Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Alan M. Dershowitz: National Lawyers Guild seeks to indict Obama for helping Israel build Iron Dome



by Alan M. Dershowitz


The National Lawyers Guild—a hard left assortment of radical lawyers and "legal workers"—is seeking to have President Obama, Secretary of Defense Hagel and members of Congress indicted by the International Criminal Court for "aiding and abetting" genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes. Among the bases for these extraordinarily serious accusations, is that "the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Obama signed, an appropriation of $225 million for Israel's Iron Dome missile system"—a purely defensive shield that destroys missiles heading for Israeli population centers.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to these irresponsible bigots, it is genocide to help the nation-state of the Jewish people protect its Jewish and Arab citizens against thousands of rockets being fired at its cities, towns and airport. Imagine the implication for the rule of law if defending one's citizens becomes a war crime. But don't worry. These professional Israel-bashers won't try to apply this Orwellian theory to any countries other than Israel and its supporters.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro tours a battery of the Iron Dome missile defense system in southern Israel, August 9, 2011. (Image source: U.S. Embassy in Israel)

The entire letter brief submitted by the National Lawyers Guild and several other radical organizations is premised on the fact that there is one law for Israel and a different law for the rest of the world. For example, it quotes statements—out of context—made by fringe Israeli politicians, none of whom are in the government, which it says constitute incitement against Palestinians. It never mentions that these fringe politicians have been rebuked by the Israeli mainstream media and politicians. It also quotes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as reading a poem, following the murder of the three abducted Israeli teenagers, which calls for "vengeance for the blood of a small child," but never mentions the Hamas murder of these and other children, or that the vengeance Netanyahu was referring to was against the specific perpetrators of these murders. It never quotes the Hamas Charter which demands the murder of every single Jew hiding behind rocks and trees. Nor does it quote Hamas leaders and leading Imams who regularly call for genocide against the Jewish people and its nation-state.

Nor does the letter brief ever mention the word "tunnel," despite the reality that the only reason Israel sent troops into Gaza was to destroy the 40 or so terror tunnels designed to send death squads into Israel's towns and kibbutzim. I was in one of those tunnels located close to a kindergarten with more than 50 Israeli children. The letter condemns Israel for sending the troops, but it doesn't mention the reason Israel had to go into Gaza. That would be as if an indictment charging somebody with first degree murder, only stated that the defendant shot at the victim, without mentioning that the victim shot first at the defendant and his family. If a prosecutor ever were to file such an indictment, he or she would be disciplined or disbarred since it would be failing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as lawyers are obliged to do.

Neither does the indictment ever mention the fact that Hamas deliberately employs human shields in order to maximize civilian casualties among its own people. Hamas leaders acknowledge this, as Fathi Hammad did when he said:
"For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death like you desire life."
Again, this would be as if an indictment charged a police officer with murdering a child, without mentioning that the child had been taken hostage and was being held as a shield to protect the gunman who was shooting at civilians, and the policeman, in an effort to stop the gunman, accidentally shot the child.

Finally, the brief fails to mention that Hamas turned down several offers of a ceasefire that Israel had accepted, and that when Hamas finally accepted a ceasefire, it immediately violated it, killing three Israeli soldiers. Had Hamas accepted Israel's initial offer of a ceasefire, far fewer Palestinians and Israelis would have been killed.

But none of this matters to the National Lawyers Guild, which has been the sworn enemy of Israel and the legal arm of Palestinian terrorism since the early 1970s, following the Soviet Union's switch from supporting Israel to opposing it. The National Lawyers Guild has lost most of its lawyers since that time and has instead filled its membership roles with paralegals, amateur investigators and other assorted "legal workers." It has no credibility in the legal profession and even some of its anti-Zionist members have recently quit, calling its policies regarding Israel "crazy," "irresponsible," and "bigoted."

No responsible lawyer should want to be associated with an unprofessional and unethical brief such as the one filed by the National Lawyers Guild and its co-conspirators: The Center For Constitutional Rights, The International Association of Democratic Lawyers, The American Association of Jurists and The Arab Lawyers Union. No responsible client should ever hire a lawyer who had anything to do with this bigoted and mendacious brief.

Although the National Lawyers Guild itself and the other organizations that signed this brief have no credibility, the primary signatory of the brief, Azadeh Shahshahani, is also a high official of the American Civil Liberties Union. She was a paid executive director of the Georgia ACLU and now serves as the National Security/Immigrant Rights' Project Director. Nor is she the only ACLU official who has gone over the edge when it comes to applying a double standard to Israel. Chuck Anderson and Hector Villagro, the President and Director of ACLU, Orange County, signed a brief in support of anti-Israel students who tried to shout down and censor a pro-Israel speaker at the University of California, all in violation of ACLU policy regarding freedom of speech. There is grave danger therefore that the bigotry of the National Lawyers Guild is creeping into leadership positions at the American Civil Liberties Union. That would be a great tragedy, because the ACLU—unlike the National Lawyers Guild—is an important organization with well-deserved credibility. It risks losing this credibility if its leaders join with the National Lawyers Guild and other irresponsible organizations in promoting bigotry against the nation-state of the Jewish people.


