Monthly Archives: January 2015

Part II: Unconscionable Israeli Occupation of the West Bank

Unconscionable Israeli Occupation of the West Bank
This article is based on the intellectual property of Yoram Ettinger, Tzvi Fleischer, Dore Gold, Yoram Ettinger and Akus [courtesy CIF Watch]

Part II

Sydney Morning Herald: “….Israel has continued to gobble up Palestinian land and the postage stamp that might be Palestine gets smaller and smaller.”
Oslo Principles: “The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East
peace process is to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority…leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338….Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties” (emphasis added).

Robert Barsocchini, July 2014: “In 1948, the people who wanted to form a Jewish state carried out a massive terror and ethnic cleansing campaign against the occupants of Palestine, expelling about half of them (750,000) from their land and into concentrated areas (Gaza and West Bank).”

In Part I we had a quick look at how Israel came to be in the “West Bank” in the first place. Contrary to mainstream media dogma, Israel’s entry into the West Bank in June 1967 was not part of a premeditated Israeli plan for territorial expansion. Quite the opposite: Israel’s own Defence Minister, Moshe Dayan, instructed the army not to fight the Jordanians, or move into the West Bank on any account.

This was despite the fact that Jordan entered into a mutual defence treaty with Egypt, and also permitted thousands of Iraqi soldiers to mass on its territory (Iraq and Israel do not share a border), because, as then Iraqi President Ar’ef stated: “our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the face of the map….”

Yet Moshe Dayan, up until 3 June, two days before hostilities commenced, instructed the Israeli Army Central Command to: “….not do anything to entangle Israel with the Jordanians…..”
That position only changed as a result of Jordan’s disregard for Israeli appeals to avoid hostilities, and by its intensive bombardment of Israeli civilian targets including West Jerusalem, Netanya, Tel Aviv, Kfar Saba, the Knesset and the Hadassah Hospital.
Again, the facts will never change, Arab attempts at cultural and historical revisionism notwithstanding.
The historical fact is that all this happened before Israel reacted militarily against Jordan, or moved at all into the West Bank.
Thus, unless one is hostile to the concept of a homeland and state for Jews, it is difficult to argue that Israel’s entry into the West Bank in 1967 was other than an act of self-defence. Its presence there originated as a result of Jordanian, not Israeli, aggression.

Israel moving into the “West Bank” in 1967 was about national survival, not national expansion in a war forced upon it by intolerant ethno-religious supremacists.

However, EU policy shapers and the intellectually lazy journalists who make a living off them have traditionally espoused the conventional ‎wisdom and political correctness which have been shaped by Arab talk rather ‎than Arab walk, by oversimplification and wishful thinking rather than Middle ‎Eastern reality.

In truth, Israel remains a Jewish enclave under siege in its religious, cultural and spiritual homeland threatened by a vast population of hostile Muslim states who would see the demise of the state out of nothing more than religious intolerance and ethno-religious supremacist views.

And so, in keeping with the more easily understandable (but erroneous) European and American perception of “Palestinian” centrality to the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, Clinton, Rabin and Arafat met and shook hands on the White House lawns in 1993.

I have quoted at the beginning of this article the remit of the 1993 Declaration of Principles which made up the Oslo Accords.

I will repeat them here: ““The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority…leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Oslo II, in 1995, was a second attempt to realise what Europe and America perceived as the centrality of “Palestine” to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

However, between 1993 and 1995, Arafat, as PLO leader in Gaza and Ramallah gave free reign to Islamic Jihad and Hamas to kill 80 Israeli civilians at bus and railway stations and injure over 42 others going about their daily business inside Israel.
So, in order to implement a permanent solution, the Oslo II agreement of 1995, divided the West Bank into three Areas: A, under full Palestinian Authority control; B, under Palestinian civil control but joint Israeli-Palestinian security; and C, under full Israeli control

• Area A: includes all the areas from which Israeli military control has been transferred to the administration of the Palestinian Authority which now has full responsibility for internal security and public order, as well as full responsibility for civil affairs of the seven major Palestinian population centres in the West Bank — Nablus, Kalkilya, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin and Hebron.

