Posts Tagged ‘UN’

November 10, 1975 – Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

November 6, 2011
November 10, 1975


Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists’ help) hijack the U.N. and –unfairly– denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

The hypocrisy of both forms of exclusiveness; pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism denouncing Israel’s democracy where its Arab-Muslims have equal rights.

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations
As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. … The infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution was passed in 1975
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

Testimony of The Anti-Defamation League on The United Nations..
http://www.adl.org/durban/testimony.asp

Jul 31, 2001 – The infamous “Zionism = racism” resolution was rescinded and the UN
What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel …
[…] The UN General Assembly is still dominated by blocks of third-world countries that are anti-American and anti-Israel. The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” Resolution 3379. Except for Resolution 3379 itself, repealed in 1991, these black marks of injustice remain on the General Assembly’s record.

In December 1991, the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” resolution was repealed by the General Ass
embly. The repeal effort, which should have been a self-evident proposition, required an extensive diplomatic lobbying campaign by the United States, Israel and a few others. It included the direct, personal participation of President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and Secretary of State Baker; massive efforts by every regional bureau of the Department of State in Washington, American Ambassadors and their staffs in New York and every UN member capital; and lobbying by private groups around the world. The very difficulty of repealing Resolution 3379 showed just how deeply ingrained in the UN system was its anti-Semitic bias, and why, even after repeal, its effects linger.

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis moving into buildings they own in territory they have a legitimate claim to.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php
… In 1974, when the UN General Assembly invited Yaser Arafat to address the body, and in 1975 granted the PLO “observer status”, the first time any non-nation was give such recognition or standing.

Even with this prelude, it was shocking when on November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion..
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_un_zionism_racism.php

Anti-Semitism Entraps U.N.
Palm Beach Post – Nov 7, 1975
By Abba Eban

The United Nations began its life as an anti-Nazi alliance. Thirty years later it is on the way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism. There is no other tribunal form which such a torrent of abuse is poured forth every year against values, ideals and articles of faith revered by the Jewish people across the centuries. The horrifying truth that Hitler himself would often have felt at home in a forum which gave applause to a gun-toting Yasir Arafat and an obsequious ovation to the murderous Idi Amin.

There is, of course, no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel’s statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal rights of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people to its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.

Zionism is nothing more — but also nothing less — that the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself.

And the drama is enacted in the region in which the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in 20 states comprising 200 million people in four and a half million square miles, with vast resources.

The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut if advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal right of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace.

There are any ways in which Zionism can be defined. I hold in memory a concise formulation made 28 years ago: When Arab armies has attacked Israel on the day of its birth. Andrei Gromyko said in the Security Council on May 21, 1948, that Arab military operations were “aimed at the suppression of a national liberation movement.” It is as simple as that. Truth does not change just because those who proclaim it get tired of their own veracity.

Recently, a coalition of Moslem and Communist depotisms, reinforced, I hope temporarily, by a few Latin-American governments, produced an innovation. In the past decade it has often been possible for the United Nations to adopt resolutions criticizing the policies of member states — provided only that they are non-Moslem non-Communist states which practice parliamentary democracy and are not in the “third world” There are not very many of these, and these alone are considered fair game.

But never before until recently has the Moslem-Communist coalition sought to deploy its assured majority for the defamation of an ideology, a historic doctrine and a spiritual faith endorsed by the United Nations itself 28 years ago. What the General Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee conducted was not so much a debate as a doctrinal Inquisition, as in the Middle Ages.

The Intellectual default is no less spectacular that the moral decline. The charge is, of all things, “racism”! Yet it is just as natural for Arabs to be citizens and members of Parliament in Israel today as it is inconceivable for non-Moslems to be citizens, still less office-holders, in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

The real essence of the draft resolution is to affirm a principle of monolithic exclusiveness for the Middle East, and to iron out all wrinkles of diversity. Thus, Kurdish individualities brutally oppressed in Iraq; the Christian particularity of Lebanon is to be drowned in a bloodbath; and Israel’s specific Jewish vocation is assailed. The purpose of the resolution’s sponsors is that in a region where many nations, tongues and faiths had their birth the monopoly of independence must be for Moslem pan-Arabism alone. The paradox is that Israel is less likely than others to be injured by the fiasco. The strongest of certainties is that Israel will not disappear, or be swallowed up into something else, or renounce its name, its tongue, its faith, its Jewish solidarities or its Zionist vocation…
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7iYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,2505344
Zionism and the U.N.
New York Times – Nov 3, 1975
By Abba Eban
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20810FE3B5F1B7493C1A9178AD95F418785F9

Out of step: life-story of a politician : politics and religion in a world …‎ – Page 112 Jack Brian Bloom – Antisemitism – 2005 – 391 pages

Arabism is racism” would have been an interesting debating topic. The OIC
countries were very clever in how they deflected the slavery issue that could so easily have been turned on them with a vengeance

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=25&id=Kr2gAAAAMAAJ&dq=arabism+is+racism

Arabism Equals Racism
By: Gerald A. Honigman
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 13, 2006

There’s an expression, “The pot calling the kettle black.” It refers to someone claiming a sin in others that is at least as prevalent – if not more so – in the accuser than it is in the accused. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Turn the clock back three decades.

Some things change, others never will – such as the acceptance of anyone else’s political rights in a multi-ethnic region that most Arabs see exclusively as “purely Arab patrimony.” That’s the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell; but it is also the core of the Arab-Berber, Arab-Kurd, Arab-Black African, Arab-Copt, Arab-Assyrian, Arab-non-Arab Lebanese conflicts, as well, among others. The Arabs’ Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and their actions in Darfur and the rest of the southern Sudan are just a few of many examples of Arab genocidal actions against all who might disagree.

To be accepted, and not literally exterminated, one must do what Egypt’s most successful Copt did – consent to this age-old forced subjugation and Arabization. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali became a top official in President Anwar Sadat’s government and went on to become Secretary General of the United Nations, as well.

“Uncle Butros” instead of “Uncle Tom”.

He also instructed that for it to be accepted, Israel, as an entire country, must consent to being Arabized; like those Kurdish kids in Syrian Kurdistan who are forced today to sing songs praising their “Arab identity” and so forth.

Back in the 1970s, I was a consultant for a major organization while trying to finish my own doctoral work. One of my main jobs involved being brought in by dozens of major colleges and universities across a three-state region in the American Midwest to balance anti-Israel spokesmen on campus. One such visit was to Ohio University in Athens, near my small-mouth bass fishing grounds in the Hocking River.

OU was famous for its English language program for foreign students, so there were numerous folks there from all over the Arab and African worlds.

Those were the days of the United Nations’ infamous Zionism Equals Racism resolution. Arab and pro-Arab professors were already hijacking the campus scene, constantly putting Israel under the high-power lens of moral scrutiny in ways that they would never dream of doing to the Jewish State’s surrounding Arab neighbors.

It was arranged for me to come to deliver a lecture to balance one given previously by the other side.

The Arabs and their supporters – often left-wing Jews themselves – were “loaded for game” when they heard of my invitation. But so was I.

I was a card-carrying member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society, and persistent reports were coming through of slavery (and worse) still being practiced in Arab lands, the lands of some of the same folks screaming about alleged “Zionist racists”. I prepared a small booklet called “Look Who’s Calling the Kettle Black”, which consisted of about a dozen short articles dealing with the hypocrisy of the Arab position. I had numerous copies prepared for distribution.

I had some of my host students in the audience ready for action. They were in the company of hundreds who packed the lecture hall, including college officials, professors and so forth. Unlike some of the Hillel organizations elsewhere, the director at OU was on the ball when it came to these issues. My cadre consisted largely of Hillel members.

After my presentation, I had my usual question-and-answer session. That’s when the proverbial manure hit the fan. I was anticipating a Zionism-equals-racism question from the audience and, sure enough, I was blessed with one.

I calmly replied, “Since you are so concerned about such issues, I believe you’ll be interested in the packet of information you are about to receive.”

I then had my cadre pass out the “Look Who’s Calling The Kettle Black” booklets.

After the commotion and dust settled, and it was time to leave for my hotel, several carloads of Arab students followed me. Some members of my group decided it was best to keep me company that night. Think of the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comment incidents today. The Arab idea of free speech is the same now as it was back then, and as it has always been.

The next day, before returning to my office in Columbus, I decided to visit the nearby famous boot factory in Nelsonville.

What I’m going to relate next may sound a bit melodramatic, but it was for real.