Alan M. Dershowitz

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4711/lawyers-guild-iron-dome

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Caroline Glick: Obama’s Self-Defeating Fight



by Caroline Glick


Originally published by the Jerusalem Post
 
The United States has a problem with Islamic State. Its problem is that it refuses to acknowledge why Islamic State is a problem.

The problem with Islamic State is not that it is brutal. Plenty of regimes are brutal.

Islamic State poses two challenges for the US. First, unlike the Saudis and even the Iranians, IS actively recruits Americans and other Westerners to join its lines.

This is a problem because these Americans and other Westerners have embraced an ideology that is viciously hostile to every aspect of Western civilization.

Last Friday, Buzz Feed published a compilation of social media posts published by Western women who have left their homes in Chicago and London and other hometowns to join IS in Syria.

As these women’s social media posts demonstrate, the act of leaving the West and joining IS involves rejecting everything the West is and everything it represents and embracing a culture of violence, murder and degradation.

In the first instance, the women who leave the West to join IS have no qualms about entering a society in which they have no rights. They are happy covering themselves in black from head to toe. They have no problem casting their lot with a society that prohibits females from leaving their homes without male escorts.

They have no problem sharing their husband with other wives. They don’t mind because they believe that in doing so, they are advancing the cause of Islam and Allah.

As the women described it, the hardest part about joining the jihad is breaking the news to your parents back home. But, as one recruiter soothed, “As long as you are firm and you know that this is all for the sake of Allah then nothing can shake you inshalah.”

Firm in their belief that they are part of something holy, the British, American and European jihadistas are completely at ease with IS violence. In one post, a woman nonchalantly described seeing a Yazidi slave girl.

“Walked into a room, gave salam to everyone in the room to find out there was a yazidi slave girl there as well.. she replied to my salam.”

Other posts discussed walking past people getting their hands chopped off and seeing dead bodies on the street. Islamic State’s beheadings of American and British hostages are a cause for celebration.

Their pride at the beheadings of James Foley and others is part and parcel of their hatred for the US and the West. As they see it, destroying the US and the West is a central goal of IS.

As one of the women put it, “Know this Cameron/ Obama, you and your countries will be beneath our feet and your kufr will be destroyed, this is a promise from Allah that we have no doubt over…. This Islamic empire shall be known and feared world wide and we will follow none other than the law of the one and the only ilah!” These women do not feel at all isolated. And they have no reason to. They are surrounded by other Westerners who joined IS for the same reasons they did.

In one recruitment post, Western women were told that not knowing Arabic is no reason to stay home.

“You can still survive if you don’t speak Arabic. You can find almost every race and nationality here.”

The presence of Westerners in IS, indeed, IS’s aggressive efforts to recruit Westerners wouldn’t pose much of a problem for the US if it were willing to secure its borders and recognize the root of the problem.

But as US President Barack Obama made clear over the summer, and indeed since he first took office six years ago, he opposes any effort to secure the US border with Mexico. If these jihadists can get to Mexico, they will, in all likelihood, have no problem coming to America.

But even if the US were to secure its southern border, it would still be unable to prevent these jihadists from returning to attack. The policy of the US government is to deny the existence of a jihadist threat by, among other thing, denying the existence of the ideology of Islamic jihad.

When President Barack Obama insisted last Wednesday that Islamic State is not Islamic, he told all the Westerners who are now proud mujihadin that they shouldn’t worry about coming home. They won’t be screened. As far as the US is concerned their Islamic jihad ideology doesn’t exist.

So whereas every passenger arriving in the US from Liberia can be screened for Ebola, no one will be screened for exposure to jihadist thought.

And this brings us to the second problem IS poses to the US.

As a rising force in the Middle East, IS threatens US allies and it threatens global trade. To prevent its allies from being overthrown and to prevent shocks to the international economy, at a minimum, the US needs to contain IS. And given the threat the Westerners joining the terror army constitute, and Washington’s unwillingness to stop them at the border, in all likelihood, the US needs to destroy IS where it stands.

Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the US is willing or able to either contain or defeat IS.

As US Maj. Gen. (ret.) Robert Scales wrote over the weekend in The Wall Street Journal, from a military perspective, IS is little different from all the guerrilla forces the US has faced in battle since the Korean War. Scales argues that in all previous such engagements, the outcomes have been discouraging because the US lacks the will to take the battle to the societies that feed them or use its firepower to its full potential out of fear of killing civilians.

Clearly this remains the case today.

Moreover, as Angelo Codevilla explained last month in The Federalist, to truly dry up the swamp feeding IS, it is necessary to take the war to its state sponsors – first and foremost Turkey and Qatar.

In his words, “The first strike against the IS must be aimed at its sources of material support. Turkey and Qatar are very much part of the global economy… If…

the United States decides to kill the IS, it can simply inform Turkey, Qatar, and the world it will have zero economic dealings with these countries and with any country that has any economic dealing with them, unless these countries cease any and all relations with the IS.”