• Area B: includes 450 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank. In these areas, as in Area A, the Palestinian Authority controls all civil authority However, it differs from Area A in that Israel maintains overriding security authority in order to safeguard its citizens and to combat terrorism.

• Area C: comprised of the unpopulated areas of the West Bank, including areas of strategic importance to Israel and the settlements, where Israel retains full responsibility for security.

After signing peace agreements with the Palestinians, and a treaty with Jordan, Israel agreed to withdraw from most of the territory in the “West Bank” captured from Jordan in 1967.
A small area was returned to Jordan, and more than 40 percent was ceded to the Palestinian Authority. The agreement with the Palestinians also involved Israel’s withdrawal in 1994 from most of the Gaza Strip, which had been captured from Egypt in 1973. In 2005, Israeli unilaterally withdrew completely from there as well.
Today, there are 2.1 million mainly Muslim Arabs living in the west bank. Of that number, approximately 93.6% of west bank Arabs live in Areas A and B…..
That means that currently around 180,000 west bank Arabs live in Area C as per Oslo II. Yet it is precisely this land housing only 6.4% of ALL west bank Arabs that the Europe says is needed for a Palestinian state. Gaza is already lost to Abbas and is currently a take-over target of Daesh.
To put “Palestinian” intransigence another way and to highlight lazy journo hypocrisy, anti Israel EU politicians and journos would have you believe that Israel is strangling “palestinian” economy and livelihood because 94% of the Arab population in the West Bank Areas A & B can only generate GDP of $10 billion or less because Israel controls Area C which houses merely 6.7% of all west bank Arabs.
There is really no need for me to point out that Europe is supporting creeping aggrandisement of internationally sanctioned Israeli territory through the Arab money-supported strategy of lawfare.
So, is Israel an “occupier” or a country under constant siege because of ethno-religious supremacy of its neighbours?
For proof that it has been, and continues to be, under siege for 66 years, I submit that, on numerous occasions, to encourage peace with a hostile Muslim majority, Israel has withdrawn from many areas it could rightly keep under international law as a legally created entity under foreign attack.
As part of the 1974 disengagement process, Israel returned territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 wars to Syria (Limited Liability does indeed work…).
Under the terms of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, Israel withdrew from the Sinai peninsula for the third time. It had already withdrawn from large parts of the desert area it captured in 1948. After capturing the entire Sinai in the 1956 Suez conflict, Israel relinquished the peninsula to Egypt a year later.
In 1992, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made an extremely contentious offer to withdraw from virtually all of the Golan heights in exchange for peace with Syria.
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the west bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip in a final settlement. This was refused by the “Palestinians”.
In 2008, the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas rejected an offer by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to return 93% of the west bank plus a 5.5% land swap near Gaza in return for peace. This too was refused by the “Palestinians”.
In August 2005, all Israeli troops and civilians were evacuated unilaterally from the Gaza Strip and the territory was turned over to the control of the Palestinian Authority.
In addition, four communities in Northern Samaria that covered an area larger than the entire Gaza Strip were also evacuated as part of the disengagement plan. As a result, Israel has now withdrawn from approximately 94 percent of the territory it captured in 1967.
The sum total of all Israeli concessions to a hostile intransigent Arab leadership is that 98 percent of the Palestinian population in the west bank and 100 percent in Gaza came under the PA’s authority. Israel has transferred virtually all civilian authority in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority.
