Saturday, August 30, 2008

Leadership is all about Responsibility

Mike Packer

Israel’s Leadership, Olmert, Livni and Barak should be all indicted for dereliction of duty!

Eli Hertz ( in a newsletter of August 26, 2008, brings to task Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni over her handling of Resolution 1701:

“She insists that the outcome of the resolution is in Israel's favor, but anyone who reads the fine print can clearly see its futility.

Is it ignorance, or blatant lies?”


Her insistence has backfired on Israel in a way that threatens our existence. Hezbbollah has been rearming in total violation of 1701 and the UNIFIL commander Major General Caudio Graziano has refused to agree with the facts on the ground.

The Resolution was adopted under Chapter 6 of the UN charter and ‘lacks the legal authority or enforcement power whatsoever” according to Hertz which means that Livni, who is a lawyer, must have known that this was the case and should not have pressured for its adoption.

Hertz goes on to mention that:

Hesham Youssef, chief of the cabinet of the Arab League Secretary-General speaking to Al-Ahram Weekly simply stated: "The resolution is issued under Chapter 6 rather than Chapter 7 of the UN Charter ... [This] is a diplomatic achievement" of the Arab League. In other words, the Arab League welcomes the weakness of the resolution which lacks enforcement power to "ensure implementation" of Resolution 1701.

So, again, the lame duck government of Israel has played into the Arab hands. Livni’s claim that the cease fire was a success was just a way of throwing sand into the eyes of the Israeli population. This so-called “success” caused the death of 33 soldiers, many more wounded and did nothing to protect the citizens of the country, the prime objective of any government.

According to Hertz, Livni is quoted as saying:

"We wanted to ensure that this embargo would be enforceable and substantive, preventing the transfer of arms ... to Hizbollah. ... Now the embargo is part of the UN resolution and the terms and formulation of this article are acceptable to Israel and express our opinion - a proper embargo."

He then goes on to postulate that:

Resolution 1701 never even mentions the word embargo and does not set-forth an enforcement mechanism or any enforcement power. It seems as though the Minister did not read the resolution.

Livni said:

Israel "Will be getting UNIFIL with a completely different mandate, which includes the right, the option and the authority to use force when required."

But the facts are:

UNIFIL - a Paper Tiger - is not authorized to use armed force or to impose in any forceful manner the implementation of the recommendations of UN Resolution 1701. UNIFIL's right to use force is strictly limited to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Major-General Alain Pelligrini [France] then the Force Commander of UNIFIL made it clear: "The disarmament of Hezbollah is not the business of UNIFIL."

So, is this the action of a person who is in the position of responsibility? I think not and call for her indictment for gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

As for Barak and Olmert I would like to quote from DebkaFile (

DEBKAfile Special Report
August 27, 2008, 12:47 PM (GMT+02:00)
[……]The geography of the accident Tuesday, Aug. 26, belied the reiterated claims of Israeli ministers and UN officials that Hizballah’s rockets had been pushed back from the Lebanese-Israeli border, under the terms of the Resolution 1701 ceasefire which ended the 2006 Lebanon War.
Jamal Amin Salah, 51, a Hizballah operations executive, stood on the rooftop of a building at the Lebanese Yaroun village, less than half a kilometer from the Israeli border. He was discussing with his men how far inside Israeli territory the rockets installed at the launch pads in the village could reach, when he fell to his death.
DEBKAfile’s military sources confirm that, not only has Hizballah returned to its old positions on the Israeli border - contradicting statements by prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak - but the Iran-backed Shiite terrorists are working feverishly on the construction of a new line of fortified military positions, including rocket-launching pads, right on top of the Israeli border fence.
Neither Israeli Defense Forces nor UN peacekeepers have interfered with this barefaced violation of international agreements.

That is the reason that Olmert and Barak should go the way of Livni. Responsibility, responsibility, responsibility.
Read more!

Saturday, August 23, 2008

The Whores of Islam

Mike Packer

David Bedein and Sam Harari published on August 15 in Philadelphia’s The Bulletin quotes from an interview given by Major General Claudio Graziano, commander of the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) on the situation in Lebanon.

In true UN tradition the General blames Israel with regards to the implementation of UN resolution 1701. He is quoted as saying “Hezbollah is one of the parties that agree with 1701 and support 1701”. He, also denied allegations that Hezbollah has rearmed. The situation on the ground says the exact opposite. Israel intelligence has photographic proof that “The Party of God” has dug tunnels and underground storage facilities for the tons of arms and ammunition that they have smuggled through Syria into the area in flagrant violation of 1701.
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzippi Livni, supported the UN resolution with the hope and trust that the UN would implement 1701. Guess what, no such luck! The UN has again proved itself to be as useless as teats on a boar hog and far more malodorous.

Another question posed to the General was what could UNIFIL do if it discovered evidence of rearming in S.Lebanon, Graziano replied, “UNIFIL has no commitment to the disarmament of Hezbollah. We are a peacekeeping force, not peace enforcement.”
Therein lies the crux of the matter.

It is time the UN disbanded itself as did the League of Nations after WWII because it could not “keep the peace”. The UN is not only not keeping the peace but is playing double standards vis-à-vis the Middle East conflict. This is, of course, not surprising as the Arab members of the UN have everybody by the short and curlies because of their oil glut.

