Tag Archives: anti-semitism

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.

Advertisements

Propaganda in the Service of Untruths

The recent rush to recognise “Palestine” by the British Parliament and the Government of Sweden fails to take into account several anomalies and illegalities which can’t but be viewed as biased anti-Jewish animus.

The State of Israel was, of course, just one of many new or recreated nations that, in the wake of World War I, were carved out of the former German, Austro-Hungarian, Czarist and Ottoman empires.

These included, for example, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Mandate Syria and Mandate Iraq. All of these states entailed the granting of sovereignty, or promised sovereignty in the case of the Mandates, to previously largely disenfranchised peoples, and all also encompassed other ethnic groups within their borders that chafed at the new national arrangements. Yet, 66 years later, none have stirred anything like the animosity displayed by a mainly liberal-left elite in Europe, in thrall to a rampant radical Islamism, to the fact of a recreated Jewish national home.

Rather, a vocal anti-Jewish lobby in Europe and Britain today has opted instead for a smug and casual hatred of the Zionist project, under a transparently ludicrous veneer of moral superiority.

It is not to be forgotten that the medieval blood libel that Jews kill Christians, particularly children, to use the blood of Christian innocents for Jewish rituals, was first introduced in England with the earliest recorded such claim involving the death of one William of Norwich in 1144.

And it should also be remembered that the blood libel was exported from England to the continent, where over eight centuries it provided a rationale for the murder of thousands of Jews. It’s most gruesome and horrific iteration was the Final Solution proposed by an amoral German Nazi regime, but since the end of World War II it has enjoyed its greatest popularity in the Arab world.

Today, Britain and Europe, with enthusiastic backing from a demographically significant European Muslim migrant population together with financial muscle from Arab Muslim kings, emirs and other petty but monied ME tyrants, join in the markedly racist and illegal call for the creation of a Judenrein “Palestinian” state, while still others call for the Jewish state to be subsumed into a binational (read: Arab majority) “Palestine”.

Indeed, with the renewed anti-semitic upsurge in Ireland, long a PLO/Fatah/Hamas backer from the time of the now-sanitized, re-invented Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, together with official political bodies in the UK and Sweden, there is a concerted European push calling for the recognition of “Palestine”, claiming that such recognition would “contribute to securing a two-state solution.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any unilateral moves and declarations by Europe to recognise “Palestine” are based on questionable legal, historic and political premises since no Palestinian state exists, and the issue of the status of the territories is subject to negotiation.

In fact, the European and British claim that recognising “Palestine” would “contribute to securing a two-state solution” is the antithesis of what it purports to be by pre-judging the outcome of the very negotiations, under international law and several UN resolutions, they purport to support.

One does not need a degree in international law or political history to see what is the real aim of the parties concerned.

Furthermore, those aims rely on illegal interpretations of international rulings and a willingness to manipulate the law to produce a Final Solution by other means.

While the ultimate aim of a “negotiated two-state solution” correctly acknowledges the present legal situation in which the issue of final status of the territory is a distinct negotiating issue between Israel and the “Palestinians”, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, it is clear that the issue of the permanent status of the territory remains an open negotiating issue, yet to be agreed-on, and one may assume that upon resumption of the negotiating process, it will be duly addressed by the parties as one of the central agenda items.

Thus, imposing an agreement by outside parties will not further a “negotiate” peace process one iota.

The British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, while at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine.

Clearly no such Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized or acknowledged by the Irish Upper House or others.

Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed “Palestinian”.

Further, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.

Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on September 13, 1993 states as follows:
“2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people representatives.
3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.”

Clearly then, the ultimate status of “Palestine”, whether as a state or any other sovereign entity agreed-upon by the two sides, cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN.

It can only result from a genuine negotiating process in accordance with accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood.

The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States clearly determines that:
“The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Clearly, the “Palestinians” do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.

Thus, the attempt by House of Commons, the Irish Upper House of Parliament and the Swedish prime minister to recognise a “Palestinian” state clearly pre-empts the outcome of any negotiation the trio above are themselves legal signatories to through a one-sided determination that totally ignores legitimate legal and historic claims to the territory by Israel, including those based on historic and legal commitments to which the United Kingdom itself is bound. They would, therefore, appear to be intervening in a bona fide negotiating process (in international law) by supporting one side only.

That these three groups do not see the bias, animus and disregard for international law when it suits them, in holding such a position, strains credulity.

If the “Palestinians” do not meet internationally codified definitions of statehood, what about the claim by “Palestinians” that Israel occupies the West Bank.

Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, primarily because it actually falls under a category titled, “Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State,” unequivocally explains the type of territory in question. The West Bank was never/is not a state; it is disputed territory taken in a defensive war after an illegal occupation so-named by all but 2 nations in the world and subject to negotiation under that same international law that Ireland, Britain and Sweden would today conveniently ignore.

