Jihadi website posts anthrax manufacturing instructions

Jihadi website posts anthrax manufacturing instructions: ”

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

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

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

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Today’s lying AFP headline

Today’s lying AFP headline: ”

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

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

AFP continues in its long tradition of tilting towards terror.

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Anarchists Plan on Preventing Super Delegates From Voting

Anarchists Plan on Preventing Super Delegates From Voting: ”

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

** Slapstick has the full details.

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

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

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

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

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

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

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

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

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

Smeared by Obama-hacks

By Aaron Klein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama-hack Berman is dead wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.

Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

‘

(Via YID With LID.)

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Doing it for the Cameras

Doing it for the Cameras: ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

ON THE PRESENT DANGER FACING ISRAEL AND ALL JEWS

ON THE PRESENT DANGER FACING ISRAEL AND ALL JEWS: ”

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

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

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

Military threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threat of violence

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

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

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

Diplomatic threat

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

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

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

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

Propaganda threat

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

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

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

Internal threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Landau contributed to this article.

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

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

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

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

Post from: The Nose On Your Face

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

9. Defeat Racism, Kill A Cracker

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

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

6. Obama In ‘08: You Jews, you lose

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

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

3. I Don’t Like Kike

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

1. A Honkey In Every Pot

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

More support for discussions with historical distorters

More support for discussions with historical distorters: ”

More support for discussions with historical distorters: ‘Abraham Bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faulty Arguments Made by Opponents of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinction:

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

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

Proportionality:

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

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

Retorsion:

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

Collective Punishment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Duties of Israel under the Genocide Convention

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

6. Duties of Israel under Anti-Terrorism Conventions

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Obama and the Minister

Obama and the Minister: ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Support For War Highest Since 2006- Except Among Lunatics

Support For War Highest Since 2006– Except Among Lunatics: ”

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

As seen at Memeorandum this morning:

(Click to Enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, not everyone supports the troops.

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

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

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

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

In lieu of Self Defense …. Rally for Israel

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

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

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

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

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

State Department Says Anti-Zionism is the New Anti-Semitism

State Department Says Anti-Zionism is the New Anti-Semitism: ”

State Department Says Anti-Zionism is the New Anti-Semitism: ’

Today the State Department released its new report on Anti-Semitism. After spending much of the early evening reading the 90+ page document I can say its pretty impressive. The overall theme of the document is that Anti-Semitism is very much on the rise..and in many cases, anti-Zionism is just a way to excuse anti-Semitism. While the traditional Jew hatred is around, over the past decade, hatred of Jews has morphed and adapted to ‘keep up with the times.

What is Anti-Semitism?

The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report:

‘Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’

Because the working definition is broad, the EUMC provides explanatory text that discusses the kinds of acts that could be considered anti-Semitic:

‘Such manifestations [of anti-Semitism] could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’ It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel

The EUMC makes clear, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded in itself as anti-Semitic

Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism

Contemporary anti-Semitism manifests itself in overt and subtle ways, both in places where sizeable Jewish communities are located and where few Jews live. Anti-Semitic crimes range from acts of violence, including terrorist attacks against Jews, to the desecration and destruction of Jewish property such as synagogues and cemeteries. Anti-Semitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and other propaganda circulate widely and rapidly by satellite television, radio, and the Internet.

Classic anti-Semitic screeds, such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf, remain commonplace. Jews continue to be accused of blood libel, dual loyalty, and undue influence on government policy and the media, and the symbols and images associated with age-old forms of anti-Semitism endure. These blatant forms of anti-Semitism, often linked with Nazism and fascism, are considered unacceptable by the mainstream in the democratic nations of Western Europe, North America, and beyond, but they are embraced and employed by the extreme fringe.

…….The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that—whether intentionally or unintentionally—has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character.

This new anti-Semitism is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations. For example, various United Nations bodies are asked each year on multiple occasions to commission investigations of what often are sensationalized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel. Various bodies have been set up within the UN system with the sole purpose of reporting on what is assumed to be ongoing, abusive Israeli behavior. The motive for such actions may be to defuse an immediate crisis, to show others in the Middle East that there are credible means of addressing their concerns other than resorting to violence, or to pursue other legitimate ends. But the collective effect of unremitting criticism of Israel, coupled with a failure to pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of grave violations, has the effect of reinforcing the notion that the Jewish state is one of the sources, if not the greatest source, of abuse of the rights of others, and thus intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism.