And then there is the problem of the Italian contingent and at its head Major General Claudio Graziano. Since the fall of the Roman Empire the Italians have not been the best soldiers on the planet and were the butt of innumerable jokes.

To shed a little more light on the subject Nissan Ratzlav-Katz writing for quotes from Corriere della Sera that former Italian President Francesco Cossiga revealed that the government of Italy agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks in Italy.

"The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services," Cossiga explained.

So, since WWII, the Italians have been the whores of Islam and they continue that tradition in Lebanon.
Read more!

The Bill of [Blog] Rights

Mike Packer

The pre-preamble to the Bill of [Blog] Rights:

This Bill is written in Americanese. Apologies to my family and friends in the United Kingdom and Europe. I have come to the conclusion that the UK and Europe is a lost cause, they no longer have the motivation to fight their own demise. I know that they fought a world war not so long ago and are tired of turmoil, so I forgive them. To my family and friends; you are all sweet people, I love you dearly but I question your choice of countries to live in.

The preamble:

I created this blog because I am mad. I am mad at the members of my generation that are sending this world to hell in a hand basket. We, of the baby boom, were left a world devastated by two world wars within a span of 30 years and improved it technologically.

All well and good, but not enough. We ignored the third world and improved only our own global neighborhoods although we did improve in the latter half of the last century, but, apparently, not enough. Payback time is here!

Here I wish to insert the first amendment:

1. Freedom of Speech.

The freedom to be able to say or write what I want on my blog site and to invite whoever I wish to post here without restraint.

I invite all my friends who have something to get off their chests about the Middle East crisis and the spread of Islamofacism to submit their posts by email for consideration and if they are clean enough I will post them on the blog site.

2. Freedom of Expression

The freedom to say what you feel without feeling guilty about whether you are treading on someones feelings. Political correctness is out!

Political correctness was invented by left wing liberals and was the worst invention of the 20th Century. I want to be able to say what is on my mind in the same plain language that I use with my friends without having to answer to any "Human Rights Commission".

So lets all wake up and start getting the word out. We do not want to be Muslims, dhimmis, or any other ferkakter (sic) Islamic label. This is our world, we improved our part of it let them with our hard earned petro-dollars improve their part. I don't want some sheet-head arriving in my country and telling me what to do, I say to them the same as the Australians (bless 'em) "if you don't like the way I live get the hell out!"
Read more!

Monday, August 18, 2008

From The Times
August 12, 2008
A festival of grovelling to terrorists
If works of art are withdrawn because of fear of reprisal, we lose the chance for open debate
Mick Hume

[bold script in square parenthesis are my comments - MP]

Have you heard about the first novel by a young American woman that has become the “new Satanic Verses”, sparking terrorist attacks on the publishers and riots by Islamic militants that make the protests against Salman Rushdie's book look like an English tea party?
No, you probably won't have, since there is no book for anybody to riot about. The US publishers Random House pulled The Jewel of Medina by Sherry Jones, due out today, on the ground that it “might be offensive to some in the Muslim community” and “could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment”. An executive told the author that they had stopped her racy historical novel about Aisha, young wife of the Prophet Muhammad, out of “fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims” and concern for “the safety and security of the Random House building and employees”.

[I'm sorry but I am starting to get pissed off! The true enemy out there is not only Islam but our own liberal thinking. This constant apologizing for imagined wrongs is just too wimpy for me. I will write what I want, when I want to, about whoever riles me and I will use any and all epithets in my arsenal, human rights commissions be damned!]

There had been no acts of violence or terrorism, nor even threats or protests. All that happened was that one non-Muslim associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas, who was sent a proof copy, apparently cautioned that the book would be seen as “a declaration of war... explosive stuff... a national security issue” and more offensive than The Satanic Verses. There swiftly followed a riot of retreating publishers, and the book was blown out before anybody had the chance to set light to it for the cameras.

It looks like another example of a quiet wave of self-censorship and cultural cowardice sweeping Western art circles. Two years ago, when the Deutsche opera in Berlin scrapped a production of Mozart's Idomeneo for fear that it might offend some Muslims, I described it as “pre-emptive grovelling”. This now appears to be the modus operandi of the transatlantic arts elites.
It has just been reported that the BBC has dropped a big-budget docu-drama, The London Bombers. A team of journalists had spent months researching it in Beeston, Leeds, home of some of the 7/7 terrorists, and a top writer was preparing the final draft, when it was scrapped. The journalists were reportedly told by BBC executives that it was Islamophobic and offensive.
Last year, the New Culture Forum published a survey of similar cases, from the BBC hospital soap Casualty changing Muslim terrorists into animal rights activists, to the Barbican cutting out scenes from Tamburlaine the Great and the “cutting-edge” Royal Court Theatre cancelling an adaptation of Aristophanes' Lysistrata, both for fear that they might offend some Muslims.
The threat to freedom here does not come from a few Islamic radicals, but from the invertebrate liberals of the cultural establishment who have so lost faith in themselves that they will surrender their freedoms before anybody starts a fight. The mere suggestion of causing offence to some mob of imagined stereotypes is enough to have them scurrying for a bomb shelter, their creative imaginations blowing up small protests into the threat of a big culture war. Of course, such pre-emptive grovelling only encourages any zealot with a blog to demand even more censorship.