Israel, however, has retained the power to control its own external and internal security and that of its citizens in the territories governed by the Palestinians’ because of ongoing lethal violence by PA residents on Israeli buses trains and streets inside Israel and a demonstrated PA unwillingness to end violence and incitement against Israel.
Does Israel “occupy” the west bank? Let us then look at how much of the West Bank is in fact covered by settlements?
At most 2%, but probably more like 1%.
The BBC published a series of maps as part of a fact sheet called “Israelis and Palestinian in depth”. Of the West Bank it says: “Since 1967, Israel has pursued a policy of building settlements on the West Bank. These cover about 2% of the area of the West Bank and are linked by Israeli-controlled roads…
B’tselem, an Israeli NGO highly critical of Israeli settlement policy in the West Bank, commissioned a detailed survey of the West Bank to determine the degree of settlement control and they conceded that their survey showed that the “built-up area” of settlements constituted a mere .99% of West Bank land.
An American CBS News story about the B’tselem report confirmed that, “…the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1 percent of the West Bank’s land area…”
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s 2008 interview with the Arabic radio station As-Shams is on the record during the Olmert offer mentioned above as agreeing that the settlements were approximately 1.1% of the West Bank.
According to far left-leaning daily Haaretz, Erekat stated furthermore that despite Israel’s continual policy of “occupation and settlement building,” an aerial photograph provided by European sources shows that settlements have been built on approximately 1.1% of the West Bank…
Former Obama Administration Middle East mediator George Mitchell, generally regarded as having been pretty sympathetic to Palestinian demands vis a vis settlements noted that, “The Palestinians opposed [peace offers] on the grounds, in their words, that it was worse than useless. So they refused to enter into the negotiations until nine months of the ten had elapsed. Once they entered, they then said it was indispensable. What had been worse than useless a few months before then became indispensable and they said they would not remain in the talks unless that indispensable element were extended.”
So, was Mitchell implying that Palestinian obsession with halting construction in settlements seemed to be little more than a negotiating ploy, a tactical game? You be the judge.
For EU policy makers in thrall to Arab money and journalists who are too lazy to do the research, the emphasis the EU places on Area C is yet another diversion from the core Palestinian problems – excessive reliance on foreign aid that distorts their tiny economy, masks massive corruption and promotes a culture of entitlement, incitement and scapegoating inconsistent with the values necessary for social and economic progress.
The alleged importance and contribution of Area C could provide are grossly overstated as part of the coordinated campaign of creeping aggrandizement in line with the precepts of the Doctrine of Limited Liability.
The dismal economic and cultural record of what is now Area C goes back into 400 years Ottoman neglect, through the Jordanian occupation, and 40 plus years that included, until the terror activities became more than Israel could bear, close integration with their far wealthier Jewish neighbour.
The issue for the lazy and the biased is not the 6.7% of Area C that Israel wants to keep– it is what goes on in Areas A and B, and Gaza. Once that is done, “Palestinian” Arabs will achieve more than the arid hills of Area C could ever provide.
To conclude, then, Israel has withdrawn from more than 40 percent of the west bank since Oslo (1993). The Palestinians have conceded nothing since 1948.
Israel will not, however, return to the pre-1967 borders as demanded by the Palestinians and the Arab states.
This is not bloody mindedness.
Given the neighbourhood Israel finds itself in, this is simple survival and the calculations are blindingly simple.
No matter what any eventual negotiated border settlement finally looks like, Israel must have control over a unified airspace which cannot be divided.