In international law, as in any type of law, one should look to an interpretation only if the wording of the original is somehow unclear or vague. The wording of Article 42 is blindingly clear.

Pursuing this theme of Eurabian anti-Jewish animus, in 1967, the ICRC quickly branded Israel’s acquisition of the territory as an “occupation,” but made no such finding during the 19 years of illegal Jordanian rule. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find any ICRC assertions that a territory is “occupied” by a particular nation in the dozens of other territorial disputes that have yet to find a resolution…..

In addition, the legality of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria including Jerusalem beyond the 1949 armistice lines is clearly addressed in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Taken from the ICRC’s own website, it states that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Here, the terms “deport” and “transfer” are active, meaning that civilians are not acting on their own behest.

As the ICRC itself acknowledges, Article 49 was drawn up in the wake of the Nazi policy of forcibly transferring parts of its own population into territories it occupied before and during the war. The most infamous of these forcible transfers or deportations was the masses of Jews who were sent to occupied territories to be murdered en masse in Poland and elsewhere.

This provision of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer cannot possibly be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the cities, towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted.

In 1970, regarding Israel’s case, former State Department legal adviser Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in The Hague, wrote: “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.”

In 1980, Julius Stone, professor of jurisprudence and international Law, wrote: “Because of the ex iniuria principle [unjust acts cannot create law], Jordan never had, nor now has, any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 thus seems simply not applicable. Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49, which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent’s inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants for “other than security reasons”(emphasis mine).

And finally, in 1991, Prof. Eugene Rostow, former US undersecretary of state for political affairs, wrote: “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there.”

Attempts to impose a state of “Palestine” on Israel by Britain, Ireland and Sweden rest on very shaky legal grounds.

There is a reason there has been no “Palestinian” state these past 66 years.

The Arab leadership refusal to accept the Partition Plan, the repeated attempts to bend international law through waging war, the three “Nos” of Khartoum which precluded legal negotiations, the rejection of three peace initiatives by the “Palestinian” ‘leadershp’ in the past twenty years, all point to an oft-stated goal by the very people Israel is supposed to be negotiating with for its continued safety and survival: an Arab Muslim state from the river to the sea.

The willingness of Britain, Ireland and Sweden to unilaterally press for a “Palestinian” state on the basis that Israel has to end its “occupation” of the West Bank despite the fact that Judea and Samaria did not belong to any state before 1948, flies in the face of any reasonable application of Article 42 of the Hague Regulations to which the trio above, as EU members, are signatories.

And finally, the willingness of Britain, Ireland and Sweden to wilfully ignore the last provision of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an active transfer or deportation of its own citizens has to be undertaken by the state occupying the area, something that has clearly never happened in the history of Israel’s control of the territories in question, merely serves to strengthen the perception that the new/old anti-semitism is prepared to sacrifice Jewish lives again for the sake of new-found “friends” and short term expediencies.

There may yet be a “Palestinian” state in one form or another. But any iteration of that state will have no choice but to take Israel’s security needs into consideration given the neighbourhood it lives in. “Palestine” will come into being through negotiation.

In the meanwhile, the European trio’s rush to recognise “Palestine” will always come up against legal precedent and international law against which it has no recourse now nor in the foreseeable future.

There is a sense of Arab-Muslim privilege which exists today that makes anti-Semitism “okay,” acceptable in academic discourse, and even politically correct. It enables impressionable college students looking for a cause to question a Jew’s very identity, to challenge their ancient history, and therefore allows them no future.

This type of prejudice will be fought against in all the relevant arenas.

It is one thing to be perceived as trying to right a wrong. But no wrong has been committed; a dispersed people have fought for, and earned the right for their very noisy, opinionated, fractious, democratic, cultured, lawful survival.

It needs to be understood that the current Arab-Muslim sense of “entitlement” are ethnically and religiously biased variations of the old European libels that manifested themselves in racist anti-Jewish laws for centuries in Western Europe, and which culminated in the Holocaust.

The politics of internal national voting patterns and demographic demagoguery will never create a ‘nation’ state. International law will see to that.

 

This article is a synthesis of the intellectual property of Yair Shamir, Alan Baker, Jacques Gauthier, Howard Grief and essential principles from Anthony Cullen’s book: “The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law”.

When teachers can’t add 2+2

The recent vote taken by the student union body of Goldsmiths College in London to refrain from commemorating Holocaust Observance Day because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” is as brazen in its audacity as it is anti-semitic in its intent.

The Egyptian-Muslim student leader, Sarah al-alfy, who implored the student body to reject the motion no doubt feels she has put in one for the brothers and sisters.