[Europa, what ails thee? Where are the macho europeans that destroyed Nazi Germany? why are you kowtowing to a bunch of towel-headed, sheep shagging, camel jockeys? Where are your cojones? why isn't the average European Joe out in the streets waving some banners with a few good insults on them and claim back his country? Come on, people, Israel can't do it all by itself for you, we have our own problems]

Who needs book burners if “offensive” books are not allowed to be published in the first place? Why bother to protest against provocative plays if the theatres will turn the lights off for you beforehand? There is no need even for a polite exchange on Points of View if the controversial programmes never get made.

The quality or lack of it in the self-censored works is not the issue here. That associate professor from Texas condemned the novel about Muhammad's wife as “soft porn”. But so what if it was? Free expression should mean freedom for what others see as filth, too. If there are artists childishly causing offence for its own sake, feel free to ignore them, but not to gag them.
Pre-emptive grovelling, encouraged from the top down by our illiberal authorities, is bad for the arts and for society. The arts can only flourish in a climate of cultural anarchy rather than compulsion and conformity. The attempt to limit what can be said must have a chilling effect, encouraging other writers and artists to pull in their horns.

Such self-censorship is also dangerous for those who don't much care about high culture. There is indeed a lesson from the Satanic Verses controversy, but not the one often cited. The dominant response to that clash of cultures was to try to bury it beneath worthy multicultural claptrap about celebrating difference. After more than 15 years of such attempts to suppress honest debate, the tensions festering beneath the surface exploded on the London transport system. As one female Muslim writer critical of the decision not to publish The Jewel of Medina says: “The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.”

As an old libertarian of the Left, who has long upheld the Right to Be Offensive, what makes me most angry today is to see fearful self-censorship and pre-emptive grovelling in the name of liberal values. That really is something worth intellectually rioting about.
Read more!

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Olmert to PA: We'll quit West Bank when you retake Gaza

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

[comments in square parenthesis are mine - MP]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has presented Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank to take place after Abbas' forces have retaken Gaza as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

Olmert, who met with Abbas this week, feels there is time to reach an agreement during his remaining time in office. He is now awaiting a decision from the Palestinians.

[ surely he is jesting, how can a Prime Minister who is weeks from terminating his office make any lasting agreements when he doesn't have the backing of the Knesset or even everyone in his own party]

The centerpiece of Olmert's detailed proposal is the suggested permanent border, which would be based on an Israeli withdrawal from most of the West Bank. In return for the land retained by Israel in the West Bank, the Palestinians would receive alternative land in the Negev, adjacent to the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians would also enjoy free passage between Gaza and the West Bank without any security checks, the proposal says. A senior Israeli official said the Palestinians were given preliminary maps of the proposed borders.

[Ehud Barak was forced out of office for doing almost the same thing. If there are going to be early elections in Israel Barak has a chance of winning and we would be back where we were at Camp David. We need to find someone who is willing to announce that we are not interested in a two-state solution]

. Under Olmert's offer, Israel would keep 7 percent of the West Bank, while the Palestinians would receive territory equivalent to 5.5 percent of West Bank. Israel views the passage between Gaza and the West Bank as compensating for this difference: Though it would officially remain in Israeli hands, it would connect the two halves of the Palestinian state - a connection the Palestinians did not enjoy before 1967, when the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control and the West Bank was part of Jordan.

The land to be annexed to Israel would include the large settlement blocs, and the border would be similar to the present route of the separation fence. Israel would keep Ma'aleh Adumim, Gush Etzion, the settlements surrounding Jerusalem and some land in the northern West Bank adjacent to Israel.

Since Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently approved more construction in both Efrat and Ariel, two settlements relatively far from the 1949 armistice lines, it is reasonable to assume that Olmert wants to include these settlements in the territory annexed to Israel as well.

Olmert's proposal states that once a border is agreed upon, Israel would be able to build freely in the settlement blocs to be annexed.

The settlements outside the new border would be evacuated in two stages. First, after the agreement in principle is signed, the cabinet would initiate legislation to compensate settlers who voluntarily relocate within Israel or to settlement blocs slated to be annexed. Over the past few months, Olmert has approved construction of thousands of housing units in these settlement blocs, mostly around Jerusalem, and some are intended for the voluntary evacuees.

In the second stage, once the Palestinians complete a series of internal reforms and are capable of carrying out the entire agreement, Israel would remove any settlers remaining east of the new border.

Olmert will to try to sell the deal to the Israeli public based on a staged program of implementation. The present negotiations, which started with the Annapolis Summit in November 2007, are intended to reach a "shelf agreement" that would lay the foundations of a Palestinian state. However, implementation of the shelf agreement would be postponed until the Palestinian Authority is capable of carrying out its part of the deal.

Olmert's proposal for a land swap introduces a new stage in the arrangement: Israel would immediately receive the settlement blocs, but the land to be transferred to the Palestinians and the free passage between Gaza and the West Bank would only be delivered after the PA retakes control of the Gaza Strip. In this way, Olmert could tell the Israeli public that Israel is receiving 7 percent of the West Bank and an agreed-upon border, while the Israeli concessions will be postponed until Hamas rule in Gaza has ended.