The reasons for this Israeli requirement of the West Bank’s airspace are equally simple. Israel, together with the West Bank, is only 70 kilometres wide. Modern combat aircraft can cross that distance from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean in less than 4 minutes. The minimal time Israel needs to scramble Israeli fighters in order to intercept incoming enemy aircraft is about 3 minutes.
But if Israel no longer controlled the West Bank’s airspace, and all it had to defend Israel from the air along the Green Line, it would only have roughly 2 minutes or less to respond to an air threat. In short, in that narrow space, Israel could not be defended from air attack.
Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders, which the Arab states want to reimpose, would sorely tempt potential aggressors to launch attacks on the Jewish State—as they did routinely before 1967; the sole reason for Israeli presence in the west bank.
Additionally, Israel would lose the extensive system of early-warning radars it has set up in the hills of Judea and Samaria. Were a hostile neighbour (Hezbollah; Iran; ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood) then to seize control of these mountains, its army could split Israel in two: From there, it is only about 24 kilometres—without any major geographic obstacles—to the Mediterranean.

At their narrowest point, these 1967 lines are within 15 kilometres of the Israeli coast, 18 kilometres from Tel Aviv 16 from Be’er Sheva, 34 from Haifa and one foot from Jerusalem.
Arab policymakers are not preoccupied with the Palestinian issue.
It is only a lazy western myth of Palestinian centrality has led to an ‎oversimplification of Middle East complexities, corrupting Western policy, ‎undermining vital Western interests, exacerbating problems rather than ‎advancing solutions, intensifying terrorism, and diverting attention away from major ‎obstacles to peace, thus creating another major obstacle to peace.‎
Group think in the EU and amongst the media opinion makers may make for good copy and provide a focal point for old anti-Semitic mores.
Ten minutes of reading time, however, will show that the only way to end the dispute over the territories is for the “Palestinians” to negotiate a final settlement.
The Western-formulated myth of Palestinian centrality and the myth of the Israeli bogeyman, has led to a corrupting Western policy, ‎undermining vital Western interests, exacerbating problems rather than ‎advancing solutions, intensifying terrorism, and diverting attention away from major ‎obstacles to peace, thus creating another major obstacle to peace.‎

Unconscionable Israeli Occupation of the West Bank

Unconscionable Israeli Occupation of the West Bank

This article is based on the intellectual property of Tzvi Fleischer, Dore Gold and Akus [courtesy CIF Watch]

Part I

Sydney Morning Herald: “….Israel has continued to gobble up Palestinian land and the postage stamp that might be Palestine gets smaller and smaller.”

Oslo Principles: The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle Eastpeace process is to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority…leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338….Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties” (emphasis added).

Robert Barsocchini, July 2014: In 1948, the people who wanted to form a Jewish state carried out a massive terror and ethnic cleansing campaign against the occupants of Palestine, expelling about half of them (750,000) from their land and into concentrated areas (Gaza and West Bank).”

 

It is an observable phenomenon that particularly those who gladly understand least about the Arab-Israeli conflict and territorial dispute, become the most strident about ‘Israeli transgressions’ in the most public forums possible.

Those who know better, simply stick to their guns/principles and weather the storm until right prevails.

This article seeks to rectify the misinformation and political propaganda and spin that the Arab nations have engaged in ever since they lost to Israel in 1948. And make no mistake, the Israel-Palestinian conflict as it is now euphemistically called, is none other than the Arab-Israeli conflict which began with the November 29 1947 British Partition Plan for Palestine.

The facts need to be repeated again and again because the facts will never change.

After their shock loss in 1948, the Arab League tried twice more, in 1967 and 1973, to destroy the democratic Jewish state. They lost again, and the current iteration of the conflict has its roots in the Jordanian occupation (and eventual annexation) of Judea and Samaria (the actual Hebrew-origin names by which modern day Israel’s hill country has been known throughout history and into the 21st ‎century….) in defiance of international law in 1948.

In that war, Jordan, on behalf of its Muslim brethren, made a poor calculation and invaded Israeli sovereign territory granted it under international law. Jordanian sovereignty was recognised by Britain. And Pakistan. The rest of the world rejected Jordan’s invasion and land grab as illegal. Jordan kept this part of Israeli-designated territory until 1967.

In 1967, Jordan, on behalf of their Muslim brothers made another poor calculation.

Contrary to Geneva, Jordan had acquired territory through an act of aggression based on religious and ethnic hatred. As Egypt and Syria warmed up their respective borders, Jordan was asked by Israel to stay out of the fray. Israel specifically told King Hussein that if Jordan stayed out of the 1967 war, Israel would not fight against him. Hussein ignored the warning and attacked Israel. While fending off the assault and driving out the invading Jordanian troops, Israel came to control the West bank, territory in its original remit.