I was on one of the top floors of the factory outlet looking at brand-name dress boots. There was hardly anyone else there, so I was sort of isolated.

All of a sudden, I spotted a half dozen tall, Black men down the aisle from me. One of them then called out, “Mr. Hooonigmannn!”

After my experience the night before, I figured that my time on Earth was up. There were definitely folks at OU who wanted to kill me that night. I nervously stood my ground as they ran up to me.

And if you offered me a million dollars, I would not have traded it for the subsequent experience.

As they grabbed my hands, they said, “Thank you so much for last night. We had never heard or seen what you shared with us before.”

Should I be ashamed to tell you of the tears in my eyes at that moment?

These were not just any folks. These were students, sent by their countries, who would later go on to become some of those nations’ future professionals and leaders.

As I did on dozens of other campuses, through scores of other platforms, and in dozens of op-eds for leading newspapers all over the region, I tried my best to help change some minds – one at a time.

The struggle is as hard, if not harder, today, but those of us who care have no other choice but to continue in this ever-growing uphill battle for a bit of justice for the Jew of the nations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24912


Canadian Friends ICEJ Spearheaded Successful Campaign To …


INFAMOUS UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3379 DECLARING…
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/anti3379.html



One Against the World

UN resolutions established the State of Israel and through them this country … the notorious resolution equating Zionism with racism, passed in November 1975 …. law became increasingly central to the UN agenda, the Arab lobby has been…

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/one.html



United Nations Anti Israel Arab Lobby

The most repugnant of these anti-Semitic resolutions came in November 1975,..

http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/united_nations.htm


THE UN’S ANTI-ZIONISM RESOLUTION: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES…

by JH Banki

United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism “be counter- balanced ….. than the Arab lobby usually encounters on UN votes…

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/740.PDF


The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East – Page 411 – Mitchell Bard – HarperCollins, 2010 – 412 pages

… Zionism and racism resolution 3379…

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKraRyoXbvoC&pg=PA411

Advertisements

AT: Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid

October 31, 2011

Israeli Democracy vs. Arab Apartheid

By JanSuzanne Krasner

October 26, 2011

It is a falsehood to say that Israel is an apartheid state.  This indictment, made by Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly in his speeches, is an Orwellian distortion of the truth, but it has been extremely effective in the public relations war of words that plays out in the United Nations, on the international stage, in the media, and on college campuses every day.

This is a grave and toxic travesty that needs to be made right.  In light of the “Arab Spring” spreading seeds of sharia law throughout the Middle East, Western civilization needs to see the truth.  Americans are being hijacked by propaganda against Israel…and not defending Israel’s right to be a Jewish state will lead to our own eventual downfall.

The analogy of Israel to South African apartheid commands a response.  Because of its catchy, slick word combination and its connotations that evoke vivid images of human unfairness and suffering, it has became a fashionable narrative for the media and international community’s discourse.  But it is not factual, and it is very deceptive.

Labeling Israel “apartheid” is meant to provoke worldwide criticism and elicit human rights-based anger that sanctions demonstrations, boycotts, and the denigration of Jewish morals.  This finger-pointing is an intentional attack on Israel.  It condones terror in the guise of “freedom-fighters,” encourages prosecution of Israeli officials in foreign courts, promotes laws against Israeli goods, and supports boycotts of stores selling Israeli products.  It sees the advantage of kidnapping soldiers, allows the destruction of Jewish artifacts and religious sites, and tries to exclude Jews from their legitimate claim to their historic homeland.

Factually speaking, apartheid was the policy of the South African government as a way of dealing with the white and non-white social, political and economic issues up until 1992.  It was the official policy that established and maintained racial segregation and racial discrimination.  The South African non-whites could not vote, and they had to carry a “Pass Book,” or they risked being jailed or deported.  By contrast, all citizens of Israel have equal voting rights.  Arabs have eleven representatives in Israel’s Knesset, including an Arab on the Israeli Supreme Court.  Every citizen must carry an identity card, along with all legal residents. 

In addition, non-white South Africans were kept from a wide range of jobs.  They had no free elementary through high school education; mixed sexual relationships were restricted and segregated; hospital and ambulance services were segregated; they could not use most public amenities; sports were segregated; and public facilities were labeled for correct racial usage.  Non-whites could not enter a building through the main entrance, be a member of a union, or participate in a strike.  That is apartheid, and Israel is not an apartheid state.

Although many pro-Palestinian organizations are aware that the Israel-apartheid analogy is inaccurate, this rhetoric is continually used to condemn and isolate Israel.  Just visit Israel to see the truth…Israeli Arabs shopping at Jerusalem’s Mamila Mall, enjoying Tel Aviv beaches, enrolled in the universities, getting hospital care, going on school trips to the zoos, and having free access to public places.

One of the more outspoken defenders of Israel is Benjamin Pogrund, a Jew born in Cape Town, now living in Israel.  Pogrund lived under apartheid, and as an anti-apartheid activist, he took grave risks by reporting the injustices against blacks.  He often comments that the comparison of Israel to South African apartheid “greatly minimizes the oppression and misery caused by apartheid and is debasing to its victims.”

In his rebuttal, Pogrund argues that “Israel is not unique in declaring itself a state for a specific people.”

Everyone knows that Egypt is for Egyptians, Ireland is for Irishmen, France for Frenchmen, Italy is for Italians, Serbia for Serbs, China for the Chinese, Iran for the Persians…and the list goes on.

“Apartheid”-supporters substantiate their stance by claiming that Israel discriminates against Israeli Arabs by barring them from buying land.

The facts regarding land ownership are clarified by Mitchell Bard, the executive director of the non-profit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who frequently lectures on U.S.-ME policy:

In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel’s War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92% belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8% of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.

The reality is that both Arabs and Jews build homes illegally throughout Israel.  And the fact is that the number of illegal Arab homes scheduled for demolition is miniscule compared to Jewish homes that must adhere scrupulously to the rules for fear of condemnation.  (Please check Bard’s point-by-point rebuttal.)

The problems in Israel’s Arab communities are much like conditions others face in various places in the world, but Arabs don’t point a finger at those places.  Only Israel is labeled and attacked as “apartheid.”  Arabs need only to look at their neighboring countries in the Middle East to find real apartheid.  Does anyone honestly believe that Muslim women do not suffer from apartheid in countries with sharia law?  Or that Christians and Jews in some Arab nations are being attacked and killed purely because of their religion?  More pointedly, both Jordan and Saudi Arabia do not allow Jews to live there, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t even let Jews visit.

There are many “no-class” citizens in the world that Arabs don’t care to talk about.  One must believe that Abbas just doesn’t recognize “apartheid” as he declares that the State of Palestine will be “Judenrein” — a Jewish-free state.  Instead, the label of “apartheid” is stuck on Israel, keeping eyes focused away from the intolerance and bigotry that the PLO and Hamas preach.

Recently, I took issue with “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP), an on-campus pro-Palestinian organization that orchestrated the first National Anti-Israel Conference at Columbia University to “educate” students for participation in “Israel Apartheid Week 2012” on university campuses.

The SJP supports the Apartheid Movement, the Gaza Freedom Movement that tried to break the Israeli-Egyptian blockade, the BDS movement against Israeli goods, and a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return.”  There can be no doubt that SJP, hiding behind the veil of human rights activism, supports the end of a Jewish state while “freedom-fighting” terrorists try to accomplish the same goal through violence.

One question needs to be asked of all those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state: if Israel gave up all the land rights, forfeited all of the natural resources, and agreed to a One-State Solution with the “Right of Return,” would the Jews be able to live in peaceful coexistence with their Arab neighbors?  The answer to this question determines the fate of the Jewish people and whether peace is ever attainable.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/israeli_democracy_vs_arab_apartheid.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity

October 24, 2011

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity
Hudson New York – Simon Deng
October 19, 2011 at 5:00 am

Like you, I came to this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies, and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. Its obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler could not have been made happier.

Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal, the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people know that.

But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan — Christians and Muslims alike — have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, Sudan, about four million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed, and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word “slavery” to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity, apparently no one committing it wanted to end up before an international court. When Khartoum insisted that the term “abducted people” be substituted for the word “slaves,” the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an “abducted person.” It is outrageous.

The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.” It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide. But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans — Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990’s hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?

Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by the exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address.

The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost taboo.

Let me return to the topic of slavery: while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.

Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early ’90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad, or holy war, and thereby legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I do not like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group — sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.

