the greatest current threat to global security, is set to spend six hours here next Monday, discussing the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He will also visit Jordan, according to officials involved in planning the trip.

He’s exactly right about Iran's nuclear drive being the greatest global threat. So why then is Gates more concerned about the possibility of Israel taking out Iran’s nukes than he is about Iran acquiring nuclear weaponry?

In his interview with the Post at the Pentagon, the senior US defense official also suggested that Syria might be ready to "fundamentally" reorient its position toward the United States, which would include restarting talks with Israel, at a time when Hamas and Hizbullah have been put "on the defensive" by Obama administration policies and events in Iran.

Those events, said the official, who insisted on anonymity, hadn't been seen to affect Iran's timeline on developing nuclear weapons. What was clear, he indicated, was the negative effect an Israeli strike would have.

"A unilateral third-party attack on Iran's nuclear program could have profoundly destabilizing consequences, and it wouldn't just affect the general level of stability in the region. It would affect Israel's security and it would affect our interests, and the safety of our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere," the official said, when asked if the US expected Israel to inform it of any decision to strike Iran.

"It's a pretty big deal, and given the closeness of our relationship with Israel, I think we would hope that they would take those strategic calculations into account."

His comments in the interview, conducted on Friday, came on the heels of conflicting signs from the Obama administration about whether it had given Israel a so-called "green light" to attack Iran, after Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else" on July 5.

Obama clarified on CNN later in the week that he had "absolutely not" given Israel permission to strike Iran.

Why the fuck would Israel need obama’s permission to to protect itself from annihilation? Who the fuck does obama think he is? First he demands that Jews in Israel be forbidden to live in certain parts of their homeland and not expand their families, now he is expecting that Israel be a sitting duck for Iranian nukes rather than take preemptive action to insure their own survival. Someone really needs to put this arrogant ass in his place. Read the rest

Monday, July 20, 2009

Jerusalem IS a Jewish City

Abbas is whining that Israel is trying to Judaicize eastern Jerusalem. I guess that would be kind of like muslims islamizing mecca and Catholics Catholicizing Vatican City. The fact of the matter is that claims of Jerusalem having any import to islam are a hoax. Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the koran and Jerusalem was never the capital of any muslim state. Thankfully Bibi is standing his ground and has said that Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem is not up for discussion.

Abbas: Israel trying to Judaicize East Jerusalem

By DPA

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday accused Israel of destroying the Islamic and Christian character of Jerusalem, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a U.S. demand to halt a proposed housing project in East Jerusalem.

"The holy city is today facing real dangers, while there are attempts to turn it into a full Jewish city by changing its Islamic and Christian landmarks," a statement published Monday by the official Wafa news agency quoted Abbas as telling Palestinians in Bethlehem.

He accused Israel of "digging under every corner in the city, which would cause a real danger to its historic and religious constructions, mainly the al-Aqsa Mosque." Advertisement


And, he said, Israel's policy "of demolishing houses or confiscating them, as well as imposing heavy taxes on its Muslim and Christian residents and preventing them from building, aims at forcing them to leave the city."

Israel captured Arab East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War, and annexed it shortly afterwards.

Palestinians however want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their future state, and say the Jewish neighborhoods Israel has built there cut the city off from the rest of the West Bank.

On Sunday Israeli media reported that the U.S. has demanded Israel not proceed with a plan to build housing units on the site of the Shepherd Hotel, in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem.

The hotel had been bought in the mid-1980s by US businessman Irving Moscowitz, a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Netanyahu responded to the U.S. demand by telling his cabinet that Israel "cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."

IDF Soldiers Give Counter Testimony to War Crimes Claims

Will these testimonies by IDF soldiers countering claims made by Breaking the Silence be as widely publicized in the western media? I'm certain they won't because objective truth is not a priority for the leftist media, only stories which fit with their preconceived negative view of Israel make the headlines. They want to believe and want the rest of the world to believe the worst about Israel therefore the media was not interested in investigating whether or not these allegations were true, hearsay is good enough for them to publish the claims of the accusers.