International law makes it necessary to distinguish the acquisition of territory in a war of conquest as opposed to a war of self-defense.

A nation that attacks another and then retains the territory it conquers is an occupier. In international law, that is a proscribed action.

A nation that gains territory in the course of defending itself is not in the same category.

And so, particularly since 1967, the Muslim Arab nations have worked hard to prosecute the Doctrine of Limited Liability.

Under the Doctrine of Limited Liability, an aggressor may reject a compromise settlement and gamble on war to win everything in the comfortable knowledge that, even if he fails, he may insist on reinstating the status quo ante.

This peculiarly Arab predilection, was further borne out by the 1973 war where Egypt lost large tracts of the Sinai, lost Gaza, lost the war in toto and then demanded in the international arena that Israel return what she had lost through a war of aggression. The same applied to Hafez Assad, Syria and the Golan Heights. And Jordan!

In response, precisely to make sure that the Arabs would not do as they had done so many times before, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, by rejecting Arab demands that Israel be required to withdraw from all the territories won in 1967, acknowledged that Israel was entitled to claim at least part of these lands for new defensible borders.

In essence, Israel-Arab relations, in general, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, in particular, have ‎never revolved around the Palestinian axis, irrespective of Western conventional ‎wisdom and political correctness, which have been shaped by Arab talk rather ‎than Arab walk, by oversimplification and wishful thinking rather than Middle ‎Eastern reality. ‎

The 1948-49 war was launched by Arab countries, against the newly born Jewish state, at the expense — and not on behalf — of a Palestinian cause, exposing the ‎myth of Palestinian homogeneity/rightful possession.

Thus, Iraq leveraged the war to advance its goal of ‎intra-Arab hegemony and control the oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa; Jordan ‎joined the assault on Israel to expand all the way to the Mediterranean; Egypt was ‎more interested in foiling Jordan’s expansionist plans than the annihilation of the ‎Jewish state; and Syria aspired to advance its vision of Greater Syria. ‎

In other words, the 1948 pan-Arab invasion of Israel was a classic scramble for territory and not ‎a battle for Palestinian national rights. The “State of Palestine” is a fiction.

Abdul Rahman Azzam, the first secretary-general of the Arab League, admitted in 1948 that the goal of Jordan was to swallow up the ‎central hill regions of Palestine. … The Egyptians would get the Negev. The Galilee ‎would go to Syria, and the coastal part as far as Acre would be added to ‎Lebanon (Syria’s satellite).”‎

Which brings us to the “occupation”.

In politics, words matter and, unfortunately, the misuse of words applying to the Arab-Israel conflict has shaped perceptions to Israel’s disadvantage.

As in the case of the term “West Bank” the word “occupation” has been hijacked by those who wish to paint Israel in the harshest possible light. It also gives apologists a way to try to explain away terrorism as “resistance to occupation,” as if the women and children killed by suicide bombers in buses, pizzerias, and shopping malls were responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

The European Union, under pressure to safeguard its oil supply and to appease an increasingly numerous/significant voting demographic, has willingly fallen for the propaganda and accepted the fallacious terminology. If, under international law, the so-called “west bank” is disputed territory, then Arab oil money has convinced the EU to take a biased stance against Israel.

In fact, most other disputed territories around the world are not referred to as being occupied by the party that controls them. This is true, for example, of the hotly contested regions of Kashmir, Kurdistan, Armenia, Cyprus, Tibet and the Falklands. Yet rarely does the international community make a fuss over these territories.

Additionally, occupation typically refers to foreign control of an area that was under the previous sovereignty of another state.

In the case of the “West Bank” there was no legitimate sovereign because the territory had been, under international law, illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Only two countries — Britain and Pakistan — recognized Jordan’s action.

Even more tellingly, the “Palestinians” never demanded an end to Jordanian occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state until the Arabs lost the unlosable Six Day War.

However, those who would delegitimise Israel would argue that the creation of Israel in 1948 changed political and border arrangements between independent Arab Muslim states that had existed for centuries.

