Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Hi friends,

I have begun an amazing new Zionist organization: Z STREET. All my energy is going into that, so I won't have much time to post stuff here. Go over to and see what we are doing - if you are checking out my blog, you will be interested and energized by Z STREET.

Come visit, stay awhile, move onto the block. Z STREET.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Human Rights Watch Witch Pretends Lies are Facts in LA Times

Los Angeles Times


Israel's settlements are on shaky ground


International law mandates that they must be removed and that the Palestinians should be compensated for their losses.

By Sarah Leah Whitson

June 28, 2009

The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be "frozen" or allowed to grow "naturally." But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more. It misses the most fundamental point: Under international law, all settlements on occupied territory are unlawful. And there is only one remedy: Israel should dismantle them, relocate the settlers within its recognized 1967 borders and compensate Palestinians for the losses the settlements have caused. [OKAY, SO HERE’S THE FALSE BASIS FOR HER ENTIRE SCREED. SHE’S WRONG ON THE LEGAL POINT AND HER ANALOGY IS GROTESQUE. READ ON IF YOU CAN STOMACH YET ANOTHER SOURCE OF WHERE SO MANY PEOPLE GET SO MUCH INCORRECT INFORMATION. LLM]

Removing the settlements is mandated by the laws of the Geneva Convention, which state that military occupations are to be a temporary state of affairs and prohibit occupying powers from moving their populations into conquered territory. The intent is to foreclose an occupying power from later citing its population as "facts on the ground" to claim the territory, something Israel has done in East Jerusalem and appears to want to do with much of the West Bank. [HOW MANY TIMES CAN PEOPLE STATE AND RESTATE A FALSEHOOD - I SUPPOSE THEY TOOK TO HEART LENIN’S MAXIM THAT IF YOU REPEAT A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH IT BECOMES THE TRUTH. YISRAEL MEDAD, IN THE OPPOSING OPINION PIECE, ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY THE GENEVA CONVENTION DOES NOT APPLY HERE, AND I TRIED TO FURTHER EXPLAIN IT IN MY COMMENTARY TO THAT PIECE. LLM]

The legal principles were reaffirmed in 2004 by the International Court of Justice, which cited a U.N. Security Council statement that the settlements were "a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention." The International Committee of the Red Cross and an overwhelming number of institutions concerned with the enforcement of international humanitarian law have concurred in that view. THE QUESTION BEFORE THAT CT CONCERNED ISRAEL’S SECURITY FENCE AND ISRAEL DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE KANGAROO COURT BECAUSE THE CT LACKED JURSIDICTION. BUT EVEN ASSUMING THE ICOJ HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE SECURITY FENCE ISSUE, ITS RULING IS BINDING ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION AT HAND AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS DICTA (I.E. NOT BINDING AND DOES NOT SERVE AS PRECEDENT.) LLM]

The economic and social cost of Israeli settlements to the Palestinian population, stemming in part from Israel's need to protect them, are enormous. The 634 (at last count) roadblocks, barriers and checkpoints erected to control the movement of lawful residents of the territory make travel an ordeal. Sometimes even getting to work, school or the home of a relative is impossible for Palestinians. Every day, they must wait in line for hours to show their IDs, and some days they are randomly rerouted, told to go home or, worse, detained for questioning. [FOR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS TO THIS PATHETIC ARGUMENT, SEE EPHRAIM KARSH’S 2002 COMMENTARY ARTICLE: “WHAT OCCUPATION?” IT WILL TELL YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO COMPLETELY EVISCERATE THIS “WOE TO THE POOR PALESTINIANS WHO ARE DESTITUTE BECAUSE OF THE OCCUPATION” CRAP. LLM]

Similarly, the fact that Israel is building 87% of its projected 450-mile "security barrier" on Palestinian territory has less to do with protecting Israel from suicide bombers -- which could have been accomplished by erecting a wall on the Green Line -- than it does with putting 10% of West Bank territory, including most settlers, on the Israeli side. And while Israeli troops protect the settlers from armed Palestinian groups, there is little protection for Palestinians from the settlers' marauding militias and gangs, which have terrorized the local population, destroying their crops, uprooting their trees and throwing stones at their houses and schools. [IT IS NOT THEIR TERRITORY, IT NEVER WAS THEIR TERRITORY AND AT BEST IT IS DISPUTED LAND BUT ONLY BECAUSE ISRAEL NEVER ANNEXED IT AFTER SHE GAINED CONTROL OVER IT DUE TO A WAR IN WHICH ISRAEL WAS NOT THE AGGRESSOR AND AGAINST A COUNTRY (JORDAN) THAT DID NOT HAVE LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER IT ANYWAY. LLM][AH, YES, IT IS THE SETTLERS WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS AND NOT THE PEOPLE WHO BLOW UP PEOPLE ON BUSES AND WHO POINT THE MUZZLE OF THEIR GUNS TO THE HEADS OF SLEEPING 7 MONTH OLD BABIES AND THEN PULL THE TRIGGER, OR WHO MOW DOWN YOUNG BOYS STUDYING, ETC. ETC. THIS WOMAN IS DERANGED, JUST LIKE SO MANY OF HER KIND. THE SETTLEMENT MILITIAS ARE ENTIRELY STATIONED WITHIN THE “SETTLEMENTS” AND ARE ENTIRELY DEFENSIVE. I DARE HER TO GIVE ONE EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. LLM]

Too little attention is given to the pervasive system of government-sponsored discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where Israel has constructed roads exclusively for settlers and established vastly unequal access to water, fuel, education, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure and virtually every other social service. Israeli authorities readily grant settlers building permits that they deny to Palestinians, whose "illegal" homes they often demolish at short notice. [THIS IS ENTIRELY MADE UP. ALL CITIZENS HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO SERVICES, AND ISRAELIS ARE DENIED HOUSING PERMITS ALL THE TIME AND THE “PALESTINIANS” BUILD ILLEGAL HOMES ALL THE TIME. LLM] [ALSO, MANY ARAB ISRAELIS REFUSE TO VOTE IN ISRAELI ELECTIONS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGING ISRAEL’S EXISTENCE AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEIR VOICE IS DIMINISHED WHEN POLITICIANS TAKE CARE OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS - THAT IS THE SAME ALL OVER THE WORLD. LLM] The glaring discrepancy in Israel's treatment of two populations living on the same land has taken a significant moral toll on Israel, as well as a political one, with wide coverage of humiliation and abuse at the hands of its security forces. [THOSE ROADS ARE FOR ISRAELIS, NOT JUST JEWS AND NOT JUST “SETTLERS.” THE ONLY ONES FOR WHOM THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE ARE TERRORISTS OR POTENTIAL TERRORIST-ENABLERS. THIS HAS BEEN REPUDIATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, EVEN BY THE EDITOR OF HAARETZ WHICH IS WHERE THE LIE BEGAN - I PERSONALLY INTERVIEWED THAT EDITOR AND HE ADMITTED IT WAS FALSE DESPITE HIS PAPER RUNNING THE LIE REPEATEDLY. LLM]

The common refrain of Israeli and even American politicians who recognize that the settlements must go is that it would be politically difficult to dismantle them, in part because it would stir the ire of the settlers and their supporters, an important voting bloc in Israel. Instead, politicians argue that settlements must be a part of future negotiations and a possible land swap. [THE PEOPLE WHO “RECOGNIZE” THE “SETTLEMENTS” MUST GO ARE THOSE WHO ARE PROMOTING APARTHEID. HOW DARE THEY SAY THERE ARE AREAS WHERE JEWS AREN’T ALLOWED TO LIVE? AND HOW DARE SHE SAY THAT IT IS POLITICAL BLACKMAIL BY THE "SETTLERS" THAT PREVENTS WHAT SHE SAYS IS THE RIGHT THING TO HAPPEN - IT IS POLITICAL COWARDICE, EVEN WORSE, BY THOSE WHO PROMOTE THIS IDIOTIC ARGUMENT OF SETTLEMENT DISMANTLEMENT. LLM]

But this only serves as further incentive to expand settlements and makes a political resolution even more difficult. It also condones in the interim Israel's continuing human rights abuses in the name of settler security, leaving respect for Palestinians' rights a second-tier consideration that must await the conclusion of peace talks that have already gone on for decades. [JUST SHUT UP. LLM]

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens, but not in a way that violates the rights of Palestinians. The lawful, rights-respecting way to protect the security of settlers is to move them back to Israel. That should be the starting point of any discussion on settlements. [NAH, LET’S HAVE TRUTH AS THE STARTING POINT. BUT THEN THIS OPINION PIECE WOULD BE EMPTY. LLM]

Sarah Leah Whitson is Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. She’s also full of shit.


Sunday, June 28, 2009

beautifully written, fact-filled piece

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Finally! Focusing on the "settlements" is a waste of time

Last update - 23:58 23/06/2009

Netanyahu: Settlements debate is a waste of time

By Haaretz Service

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that international "arguing" over Israel's stance on settlements was impeding progress on the Middle East peace progress. 

In an interview with Italy's RAI TV, Netanyahu insisted that settlement activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must be viewed as separate issues, as Jerusalem is an inseparable part of Israel. 

He also said that Israel has been forthcoming with its intentions to halt construction while still allowing for natural growth in existing communities, which he called "an equitable position which reflexes our willingness to enter immediately in peace negotiations and get on with peace." 

"I think that the more we spend time arguing about this, the more we waste time instead of moving towards peace," he said. 

Netanyahu called his endorsement of a Palestinian state without military capabilities, which he presented in a policy speech at Bar Ilan University earlier this month, a "winning formula for peace." 

"If we are asked to recognize a Palestinian state as the nation-state of the Palestinian people, then the very least is that the Palestinians should recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people," he told RAI TV. 

"What does Palestinian self determination have to do with Qassam rockets or with deadly missiles?" he said, with regard to the notion of demilitarization, which invited a slew of criticism following his address. "The answer is nothing. They should have, the Palestinians, all the powers to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten the State of Israel." 

"So a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish State of Israel I think is the winning formula of peace," he said. "I can not understand why anybody who wants peace should reject it."

When asked about the crisis which has erupted in Iran following the contested results of Tehran's presidential election, Netanyahu said he believed "now that the true nature of this regime has been unmasked." 

"I think that people now can understand many of the things that we have been talking about all these years," he said. "This is a regime that oppresses its people and this is a regime that threatens everyone with the denial of the Holocaust, the call for the elimination of Israel, with the sponsorship of terrorism throughout the world and with the attempt to develop nuclear weapons, which they can give to terrorists around the world." 

He called Iran's nuclear program "an international danger" that "should be dealt with by an international effort led by the United States" and not by Israel alone. 

Netanyahu also repeated remarks he made to the German newspaper Bild, in which he declared that peace between Israel and Iran could be possible under a new leadership in Tehran. 

"If there will be a change in Iran, this would work in the other direction, and would give peace a tremendous opening, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, peace between Israel and Arab States that share our concerns," he said. 

"I think that this is as much a challenge as it is an opportunity. It is as much an opportunity as it is a challenge. I am very hopeful that we can meet the challenge and exploit the opportunity for peace." 

Netanyahu's interview took place in Italy, the first stop in his first state visit to Europe during his second term as prime minister.  

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Yet another US bailout for the terrorists

How pathetic is this?  More $ for terrorists and terrorist enablers, a/k/a UNRWA
The UN agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees says the US has agreed to donate an additional $55 million to the organization. The UN Relief and Works Agency provides health care, education, housing and humanitarian assistance to 4.7 million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East.

The agency said on its website that the US made the announcement Wednesday in Jordan during a meeting of a commission that deals with the group's financial needs.The contribution brings total US assistance to the organization in 2009 to $154.5 million. (AP),7340,L-3729433,00.html

I wrote about the IPF here:  They have the ear of this US president.  A further reason for us to be outraged by the grotesque suggestion by J Street that it is pro-Israel: it has just launched an initiative to infiltrate college campuses in the guise of "promoting pro-Israel advocacy on college campuses." It will have the imprimatur of the Israel Campus Coalition because it is teaming up with the Union of Progressive Zionists (a misnomer if ever there was one) which overcame objections to its inclusion in the ICC last year, because they carted around the "Breaking the Silence" monsters to campuses last year. Objections were overruled by the uber goal of inclusiveness.

Bogus ‘Zionist’ Israel-bashers

Posted by Isi Leibler on June 10th, 2009 

It is ironic that many of the disconcerting themes relating to Israel in US President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech replicated those widely promoted for months by a noisy minority of radical American Jews. These “Israel bashers” now proudly proclaim that the new language being employed by Obama “echoes the vocabulary we use.”

On the eve of Binyamin Netanyahu’s arrival in Washington, a full page advertisement inserted by the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) appeared in The New York Times. Instead of the customary welcome message to a visiting prime minister or expressions of solidarity, it urged Obama to press Israel to make further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians, assuring him that in the event of a confrontation, he would enjoy the backing of most American Jews because “they are not Israelis living in exile.” IPF’s Washington director, M.J Rosenberg, issued a call to neutralize “the minority of Jews falsely” purporting to present the Jewish community as “blind supporters” of the Israeli government.

ISRAEL POLICY FORUM is only one of a cluster of radical left-wing organizations that have the chutzpa to describe themselves as lovers of Israel and even “Zionists,” while actively lobbying the Obama administration to pressure Israel. They deviously sugarcoat their anti-Israeli campaigns by comparing themselves to parents whose children are drug addicts requiring “tough love” to force them to change their dangerous habits.These sentiments were effectively replicated in Obama’s Cairo speech.

They were joined in April last year by J Street, a new group initially funded by the Jewish tycoon George Soros who had achieved notoriety for demonizing successive Israeli governments irrespective of their political leanings.

J Street and another radical group, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, proudly announced that they had succeeded in persuading 11,000 of their members to bombard the White House with e-mails urging Obama to stand firm against Netanyahu.

During the Gaza offensive, J Street condemned the action against Hamas as “disproportionate.” Refusing to “pick a side” and identify “who was right and who was wrong,” it applied moral equivalency to both parties proclaiming that “we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right and wrong… While there is nothing ‘right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ‘right’ in punishing a million and a half already suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists amongst them.”

J Street also opposes Israel’s efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Despite the fact that Israelis of all political opinions are united on this issue, J Street members were e-mailed and urged to actively lobby against a bipartisan congressional resolution calling for tougher sanctions to be applied against Iran.

The radical groups also resurrected the bogus anti-Semitic charge of “dual loyalties,” warning Jews that by continued “blind” support of Israel, they risked alienating the American public and would be condemned for displaying greater loyalty toward Israel than the US. They were almost hysterical in their condemnation of Jews who exercised their rights to protest against the proposed appointment of the fiercely anti-Israel Charles Freeman to head the National Security Agency. IPF spokesmen went so far as to explicitly state that being an anti-Israeli fanatic was insufficient grounds for barring a person from assuming a senior administration role.

If there was any doubt about J Street, its endorsement of the British anti-Semitic play Seven Jewish Children, effectively a contemporary blood libel, placed it squarely in the camp of those seeking to demonize the Jewish state. It justified its support on the grounds that the play would promote “rigorous intellectual engagement and civil debate on which our community prides itself.”

J Street and IPF also seek to slander and undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby group, depicting it as an extreme right-wing and hawkish body although it has consistently promoted the policies of all Israeli governments, including the dovish administrations preceding Netanyahu.

IN AN ENVIRONMENT in which global anti-Semitism and demonization of Israel are beginning to make inroads into the United States, the potential of such radical groups to destabilize the standing of Israel should not be underestimated.

Never before has the Jewish community faced a situation in which organizations presenting themselves as Zionists shamelessly lobby their president to pressure the democratically elected government of the Jewish state to make concessions which could have life and death implications for its citizens.

Not that anti-Jewish Jews are a new phenomenon. Jewish communists were bitterly opposed to the campaign to liberate Soviet Jewry and defended state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. But they were marginalized and regarded as pariahs by the Jewish community.

The problem in the US is that the established Jewish leaders decided to ignore these organizations, mistakenly believing that confrontations would be construed as attempts to restrict freedom of expression and would transform the radicals into martyrs.

But the issue of freedom of expression is a red herring. Any Jew is entitled to express his beliefs, no matter how nauseating or deviant such views may appear to the majority. That certainly applies to those arguing in favor or in opposition to settlements. Surely the red lines are being crossed when, as distinct from expressing views, American based organizations claiming to “love” Israel aggressively lobby the US government to pressure it to make concessions that could place lives at risk. To tolerate such groups within the framework of the Jewish community provides them with an aura of respectability to which they are not entitled. Alas, today some of these groups already attend administration briefings on a par with the recognized mainstream organizations.

Furthermore, failure to confront these Israel bashers has already provided the general media with grounds to suggest that American Jewish support of Israel is collapsing. That has certainly encouraged the Obama administration to intensify its pressure on the Netanyahu government. It may also cause some weak-kneed Jews to distance themselves from Israel to avoid confronting a popular American president.

There are even ominous mutterings predicting a possible replay of what transpired during World War II, when fearing a confrontation and bedazzled by president Franklin Roosevelt, Jewish leaders lacked the courage to protest against the indifference of the US government to the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

Now, as never before, when the beleaguered State of Israel confronts Iran, potentially one of the greatest existential threats since its creation, the support of American Jews is crucial.

A united Jewish community should marginalize the anti-Israeli radicals and urge Obama (who received 80 percent of its votes) to stand by commitments made to Israel by previous US administrations in the same manner as the Netanyahu government is obliged to adhere to undertakings made by previous Israeli governments. A strong Jewish stand in this direction could effectively tip the balance in averting a catastrophic major rift between the US and Israel.

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Monday, June 8, 2009

Gazan terrorists use "horse bombs" in effort to kill Israelis

Israelis 'thwarted Gaza horse bomb attack'

Four Palestinian militants have been killed on Gaza's border as Israeli forces fired at what they said were men and horses carrying explosives. The Israeli military said its forces returned fire at a group including a few men wearing explosive vests and five horses loaded with explosives. [CHILDREN, WOMEN, DONKEYS, NOW HORSES - WHAT WON'T THESE MONSTERS USE TO MURDER ISRAELIS? LLM]  

Israel said the Palestinians opened fire and tried to plant bombs near a crossing on the Gaza-Israel border. Palestinian officials said about 10 gunmen were involved in the incident. The Palestinian health ministry, which is run by the Hamas movement that controls Gaza, confirmed that four fighters were killed in the shooting.  

Israeli forces fired on the militants with machine guns and tanks backed up with combat helicopters, the military said. There were no Israeli casualties in the incident, which took place north of Nahal Oz, the main terminal for transferring fuel into Gaza. [THIS IS WHY CHECKPOINTS CLOSE - STOP THE TERROR, OPEN THE CHECKPOINTS. IT'S SIMPLE. LLM] Nahal Oz and the nearby Karni crossing, used for transferring grain and animal feed, were closed in the wake of the incident.  

It is one of the worst clashes since Israel's three-week operation in Gaza in December and January. Both Israel and the Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, declared unilateral ceasefires in the wake of the fighting. Senior Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, said the incident was confirmation that Israel's "aggressive intentions" continued, and accused Israel of not respecting the cease fire. [THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT, A JOKE. ISRAEL'S DEFENSIVE FIRE AT TERRORISTS LADEN WITH EXPLOSIVES IS EVIDENCE OF ISRAEL'S AGGRESSION AND FAILURE TO RESPECT THE CEASEFIRE? AND THE BBC REPORTS THIS QUOTE AS A FACT. LLM]  

Although Gaza has been relatively quiet since Israel's three-week offensive against Hamas ended on 18 January, the border is a flashpoint for sporadic violence.  

Story from BBC NEWS: Published: 2009/06/08 14:21:22 GMT