A newly released collection of anonymous accusations of alleged human rights abuses by Israeli soldiers in Gaza has prompted reservists who served there to deliver signed, on-camera counter-testimonies about Palestinian terrorists' use of Gazans as human shields.

The dozen English-language testimonies were delivered in response to a report by Breaking the Silence, an organization which says it is attempting to collect accounts by Israel Defense Soldiers in order to expose "moral corruption" within the IDF, as explained in the movement's Website.

The accusations were made by anonymous people who said they were reserves soldiers, and whose faces were blurred in filmed talks. Some recounted hearing from other soldiers that the IDF used Palestinians as human shields during Operation Cast Lead in January. Others said they recalled destroying Palestinian property.


"We came upon an ambulance from a local children's hospital," Pinchas Sanderson from Jerusalem recounted in an American accent in his counter-testimony. The 29-year-old U.S.-born student is one of three native English-speakers who appear on the new website www.soldiersspeakout.com.

"It was suspicious because there was a very old lady in the ambulance of a children's hospital. Inside we found three RPG rocket launchers," he said. "We couldn?t believe someone would use an ambulance to move them."

Johannesburg-born Jeremy Lipshitz, 24, recounted in a South African accent how his unit discovered a Hezbollah hideout in Lebanon but was ordered to hold fire. Lipshitz, a reserves Intelligence Corps field combatant who settled in Ra'anana after making aliyah six years ago, said it was because the terrorists were using civilians as human shields."
Read the rest

Iran Rapes and Executes Young Girls

Iran's islamic regime rapes virgin girls before executing them because in islam it is believed that if a woman dies a virgin she will go to heaven, so she is raped to insure she will go to hell. This is the monstrous regime which president Obama thinks we can somehow negotiate with. And thanks to Obama's fecklessness, we lost a chance to help the Iranian people put an end to these mullahs. We not only have the right, but an obligation to overthrow this satanic regime.

In a shocking and unprecedented interview, directly exposing the inhumanity of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's religious regime in Iran, a serving member of the paramilitary Basiji militia has told this reporter of his role in suppressing opposition street protests in recent weeks. ...

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so "impressed my superiors" that, at 18, "I was given the 'honor' to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death."

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

"I regret that, even though the marriages were legal," he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were "legal?"

"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

"I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over," he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her."
Read the rest

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Haveil Havalim

Edition #226 of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is being hosted by Jack at Random Thoughts.

Stephen Walt on the Obama-"Lobby" Meeting

Stephen Walt, who cowrote "The Israel Lobby" with John Mearsheimer, weighs in with a column about the meeting between Obama and Jewish leaders. And in between are my responses.

Obama meets the Lobby

By Stephen Walt,Foreign Policy

This past Monday, President Obama met with the heads of a number of prominent Jewish groups, to talk about the state of U.S.-Israeli relations and the future direction of U.S. Middle East policy. Virtually all the news reports I’ve seen suggest that the attendees had a cordial and candid discussion. After reading through various accounts, I have three comments.

First, although a few individuals in the Israel lobby continue to downplay its influence, the very fact that this meeting was held is additional testimony to its important role in shaping U.S. Middle East policy. Why was Barack Obama taking time from his busy schedule to meet with the heads of groups like AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, J Street, Hadassah, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (among others)? Simple: he knows that these groups have a lot of political power. He also knows that the success of his Middle East policy depends in large part on getting significant support from them. In a political system like ours, where well-organized interest groups routinely wield disproportionate influence over the issues they care about, holding a White House sit-down with these key leaders was smart politics.

Among those lobbyists that wield disproportionate influence is the Arab lobby, which Walt will not even discuss. He acts as if only the pro-Israel side has a voice in Washington, yet it pails in comparison to the Arab influence with their petro-dollars funding think tanks, media outlets, universities and former US government officials to promote their interests and regularly bash Israel. I suspect that Walt himself is part of the Arab lobby.