The truth remains that the boundaries of Middle East countries as we know them today were arbitrarily fixed by France and Britain after Turkey was defeated in World War I. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN Partition Plan had all been under the control of Muslim Ottomans, who had invaded and colonised the Levant from 1517 until 1917.

Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the newly created kingdom of Iraq.

In 1922, the British then created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Mandate Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a Kingdom to rule as acknowledgement of his support for Britain against the Turks. The area west of the Jordan River, the misnamed “west bank” was designated territory of the nascent Jewish state.

None of the countries that border Israel today became independent until the twentieth century. And many other Arab nations became independent after Israel.

Israel does not illegally occupy any Arab nation or states land under international law.

Israel’s boundaries were determined by the United Nations when it adopted the partition resolution of 1947 as requested of both it and the Mandate Palestine Arabs under international law. In a series of defensive wars, Israel captured additional territory. Much as the Arab League would like to prosecute the Doctrine of Limited Liability, real life and international law do not work like that.

In Part II, I will discuss how the perjorative term of “Israeli Occupation” so beloved by EU journalists is a mix of falsehoods and malice merely cloaking anti-Israel/ anti-Jewish/anti-semitic bias euphemistically referred to in the popular European and Israeli left wing press as “anti-zionism”.

International Court of Criminals politicizes itself

International Court of Criminals politicizes itself by accepting the legal fiction of Palestinian statehood

The Lawfare Project is deeply concerned with the recent decision by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to open a preliminary examination into the “situation in Palestine,” which follows Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s signing of the ICC’s Rome Statute earlier this month.

During the inquiry, the Prosecutor will evaluate “issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice” in determining whether to launch an investigation into alleged crimes committed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Because Abbas recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction retroactively, the Prosecutor could investigate last summer’s conflict between Israel and designated foreign terrorist organization Hamas (see The Lawfare Project’s analysis of war crimes and other violations of international law committed by Hamas).

Regardless of the examination’s outcome, this initial move directly undermines the ICC’s legitimacy, revealing politicization rather than legal competence. Because statehood is a condition of jurisdiction under the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor’s decision involved her finding that a “Palestinian state” actually exists. She did so based on the fact that the U.N. General Assembly voted in 2012 to upgrade the status of the Palestinian Authority from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state.” This maneuver, which followed unsuccessful attempts to achieve legally recognizable statehood via the U.N. Security Council, received widespread criticism because the Palestinians did not at the time meet the requirements for statehood under well-established international law, as was discussed in The Lawfare Project’s article on the legal fiction of Palestinian statehood. Nor do they meet those requirements today.

Not only does the General Assembly lack authority to create states (and its resolutions are not legally binding), but nothing in international law suggests that the General Assembly’s vote to upgrade the Palestinians’ status should have any bearing on the jurisdiction of the ICC, an entity independent of the United Nations. The Prosecutor’s willingness to expand ICC jurisdiction beyond the confines of the Rome Statute is of great concern, and her substitution of politics for law is indeed the epitome of lawfare.

Remember the true victims; Charlie Hebdo and terror

A thoughtful, sobering article.

If u weren’t already thoughtful or sober…..

Politics ad Infinitum

Some people are missing the point. The victims of the Charlie Hebdo assault in Paris are not the Muslims satirised by the magazine or the Muslims who face the possibility of backlash. The victims are the 10 journalists, murdered for drawing cartoons. Their murder deserves better analysis. They don’t deserve to be defiled after death-for exercising the right which caused their murder. They certainly don’t deserve their status as victims to shift to people who weren’t murdered for drawing cartoons. They deserve unreserved sympathy, not for their cartoons, but by existing, and confidently asserting their right to do so.

What happened on Wednesday was viscerally clear: A cornerstone of liberal democracy was assaulted by theofascists. Focusing exclusively on the ‘maleficence’ of the cartoons, immediately after their assault, distorts this: whether the cartoons are horrible or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they have the right to exist, unburdened…

View original post 326 more words