Israel as a ‘Nazi State’

Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace. Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the conscious intent of the purveyor. Israel’s policies and practices must be subject to responsible criticism and scrutiny to the same degree as those of any other country. At the same time, those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews. At times hostility toward Israel has translated into physical violence directed at Jews in general. There was, for example, a sharp upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide during the conflict between Hizballah and Israel in the summer of 2006

State Sponsored Hatred

Governments are increasingly recognized as having a responsibility to work against societal anti-Semitism. But instead of taking action to fight the fires of anti-Semitism, some irresponsible leaders and governments fan the flames of anti-Semitic hatred within their own societies and even beyond their borders. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has actively promoted Holocaust denial, Iran’s Jewish population faces official discrimination, and the official media outlets regularly produce anti-Semitic propaganda. The Syrian government routinely demonizes Jews through public statements and official propaganda. In Belarus, state enterprises freely produce and distribute anti-Semitic material. And in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has publicly demonized Israel and utilized stereotypes about Jewish financial influence and control, while Venezuela’s government-sponsored mass media have become vehicles for anti-Semitic discourse, as have government news media in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Elsewhere, despite official condemnation and efforts to combat the problem, societal anti-Semitism continues to exist. In Poland, the conservative Catholic radio station Radio Maryja is one of Europe’s most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues. The Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, a private institution in Ukraine commonly known by the acronym MAUP, is one of the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe. In Russia and other countries where xenophobia is widespread, such as some in Central and Eastern Europe, traditional anti-Semitism remains a problem. In France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, anti-Semitic violence remains a significant concern. Recent increases in anti-Semitic incidents have been documented in Argentina, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and beyond.

If you wish to read the entire PDF Click here

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.

Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

‘

(Via YID With LID.)

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Gaza Terrorists Fire 830 Rockets in Two Months

Gaza Terrorists Fire 830 Rockets in Two Months: ”

Gaza Terrorists Fire 830 Rockets in Two Months: ‘’

(IsraelNN.com) Terrorists in Gaza fired more than 830 rockets at Israeli cities in the first two months of 2008, security officials said Thursday. In comparison, 1,271 rockets were fired from Gaza over the course of 2007.

Terrorists fired 30 rockets at Israeli towns on Thursday, ending a short period of relative calm during which only one or two rockets were fired each day. No injuries were reported, although there were victims of psychological shock who required medical treatment.

Sixteen Israelis have died in attacks carried out by terrorist groups since the beginning of the year, 12 of them in March. Eight of the victims in March were young students murdered in last week’s shooting attack at the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva High School in Jerusalem, two were soldiers killed in fighting in Gaza, and two were soldiers killed by a bomb while patrolling near Gaza. Terrorists killed 13 Israelis in 2007

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Facebook moves Judean and Samarian Jews to Palestine

Facebook moves Judean and Samarian Jews to Palestine: ”

This is just sick. People need to complain. It is just not right.

Facebook moves Judean and Samarian Jews to Palestine: ‘Facebook, the popular social networking site, has decided that Jews who live in Judea and Samaria now live in Palestine – a country that does not exist – and not in Israel. Facebook no longer allows members from Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, Betar Illit and other settlements over the Green Line to list their hometowns as situated in Israel, but instead provides only a preset location, with their’

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Saddam’s Support of International Terrorists

Saddam’s Support of International Terrorists: ”

I found this on Konservo’s blog. It was just too good not to cross post.

Saddam’s Support of International Terrorists: ’

Hey, guess what…

Saddam Hussein supported jihadists and Islamic terrorists around the world, and he even told them to target Americans. These terrorist include members of jihad groups such as Hamas, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida and others.

That’s right, Lefties. It’s all here…

in this report (pdf) released by the Institute for Defense Analyses, take a gander.