It would appear that, as a British Muslim, while Sarah al-alfy is keen that (mainly) Christian Britons accept her as Muslim and British, she sees no moral or intellectual dissonance in denying the right of others to grieve man’s inhumanity to man simply because they are not Muslim; or simply because they are European.

Moreover, Sarah al-alfy would also be hard pressed to explain why the Goldsmiths decision precludes the commemoration of other genocides in Afghanistan, North Korea, China, Japan (in Manchuria), Cambodia or Rwanda. Is it merely because they are not European or because it does not involve 6 million Jews???

Even if we disregard Sarah al-alfy’s enthusiasm as a lack of maturity or ‘romantic’ over-exuberance fueled by European media spin, the fact that the vote was taken and passed at a teachers training college is of more significance. Goldsmiths College, University of London, is a premier teacher education facility in England.

That this college was targeted by Muslim activists and sympathisers to influence young non-muslim teachers in training who will soon go out and teach all over Britain and Europe, is significant because of the influence teachers have over their charges. Mutliply that by around 45 to 47 years  in a teaching career in various metropolitan or country teaching authorities in and around the United Kingdom per Goldsmiths student, and the true significance of the vote and the efforts to reach the result becomes much clearer.

Intending teachers do not start of their college life as particularly intelligent or well-read members of society. Student teachers are students first and teachers only later. That most develop sooner rather than later as custodians of culturally situated valued knowledge in a cultural tradition which still mainly values the written word is, in most instances, true.

However, deliberately targeting impressionable young teachers who are unfamiliar with the minutae and nuances of the Israeli-Arab conflict to take a decision which deliberately ignores one of the greatest crimes (numbers wise..) ever committed because they are Jews or Armenians is brazen, deliberate, well-thought out and one more stepping stone in the eyes of a vocal, violent few to the inevitable establishment of a Caliphate in Europe.

It is brazen because London is in Europe and is led by a monarch who is sworn to be an upholder of the values and mores of a Protestant Church of England.

The Sarah al-alfy led decision for the students’ union to disassociate itself from the observance of Holocaust Memorial Day, European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, Holodomor [Ukrainian] Memorial Day Act and Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day is as short-sighted, cynical and puerile in its inception as it is insulting in its intent. It is racist.

It is a cocky declaration of non-acceptance of other if you are Jewish or Armenian or Ukranian and a disturbing display of the inability to empathise with human suffering so typical of the non-thinking “me-too” group think which typified the rise and rule of European fascism in Germany, Spain, France and Italy a generation ago.

Sarah al-alfy’s exhortations to the student union to reject observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day at Goldsmiths College because it is “Eurocentric” and “colonialist” can now be contextualised for what it is: one more attempt to delegitimize targeted ethno-religious groups with yet another rejection of other.

The Goldsmiths decision, yet again, turns the original aims of political correctness on its head. The Goldsmiths decision mainstreams bigotry, so long as it is directed at Europeans and not against Muslims. The Goldsmiths decision makes it fashionable/attractive for uni students to turn against the cultures, learning and personal freedoms it offers people like Sarah al-alfy who is happy to take the best it can offer while at the same time exhorting others to delegitimize it. More worryingly, the Goldsmiths decision frames a lack of empathy as OK as long as it is directed at Armenians and Jews.

Sarah al-alfy herself will soon fade into obscurity. She is not the issue. She was merely a willing pawn in a wider, well thought out gambit aimed at delegitimizing others on ethno-religious grounds. What she on the other hand stands for, as an Egyptian Muslim in Britain, certainly IS the issue.

This disturbs and angers me particularly because I am a long, long lapsed alumnus of the College.

Is Londonistan (cf. Melanie Philips) finally a reality in the British Isles???

Shalom Dublin?? – viewing Irish anti-Israeli sentiment through the lens of the IRA’s former Nazi collaboration

I write this blog to layout for myself, the antecedents to what many puzzled Israelis and Jews see as an uncalled-for Irish antipathy to the Jewish state, and to say again that peace will only come when the current pro-Palestinian orthodoxy and exhortation to violence and martyrdom is challenged everywhere and always. I hope you find it of interest.                   (h/t: @clairefinn54)

Israel has been demonized by an Irish media slavishly dancing to the Palestinian drumbeat for decades… – [yet] Israel has a far better and more progressive record on human rights than any of its neighbors…The truth must be told.” Fine Gael chairman Charlie Flanagan., 2014.

