'It was as if fate was directing me from above'
Etgar Lefkovits
Apr. 5, 2007
The 15-year-old girl saw the German doctor with the rubber
gloves injecting something into the veins of the women at the
camp.
The teen was at the bedside of her 19-year-old sister, who had
been stricken with typhoid in the last days of the Holocaust.
She soon understood that the shots contained poison as each of
the women died within minutes.
It was January 19, 1945 and the Red Army was fast closing in on
the Nazi camp in Poland.
Zsuzsana Braun was determined not to let her sister Agnes, her
last remaining relative, out of her sight.
Their parents, Arthur and Elisabeth Weisz, had already been
murdered.
The two sisters, who grew up in Kosice, Czechoslovakia, were
saved from being gassed months earlier by a malfunction in one
of Auschwitz's gas chambers.
"I did not have anyone except my sister, and I was determined to
be with her until the last minute," Braun recalls.
Days earlier, a member of the underground had made his way to
the camp to tell the inmates that liberation was almost at hand.
The German physician continued across the room, injecting woman
after woman with poison.
Years later, Braun would learn that it was poison against mice
that the doctor was using on the Jewish women.
After killing most of the women in the camp, the doctor, eager
to flee the approaching Russian army, handed the job over to an
assistant, a young German man whom, Braun said, clearly lacked
any medical experience, including knowing how to give an
injection.
The emaciated 15-year-old, who had had many doctors in her
family, quickly turned over the hands of her sister, two other
inmates, and her own so that the shot would not enter a main
vein.
The assistant injected the poison, but due to the location of
the shot, it was slow to act.
Braun felt the right side of her body freeze and knew she had to
act quickly.
Using her hands and a straw, she managed to remove most of the
toxin from her body, and did the same for her sister and the two
other women.
Even today, seven decades later, Braun does not know how she did
it.
"I do not know how - it was not me - it was as if fate was
directing me from above," she says.
Racing outside in the 40-below-zero cold, with her ill sister on
her back, Braun hiked for two days until she arrived at a Polish
home, where she and her sister hid under straw in the barn until
the Russian soldiers arrived. She fed her sister with milk she
found in the barn.
The Russians ordered the Polish family to take the girls into
their house, but the sisters were thrown out as soon as the
soldiers left, Braun recounts.
She then walked 10 days - this time pulling her sister in a cart
the family had given her - until she reached a Red Army
hospital, where a physician amputated Agnes's legs, using
neither anesthesia nor sound surgical procedures.
Zsuzsana continued to nurse Agnes, and both settled in Israel in
1949, where they subsequently married.
Zsuzsana Braun, 78, now a grandmother, continued to help her
sister for years, and the two live on the same block in Tel
Aviv.
Years later, Agnes Kreisler - who received prosthetic legs -
would herself volunteer in Israeli hospitals, helping patients
cope with disabilities.
Six decades later, the tops of their hands are still scarred
where the poison was injected.
The sisters' story will be portrayed as part of an exhibition
opening Friday at Yad Vashem about women in the Holocaust.
"Hitler brought us to Israel in order to get back our human
freedom," Braun says.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879257427&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
ISRAEL ON ITS 59TH BIRTHDAY.
On the occasion of Israel's 59th birthday, "Yom Ha'atzmaut", it is timely to revisit the history of its rebirth as a JEWISH nation. It was a violent beginning to the independent Jewish nation.
Sadly, the longed-for peace after winning its War of Independence in '48, has still eluded Israel to this day. Eli E. Hertz examines the historical and legal aspects of Israel's major wars and its coming into possession of the territories.
(MM)
___________________________________________________________-
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/media/user/documents/Israel%20Wars.pdf
Israel's Major Wars
The legal aspects of coming into possession of the territories
April 24 2007
Eli E. Hertz
About six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN's 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arab rejected.[1]
The Jewish state not only survived: It came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.
In the first critical weeks after the British left the region and Israel declared its independence, the combined Arab armies of: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen[2] aimed at a small Jewish militia with three tanks and five artillery pieces. Israel had no air force, and until arms were rushed in from abroad[3] and a regular army could be organized, it relied on the only strength it had: 70 years worth of social solidarity inspired by the Zionist endeavor.
Israel's citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.
The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders' rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.
There were 6,000 Israeli dead as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.[4]
Under the pressure of war, Palestinian society collapsed in disarray.[5] Both sides were left to cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees – Jewish and Arab. Yet the way the Arab world dealt with their refugees was as different from the Jews, as the way Jews and Arabs approach the notion of compromise over the past 100 years.
Israel War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a "peace loving State"[6] when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both, the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 1 )
"[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter …"
Arab losses caused by unlawful acts of aggression in 1967
In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War and four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.
Core issues leading to those wars are the borders, and one of the key questions is whether borders can be established that do not invite aggression.
In 1967, the combined Arab armies had approximately 465,000 troops, more than 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft,[7] preparing to attack Israel at once. Israel, faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke its right of self-defence, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined in Article 51[8] of the United Nations Charter. Israel launched a surprised pre-emptive air strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967.
Israel's wars with her neighbors are zero-sum games
The Arab objective in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War was to overrun and eradicate the Jewish state.
That objective is very much in the minds of the majority of Palestinian Arabs – in the leadership and the general population, as well as in the minds of their brethren in other Arab countries - though their tactics may have changed.[9]
1948: Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha exulted: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
1954: Saudi Arabian King Saud ibn Abdul Aziz: "The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel ... Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer."
1967: Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel." (May 27, 1967, nine days before the start of the Six-Day War.)
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 2)
1973: Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi: "The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist." (al-Usbu al-Arrabi, Beirut. Quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973.)
1980: PLO representative in Saudi Arabia Rafiq Najshah: "There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country.... On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel."
1996: Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat: "[Our aim is] to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian one." (In a closed meeting with Arab diplomats in Europe, quoted in the Middle East Digest, March 7, 1996.)
1996: PLO spokesperson Bassam abu-Sharif: "The struggle against the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders but relates to the mere existence of the Zionist entity." (In an interview with the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1996).
2001: PA Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, Faisal al-Husseini: "The strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the Jordanian [sic] River to the Mediterranean Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations." (In an interview with the Egyptian paper al-Arabi, June 24, 2001.)
2003: The late Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the key leader of Hamas: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews." (In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera television. Reported in the Jerusalem Times, June 10, 2003.)
2007: Hamas statement in response to criticism by Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, March 12, 2007: "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine …"
Who starts wars does matter
UN Charter Article 51 clearly recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" by anyone.
The suggestion that a small country such as Israel should be expected to absorb the shock of a first strike against horrendous odds or be branded an aggressor abridges both the spirit and intention of Article 51. It also is untenable in practice, as demonstrated in the existential threat and horrific cost in human life that Israel suffered in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Recall that Israel decided against a preemptive air strike just hours before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, choosing not to jeopardize her support from Washington, after the Nixon Administration warned Israel to allow the (2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 3)
Arabs to fire the first shot[10] and not make "provocative moves."
The results for Israel's "good" behavior: 2,222 Israeli dead and 5,596 wounded.[11]
Arabs would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel's control of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act - like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991
Arab leaders `bundle' the countries who fought Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War into one `entity' in order to cloud the issues. They point to Israel's surprise pre-emptive attack on Egypt as an act of unlawful aggression, and add that this "unlawful aggression" prevents Israel from claiming the Territories under international law.
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)[12] states the following facts:
"The facts of the June 1967 `Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
Egypt in 1956 and 1967
Before Israel's pre-emptive and surprised attack on the Egyptian air force, a series of belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel's resort to arms in self-defence in accordance with the Law of Nations.
The Egyptians were responsible for:
· The expulsion of UN peacekeepers from Sinai – stationed there since 1956 to act as a buffer when Israel withdrew from Sinai;
· The closure of Israel's outlet from the Red Sea in defiance of the Geneva Conference of 1958 on free navigation "through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and … the territorial sea of a foreign nation" (For 16 years Egypt illegally blocked Israeli use of the Suez Canal);
· The failure of the international community to break the blockade; and
· The massing of Egyptian forces in Sinai and moving them toward Israel's border.[13]
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 4
In 1956, when Egypt provoked Israel by blockading the Red Sea - crippling her ability to conduct sea trade with Africa and the Far East - the major Western powers negotiated Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, and agreed that Israel's rights would be reserved under Article 51 of the UN Charter if Egypt staged future raids and blockades against Israel. .[14]
In 1967, Egypt's closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships before June 5, was an unlawful act of aggression. The Israeli response was a lawful act of self-defence under Article 51 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.
