Netanyahu meets with southern Israel mayors on August 14, 2014.
Photo Credit: Haim Zach/GPo/FLASH90
The Israeli Cabinet met again for a second time in 24 hours to discuss ongoing negotiations with Hamas in Cairo. Talks are set to resume again on Sunday in the hopes of reaching and signing a long-term ceasefire agreement with the terror organization.
It is believed that basis for the negotiations now appears to be the 2012 accord reached after Operation Pillar of Defense, which among other things called for an end to rocket fire on Israel (never happened), the opening of border crossings under Egyptian and Israeli supervision (did happen), and the transfer of money to Gaza through PA President Mahmoud Abbas (which is more of an internal Palestinian Authority problem).
But much of the negotiations remain shrouded in secrecy and rumor, as some reports say that Israel agreed to a Gaza sea port in exchange for Hamas’s demilitarization – terms which Hamas turned down, and other reports saying that Israel made no such offer.
What is clear is that the demilitarization of Gaza and Hamas no longer even appears to be seriously under discussion.
Other reports say that Israel agreed to the transfer of money to Hamas clerks, as long as there is oversight that it doesn’t go to Hamas terrorists, presuming one can tell the difference between the Hamas agent who fires a rocket, and the Hamas clerk who pays for the rocket to be built in the first place.
Netanyahu also updated the cabinet on the latest tensions between US President Obama against the Jewish State, specifically Obama’s new ban (or delay) on weapon sales to Israel – including those related to Iron Dome.
Netanyahu’s strategy seems to be to push the problems down the road – wait until Obama is no longer president, and then fight the next fight with Hamas then too.
Terror finance trial plaintiffs: Arab Bank records show funds were transferred to Hamas
By YONAH JEREMY BOB, FRANK G. RUNYEON 08/15/2014 01:57
One of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers said evidence would show that the bank required “all employees to donate 5 percent of their salaries” to the second intifada.
Peace flags are reflected on the Arab Bank window during anti-wardemonstration in Rome. Photo: REUTERS
Plaintiffs told the jury in the Arab Bank terror financing trial on Thursday that “you will see bank records in black and white that say ‘Hamas’” as proof the bank knew it was being used to fund terrorism.
One of the lead plaintiffs’ lawyers, Mark Werbner said that evidence would show that the bank required “all their employees to donate 5 percent of their salaries” to the second intifada.
The plaintiffs allege that Arab Bank, Jordan’s sovereign bank with branches in 30 countries, facilitated massive transfer of funds to Hamas leaders and institutions, as well as to the families of imprisoned Hamas members and suicide bombers, via Saudi Arabia and Hezbollah’s al-Shahid Foundation.
It is alleged that Arab Bank knew the transfered funds were not solely related to terrorists and terrorist groups, but used in attacks – a charge that the Jordanian institution denies.
Werbner added that the funds that passed through the bank “is the oxygen that feeds these kinds of organizations.”
Tab Turner, another plaintiff’s lawyer, said that the evidence would show “millions, literally millions” of dollars “flowed right down the middle of Madison Avenue.”
Turner also said that the applicable US anti-terrorism financing law on the issue says, “thou shalt not provide financial services to foreign terrorist organizations.”
He accused the bank of serving “as the paymaster” for an alleged terror-funding Saudi Arabia-related committee.
Aside from the accusations, the plaintiffs displayed photographs, bank records, bank letters and internal memoranda to prove their case while opening with a description of a March 28, 2001, terrorist attack connected to the case, and allegedly to the bank.
Werbner said that the bank had not made a mistake but that “it was a choice.”
He added that the bank assisted with terror financing because it was “the ideology of the bank,” which made public statements characterizing Israel as the enemy.
The plaintiffs outlined payments from the bank to 24 suicide bombers’ families, 145 operatives families and 11 living operatives, 92.5% of which were paid in cash.
They mentioned advertisements in newspapers asking for martyrs’ families to come to the bank to collect payment.
Shand Stephens, representing the bank, said, “our hearts go out to the victims,” but that “we’re not here with Hamas as a defendant,” distinguishing the bank as having no knowledge that funds were being wired through it to terrorists.
He added that the plaintiffs unfairly argued that “every neighbor knew every neighbor” and that the bank, which conducts millions of transactions a year, genuinely did not know that terrorists were the recipients of the funds.
Stephens, in trying to humanize the bank, noted that the brother of bank chairman Sabih al-Masri was killed in a terrorist attack – without making a direct link to the case.
Rather than the emotional underpinnings of the case, the defense lawyers highlighted that the technical workings of the bank’s compliance systems checked watch-lists for electronic fund transfers.
The case has massive diplomatic implications.