Yet, as we saw on the ground this weekend with US Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed mission to secure Turkish support for the US campaign against IS, the administration has no intention of taking the war to IS’s state sponsors, without which it would be just another jihadi militia jockeying for power in Syria.

And this leaves us with the administration’s plan to assemble a coalition of the willing that will provide the foot soldiers for the US air war against Islamic State.

After a week of talks and shuttle diplomacy, aside from Australia, no one has committed forces. Germany, Britain and France have either refused to participate or have yet to make clear what they are willing to do.

The Kurds will not fight for anything but Kurdistan. The Iraqi Army is a fiction. The Iraqi Sunnis support IS far more than they trust the Americans.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will either cheer the US on from a distance, or in the best-case scenario, provide logistical support for its operations.

It isn’t just that these states have already been burned by Obama whether through his support for the Muslim Brotherhood and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi. And it isn’t simply that they saw that the US left them hanging in Syria.

They see Obama’s “strategy” for fighting IS – ignoring the Islamic belief system that underpins every aspect of its existence, and expecting other armies to fight and die to accomplish the goal while the US turns a blind eye to Turkey’s and Qatar’s continued sponsorship of Islamic State. They see this strategy and they are convinced America is fighting to lose. Why should they go down with it? Islamic State is a challenging foe. To defeat it, the US must be willing to confront Islamism. And it must be willing to fight to win. In the absence of such determination, it will fight and lose, in the region and at home, with no allies at its side.


Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/obamas-self-defeating-fight/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Daniel Greenfield: Obama’s Coalition of the Uncertain



by Daniel Greenfield


According to the media the diplomatic wunderkinds of Obama Inc. have assembled a coalition that is “broader and more committed” than the one that Bush put together against Saddam Hussein.
Bush couldn’t get France and Germany on board. Obama got France.

Unfortunately France is also about the only country in Obama’s coalition against ISIS. At least France appears to be the only country willing to commit militarily. Possibly the UK will join it, but after parliament turned down Cameron’s air strikes on Syria the last time around, that may be unlikely.

Kerry claims that some Arab countries might be willing to bomb ISIS, he just isn’t willing to say which ones, and meanwhile the standard for participating in the military campaign has been lowered to mean providing training and weapons to Sunni Jihadists in Syria. That means Qatar and Turkey, ISIS’ backers, can be in our anti-ISIS coalition.

Or maybe we’re in their ISIS coalition.

You would have thought that a Nobel Peace Prize winner and famous multilateralist (except when it comes to Congress or the Supreme Court) could assemble a bigger coalition than the crazed cowboy who alienated the French, but it turns out that while Bush could get multiple countries to commit actual troops to securing Iraq, Obama can’t even get anyone to do a flyby of ISIS.
Except the French.

What the multilateralists failed to understand during the Cold War was that countries join international coalitions for their own security. International law only matters when it is backed by iron and steel as a mutual defense pact, not when it wafts words of empty rhetoric at the podium of the General Assembly.

Poland wasn’t sending troops to Iraq because it was worried about Saddam Hussein. It made the commitment because it wanted to be part of a partnership with the United States that would also provide security in its own backyard.

That’s what NATO was originally for.

These days Poland won’t be sending 2,500 men to Iraq. It needs its soldiers back home now that Putin is on the rampage and Obama has shown that he can’t and won’t stop him. The same goes for most of the Eastern European countries that were eager to show that they could contribute to the Pax Americana.

Obama failed to deliver security to American allies. Now he can’t expect their help in Iraq.
Don’t count on much from Japan, the Philippines or South Korea either. They were also doing their part because the United States was keeping watch on North Korea and China. Despite Obama’s Asia pivot, the credibility is gone. Japan and South Korea will go through the motions and hope that the United States will eventually step in if things get really bad, but they aren’t counting on it anymore.
The very insults that the left tossed at Bush, warmonger and cowboy, were the reason he could bring together unlikely countries and get them to contribute boots on the ground. Meanwhile the very attributes that won Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are why the spearhead of his coalition is France.
Nations don’t fight for principles. They fight for self-interest.

The United States was able to assemble international coalitions because it could guarantee international security. Or at least it used to be able to. Obama offers empty words and that’s all that he gets in return.

Except for France, whose oddball mix of post-colonial proprietary sensibilities, international adventurism and arrogant presidents led to a long history of unilateral cowboy diplomacy. But in the Obama era it hasn’t been so much a case of France joining American coalitions as Obama joining French coalitions.

It was the French who pushed hardest for intervention in Libya and dragged Obama in. France took the lead in Mali. (But that only seems reasonable since the United States spent most of the 20th century being dragged into bloody French wars after the French had botched them as badly as they could.)

France didn’t stay out of the Iraq War because it’s a lover of multilateral diplomacy and international law. It actually enjoys bombing countries that it used to run. And it’s telling that the Nobel Peace Prize unilateralist is stuck in a coalition with France whose pint sized president is battling economic disaster and sex scandals, and is searching desperately for a way to change the subject by bombing something.

It’s ironic that America’s fiercest liberal advocates of diplomacy don’t actually understand how it works. They think of international relations as an ideal, when it’s actually a tangle of narrow selfish interests.