Abbas, for his part, could tell his people that he has succeeded in obtaining 98 percent of the West Bank from Israel, along with a promise to remove all settlers over the border.

The Palestinians' proposal had talked about a much smaller land swap, of about 2 percent of the West Bank.

Compared to previous Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Olmert proposal falls between the one then prime minister Barak presented to Yasser Arafat at Camp David in July 2000 and the one he offered at Taba in January 2001. The Palestinian proposal is similar to the ones offered during the Arafat years, which would have allowed Israel to annex only a few settlements, along with their access roads - a proposal nicknamed "balloons and strings." All these Palestinian proposals ruled out allowing Israel to retain the settlement blocs.

Since then, however, the separation fence has been built in the West Bank, and a new physical reality has been created in the areas where the fence has been completed.

Israel also presented the Palestinians with a detailed model of new security arrangements under the proposed agreement. The security proposal was drawn up by a team headed by Maj. Gen. Ido Nehoshtan, now commander of the Israel Air Force, but previously head of the army's Plans and Policy Directorate. The proposal has also been passed on to the Americans, in an effort to obtain their support for Israel's position during the negotiations.

The security proposal includes a demand that the Palestinian state be demilitarized and without an army. The Palestinians, in contrast, are demanding that their security forces be capable of defending against "outside threats," an Israeli official said.

On the refugee issue, Olmert's proposal rejects a Palestinian "right of return" and states that the refugees may only return to the Palestinian state, other than exceptional cases in which refugees would be allowed into Israel for family reunification. Nevertheless, the proposal includes a detailed and complex formula for solving the refugee problem.

Olmert has agreed with Abbas that the negotiations over Jerusalem will be postponed. In doing so, he gave in to the Shas Party's threats that it would leave the coalition if Jerusalem were put on the negotiating table.

[Here I agree with Shas....Jerusalem is taboo, no negotiation, period.]

Olmert views reaching an agreement with the Palestinians as extremely important. Such an agreement would entrench the two-state solution in the international community's consciousness, along with a detailed framework for achieving this solution. In Olmert's opinion, this is the only way Israel can rebuff challenges to its legitimacy and avoid calls for a "one-state solution." Such an agreement would show that Israel is not interested in controlling the territories, or the Palestinians, over the long run, but only until conditions arise that enable the establishment of a Palestinian state. This position has received strong support from the present U.S. administration.

Next week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit the region to continue her efforts to advance the negotiations. However, Olmert opposes her proposal to publish a joint U.S.-Palestinian-Israeli announcement detailing progress in the negotiations since Annapolis. Olmert objects to publishing partial positions; he only wants to announce a complete agreement - if one can be reached.

[Here is Olmerts big chance if he wants to redeem himself in Israeli eyes, tell SecState to butt out! We have had enough of American meddling in our internal affairs, the price is just too steep. Let Condi leave with Bush and let Israel open a new page vi-a-vis our relationship with the new American administration, be it what it may.].
Read more!

Monday, August 11, 2008

Magazine publisher Levant wins Danish cartoon dispute

Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Wednesday, August 06, 2008

After a year-long investigation, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission has rejected a complaint by the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant over his republication of the Danish Muhammad cartoons.

The allegation that the February 14, 2006, issue of the now defunct magazine was likely to expose Muslims to hatred helped to spark a national debate about human rights law and free speech, and its rejection comes after similar complaints of Islamophobia against Maclean's magazine also failed.

. In a report on his investigation, which recommended the complaint not be referred for a panel hearing, AHRCC Southern Director Pardeep S. Gundara wrote that the cartoons are "stereotypical, negative and offensive," and they "do reinforce stereotypes," but they were "related to relevant and timely news" and were "not simply gratuitously included."

Yasmeen Nizam, a civil litigation lawyer in Edmonton and an ECMC director, said the Council is "certainly disappointed with the decision."

"Our whole idea was to educate people," she said. "We thought the cartoons did [expose Muslims to hatred], regardless of the context, because if you look at the broader context in a post-9/11 world, Muslims are at a higher risk of being discriminated against."

She said the Council decided to bring a human rights complaint because, unlike criminal hate speech prosecutions, the publisher's intent does not matter.

"We weren't shopping around for any laws. We thought this was a good way to bring our concerns to the attention of the public," she said. "Obviously we didn't want this to continue, so [another goal was] perhaps to discourage people from further maligning our prophet and our religion... We wanted this to have a deterrent effect."

She said she is unsure whether it actually has. What is certain is that this complaint, and others like it, have roused a broad contingent of free speech advocates to whom the bombastic Mr. Levant is a champion.

"I basically told them to f-off without using the swear word," Mr. Levant said of his response to the complaint, given during an interview with an AHRCC officer that he taped and broadcast on YouTube.

He said the complaint failed because he is "too big a fish for them to reel in."

"I was let go because I'm in the media every day. I've been down to [the U.S.] Congress to testify, I've been on CNN even. That's why I was let go, because if I caused them this much pain just in an investigation, imagine what the trial would be like," he said.

He does not consider this a victory, though.