Powerline can explain why this might not mesh with what your left-wing masters have been telling you. Also, if you are too lazy to read the full report, read the redacted version (pdf) and this summary from the NYSun:

The report, titled ‘Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,’ finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to ‘form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.’ At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam’s intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

More here

(Thanks for the PDF and the heads up, ‘Evil Bitch’!)

‘

(Via Dj Konservo.)

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

A Report on the Canary

A Report on the Canary: ”

A Report on the Canary: ’

The State Department yesterday released a report on Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism that, in the words of the press release, not only ‘documents traditional forms of anti-Semitism . . . but also discusses new manifestations of anti-Semitism, including instances when criticism of Israel and Zionism crosses the line into anti-Semitism.’

An entire chapter is devoted to the United Nations.  Both Anne Bayefsky and Claudia Rosett have periodically chronicled the incessant anti-Semitism of the UN, but it is still instructive to read it all summarized in one place, in the language of an official U.S. governmental publication.  Here is an excerpt from the UN chapter:

[T]he UN General Assembly . . . has established [three] bureaucracies with the sole mandate of singling out Israel as a violator of the human rights of others: The Division for Palestin­ian Rights (established in 1981); the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (1975); and the Special Com­mittee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (1968). These bodies and their staffs receive funding from within the regular UN budget assessed against all Mem­ber States. No other Member State is singled out in this fashion.

Between 2001 and September 2006, UNGA’s plenary and main committees . . . together adopted over 120 human rights-related resolutions focused on Israel, with more anticipated by the end of the 2007-2008 UNGA. During that same period, only ten resolutions were adopted by these same bodies regarding the situations in North Korea, Burma, and Sudan.

In fall 2006, UNGA adopted two resolutions on the Palestinian people that solely blamed Israel for the then current conflict (with no mention of Hamas shelling Israeli civilians or Hamas and Hizballah having kidnapped Israeli soldiers). . . .  Meanwhile, the dire situation in Sudan in which hundreds of thou­sands of civilians have been deliberately targeted did not merit a single focused resolution (although one resolution on assistance to refugees in Africa did pass).

The United Nations General Assembly has held a total of 10 Emergency Special Sessions since 1956. Six of these sessions have been about Israel. . . .

For many years before its abolition, the Commis­sion on Human Rights had a separate agenda item focusing solely on alleged violations of Israel . . . . This allowed multiple resolutions against Israel, while no other country could have more than one resolution run against it each year. No other country beside Israel had an agenda item exclusively scrutinizing it. . . .

Several impor­tant countries, including established democracies, follow a policy of voting ‘on principle’ against all resolutions that criticize a specific country regard­less of the merits — unless that country is Israel, in which case they consistently vote in favor of criti­cal resolutions.

In 2006, the Commission on Human Rights, which had lost legitimacy due to the inclusion in its leadership and membership of Member States that are serious, serial human rights violators, was replaced with a new body, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). . . .

The new body has proven to be even more prone to protect serious violators of human rights and more prolific in its criticism of Israel than its predecessor. The UNHRC adopted 15 anti-Israel resolutions or decisions in its first 16 months . . .

The UNHRC has taken little significant action against other coun­tries, including the world’s most notorious human rights violators, with the exceptions of Sudan (one resolution, one decision, and one special session resulting in one decision) and Burma (one special session resulting in one resolution). Instead, the Council decided to end the scrutiny of notori­ous violators of human rights such as Belarus and Cuba given by the predecessor Commission, while expanding its scrutiny of Israel. . . .

In 2006, in the wake of the conflict between Hizballah and Israel, po­lemical resolutions or statements critical of Israel were introduced in a number of UN forums . . . Each of these resolutions was one-sid­ed (not even mentioning the other party involved in the conflict) and outside the mandate of the respec­tive organization. . . .

Likewise, the UN’s lead agency responsible for the global promotion and protection of women’s rights, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), ended its 51st session on March 9, 2007 by criticiz­ing only one state — Israel. . . . The same session of the CSW saw fit to pass no resolutions at all on the international problem of honor crimes, female genital mutilation, rape as a weapon of war, and other serious abuses against women.