That misunderstanding led to the United Nations, a democracy of dictatorships whose members can’t agree on anything except hating Israel. And they wouldn’t agree on even that if the USSR and then the Islamic nations hadn’t created crude coalitions motivated by negative, rather than positive agendas.

Obama’s plan for local coalitions is doomed. The Saudis may oppose ISIS because it threatens them, but they still want Sunni Jihadists rampaging around Syria and Iraq to keep Iran in line. The Kurds aren’t fighting ISIS on principle; they’re in an extended territorial dispute with the Sunni Arabs. When the Kurds win a battle, they’re claiming territory for a separatist state. Such a state is a good thing, but you won’t get the Sunni Arabs or the Shiite government in Baghdad to agree.

We have no allies against Al Qaeda in the Muslim world because most of the Muslim world has been trying to use Al Qaeda against us and against each other. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both threatened by Al Qaeda, but have both tried to use Al Qaeda against each other and against us. Al Qaeda in turn used Iran to get terrorist training and used Saudi Arabia to get funds while remaining the enemy of both.

This convoluted mess of alliances between enemies is normal in a Middle East in which Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are in a covert coalition with Israel while remaining committed to destroying it.

In this current conflict ISIS is locked in a death struggle with Syria’s Assad even while selling him oil. It switches from fighting other Jihadist groups in Syria to allying with them in battles against Assad. Those also happen to be many of the same groups that we’re arming in the hopes of defeating ISIS.

American liberals think that having an Instagram account with a bunch of photos from Africa allows them to understand the rest of the world. History has proven them tragically wrong too many times to count. An internationalist liberal is the least likely to understand a world made up of tribalists pursuing narrow provincial interests. It takes an American tribalist pursuing narrow interests to understand them.

That’s why Republicans have traditionally done better at international diplomacy. It’s why Teddy Roosevelt and his big stick left behind a better legacy, not only for America but also the world, than the internationalist pieties of Woodrow Wilson. It’s why Republicans were able to end a Cold War with a big stick that Democrats had unintentionally begun by giving away Europe and Asia to the Communists.

If we’re going to defeat ISIS with coalitions, we ought to have a realistic view of local and international diplomacy. ISIS has at least as many enemy-allies as we do. They want to see it degraded, but they don’t want to see it defeated. And they also want to see us degraded, but not yet defeated.

The rest of the world isn’t interested in ISIS; it’s waiting to see if we can offer them collective security. And if we can’t, then our coalition will be as full of hot air as its leader.


Daniel Greenfield

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/obamas-coalition-of-the-uncertain/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How Illegal Immigrant Juveniles Will Serve the Democrat Party



by Michael Bargo Jr.


As thousands of illegal immigrant juveniles cross the southern border of the U.S., the knee-jerk response of media has been to either support the migration as benefiting those who are fleeing violence of Central American countries, or to complain about the potential health risks and costs of the movement. Neither of these perspectives explains the real reason the illegal immigrant juveniles are being brought into the U.S. They are being brought into the country to serve the Democratic National Machine. 

Throughout recorded history governments have used their power to bring people into their countries from neighboring areas. This was done by the Egyptians, Romans, and many other superpowers throughout history. Only government has the organizing capacity to bring millions of people over their borders. 

President Obama is using Federal agencies to make this happen at every step of the process. Federal dollars are being used to bus and fly immigrants from the border to locations throughout the United States.  Ft. Sills in Oklahoma has been filled with these so-called refugees. This movement is coordinated and happening very rapidly. Now there are thousands, soon there will be tens of thousands.  Estimates of the total run to 100,000 or more.

The governments of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been consulted and apparently have agreed to participate in this mass movement of young humanity. Mexico is also complicit in allowing passage through their normally strict southern border.

The best way to see how the Democratic National Machine is served by illegal immigrants is to review the facts of recent history. Illegal immigrants, as I have explained, have been welcomed into the U.S. since the time of Lyndon Johnson and supported  Democrats like to flee from their responsibility for this by blaming it, through your tax dollars, by local, state and Federal benefit programs. on “big business” but this is the tactic they always use to deflect blame from themselves.

These programs have been established by the Democratic National Machine to create a political economy that benefits the Machine.  And the most profitable employees of the Machine are those who are, in the eyes of Democrats, what I call “human political capital.”

The best way to understand how the recent wave of illegal immigrant juveniles will benefit the Democratic National Machine (DNM) is to review how the DNM benefited from illegal immigration from 1980 to 2010, the decades of the greatest growth in their numbers. 

According to the Census Bureau, from just 2000 to 2010 the U.S. Hispanic or Latino population grew by 15 million.  This amounted to a growth rate of 43% in just ten years and produced 30 Congressional Representatives.  It is crucial to understand that this government-promoted invasion was done by the DNM to benefit their public-sector unions and maintain the populations of their cities.  The Brookings Institution reported that if not for illegal immigration 20 of the 100 largest cities of the U.S. would have lost population from 1980 to 2000.  Also, 97% of the growth in the Latino population from 1980 to 2000 took place took place in established Metropolitan areas. 