"This censor approved what I wrote," he said. "His decision is not that I have freedom of speech. His decision is that I have his approval. I'm not interested in his approval. The only test of free speech is if I can write what he disapproves of with impunity. That's what freedom of speech is, to piss off some second-rate bureaucrat like Pardeep Gundara and know that you have the right to do so, because you're in Canada, not Saudi Arabia."

This complaint originally involved two other parties. A respondent, the Jewish Free Press, was dropped after the editor agreed in mediation to print a rebuttal. And an original complainant, Syed Soharwardy, national president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, dropped out after he had a change of heart.

Now that it is resolved, Mr. Soharwardy thinks the AHRCC made the right decision, even though Mr. Levant "twisted this whole thing" to turn himself into a victim.

"I never wanted someone's freedom of speech curtailed. I always wanted to sit down, with some third party, for mediation, and have a discussion," he said. "I withdrew my complaint because I was adding fire to the debate."

He also came to regard the entire human rights complaints process with suspicion.

"It was a very amateur operation," he said, run by untrained people, which resulted in a "complete misunderstanding" of his goals.

"When I went through this whole process and I saw it very closely, I realized there was some serious loopholes in the processes," he said.

National Post


Presented by

Read more!

Sunday, August 10, 2008

We Have To Change Tactics

Mike Packer

I used to be a left wing liberal, but no more!

I arrived in Israel on aliyah in historical times, 2 months before Anwar Sadat made his speech from the Knesset podium. At the time I was of a mind that here, at last, was our big chance for “peace”, first Egypt then the rest of the arab world.

Needless to say the arab world certainly didn’t kill themselves in the rush to follow Sadat, they killed Sadat.

This didn’t deter me from my liberal ideology although I did have a “right wing twinge” when the US forced us to let Yasser Arafat leave Beirut. I would have gladly cheered if the ship had been torpedoed on the high seas.
. I also had high hopes for the Madrid conference and was angry at PM Shamir’s attitude.

I was all gung ho over the Oslo accords albeit a little disappointed when the “palestinians” repeatedly reneged on agreements that they signed, agreements that the Israeli authorities deemed necessary for a lasting “peace”.

I was pleased with the decision of the Israeli government to disengage unilaterally from Gaza…. that is until the first Kassam rocket landed on Israeli soil.

I have now seen the light!

I say now, NO MORE!

Enough is enough, I no longer wish to search for “peace”. Let the arabs search for peace

Today I sit in my living room watching the TV coverage of the prisoner swap between us and Hezbollah and I am thinking to myself that the time has come for us to change our tactics vis a vis the arab world. We are in a direct war with two entities maybe three, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority through their Fatah Al Aqsa faction. Let us not fool ourselves, these three entities are embroiled in a struggle to relieve the world of its Jewish presence and we are involved whether we like it or not.

Israel has always played by the rules no matter what left wingers say to the contrary. We extended our hand in peace to all our neighbors on the birth of our nation and we are still seeking someone to shake it with. We have adopted the Geneva Convention accords, yet our enemies haven’t, we abide by international law apart from when it applies to us and our enemies twist it to suit themselves, we have fought all our wars according to the international rules of warfare, yet our enemies didn’t.

I say again, NO MORE!

Israel should demand reciprocity, visitation rights for visitation rights, information for information, live prisoners for live prisoners, dead for dead.…I would have liked nothing better than to send Samir Kuntar back in the same condition we got our soldiers.

The same goes for the rules of war the essence of which was mutuality. A state can’t violate them and expect its enemy to follow them. So much more so when the non-state is not a signatory to them, they are afforded no protection by them. Israel is MY COUNTRY I have the right and the duty to defend it with all the power at my disposal and I will do it without my gloves on, not according to the rules of warfare, the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules or any other obstacle that the international community wishes to put in my way….enough is enough.

When I came to Israel there was always the optimistic attitude of “my son/daughter will not have to serve in the army because the wars will be over”, well, this hasn’t come true and now I am saying the same thing about my grandchildren. This time I don’t want it to be an empty promise. I want the Israeli government to pluck up the courage to say that international pressure will no longer work that we have to do the job properly and if that means “collateral damage” then so be it!

That damage at the moment is, more or less, one-sided as I don’t see a much belated IDF response to the physical insults rained upon us by Hamas. Hezbollah or the Al-Aqsa brigade.

Israel is MY country and must act as it deems fit and not how the international community deems. I don’t advise any country in Europe how to run their business nor do I pressure the US to return Texas to Mexico. So who are they to tell us what to do? According to the decision of the League of Nations as pertaining to “Palestine” and which was passed unanimously by the 51 member states and which was later adopted, verbatim, by the United Nations, Israel IS the homeland of the Jewish people. The Jewish people will decide what is good or not for themselves by themselves.

I would like to conclude with a quote from the Congressional Record of the US House of Representatives which on June 30 1922 endorsed a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress:
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…..”
from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea.
President Warren G.Harding signed the resolution of approval on September 21, 1922.
Amongst the speakers on this resolution was Representative Walter M.Chandler of New York who set out three rules for the establishment of the National Homeland and they are:
(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.
I, personally, totally agree with him and as this proposal was later ratified by three more presidents, it seems that they did too.
Read more!