Israel's enemies and critics ignore or conveniently forget the facts, as Arabs and their sympathizers continue to blame Israel for `starting' the 1967 war.
Were the acts by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967 against Israel aggressive enough to warrant Israel's exercise of her right to self-defence?
The answer can be found on the official website of the Jordanian Government [15] under the heading `The Disaster of 1967.' It describes the events of the days prior to June 5, 1967 and clearly indicates that Jordan, at least, expected Egypt to launch the offensive war against Israel:
"On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22. Sensing that war was now likely. … In response to the Israeli attack [on Egypt], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem." (italic by author)
Israel did not enter the West Bank until it was first attacked by Jordan. This fact is stated on the official Website of the Jordanian Government under the heading "The Disaster of 1967":[16]
"Sensing that war was now likely, King Hussein aligned Jordan firmly with Egypt, suggesting an Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treaty … [The treaty] stipulated that Jordan's forces were to be placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Moneim Riad … In response to the Israeli attack [on the Egyptian air force], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem."
In fact, Jordan was an illegal occupier of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 , and the undisputable aggressor in the Six-Day-War of 1967. Thus, Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right of self-defence when it redeemed and legally occupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.
Israel had clarified to Jordan through UN diplomatic channels that it should stay out of the war. It stated simply: "We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us."[17] King Hussein of Jordan sent a reply via the UN envoy that "since Israel had attacked Egypt, [Israel] would receive his reply by air"[18] – a `message' that came in the form of Jordanian air raids on civilian and military targets, shelling Jerusalem with mortars and long-range artillery on Ben-Gurion Airport, (2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 5)
then extending the front to shelling Israel's `narrow hips' under the mistaken belief that the Arabs were winning. Had Jordan heeded Israel's message of peace instead of Egypt's lies that the Arabs were winning the war, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan's possession. Jordan was far from a `minor player' in the Arabs' war of aggression as their narrative implies:
Israel lost 183 soldiers in battle with Jordanian forces.
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwith-standing explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."
Professor, Judge Schwebel writing lead to the conclusion that under international law, Israel is permitted to stay in the West Bank as long as it is necessary to her self-defence.
Defensive wars and wars of aggression
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence
Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:[19]
"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 6) UN "Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force"
Most UN General Assembly Resolutions regarding Israel read at the start:
"Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force."
Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:[20]
"… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, can not and should not be reworded.
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, argued in 1968 that:[21]
"… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the `unlawful' use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful' is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct."
Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:[22]
"Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."
Columbia University Law Professor George Fletcher further clarified those points, after UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War "illegal."[23]
"Annan, Fletcher suggested, is trying to redefine the Middle East conflict by calling "Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War `illegal.'[24] A new and provocative label of `illegality' is now out of the chute and running loose, ready to wreak damage. The worst prospect is that Palestinians will dig in with a new feeling of righteousness and believe that the international community will force Israel to withdraw from its `illegal occupation.'… Israel's presence in the occupied territories is consistent with international law. In this context, the choice of the words `illegal occupation' is a perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace."
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 7
Kofi Annan became victim to the `Occupation' mantra his own organization has repeated over and over in its propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.
UN Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338
Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338 – the cornerstones of a peace settlement – is Israel branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the Territories and there is no call for Israel to withdraw from all the Territories. Palestinians allegations that the wording of 242 was `deliberately ambiguous' or misconstrued are unfounded.
Resolutions 242 and 338 both rest on the concept of lawful occupations and acknowledge the current legal status of western Palestine as one unit by its reference to the lack of "recognized and secure boundaries."
Strategically, the West Bank juts into Israel's densely populated coastal plain, invites Arabs' aggression. Consequently, the Palestinians' guerilla war on Israel is not an isolated case. Palestinian forces repeatedly attacked Jews from Arab-dominated areas of the West Bank before Israel `occupied' the West Bank in 1967: Jenin and Nablus on the West Bank were the heart of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt that targeted both British authorities and Zionist settlements.
West Bank villagers played a key role in this first stage of the 1948 war, when organized armed gangs based on geographic and familial affinity cut off or overran isolated Jewish settlements and laid siege to Jerusalem by attacking Jewish convoys with food, medical supplies and other essentials. This stage of the war was also marked by several horrific war crimes,[25] including the April 1948 massacre of a convoy of 78 doctors, nurses, patients, and their guards on their way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus and the murder of 127 men and women from the beleaguered village of Kfar Etzion near Bethlehem in May 1948 by a lynch mob of thousands of local Palestinian Arabs after the defenders surrendered to the Jordanian Arab Legion.[26] And during the early 1950s the West Bank served a safe haven for Palestinian infiltrators in a series of cross-border terrorist attacks.[27]
Nearly all of the above legal commentary regarding `wars of aggression' were written long before the Palestinian Authority, a semi-autonomous political entity, launched a vicious guerilla war against Israel in October 2000, but the insights and opinions voiced, beg the question - whether Palestinians as well should not be considered accountable for their repeated aggression when it comes to setting "secure and recognized borders"?
This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at http://www.mefacts.com/
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 8
Sadly, the longed-for peace after winning its War of Independence in '48, has still eluded Israel to this day. Eli E. Hertz examines the historical and legal aspects of Israel's major wars and its coming into possession of the territories.
(MM)
___________________________________________________________-
http://www.mythsandfacts.com/media/user/documents/Israel%20Wars.pdf
Israel's Major Wars
The legal aspects of coming into possession of the territories
April 24 2007
Eli E. Hertz
About six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN's 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arab rejected.[1]
The Jewish state not only survived: It came into possession of territories – land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.
In the first critical weeks after the British left the region and Israel declared its independence, the combined Arab armies of: Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, and contingents from Saudi Arabia and Yemen[2] aimed at a small Jewish militia with three tanks and five artillery pieces. Israel had no air force, and until arms were rushed in from abroad[3] and a regular army could be organized, it relied on the only strength it had: 70 years worth of social solidarity inspired by the Zionist endeavor.
Israel's citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.
The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders' rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.
There were 6,000 Israeli dead as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.[4]
Under the pressure of war, Palestinian society collapsed in disarray.[5] Both sides were left to cope with hundreds of thousands of refugees – Jewish and Arab. Yet the way the Arab world dealt with their refugees was as different from the Jews, as the way Jews and Arabs approach the notion of compromise over the past 100 years.
Israel War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a "peace loving State"[6] when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both, the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 1 )
"[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter …"
Arab losses caused by unlawful acts of aggression in 1967
In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War and four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.
Core issues leading to those wars are the borders, and one of the key questions is whether borders can be established that do not invite aggression.
In 1967, the combined Arab armies had approximately 465,000 troops, more than 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft,[7] preparing to attack Israel at once. Israel, faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke its right of self-defence, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined in Article 51[8] of the United Nations Charter. Israel launched a surprised pre-emptive air strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967.
Israel's wars with her neighbors are zero-sum games
The Arab objective in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War was to overrun and eradicate the Jewish state.
That objective is very much in the minds of the majority of Palestinian Arabs – in the leadership and the general population, as well as in the minds of their brethren in other Arab countries - though their tactics may have changed.[9]
1948: Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha exulted: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
1954: Saudi Arabian King Saud ibn Abdul Aziz: "The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel ... Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer."
1967: Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel." (May 27, 1967, nine days before the start of the Six-Day War.)
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 2)
1973: Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi: "The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist." (al-Usbu al-Arrabi, Beirut. Quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973.)
1980: PLO representative in Saudi Arabia Rafiq Najshah: "There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country.... On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel."
1996: Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat: "[Our aim is] to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian one." (In a closed meeting with Arab diplomats in Europe, quoted in the Middle East Digest, March 7, 1996.)
1996: PLO spokesperson Bassam abu-Sharif: "The struggle against the Zionist enemy is not a matter of borders but relates to the mere existence of the Zionist entity." (In an interview with the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1996).
2001: PA Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, Faisal al-Husseini: "The strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the Jordanian [sic] River to the Mediterranean Sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations." (In an interview with the Egyptian paper al-Arabi, June 24, 2001.)
2003: The late Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the key leader of Hamas: "By God, we will not leave one Jew in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews." (In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera television. Reported in the Jerusalem Times, June 10, 2003.)
2007: Hamas statement in response to criticism by Al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri, March 12, 2007: "We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine …"
Who starts wars does matter
UN Charter Article 51 clearly recognizes "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" by anyone.