As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the Non-Governmental Organizations that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for “human rights for everybody”.

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United Nations closed its doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least 26 of them.

After this event the Sudanese realized that Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for punishingly long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims, chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state.

When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response is absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as “heaven.” No-one called them “abid” – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with beautiful black Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.

So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN’s anti-Israel policy are not just the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab and Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab and Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais and Sikhs who suffer from Islamic oppression. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned so that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel toward Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, and then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations, whose General Secretary, Bi Ki Moon, lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For the South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland; and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, who had the courage to state publicly that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.

This originally appeared in a a slightly different form as an address at a conference titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance”, in New York City, September 22, 2011.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2518/united-nations-slavery

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pat Condell: The great Palestinian lie

October 7, 2011

Pat Condell: The great Palestinian lie

“This is not about territory, and it certainly isn’t about justice or human rights, because Arab societies don’t know the meaning of those words. It’s about Jew-hatred, as mandated by the Qur’an and as preached in the mosques and taught to the children in Arab countries day in and day out, generation after poisoned generation.”

Be sure to watch it all. There is a special note for pro-Palestinian Leftists toward the end. (Video thanks to Cheryl.)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/pat-condell-the-great-palestinian-lie.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1941-2011 70 Years to Arab Nazism in “Palestine” nothing has changed!

September 22, 2011
1941-2011 70 Years to Arab Nazism in "Palestine" nothing has changed!

This is the real FLAG of Islamic [worse than apartheid] envisioned [23rd] Arab State called: Palestine.

The same Arab-Nazi Judenrein plan… as you hear PLO’s admission of a "vision" of a Jew-Free Palestine… scheme.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html


http://books.google.com/books?id=QMts5Z36kjAC

In November, 1941, the Grand Mufti meets with Adolph Hitler. Hitler declined to shake the Mufti’s hand and refused to drink coffee with him. (As Arabs were considered "monkeys" by Hitler/Nazis). But still managed to cooperate against the Jews. The Islamic pan-Arab leader also called for a jihad against the British and their Western allies.



Armies of the young: child soldiers in war and terrorism, David M. Rosen, (2005), p. 106


Nationalist rhetoric accompanied major efforts to build fascist-style youth organizations by recruiting young men to serve as the strike force of the nationalist movement. Throughout the 1930s the children of wealthy Palestinians returned home from European universities having witnessed the emergence of fascist paramilitary forces. Palestinian students educated in Germany returned to Palestine determined to found the Arab Nazi Party.

The Husseinis used the Palestinian Arab Party to establish the al-Futuwwa youth corps, which was named after an association of Arab Nazi Scouts. By 1936 the Palestinian Arab Party was sponsoring the developments of storm troops patterned on the German model. These storm troops, all children and youth, were to be outfitted in black trousers and red shirts… The young recruits took the following oath: “Life — my right; independence — my aspiration; Arabism — my country, and there is no room in it for any but Arabs. In this I believe and Allah is my witness.” .. The al-Futuwwa youth groups connected Palestinian youth to fascist youth movements elsewhere in the Middle East. While the Mufti was establishing youth groups in Palestine, al-Futuwwa groups were established in Iraq.
http://books.google.com/books?id=zQYQ0tho6mAC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106




Related, see:

Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine By Klaus-Michael Mallmann, Martin Cüppers

http://books.google.com/books?id=8JiqNpE-Lz4C

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine

September 22, 2011

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine :: Hudson New York

by Alan M. Dershowitz

September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am

The United Nations is being asked to grant the Palestinians the status of a "state," for at least some purposes. The question arises what kind of a state will it be? In an effort to attract Western support, the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become another "secular democratic state." Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, disagrees. It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law.

We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West. Now let's look at what its saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy.

The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine." It also states that Sharia Law will be "the major source of legislation." It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular.

The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine. The Ambassador of the PLO to the United States was asked during an interview whether "any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?" His answer: "Absolutely!" After much criticism, the Ambassador tried to spin his statement, saying that it applied only to Jews "who are amid the occupation." Whatever that means, one thing is clear: large numbers of Jews will not be welcome to remain in Islamic Palestine as equal citizens. In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims. They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli army.

The new Palestine will have the very "law of return" that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!

Palestinian leadership accuses Israel of having roads that are limited only to Jews. This is entirely false: a small number of roads on the West Bank are restricted to Israelis, but they are equally open to Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The entire state of Palestine will have a "no Jews allowed" sign on it.

It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel's law of return and about its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state. Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims? If so, is that not a form of racism?

What would the borders of a Palestinian state look like if the Palestinians got their way without the need to negotiate with Israel? The Palestinians would get, as a starting point, all of the land previously occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 War, in which Jordan attacked Israel. This return to the status quo that led to the 6 Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes.

The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would include Judaism's holiest place, the Western Wall. It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago. The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force.

It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians. But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap. Palestinian leaders have already said that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands. For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, they would have to surrender thousands of acres. The same might be true of the access road to Hebrew University and the Jewish Quarter.

When Jordan controlled these areas, the Jordanian government made them Judenrein—Jews could not pray at the Western Wall, visit the Jewish Quarter, or have access to Hebrew University. There is no reason to believe that a Palestinian state would treat Jews any differently if they were to maintain control over these areas.

An Apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.

The Palestinians and Israeli leaders are now in New York. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to sit down and negotiate, with no preconditions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution. President Abbas should accept that offer, which will actually get the Palestinians a viable state rather than a cheap paper victory that will raise expectations but lower the prospects for real peace.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2442/united-nations-palestine

Push for Palestinian state at UN must be rejected: It will hurt Arabs and Jews alike
New York Daily News – Alan Dershowitz – Wednesday, September 21st 2011, 4:00 AM

An apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine based on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the …

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/09/21/2011-09-21_push_for_
palestinian_state_at_un_must_be_rejected_it_will_hurt_arabs_and_jews_al.html


Inernational: From Israel to New York – Jews, Christians Protest Hamas Led …‎ Israel News Agency

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

New York — September 20, 2011 …. Thousands of Jewish and Christian protesters are taking to the streets in Jerusalem and in New York to protest a UN vote on the creation of a Hamas led Palestine…

The issue is not a vote at the UN. The issue is that of an all out PR campaign of incitement and violence coordinated by Iran, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah which will transcend into a regional war in the Middle East.

The Israel Defense Forces are preparing for mass riots as the Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command prepares bomb shelters for it’s citizens.

Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, criticized the Palestinian effort last Friday, calling it a violation of the Oslo Accords, the 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO.

“The Palestinians made a commitment to Israel and the world, to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations. The Palestinians are violating their signed commitments.”

Regev also threatened the PA, saying that if they proceed with their UN action either with the General Assembly or the Security Council, “Israel will reserve the right to respond in kind”. Several Israel lawmakers have suggested responding by annulling the accords or by annexing all or part of the entire West Bank. The West Bank, which never belonged to any entity known as Palestine, belonged to Jordan before the 1967 war.

While many protest a UN vote for a Palestine that has openly stated that it would not allow Jews inside their country, a state of Apartheid, Americans are also out in the streets protesting the arrival of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The New York based advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, is protesting outside the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan where Ahmadinejad is staying.

“Ahmadinejad is the leader of a criminal regime allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and guilty of atrocious human rights violations,” the group said in a statement. “Would the Warwick be willing to accommodate Osama bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri were he to visit Manhattan?”

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/unprotestsdemonstrationshamas
palestinepaabbasnetanyahuvoteterrorism
israeljewishchristianswarislamicjihadi
ransyriafacebookgroupusidfwar48092011.html

Arafat’s greatest weapon – mothers’ womb in action: Mother of 4 terrorist murderers chosen by the PA to launch statehood campaign

September 19, 2011
Mother of 4 terrorist murderers
chosen by the PA
to launch statehood campaign

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

The Palestinian Authority chose the mother of 4 terrorist murderers, one of whom killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to killed twelve others, as the person to launch their statehood campaign with the UN.

In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

[Al-Ayyam, Sept. 9, 2011]
 
[PA TV News, Sept. 8, 2011]
 

In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

The official PA daily reported that she launched the UN campaign last week, and noted that she is the "mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Hmeid." However, the paper did not mention that 4 of her imprisoned sons are murderers.

Palestinian Media Watch reported last year that Abu Hmeid then had 4 sons in Israeli prisons who were each serving between two and seven life sentences, a total of 18 life sentences. At that time she was in the news because the PA Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs, Issa Karake, decided to honor her with an award, "the Plaque of Resoluteness and Giving… inscribed with the names of her four sons who are imprisoned."