At the September 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) held in Durban, South Africa under UN auspices, anti-Israel rhetoric was pervasive . . . . The only panel on the 4-day NGO forum pro­gram that dealt with anti-Semitism was disrupted by anti-Semites. Arab activists joined each subgroup of the drafting session arguing that the Holocaust be equated with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and that anti-Semitism be re-labeled as ‘anti-Arab sentiment’ since Arabs are Semites. . . . The conference culminated in the Durban Declaration in which Israel was the only country singled out for criticism.

In a report released in February 2007, John Dugard, the UN’s ‘Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestin­ian territories occupied since 1967,’ announced that ‘Israel’s policies resemble those of Apartheid.’ . . . . Dugard’s reports consistently and deliberately omit­ted any word about Palestinian terrorism or incite­ment that would provide an explanation for Israeli actions other than that of racial prejudice.

The anti-Semitism of the UN suffices to deprive the UN of any moral authority, but equally damning is what the above record shows the UN has done about the genocide in Sudan, the brutal governments in North Korea and Burma, the notorious human rights violations in Belarus and Cuba, the blatant war crimes of Hezbollah and Hamas, and the international problem of honor crimes, female genital mutilation, rape as a weapon of war, and other abuses of women by UN members:  nothing. 

The UN is unable even to adopt effective measures against a country openly planning another Holocaust.

It is a record that fully justifies Paul Johnson’s description of anti-Semitism as a massively self-destructive mental disease.  It deprives people of the ability to make basic moral distinctions, or intelligently assess the world, or respond to anything other than their own debilitating prejudice.   When an entire organization is infected with it, the organization is a danger to peace.  It is a tragedy that the institution formed after World War II to prevent a reoccurrence of the conditions that led to that war has indisputably succumbed to two of those very conditions:  anti-Semitism and the appeasement of anti-Semites. 

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Largest Online Rally for Israel

Largest Online Rally for Israel: ”

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Video: Some reasons to love the ‘Palestinians’

Video: Some reasons to love the ‘Palestinians’: ”

I know that you’re all looking for reasons to love the ‘Palestinians.’ Well, here they are!

HT Israel Matzav 

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Mahmoud Abbas’ Official PA Newspaper Glorifies Mass Murder (Again)

Mahmoud Abbas’ Official PA Newspaper Glorifies Mass Murder (Again): ”

Charles at Little Green Footballs found more evidence of Fatah glorifying the islamic terrorist that killed kids studying the torah. It makes me sick the US is supporting these terrorist.

Mahmoud Abbas’ Official PA Newspaper Glorifies Mass Murder (Again): ’

Palestinian Media Watch continues blowing the whistle on the shell game being played by so-called ‘moderate’ Palestinian Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, as the official Fatah daily newspaper publishes article after article glorifying mass murdering arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh.

Senior Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh has been placed on a pedestal of glory in various articles in the official Palestinian Authority Fatah daily. Western countries have expressed virtually unanimous relief that the terrorist, wanted by 42 countries and on the FBI’s most wanted list, was killed by a car bomb in Damascus on February 12, 2008. The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, has been using the media under its control to mourn his death.

 

One article by a senior Fatah leader describes Mughniyeh as an ‘extraordinary hero… unequaled Hezbollah commander … a beacon of light.’ His killing is called a ‘murder in broad daylight… a tragedy that has hurt every Lebanese, every Palestinian, every Arab, and every free man on the face of this earth.’ The revenge for his death will be more terror and eventually Israel’s destruction.

 

So wrote Fatah leader Ahmad Dahbur, until recently the undersecretary of the Ministry of Culture, in Al Hayat Al Jadida, the official PA daily controlled by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction. His article, along with others paying lavish tribute to the dead terrorist, makes no mention of the fact that Mughniyeh was responsible for the murders of hundreds of civilians and soldiers in worldwide terror attacks. Among his many international terror attacks, Mughniyeh was responsible for the killing of 241 American soldiers of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon in 1983.

 

The Palestinian Authority has glorified his years of murder as heroic. It describes him repeatedly as a ‘Shahid’ (Islamic Martyr), the highest Islamic status, and has run his photo with that caption. He is crowned the ‘Knight of Lebanese Resistance.’