The suggestion that a small country such as Israel should be expected to absorb the shock of a first strike against horrendous odds or be branded an aggressor abridges both the spirit and intention of Article 51. It also is untenable in practice, as demonstrated in the existential threat and horrific cost in human life that Israel suffered in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Recall that Israel decided against a preemptive air strike just hours before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, choosing not to jeopardize her support from Washington, after the Nixon Administration warned Israel to allow the (2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 3)
Arabs to fire the first shot[10] and not make "provocative moves."
The results for Israel's "good" behavior: 2,222 Israeli dead and 5,596 wounded.[11]
Arabs would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel's control of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act - like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991
Arab leaders `bundle' the countries who fought Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War into one `entity' in order to cloud the issues. They point to Israel's surprise pre-emptive attack on Egypt as an act of unlawful aggression, and add that this "unlawful aggression" prevents Israel from claiming the Territories under international law.
Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)[12] states the following facts:
"The facts of the June 1967 `Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF. It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."
Egypt in 1956 and 1967
Before Israel's pre-emptive and surprised attack on the Egyptian air force, a series of belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel's resort to arms in self-defence in accordance with the Law of Nations.
The Egyptians were responsible for:
· The expulsion of UN peacekeepers from Sinai – stationed there since 1956 to act as a buffer when Israel withdrew from Sinai;
· The closure of Israel's outlet from the Red Sea in defiance of the Geneva Conference of 1958 on free navigation "through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and … the territorial sea of a foreign nation" (For 16 years Egypt illegally blocked Israeli use of the Suez Canal);
· The failure of the international community to break the blockade; and
· The massing of Egyptian forces in Sinai and moving them toward Israel's border.[13]
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 4
In 1956, when Egypt provoked Israel by blockading the Red Sea - crippling her ability to conduct sea trade with Africa and the Far East - the major Western powers negotiated Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, and agreed that Israel's rights would be reserved under Article 51 of the UN Charter if Egypt staged future raids and blockades against Israel. .[14]
In 1967, Egypt's closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships before June 5, was an unlawful act of aggression. The Israeli response was a lawful act of self-defence under Article 51 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.
Israel's enemies and critics ignore or conveniently forget the facts, as Arabs and their sympathizers continue to blame Israel for `starting' the 1967 war.
Were the acts by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967 against Israel aggressive enough to warrant Israel's exercise of her right to self-defence?
The answer can be found on the official website of the Jordanian Government [15] under the heading `The Disaster of 1967.' It describes the events of the days prior to June 5, 1967 and clearly indicates that Jordan, at least, expected Egypt to launch the offensive war against Israel:
"On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22. Sensing that war was now likely. … In response to the Israeli attack [on Egypt], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem." (italic by author)
Israel did not enter the West Bank until it was first attacked by Jordan. This fact is stated on the official Website of the Jordanian Government under the heading "The Disaster of 1967":[16]
"Sensing that war was now likely, King Hussein aligned Jordan firmly with Egypt, suggesting an Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treaty … [The treaty] stipulated that Jordan's forces were to be placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Moneim Riad … In response to the Israeli attack [on the Egyptian air force], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem."
In fact, Jordan was an illegal occupier of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 , and the undisputable aggressor in the Six-Day-War of 1967. Thus, Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right of self-defence when it redeemed and legally occupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.
Israel had clarified to Jordan through UN diplomatic channels that it should stay out of the war. It stated simply: "We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us."[17] King Hussein of Jordan sent a reply via the UN envoy that "since Israel had attacked Egypt, [Israel] would receive his reply by air"[18] – a `message' that came in the form of Jordanian air raids on civilian and military targets, shelling Jerusalem with mortars and long-range artillery on Ben-Gurion Airport, (2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 5)
then extending the front to shelling Israel's `narrow hips' under the mistaken belief that the Arabs were winning. Had Jordan heeded Israel's message of peace instead of Egypt's lies that the Arabs were winning the war, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan's possession. Jordan was far from a `minor player' in the Arabs' war of aggression as their narrative implies:
Israel lost 183 soldiers in battle with Jordanian forces.
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:
"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwith-standing explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."
Professor, Judge Schwebel writing lead to the conclusion that under international law, Israel is permitted to stay in the West Bank as long as it is necessary to her self-defence.
Defensive wars and wars of aggression
International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence
Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:[19]
"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."
(2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 6) UN "Inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force"
Most UN General Assembly Resolutions regarding Israel read at the start:
"Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force."
Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:[20]
"… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, can not and should not be reworded.
Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, argued in 1968 that:[21]
"… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the `unlawful' use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful' is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct."
Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:[22]
"Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."
Columbia University Law Professor George Fletcher further clarified those points, after UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War "illegal."[23]
"Annan, Fletcher suggested, is trying to redefine the Middle East conflict by calling "Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War `illegal.'[24] A new and provocative label of `illegality' is now out of the chute and running loose, ready to wreak damage. The worst prospect is that Palestinians will dig in with a new feeling of righteousness and believe that the international community will force Israel to withdraw from its `illegal occupation.'… Israel's presence in the occupied territories is consistent with international law. In this context, the choice of the words `illegal occupation' is a perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace."
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 7
Kofi Annan became victim to the `Occupation' mantra his own organization has repeated over and over in its propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.
UN Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338
Because the Arabs were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 or 338 – the cornerstones of a peace settlement – is Israel branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the Territories and there is no call for Israel to withdraw from all the Territories. Palestinians allegations that the wording of 242 was `deliberately ambiguous' or misconstrued are unfounded.
Resolutions 242 and 338 both rest on the concept of lawful occupations and acknowledge the current legal status of western Palestine as one unit by its reference to the lack of "recognized and secure boundaries."
Strategically, the West Bank juts into Israel's densely populated coastal plain, invites Arabs' aggression. Consequently, the Palestinians' guerilla war on Israel is not an isolated case. Palestinian forces repeatedly attacked Jews from Arab-dominated areas of the West Bank before Israel `occupied' the West Bank in 1967: Jenin and Nablus on the West Bank were the heart of the 1936-39 Arab Revolt that targeted both British authorities and Zionist settlements.
West Bank villagers played a key role in this first stage of the 1948 war, when organized armed gangs based on geographic and familial affinity cut off or overran isolated Jewish settlements and laid siege to Jerusalem by attacking Jewish convoys with food, medical supplies and other essentials. This stage of the war was also marked by several horrific war crimes,[25] including the April 1948 massacre of a convoy of 78 doctors, nurses, patients, and their guards on their way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus and the murder of 127 men and women from the beleaguered village of Kfar Etzion near Bethlehem in May 1948 by a lynch mob of thousands of local Palestinian Arabs after the defenders surrendered to the Jordanian Arab Legion.[26] And during the early 1950s the West Bank served a safe haven for Palestinian infiltrators in a series of cross-border terrorist attacks.[27]
Nearly all of the above legal commentary regarding `wars of aggression' were written long before the Palestinian Authority, a semi-autonomous political entity, launched a vicious guerilla war against Israel in October 2000, but the insights and opinions voiced, beg the question - whether Palestinians as well should not be considered accountable for their repeated aggression when it comes to setting "secure and recognized borders"?
This document uses extensive links via the Internet. If you experience a broken link, please note the 5 digit number (xxxxx) at the end of the URL and use it as a Keyword in the Search Box at http://www.mefacts.com/
2007 © Eli E. Hertz Israel's major wars 8
Friday, April 20, 2007
Journalists' Union votes to boycott Israel.
With perfect sense of timing, while one of their own coleagues has been kidnapped in Gaza and is probably killed (according to one claim), the British journalists' Union decides that Israel should be boycotted. Perhaps it is meant to curry favour with his captors; perhaps it is meant to stop their members being sent to cover all the ME, since most foreign journalists are usually stationed and reside in the only free democracy in the ME,- Israel,- in Jerusalem.
The following article puts it in its right perspective!
MM.
---
http://ws.collactive.com/points/point?id=KJ2Co7d1slKa
telegraph.co.uk
Toby Harnden
in Washington DC
More Foreign Correspondents blogs
[Toby Harnden has been The Daily Telegraph's United States Editor since October 2006. He lives in Washington DC with his wife Cheryl and their dog Finn, a native of Belfast. Toby was previously Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph. He first joined The Daily Telegraph in 1994 and has been its Ireland Correspondent, Washington Bureau Chief and Middle East Correspondent. He is the author of Bandit Country: The IRA & South Armagh (1999). An archive of his work is at www.tobyharnden.com, and he can be contacted at toby.harnden@telegraph.co.uk.
The following article puts it in its right perspective!
MM.