In summary, just three metro areas, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, dominated the Latino metro growth from 1980 to 2000. This is why Obama flies and buses them to metro areas. 

What is obvious about these children and adults is that they are not refugees from a war. There are no reports of military invasion. The children are not wrapped in bandages being carried on stretchers. It is not an emergency situation. The juveniles are being brought here as proxies of citizens. They are entitled to many of the same benefits as those born in the country and some that citizens are not. As they reach age 18 they will be able to vote in some states even though they are not citizens. This is why Democrats fight voter ID laws. Each juvenile is worth 1/450,000 of a Congressional representative. There is a long-term electoral benefit. But that doesn’t explain the immediate utility they have to the DNM. For now they serve a more definite and useful function: they help maintain the campaign contributions of the DNM.

Illegal immigrant juveniles are not seen by the DNM as a burden. Rather, they are a source of public sector union support.  Each juvenile will bring up to $3,000 in Federal block grants alone to the city, County, and State where they will live. Numerous Federal benefits will fall upon the specialists in English as a Second Language programs, WIC food support, rent subsidies, free health care, and other benefits. 

What they will find in the U.S. may at first appear very appealing. Free food, free health care, and free education. But soon they will realize they are being kept under confinement.  Not behind barbed wire fences but the invisible fences of Hispanic barrios. They will be assured by their Hispanic leaders that all needs will be taken care of, that their dream of attending college will be assisted by the Dream Act. For the first time in U.S. history, bilingualism has been promoted by the Federal government in preparation for their arrival.  Labels on almost everything you buy today are in Spanish and English.

Research by the Pew Hispanic Center shows that those who come here will slowly succumb to the social ills of gang membership, dropping out of high school, teenage pregnancy, and dependency on the Federal government. Only with extraordinary talent and hard work will they be able to escape their environment. They will be expected to do low-paid manual work no one else will do, to live only with people who speak their language. To have low expectations because the Democratic National Machine has conditioned them, in the soft language of concern, that they are not capable of blending into American society. 

And of course this will all be for their own good, for the good of their families. If there are any liberal journalists who are truly humanitarian, they will expose this oppression, but that is unlikely. 

And that this is happening now, after 60 years of Civil Rights, is quite astounding and is a tribute to the effectiveness of the DNM at oppressing minorities with rhetoric. The proof of this is the fact that there is no Hispanic civil rights movement on the horizon. 

And the juvenile illegal immigrants are a new, quick source of campaign cash funneled through public sector unions to the DNM. This is needed at a time when the president’s favorability rating is at an all-time low and the November elections come closer. But these costs will multiply for decades and be a permanent drag on the real economy, the economy in which the citizens must survive. 

The real story is that President Obama cares not for the welfare of Hispanic juveniles.  His only concern is to keep the Democratic National Machine in power. He himself was placed in the White House to rewrite Immigration Law and preserve DNM campaign donations and electoral support.


Michael Bargo Jr.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/how_illegal_immigrant_juveniles_will_serve_the_democrat_party.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Timon Dias: How Europe's Pro-Gaza Movement Cultivates Violence, Anti-Semitism



by Timon Dias


"Arab leaders are a reflection of their people. Arab leaders don't come from Mars or the sun, they emerged from among the people and share the same beliefs... I challenge any Arab citizen who may become a ruler to do anything beyond what current Arab leaders are doing." — Anwar Malek, Algerian author.
If anyone was trying to commit "genocide" during the Gaza War, it was clearly Hamas.
What the protestors in the Netherlands also revealed is that a killed Palestinian is only worth demonstrating for when the blame can be pinned on Israel.
The normalization and common approval of slogans that actually call for the destruction of the entire Jewish State, Israel, contribute to an atmosphere of hatred, violence and anti-Semitism that now seems as acceptable as it is overt.

A Dutch Turkish driving school instructor, Sait Cinar, recently posted a video on his school's Facebook page in which he said, "Remember this, those cancerous Zionists, you have to compare them to zombies. And do you know that to do with zombies? You shoot them." The original Facebook page on which the video was posted had over 70,000 "Likes" before it was removed.

In the video, Cinar pulls out his 9mm pistol and fires eleven bullets before pulling out a .38 revolver. "But that's not enough," he continues, while firing another two rounds from his balcony. "You take your gun and this is how you break these cancerous Zionists, you have to kill them, you must compare them to zombies" Although the video was recorded in Turkey, upon Cinar's return from Istanbul he was arrested and is now in Dutch custody on the accusation of hate speech.

Statements such as those on social media coincided with major demonstrations against Israel's operation "Protective Edge," in which it attempted to destroy weapons stockpiles and a city of underground attack tunnels built by the Islamist terrorist group, Hamas, throughout the Gaza Strip.

In the Netherlands, demonstrations -- attended by tens of thousands of people --erupted in the Dutch cities of The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht.

The first round of demonstrations in The Hague caused a large controversy. It was originally considered a "mainstream" demonstration: Hitler-salutes, banners comparing the Israeli flag to the swastika, and attended by well-known "left wing" politicians.

During this first "mainstream" demonstration, pro-ISIS Muslims organized still another demonstration elsewhere in The Hague. Here, countless pro-ISIS banners were displayed, and chants through the speakers called for the death of Jews.