In his article “Why Are the Irish Increasingly Siding With Palestine Over Israel?” written for the New Republic in May 2014, Jason Walsh recounts the time he wrote a feature article for the Irish Times on Ireland’s Jewry. He interviewed retired Belfast businessman Adrian Levey, who is Jewish. Levey was “…keen to point out that anti-Semitism as such is not a problem, even on the divided streets of Belfast.
“Northern Protestants support Israel and Catholics support Palestine, it doesn’t really play out on the streets,” he said.
When you understand that Protestant and Catholic are not actually religious terms, but stand-ins for pro-British unionists and pro-Irish republicans the statement makes perfect sense. For Irish republicans have long felt they were, as much as Palestinians, living in occupied territory. Hearing Northern Ireland described as the “Occupied Six Counties” was not uncommon in my youth during the 1990s. “

What Walsh is saying is embedded in an Irish take on the colonial antecedents of Ireland, Israel, and a would-be “Palestinian” Muslim state.

He explains that Israel’s struggle against the British during the Mandate years resonated with an Irish (Roman Catholic) public subjugated for centuries by brutal British domination of their national aspirations and what they called “colonisation” and “occupation” of the six Counties which make up (Protestant) Northern Ireland today.

But as Israel became more successful, the Irish psyche projected its experience of (essentially Protestant) Britain onto Israel’s failure to decide the “Palestinian” question definitively, and the narrative of a “dispossessed” and “disenfranchised” “Palestinian” struggle for “freedom” blossomed. Israel thus began to function as a surrogate for Britain because it was too “imperial, imperious and, above all, modern.” This view, together with Brian Hanley’s exploration of the IRA’s collaboration with Nazi Germany in the Republic’s struggles against Britain form the core of this piece.

The ongoing support and collaboration between Hamas and Sinn Fein, Irish Republic politicians and the Palestinian Authority, and historical ideological and notional links between the PLO, Arafat and the Republic of Ireland are well documented, if not always in the public eye.

Certainly the links between the IRA and Arafat’s PLO have been well documented. This connection is due to historic circumstance, where the British were wrongly perceived as pro-Jewish. And this affinity went north of the border with Northern Ireland and infused the culture and politics of both the Republic of Ireland and the positions held by the IRA in Northern Ireland and its political wing Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, which has elected representatives in the Irish and British parliaments and shares power in Northern Ireland, has continued to be a virulent critic of Israel. In 2006, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, then the party’s international affairs and human rights spokesperson in the Dublin parliament, described Israel as “one of the most abhorrent and despicable regimes on the planet.” In May 2014, he was one of three Irish politicians prevented by authorities from leaving Cyprus to join the Gaza-bound flotilla headed by the Mavi Marmara….

Arthur Griffith, who founded the original Sinn Fein movement in 1905, used the pages of his newspaper to rail against “Jew Swindledom” (9/10ths of all Jews were, he proclaimed, “usurers and parasites“) and the Dreyfusards.

There were similar prejudices commonplace in all the political parties which broke off from his organization, but only the eponymous rump which remained after the splits of 1921 and 1926 habitually preached Jew-hatred, culminating in a demand for an Irish-German alliance in 1939.

The newly formed “new” IRA, itself soaked in anti-Semitism, took a similar view and attempted to forge, as we will see, a working relationship with the Germans.

As noted in the republican newspaper The United Irishman of October 1951, Seán Russell, the then IRA chief of staff and a registered representative of the Irish Republic, spent the summer of 1940 in a ‘very large’ villa in the leafy Grunewald, near Berlin, surrounded by extensive grounds and parks, enjoying all the privileges of a diplomat with regard to access to food, petrol and other rationed goods.

Russell met leading Nazis such as Nazi Foreign Minister Ribbentrop. Following the fall of France, Russell urged that the German high command make use of the IRA to strike at British forces in Northern Ireland as part of a general attack on Britain. His plans were accepted and incorporated into Operation Sealion (the plan for the invasion of Britain) as a mark of the ‘respect and esteem’ in which Russell was held by the German military leadership.

The IRA’s main publication, War News, became increasingly pro-Nazi in tone, but more worryingly, it began to ape anti-Semitic arguments. The paper expressed satisfaction that the ‘cleansing fire’ of the German armies was driving the Jews from Europe. British war minister Hore Belisha was described as a ‘wealthy Jew’ only interested in ‘profits’. War News condemned the arrival in Ireland of ‘so-called Jewish refugees’.

Even though pre-war Ireland was united in its dislike of the British, there were at least four discernible factions in the IRA.

The majority leadership grouping was sympathetic to social radicalism but primarily concerned with developing the IRA as a military force. An important section of the leadership was socialist, while a third section—of which Russell was probably the best example—were committed entirely to armed force and uninterested in political debate.

A fourth smaller group was attracted to Sinn Féin’s espousal of right-wing ‘Christian social’ policies even as further differences existed over the relationship between the IRA in Northern Ireland and its much larger and more influential southern counterpart.

Much of the northern IRA together with Sinn Fein, their political arm, were attracted to Russell’s position, because they felt marginalised and ignored by their southern comrades, even as Russell’s own isolation in, and disillusionment with, the Republic led him to forge now-embarrassing ties with the Nazis.