---
http://ws.collactive.com/points/point?id=KJ2Co7d1slKa
telegraph.co.uk
Toby Harnden
in Washington DC
More Foreign Correspondents blogs
[Toby Harnden has been The Daily Telegraph's United States Editor since October 2006. He lives in Washington DC with his wife Cheryl and their dog Finn, a native of Belfast. Toby was previously Chief Foreign Correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph. He first joined The Daily Telegraph in 1994 and has been its Ireland Correspondent, Washington Bureau Chief and Middle East Correspondent. He is the author of Bandit Country: The IRA & South Armagh (1999). An archive of his work is at www.tobyharnden.com, and he can be contacted at toby.harnden@telegraph.co.uk.
Journalists' union boycotts Israel
Posted by Toby Harnden at 14 Apr 07 09:36
It takes some skill to do something that is at once inane, ineffectual, counter-productive and insulting to the intelligence. But that is what the National Union of Journalists has managed to do by voting to boycott Israeli goods because of the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel".
The NUJ should refrain from criticising Israel
I am a member of the NUJ, though at times like this I wonder why. A union battling for better pay and conditions is one thing. But why should my dues be spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I and many other members want no part?
You could say that this kind of thing is what gives British trade unions their Loony Left image. But in a way it's even worse than that. Although Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1980s, was an unreconstructed Marxist, at least he was fighting for what he saw as the best interests of miners.
As Craig McGinty asks , how the hell does boycotting Israeli goods benefit journalists? Dadblog jokes about the other boycotts the NUJ could go for but his underlying point is serious - if the NUJ is going to go in for this sort of posturing, how about boycotting goods from countries that really abuse human rights?
A glance down the list of NUJ motions reveals a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes. It reminds me of the time I was JCR President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford and I was forever being mandated, after verbose motions carried by acclamation, to write to Margaret Thatcher to protest about this or that.
But that was forgivable - we were idealistic students who had not yet entered the real world. We had an outsized sense of our own importance and an impatient reluctance to bother ourselves with considering the complexities of life outside. We have since grown up.
A glance down list of motions shows that the NUJ, despite celebrating its centenary, is still an adolescent. There's a Guantanamo motion that expresses "concern" (that'll make a difference) about "the systematic violation of human rights by the US Military".
Another "applauds the advances made by the Venezuelan people and government in redistributing the country's wealth" and condemns "disinformation" that encourages "unjustified stereotypes of the Venezuelan president as a dictator who is repressing the local media".
So the NUJ is now dictating that its members should all write that Hugo Chavez is a great chap? Clear the front pages. And if you read the anti-Israel motions, you will spot a complete absence of any sense of journalistic impartiality. The "slaughter of civilians" by Israel is condemned (no mention of suicide bombings or human rights abuses by Palestinian militias, needless to say), as is the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" and "continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah".
What kind of language is this? It is tendentious and politically-loaded propaganda that would be rightly edited out of any news story written in a newspaper that had any pretensions of fairness. Israel "defeated" by Hezbollah? That is at best debatable - it's the kind of wording smacks of a juvenile combination of unedifying gloating and wishful thinking.
Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack" on Lebanon? Er, am I missing something or wasn't last summer's conflict sparked by Hezbollah firing rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (who still have not been released) and killing three other troops?
Much has been written about the media's shortcomings in covering events in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 - check out Matthew D'Ancona and Marvin Kalb for starters - but journalistic standards of fairness, professionalism and objectivity seem to be of no concern to the NUJ.
The case of Alan Johnston, the BBC's Gaza correspondent, who was kidnapped by an unknown Palestinian group more than a month ago and has not been seen since, illustrates the dangers of reporting from Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Doing one's best to remain impartial in the most volatile and divided part of the world is incredibly difficult. Every single sentence or utterance by a journalist is scrutinised by both sides. Which can be a great thing (and something which I believe is extending across all journalism as the blogosphere spreads) but also adds to the pressure.
Foreign journalists are regarded by most Israelis as partisan advocates of the Palestinian cause. There's clearly some justification for this. It's scarcely breaking news to say that elements of the British press can be strongly anti-Israel.
Remember the Jenin "massacre", when the Guardian compared Israeli actions to 9/11? But most British journalists based in Jerusalem - and I was one of them - have a mix of sympathy for the terrible plight of ordinary Palestinians, a belief that there will be a two-state solution and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of nation-building in its short history.
So what does the NUJ motion do for its members there? It helps smear them all as being biased and anti-Israel. Bravo NUJ for encouraging people to view your members as partisans in a region when charges like that can be damaging to one's health.
Propagating biased assertions, endangering the safety of its members, singling Israel out for criticism above all other nations, dictating what we should write. It's high time for the NUJ to take a long, hard look at itse
lf if it wants to avoid being consigned to ridicule and irrelevance.
Posted by Toby Harnden at 14 Apr 07 09:36
Post to: del.icio.usDiggNewsvineNowPublicReddit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"Independent Jewish voices" (to denigrate Israel!)
LETTER TO THE EDITOR, Australian Jewish News
14/4/2007.
Re: "independent Jewish voices"
These people are crying that they are not represented by the Jewish communal leadership and that they "have no voice" in the community when it comes to criticizing Israel. The bottom line is: where are they Jewish,- why are they Jewish, when are they Jewish? (Antony) Lowenstein is Jewish on the ABC on Seder night, apparently. His chutzpah knows no bounds,- with no idea what the responsibilities of nationhood imposes on governments, he attacks (not criticizes) our own elected Government representatives for standing up for Israel and our fellow Jews (AJN, 6/4).
I think that it is about time that the roof bodies of the community, i.e. the JCCs and SZCs explain to these uninvolved ignorants about our community's structure. For example, that the 50 or so delegates who meet regularly to discuss issues of concern to us, are there representing their affiliated communal organizations.. They have the responsibility and weight of representation of bodies, each with their own leaders and hundreds, or literally thousands of individual members.
Some of these organizations have very independent and opposing views from each other and their voices do get heard, loud and clear at the plenum meetings of the roof bodies and beyond. For example Mr. Rothfield and his organizations often take a different view to that of the majority of communal leaders (letters, AJN 6/4). Does anyone stop them doing it? Robust arguments may take place between them and others in the community. After all,- 2 Jews means 3 or more opinions, 3 synagogues (one that they don't go to) and continuous discourse.
One only needs to read the AJN to see this!
So what exactly makes these people think that they have something different to offer to the general public? Israel, unlike any other independent nation in the world, is continually under microscopic scrutiny and media attack. What are they adding to this? Who believes that they represent anyone other than themselves? And finally, what is the difference whether they call themselves Jewish or not?
The answer is of course: that individuals like Lowenstein and his Melbourne University Press sponsors wouldn't get the publicity,- nor the money,- otherwise.
Israel's and our enemies must love them to death.
MM
14/4/2007.
Re: "independent Jewish voices"
These people are crying that they are not represented by the Jewish communal leadership and that they "have no voice" in the community when it comes to criticizing Israel. The bottom line is: where are they Jewish,- why are they Jewish, when are they Jewish? (Antony) Lowenstein is Jewish on the ABC on Seder night, apparently. His chutzpah knows no bounds,- with no idea what the responsibilities of nationhood imposes on governments, he attacks (not criticizes) our own elected Government representatives for standing up for Israel and our fellow Jews (AJN, 6/4).
I think that it is about time that the roof bodies of the community, i.e. the JCCs and SZCs explain to these uninvolved ignorants about our community's structure. For example, that the 50 or so delegates who meet regularly to discuss issues of concern to us, are there representing their affiliated communal organizations.. They have the responsibility and weight of representation of bodies, each with their own leaders and hundreds, or literally thousands of individual members.
Some of these organizations have very independent and opposing views from each other and their voices do get heard, loud and clear at the plenum meetings of the roof bodies and beyond. For example Mr. Rothfield and his organizations often take a different view to that of the majority of communal leaders (letters, AJN 6/4). Does anyone stop them doing it? Robust arguments may take place between them and others in the community. After all,- 2 Jews means 3 or more opinions, 3 synagogues (one that they don't go to) and continuous discourse.
One only needs to read the AJN to see this!
So what exactly makes these people think that they have something different to offer to the general public? Israel, unlike any other independent nation in the world, is continually under microscopic scrutiny and media attack. What are they adding to this? Who believes that they represent anyone other than themselves? And finally, what is the difference whether they call themselves Jewish or not?
The answer is of course: that individuals like Lowenstein and his Melbourne University Press sponsors wouldn't get the publicity,- nor the money,- otherwise.