July 2014: Demonstrators in The Hague chant "Death to the Jews", while flying the black flag of jihad. (Image source: Twitter/@SamRaalte)

The Hague's mayor Jozias van Aartsen, from the conservative VVD Party, came under heavy fire for allowing these protests and for commenting that, "No lines were crossed." A petition calling for his resignation has so far been signed by more than 15,000 people.

Presumably fearing similar repercussions, city councils said they would increase their surveillance of future demonstrations and equip the police with "translator vans" to be able to know when anti-Semitic or genocidal calls were being chanted in Arabic.

Although explicitly anti-Semitic chants and symbols during demonstrations have been significantly fewer, demonstrations are still characterized by malevolent exaggerations, revisions of reality, cryptic-rather-than-explicit genocidal chants, and massive hypocrisy. Although, unlike explicit anti-Semitism, these are not punishable by Dutch law, they do contribute to an atmosphere in which hate and violence against Jews can flourish. They have also made videos like Cinar's more common.

During all demonstrations, accepted chants such as "Free Palestine!" were rampant. The true meaning of the chant, however, is revealed by an equally accepted chant: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!" In other words, those demonstrators are calling for the disappearance of Israel in its entirety.

The normalization and common approval of slogans that actually call for the destruction of the entire Jewish state, Israel, contribute to an atmosphere of hatred, violence and anti-Semitism that now seems as acceptable as it is overt.

Then there is the equally accepted slogan: "Stop the Genocide!" The accusation of Israeli genocide is often twofold. On the one hand, demonstrators seemed to be referring to an alleged 'chronic' genocide they claim Israel has been committing against the Palestinians since Israel was founded in 1948. On the other hand, they seemed to be referring to an alleged 'acute' genocide they claim Israel was committing now, during its recent military operation against a terrorist state not essentially different from al-Qaida, Boko Haram, Hezbollah or ISIS. Despite the commonness of the accusations, they are malevolent and false, both in terms of the demographic growth rate in Gaza and Israel's ability contrasted to what it does not do.[1]

Bluntly, if Israel had actually wanted to destroy of the residents of Gaza during in its attempts to remove the sources of the attacks against them, it would not have dropped leaflets, phoned, text-messaged and "knocked on the roof" of buildings to warn residents to leave before each planned strike.

If anyone was trying to commit "genocide" during the Gaza War, it was clearly Hamas. Why did Hamas place weapons and tunnel entrances in apartments, hospitals, schools and mosques to begin with, and order its citizens not to leave areas from which Hamas leaders were launching attacks and return-of-fire?

During Operation Protective Edge, on the Gaza side, 1,994 people died, every innocent of whom is a tragedy. But the tragedy should rightly be laid at the door of the openly genocidal terrorist group Hamas, and not at the door of Israel -- a liberal democracy, like ours here in Europe, which was just trying to defend itself.

It is the UN that has stated that 80% of Gazan casualties were civilians. However, the UN has a disgracefully solid track record of being politically biased against Israel and of overtly aiding Israel's enemies, even when those enemies are classified as terrorist organizations by the EU and USA. UN figures should therefore not be trusted without thorough scrutiny.

The UN mainly derives its causality figures for the Gaza War from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, a Gazan organization under influence of the Hamas-run "Gaza Health Ministry." Presumably for propaganda reasons, Hamas apparently makes sure only a very small percentage of casualties is registered as combatants. The BBC and New York Times -- not known for their journalistic sympathy toward Israel -- investigated the numbers portrayed by the UN and determined that they were wrong. Both media outlets concluded that males between 20 and 29 years, who universally constitute combatants, were disproportionately overrepresented among the casualties.[2]

If Israeli air strikes truly had a random character, or if Israel were purposely targeting civilians with the intent of decimating them -- a legal criterion for the classification "genocide" -- these numbers would look very different. [3]

The percentage of civilians killed during Operation Protective Edge was likely drastically lower than the UN's 80%. Moreover, given Israel's proven lack of intent to harm Gaza's civilian population, there is simply no case for any kind of genocide.

An occurrence even less noted during the anti-Israeli demonstrations was the exaltation of the Palestinian people and the future "Palestinian State." Although of course many Palestinians are honorable and peace-loving, during the demonstrations Palestinians were portrayed as even more innocent, and more peace-loving than a glance at the real historical record can objectively justify. And the more angel-like the Palestinians are portrayed, the more Israel is hated for "hurting them." After all, as much naïve and erroneous thinking can go, a country accused of doing bad things to people inherently good, must be inherently bad itself, mustn't it?

During the protest in Rotterdam, rap-artist Appa shouted through the microphone: "They are heroes!" But can the Palestinian government, with its genocidal charters --yes, Fatah's too -- and record of initiating wars, truly to be classified as heroic?