The PA minister explained then why the mother of 4 murderers of Israelis deserves such honor:

"It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor."
 

The four sons are serving a total of 18 life sentences for the following crimes:

Nasser Abu Hmeid
– 7 life sentences + 50 years – commander in Fatah’s military wing the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in Ramallah. Convicted of killing seven Israeli civilians and 12 attempted murders.

Nasr Abu Hmeid – 5 life sentences – Member of terror faction of Fatah, Tanzim, and convicted of involvement in two terror attacks and arms dealing.

Sharif Abu Hmeid – 4 life sentences – a member in one of the brothers’ units carrying out terror attacks against civilians and soldiers. Accompanied a suicide bomber to his attack in March 2002.

Muhammad Abu Hmeid – 2 life sentences + 30 years – involvement in terror attacks.

A fifth son, Abd Al-Mun’im Muhammad Yusuf Naji Abu Hmeid, the one reffered to as "Martyr," was a member of the military wing of Hamas, Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, and planned and carried out the ambush and murder of an Israeli intelligence officer.

PMW has not been able to determine for which crimes the rest of the sons are imprisoned.

The following are the reports about the mother of the terrorists launching the PA statehood campaign:
PA TV News interviews Abd Al-Mun’im Wahdan, a member of the "Palestine – the 194th state" national campaign:

Wahdan: "We of the ‘Palestine – the 194th state’ national campaign [calling for] a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the territory of Palestine, send a delegation from institutions, organizations, and popular factions. This delegation was headed by Um Nasser Abu Hmeid – this fighter woman, who is the mother of seven prisoners and the mother of the heroic Shahid (Martyr) from the [military wing of Hamas] Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades. This campaign included a letter in which the people demand that the UN recognize Palestine as a state with full sovereignty, like the other countries."
[PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 8, 2011]
 
"The ‘Palestine – the 194th State’ campaign has embarked on its national activities in support of realization [of the appeal to the UN] in September and obtaining UN membership for the State of Palestine, by conveying a letter to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, via his representative in Ramallah. The campaign started out opposite the UN building in Ramallah, with the participation of a number of heads of factions and national forces, representatives of official and popular institutions, independent personalities, and members of trade unions. Hajja Latifa Abu Hmeid, mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Hmeid, handed the letter to the representative of the UN Secretary General in Ramallah."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2011]

 

"[In a procession which set off] yesterday from opposite the Cultural Auditorium in Ramallah in the direction of the UN representative office in Ramallah, the ‘Palestine – the 194th State’ national campaign was inaugurated… when Latifa Abu Hmeid, known as the ‘mother of the prisoners’, handed over a letter addressed to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, via his representative in Ramallah… She was chosen [for this] because she is a symbol of Palestinian suffering as a result of the occupation’s (i.e., Israel’s) policy… She is the mother of prisoners Muhammad Abu Hmeid and his brothers Nasr, Nasser, Sharif, Basel, Islam and Jihad. She is prevented from seeing her sons who are sitting in the occupation’s prisons."
[Al-Ayyam, Sept. 9, 2011]

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5656


NATIV Online – Issue 11: Eighteen Years of Stolen Childhoods – From the womb to an early tomb, Yasser Arafat once said his best weapon was “the Palestinian mother’s womb.”

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/11-issue/bertz-11.htm

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East

September 15, 2011

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East


It is long overdue that this (and others like it) come under scrutiny for being systematically blindly anti-Israel biased, distortion of facts and simply obsessive in singling it out, while covering for Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity. [You know when an orgainaztion is in real trouble, when, even, its founding chairman criticizes it for utter and complete failure].

“Human rights” organizations’ conspiracy-collective war on Israelis’ Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter if its (like the UN) influenced by Arab oil / Lobby, Islamic lobby, Arab “street anger,” or impacted by the powerful mythology of “strong Israel vs. poor weak Arab” – (deriving from a distorted image, naively based on looking at a raw-but-shallow picture of balance-of-armament VS reality, underestimating the Goliath power of “Palestinians” and Hezbollah use of their civilians against cautious and Humane Israel) is the source of it, or if it’s by an individual bigot in charge at HRW.





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch who publicly renounced his ties with the organization due to distorted and disproportionate focus on free and open Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East — mostly unfree — has just launched a new human rights organization, Advancing Human Rights.


Why the need for a new organization? Bernstein, 88, explains:


Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/03/hrw_founder_bernstein_starts_a.html


“Human Rights Watch Coverup”
Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky


When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth’s umbrage at criticism.


Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization’s reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch’s behavior at the UN’s infamous “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization’s actions were assailable there, he says, it would make “it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct.”


It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.
Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance ­ notwithstanding that ‘s citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.


At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here’s what happened:
As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.
The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that is an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state.”


As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.


THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.


Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.
 
Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the “voices of the victims.”


In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.


The vote to delete the Jewish caucus’s proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.


What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the “voices of the victims” had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: “The document gives expression to all voices.”


What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.


AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.
On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration “marks a major success… and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included “anti-Arab racism.”


Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: “What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers.”
What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.


As for Roth’s claim of the organization’s objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability ­ despite an annual budget of $22 million ­ to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.


So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an “assassination” or “liquidation.”


International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.


Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.
When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel’s enemies?
The writer, a professor at York University in , is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908


Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes …
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN. Published: October 19, 2009. AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman …The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Pollak: Human Rights Watch is Biased Against Israel – WSJ.com
Jul 30, 2009 – Double Standards and Human Rights Watch
The organization displays a strong bias against Israel
By NOAH POLLAK
Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.”

As criticism of her remark poured in, Ms. Whitson responded by saying that the complaint against her was “fundamentally a racist one.” And Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared that “We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”

The facts tell a different story. From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. (It also published a small number of critiques of both Israel and Arab groups, and of intra-Palestinian fighting.)

It was during this period that more than 8,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Human Rights Watch’s response? In November 2006 it said that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks.” Two years later it urged the Hamas leadership “to speak out forcefully against such [rocket] attacks . . . and bring to justice those who are found to have participated in them.”

In response to the rocket war and Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel imposed a partial blockade of Gaza. Human Rights Watch then published some 28 statements and reports on the blockade, accusing Israel in highly charged language of an array of war crimes and human rights violations. One report headline declared that Israel was “choking Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has never recognized the difference between Hamas’s campaign of murder against Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to defend those civilians. The unwillingness to distinguish between aggression and self-defense blots out a fundamental moral fact—that Hamas’s refusal to stop its attacks makes it culpable for both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also maintained a blockade on Gaza, although it is not even under attack from Hamas. Human Rights Watch has never singled out Egypt for criticism over its participation in the blockade.

The organization regularly calls for arms embargoes against Israel and claims it commits war crimes for using drones, artillery and cluster bombs. Yet on Israel’s northern border sits Hezbollah, which is building an arsenal of rockets to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, and has placed that arsenal in towns and villages in hopes that Lebanese civilians will be killed if Israel attempts to defend itself. The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament and the cessation of its arms smuggling. Yet while Human Rights Watch has criticized Israel’s weapons 15 times, it has criticized Hezbollah’s twice.

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch does not actually function as a human-rights organization. If it did, it would draw attention to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are warehoused in impoverished refugee camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and even the right to work. This has received zero coverage from the organization.

In 2007, the Lebanese Army laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp for over three months, killing hundreds. Human Rights Watch produced two anemic press releases. At this very moment, Jordan is stripping its Palestinians of citizenship without the slightest protest from the organization. Unfortunately, Human Rights Watch seems only to care about Palestinians when they can be used to convince the world that the Jewish state is actually a criminal state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

TNR publishes “Minority Report: Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel”
April 28, 2010   Richard Landes
The New Republic has just published a major piece on Human Rights Watch and their deeply disturbed relationship to Israel. Its a case study of demopaths and dupes, human rights complex, masochistic omnipotence syndrome, and the left-jihadi alliance. Below, a few choice passages.


Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
Benjamin Birnbaum April 27, 2010 | 12:00 am


[snip]


With Palestinian suicide bombings reaching a crescendo in early 2002, precipitating a full-scale Israeli counterterrorist campaign across the West Bank, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division (MENA) issued two reports (and myriad press releases) on Israeli misconduct—including one on the Israel Defense Forces’ assault on terrorist safe havens in the Jenin refugee camp. That report—which, to HRW’s credit, debunked the widespread myth that Israel had carried out a massacre—nevertheless said there was “strong prima facie evidence” that Israel had “committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” irking the country’s supporters, who argued that the IDF had in fact gone to great lengths to spare Palestinian civilians. (The decision not to launch an aerial bombardment of the densely populated area, and to dispatch ground troops into labyrinthine warrens instead, cost 23 Israeli soldiers their lives—crucial context that HRW ignored.) It would take another five months for HRW to release a report on Palestinian suicide bombings—and another five years for it to publish a report addressing the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza, despite the fact that, by 2003, hundreds had been launched from the territory into Israel. (HRW did issue earlier press releases on both subjects.)


In the years to come, critics would accuse HRW of giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds. According to HRW’s own count, since 2000, MENA has devoted more reports to abuses by Israel than to abuses by all but two other countries, Iraq and Egypt. That’s more reports than those on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and other regional dictatorships. (When HRW includes press releases in its count, Israel ranks fourth on the list.) And, if you count only full reports—as opposed to “briefing papers,” “backgrounders,” and other documents that tend to be shorter, less authoritative, and therefore less influential—the focus on the Jewish state only increases, with Israel either leading or close to leading the tally. There are roughly as many reports on Israel as on Iran, Syria, and Libya combined.


HRW officials acknowledge that a number of factors beyond the enormity of human rights abuses go into deciding how to divide up the organization’s attentions: access to a given country, possibility for redress, and general interest in the topic. “I think we tend to go where there’s action and where we’re going to get reaction,” rues one board member. “We seek the limelight—that’s part of what we do. And so, Israel’s sort of like low-hanging fruit.”


[snip]
[Bernstien and] Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel, eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”


[snip]


Robert James—a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception—calls the group “the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. … They cannot take criticism.”


[snip]


Critics have pointed out that a number of Whitson’s colleagues in MENA—such as Joe Stork, who came to HRW after decades as a leader of the left-wing Middle East Research and Information Project, where he was part of an editorial collective that ran an extremely anti-Israel journal—arrived at the organization with backgrounds in the pro-Palestinian movement. Sid Sheinberg argues that the mere appearance of a biased jury at MENA ill-serves HRW. “Is it smart to have a number of people about which questions can be asked—in either direction?” he says. But, when I asked Whitson about this critique—and, specifically, about a former researcher on Israel who, before starting at HRW, wrote pro-Palestinian dispatches from the West Bank and Gaza describing Israeli soldiers as “protected by arrogance and hatred and a state and an army and the world’s superpower”—she said she didn’t see a problem with this situation. “For people who apply for jobs to be the researcher in Israel-Palestine, it’s probably going to be someone who’s done work on Israel-Palestine with a human rights background,” she explained. “And guess what? People who do work with a human rights background on Israel-Palestine tend to find that there are a lot of Israeli abuses. And they tend to become human rights activists on the issue.” For his part, HRW program director Iain Levine, who oversees the organization’s 16 divisions, acknowledges that people from many divisions—and not just MENA—arrive from “solidarity backgrounds,” but insists that, “when they come to the door of this organization, they park those things behind.”


Whether or not Whitson has done so, she clearly favors a tough approach toward the Jewish state. She has argued that, far from being too harsh toward Israel, HRW is actually too lenient. “[B]elieve me,” she wrote in an e-mail to a MENA advisory committee member, “on israel in particular, we are overly cautious and extremely kid-gloved because of the harassment we endure.” Less definitive—but still arguably revealing—evidence about Whitson’s politics can be found in her opinion of Norman Finkelstein, the activist and avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany. The two became acquainted years ago, and she brought him to HRW to discuss his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah. (“He had a very mixed reception,” she remembers. “I think people did not find his style particularly persuasive.”) In late 2006, when Finkelstein launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that HRW officials apologize for a press release critical of Palestinian officials (which they eventually did), one HRW observer e-mailed Whitson to share thoughts on Finkelstein’s over-the-top rhetoric. Whitson replied: “I agree w/ u that norm undermines himself and his cause w/ the language he uses, and his anger sometimes gets the better of him and his brilliant mind and generous spirit. I continue to have tremendous respect and admiration for him, because as you probably know, making Israeli abuses the focus of one’s life work is a thankless but courageous task that may well end up leaving all of us quite bitter.”


[snip]


Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it.


He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail. (When I asked Roth in a February interview at his office about HRW’s refusal to take a position on Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel, including his famous call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Roth quibbled about the way the statement had been translated in the West—“there was a real question as to whether he actually said that”—then told me that it was not HRW’s place to render judgments on such rhetoric: “Let’s assume it is a military threat. We don’t take on governments’ military threats just as we don’t take on aggression, per se. We look at how they behave. So, we wouldn’t condemn a military threat just as we wouldn’t condemn an invasion—we would look at how the government wages the war.” Whitson, who sat in on the interview, offered her two cents: “You know, that statement was also matched by Hillary Clinton saying that the Iranian regime should be destroyed or wiped off the map. Again, so, very similar statements, side by side, close in time.” For his part, Goldstone told TNR that he eventually came around to the view this was not an issue HRW should take up.)
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/04/28/tnr-publishes-minority-report-human-rights-watch-fights-a-civil-war-over-israel/


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


Obama-Sponsor Gives $100M to Anti-Israeli ‘Human Rights Watch’
 – Sep 13, 2010 – Anti-Israeli secular-Jewish billionaire George Soros has pledged $100 million to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139596


Human Rights Watch sells out to Soros–Gerald Steinberg – NYPOST.com
Sep 13, 2010 – Selling Out to Soros
Rights group’s dubious recordBy GERALD STEINBERG


Last Updated: 6:20 PM, September 13, 2010
Posted: 11:44 PM, September 12, 2010


In accepting a huge grant from George Soros, Human Rights Watch has spurned the public advice (and warning) offered nearly a year ago by its founder Robert Bernstein. Rather than grapple with the serious problems of credibility and bias, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth has cemented relations with Soros — a partisan ideologue who also supports Moveon.org, a controversial advocacy group.


Bernstein severely criticized HRW in a New York Times oped. To “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world,” he warned, the organization must return “to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it.” In its earlier days, he noted, “to create clarity in human rights,” HRW aimed to “draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds.”


Soros: His $100 million donation to Human Rights Watch will make up for grants lost because of recent scandals. Over the years, HRW lost its moral compass and substituted ideology and an Israel-obsessed agenda. Bernstein was trying to awaken the group’s leaders to the decayed state of what was once a human-rights superpower.


Instead, Roth has opted to accept Soros’ $100 million grant — which should offset nicely the income lost from core donors who’ve walked away in the wake of a host of scandals. It won’t, however, address the root problems.


In May 2009, HRW launched a fund-raising drive in Saudi Arabia, using its anti-Israel record to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society.” That September, HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was “outed” as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia — a troubling hobby for the main author of a number of HRW reports that accused Israel of “war crimes” and other violations.


Add to this the recent work by NGO Monitor, the watchdog group that I lead, and others on the severe ideological biases at HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. The systematic research in NGO Monitor’s report and articles in The New Republic and the Sunday Times detail the severe ideological biases of MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson and deputy director Joe Stork.


Both Whitson and Stork came to HRW with backgrounds in pro-Palestinian political activities, and continue to promote their anti-Israel political agendas through their “human rights” work.


Whitson was and remains an advocate of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In July 2009, she referred to Israel’s “system of apartheid.” Stork’s publications in the Middle East Research and Information Project from the 1980s and 1990s focus on attacking Zionism, Israel and American “imperialism” in the Middle East, while promoting the Palestinian narrative.


This is further evidence of Bernstein’s conclusion that HRW is “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”


The group has relentlessly promoted the UN-commissioned report by one of its former board members, Richard Goldstone — a report that reflects the same biases and dubious research practices as so many recent HRW papers. In 2009, HRW’s 34 pro-Goldstone publications outnumbered its documents on all the countries in the Middle East except Israel and Iran.


The bias is indisputable: HRW’s publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” made up 28 percent of its total Mideast output in 2009.


Which makes it a fine fit for George Soros, whose own biases are well-established. In the Middle East, for example, his Open Society Institute exclusively supports advocacy groups that campaign internationally to undermine the elected governments of Israel — organizations such as Adalah, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Gisha and Yesh Din.


In extending his control over HRW, Soros seeks to increase its staff by 40 percent, reposition it as a major international player and restore its influence as an arbiter on universal human rights. But while his grant will alleviate the crisis caused by HRW’s declining income, it only deepens the moral crisis.