A critical issue, which brought the US State Department, Justice Department and Treasury Department to loggerheads over what official US policy should be, is an April 2013 sanctions order imposed by a New York federal court which significantly penalized the bank for refusing to disclose key documents that the plaintiffs said they need to prove their case.
The bank had refused to turn over certain documents, saying it could incur criminal sanctions from Jordan and Lebanon for violating bank secrecy laws, but a lower US court rejected this rationale.
Arab Bank maintained its claim that the transfers were made with no knowledge of wrongdoing at the time – despite the terrorism-connected persons the transfers were made to, including Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, arch-terrorist commanders (now deceased) Salah Shehada and Ahmed Jabari, and Hamas founder Ibrahim al-Muqadama.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told leaders of communities near Gaza on Thursday – even as a five-day cease-fire took hold – that Israel would not tolerate a drizzle of mortar or rocket attacks.
Amid mounting public criticism, especially in the South, that Operation Protective Edge might well end without removing for a long period the rocket and mortar threats from the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu met in his office with the heads of the Hof Ashkelon, Sha’ar Hanegev and Sdot Negev regional councils.
“The IDF launched Operation Protective Edge after Hamas returned to drizzle rocket fire on the southern communities,” the prime minister said. “Our policy is clear and consistent – even to a drizzle we respond forcefully.
We launched this campaign to strengthen the security of all Israeli citizens in general, and yours in particular.”
Netanyahu pointed out that the IDF struck some 160 terrorist targets after Hamas renewed the fighting last weekend and fired mortar shells at the communities near the Gaza border.
Residents of the communities most affected by the rocket and mortar fire were not the only ones to criticize Netanyahu, as members of his cabinet voiced displeasure over the past few days at being kept in the dark regarding the indirect cease-fire negotiations in Cairo.
On Thursday, the prime minster convened the eight-member security cabinet to brief it on the talks in Egypt and what seems to be an emerging agreement that will be based on the accord reached after 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense, which called for an end to the rocket fire, the opening of border crossings under Egyptian and Israeli supervisions, and the funneling of money into Gaza through Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, to ensure that it does not go into Hamas’s coffers.
Israel’s negotiating team to the Cairo talks is expected to return there on Saturday night.
One Israeli official said that Israel has always expressed its interest in achieving the goals of Operation Protective Edge – restoring quiet and significantly reducing Hamas’s capabilities – through diplomatic means.
Israel was “realistic” about the cease-fire, especially considering that Hamas has violated 10 previous truces this time around, the official said.
“The troops are ready, and still around Gaza,” he said. “We know from past behavior that they [Hamas] might violate it.”
Meanwhile, Hamas said on Thursday that “some progress” has been achieved in Cairo toward a permanent cease-fire. Khalil al-Hayeh, a senior Hamas official who participated in the Egyptian-sponsored talks, said it would be possible to reach an agreement if Israel “stopped playing with words.”
“Our adversary is accustomed to playing with words and procrastination,” Hayeh said upon his return to the Gaza Strip. “But we won’t sign any agreement that does not meet the demands of our people.”
The Palestinian delegation to the Cairo talks held “strenuous” discussions over the past 13 days, he said.
He dismissed reports about differences among members of the delegation.
“Our delegation is unified behind the demands of the Palestinians,” Hayeh said. “We are determined to make the enemy pay the price.”
The Hamas official said the Palestinian delegation decided to give the talks another chance by agreeing to the extension of the 72-hour ceasefire that expired at midnight on Wednesday night.
“There is still a real chance to reach an agreement,” he added. “We will continue the dialogue.”
Hayeh referred to the airport that functioned in the southern Gaza Strip between 1998 and 2001, which Israel partially destroyed during the second intifada, saying it should be returned to operation. With regard to Hamas’s demand for a seaport, he said that previous agreements between Israel and the PA talked about the establishment of such a port.
He said that the Rafah border crossing was a Palestinian-Egyptian issue.
“We understood from the Egyptians that there will be an easing of restrictions at the terminal,” he added without elaborating.
While some of the Hamas negotiators returned to the Gaza Strip, others headed from Cairo to Qatar for consultations with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal.
The Islamic Jihad negotiators headed to Beirut for consultations with the group’s leader, Ramadan Shalah.
One of the Hamas officials who traveled to Qatar, Izzat al-Risheq, also talked about progress on some issues at the Cairo talks. However, he said that many other issues remain unresolved.
Risheq said that Hamas “foiled” attempts during the talks to confiscate the weapons of the Palestinian groups in Gaza, in a reference to Israel’s demand for the Strip’s demilitarization.
Ziad al-Nakhaleh, a senior member of Islamic Jihad who represented his group at the Cairo talks, said a permanent cease-fire agreement was imminent.