'Popular Palestinian Conference' Peddles Propaganda

by Cinnamon Stillwell
August 8, 2008

This weekend, the "Popular Palestinian Conference 2008" will be held in Chicago, and if past is prologue, a slew of anti-Israel propaganda will be part of the repertoire. The organizers make no effort to conceal their nefarious intentions, titling one of the workshops [emphasis added], "Inserting Palestine into High School Curricula in the US & Empowering Students to Challenge Dominant Narratives" and subtitling the conference, "Palestinians in the US: Reclaiming Our Voice, Asserting Our Narrative." Unfortunately, this "narrative" is a false one in which Israel is the oppressor, the Palestinians its perpetual victims, and the United States an accomplice in crime.
Various Middle East studies academics will be on hand to help propagate this fictitious narrative. UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, a skilled propagandist for Palestinian victimhood in the classroom and a radical activist outside it (he called for an "Intifada in this country!" at a 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco), will be speaking on a panel titled, "Palestinian Political Prisoners in the US: The Attack on Palestinian Activists and Scholars." Bazian has long perpetuated the idea that off-campus criticism of Middle East studies is a form of persecution. To state the obvious: there are no "Palestinian political prisoners" in the U.S., only criminals convicted through the justice system of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations.
One of them, former University of South Florida computer science professor Sami Al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and who awaits an August 13 trial for criminal contempt, will be represented on the panel by his daughter, Laila Al-Arian. Al-Arian has enjoyed unstinting support from the Middle East studies establishment, particularly founding director of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, John Esposito. Unmoved by the murder of innocent civilians by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Esposito penned a letter last month to the presiding judge urging that Al-Arian be granted bond and describing him as "a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice." Al-Arian's radicalism is nothing new: at a 1991 commemoration of the Palestinian Intifada featuring Islamic Jihad spiritual leader Abdel-Aziz Odeh, he called Jews "apes and pigs."
Wayne State University anthropologist Thomas Abowd will moderate the "political prisoners" panel. This is fitting, for Abowd fashions himself the victim of what his supporters call "right-wing Zionist elements on campus." But Abowd is hardly impartial. He is affiliated with the radical group Anti-Racist Action (ARA-WSU), whose members have accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing" and pro-Israel groups at Wayne State of practicing "white supremacist politics," along with defending the use of a swastika to equate Israel with Nazi Germany at one of their rallies.
Abowd spoke at "Palestine Awareness Week," an anti-Israel event at the University of Michigan in February 2008. Several students who attended Abowd's lecture described in a Michigan Daily op-ed his hostile and dismissive attitude towards a student who dared ask a challenging question. Abowd, as they put it, "smirked and glared" and "used scare tactics to intimidate and to alienate the student and to negate the importance of his question."
The conference ends with the panel, "One-State Solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict." The so-called one state solution is really just a fig-leaf for the destruction of Israel. There's no evidence that the Palestinian political leadership has any inclination towards the sort of multi-religious, multi-ethnic democratic nation envisioned by "one-state solution" proponents. The pathological hatred towards Jews, persecution of Christians, advocacy of Sharia law, indoctrination of children, and violence among rival Palestinian clans and terrorist groups all demonstrate the danger to Israel that lies down this path.
Yet some scholars advocate the "one-state solution" in spite of these glaring obstacles. Jennifer Loewenstein, associate director of the Middle East studies program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, will be one of the conference panelists doing just that. In a March 2008 article for the rabidly anti-Israel, far-left publication Counterpunch with the ridiculous title, "Gazan Holocaust," Loewenstein asserts that "Israel and its U.S. Master have long since resided in the lowest circle of Hell for betraying the name of humanity." No word from Loewenstein on the betrayals of humanity by the Palestinians, both towards Israelis and each other.
Another panelist, Tomis Kapitan, chair and professor in the Department of Philosophy at Northern Illinois University, displays a similar blind spot. In a 2004 paper on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Kapitan waxes philosophically about the "reciprocal" nature of Arab terrorism, calls the suggestion that "cultural or religious beliefs" motivate suicide bombings "incredible," and concludes that "the maximalists in charge of Israeli policy and their supporters in the United States and elsewhere, are chiefly to blame for the ongoing cycle of violence."
Panelist Seif Da'Na, professor of sociology and international studies at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, takes a Marxist, populist approach. In a 2001 Media Monitors Network article, Da'Na calls for a "Palestinian liberation strategy" and urges activists to view the "Palestinian struggle against Israel…in the larger context of the struggle to bring human dignity and social justice to the world." Surely "human dignity" and "social justice" would first need to be established within before serving as some sort of shining beacon to the world, but Da'Na overlooks this minor matter.
So too do conference organizers, who, as part of pushing their "narrative," bemoan the 60th anniversary of "al Nakba," the Arabic word for "catastrophe" used to describe the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948. But the "60 Years of Catastrophe" trumpeted at the conference website would more appropriately be placed upon the heads of Palestinian and regional Arab leadership. They have perpetuated a constant state of victimhood and refugee status while fomenting chaos and violence. Palestinians are the second largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world, yet precious few resources have been dedicated to the building of a functioning civil society. In fact, rising levels of violence can be directly correlated to rising levels of aid. The current civil war between Fatah and Hamas and the resultant human rights abuses are just the latest examples.
If the Palestinians in the U.S. that conference organizers profess to represent, and Middle East studies academics sympathetic to their cause, truly wanted to effect a just resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, they would start looking within for answers. Instead, such conferences simply peddle propaganda intended to demonize Israel. Those seeking the truth would do well to steer clear.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at Read more!

Saturday, August 9, 2008

A Shared Experience

I want to share with you an experience I had the other day:

I was invited to a lecture in the Jerusalem area on a settlement called Tekoa which is near the Ezion Block south of Jerusalem.

The lecture was by a very interesting man called Eli Herz who's credentials include being a member of the executive council of AIPAC; Chairman of the Board of Directors of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America; a Trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the recipient of ZOA's Justice Louis D.Brandeis Award for 2005.

Apart from this he is somewhat of an expert on International Law as regards to the Mandate for Palestine and it was on this subject that he lectured the other evening. It was a lecture that kept me glued to my seat (no mean feat for a student like myself) and certainly gained me knowledge that I was missing.

It also caused me to ask the question 'how come this isn't plain knowledge to all Jews, Zionists and lovers of Israel? Why has this not been used by our 'propaganda' people and milked for all its worth?'.

Eli, Ted Belman (editor of ) and I spent 2 hours over dinner after the lecture and I found both these men down to earth, charming, humorous and totally committed to the preservation of 'Palestine as a homeland for the Jews'.

It was not by chance that the settlement of Tekoa was chosen as this is one of those settlements that everyone deems 'illegal', it is in the hills of Judea surrounded by arab villages and is an 'in your face' settlement. Its a beautiful place and when I arrived the ring of happy childrens laughter wafted through the air and as I got out of my car and elderly couple walking by smiled and welcomed me profusely....I felt right at home.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, adding below a joint declaration from both houses of Congress from 1922 as a preamble to a link that I am also attaching to a website where you can download a booklet by Eli Herz called 'This land is my land' and is the topic of the lecture he gave us. I implore you all to read it and to pass it on to all your friends (influential or otherwise) so that it will receive the widest possible audience.

If everyone knew this I am sure that things would have been different.

the link to download the pamphlet or to read it online is: look through the site until you find 'This Land Is My Land - the Mandate for Palestine' you can then download by clicking on one of the 'commentary' can choose from a number of formats pdf, html or powerpoint.

JUNE 30, 1922
(Rept. NO. 1172)

Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine - Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). From Myths and Facts:
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the 'Mandate for Palestine,' confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

'Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

'Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.' [italics in the original]
On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York - I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:

(1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.

(2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.

(3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force.

'Mr. Speaker, I wish to discuss briefly each of these alternatives in order. And first let me read the now celebrated Balfour declaration of date of November 2, 1917, during the progress of the Great War, and afterwards incorporated in the preamble of the British mandate authorized by the League of Nations. The Balfour declaration was in the following language:
His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by the Jews in any other country.
'If this is not a condensed and at the same time a complete bill of rights both for the Arabs of Palestine and for the Jews who intend to remain in their present homelands outside of Palestine, I have never read or seen one. It is conceded by the Arabs themselves that the present government of the country under the British mandate and through the Zionist organization as an administrative agency is infinitely better than the government of the Turks who were chased out of the country by Allenby, the British general. It is probably better than any that the Arabs could create and maintain for themselves.
'I respectfully submit that the Arabs in Palestine should be and would be happy and content under the present government of that country if it were not for Turkish and Arab agitators, who travel around over the land stirring up trouble by making false representations concerning the true character of the Zionist movement, and by preaching a kind of holy war against the immigrant Jews who arrive from day to day. The Arabs are well represented in the personnel of the present Palestine administration, which has recognized their language as one of the official languages of the country, and has given official standing to the Moslem religion.
'In the second place, if the Arabs do not wish to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination there is plenty of room outside in purely Arab surroundings. The British Government and her allies made overtures and gave pledges to the Arab people to furnish them lands and protect their freedom in consideration of Arab alliance with the Allies during the World War. That pledge has been kept. The Hedjaz kingdom was established in ancient Arabia, and Hussein, Grand Sheriff of Mecca, was made king and freed from all Turkish influence. The son of King Hussein, Prince Feisal, is now the head of the kingdom of Mesopotamia [Iraq], and Arab predominance in that country has been assured by the Allies to the Arab people.
'Mesopotamia is alone capable of absorbing 30,000,000 people, according to a report submitted to the British Government by the Great English engineer, Sir William Wilcocks. Arab rights are also fully recognized and protected by the French mandate over Syria. There are also several flourishing Arabic cultural and political colonies in Egypt. In short, the Arab-speaking populations of Asia and Africa number about 38,000,000 souls and occupy approximately 2,375,000 square miles, many times larger than the territory of Great Britain. In other words under the reconstruction of the map of the east, the Arabs have been given practical control of Greater Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and parts of Egypt, which gives them an average of 38 acres per person. If the Arabs are compelled to leave Palestine and turn it over entirely to the Jews, it is admitted that the Arab race would still be one of the wealthiest landowning races on the earth. Therefore, I contend that if they will not consent to live peaceably with the Jews, they should be made to sell their lands and retire to places reserved for them somewhere in Arabia [Saudi], Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt, that suit them best, and where they can worship Allah, Mahomet [Muhammad], and the Koran to their heart's content. After all is said, the fact remains that the Arabs have more lands than they need, and the Jews have none. I am in favor of a readjustment under the Balfour declaration, without too great regard to nice distinctions in the matter of the question of self-determination. This thought brings me to my third proposal heretofore mentioned, that the Arabs should be driven out of Palestine by the British and Jews, or by somebody else, if they will not listen to the voice of reason and of justice.
'I shall probably be told that, regardless of the question of land and property rights, the Arabs have an interest in the holy places around Jerusalem. Admitting that their claims in this regard are just, there should be no trouble along this line. There is no reason to believe that Jews and Christians would deny them access to the holy places in the pilgrimages that they might desire to make from their Arab countries. But if the rights of the Jews to their ancient homeland are to be made dependent, as a final question, upon Moslem interests in the holy places around Jerusalem, I am willing and prepared to repudiate these rights entirely and to shut the Arabs out altogether.'
Read more!