Putting the efforts of IRA leaders like Russell into context, Brian Hanley notes that “…the IRA in 1940 was under severe pressure and in decline. Hundreds of its members were jailed or interned in the Curragh camp. Undoubtedly a measure of desperation contributed to its thinking. Similarly, …much of what was written in the [War News] was fantasy, especially the claims that the IRA was playing a major role in the German war effort….Furthermore, War News was illegal and therefore written and distributed surreptitiously. [Only a] small number of people were responsible for its content and only a few IRA members could have had any input into it. Despite the violence of some of the anti-Jewish rhetoric in War News the IRA did not attempt to physically attack Irish Jews.”

Even so, with the partition of Ireland by the British into the (Catholic) Republic of Ireland and (largely Protestant Ulster ‘Loyalist’) Northern Ireland in 1921, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland imported a deep hostility towards partition as a solution to territorial conflict.

This in turn led to consistent support for the Palestinian cause some fifty years later. The “Provos” received weapons and training from Arafat’s PLO around the early 1970s; today, the IRA allegedly provides sophisticated bomb-making materials and know-how to terror group Hamas in war-ravaged Gaza.

And so, because the Irish Republican Army and Sinn Fein made common anti-colonialist cause with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, with the PLO allegedly providing arms and training for the IRA as early as the 1970s, Irish Protestant leaders, for their part, allied themselves with the Israelis and their struggle against a genocidal Muslim enemy.

Ironically, in March 1945, a correspondent for The Bell, a leading Irish magazine, raged about current events in Mandated Palestine: “Never let it be forgotten that the Irish people … have experienced all that the Jewish people in Palestine are suffering from the trained ‘thugs’ ‘gunning tarzans’ and British ‘terrorists’ that the Mandatory power have imposed upon the country.

But once the Zionist movement accepted the partition of Palestine, the Irish began to draw unflattering parallels between Israeli policies and their own divided existence.

To many, the Jewish state now looked less like a besieged religious-national community struggling valiantly for its natural rights and more like a colony illegitimately established by British force of arms and intent on imposing itself on an “indigenous” population.

As a result, Ireland only extended de jure recognition to Israel in 1963, 15 years after its declaration of independence.

After Ireland joined the European Union in 1973, successive governments in Dublin took the lead in championing the Palestinian cause within Europe.

In February 1980, Ireland was the first EU member to call for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It was also the last to allow Israel to open a residential embassy, in December 1993.

Throughout the Oslo Accords era and the post-Oslo era a decade later, Irish governments continued to provide the Palestinian cause with valuable, if not unlimited, support.

Thus, in June 2003, Brian Cowen, then Ireland’s foreign minister, visited Yasir Arafat during the height of the Second Intifada.

It was during the Second Intifada that 887 (78%) of the 1,137 Israelis killed in Arab terrorist attacks from September 2000 – 2005 were civilian casualties. Another 8,341 Israelis were wounded during this period, of which 5,676 were civilians while 2,665 were security forces.

The majority of Jewish casualties during Cowen’s visit and lauding of Arafat were caused by suicide bombings, bombs, shootings, stonings, stabbings, lynchings, rockets on civilian population centres, and other methods of attack.

And, inexplicably, Cowen spoke for many in Ireland when he described Arafat as “the symbol of the hope of self-determination of the Palestinian people” and praised him for his “outstanding work … tenacity, and persistence.”

This feting and legitimising of terror and destruction still continues in an unbroken line and the words of Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams who, in 1983, laid down a blueprint which remains the playbook for the PA and Hamas in the international arena.

Back in a May 1983 interview with Britain’s Sunday Times, Adams’ stated aim was “…to confront the British with an ongoing armed struggle which is enjoying popular support and a principled political party which refuses to compromise on the basic issue of British involvement in Northern Ireland.”

The aim of such a policy of confrontation, he added, was so that the British “…would be unable to govern.”

Thus, as Adams put it, the political role of Sinn Fein was merely to “broaden and popularise the struggle. For in the end the movement will have to depend on whatever armed pressure the IRA can bring.

If that sounds eerily familiar today, it is only because, if Hamas/PA is substituted for IRA, we have a copybook re-enactment of Sinn Fein strategy being perniciously played out by Hamas against Israel forty years later.

The parallels with the actions of Hamas are too striking to be ignored: continued confrontation, no negotiations, active endangering of civilian populations, an internationally supported political wing in Ramallah and no compromise on borders or choice of capital.

This ongoing tacit Irish apologism for Palestinian wrongdoing, together with a disdainful disregard of the Jews’ unbroken connection with the country going back to one thousand years before the Arab conquest of an indigenous Jewish peoples and land, is an inversion of Orwellian proportions, the scale of which the British author himself did not envision.