“We have made progress at the Cairo talks toward lifting the siege on the Gaza Strip,” he said. “We agreed that the border crossings would be opened.”
He said the two sides agreed that the issue of the airport and seaport would be discussed one month after the signing of a long-term ceasefire agreement. He, too, said that the Palestinians, backed by the Egyptians, rejected Israel’s demand to disarm the various groups in the Gaza Strip.
United Nations HQ in New York. Photo: wiki commons.
In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”
***************
For a full 90 minutes on Wednesday, Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, directors of The Simon Wiesenthal Center, told United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon about the litany of abuses of international rules of warfare – 19 in total – by Hamas in Gaza.
Rabbi Cooper told The Algemeiner on Thursday, “Bottom line, the Jewish world will have to be more proactive on the international stage, not only to defend Israel, but ourselves as well. We will continue to interact with Ban Ki Moon to insure that this important leader will be more responsive.”
In a follow-up note to Ban after their meeting, the SWC rabbis summed up the argument they presented. They said that “we must frankly ask you how many times will the world allow itself to be held hostage by Hamas? This is the third time since 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza that Hamas has brought death and destruction to the people of Gaza. Once again they are using the people of Gaza, the civilian infrastructure and UN facilities in its non-stop campaign to terrorize the Jewish state.”
During the 90 minute meeting, according to Rabbi Cooper, the SWC urged the UN to announce an official inquiry into the use of various UNRWA schools by Hamas to store and launch rockets for the benefit of the UN’s own reputation. SWC also called on the UN not to permit the UNRWA to supervise the billions in reconstruction funds expected for Gaza.
“The systematic hijacking of previous aid, cement, and building materials by Hamas to build an underground superhighway of terror is scandalous and a violation of the wishes of the donors who did not contribute funds for rockets or tunnels,” they said. “Those who failed to stop such theft and serial abuse of humanitarian aid, must be held accountable and should not have any involvement in supervising or dispersing of future funds.”
They also said that work shouldn’t begin until “the total disarming of Hamas and the destruction of all of the thousands of rockets and missiles Hamas still harbors.”
The Jewish human rights group that works to protect Jews against anti-Semitism also raised that core issue with Ban. “There has been an explosion of anti-Semitism and genocidal hatred against Israel from Europe to Australia,” they said. “Rather than denouncing this toxic situation Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, contributed to it by being so rabidly one-sided in her criticisms of Israel.”
“During her tenure there was no effort to investigate previous crimes against humanity by Hamas, including its own admission that 160 Palestinian children died building their terrorism tunnels. Her behavior demands a public censure from the Secretary General.”
They asked that “with a human rights disaster of epic proportions in Syria, with ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with a difficult situation in Ukraine and with continuing human rights outrages in North Korea,” the upcoming UN General Assembly “not be allowed to degenerate into an anti-Israel hate fest,” and noted that the UNGA will coincide with the Jewish High Holy Days.
“Anymore demonization of Israel emanating from the halls of the United Nations will only contribute to anti-Semitism globally,” they said.
To hammer home their point about Hamas violating human rights, although Israel is accused of doing so by the UN Human Rights Commission, the SWC rabbis left Ban with a detailed list they compiled of the 19 violations made by Hamas, with full notes and citations for Ban to reflect upon.
In further comments to The Algemeiner, Rabbi Cooper said Ban “refused to get involved with the travesty at UN Human Rights Council.”
Read the SWC’s list of Hamas’s 19 violations of the rules of war:
1) Hamas’ rocket attacks directed at Israel’s civilian population centers deliberately violates the basic principles of distinction (Additional Protocol I, arts. 48, 51(2), 52(1).) Any doubt about this is resolved by the fact that Hamas itself has boasted of its intention to hit population centres. It is well accepted in customary international law that intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities constitutes a war crime. (Rome Statute, art. 8(2)(b)(i))
2) Staging of Attacks From Residential Areas and Protected Sites: The Law of Armed Conflict not only prohibits targeting an enemy’s civilians; it also requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish their combatant forces from their own civilians, and not to base operations in or near civilian structures, especially protected sites such as schools, medical facilities and places of worship. As the customary law principle is reflected in Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I: The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or shield, favor or impede military operations.
3) Use of Civilian Homes and Public Institutions as Bases of Operation – see (2) for citations.
4) Misuse of Medical Facilities and Ambulances – Any time Hamas uses an ambulance to transport its fighters it is violating the Law of Armed Conflict: Under Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which reflects customary international law, it is especially forbidden … [t]o make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949)also provides that: … the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments…
5) Booby-trapping of Civilian Areas – see (2) for citations.
6) Blending in with Civilians and Use of Human Shields – As the ICRC rule states, lilt can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.