The Palestinian people have, since 1995, received, per capita and adjusted for inflation, 25 times more financial aid than did war-torn Europe under the American Marshall plan. It is hard to see how Palestinians culturally differentiate themselves from the surrounding Muslims and Arabs. It is also hard to see how a future Palestinian state would positively differentiate itself from surrounding Arab states. Hamas is now a corrupt "Millionaires Club" with around 1200 millionaires in its ranks, while the personal wealth of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal is estimated at $2.6 billion. In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority [PA] is no less corrupt. The personal wealth of PA President Mahmoud Abbas -- who will exceed his presidential mandate by five years coming January -- is estimated at $100 million.

In addition, the PA is oppressive toward its Palestinian subjects. Critical journalists and bloggers are harassed and arrested on a regular basis and the PA has shut down at least one website that published material critical of the PA.

Even if one differentiates between the people and their leaders, as the Algerian author Anwar Malek stated: "Arab leaders are a reflection of their people. Arab leaders don't come from Mars or the sun, they emerged from among the people and share the same beliefs. If you placed any Arab citizen in power... I challenge any Arab citizen who may become a ruler to do anything beyond what current Arab leaders are doing."

Although a sovereign Palestinian state might seem desirable "on paper" -- at least if it is not next to you and calling for your death -- the exaltation of a future Palestinian State, glorified during anti-Israeli demonstrations as a haven of peace and harmony, seems for the near future unfortunately baseless.

What the protestors in the Netherlands also revealed -- in terms of hypocrisy -- is that a killed Palestinian is only worth demonstrating for when the blame can be pinned on Israel.
In February 2014, 2000 Palestinian civilians had already been in killed in Syria. The Palestinian refugee camp Yarmouk in Damascus, has seen over 128 Palestinians literally die of starvation. Hamas executes Palestinians on a near-daily basis. Where are the demonstrators?

Finally, in a massive revision of history, the demonstrators' view of causality is completely reversed. In 2005 Israel unilaterally retreated from all of the Gaza Strip, forcibly uprooting its Jewish inhabitants. The "economic blockade" started only in 2007 after the Gazan population democratically elected Hamas, and Hamas started to launch missile attacks on Israel -- not the other way around.

Recent anti-Israeli demonstrators might show fewer anti-Semitic expressions, but the escalating lies and accusations only contribute to the increased possibility of anti-Semitism and violence toward Jews becoming normal throughout Europe, as well as the increased empowerment of those who do not harbor the most tolerant views toward non-Muslim inhabitants of Europe.


[1] In terms of "genocide," with an annual growth rate of 2.9% Gaza has the 13th fastest growing population on earth, and with an average of 4.2 children, Gazan women have the 34th highest fertility rate in the world. Gazans have an average life expectancy that is higher than that of NATO member Turkey and the Arab population of the Gaza strip has increased with 1568% since 1948. The "systematic genocide" demonstrators accuse Israel of committing since 1948 is in no way compatible with these figures, thereby making the accusations malevolent and false.

[2] Although this subgroup only makes up 9% of the 1.8 million Gazans, it provided 34% of the Gazan casualties. A list of names and ages published by Al-Jazeera, confirmed this distribution. By contrast, the subgroup "women and children under 15 years of age," which makes up 71% of the Gazan population, provided a relatively smaller 33% of the casualties.

[3] During operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, Hamas followed a similar policy and initially reported that only 49 Hamas combatants had been killed during the war, making the percentage of civilians killed appear astronomically high. However, after the Gazans accused Hamas of cowardice, Hamas came forward with the real numbers. They had lost around 700 combatants; a number nearly identical to Israel's claim of having killed 709 enemy combatants. The numbers mentioned by the BBC and New York Times do not count as conclusive evidence that 34% of the casualties were indeed Hamas combatants. However, accounted for by the Hamas policy in 2008-09, the fact that UN numbers are heavily influenced by Hamas itself and that Hamas missile crews often fight in civilian clothing, it is highly probable that the true number of killed Hamas combatants will again closely resemble the Israeli numbers: about 900.


Timon Dias

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4677/europe-pro-gaza-violence

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Biggest Flip-Flop on Iraq



by Allan J. Favish


In a speech on the floor of the United States Senate on June 21, 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama warned against a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq that would endanger Iraq and the United States.  Here is the complete text of that speech.  You can hear an audio excerpt here.  The more important parts of the speech are highlighted with italics by the author.

Later, while still a Senator, Obama opposed President George Bush’s surge policy that turned the war around and enabled Obama to begin his presidency with a relatively stable Iraq.  As President, Obama then proceeded to do the opposite of what he advocated in this speech, leaving Iraq, the Middle East, and the United States with the horrors Obama predicted would result if his advice were not followed.

This strongly suggests that Obama’s speech in 2006 was a lie in order to maintain his political viability, because he did not want to appear as if he would completely abandon Iraq.  Obama stated:
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment.
In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.
I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.
I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.
And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason.
It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now.  Too many young men and women have died.  Too many have been maimed.  Too many hearts have been broken.  I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded.
America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed.  I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.
For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration.  It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America.  We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment.  We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.
Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of  “we know best” and “stay the course.”  It’s not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.
As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.
But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home.
What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq.  A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
For example, let’s say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007.  If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.
It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment.  Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq.  It tells the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country.  I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be “we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.”  At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.
Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.  The Levin amendment builds on this approach.
The White House should follow this principle as well.  Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy.  No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people.
And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.
There are no easy answers to this war.  I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home.  The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis.  They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be.  And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world.
If only President Obama had followed the advice of Senator Obama.


Allan J. Favish is an attorney in Los Angeles.  His website is allanfavish.com.  He has co-authored with James Fernald a book about what might happen if the government ran Disneyland entitled "Fireworks! If the Government Ran the Fairest Kingdom of Them All (A Very Unauthorized Fantasy).

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/obamas_biggest_flipflop_on_iraq.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Daniel Pipes: The Case for a Unified Kurdistan



by Daniel Pipes


Is a united and independent Kurdistan a prospect we should welcome, or a dangerous idea that would create more problems in the Middle East than it would solve?

Philip Jenkins, a distinguished professor of history at Baylor University, sees the prospect of a grand Kurdistan, with Iraqi, Syrian, Turkish, and Iranian components, as "actively terrifying." I'd like to assure him that it also has the potential to be benign.

Professor Jenkins expresses his fears in an article entitled "The Case Against a Unified Kurdistan," which happens to be a direct reply to a recent NRO article of mine, "Hello, Kurdistan."

As his title suggests, Jenkins does not reject independent Kurdish polities everywhere. Indeed, he admits that an "excellent case" exists for supporting the one already in Iraq and he seems resigned to its Syrian counterpart. He also acknowledges that, "By the standards of the region, the Kurds are undoubtedly the good guys, the closest thing we might have to an actively pro-Western state." So far, we are in accord.

The future flag of an independent state?

But he severely draws the line against a Unified Kurdistan, "a fiendishly difficult project" that could "spread massacre and ethnic cleansing" to places now free of them. In Iran, he expects Kurdish secession to generate a "bloody civil war" and "escalating carnage for decades to come." In Turkey, a Kurdish secessionist movement "would be catastrophic" because it would "cripple one of the region's most successful societies" and even spread Turkish-Kurdish violence in Europe.

In response, I would counter that Iran today constitutes an arch-aggressive mini-empire: good-riddance to it. Should the Islamic Republic of Iran's apocalyptically minded leadership get its grubby hands on a nuclear weapon, it will endanger not only the Middle East but also the West, through the threat of electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, a horrifying prospect that must at all costs be prevented. Given America's feckless leadership under Barack "The One" Obama, the Kurds may have to carry this heavy burden.

Kurdish forces rely more on female soldiers than is usual in the Muslim Middle East.

Iran is indeed a mini-empire, as its demography demonstrates. Its 81 million people divide, according to the CIA World Factbook, into the following ethnicities: Persian, 61 percent; Azeri, 16 percent; Kurd, 10 percent; Lur, 6 percent; Baloch, 2 percent; Arab, 2 percent; Turkmen and Turkic tribes, 2 percent; other, 1 percent. Linguistically, it is even more fractured: Persian, 53 percent; Azeri Turkic and Turkic dialects, 18 percent; Kurdish, 10 percent; Gilaki and Mazandarani, 7 percent; Luri, 6 percent; Balochi, 2 percent; Arabic, 2 percent; other 2, percent. As in any empire, one ethnicity (the Persians) dominates while restive minorities, especially the Azeris, seethe with secessionist yearnings.

All empires eventually come to an end, sometimes in surprisingly peaceful ways – think of the British withdrawal and the Soviet implosion. The Iranian empire will more likely end with a whimper than with the decades of carnage Professor Jenkins fears. We on the outside should guide it to this end – and quickly, so as to distract the malign supreme leader and his supporting cast from attaining nuclear capacity.

As for Turkey, its central government long ago dropped the fiction that Kurds are but "mountain Turks," permitting Kurdish cultural self-expression and presently engaging in negotiations for a political accommodation with the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK (yes, the same PKK that has been on the U.S. terrorist list since 1997.) Meanwhile, Turkey's Kurds are finding their political voice and becoming increasingly assertive in the country's life. As their robust birth rate looms over the feeble one of ethnic Turks – to the point that they might become a majority in one or two generations – the idea of separation gains in appeal for ethnic Turks.

I foresee a referendum in Turkey analogous to the imminent one in Scotland, in which those living in the majority-Kurdish regions vote whether to remain part of the Republic of Turkey or to secede. Such a vote would undoubtedly endorse secession.

One of the happy side-effects of Kurdish secession would be to impede the ambitions of Turkey's rogue autocratic president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is no small matter, inasmuch as Turkey under his leadership represents the greatest long-term threat to Western interests in the Middle East. (In contrast, once the mullahs are safely disposed of, Iran could well return to its role of ally.)

So, I thank Philip Jenkins for his respectful dissent (something rare these days) and I acknowledge the validity of his fears even as I assure him that the real "actively terrifying" scenario is not a Unified Kurdistan but a nuclear Iran and a Erdoğan-dominated Turkey. Fortunately, Western states can simultaneously obstruct those disasters even as they help the "good-guy" Kurds to build their state.


Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. 

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4677/europe-pro-gaza-violence

© 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Share It