It is, therefore, this peculiar Irish post-colonialist pathology which continues to nurture to a recurrent Arab psychology of intransigence, intolerance and a refusal to take responsibility for actions, which lethally endanger a new generation of Jew and Arab alike.

And, as with all dictatorships of the mind, distrust and fear of other feed periodic outbursts of pointless, near gratuitous, violence.

In Belfast in 2014, upon his arrest for alleged involvement in the grisly 1972 IRA murder of widowed mother of ten, Jean McConville, Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said “….I have never disassociated myself from the IRA and I never will…”

In Israel in 2014, Jews today continue to pay the price, through murder and wanton destruction, for a frightening foreign ideology of hate and segregation whose time we thought had long passed.

5 Reasons Why New York Times Editorial Today Is An Embarrassment To Journalism

5 Reasons Why New York Times Editorial Today Is An Embarrassment To Journalism

by Ambassador Ron Dermer

1.The New York Times writes that “after days of near silence,” Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned the murder of a Palestinian teenager on Sunday. But Netanyahu called the murder “reprehensible” on Wednesday, the day it occurred, and the next day, in his first public appearance since the murder, again forcefully condemned the killing on prime-time national television. Early July 4th weekend for the entire New York Times editorial board?
2.The New York Times omits that Prime Minister Netanyahu called the father of the murdered boy yesterday to personally express his outrage and condemnation. Maybe the New York Times didn’t get that press release?
3.The New York Times gives numerous examples of hate rhetoric on the margins of Israeli society – rhetoric that has been strongly condemned and rejected by Israel’s political leaders. The New York Times writes Palestinians have also been guilty of hate speech, but neglects to mention that Palestinian incitement is government backed, that Palestinian Authority leaders hail terrorists as heroes, name public squares after them and teach schoolchildren to emulate them. For daily dose of government-backed Palestinian incitement, check out – Palestinian Media Watch. No summer interns in the New York Times research department this year?
4.The New York Times omits the seemingly relevant matter of President Abbas forging a unity pact with Hamas, a terror organization whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews and whose leadership celebrated the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teens and called for more kidnappings. News not fit to print?
5. The New York Times fails to mention that a million Israelis were in bomb shelters yesterday as 100 rockets were fired at our civilian population. Maybe the New York Times editorial board will download to their smartphones Israel Red Alert, an app that sends an alert when and where a rocket is fired at Israel. It will only take 15 seconds to download, as much time as the people of Sderot and other Israeli towns in Southern Israel have to run for cover.

2014: Why Israel is hitting Gaza

Propaganda value aside, why is Israel attacking Hamas in Gaza today?

Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) is considered a terrorist organization by much of the non-Arab international community including the the European Union, the U.S., Canada, Japan, the U.K., Australia and Israel.

Its declared goal is to destroy the Jewish state and replace it with an Islamic one. Indeed, its enmity is directed not only toward Israel but toward Jews in general.

Hamas has deliberately targets Israeli civilians and endangered the welfare of Palestinians.

It has made a mockery of Jimmy Carter’s now-infamous statement: “Hamas’ return to unified Palestinian governance can increase the likelihood of a two-state solution and a peaceful outcome.”

After the Hamas/PA “unity government” signing, Hamas deputy chief Musa Abu Marzouk, immediately insisted that despite the agreement with the American and Saudi funded PA, Hamas would not recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Then Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal himself declared that “the only campaign we have is against Israel…Our common enemy is Israel. Israel must be fought through force and diplomacy.” All this in 2014…..

Israel is pressured by the European Union and America to make concessions and give up territory to a terror group whose very reason for existence is suspect.

While Hamas’ distaste for a legal Jewish state in the Middle East is palpable and on the record, there are excellent reasons, apart from their rocket attacks on a sovereign state, why Hamas in Gaza should be curbed.

1) Hamas completely rejects a Jewish state.
Hamas believes that Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. Hamas Charter, Article 28 states: “Israel with its Jewish identity and Jewish people is challenging Islam and the Muslims. May the cowardly know no sleep.”

2) Hamas’s ultimate mission–”no matter how long it takes”– is to “fight the Jews and kill them” and to replace the Jewish state with an Islamic caliphate.
Hamas Charter, Article 7 states: “The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’…”
Hamas Charter, Article 9 states: “[The goals] are to…defeat [the Jews] so that…the [Muslim] call for prayer will ring out announcing the rise of the rule of Islam, so that people and things shall all return to their proper place.

3) Hamas’ enmity is not directed against Israel alone but against the Jewish people as a whole. Jews are demonized repeatedly in Hamas’ governing document.