Only by changing the organization’s hiring practices, research priorities, methodologies and biases — especially at MENA — can Human Rights Watch recover its image as the “gold standard” of human-rights groups.


Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, and a professor of political science at Bar Ilan Uni versity
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ


_____________



EXPLODING CRITICISM IN THE WAKE OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, WHILE ISLAMIC-HEZBOLLAH DELIBERATELY CAUSES CIVILIAN DEATHS IN LEBANON (2006)


First Word: What is ‘Human Rights Watch’ watching – Jerusalem Post
 –  ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
08/24/2006 16:48


Many former supporters of the organization have become alienated by its obsessive focus on Israel.


When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true. Consider the following highly publicized “conclusion” reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel: “Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” No cases! Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch.


How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don’t think so. Despite its boast that “Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies,” it didn’t find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab “eyewitnesses” and monitored “information from public sources including the Israeli government statements.” Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker. “Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. – Sabrina Tavernise, “Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah,” The New York Times, July 28, 2006. Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins. A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, “It was a Hizbullah mosque.” A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. – Jon Lee Anderson, “The Battle for Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 8, 2006. Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They’ve done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret’d.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. “It’s the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital.” – Carlie Gillis, “Diplomacy Under Fire,” MacLean’s, August 7, 2006.
The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. “Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?” The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.


Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. – Sonia Verma, “Hizbullah’s Deadly Hold on Heartland,” National Post, August 5, 2006. [Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home. – Mohamad Bazzi, “Mideast Crisis – Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run,” Newsday, July 28, 2006 “What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces),'” said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. – Steven Edwards, “UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack,” CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006. It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin. – United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).
While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.
Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. “Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said. “Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. “After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater.
The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as “human shields.” – Chris Tinkler, “Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don’t care,” Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.


HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored – or more likely suppressed – this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah’s tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.


Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that “in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.” So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way. Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, “their obsessive focus on Israel.” Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias. Roth and his organization’s willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization.


Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=32731


Human Rights Watch: Irrelevant, Immoral on Mideast Conflict
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 
This article originally appeared in The New York Sun on August 2, 2006 


Human Rights Watch has come out with a stinging attack on Israel for its actions in the conflict against Hezbollah, calling the tragedy in Qana a “war crime.”


Since Human Rights Watch is not an organization that has ignored human rights issues in the Arab world — it has done studies on such issues as human rights violations in Egypt and suicide bombings — what the organization says is given much weight and credibility in certain circles.


The truth is, however, that the overwhelming thrust of Human Rights Watch work regarding Israel and the Arab world falls on Israel. Included was a rush to judgment in its accusation that Israel in Jenin had committed war crimes in seeking out suicide bombers, as well as the fact that in one year (2004), according to NGO Monitor, of 33 HRW documents dealing with Israel, 25 were critical of the Jewish State.


More significantly, there are questions about HRW’s broader perspective in its work in the Middle East. Kenneth Roth falls back on technical interpretations to justify what his organization criticizes and what it doesn’t. He says that it doesn’t go into the cause of war. He doesn’t want to talk about the intentions of various parties. He doesn’t want to look at the larger picture because, he claims, all of this would undermine the neutral posture that gives his organization credibility.


More than any specific criticism, it is this explanation of what HRW is about that is so problematic. First, he inappropriately compares his organization in this respect to the Red Cross, but that body has a very different purpose. HRW, by its reports and statements, has a major impact on political judgments.


Far more important is that his explanation of HRW’s perspective — at least as it applies to the conflict of Israel and the Arab world — leads inevitably to the conclusion that HRW is either irrelevant or immoral, or maybe both. On one level, his explanations of all the factors that don’t come into play when doing analyses and passing judgment should lead to the conclusion that they truly aren’t relevant to the fundamental issues of peace, war, and justice that are embodied in a conflict such as this. If the intentions of Syria and Iran are not to be examined, if the takeover of part of a country by a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel is not something important, if the continuous flow of rockets, launchers and other weapons from Iran and Syria to an illegitimate group is not worthy of consideration, then ultimately why should anyone take seriously what Human Rights Watch has to say?


On a deeper level, one can conclude that despite painting itself as a great moral arbiter, in fact Human Rights Watch’s approach to these problems is immorality at the highest level. Let’s remember that Israel has been able to survive and prosper in a region where it has been surrounded by neighbors, close and far, who have been committed to Israel’s destruction for five decades, because of one reason: its strength and power of deterrence.


The State of Israel, which emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust, understood early on that it must be able to convince its enemies that attacking the tiny Jewish State would be a big mistake. Israel had to make clear to the Arabs that they would be hurt far, far more than the pain they could inflict. In other words, without Israel hitting back (not in an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews) but in a much stronger way, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.


The moral issue, the human rights issue that overrides everything else in this conflict is that if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran don’t understand that they will pay an overwhelming price for these rocket attacks on Israel, then eventually the rockets will be armed with chemical weapons and the warheads with nuclear weapons. In other words, a second Holocaust would be in the works.


So yes, Israel is striking very hard at Hezbollah and the infrastructure that allows it to operate and to receive weapons from Iran and Syria. And yes, there are tragically civilian casualties. Israel must do everything in its power to limit these casualties. But it is Hezbollah that has cynically created a dilemma for Israel by embedding their missiles not only in civilian areas, but literally in civilian households. The dilemma for Israel was: should it be so careful to avoid civilian casualties — for its own sake, for the sake of the Lebanese people and their attitudes toward Israel, and for world opinion — that Israel would not effectively destroy the missile threat that was turning northern Israel into a hell for its residents? Or, should Israel strike at Hezbollah with significant force, inevitably producing civilian casualties because of the placement of missiles, which would turn the people of Lebanon and the world against Israel? Israel has sought its way through this minefield. It has tried both to protect its people and to limit civilian casualties.


It is no accident that Human Rights Watch gets it wrong or has a habit of rushing to judgment as it did in Jenin and as it did in Qana. If one sees military activity by Israel in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to its security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, ignoring the cynical actions of its foes which seek either to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world, then, of course, Israel will look like the neighborhood bully and will be accused of all kinds of things.


I would therefore recommend that Human Rights Watch be viewed for what it is, at least when it comes to the great struggle in the Middle East that may determine not only the future of the State of Israel but of mankind itself: as irrelevant or immoral.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/EB055C60-4506-4FAF-98A0-49AEAAC82227,213018C9-567C-418C-BDEA-1CBDA8F58810,frameless.htm


Roth’s False God
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 8, 2006


After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is “a clear humanitarian violation.” We’re tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.


Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in “extremist interpretations of religious doctrine” like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he’ll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he’ll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not “in sight” is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.


The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth’s statements “loathsome” and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is “so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously.” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed “a classic anti-Semitic stereotype,” and said Human Rights Watch is “irrelevant or immoral.” A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, “Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying.”


The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us of Human Rights Watch that he was “disturbed by its apparent bias.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch “is not only naïve, but shows his hatred toward Jews and Israel is greater than his hatred of Islamist terror.” The general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, called Human Rights Watch’s position “a problem,” and said, “to elevate a mistake to the level of war crime is outrageous.” A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Bandler, said the statements by Human Rights Watch and Mr. Roth “display a real lack of understanding.”


American Jewry stands with the Israeli government on the point. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, a few months back told us of Human Rights Watch, after the organization wrote to President Bush calling for an end to all American aid to Israel, “They’ve lost their credibility.” Even Human Rights Watch’s founding chairman, Robert Bernstein, who led the organization from 1979 to 1997, is dismayed and pained at the stance the group he founded has been taking against the Jewish state, according to several individuals to whom Mr. Bernstein confided his discomfort with the organization he helped found. Mr. Bernstein declined to comment.


Mr. Roth sneers at “religious doctrine” and “Biblical injunctions” from the Torah. In an earlier letter to this page, he referred to them as the “morality of some more primitive moment.” He belittles any distinction between a terrorist group whose goal is to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, and impose Islamist law worldwide, and a pluralist sovereign state, like Israel, that apologizes and investigates when it kills civilians in the course of trying to protect its civilians and borders from the terrorist group. Human Rights Watch recently called on America to cease immediately arms transfers to Israel. If Mr. Roth’s Yale Law School degree and international law dictate cutting off Israel’s arms as it is under assault by a terrorist group out to destroy it and deliberately kill its civilians, we’ll take the Bible any day. One doesn’t need a Yale Law School degree or expertise in international law to know Israel is different from the terrorists, just a basic moral compass.