Second, the meeting also makes it clear that there have been significant changes within the lobby over the past several years, and that there is an evident rift between those who think the United States should continue to the same “special relationship” with Israel, and those who believe that it would be in Israel and America’s interest if Washington adopted a more candid and nuanced policy toward the Jewish state. It is noteworthy that the invitees included representatives from both J Street and Americans for Peace Now — groups that openly favor a two-state solution and have been backing Obama’s campaign to halt all construction in the settlements. Maybe even more noteworthy, the more hard-line groups were remarkably restrained in defending the settlement enterprise.

How is it in America's or Israel's best interest to take an evenhanded approach between democratic Israel and genocidal terrorists? As if Walt actually cares what's in Israel's interest. And how is it in our interests to create another islamic terror state? Taking a nuanced approach toward Israel is merely code for ending our alliance, siding with the Arabs and throwing Israel to the wolves. And what hardline groups is he talking about? None of those in attendance at the meeting were hardline. No Jewish groups which oppose a two-state solution and believe that Jews have the right to live anywhere they please in their historic homeland were invited.

What’s going on here? Some of these developments reflect the more open discourse that has begun to emerge on Israeli policy and the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Thankfully, it is no longer taboo to discuss these subjects, as it once was. This shift is occurring in good part because a growing number of American Jews are worried that Israel is on a path to become an apartheid state, and that the United States has been enabling that development by giving Israel generous and unconditional support.

Israel is not remotely an apartheid state, however all of the Arab states are.

The failed Lebanon war of 2006 and the brutal onslaught against Gaza earlier this year have also raised concerns that Israel has lost its moral and strategic compass. You know a country is in trouble when it routinely attacks respected human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, or when a group of its own soldiers releases damning personal testimony about their own misconduct in Gaza.

“Human rights” groups which receive money from saudi arabia, headed by blatantly bias “experts” who deny hamas uses human shields even as the terror group boasts about doing just that, receive questionable “eyewitness” accounts from hamas and other palestinians who have been coerced and threatened by hamas into telling lies about the IDF. Is it any wonder why Israel would question the credibility of these groups.

With regard to those group of soldiers, their claims are based not on what they personally witnessed, but rather on hearsay. None of the claims have given any specific details about time or place or names of those who committed these supposed “war crimes”.

(The courage and candor of these Israeli dissidents remains a redeeming feature of Israel’s otherwise troubled democracy).

Israel is not a “troubled” democracy which needs redemption. In fact Israel has a very vigorous democracy with a great deal of open dissent. That is precisely why these soldiers can make such heinous unfounded allegations without fear of serious reprisals. Therefore these soldiers weren’t acting out of “courage” but rather treachery.

And you know the hardliners in the lobby are getting desperate when they have to hire a professional spinmeister to come up with Orwellian talking points defending the occupation, such as the bizarre claim that removing illegal settlers from the West Bank would be a form of “ethnic cleansing.” (For more on the latter shenanigans, see Richard Silverstein’s valuable commentary here, here, and here.)

What else to call the demand to forcibly remove Jews from their homes and communities other than ethnic cleansing? Any other group that this was being done to it would certainly be called ethnic cleansing. But to demand Jews not live in certain areas of their historic homeland somehow doesn’t amount to ethnic cleansing. It is Walt who is the one using Orwellian talking points.

Third, it is also clear that the hard-line leadership remains trapped in old-think on a lot of these issues. For example, ADL head Abraham Foxman complained before the meeting that “What troubles me most is a lack of consultation and the need [for the administration] to do things publicly. There’s a [U.S.-Israel] relationship of 60 years and all of a sudden they’re treating Israel like everyone else. I find that disturbing.” In the same vein, Malcolm Hoenlein of the President’s Conference reportedly told Obama at the meeting that differences between the U.S. and Israel should be kept private, and that progress toward peace had only occurred when there was “no daylight” between American and Israeli leaders.

To his credit, Obama immediately pointed out the flaw in that line of argument, saying “For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.” He might have added that there was precious little daylight during the Clinton years either, which is one of the many reasons why the Oslo process came to naught.

Nonsense, just the opposite is the case. In fact it is precisely because the Clinton administration placed constant pressure on Israel for concessions, while ignoring palestinian violations of agreements that the Oslo process came to naught.

What Foxman and Hoenlein still don’t understand is that the special relationship is in fact harmful to the United States and Israel alike. It has allowed Israel to pursue foolish policies — like building settlements — and implicated the United States in them. Israel would be much better off if the United States did “treat it like everyone else,” or at least like other democracies. If it did, the U.S. would back Israel when it acts in ways we deem desirable, but U.S. leaders would criticize and oppose Israel’s actions when they are contrary to U.S. interests or values. In the end, a normal relationship between the two countries would be far healthier than the “special relationship” that Hoenlein and Foxman have long defended.

Why should Israel be expected to act in ways deemed desirable to US interests ahead of its own interests? Although I actually believe an Israel which has a hard line approach to its enemies IS in America’s interests as well. We do in fact have the same enemies and are faced with similar threats.

On this point, Obama could have quoted former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, who notes in his excellent book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace that the two presidents who made “meaningful breakthroughs on the way to an Arab-Israeli peace” (Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) succeeded because they were “ready to confront Israel head on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America.” Obama is actually employing a smarter approach than these two predecessors. Like Carter and Bush, he appears to be willing “to confront Israel head on,” but instead of “overlooking” the sensibilities of pro-Israel groups, as they did, he is doing his best to bring them along. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street put the point well after the White House meeting: Obama “knows how to push while he’s hugging.”

Obama also made it clear that the Palestinians and the Arab states also need to do more (a point that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underscored in a major speech yesterday), and that Washington will have to put pressure on all sides. But the United States has lots of experience putting pressure on the Palestinians and the Arabs — in fact, one attendee at the meeting quoted Obama as saying that U.S. pressure on the Arabs is a “dog bites man” story — so that will not be hard to do.

Pressuring Israel, on the other hand, has been a much rarer occurrence, but it is now necessary if Obama hopes to move toward a two-state solution and foster lasting peace between Israel and the Arab states around it. If he sticks to the positions he’s already outlined and follows through — and if the leaders he met with on Monday have the good sense to back him — Obama just might succeed.

Again Walt is inverting reality here. In fact American pressure on Israel has been a frequent occurence over the decades, including from pro-Israel presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. While on the other hand there has been scant pressure on the Arabs to accept and recognize Israel as a Jewish state and end terror and incitement. Nothing more than lip service has ever been done in that regard. No tangible pressure has ever been placed on the Arabs to comply with these demands such as withholding financial aid. In fact aid to the palestinians has been increasing from the US. US funded schools have been named after terrorists and our government looks the other way.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

White House Reaches Out to hamas

It turns out that while in Switzerland, hamas met with former US diplomat Thomas Pickering.
Ex-U.S. Diplomat Talks With Hamas
Officials of Islamist Group See an Opening, but Washington Says Nothing's Changed

Israeli soldiers stand atop and next to a tank near their country's border with Gaza. The Islamist group Hamas has controlled Gaza since June 2007. (By Tsafrir Abayov -- Associated Press)

By Howard Schneider and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 16, 2009


JERUSALEM, July 15 -- To Hamas officials Bassem Naim and Mahmoud al-Zahar, a recent meeting in Switzerland with a former senior U.S. diplomat represented an opening in relations with the Obama administration, and a path to easing the Islamist group's isolation.

"I hope it will be the beginning of addressing some of the mistakes of the last three years," Naim said of his talks with Thomas R. Pickering, a former undersecretary of state and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "This was a first meeting to investigate the positions in general terms of both parties without any commitment on any side."

U.S. officials say they see the previously undisclosed June meeting between Pickering and the two senior Hamas officials differently. They said Pickering had not been asked to approach Hamas and had no official standing; U.S. officials learned of the meeting only afterward. Policy toward the Islamist group, they said, remains what it was under President George W. Bush: that Hamas is a terrorist organization with which the United States will not even sanction a meeting.

They are full of shit. Pickering did not do this on his own. This is in line with the obama administration's outreach to dictatorships and terror states. This administration, in its moral bankruptcy really believes that it is Israel and not Arab-islamic rejectionism and hatred which has been the obstacle to peace. It continues to treat the viewpoint of terrorists and dictators with respect while showing contempt toward the concerns and opinions of our democratic ally, Israel, and denying it the right to have input on matters concerning its own fate.

Meshal’s speech, delivered from Damascus, the Syrian capital, was considered an overture to Obama. “The purpose of the speech was to convince the West that Hamas is a partner for dialogue,” retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, director of the Israeli-Palestinian Relations Program at Tel Aviv University, wrote in a recent paper. “The speech will make it easier for elements in Western Europe and within Obama’s administration that support dialogue with Hamas to advance their position.”

hamas realizes it has a perfect sucker in the White House.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Israel is not an Occupier

The fact that the entire world considers Judea and Samaria as well as eastern Jerusalem to be occupied, means nothing. The world depends upon Arab oil, is afraid of muslim terrorists and yes it is also anti-Semitic. Just because most of the world claims these are occupied territories, which it does so based on the self-interests of nations to curry favor with the Arab-muslim world, doesn’t make it fact. Who exactly is being occupied considering Palestine never existed as a sovereign entity and that Judea and Samaria had been previously occupied by Jordan, and that Israel acquired the territories in a war of self-defense and also considering that Jews had lived there for centuries prior to being ethnically cleansed by Jordan in 1948 and the fact that Judea and Samaria was part of the original Palestine mandate set aside for the reconstitution of a Jewish homeland? The claim of Israeli occupation is not based on any legal definition but rather based on political considerations. It's not difficult to understand why the world sides with the Arabs who constitute a population in the hundreds of millions with 21 states that control most of the world's energy resources as opposed to a miniscule state of six million Jews in which no one is economically dependent upon.

Why Is Israel’s Presence in the Territories Still Called “Occupation”?
Avinoam Sharon1


Executive Summary

When an armed force holds territory beyond its own national borders, the term “occupation” readily comes to mind. However, not all the factual situations that we commonly think of as “occupation” fall within the limited scope of the term “occupation” as defined in international law. Not every situation we refer to as “occupation” is subject to the international legal regime that regulates occupation and imposes obligations upon the occupier.
The term “occupation” is often employed politically, without regard for its general or legal meaning. The use of the term “occupation” in political rhetoric reduces complex situations of competing claims and rights to predefined categories of right and wrong. The term “occupation” is also employed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian terror, and relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for its own actions and their consequences. The term is also employed as part of a general assault upon Israel’s legitimacy, in the context of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel’s status as an occupier under international law.
Iraq was occupied by the Coalition forces from the spring of 2003 until June 28, 2004, at which time authority was handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government. At that point, Coalition forces remained in Iraq, but Iraq was no longer deemed occupied. If handing over authority to a Coalition-appointed interim government ended the occupation of Iraq, would the same not hold true for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and Israel?
Under the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization of September 28, 1995, it would seem that at least those areas placed under the effective control of the Palestinian Authority, and from which Israel had actually withdrawn its military forces, could no longer be termed “occupied” by Israel. Moreover, since the continued presence of Israeli troops in the area was agreed to and regulated by the Agreement, that presence should no longer be viewed as an occupation.
The withdrawal of all Israeli military personnel and any Israeli civilian presence in the Gaza Strip, and the subsequent ouster of the Palestinian Authority and the takeover of the area by a Hamas government, surely would constitute a clear end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. Nevertheless, even though Gaza is no longer under the authority of a hostile army, and despite an absence of the effective control necessary for providing the governmental services required of an occupying power, it is nevertheless argued that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza.


“For false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
Plato, Phaedo

Introduction

There is a joke that is currently making the rounds about an Israeli going through passport control at JFK. The immigration officer asks: “Occupation?” The Israeli says: “No. I’m just visiting.” The joke is premised upon a general perception of Israel as an occupier. That perception is so pervasive in regard to Israel and Israel alone, that the joke will not work if you substitute any other nationality.2 But does that perception accurately portray Israel, even after all the regional developments brought by the peace process? And if it is not accurate, why does it persist so tenaciously? In order to address those questions, we must first examine the meaning of the term “occupation.”

When an armed force holds territory beyond the borders of its own nation, “occupation” is the term that most readily comes to mind. It may be difficult to think of a more felicitous term to describe the factual situation.3 But not all the broad spectrum of factual situations that we commonly think of as “occupation” fall within the limited scope of the term “occupation” as defined in international law. Not every situation we refer to as “occupation” is subject to the international legal regime that regulates occupation and imposes obligations upon the occupier.

A striking example of this dual usage of the term “occupation” is provided by the Army of Occupation Medal. In 1946, the United States War Department issued a medal bearing the words “Army of Occupation” to recognize soldiers who had served in post-war Germany and Japan. Yet, neither Germany nor Japan was deemed to be occupied territory subject to the international law of occupation.4 Indeed, when Iraqi President Jalal Talibani stated: “Iraq is not occupied, but there are foreign forces on its soil, which is different,”5 he correctly expressed an often-misunderstood distinction.

The distinction was also made by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in regard to Iraq. As Swiss jurist Daniel Thürer has explained, Iraq was occupied by the Coalition forces from the spring of 2003 until June 28, 2004, at which time authority was handed over to the Iraqi Interim Government.6 At that point, Coalition forces remained in Iraq, but Iraq was no longer occupied. While this maintains the distinction between our casual use of the term “occupation” and its strict legal sense, it raises an interesting question. The Coalition occupation of Iraq would not seem substantively different than the Allied occupation of Germany or the American occupation of Japan, which are generally not deemed to have constituted occupation under international law. On its face, the same reasoning that supports the prevailing opinion that neither Germany nor Japan was occupied should support the view that Iraq was not occupied in the legal sense of the term.7 Even if that were not the case, if handing over authority to a Coalition-appointed interim government ended the occupation of Iraq, would the same not hold true in regard to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and, a fortiori, following the Palestinian general election in 1996? Why would the same distinction not apply to Israel?
Continue reading

More Bogus Charges Against the IDF

The media has failed to learn its lesson from the previous bogus reports about Israeli "war crimes" in Gaza which came from a few IDF soldiers based on hearsay and was quickly discredited by one of the soldiers himself who made the claim. Once again the media is rushing to report accusations of IDF atrocities without any basis in fact. You would think they would be cautious after having been burned so many times regarding charges leveled against Israel every time it engages in a military operation. But the reality is that they don't care if they are being hoodwinked. This is because the western leftist media does not care about truth and providing their readers with the facts or even about their own integrity and credibility, but instead their priority is to promote an anti-Israel agenda and therefore will seize on any opportunity to demonize Israel. They just figure if they throw enough against the wall something will stick or that even when the charges prove to be a hoax, that gets scant coverage so that only the initial accusations are remembered. The western media, especially the British media is satanic in nature since it has clearly taken sides with the islamic terrorists over Israel.

Breaking the Silence: More Rumor & Hearsay

The media rushes to promote another report based on unverifiable allegations from Gaza.


Will the media never learn?

In March 2009, Ha'aretz published a story alleging "war crimes" and serious ethical failures on the part of the IDF in Gaza. Predictably, many international media outlets repeated the allegations without bothering to do any rudimentary checks.

Subsequently, it was revealed that the soldiers' testimonies were based on nothing more than rumors and hearsay, causing acute embarrassment to Ha'aretz and serving up a salutary lesson for those media outlets that reproduced such shoddy journalism.

Now, Israeli non-governmental organization Breaking the Silence has published a new report reliant upon testimonials from soldiers who served in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. Once again, allegations of "war crimes" and misdemeanors are based on second-hand evidence and hearsay. Once again, international media outlets rushed to publish a story from another flawed source.