Hamas Charter, Article 22 states: “[Jews were] behind the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution and [they are behind] most of the revolutions about which we hear from time to time here and there. ….the Freemasons, the Rotary Clubs, the Lions, the Sons of the Covenant [i.e. B’nei B’rith], etc….are organizations of espionage and sabotage….They were behind World War I… They were [also] behind World War II, through which they reaped enormous profits …They [also] suggested the formation of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of the United Nations [sic] and to rule the world through this [new organization]…..”

4) Hamas (and the Palestinian Authority) regularly incite “Palestinians” to violence.
In Dec. 14, 2010, Interior Minister Fathi Hammad explained to “Palestinian” Arabs on Al Aqsa TV:
“The Jews have become abhorred and loathed outcasts, because they live off corruption and the plundering of the peoples…The entire world says: “Bravo, Hamas, for confronting these people pf corruption.” Whenever we score a goal, by achieving something against the Jews, the world applauds us…. the hatred for the Jews is on the rise, and people who hate the Jews…will support us.”
In a further televised rally in 20111, Hamas’ Al Aqsa TV told West Bank Palestinians that: “You [Allah] have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship through which we come closer to you…. Oh sons of Palestine, oh sons of the Gaza Strip, oh mujahedeen, wage jihad, wreak destruction, blow up and harvest the heads of the Zionists.”

5) The language of violent, racist confrontation and zero-sum rhetoric regularly inflame “Palestinian” passions.

” We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land…This is our plan for this … Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. This is unequivocal…”
“The Zionists – I swear to you, by God, by the world… We will not recognize Israel. If you want security or peace, you should go back to where you came from.” (Hamas “message” to the Israeli people: Broadcast Jan. 11, 2009).

“The day will come, within several years, when this world will change, submitting to the Arab Islamic will, Allah willing.” (Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, Al Jazeera TV, October 12, 2008).

“The approaching victory, about which we are talking, is not limited to Palestine…Why? Because Allah has chosen you to fight the people He hates most – the Jews. Allah said: “You shall find the worst enemies of the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists….Therefore, the reward of our martyrs is great, and your reward is also great.” (Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, Hamas Al Aqsa TV, Sept. 8, 2008).

“The annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine. This will be followed by a greater blessing, Allah be praised, with the establishment of a Caliphate that will rule the land and will be pleasing to men and God.”  (Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita, Hamas Al-Aqsa TV, July 13, 2008).

And these are only the recordings we know about. Over time, words like these create a pervasive and deadly cultural poison and “national” narrative…..

6) Hamas’ targeting of Jewish civilians is deliberate policy. Today’s ongoing rocket attacks against random Jewish civillian population centres is proof enough of that.

Since September 2000, Hamas has carried out hundreds of attacks targeting civilians.

Even after Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in August 2005, Hamas has continued to use the Gaza Strip as a launching pad to escalate rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel’s sovereign territory:
• Port: Ashdod Port, March 14, 2004: Hamas double suicide bombing at Ashdod Port which killed 10 people and wounded 16.
• City buses: Hamas has carried out numerous attacks on Israeli commuters: more than 18 attacks on or near civilian buses, bus stops, train stations and taxis.
• suicide bombing of Bus 19 in the center of Jerusalem which took the lives of 11 civilians and wounded 50 more
• two suicide attacks targeting city buses on Be’ersheva’s main street, killing 16 and wounding over 100 people.
Abduction: Hamas claimed responsibility for the abduction and murder of Israeli businessman Sasson Nuriel.
• Shopping mall: Hamas claimed responsibility for suicide bombing at a shopping mall which killed one woman and critically wounded her husband, as well as 38 more people. A Hamas statement following the event urged more such attacks.
• Rocket and mortar attacks: Hamas consolidated its control over the Gaza Strip and enabled Palestinian terrorist organizations both to expand the facilities that manufacture rockets inside the Gaza Strip and to smuggle rockets into Gaza from Egypt. Rocket and mortar attacks soon became the main method of attack emanating from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Since 2005, 5,700 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel (more than 3,500 rockets and 2,200 mortars), killing 14 civilians and one soldier. In addition, hundreds of people were wounded, and thousands were treated for shock of minor injuries.

 

In 2008 alone, 3,500 rockets and mortar shells landed in Israeli territory (almost 2000 rockets and 1,642 mortar shells) and put almost 1 million Israelis (i.e. 15% population) into rocket range.

On 8th July 2014, more than 100 rockets hit Israeli civillian targets in urban population centres.

By 9th July, 2014, more than 3.5 million Israelis sleep in or near bomb shelters in event of ongoing Hamas rocket attacks in blatant breach of the 4th Geneva Convention.

7) Hamas rejects compromise, peace negotiations or a diplomatic end to the conflict.
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement (see above).

Hamas Charter, Article 15 states: “…There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.”

8) No Hamas representative has ever renounced the charter calling for the killing of Jews and destruction of the State of Israel.