Mr. Roth’s own moral compass seems to go haywire whenever Israel is involved. More reputable scholars of international law, like Orde Kittrie writing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, disagree with Human Rights Watch’s conclusions. So do President Bush and a consensus in Congress and among the American public, which have supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Siding with Human Rights Watch in criticizing Israel have been the governments of Iran and Communist China, two of the worst human rights abusers of them all.


Mr. Roth may send us another letter, conceding another point or two along the way. Or not. But this is about more than Mr. Roth and his organization. The moral equivalence that has infected him and his organization has, sadly, spread far on much of the left, from the United Nations to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International and the editorialists of the New York Times, who yesterday, stunningly, said any ceasefire they would favor must allow Hezbollah “to claim some sort of victory.” That such confusion has not gained traction among American Jews or, for that matter, on the Christian right in this country is testament to the bond of shared values between America and Israel. Those values have a base in something higher than the false god of international law before whom Kenneth Roth has brought a once-idealistic institution so low.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roths-false-god/37473


Human Rights Hypocrites
– Aug 29, 2006 – Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which … Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ISLAMISTS’ GENOCIDE IN SOMALIA – so far – 30,000 CHILDREN DEAD!

September 6, 2011

ISLAMISTS’ GENOCIDE IN SOMALIA – 30,000 CHILDREN DEAD! Islamists refuse [Western] aid to the famine in Somalia. Thousands perish. Many flee.



Al shabaab refuses aid agencies to help the needy Somalis – Shabelle [Jan 12, 2011] MOGADISHU (Sh. M. Network) – Somalia’s Al shabaab movement refused international and local aid agencies to reach droughts affected areas in southen and central Somalia to help the needy Somalis, an Al shabaab official said on Wednesday. Sheikh Suldan Mohammed Ala Mohammed, an Al shabaab official, has told local Mogadishu radios that they will never allow aid agencies to operate in the regions under their control. Ala Mohammed charged those aid agencies with having hidden agendas in which they want to propagate and promulgate the Christianity, adding that they also want to launch brain wash attacks against ordinary people of Somalia.

He went on to say that selling and consumption of drugs to be spread in all Somali regions by what he called Christian relief agencies. He pointed they would also like to confront among Somalis. The statement of that official comes as Al shabaab ahs already banned more than 20 relief organizations from operating in south-central Somalia. Relief agencies serving inside Somalia say aid to millions of Somalis is hampered by the danger that aid workers face and a lack of respect for international humanitarian law by parties to the conflict.
http://www.shabelle.net/article.php?id=1917
MuqdishoNews.com – Al Shabaab Refuses Aid Agencies to Help the Needy
http://www.muqdishonews.com/2011/01/12/al-shabaab-refuses-aid-agencies-to-help-the-needy/
allAfrica.com: Somalia: Al Shabaab Refuses Aid Agencies to Help … Jan 12, 2011
http://allafrica.com/stories/201101120588.html

Daily Monitor: – World | Al-shabaab opposes banned groups from returning to Somalia By Abdulkadir Khalif Posted Saturday, July 23 2011 at 00:00 Radical Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab has said organisations already banned in the war-torn country will not be allowed back. Al-Shabaab spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamoud Raghe alias Sheikh Ali Dhere, said the said organisations were not welcome to Somali, currently facing severe humanitarian crisis. “The organisations that we banned cannot come back,” the spokesman stated Thursday evening. “Such entities are not included among those now invited to provide humanitarian aid,” he added, without naming the affected organisations. Sheikh Ali Dhere was reacting to a report by the United Nations on Wednesday that famine had hit two parts of rebel-held Somalia, due to a severe drought affecting more than 10 million people in the Horn of Africa.
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/-/688340/1205942/-/11g6gk4/-/index.html

Islamist group in Somalia bans samosas after deciding they’re too Western..’ By Stewart Maclean Last updated at 3:28 PM on 26th July 2011 Somalia’s al-Shabaab group has banned samosas after ruling the popular snacks are ‘offensive’ and too Christian.

Militant Islamist fighters last week used vehicles mounted with loudspeakers to announce the bizarre ruling across the regions of the war-torn country it controls. The extremist group has offered no official explanation for the ban on the triangular snacks, which are commonly cooked up and served across the Horn of Africa… The bizarre ban comes just days after militants linked to Al-Qaida in Somalia refused to let some aid workers into the country as tens of thousands suffered in the nation’s massive famine. Aid groups including the UN Food Programme say they were not given permission by militants to provide aid in the country, where it has been warned that 800,000 children could die from starvation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018858/Islamist-group-Somalia-bans-samosas-deciding-theyre-Western.html

BBC News – Somali Islamists maintain aid ban and deny famine – Jul 22, 2011 – Somalia’s al-Shabab Islamists have denied lifting their ban on some Western aid agencies and say UN reports of famine are “sheer propaganda”. The UN on Wednesday said that parts of Somalia were suffering a famine after the worst drought in 60 years. A spokesman for al-Shabab, which has ties to al-Qaeda and controls much of the country, accused the banned groups of being political.

But the UN insists famine exists and it will continue its aid efforts. Most Western aid agencies quit Somalia in 2009 following al-Shabab’s threats, though some say they have managed to continue operating through local partners. Some 10 million people are said to need food aid across East Africa but Somalia is by far the worst-affected country, as there is no national government to co-ordinate aid after two decades of fighting. Thousands of people are fleeing areas under al-Shabab control to camps set up in areas of the capital controlled by the weak interim government, which is battling the Islamist insurgents. The UN World Food Programme (WFP) was one of those banned. [Many Somali mothers have already seen their children die in the drought]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14246764

Al-Qaeda Affiliate, not Famine, is Responsible for Somalian Genocide Townhall Columnists Rachel Alexander 9/5/2011 Somalia is in the midst of a famine, suffering from the worst drought in 60 years. 29,000 Somali children have died within the past three months, and 100,000 Somalis are expected to die in the next few weeks. The al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabab has destroyed the country, taking over much of the southern part of the country where it has imposed a strict version of Sharia law. The Taliban-like organization refuses to allow humanitarian organizations associated with the West to provide aid to the starving people. Al-Shabab expelled the U.N.’s World Food Programme, which had provided the bulk of the aid, from much of the country in January 2010, accusing it of being a U.S. proxy. Incredulously, some are blaming the U.S. for the famine, not al-Shabab.
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/09/05/al-qaeda_affiliate,_not_famine,_is_responsible_for_somalian_genocide

Al-shabab refused food transporting Lories to reach El-waq district in Somalia EL-WAQ ( Mareeg.com)

The militants of Al-shabab have refused food transporting Lories to reach at El-waq district of Gedo region in southern Somalia where is currently under the control of the transitional government of Somalia, officials, residents said on Friday Al-shabab fighters had refused all vehicles traveling to Luq district in the same region where the troops of the transitional government of Somalia had forcibly taken over that caused more of the residents to express sorrowful over the cruelty steps of Al-shabab forces in the region.
http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?sid=19192&tirsan=3

In Somalia – Jihad Uber Alles

Posted by David Meir-Levi

on Aug 17th, 2011 The drought in the Horn of Africa that began in 2009 is the worst in 60 years. But humanitarian aid from the UN, the USA and other countries has prevented mass starvation in the nations of that region, except one. In Somalia that drought soon turned into a famine of unprecedented proportions. To date almost 30,000 children under the age of 5 have died of starvation, according to U.S. estimates. The UN fears that at least 640,000 Somali children are acutely malnourished: a statistic that suggests the death toll of small children could rise to as many as 800,000! More than one million Somalis have fled to Ethiopia and Kenya, where makeshift refugee camps house hundreds of thousands.[1]

One might expect that all Somali leaders and political parties would join forces to help their people survive this enormous tragedy; but one would be wrong. The Somali Muslim terrorists known as al-Shabaab have worked for the past two years to prevent any foreign aid from reaching their Muslim Somali co-religionists, even as tens of thousands of Somali Muslim children die of starvation and hundreds of thousands of starving Muslim families flee al-Shabaab’s reach to find food and water in nearby Kenya and Ethiopia. Harakat ash-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (the “Organization of the Youth Jihad Fighters”), or al-Shabaab (“the lads” or “the youths” in Arabic) for short, is a group of Islamist terrorist jihadis fighting to overthrow the Muslim government of Somalia in order to replace it with a government committed to a more extreme form of Islam and to Shari’a law. The group now controls large swathes of southern Somalia. Its leaders claim that they are waging war against the “enemies of Islam” which includes the present Somali government. Al-Shabaab is an offshoot of Hizbul Islam (“The Islamic Party”), formed to fight the Somali government of President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed.

In December, 2010 Hizbul Islam merged with al-Shabaab to better implement jihad against President Ahmed and his government. Al-Shabaab has been designated a terrorist organization by several western governments. Al-Shabaab leaders formerly denied any connection with el-Qaeda, but early in 2010 they acknowledged that they worked with el-Qaeda forces in Pakistan and Yemen for training and deployment. The U.N. and the USA blame al-Shabaab for the famine, because its terrorist forces, under el-Qaeda influence, have created the single greatest obstacle to humanitarian assistance in Somalia. Thanks to al-Shabaab, the rate of malnutrition in southern Somalia is the highest in the world, approaching half the population, according to CNN. In addition to denying aid workers access to the regions where the drought and famine rage, al-Shabaab terrorists force local Somali Muslim humanitarian organizations to pay “taxes” (aka bribes) in order to be able to funnel food and other supplies to the devastated areas. They demand bribes from U.N. and from aid agency officials to allow them to work in areas under al-Shabaab control. In some cases, al-Shabaab terrorists have burned food stocks and medicine, and have kidnapped or killed charity workers, when bribes were not paid. These “taxes” can be as high as $10,000 for access to the areas al-Shabaab controls.

Then there are the “registration fees” of another $10,000, and payments of $6,000 every six months, as well as 20 percent of the value of all food and other supplies and 10 percent on all vehicles, as a form of “import duties.” Their terrorism pays well; but their extorted wealth and their Islamic jihad agenda come at the expense of the lives of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of their own people. A gut-wrenching and tragic example of this kind of Islamofascist tyranny is reported in a recent Newsweek magazine interview[2] with a local Somali doctor. Dr. Hawa Abdi is an obstetrician and gynecologist running a clinic near Mogadishu since 1983. Today her medical compound holds 90,000 people, mostly women and children, all homeless refugees fleeing al-Shabaab and the famine. Al-Shabaab’s predecessor, the terrorist group Hizbul Islam, invaded her hospital and camp in 2010 in order to shut her down and take over her property and the hospital, because she is a woman and “…women are not allowed to shoulder any responsibility and authority.”[3] She refused even though they threatened to shoot her. They relented and she kept her medical compound and back-yard refugee camp running. This year however, al-Shabaab leaders, now emboldened by their merger with Hizbul Islam, attacked her hospital and home and compound (refuge to 90,000 homeless starving Somali Muslims!) with artillery and automatic weapons, in retaliation for her having been candid in a BBC radio interview about the damage that al-Shabaab has done in Somalia. They targetted the maternity and surgical wards and the pediatric malnutrition center. Hundreds died and thousands more fled, despite their need for medical care, only to die in the Somali desert. This vengeful cruelty becomes utterly unimaginable when one learns that some of these al-Shebaab attackers have their own wives and mothers living as refugees in Dr. Abdi’s compound.[4] Why does al-Shabaab wreck this horrific inhuman brutality against their own Muslim Somali people? As al-Shabaab spokespersons explain it, alien non-Muslim groups cannot be permitted to enter Somalia because they might host spies, or worse, promote an un-Islamic way of life among the Somali Muslims. According to some al-Shabaab representatives, the U.N.’s declaration of famine in parts of Somalia is politically motivated and “pure propaganda;” and attacks on humanitarian workers and the restrictions against the UN and other groups bringing food to starving Somalis are merely self-defense against foreign non-Muslim influences that might corrupt the pure Islamic way of life for Somali Muslims. Al-Shabaab leaders insist that there is no famine.

The claims of famine are a hoax, they say, perpetrated by Christians who have an anti-Muslim strategy to transport Somali Muslims abroad, especially into Christian countries like Ethiopia and Kenya, “…so that their faith can be destroyed and they could be staff and soldiers for the Christians.” Meanwhile, 30,000 children have died, hundreds of thousands more are malnourished, half-a-million Somali adults are starving, and 1.5 million are homeless; but Somali Islam is kept pure and unsullied by kafir influences. This is conspiracy theory gone ballistic, psychotic mass murder of these terrorists’ own people in order to advance their Muslim jihadist agenda. When the lives of hundreds of thousands of their own Muslim kin mean nothing compared to improving the chances of an al-Shabaab jihad victory in Somalia, we must acknowledge that we are dealing with psychopathic mass murder: Jihad uber Alles. The good news is that Somali government forces have driven al-Shabaab from Somalia’s capitol city, Mogadishu, and have opened the port and roads for UN and USAID supplies and aid workers, at least in the capitol city. Moreover, al-Shabaab may have been weakened both by the government forces’ liberation of Mogadishu and by the blowback of discontent from millions of starving or near-starving Somalis who correctly see al-Shabaab as the cause of their plight. So al-Shebaab’s totalitarian ruthless inhumane treatment of its own Muslim people may now backfire as Somalis suffer mass starvation and hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by al-Shebaab’s blockade and attacks on hospitals and aid workers. Is this a localized Somali tragedy, or should al-Shabaab’s unspeakable cruelty concern the USA?

U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY) has answered that question. On July 27, Rep. King, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, convened a Homeland Security meeting in Washington D.C., entitled “Al Shabaab: Recruitment and Radicalization within the Muslim American Community and the Threat to the Homeland.” He said: “Some argue that al-Shabaab is only a Somali problem…(but)…that kind of thinking is a glaring example of what the 9/11 Commission called a failure of imagination.” In his presentation, Rep. King documented that Al-Shabaab operatives in the USA and Canada are engaged in an ongoing successful effort to recruit and radicalize young Muslim Somali Americans for jihad. These young Somali Americans are trained by el-Qaeda in Pakistan, and have been deployed in Yemen, Afghanisan, and Somalia. Some of the recruits who joined Al-Shabaab’s terror cadres in Somalia have been killed in the fighting there, and three became suicide bombers. One who quickly rose to the rank of commander in al-Shabaab in Somalia, Mr. Omar Hammami, was raised a Baptist in Alabama! Al-Shabaab in the USA has been far more successful in recruiting Somali American citizens to their terror ranks than has el-Qaeda. Somali Al-Shabaab emissaries recruit actively in mosques in Somali communities all over the USA, with no opposition from local non-Somali imams (though lack of opposition may be out of fear rather than out of support for the al-Shabaab jihad). Federal prosecutions for funding terrorism and recruiting for terrorist groups are the most numerous for Somali-American Muslims than for other Muslim Americans working for other terror organizations. According to Rep. King, these Somali-American Muslim recruits pose a serious threat of home-grown terrorism. “…this threat is real, and …. al-Shabaab leaders’ public calls for attacks against America — including in retaliation for killing bin Laden — must be taken seriously. With a large group of Muslim-Americans willing to die as “martyrs,” and a strong operational partnership with al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and in Yemen, al-Shabaab now has more capability than ever to strike the U.S. homeland.” We must learn from our 9/11 “failure of imagination” and pay close attention to Rep. King’s admonitions. The Somali al-Shabaab display utterly inhuman ruthlessness as they callously condemn hundreds of thousands of their own to death by starvation, in the name of Allah and jihad. Home-grown Somali-American jihadists, trained by al-Qaeda and battle hardened in Somalia and elsewhere, can be expected to treat American kafiroon no less harshly. We must connect the dots now, and take pre-emptive defensive action, before al-Shabaab or their ilk perpetrate another 9/11. Notes: [1] For more details cf. Newsweek, August 1 & 8, 2011 pp. 14-15, “Race against Tragedy,” no author noted, not yet available on line at the time of the composition of this article. [2] Abdi, Dr. Hawa and Robbins, Sarah J., Newsweek, August 15, 2011, pp. 42 ff. “Under Siege in Somalia: A People plagued by Catastrophic Famine – and the Tyranny of Islamist Fanatics,” not yet available on line at the time of the composition of this article. [3] Ibid supra, n. #2. [4] Ibid supra, n. #2. http://homeland.house.gov/press-release/king-opens-third-committee-homeland-security-hearing-radicalization-focusing-al
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/17/in-somalia-jihad-uber-alles/


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arab-Islamic Apartheid VS. Israel’s cosmopolitan beautiful equal-for-all transparent democracy

July 4, 2011

ARAB-ISLAMIC APARTHEID

VS ISRAEL’S COSMOPLITAN DEMOCRACY