7) Exploitation of Children – Hamas has paramilitary summer camps for kids. There are reports, from this war and previous ones, of children fighting and being used for tunnel digging. violates the Law of Armed Conflict, including prohibitions against allowing children to take part in hostilities. As customary international law is reflected in this regard in Additional Protocol I, the parties to a conflict must take “all feasible measures” to ensure that children lido not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. (Additional Protocol I, art. 77(2))
8 ) Interference with Humanitarian Relief Efforts – While Israel kept its end of humanitarian truces. Hamas used them to shoot rockets into Israel, including the Kerem Shalom crossing where humanitarian goods are brought into Gaza. All of these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, which requires parties to allow the entry of humanitarian supplies and to guarantee their safety. Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention requires parties in an armed conflict to permit the free passage of [humanitarian] consignments and shall guarantee their protection. Article 60 of the same Convention protects the shipments from being diverted from their intended purpose, something Hamas has certainly done in the past and is reported to have done in this conflict as well.
9) Hostage-taking – The Fourth Geneva Conventions, article 34, says flatly “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” This is not an “arrest” as Israel-haters claim, and this is not a prisoner of war situation as Hamas has made clear – the purpose of Hamas’ hostage-taking falls under the definition on the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages: “Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the “hostage “) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (“hostage-taking ‘) within the meaning of this Convention.
10) Using the uniform of the enemy – Additional Protocol I prohibits the use of enemy flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations”. [3] Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts when it results in death or serious personal injury. [4] According to some, this is considered perfidy, a war crime. (h/t Joshua)
11) Violence aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population – Rule 2 of ICRC’s Customary IHL is Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. II It quotes Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”. Hamas rockets are aimed not only at killing civilians, but also at spreading terror among Israelis.
12)Targeting civilian objects, such as airports or nuclear power plants – Rule 7 of the Customary IHL says “Attacks must not be directed against civilian objects, quoting Articles 48 and 52(2)of Additional Protocol I.
13. Indiscriminate attacks – Besides targeting civilians and civilian objects, Rule 11 of the ICRC CIHL states flatly that “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. II By definition, every Qassam rocket attack and most of the other rocket and mortar attacks are by their very nature indiscriminate. See also Rule 71, “The use of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate is prohibited.
14) Proportionality in attack – ICRC’s Rule 14 states “Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. Rocket attacks against civilians have zero military advantage, so by definition they are disproportionate to their military advantage. See also Rule 18: “Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to assess whether the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
15)Advance Warning – Rule 20 of the ICRC CIHL states “Each party to the conflict must give effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Given that Hamas has used the media and SMS calls to threaten Israelis, it is clear that they have the ability to warn before every rocket attack. Their failure to do so is a violation of IHL.
16) Protecting civilians – Rule 22 of the ICRC Customary IHL states, “The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. Hamas not only has failed to protect civilians in Gaza by building bomb shelters, they have deliberately put civilians in harm’s way.
17) Attacking medical units – Rule 28 states, Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. Hamas has shot mortars at the Israeli field hospital, set up for Gazans, near the Erez crossing.
18) Protection of Journalists – Hamas has threatened journalists, implicitly and explicitly, accusing some of being spies and sometimes not allowing them to leave Gaza, making them effectively hostages. Rule 34 states “Civilian journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict must be respected and protected as long as they are not taking a direct part in hostilities.
19) Mistreating the dead. Rule 113 says, Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited. Hamas has shown off an alleged chip cut out from the (presumably) dead body of Shaul Orono.
The complete lack of Muslims voicing strong opposition both vocally and militarily tells us that even though they are butchering fellow Shiite Muslims (besides Kurds & Christians) it’s not really something they want to speak out against. We have seen no marches against ISIS but on the contrary an influx of ISIS flags at the anti-Israel marches. In Paris, one was draped on a statute, another hanging by a government building at The Hague. While silence is complicit, this seems far from silent. In fact the rise of ISIS seems to have emboldened Muslim communities in Europe in its quest for Sharia Law and independence of local government law. Along with more reports of demonic sermons, rabid Jew hate, preaching the need for Sharia and fights with outsiders in heavily Muslim populated areas. In places like Tower Hamlet London black ISIS flags flew guarded by Muslim youth. In Norway Muslims have recently demanded Sharia Law, if not threatening Jihad and suicide bombs. The most bold was recently in Paris, Muslims marched in a blatant disregard of the law by the President which ended in pitched street battles with police reminiscent of former Intifadas.
***********
ISIS or IS (Islamic State) has recently burst onto the scene in a spectacular and brutal fashion. The numerous horrors they are inflicting on people is mind-numbing. Not since the Middle Ages has there risen such an evil bloodthirsty group of zealots killing in the name of a God, the closest comparison must be The Holy Crusades under the banner of Christianity during the middle ages.