 

The PA newspaper, assuming it was Israel who killed him (Israel has denied involvement in the killing), refers to Israel as ‘the treacherous Zionist enemy,’ reiterates the PA’s ‘rage and hatred’ for Israel and promises more ‘resistance (the PA euphemism for terror) … the blow which will hand over death.’

And Condoleezza Rice continues to insist that Abbas doesn’t really mean it.

‘I am confident that President Abbas is somebody who is committed to the negotiated solution of this issue, and recognizes that only a negotiated solution is going to result in a Palestinian state,’ Rice said in response to a question on comments Abbas made in a recent interview, quoting him in part as saying, ‘I am opposed to armed struggle because we cannot succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different.’

Many interpreted those comments as supporting armed struggle.

‘We have all had the experience of perhaps saying things that we wish we hadn’t said, and I can just tell you that this is somebody who for many, many years now has rejected violence as a means to statehood,’ Rice said, noting that Abbas had later said the comments were taken out of context. ‘I can’t account for his comments. I think they were extremely unfortunate. We made that very clear to him.’

She may not be able to account for his comments, but she appears to have no real problem with them either.

‘

(Via Little Green Footballs.)

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Proof That Iran Is Arming Terrorists

Proof That Iran Is Arming Terrorists: ”

Proof That Iran Is Arming Terrorists:

‘These weapons were captured by the IDF, and taken from Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon War.The weapons were manufactured in Iran, and supplied to a designated terrorist organization, in violation of United Nations sanctions and international law.While Iran arms and trains their proxy armies, Hezbollah and Hamas, the world sits and looks on, or devotes their energies to attacking Israel for defending herself from those who openly advocate and work toward her destruction.Iran cannot be allowed to attain nuclear weapons.Whatever the cost.‘(Via avideditorla’s shared items in Google Reader.)

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Shocker! Global Anti-Semitism On The Rise!

Shocker! Global Anti-Semitism On The Rise!: ”

Shocker! Global Anti-Semitism On The Rise!: ’

From Reuters, the news service that routinely publishes doctored photos, bogus death tolls and falsified accounts of Israeli ‘atrocities’, all aimed at undermining Israel’s right to exist, comes word that Antisemitism is on the rise:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Anti-Semitism, including government-promoted hatred toward Jews and prejudice couched as criticism of Israel, has risen globally over the last decade, the State Department said on Thursday.

‘Today, more than 60 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is not just a fact of history, it is a current event,’ it said in a report to Congress.

U.S. embassies have noted an increase in attacks on Jewish people, property, institutions, and religious facilities in the last decade, the report said.

The report, titled ‘Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism,’ did not give comprehensive statistics, and said that in any case such statistics were skewed against Western democratic countries more likely to report the incidents. But it said other governments and institutions had documented similar trends.

For example, Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Institute listed 593 cases of major anti-Semitic incidents in 2006, the highest number since 2000, the report said. Of these, 277 were physical attacks on Jews; 105 synagogues were damaged. Over half the incidents took place in Western Europe.

You can read the rest of the article here.

There is also a video posted below the fold that addresses the recent resurgence of antisemitism around the world.

Whatever the cause, I’m sure it has nothing to do with the global jihad.

Ht: HotAir

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Obama’s spiritual leader

Obama’s spiritual leader: ”

Update: The first video was taken off youtube but it can be found here  (Don’t forget to come back for the other two three videos

UPDATE another video of his spiritual leader   

: 

 

For video with Obama talking about his relation to his pastor go here   

UPDATE: Second video      

:

Update: video of Obama talking about his relation to his pastor    

:   

Other posts on Obama   

NYT lies for Obama

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

Democrats Still Holding YOUR Security Hostage

Democrats Still Holding YOUR Security Hostage: ”

Democrats Still Holding YOUR Security Hostage: ‘For almost a month America’s security has been at risk because Nancy Pelosi will not let the FISA bill that passed the Senate even come to a vote. She has had time though to work with her lap dog, Senator Reid to ram through a bill banning water boarding which the President thankfully vetoed. She is now working on a bill that renews FISA, but doesn’t protect the phone companies that helped the United States when they were asked.

It seems as if the Democratic Party position on terrorism is protect al-Qaeda, but screw the US people and any company that cooperates with the US Government. OK Senator Obama…you say you are presumptive nominee..what say you?