What Has Changed?

July 24 is an auspicious date for us Jews.

On July 24, 1922 the League of Nations published the "Mandate for Palestine" which declared:

"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The League of Nations published a number of Mandates after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. France was awarded the mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Britain for Palestine, Iraq and Trans-Jordan.

Now, picture in your minds eye, a group of French and British dim-witted bureaucrats poring over maps of the Middle East with their sleeve garters, high winged collars and handfuls of red pencils arbitrarily drawing demarcation lines with total disregard for demography, geography or foresight.

Their idiotic flourishes of pencil strokes caused catastrophic consequences.

I won't go into the Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi, Kurdish or Armenian problems in this essay, they all speak for themselves.

The termination of the League of Nations occurred in April, 1946 after the League "failed to secure the peace" and the United Nations came into force on October 24, 1945 and article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the "Mandate for Palestine" of the League of Nations.

In 1947 the UN tabled a general Council resolution #181 recommending the Partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish the other Arab. The Jews in their desire for a state of any kind accepted the recommendation but the Arabs rejected it, resolution 181, therefore, lost its validity and the partition plan lost its relevance. In saying this it is to be understood that the State of Israel extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea as legitimized by the League of Nations and adopted by the United Nations and thus accorded legitimacy in the International Court of Justice.

Prior to the declaration of the State of Israel the British government as trustee of the Mandate made some calculated errors over the jurisdiction of certain areas in Palestine to the detriment of the Jewish Yishuv in complete disregard of their mandate. This left the fledgling state in poor strategic position on the eve of independence. When Independence was declared the neighboring Arab states declared war and invaded Israel. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in violation of article 2 of the UN charter of which they were signatories. Jordan captured the west bank of the Jordan River, Egypt captured Gaza.

We survived.

Jordan went on to illegally annex the "West Bank" with total impunity and which never received international recognition.

In 1967 Israel, in a defensive war, recaptured the west bank and Gaza but never followed-on with annexation preferring, I believe, the misconception of holding on to these territories as an "ace in the hole" for future negotiations.

Since that day the UN and the international community have been pressuring Israel to relinquish its hold on these territories and to help create a "Palestinian" state that was totally rejected by the Arabs back in '47. This pressure is unjust and the UN and the international community should be resisted with all the power under our control.

Since the 1967 war up until the formation of the Palestinian Authority the plight of the Arabs in the territories recaptured by Israel improved. As Prof. Efraim Karsh of King's College, University of London, wrote in a devastating 2002 essay for Commentary Magazine:
"At the inception of the [Israeli] occupation [of Gaza and West Bank], conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbours ... During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world -- ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew some what more slowly, the rate was still high by inter national standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $ 165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent. Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22) … Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990's, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 per cent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria."

This is a positive testimonial to Israel’s treatment of the Arab population of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip in contrary to the claims of many Human Rights associations that claim Israel has oppressed the indigenous population.

With the advent of the Palestinian Authority the situation has backslid into abject poverty and suffering of the population due directly to inept government and the insistence of the PA to pursue a policy of violence and to strive for the destruction of Israel. The International community has taken Israel to task for the situation and has placed the blame totally on Israel’s shoulders. This is completely immoral and totally unjust and must be rejected out of hand.

We, as Jews must pursue a line of education primarily amongst ourselves as I find that there are too many of our people who are not familiar with all that I have written here so far and are siding with those of our adversaries who seek to put the onus on us.

The International Court of Justice, the primary judicial organ of the United Nations, has recognized Israel’s claim to the west bank as pertaining to the “Mandate of Palestine” and considers settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip as being legal.

We must, therefore, ask the question posed by Eli Hertz in a recent newsletter:

In 1922 Jewish settlements were perfectly legal - What has changed?

What has changed, indeed? The only change is that the “Palestinians” have waged a propaganda war against us over the last 2 decades and are winning! We must fight back! There is a group of people who are trying to get together a TV network to do just that. I wish them the best of luck and offer my help in anyway I can and appeal to all of us to do the same.

Read more!