ISIS is an offshoot of AL Qaeda with a fanatical religious doctrine under strict Sharia law. Since its establishment in 2006 it’s been another one of the numerous terror groups operating in Iraq, but recently it cemented itself as the premier popular movement of radical Islam. ISIS recent notoriety is due in part to the Syrian Civil War and the gains (post the US pull out) in Iraq against the US trained Iraqi forces.
Since its meteoritic rise ISIS have consolidated different Jihadist factions under a black banner and the dream of a “Caliphate” To the surprise of many they have conquered vast amounts of land, millions of dollars, oil refineries and an immense arsenal of American made weapons (including Apache Helicopters that they don’t know how to fly, yet). While that is impressive in its own right and should make us take notice, what really sets them apart is their marketing and global recruitment.
Using Twitter and YouTube, they have recruited Muslims both young and old in vast numbers from all over the world. Posting gruesome videos & pictures of mass executions, crucifixions, beheadings along with a flair for depraved brutality like burying women and children alive, rape and forced slavery of non-Sunni-Muslim women, all while spouting the ideology of an Islamic Caliphate. Both the success and the brutality have shocked the world.
Now all of this frankly should incense and terrify us as human beings but it’s taken a long time to even register (recent small involvement by US/UK in a rescue operation) Most notable though is the deafening silence from the so called moderate Moslem countries and worldwide communities (who are so quick to rally & voice apposition to the death toll in Gaza in spectacular numbers), out of a population of 1.4 billion Arabs one would think a good amount would be very vocal in opposition of ISIS brutality, but yet mostly we hear nothing but silence and in some cases like in Jordan, Gaza & Lebanon we hear support in terms of marches and banners. Here in lies the problem and my analysis
What the ISIS movement has shown us is the following. One, it’s galvanized the so called fringe members, the crazies, the couch jihadist, the fanatical believers in Allah to its one black flag, hence the multitude of foreign fighters from the UK, France, Australia and so on. What is even more apparent though is it’s giving “normal westernized” young Moslems, (many are mostly unemployed, mostly uneducated) a theology that they can really get behind and identify with. In a lot of the interviews and clips posted by ISIS we see a recurring theme, English speaking Jihadist telling fellow Muslims to join the war, people to convert or die, an insistence that one must live under Sharia Law. Another common theme telling from the clips is the apparent grievances of world behavior to the Muslim people (much like the Germans post Versailles) along with a promise that ISIS is “coming soon to a town near you”, along with the rhetoric that ISIS flags will fly on top of the White House, and Sharia Law will dominate globally (one day)
Two; The complete lack of Muslims voicing strong opposition both vocally and militarily tells us that even though they are butchering fellow Shiite Muslims (besides Kurds & Christians) it’s not really something they want to speak out against. We have seen no marches against ISIS but on the contrary an influx of ISIS flags at the anti-Israel marches. In Paris, one was draped on a statute, another hanging by a government building at The Hague. While silence is complicit, this seems far from silent. In fact the rise of ISIS seems to have emboldened Muslim communities in Europe in its quest for Sharia Law and independence of local government law. Along with more reports of demonic sermons, rabid Jew hate, preaching the need for Sharia and fights with outsiders in heavily Muslim populated areas. In places like Tower Hamlet London black ISIS flags flew guarded by Muslim youth. In Norway Muslims have recently demanded Sharia Law, if not threatening Jihad and suicide bombs. The most bold was recently in Paris, Muslims marched in a blatant disregard of the law by the President which ended in pitched street battles with police reminiscent of former Intifadas.
Finally and probably most importantly we can now probably dispel with the myth of the “Moderate Muslim”. The truth is, what ISIS is preaching and doing is written clear as day in the Koran and to the layman Muslim man it’s no more fundamental then praying 5 times a day. In comparison it’s like asking a Christian to denounce Christ, a Jew to denounce Hashem. Off course you will have some push back from those who have lived in Western democracies, but the overwhelming majority not only don’t denounce ISIS openly (or internally) but seem rather excited to see where this movement can go. The entire concept of the moderate when it comes to Sharia law is a complete falsify and the quicker we learn this the better. Recently in a packed mosque the Mullah asked the question to a packed audience “do you think Sharia Law is extreme”, every single young Muslims answered “no”.
The ISIS ideology has taken route deeply, maybe not the mass killings but the dream of Sharia Law and a Caliphate from my research seems embedded, and with each gain and win for ISIS the dream of the Islamic state will only continue to grow stronger. The majority of the Muslim populations “the mob” could begin to ally themselves with ISIS and nothing is more powerful than the mob (Arab spring proved that). So while we say today they don’t have an air force come tomorrow who knows what can be, many countries in the Middle East like Qatar could side with them, it’s also important to note that Qatar just happened to finalize one of the largest arms deals with the US to the tune of $14 billion US.