Quite the opposite. The incitement to violence and a further ethnic genocide continue:
On the anniversary of Israel’s declaration of Statehood, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh stated: “Palestinians mark ‘Naqba Day’ this year with great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine.”

At an earlier Hamas/Fatah reconciliation agreement in Cairo, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal stated: “Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any [Jews]. Israel must be fought both with force and through diplomacy.”

That mission is still being carried out today.

No sovereign nation should have to put up with that: Khaled Mashaal, Hamas leader again:

“ Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day… Allah willing, we will make them lose their eyesight, we will make them lose their brains.” – Khaled Mashal, Hamas leader (Al-Jazeera TV)

Hamas rockets

 

 

 

 

Of Oppression and Hypocrisy

Below is a copy of the text given me by a colleague, of a remarkable speech given by Simon Deng at the 2011 Durban Conference. It is a speech as remarkable for its pathos and passion, as for it’s aversion to hypocrisy and oppression. Please consider passing this message along.

Address to the 2011
“Durban Conference” in New York City

These are the words of Simon Deng, a former Sudanese child slave to Arab masters, addressing the 2011 Durban Conference in New York.

Image

I want to thank the organizers of this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance. It is a great honor for me and it is a privilege really to be among today’s distinguished speakers.

I came here as a friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I came to protest this Durban conference which is based on a set of lies.

It is organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kind of oppression.

It will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel .

The UN has itself become a tool against Israel . For over 50 years, 82 percent of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel . Hitler couldn’t have been made happier!

The Durban Conference is an outrage. All honest and decent people will know that.

But friends, I come here today with a radical idea. I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

Please hear me out.

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

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

In South Sudan , my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

The UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency only for them, and they are treated with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the real causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.”

It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism well known in North Africa.

In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan , everybody is Muslim.

Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the north of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam.

In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum , the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And the Darfuris do not want to be Arabized. They love their own African languages and dress and customs.

The Arab response for refusing Islam is genocide! But nobody at the UN tells the truth about Darfur .

In the Nuba Mountains , another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak (sic). The Islamist regime in Khartoum is targeting the black Africans – Muslims and Christians. Nobody at the UN has told the truth about the Nuba Mountains ..

Do you hear the UN condemn Arab racism against blacks?

What you find on the pages of the New York Times, or in the record of the UN condemnations is “Israeli crimes”and “Palestinian suffering”.

My people have been driven off the front pages because of the exaggerations about Palestinian suffering.

What Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin. But the truth is that the real sin happens when the West abandons us: the victims of Arab/Islamic apartheid.

Chattel slavery was practiced for centuries in Sudan . It was revived as a tool of war in the early 90s by the very same Arabs who today shout from the rooftops about Jews and racism, apartheid and oppression.

Khartoum declared jihad against my people [for refusing Islam] and this jihad legitimized taking slaves as war booty.

Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves.

We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity!

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

I was only nine years old when an Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat. The boat wound up in Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family.

For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no”.

All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs. Their own staff reported it. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish–led American Anti-Slavery Group — sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening. I want to publicly thank my friend Dr. Charles Jacobs for leading the anti-slavery fight.

But the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, and UNICEF backtracked, and started to criticize those who worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League.

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

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there.
These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt.

They were wrong.

When Egyptian security forces slaughtered twenty six black refugees in Cairo who were protesting Egyptian racism, the Sudanese realized that the Arab racism is the same in Khartoum or Cairo.

They needed shelter and they found it in Israel .

Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for very long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel ‘s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

Black Muslims from Darfur chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area. Do you know what this means!!!?? And the Arabs say Israel is racist!!!?

In Israel , black Sudanese, Christian and Muslim were welcomed and treated like human beings. Just go and ask them, like I have done. They told me that compared to the situation in Egypt , Israel is “heaven.”

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not.

Israel is a state of people who are the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with Ethiopian Jews in Israel . Beautiful black Jews.

So, yes … I came here today to tell you that the people who suffer most from the UN anti-Israel policy are not the Israelis but all those people who the UN ignores in order to tell its big lie against Israel: we, the victims of Arab/Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab/Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

Look at the situation of the Copts in Egypt , the Christians in Iraq , and Nigeria , and Iran , the Hindus and Bahais who suffer from Islamic oppression. The Sikhs. We — a rainbow coalition of victims and targets of Jihadis — all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned. So that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan . I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In her dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor. And then, she wanted to visit Israel . I was shocked.

How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel ? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel , she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On January 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. For South Sudanese, that means continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner to how they have oppressed us black Africans, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I bring you the news that my President, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir — publicly stated that the South Sudan Embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

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

My Jewish friends taught me something that I now want to say with you.

AM ISRAEL CHAI !

The people of Israel lives !

Thank you