While the BBC gleefully pushed the story to the top of its agenda, The Independent produced a two-page center spread with a screaming headline "Israeli soldiers reveal the brutal truth of Gaza attack". Others also covered the story, including CNN, The Guardian, Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, Financial Times, Times of London, Daily Telegraph, NPR, Toronto Star and the Globe & Mail.

The G & M's Orly Halpern even wrote on her personal Twitter page: "I'm reading a really moving report which I will be writing about for the Globe and Mail. It makes me sick to my stomach." Can an objective and balanced story emerge when emotions rather than facts are the driving force?

Defending the IDF operation against charges including the use of human shields, Golani Brigade commander Col. Avi Peled stated that one of the soldiers who testified in the report was not even in the field at the time: "He told his commander about a week [during] which he wasn't even in the field. He reported about what he heard happened."

NGO Monitor's Dan Kosky points to the Breaking the Silence report's central problems - flawed methodology and absence of any reasonable research standards:

By Breaking the Silence's own admission, the allegations are comprised of "the testimony of around 30 combatants" – a fraction of the thousands of Israeli combat troops deployed during the Gaza conflict. This extremely narrow and presumably hand-picked sample is an absurd basis on which to pass judgment, and even these limited testimonies were entirely unverifiable.

All statements are anonymous, and so-called "evidence" is further compromised by the absence of any details of where and when alleged incidents occurred. Consequently, were the report intended to prompt the IDF to investigate individual allegations, Breaking the Silence has made this impossible.
continue reading

Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Swiss Meet With hamas

A hamas delegation recently headed to Switzerland to meet with Swiss diplomats. Switzerland does not consider hamas to be a terrorist group. No surprise there. This is the same country that took a neutral position with regard to the nazis. It is this kind of moral bankruptcy which causes me to have such contempt for the Europeans. They refuse to make distinctions between terrorists and a free democratic nation.

For those who say it's not Israel's business who the Swiss or any other country meets with, it sure as hell is Israel's business when a particular country decides to meet with those dedicated to its destruction and the genocide of its people. It's beyond absurd to claim that Israel has no business when another country is behaving in ways which will have a direct effect on it. Neither they nor the Swiss are the ones who are going to be suffering the consequences of hamas being further strengthened by the west's legitimization and appeasement of this genocidal terror group. Since the Israelis are the ones who have to live with the consequences, it certainly is their right to object to the Swiss meeting with hamas. I really am tired of countries who think they can just treat Israel like a sacrificial lamb, who act as though Israel should have no say with regards to its own fate, have a blatant disregard for legitimate Israeli security concerns as well as the very lives of Israeli citizens and treating Jewish blood as cheap. Its way past time Israel asserted itself.

You know it really does serve Europe right that they are being overrun by hordes of muslims, finally having to experience life amongst these savages.

Israel furious over Hamas leader's trip to Switzerland

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent


The Foreign Ministry is furious over news that Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official based in the Gaza Strip, recently headed a Hamas delegation to Switzerland for talks with Swiss diplomats.

A senior Foreign Ministry official said the visit will further destabilize already shaky relations between Jerusalem and Bern, after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Switzerland in April for the "Durban 2" United Nations anti-racism conference.

China's news agency broke the story of Zahar's visit nearly two weeks ago. Advertisement


Officials at the Israeli Embassy in Bern were surprised by the report, since they knew nothing about the June visit.

The embassy has requested clarifications from the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, but Israeli officials say the responses have not been satisfactory.

One Jerusalem officials said it was many days before the Swiss confirmed the Hamas visit to the embassy.

Swiss officials told Israel's ambassador in Bern, Ilan Elgar, that the Hamas delegation was invited to Geneva by a nongovernmental research institute.

The Foreign Ministry source, however, noted that Swiss diplomats, including the Swiss envoy to the Middle East, met with the delegation during a conference at the institute.

When Elgar requested official clarification regarding the visa issued to the delegation, he was told by the Swiss foreign ministry, "In Switzerland, Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization."

Tensions between Jerusalem and Bern began to build about a year and a half ago, when the Swiss foreign minister went to Iran to sign a major gas purchase contract.

In May, in the wake of Ahmadinejad's visit to Geneva and the official working meeting with him held by Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz, Israel recalled Elgar to Jerusalem for consultations in protest.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Obama Meets With Jewish Leaders

Hussein Obama tells leaders of Jewish organizations that Israel must engage in self-reflection. How about the arab-muslims engaging in serious self-reflection. Fat chance for that to happen. Israel is not the problem, the arab-muslims rejection of the right of the Jewish state to exist is. The intolerance of muslims toward others in general is the root cause of the bloodshed occurring around the world. Once again obama is full of crap. Yet in spite of his anti-Israel policies, Jewish groups continue to trust that he will do right by Israel.

These are useless organizations, including AIPAC. The only true Zionist Jewish organization I can think of is the ZOA. And of course they were not invited to the meeting. As far as these other groups, their identities as liberals and democrats trump their identity as Jews. Israel would be better off turning to Evangelical Christian groups in America for support rather than Jewish groups, sad to say. However thankfully there is a new group, Z Street being launched to counter the likes of the leftist anti-Zionist J-Street and perhaps replace the increasingly counterproductive AIPAC.

Obama to U.S. Jewish leaders: Israel must engage in self-reflection

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama met with 15 American Jewish leaders at the White House for the first time on Monday. The president and the Jewish officials huddled for talks aimed at clearing the air following allegations that his administration was taking a tough line with Israel over settlement activity.

At the meeting, Obama told the leaders that he wants to help Israel overcome its demographic problem by reaching an agreement on a two-state solution, but that in order to do so, Israel would need "to engage in serious self-reflection."

On the Iranian nuclear issue, Obama told the leaders that "the door to dialogue is open. If the Iranians do not walk through it, however, we will have to see how we proceed. But it would be a mistake to talk now about what we're going to do and how we're going to do it." Advertisement

One of the participants at the meeting asked the president to take a lower profile regarding the public differences between his administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the United States' demand that Israel freeze all settlement construction activity in the West Bank.

"This situation is not helpful," he told the president, who rejected the request, saying that during the eight years of the Bush administration, such disagreements were never made public but that such an approach was not helpful in advancing the peace process.

Obama added that there is a narrow window of opportunity for advancing the peace process and that he plans to speak openly and honestly with Israel - "a true friend of the U.S." - just as he did with the Arab nations in his speech at Cairo University in June.

Among the groups attending the meeting were the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Jewish Democratic Council, the Orthodox Union, the United Jewish Communities, the Union for Reform Judaism, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the American Jewish Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which is led by long-time Obama acquaintance Alan Solow, who requested the meeting.
Continue reading

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

galloway and chavez Plan Gaza Trip

The repulsive pro-terrorist, pro-jihadist British MP george galloway is planning another flotilla to Gaza to show solidarity with hamas. This time it will include hugo chavez.

Member of the British House of Commons George Galloway told the press Monday he was planning to organize a new solidarity convoy to Gaza that would include Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Qodsna News Agency reported on Monday.

Galloway was in Egypt Monday to sponsor the Lifeline 2 anti-siege convoy, which is scheduled to enter the Gaza Strip through its Rafah crossing along with 200 American solidarity activists.

The MP explained that he would continue to organize solidarity convoys, calling for lifting the siege imposed on Gaza. He revealed that Israeli lobbyists had sent three requests to US Attorney General Eric Holder trying to stop the vessel, which were all rejected.

Galloway also refuted Israeli accusations that he was pro-Hamas. "I was never pro-Hamas, yet I am pro-democracy, through which Hamas rose to power." [...]

It's funny how the vile galloway claims he supports democracy, yet defended the Iranian regime's fraudulent election and the subsequent brutal repression of the country's pro-democracy demonstrators. The left's support for democracy is rather selective. We can only hope this convoy sinks.