Simply put if you are a devout Muslim you can’t pick and choose what you want to follow, and everything in the doctrine of ISIS is within the laws of the Koran and the prophet Mohammad “there will rise a pure Islamic Caliphate that will cover the whole world and spread the holy word of Allah and his prophet Mohammed” it is as simple at the constitution is to an American. A recent survey found that 80% of Muslims living in Holland are pro ISIS, For now, they are far from being close to a global threat, and as a fighting force hold no real threat against a real army, but it would be most wise to remember that Hitler started his movement in a Munich Beer Hall and everyone said the same thing about National Socialism.
Part 2. The Powder Keg that is Europe, Rise of Right Wing Politicians
More outrageous and depressing news from the Human Wrongs Rights Council. They never met a terrorist they couldn’t love. — AP)
My above title is intended to be a pun – the UN is no wonderland, the exact opposite in fact. And in parallel, the way the UN behaves towards Israel is so reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts’ words that it almost makes one want to chuckle.
Queen of Hearts: Now… are you ready for your sentence?
Alice: Sentence? But there has to be a verdict first…
Queen of Hearts: Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.
As most of you must have heard by now, the UN Human Wrongs Rights Council decision to investigate Israel’s “war crimes” committed during Operation Protective Edge. No matter that the operation is still ongoing, that the ceasefires have proven worthless and that truce talks are taking place at this moment in Cairo between all the sides.
Here is the statement from the UN Human Rights Council establishing a “commission of inquiry:”
…
to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014. William Schabas will serve as Chair of the three-person commission mandated by the Council at its last special session.
June 13? Operation Protective Edge began on July 8. So why is the UN choosing June 13?
The answer tells you all you need to know about how biased the UNHRC is.
Hamas kidnapped and murdered Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah on June 12.
Israel started searching for them in the Hebron area on June 13.
The commission is being given a framework where they are supposed to believe that the kidnapping and murder were not acts of aggression, but Israel’s response was.
While it is true that the next paragraph tries to stave off this criticism by saying “whether before, during or after,” the very mention of that date and not the day before shows that its mandate “to establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible, …all with a view to avoiding and ending impunity and ensuring that those responsible are held accountable, and on ways and means to protect civilians against any further assaults” is directed only at Israel and not Hamas.
Hamas has never been accused of “impunity.” That is a NGO keyword that only applies to Israel in the context of this conflict.
This is not a mistake. Diplomats are very careful with statements like this, and using the words “military operations conducted since 13 June 2014″ shows that the UNHRC does not consider the kidnapping and murder of the teens to be within the mandate of the commission – only the Israeli response.
Kidnapping and targeting civilians is a war crime, by the way, so the choice of June 13 is a very deliberate attempt not only to portray Israel as the initiator of the hostilities but to whitewash Hamas war crimes.
None of this should come as a surprise to those of us who know the character of the UN (bad) and the UN Human Wrongs Rights Council (evil, malicious). Let’s add to this stinking pile the composition of the hastily gathered panel tasked with investigating Israel’s already-determined war crimes, and you get a witch-hunt worthy of the worst of the Salem trials.
Israel dismissed the Monday appointment of the three members of a UN human rights’ investigative committee to review the recent military operation in Gaza, saying the identity of the three proved that the results of the probe were a foregone conclusion.
The committee will be headed by Canadian Prof. William Schabas, and was to include British-Lebanese rights lawyer Amal Alamuddin, best known for her recent engagement to actor George Clooney, and Doudou Dienne of Senegal, who has previously served as the UN’s watchdog on racism and on post-conflict Ivory Coast.
However, Alamuddin later released a statement saying that she was too busy with eight other cases and could not take on the UN position.
The biggest problem is with the chairman of the panel, William Schabas, a man known for his deep hostility towards Israel, and towards Binyamin Netanyahu in particular.
William Schabas, anti-Israel chair of the UN investigatory panel
Schabas, a professor of International Law at London’s Middlesex University, has called for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former president Shimon Peres to stand trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes.
He also supported the 2010 Goldstone Report into Israel’s last ground offensive in Gaza, though he said in a later interview that the scale of destruction in Gaza did not compare to other atrocities in the world.
UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog with ties to Israel, slammed the appointment and called on Schabas to recuse himself.
“You can’t spend several years calling for the prosecution of someone, and then suddenly act as his judge,” UN Watch head Hillel Neuer said in a statement. “It’s absurd — and a violation of the minimal rules of due process applicable to UN fact-finding missions.”
Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations predicted on Wednesday that Jerusalem will not cooperate with the so-called “Schabas committee” that has been appointed to investigate alleged war crimes committed during Operation Protective Edge.
…
The Foreign Ministry said that Schabas’s appointment to head the panel proved that Israel cannot expect justice from this body.
“The report has already been written and the only question is who signs it,” the Foreign Ministry said.
In an interview with Army Radio, the Israeli envoy, Ron Prosor, expressed doubt regarding the legitimacy of the panel due to what is perceived by Jerusalem officials as a committee with a clear anti-Israel bias.
“Forming an investigatory committee headed by Schabas is like inviting ISIS to organize religious tolerance week at the UN,” Prosor told Army Radio.
Ambassador Ron Prosor, Israel’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on Tuesday said “the United Nations Human Rights Council set a new record for anti-Israel bias and proved once again, that it would be better named the ‘Human Wrongs Council’” because of its “complete travesty of justice” by inviting Professor William Schabas, “one of the most outspoken critics of Israel to serve as its judge and jury.”
It was not only Israel of course who objected to the anti-Israel opinions of the committee members:
Jewish organizations also condemned the creation of the commission and its appointments. The Anti-Defamation League called the panel “a farce” with the outcome “all-but preordained.”
“Here we go again,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “As if on cue, the United Nations Human Rights Council has appointed a so-called ‘independent’ panel to investigate Israel’s conduct in the recent conflict in Gaza, with the outcome all-but preordained. This farce began with an illegitimate Council resolution and will predictably end with an illegitimate panel investigation and report, entirely biased against Israel, which places the blame squarely on Israel for ‘war crimes’ and other violations of international law and pays no attention to the terrorism of Hamas.”
In his last full day in office, former Israeli President Shimon Peres also objected to the creation of the commission in a joint press conference with the UN Secretary-General, who he called out for allowing UN-run schools in Gaza to be used by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as rocket depots and launchpads.
“We have seen this theater of the absurd before,” Foxman said. “The inquiry will be stacked against Israel through the appointment of individuals with anti-Israel bona fides like Professor William Schabas. Israel, understandably, will refuse to cooperate. And, finally, a harsh, biased and fundamentally flawed report will be issued, providing fodder to those who have already found Israel guilty on all counts and handing Hamas a phony victory in the court of public opinion.”
“Schabas has made comments critical of Israel’s leadership in the past, and participated in the 2012 Russell Tribunal on Palestine, a conference in which Israel is put on trial, with its guilt on war crimes fully presumed,” Foxman said. “Diène has served as U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from 2002 to 2008 and as the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Côte d’Ivoire from 2011 to 2014.”
B’nai B’rith International said “the commission itself illegitimate as it was born of a UNHRC resolution that stridently excoriated Israel in advance of the ‘inquiry’ it launched and didn’t so much as mention Hamas by name. It was specifically designed to scrutinize not years of cross-border terrorist attacks against Israelis, but rather Israel’s defensive response to them. Any suggestion that there is equivalence between terrorism and a state defending its civilians from that threat is both outrageous and unacceptable.”
Schabas tried to defend himself with the old “some of my best friends are Jews” routine, ludicrously saying that he was impartial, not anti-Israel.
The professor appointed to lead a United Nations inquiry into possible war crimes during the recent military campaign in the Gaza Strip defended his record to Israeli media Tuesday and said past statements that paint him as anti-Israel would have no bearing on his probe of the Gaza conflict.
Willam Schabas told Army Radio in an interview on Tuesday that he is not anti-Israel, has visited Israel in the past to give university presentations and is a member of the editorial board of a legal publication.
…
Israel dismissed the probe as one-sided and said the appointment of Schabas — who has called for both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former president Shimon Peres to stand trial in the International Criminal Court in the Hague — proved the outcome of the report had been predetermined.
…
Asked about a comment made last year that he would most like to see Netanyahu stand trial in the Hague, Schabas said the comments were made in reference to the Goldstone Report, a UN Human Rights Council investigation that claimed Israel had committed war crimes during the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead by deliberately targeting civilians during fighting in the Gaza Strip.
“I didn’t prejudge him and I didn’t say he was guilty,” Schabas told Army Radio. “I was making a comment in the context of a discussion about the priorities of the International Criminal Court. I think probably every person in Israel has criticized the government in Israel at some point or other in their lives and the suggestion that I’ve delivered a verdict on this is wrong and unfair.”