Israel's and our enemies must love them to death.
MM
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
JEWS AND EDUCATION: a mix for creating geniuses?
WHAT EVERY JEWISH GRANDMOTHER KNOWS: HER LTTLE ONES ARE ALL GENIUSES!
The headline in The Ausralian, 10/4/07, said so:"Jews are geniuses, claims social radical".
The Letter to the Editor below explains it all.
Jewish respect for education
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Letters
IF there is any truth in the headline “Jews are geniuses, claims social radical” (Worldwide, 10/4), then I missed out badly on the relevant genes. However, the Jewish respect for education is beyond dispute.
The education system in Israel and the educational level of the Israeli workforce are among the world’s best. The Ministry of Education occupies the biggest government building in Jerusalem. If the Arab world had been pragmatic enough to peaceably accept the creation of Israel by the UN in 1948, three generations of Palestinian youngsters could have had an educational spin-off, leading their people to a secure economic niche in the world. But while Israel produces more academic research papers than the whole Arab world, many of those youngsters are kitted out as suicide bombers.
Norman Rich
Newport, NSW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the writer above. Those 'genius genes' seem to escape most of us,- but quite a few of the world's minority of geniuses apparently are from among the Jewish people. This is because education,- whether Jewishly or secularly has always been encoraged as a basis of survival for Jews throughout the Centuries of persecution in exile.
When Israel was re-established as an independent nation, it was a 'given' from the start that much of its resources would be put into top-class educational institutions. In spite of its constant need to be on guard against its terrorist neighbours and fighting a number of acual wars to survive,
I have always maintained that the Palestinian people as a whole must be the stupidest group on earth for relying on their fellow Arabs instead of on the Israelis. There are intelligent Palestinians,- including some of those who decided to stay-put and take their chances with the Jews in Israel,- who would rather be in alliance, in a federation actually,- with Israel rather than with any of their other Arab States. I heard one of them say this on a BBC interview a couple of years ago!
I wonder if he survived.
Miriam M
The headline in The Ausralian, 10/4/07, said so:"Jews are geniuses, claims social radical".
The Letter to the Editor below explains it all.
Jewish respect for education
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Letters
IF there is any truth in the headline “Jews are geniuses, claims social radical” (Worldwide, 10/4), then I missed out badly on the relevant genes. However, the Jewish respect for education is beyond dispute.
The education system in Israel and the educational level of the Israeli workforce are among the world’s best. The Ministry of Education occupies the biggest government building in Jerusalem. If the Arab world had been pragmatic enough to peaceably accept the creation of Israel by the UN in 1948, three generations of Palestinian youngsters could have had an educational spin-off, leading their people to a secure economic niche in the world. But while Israel produces more academic research papers than the whole Arab world, many of those youngsters are kitted out as suicide bombers.
Norman Rich
Newport, NSW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the writer above. Those 'genius genes' seem to escape most of us,- but quite a few of the world's minority of geniuses apparently are from among the Jewish people. This is because education,- whether Jewishly or secularly has always been encoraged as a basis of survival for Jews throughout the Centuries of persecution in exile.
When Israel was re-established as an independent nation, it was a 'given' from the start that much of its resources would be put into top-class educational institutions. In spite of its constant need to be on guard against its terrorist neighbours and fighting a number of acual wars to survive,
I have always maintained that the Palestinian people as a whole must be the stupidest group on earth for relying on their fellow Arabs instead of on the Israelis. There are intelligent Palestinians,- including some of those who decided to stay-put and take their chances with the Jews in Israel,- who would rather be in alliance, in a federation actually,- with Israel rather than with any of their other Arab States. I heard one of them say this on a BBC interview a couple of years ago!
I wonder if he survived.
Miriam M
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Why do Palestinians think they have a "right of return'?
The Palestinian 'right of return':?
( Why? Which refugee group in the world has not been absorbed by other countries over 50years? Jews from Arab lands have been absorbed by tiny Israel,- they who have also lived through many generations and many centuries in Moslem lands and were forcibly evacuated from them when the State of Israel was declared. Why did not the 250 million Arab Moslems see fit to absorb a few hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine? So much for Arab brotherhood and Islamic solidarity! The only thing on which they are united is the destruction of Israel and keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps!
MM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palestinian Government demands it. The Arab League refuses to compromise over it. Meanwhile the Israeli Government rejects it. And Israel's Prime Minister says he will never agree to it. No aspect of Israel's conflict with its neighbours is as polarised as the Palestinian 'right of return'.
Events of recent weeks have again exposed that polarisation. We'd like to highlight the Beyond Images Briefing on the topic in which we outline the Palestinian claim for a 'right of return', and explain several key arguments against it:-
Arab rejectionism, not Israeli aggression, caused the war in 1948 which created the refugee problem-
Arab states and the Palestinians have exacerbated the refugee problem for over 50 years. A general 'right of return' is more unrealistic than ever-
Israel is under no legal obligation under UN Resolution 194 to grant the Palestinians a general 'right of return' into Israel-
For Israel to accept a Palestinian 'right of return' would risk destroying the Jewish character of the State of Israel, which the Israeli leadership and population will never accept- granting the Palestinians a 'right of return' into Israel undermines the principle of a 'two-state solution'-
The demand for a Palestinian 'right of return' is presented as a formula for justice, but in fact is a formula for diplomatic stalemate, and perpetuates the conflict.
The debate over the 'right of return' is at the forefront of coverage of the Middle East. There is very little understanding in the media of how threatening this demand is to Israel. The Arab League, which upholds the 'right of return' is simultaneously described as seeking "normalisation of relations" with Israel. This is nonsense. The 'right of return' and "normal relations" are mutually contradictory.
Resources
www.beyondimages.info
Engaging in Israel's battle of ideas and information
( Why? Which refugee group in the world has not been absorbed by other countries over 50years? Jews from Arab lands have been absorbed by tiny Israel,- they who have also lived through many generations and many centuries in Moslem lands and were forcibly evacuated from them when the State of Israel was declared. Why did not the 250 million Arab Moslems see fit to absorb a few hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine? So much for Arab brotherhood and Islamic solidarity! The only thing on which they are united is the destruction of Israel and keeping the Palestinians in refugee camps!
MM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palestinian Government demands it. The Arab League refuses to compromise over it. Meanwhile the Israeli Government rejects it. And Israel's Prime Minister says he will never agree to it. No aspect of Israel's conflict with its neighbours is as polarised as the Palestinian 'right of return'.
Events of recent weeks have again exposed that polarisation. We'd like to highlight the Beyond Images Briefing on the topic in which we outline the Palestinian claim for a 'right of return', and explain several key arguments against it:-
Arab rejectionism, not Israeli aggression, caused the war in 1948 which created the refugee problem-
Arab states and the Palestinians have exacerbated the refugee problem for over 50 years. A general 'right of return' is more unrealistic than ever-
Israel is under no legal obligation under UN Resolution 194 to grant the Palestinians a general 'right of return' into Israel-
For Israel to accept a Palestinian 'right of return' would risk destroying the Jewish character of the State of Israel, which the Israeli leadership and population will never accept- granting the Palestinians a 'right of return' into Israel undermines the principle of a 'two-state solution'-
The demand for a Palestinian 'right of return' is presented as a formula for justice, but in fact is a formula for diplomatic stalemate, and perpetuates the conflict.
The debate over the 'right of return' is at the forefront of coverage of the Middle East. There is very little understanding in the media of how threatening this demand is to Israel. The Arab League, which upholds the 'right of return' is simultaneously described as seeking "normalisation of relations" with Israel. This is nonsense. The 'right of return' and "normal relations" are mutually contradictory.
Resources
www.beyondimages.info
Engaging in Israel's battle of ideas and information
Monday, April 09, 2007
HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT ZIONISM & ARAB "DISPOSSESSION"
Zionism has been questioned last week on our public broadcaster, the ABC, in their Religion Report, (2/4). There is no doubt that the ideology of Zionism is now openly under attack, from a few Jews and therefore the non-Jews who feel entitled to question it too! The main target seems to be that it is "a racist ideology" similar to Fascism and Nazism,- no less!!!
The only reason the ABC finds it respectable to be anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic is because there are Jews who make these same 'noises'. If it's good for Jews to openly promote these sentiments, why not everyone else? We Jews are like the murderous Fascists and Nazis,- didn't you know? Oh yeah!
Oh,- sorry,- only Jews in Israel are like that,- not us, not here,- we could never be like that,....etc., etc.
Well,- Australians are in charge of nationhood and responsible for our welfare and safety, with an army, navy, air force, intelligence services, diplomatic services, police forces, etc., etc.,- should we believe that there are no Jewish Aussies involved in all these matters? Should Jews become "conscientious objectors" before serving in any of the above here, in case they have to administer some harsh punishment to others? "How can Jews do such things"?!!
(After all, they are supposed to turn the other cheek, when you spit in their eyes!!!)
In the USA and elsewhere in the Western world as far as I am aware,- Jews (unless there is discrimination) do participate at all levels in their nations. But then, according to the Jewish anti-Zionists, (not the anti-Semites who don't want them anywhere), that is OK because the "others" have to make the hard choices and decisions.
But when and where Jews are in a majority, according to the anti-Zionists,- they are not allowed to do that. Best to allow the Islamists rule over the Jews in a Palestinian "democratic, secular State",- because they are the greatest humanists in the world who would never become like Nazis to perpetrate a Holocaust!!!!
What a joke! You can die laughing.
(Miriam M.)
See
http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Arab_Revolt.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/impact_of_zionism.htm http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/expulsion.html
http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/dispossesion.html
Some points re "Arab dispossession":
Zionist transfer ideas began in the 1930s as the result of the Arab pogroms and were not indigenous to Zionism. The fake Zionist quote from the Herzl diaries apparently referred to Uganda. Herzl wrote Altneuland, a utopian vision of Israel as a pluralistic democracy.
Transfer was proposed BY THE BRITISH in the PEEL plan, and all the quotes of Ben Gurion and others at the Zionist executive meeting were in the context of discussing the BRITISH proposal. Remember that the Jews were to be given a tiny part of Palestine, and in that context what was discussed was "voluntary" and compensated transfer - not forced expulsion. At the time, population transfer was considered legitimate. It took place on a grand scale in the partition of India, 10 years later.
In all about 500 families were affected by Zionist land purchases. In all cases, the families did get compensation and then asked for more anyhow. The real reason that so many left the land was not dispossession but better jobs in the cities, where Zionist investment had raised the standard of living. It is a fact that more Arabs lived in Palestine in 1947 than at any previous time in recorded history. If the Zionists were trying to dispossess Arabs, they sure did a lousy job.
( Ref. Ami Isseroff)
The only reason the ABC finds it respectable to be anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic is because there are Jews who make these same 'noises'. If it's good for Jews to openly promote these sentiments, why not everyone else? We Jews are like the murderous Fascists and Nazis,- didn't you know? Oh yeah!
Oh,- sorry,- only Jews in Israel are like that,- not us, not here,- we could never be like that,....etc., etc.
Well,- Australians are in charge of nationhood and responsible for our welfare and safety, with an army, navy, air force, intelligence services, diplomatic services, police forces, etc., etc.,- should we believe that there are no Jewish Aussies involved in all these matters? Should Jews become "conscientious objectors" before serving in any of the above here, in case they have to administer some harsh punishment to others? "How can Jews do such things"?!!
(After all, they are supposed to turn the other cheek, when you spit in their eyes!!!)
In the USA and elsewhere in the Western world as far as I am aware,- Jews (unless there is discrimination) do participate at all levels in their nations. But then, according to the Jewish anti-Zionists, (not the anti-Semites who don't want them anywhere), that is OK because the "others" have to make the hard choices and decisions.
But when and where Jews are in a majority, according to the anti-Zionists,- they are not allowed to do that. Best to allow the Islamists rule over the Jews in a Palestinian "democratic, secular State",- because they are the greatest humanists in the world who would never become like Nazis to perpetrate a Holocaust!!!!
What a joke! You can die laughing.
(Miriam M.)
See
http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues
http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Arab_Revolt.htm
http://www.zionism-israel.com/impact_of_zionism.htm http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/expulsion.html
http://www.zionism-israel.com/issues/dispossesion.html
Some points re "Arab dispossession":
Zionist transfer ideas began in the 1930s as the result of the Arab pogroms and were not indigenous to Zionism. The fake Zionist quote from the Herzl diaries apparently referred to Uganda. Herzl wrote Altneuland, a utopian vision of Israel as a pluralistic democracy.
Transfer was proposed BY THE BRITISH in the PEEL plan, and all the quotes of Ben Gurion and others at the Zionist executive meeting were in the context of discussing the BRITISH proposal. Remember that the Jews were to be given a tiny part of Palestine, and in that context what was discussed was "voluntary" and compensated transfer - not forced expulsion. At the time, population transfer was considered legitimate. It took place on a grand scale in the partition of India, 10 years later.
In all about 500 families were affected by Zionist land purchases. In all cases, the families did get compensation and then asked for more anyhow. The real reason that so many left the land was not dispossession but better jobs in the cities, where Zionist investment had raised the standard of living. It is a fact that more Arabs lived in Palestine in 1947 than at any previous time in recorded history. If the Zionists were trying to dispossess Arabs, they sure did a lousy job.
( Ref. Ami Isseroff)
Friday, April 06, 2007
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF? 67 years ago,- who remembers?
THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE FROM AN AMERICAN EXPERIENCE.
NOW THINK ABOUT WHAT A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR REMEMBERS.
But most of you will not remember the effects of WW2 everywhere and on everyone, - from the USA, Britain and all of Europe, all the way to Australia.
Some of you may have already seen this, but whether you agree, or disagree with what's going on in the Middle East, everyone should read this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
The following is his essay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Significance
Sixty-seven years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us It was a dicey thing .. We had few allies
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor .
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra (goal).
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OP EC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i. e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . .. . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.
This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
OR
4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years.
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany!
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion, to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
The stakes are at least as high . . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW THINK ABOUT WHAT A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR REMEMBERS.
But most of you will not remember the effects of WW2 everywhere and on everyone, - from the USA, Britain and all of Europe, all the way to Australia.
Some of you may have already seen this, but whether you agree, or disagree with what's going on in the Middle East, everyone should read this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.
The following is his essay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Significance
Sixty-seven years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .
At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war
Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us It was a dicey thing .. We had few allies
France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers. Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia
Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico, as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
America's only allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel.
The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks. A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor .
Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could.
Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse.
Ironically, Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.
Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers.
Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .
All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history.
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews. This is their mantra (goal).
There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies.
The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OP EC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i. e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . .. . . in Iraq. Not in New York, not in London, or Paris or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians.
(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.
WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war.
WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack.
The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism.
This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be.
The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it.
If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England, in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world.
The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting them.
We have four options:
1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
OR
4. We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier.
If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.
Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.
The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years.
Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany!
World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept.
The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion, to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.
In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.
The stakes are at least as high . . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).
It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.
Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!
The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
"Arabs for Israel" founder, Nonie Darwish intervoew on MEMRI
-----Original Message-----
.The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian-American author Nonie Darwish, founder of 'Arabsf or Israel.' The interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV on March23, 2007.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT:http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1411 .
Interviewer: "We mentioned at the beginning of the program that your father was a commander of the fedayeen in the Gaza Strip in the 50s. Your father is considered an Egyptian hero, but it has been said that you described him as a terrorist. Did you?"
Nonie Darwish: "Absolutely not, I don't understand how they could say such a thing. I admire my father. My father was agreat man, and I love him because he had a great personality. He loved people, and people loved him. I love him not because he killed Jews, but because he was a great man. He is my role model."[...]
"We have peace with Israel now. We should begin to view the Palestinian Arab cause in a different manner. For 58 years we have been fighting Israel, so how can we resolve this problem and put it behind us? Enough, we must resolve this problem, because it hinders the progress of the Arab peoples."
Interviewer: "You have been quoted as saying while visiting Israel: 'I have come to say that I forgive you for killing my father, and ask you to forgive us for the terrorism and killing on our part.' Did you say this?"
Nonie Darwish: "Absolutely, this is true. Forgiveness is the most important thing for reconciliation. We want reconciliation with Israel. I call upon the Muslims... The Islamic countries are beautiful countries. I love the Arabs,the Palestinians, and the Egyptians. They are my children -the beautiful Egyptian boys and girls - and their suffering and poverty in Egypt is difficult for me. But in order to resolve this problem, we must begin to view the Jews in a forgiving light. There must be forgiveness and justice, not just for the Palestinians, but for our enemies as well."[...]"My support for Israel does not mean I am against the Arabs.So please don't think that because I want peace with Israel,I don't want peace with the Arabs. I love my people very very much."[...]
Interviewer: "Do you agree that as a rule, peoples whose lands have been occupied have the right to conduct resistance and to fight?"
Nonie Darwish: "As Arab countries, we must grant Israel some security. From the days of Abd Al-Nasser until today, with Ahmadinejad in Iran, all they hear is that we want to throwIsrael into the sea. All they hear are ugly things. Can you believe that we accused Israel of 9/11? In mosques in America, Egypt, and the Arab countries, they say that Israel was the cause of 9/11. It is wrong for the Muslims to say such things about Israel."[...]
Interviewer: "What is your response to the recent discovery that 250 Egyptian POWs were killed by Israelis in the 1967war?"
Nonie Darwish: "If we begin to calculate who killed whom, we will never finish. We will never put an end to this problem.We killed many of them. The fedayeen killed thousands, and they killed thousands. Both they and we are wrong. This must be over and done with. If we begin to calculate who killed whom, we will never finish. We will spend all our lives in jihad. We must stop this. Many Egyptian men were killed, including my father. Many women were widowed, and many children were orphaned - not only on our side, but among the Jews as well."[...]"I would be the first to demonstrate in front of the Israeli embassy, if I found that they committed violations againstArabs. We must be just and grant the Jews security. Thereare five million of them, and we are 1.2 [billion] Muslims.What are we afraid of - five million Jews? We must welcome them, so they can live in our midst."[...]"We must stop the terrorism in Israel, and we must not encourage Hamas to say it wants to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab - what does he have to dowith Israel? Is he acting this way in order to unify his people?"[...]"We must begin to want peace with Israel. I am familiar with what goes on in the Arab countries, and I'm sad to say that most of us want to annihilate Israel. We want to kill all the Israelis. This is wrong."
Interviewer: "Aren't you generalizing?"
Nonie Darwish: "This is how we were educated in the Arab countries."
Interviewer: "Aren't you generalizing when you say that we all want to annihilate Israel? Who says that we all want this? Can you mention a single person who said we want to annihilate all the Israelis?"
Nonie Darwish: "Gamal Abd Al-Nasser said this, Ahmadinejad wants this, and the Hamas Charter says that they want to annihilate Israel. When Israel sees that in all 22 Arab countries, the peoples say: 'We want to annihilate Israel' -they are afraid. We must give them some security, so that they can... They left Gaza - and then what happened? They began launching missiles at them from Gaza."[...]"I have lived in America for 28 years. I love America, and I love freedom. This country has given us a lot of freedom. I get really angry when I hear that some Muslims here curse America."[...]"To this moment, the Hamas Charter says that it wants the total destruction of Israel. This must be erased. Besides, Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab. Ahmadinejad must stop this.He has nothing to do with Israel or the Arabs. Ahmadinejad should resolve the problems of Iran, not of the Arabs."[...]"Do you know what they used to say in the mosques in Egypt?'We want to go to the White House and turn it into theIslamic House. We want to cancel the American constitution.'They say: 'Death to America.' How can we come to this beautiful country and do such things? America is mycountry."[...]"We call upon the Arab countries to stop teaching hatred tothe Arab children, and to stop teaching them to hate the Jews and the Christians."*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is anindependent, non-profit organization that translates andanalyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articlesand documents cited, as well as background information, areavailable on request.MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials mayonly be used with proper attribution.The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837Phone: (202) 955-9070Fax: (202) 955-9077E-Mail: memri@memri.orgSearch previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.orgIf you no longer wish to receive this publication via email,please reply and enter only the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in thesubject line.__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) Start a new topic
Messages Files Photos Links Database
======================================================
.The following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian-American author Nonie Darwish, founder of 'Arabsf or Israel.' The interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV on March23, 2007.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT:http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1411 .
Interviewer: "We mentioned at the beginning of the program that your father was a commander of the fedayeen in the Gaza Strip in the 50s. Your father is considered an Egyptian hero, but it has been said that you described him as a terrorist. Did you?"
Nonie Darwish: "Absolutely not, I don't understand how they could say such a thing. I admire my father. My father was agreat man, and I love him because he had a great personality. He loved people, and people loved him. I love him not because he killed Jews, but because he was a great man. He is my role model."[...]
"We have peace with Israel now. We should begin to view the Palestinian Arab cause in a different manner. For 58 years we have been fighting Israel, so how can we resolve this problem and put it behind us? Enough, we must resolve this problem, because it hinders the progress of the Arab peoples."
Interviewer: "You have been quoted as saying while visiting Israel: 'I have come to say that I forgive you for killing my father, and ask you to forgive us for the terrorism and killing on our part.' Did you say this?"
Nonie Darwish: "Absolutely, this is true. Forgiveness is the most important thing for reconciliation. We want reconciliation with Israel. I call upon the Muslims... The Islamic countries are beautiful countries. I love the Arabs,the Palestinians, and the Egyptians. They are my children -the beautiful Egyptian boys and girls - and their suffering and poverty in Egypt is difficult for me. But in order to resolve this problem, we must begin to view the Jews in a forgiving light. There must be forgiveness and justice, not just for the Palestinians, but for our enemies as well."[...]"My support for Israel does not mean I am against the Arabs.So please don't think that because I want peace with Israel,I don't want peace with the Arabs. I love my people very very much."[...]
Interviewer: "Do you agree that as a rule, peoples whose lands have been occupied have the right to conduct resistance and to fight?"
Nonie Darwish: "As Arab countries, we must grant Israel some security. From the days of Abd Al-Nasser until today, with Ahmadinejad in Iran, all they hear is that we want to throwIsrael into the sea. All they hear are ugly things. Can you believe that we accused Israel of 9/11? In mosques in America, Egypt, and the Arab countries, they say that Israel was the cause of 9/11. It is wrong for the Muslims to say such things about Israel."[...]
Interviewer: "What is your response to the recent discovery that 250 Egyptian POWs were killed by Israelis in the 1967war?"
Nonie Darwish: "If we begin to calculate who killed whom, we will never finish. We will never put an end to this problem.We killed many of them. The fedayeen killed thousands, and they killed thousands. Both they and we are wrong. This must be over and done with. If we begin to calculate who killed whom, we will never finish. We will spend all our lives in jihad. We must stop this. Many Egyptian men were killed, including my father. Many women were widowed, and many children were orphaned - not only on our side, but among the Jews as well."[...]"I would be the first to demonstrate in front of the Israeli embassy, if I found that they committed violations againstArabs. We must be just and grant the Jews security. Thereare five million of them, and we are 1.2 [billion] Muslims.What are we afraid of - five million Jews? We must welcome them, so they can live in our midst."[...]"We must stop the terrorism in Israel, and we must not encourage Hamas to say it wants to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab - what does he have to dowith Israel? Is he acting this way in order to unify his people?"[...]"We must begin to want peace with Israel. I am familiar with what goes on in the Arab countries, and I'm sad to say that most of us want to annihilate Israel. We want to kill all the Israelis. This is wrong."
Interviewer: "Aren't you generalizing?"
Nonie Darwish: "This is how we were educated in the Arab countries."
Interviewer: "Aren't you generalizing when you say that we all want to annihilate Israel? Who says that we all want this? Can you mention a single person who said we want to annihilate all the Israelis?"
Nonie Darwish: "Gamal Abd Al-Nasser said this, Ahmadinejad wants this, and the Hamas Charter says that they want to annihilate Israel. When Israel sees that in all 22 Arab countries, the peoples say: 'We want to annihilate Israel' -they are afraid. We must give them some security, so that they can... They left Gaza - and then what happened? They began launching missiles at them from Gaza."[...]"I have lived in America for 28 years. I love America, and I love freedom. This country has given us a lot of freedom. I get really angry when I hear that some Muslims here curse America."[...]"To this moment, the Hamas Charter says that it wants the total destruction of Israel. This must be erased. Besides, Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab. Ahmadinejad must stop this.He has nothing to do with Israel or the Arabs. Ahmadinejad should resolve the problems of Iran, not of the Arabs."[...]"Do you know what they used to say in the mosques in Egypt?'We want to go to the White House and turn it into theIslamic House. We want to cancel the American constitution.'They say: 'Death to America.' How can we come to this beautiful country and do such things? America is mycountry."[...]"We call upon the Arab countries to stop teaching hatred tothe Arab children, and to stop teaching them to hate the Jews and the Christians."*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is anindependent, non-profit organization that translates andanalyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articlesand documents cited, as well as background information, areavailable on request.MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials mayonly be used with proper attribution.The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837Phone: (202) 955-9070Fax: (202) 955-9077E-Mail: memri@memri.orgSearch previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.orgIf you no longer wish to receive this publication via email,please reply and enter only the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in thesubject line.__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) Start a new topic
Messages Files Photos Links Database
======================================================
UN's Human Rights Charade (National Post, Canada)
National Post
Editorial, March 31, 2007
The UN's human rights charade
Once again, the newly minted United Nations Human Rights Council has proven itself to be just as cynical and useless as the UN Commission on Human Rights it replaced last year.
On Friday, the Council wrapped up its forth session since its inception. Despite evidence from its own investigators that the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan is being perpetrated by that country's dictatorial Islamist government, the Council was unable even to call the mass killings a genocide, much less pin blame on Khartoum. Muslim and African representatives would permit only an expression of "deep concern" for the murder of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of two million or more, and the systematic rape of women and girls.
The point of reconstituting the old commission as the new council a year ago was to prevent such shams. But the new body has been as wilfully blind as the one it superseded. The world would probably be better off if it were disbanded.
This unwillingness to "name names" is part of a new trend at the UN. Last fall, one of the General Assembly's six standing policy committees recommended an end to "name-and-shame" human-rights reports that single out particular countries for criticism. Human-rights experts within the organization recommended, instead, working quietly with abuser nations to convince them to end the murder, torture, maiming and political imprisonment of dissident citizens.
Some good that would do.
Too many UN member states already scoff at the body's rebukes. The UN has no standing army with which to protect human rights, and economic sanctions almost never work because some country or other will ignore them.
Such is the case with Sudan and its actions in Darfur.
China — itself one of the worst rights abusers in the world — has long protected Sudan from censure at the UN, and has continued to prop up the Khartoum regime with trade and aid.
Still, on a symbolic level, a shame the UN Human Rights Commission was not more forthright in its condemnations of Sudan. Two weeks ago, its own fact-finding mission ruled that Sudan's government "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and participated in those crimes." Friday, the commission voted merely to "take note" of the report.
Many argue that there is nothing short of all-out military invasion that the West could do to stop the Darfur genocide. But since it is unlikely that any Western nation — including Canada — will devote a sizeable force to such an enterprise, other options should be explored.
The National Post is currently running a series of essays commissioned by STAND Canada (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur) outlining some of these options. In one instalment appearing in Thursdays's edition, for instance, former Liberal cabinet ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock argued for increased name-and-shame diplomacy, the freezing of Khartoum's ruling generals' Western assets, as well as a protective force of at least 20,000 troops assembled in concert with the African Union. These are all ideas worth trying. And since the UN clearly isn't going to take the initiative in Sudan, the community of civilized nations should.
While we are on the subject, it is worth nothing that the UN's new prohibition on name-and-shame comes with certain notable exceptions. In the same month the commission refused to hear tales of mass rape in Sudan and Burma, the UN was accepting motions from Iran, China, Russia, Cuba and other abusers condemning the United States and Canada for their human rights records. Canada was also singled out for its official use of the term "visible minorities," which the UN declared an expression of racism.
Then there is Israel, which has been a subject of obsession at the United Nations since the Jewish State came into being six decades ago. As Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO United Nations Watch, told the 4th plenary session of the UN Human Rights Council on March 23, the Council has ignored crises all over the world — from Darfur to Zimbabwe to Central Asia to Arab-on-Arab killings in Gaza — all the while passing resolution after resolution against the Middle East's only true democracy.
It was a trenchant critique that went right to the core of the Council's failings. So how did the Council's President, Mexico's Luis Alfonso De Alba, respond? By shooting the messenger, of course. "For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," he huffed. "I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the Council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible … I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records."
His defensive outburst is a fitting symbol of what the Human Rights Council has become. Killing thousands in Darfur — that's not so bad. But having the guts to tell the Council what a joke it's become — well, that's truly unforgivable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hooray for Hillel Neuer:
UN Human Rights Council President Scolds UN Watch
http://middle-east-analysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/un-human-rights-council-president.html
Read and watch the video of Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, as he addresses the Human Rights Council, at:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367
He stated, in part: "Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh's troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less .
(see video above).
Editorial, March 31, 2007
The UN's human rights charade
Once again, the newly minted United Nations Human Rights Council has proven itself to be just as cynical and useless as the UN Commission on Human Rights it replaced last year.
On Friday, the Council wrapped up its forth session since its inception. Despite evidence from its own investigators that the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan is being perpetrated by that country's dictatorial Islamist government, the Council was unable even to call the mass killings a genocide, much less pin blame on Khartoum. Muslim and African representatives would permit only an expression of "deep concern" for the murder of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of two million or more, and the systematic rape of women and girls.
The point of reconstituting the old commission as the new council a year ago was to prevent such shams. But the new body has been as wilfully blind as the one it superseded. The world would probably be better off if it were disbanded.
This unwillingness to "name names" is part of a new trend at the UN. Last fall, one of the General Assembly's six standing policy committees recommended an end to "name-and-shame" human-rights reports that single out particular countries for criticism. Human-rights experts within the organization recommended, instead, working quietly with abuser nations to convince them to end the murder, torture, maiming and political imprisonment of dissident citizens.
Some good that would do.
Too many UN member states already scoff at the body's rebukes. The UN has no standing army with which to protect human rights, and economic sanctions almost never work because some country or other will ignore them.
Such is the case with Sudan and its actions in Darfur.
China — itself one of the worst rights abusers in the world — has long protected Sudan from censure at the UN, and has continued to prop up the Khartoum regime with trade and aid.
Still, on a symbolic level, a shame the UN Human Rights Commission was not more forthright in its condemnations of Sudan. Two weeks ago, its own fact-finding mission ruled that Sudan's government "has manifestly failed to protect the population of Darfur from large-scale international crimes, and has itself orchestrated and participated in those crimes." Friday, the commission voted merely to "take note" of the report.
Many argue that there is nothing short of all-out military invasion that the West could do to stop the Darfur genocide. But since it is unlikely that any Western nation — including Canada — will devote a sizeable force to such an enterprise, other options should be explored.
The National Post is currently running a series of essays commissioned by STAND Canada (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur) outlining some of these options. In one instalment appearing in Thursdays's edition, for instance, former Liberal cabinet ministers Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock argued for increased name-and-shame diplomacy, the freezing of Khartoum's ruling generals' Western assets, as well as a protective force of at least 20,000 troops assembled in concert with the African Union. These are all ideas worth trying. And since the UN clearly isn't going to take the initiative in Sudan, the community of civilized nations should.
While we are on the subject, it is worth nothing that the UN's new prohibition on name-and-shame comes with certain notable exceptions. In the same month the commission refused to hear tales of mass rape in Sudan and Burma, the UN was accepting motions from Iran, China, Russia, Cuba and other abusers condemning the United States and Canada for their human rights records. Canada was also singled out for its official use of the term "visible minorities," which the UN declared an expression of racism.
Then there is Israel, which has been a subject of obsession at the United Nations since the Jewish State came into being six decades ago. As Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO United Nations Watch, told the 4th plenary session of the UN Human Rights Council on March 23, the Council has ignored crises all over the world — from Darfur to Zimbabwe to Central Asia to Arab-on-Arab killings in Gaza — all the while passing resolution after resolution against the Middle East's only true democracy.
It was a trenchant critique that went right to the core of the Council's failings. So how did the Council's President, Mexico's Luis Alfonso De Alba, respond? By shooting the messenger, of course. "For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," he huffed. "I will not tolerate any similar statements in the Council. The way in which members of this Council were referred to, and indeed the way in which the Council itself was referred to, all of this is inadmissible … I would urge you in any future statements to observe some minimum proper conduct and language. Otherwise, any statement you make in similar tones to those used today will be taken out of the records."
His defensive outburst is a fitting symbol of what the Human Rights Council has become. Killing thousands in Darfur — that's not so bad. But having the guts to tell the Council what a joke it's become — well, that's truly unforgivable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hooray for Hillel Neuer:
UN Human Rights Council President Scolds UN Watch
http://middle-east-analysis.blogspot.com/2007/03/un-human-rights-council-president.html
Read and watch the video of Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, as he addresses the Human Rights Council, at:
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=3698367
He stated, in part: "Let us consider the past few months. More than 130 Palestinians were killed by Palestinian forces. This is three times the combined total that were the pretext for calling special sessions in July and November. Yet the champions of Palestinian rights—Ahmadinejad, Assad, Khaddafi, John Dugard—they say nothing. Little 3-year-old boy Salam Balousha and his two brothers were murdered in their car by Prime Minister Haniyeh's troops. Why has this Council chosen silence?
Because Israel could not be blamed. Because, in truth, the dictators who run this Council couldn't care less .
(see video above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)