Two Americas
by Clifford D. May
Al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups live in a shadow world where they plot to kill you and me. If we expect our intelligence professionals to prevent them from succeeding, we must give them the tools required to get the job done.

But in recent days, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have not been providing those tools. They’ve been taking them away. There are rank-and-file Democrats who think this is wrong – but in an election year few have been bold enough to dissent loudly or clearly.

It doesn’t take Jack Bauer to understand: One way to gather useful intelligence on terrorism is by interrogating captured terrorists. Torture is illegal – in all cases without exception. But short of torture are a variety of interrogation techniques that seek to elicit information by inflicting stress and duress; by rewarding cooperation and punishing defiance. Such techniques are aggressive and coercive, to be sure, but they do not necessarily ‘shock the conscience’ — the commonly agreed definition of torture.

Last week, President Bush was presented with a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from utilizing such methods even in cases involving unlawful combatants believed to have knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks. Instead, the bill would have restricted the CIA to the mild interrogation methods authorized for soldiers in the U.S. Army Field Manual – a document terrorists can access, read and utilize for training purposes.

Bush promptly vetoed the bill, saying it would outlaw techniques that have been used in the past to ‘prevent a number of attacks.’ Among them: assaults against a Marine camp in Djibouti and a U.S. consulate in Pakistan, and plots to fly passenger airplanes into buildings in Los Angeles and London.

The President emphasized that his objection to the bill was ‘not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program,’ and which the CIA itself banned in 2006 — having acknowledged that it had used the technique rarely, but successfully; for example on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.

An attempt this week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to overturn the President’s veto failed. But Pelosi has continued to block House members from voting on an additional measure – a compromise bill, passed by a bipartisan 68 to 29 majority in the Senate — to restore to American intelligence agencies the authority they formerly had to monitor foreign terrorist suspects abroad without first demonstrating ‘probable cause’ to a judge — a difficult standard to meet since many of those planning terrorism have not yet committed any crime.

The bill also would protect telecommunications companies from being sued for billions of dollars by plaintiffs’ lawyers for the ‘crime’ of having cooperated with American intelligence agencies in the aftermath of 9/11/01. The telecoms provided data that could be ‘mined’ for clues of coming attacks.

Although quite a few Democrats in the House apparently would support this commonsense legislation, only a few have been willing to let Speaker Pelosi know, in no uncertain terms, that they want to be allowed to cast their votes.

It’s hard to avoid this conclusion: We are living in what John Edward might call two Americas. In one, are those who think we are fighting a war and better fight hard and well because our enemy is dangerous. In the other, are those who think the ‘war’ against militant Islamism is a figment of the neo-conservative imagination — hardly worth mentioning.

That’s no exaggeration. Check out the presidential candidates’ websites. On John McCain’s, under ‘Issues,’ you’ll see ‘National Security,’ with a subheading on ‘Fighting Against Violent Islamic Extremists and Terrorist Tactics,’ and prominent mention of ‘the global war on terrorism’ and ‘threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea.’

Hillary Clinton’s web site, by contrast, lists 14 issues. Terrorism, national security, the war against Islamist terrorists and even foreign policy are conspicuously absent. Instead there is ‘Restoring America’s Standing in the World.’

Barack Obama’s web site shows 25 issues – but, again, national security and militant Islamism do not make the cut. Instead, in a section on ‘Foreign Policy,’ he promises to close the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo (he does not say where the terrorists now housed there would go), and ‘lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.’

Obama does assert that he will ‘finish the fight against al-Qaeda.’ He does not specify what weapons he will use to get that job done. Apparently, however, he doesn’t believe a robust intelligence gathering capability need be among them.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.

Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</

First-Ever: First-Temple Building Remains Found Near Temple Mt.

First-Ever: First-Temple Building Remains Found Near Temple Mt.: ”

First-Ever: First-Temple Building Remains Found Near Temple Mt.: ’

(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Antiquities Authority announces the first time in the history of the archaeological research of Jerusalem that building remains from the First Temple period have been exposed so close to the Temple Mount – on the eastern slopes of the Upper City. More

‘

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

“

(Via The Avid Editor’s Insights.)</