He can wriggle all he likes, but his own words damn him:
Read the above words again and note his huge error. This from a supposed “expert” on the Middle East. He can’t even get his Prime Ministers right! Yair Lapid puts him right:
Finance Minister Yair Lapid, in an interview with Channel 2 later on Tuesday evening, pointed out that it was former prime minister Ehud Olmert who was in office during Operation Cast Lead and not Netanyahu.
Schabas’s obsession with Netanyahu reveals the extent of his animosity towards the Prime Minister, and by extension towards Israel. How on earth can anyone expect Israel to get a fair hearing at the hands of an ignorant oaf of a bigot like that?
The Israeli press watchdog site Mida has another video of Schabas in an interview with Israeli TV in which he refuses to call Hamas a terror organization and where he does not walk back his error about Netanyahu.
Mida comments:
So even given the opportunity, Schabas did not recant or walk back his statement. He would like to see Netanyahu tried based on the findgins of the Goldstone Report. There’s only one problem: the Prime Minister responsible for the “alleged crimes” of Operation Cast Lead is none other than Ehud Olmert. Netanyahu was head of the opposition at the time and had nothing to do with it. Thus, already at the beginning of the interview, Schabas revealed his severe bias: as far as he’s concerned, Netanyahu is guilty regardless of the facts.
…
This wouldn’t be the first time Schabas had shown such an attitude towards Netanyahu. Already in 2010, he wrote an article in a law journal that Netanyahu is the man most likely to threaten Israel’s existence. His evidence? Netanyahu’s statement that “we face three strategic challenges: Iran’s nuclear program, rockets fired at us and the Goldstone Report.” Not Hamas, not Hizballah and not Iran – the greatest danger to Israel is its own Prime Minister, who dares to defy the word of UN legists and argue for the innocence of his country. According to this logic, Emil Zola was a traitor and a criminal for daring to charge the French Courts with falsely convicting Alfred Dreyfuss.
And finally, as yet another reminder of the what the Human Wrongs Rights Council is all about, the Gatestone Institute has a very detailed article by Denis McEoin. Again, none of this will be new to most of my readers, but it always bears repeating (and sharing as widely as possible):
But expecting the UNHRC to carry out a fair, balanced or accurate investigation of anything involving the State of Israel is rather like asking the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] to carry out investigations into the persecution of Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, or Baha’is in Muslim countries.
Before the emergency session ended, Navi Pillay, the South African UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has her own office in New York, but supervises the Geneva-based UNHRC, warned the world that Israel may have committed war crimes by not doing enough to protect civilians. Pillay, however, has a long track record of demonizing Israel; it was she who was behind the infamous and totally discredited Goldstone Report of 2009, which accused Israel of deliberately targeting Gazan civilians — a finding that the report’s author, Richard Goldstone, later retracted, although Pillay did not.
…
We are still living in 1984. The UNHRC works to defend and even promote countries that abuse those rights, and to condemn one of the most rights-observant countries in the world — Israel. When anyone tries to take the floor at the UNHRC and reveal the truth about abusive states, watch the abusers press their buzzers and demand that the truth-teller be stopped from speaking. How many times have the vigilant and dedicated human rights activists Anne Bayefsky of Human Rights Voices or Hillel Neuer of UN Watch been attacked for speaking truth?
Watch the indefatigable Hillel Neuer here:
There’s much more at the link. Read it all. The article concludes:
Most disturbingly, both the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, while pussy-footing with the world’s most ostentatious human rights violators, cannot get savage enough with one of the world’s most tolerant and free countries, Israel. Between its formation in 1947 and 1991, the UN General Assembly has adopted 300 resolutions against Israel. In the year 2006-7, it issued 22 such resolutions — but not one about the Sudanese genocide then continuing in Darfur. The year before, Israel had pulled out of Gaza entirely in an effort to make peace. Yet the General Assembly passes 19 resolutions per year against Israel and almost none on any other state.
No fewer than three UN entities exist that are dedicated to furtherance of the Palestinian cause (which is, in its simplest form, dedicated to destroying Israel). There are no UN entities to advance the Israeli cause, which has always been to make peace with its neighbors and to help its citizens — mainly Christians, Muslims and Jews — build good lives for themselves. Never in history has a human institution for goodwill and peace among men been so betrayed by those who seek to use it for their own ends.
What is Israel supposed to do in these circumstances? No matter how much care we take in avoiding civilian casualties, no matter how much aid we allow through, no matter how many enemy civilians we treat in our field hospitals, no matter how much fuel, water and electricity are provided to the enemy civilians – at Israeli taxpayers’ expense I would add – all we get is a cold shower of intense condemnation in the UN and the international media.
Why do we bother at all? If we’re going to be accused of genocide, maybe we should go out and commit genocide. Then the world will be able to tell the difference.
At the moment all I feel is profound depression and nausea at the utter unfairness and injustice of it all.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments