First, find out what isn't true…

October 28, 2009

Fairy tales from the Fallacy Factory. “Hamas do not wear uniforms!” Naive or lying for Israel?


Demonizing one’s enemies is as old as humans have had them. Not only human to human, but to all manner of creatures who might occasion us harm. Sharks for example are not ‘man eaters’. Their main diet isn’t man. Nor is man the diet of lions, tigers or crocodiles et al. It’s just that they’re hungry and we are sometimes, very rarely, a tasty morsel that happens to be in their environment at lunch time.

Why do we call them ‘man eaters’, when we constitute an immeasurably minuscule fraction of their diet? To scare the kids into being careful when they’re in the ‘man eaters’ domain at a guess. It is after all why we tell kids to be careful when they’re in or near traffic. Eventually, we learn. Don’t play in the traffic, don’t swim in the crocodile’s pool. Are people forever children when it comes to ‘man eaters’? Some people remain naive to either the actual diet of these beasties or to the actual proportions of the problem. With a little thought, most people come to the conclusion that it is only the occasional human venturing into the beasties domain who becomes a part of the beasty’s diet. Even children can understand that much. Out of this understanding grows a respect for the animal kingdom. A healthy respect, where we have our place and they theirs respectfully. Very respectfully.

When it comes to humanity though, a very different picture seems to emerge. Our human enemies are demonized when we are in their territory or they’re in ours or when we fear they might be in our territory. Much of it is just propaganda. Propaganda always has a hole in it somewhere. It’s either shown not to be true by prior events, like the trashing of the glasshouses in Gaza, or by contrary statements or some other information coming to light after the event, that shows it to be, well…..just propaganda or outright LIES!

For a starters, let’s look at one of the most commonly held beliefs about Hamas. “Hamas do not wear uniforms!” Is this true or is it a fairy tale from a fallacy factory? It is repeated over and over, as though it is a ‘fact’. So, is it? Seems not. From the mouths of Israel’s leaders, we have contrary evidence. Israeli Knesset :“You can see on television that most of those who died during the attack were wearing Hamas uniforms, either black or other uniforms of Hamas.” Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni on December 28, 2008 Israeli Knesset.

One would have thought that if Israel’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tzipi Livni, can see these uniforms, the public would too. Does believing propaganda make one blind?

The IDF also tenders contrary evidence. Dec 27: IDF operation against terror infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. “Since this morning, the IDF attacked dozens of targets affiliated with the Hamas terror organization in the Gaza Strip. The targets included command centers, training camps, various Hamas installations, rocket manufacturing facilities and storage warehouses. The vast majority of the casualties are terror operatives, most of whom were wearing uniform and working on behalf of terror organizations.”

One might gather from this information that most do actually wear uniforms. Yet it is repeated over and over ad nauseum, that Hamas do not wear uniforms.

So just where is the legal requirement to wear a uniform stated? It doesn’t appear in any Laws or Conventions! In fact, an emblem is required. Not a uniform. The Laws of War – Article 1: ”To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance. Common sense tells us why. For example, why are combat fatigues camouflaged? Even in the most law abiding militaries, Combat Fatigues are camouflaged. They’re camouflaged so that the enemy CAN’T see them! Who can see the uniform of a pilot in a fighter plane or combatants in a tank or a ship off of Gaza’s Coast? Added to which, enemy armies might have similar or even identical military fatigues. An army might have many different uniform configurations, depending on the conditions. A legitimate militia (per the Laws of War), may not have the resources to afford a uniform. That’s why there is no legal requirement to wear a uniform, but display a distinctive emblem.

Another requirement, is: “To carry arms openly”. Do any country’s undercover operatives A) wear a uniform OR B) carry their arms openly?

Are we to believe Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni a liar? Or the IDF liars? A search with google reveals that Hezbollah also wear uniforms. What are we to make of this? If the Hamas mantra is a lie or propaganda, what else is being spouted by either naive folk or propaganda meisters for Israel? Can we believe anything they say?

Not much actually. They’ve had 61 years of practice at the Fallacy Factory. A litany of fallacy litters history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

October 24, 2009

Is there a danger of Sacred Fact being drowned out on the Guardian’s Comment is Free – CiF ?


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s a territory of Palestine…

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-h3

Why am I writing this? In order to have a balanced discourse on the Israel/Palestinian issue, it is imperative that well sourced and factual counter argument be given the chance to be heard. Apart from the various slings and arrows and opinions of posters and contributors, the casual reader ought be given the chance to see what is actually said in documents, law, UNSC resolutions rather than after they’ve been put through the Ziofier and spammed endlessly.

The machinations of the UN are quite complex and ought be explained in concise and understandable terms, not just presented as an Anti-Israel organization bent on the destruction of Israel. Propaganda ought be shown for what it is. CiF and the Guardian surely owe it to their readers that a moderate voice, with a basic understanding of the Laws, UN Charter et al, be heard.

So, is there danger that CiF will be flooded with propaganda in support of Israel’s expansionist policies and illegal activities? Can moderate voices, factual information and rational counter argument be silenced? I know I am! Regularly.

By their own admissions and actions, the apologists for Israel’s illegal expansionism and illegal activities group together, issue reports on CiF commentaries, conduct mail outs advising people and encouraging them to counter anything which might be construed as Anti-Israel.

How do I know? I subscribe to some under another name in order to find out what they’re up to. Others, like CiFWatch are just too blatant and stupid for their own good, actually undermining their own hard work by the shear idiocy of their accusations and admissions. HERE”S ONE BY A CiF CONTRIBUTOR!!!Admitting to concerted efforts to have folk banned.

Ironically they complain about being banned themselves. To this end, they appear to be willing to stop at nothing. If they blatantly lie in their posts on CiF & CiFWatch, what’s to stop them from lying in their complaints to moderators especially if over worked moderators don’t look closely. Nothing!

Are these people devious? Yes. Most certainly. I’ve only kept one example of the handiwork of an apologist for Israel’s illegal activities at work on TALK International, combined alas, with moderation that begs enhancement. (I do not envy the position BTW). I had been posting as ‘Some1’ and received the following warning …

From: …….@guardian.co.uk [mailto:…….@guardian.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2006 1:26 AM
To: {…….}
Subject: GU Talk Warning (Some1)
This is your first warning. We are issuing 1 warning per user before banning people permanently.
Regards
User Help
Guardian Unlimited
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER

Some1 – 08:34am Aug 4, 2006 GMT

How do you tell if a Jew is lying – his lips are moving. For some reason, anything that comes from Israel is a LIE. But anything that Hizbullah, Iran, and Hamas say or print is GOSPEL!

I immediately searched for this alleged breach of the guidelines and found the following

Israel/Lebanon Conflict Thread

100reader – 01:53pm Aug 4, 2006 GMT (#408 of 503)

Some1 – 08:34am Aug 4, 2006 GMT

How do you tell if a Jew is lying – his lips are moving. For some reason, anything that comes from Israel is a LIE. But anything that Hizbullah, Iran, and Hamas say or print is GOSPEL!

A) A poster had taken 100reader’s sarcastic, strawman remark, deleted 100reader from it and attributed it to me. Very likely 100reader, judging by a subsequent post advising me I’d need a new user name.
B) It is not in quotes. Not mine. Doesn’t closely resemble anything I’d say.
C) If one reads carefully, it reveals itself by the second two sentences in that single, unquoted, paragraph… “For some reason, anything that comes from Israel is a LIE. But anything that Hizbullah, Iran, and Hamas say or print is GOSPEL!”
1) It shows a sarcastic remark by 100Reader, prefaced with “How do you tell if a Jew is lying – his lips are moving.”
2) I’d never claimed or written anything of the sort. 100reader was of course constructing a strawman.

I attempted to explain this deception to …….@guardian. To no avail. Correspondence went un-answered. I was later banned, very likely on a similar completely false premise.

It was the type of tactic commonly used in posts by the advocates of Israel’s illegal expansionist policies. Cherry picking, replacing words, mis-quoting, false accusations, outright lying and concerted efforts to have posters banned and of course, completely ignoring factual material and posting the same fallacies over and over. Spam. Show them a document proving their fallacy is a blatant lie and they just ignore it and carry on regardless. Hard core denial by a hard core of organized Anti-Cifers

On the other hand there are no organized Pro-CiF groups that I know of. No email lists, no concerted efforts by groups of people trying to get the apologists for Israeli expansionism banned. I have never been invited to join or subscribe to any alternative to the likes of Giyus with about 40,000 users and numerous supporters, CifWatch, the Olivebranch, Harry’s place. There is a very real danger of it becoming a one sided battle.

In any one sided battle, the chances of the more powerful side drowning out the other is always a possibility and of course the desired result. In respect to the Israel/Palestinian issue, Cif could, I dare say is, fast becoming devoid of facts. Like TALK International, a place where silly, repetitious, sniping bun fights are commonplace. Boring to the reader, non-informative and for the most part non-factual, which is of course is also a tactic. If you can’t win the argument, turn the dialogue into a moshpit that no one can be bothered reading.

As talknic there were some 5,300 posts on Cif. None abusive, none contained any hatred, bigotry, Antisemitism. To the best of my knowledge, none contravened the CiF guidelines. If I went off topic it was only in response to where some other poster had, usually with an oft repeated propaganda mantra. Spam.

I’ve never used Islamist sources, hate or Antisemitic sites, only citing, as I have here, mainly irrefutable and reliable Jewish sources such as the Israeli Govt web site, the Jewish virtual library, the UN and university repositories for documents.

With correspondence going un-answered, re-registering and continuing to post is the only form of protest one has and one hopes in the brief time the information remains, someone will learn something other than the endless propaganda. It is of course purged as soon as someone complains. Not that there is ever anything to actually complain against, nor has there ever been. I’m guessing it goes like this. ‘This person is the much banned ‘talknic’, a well known Anti-semite’

However, nothing I’ve ever written on CiF comes even close to Antisemitism, hatred, bigotry or abuse. In 42 years of addressing the I/P issue at public forums, meetings, letters to the editors and now with the advent of the likes of CiF, no-one has ever been able to show anything remotely Antisemitic from what must now be hundreds of thousands of words I’ve written and spoken on the subject. The only complaint my opponents actually have is, they cannot honestly answer the questions I ask. I don’t even make it on CiFWatch’s pathetic Anti-semite list!!!

In real life discussions I’ve been ejected from meetings, threatened, had my walls sprayed with graffiti, refused service, hate mailed (constantly). One hand written letter shoved under my door advised me not to sit near the window. I’ve been covered in the spittle sprayed from bug eyed, red faced denialistas, shaking in rage, screaming their obscenities and predictable list of what they wish I was, but am not. The only way apologists for Israel’s illegal actions can ‘counter’ irrefutable knowledge from verifiable and reliable sources, is to ignore, scream over the top or try to deny access to the discussion by making a false accusations. I dare say the moderators had hundreds of complaints about Talknic, in the hope that one, like the example above, would slip through, resulting in a banning.

Meanwhile all I have ever done is speak in the hope that folk will be educated as to what actually has taken place, what laws actually have been broken and what laws actually do stand, without changing anything. I do this IN SUPPORT of the Sovereign Israel that was created as a homeland/state for all Jewish people. Israel should, like all UN Member states, at the very least be law abiding. That is all I ask.

So how does one address the imbalance of organized groups against CiF, vs no organized group at all for CiF? How does one get re-instated in order that a moderate voice with factual information be heard? Correspond? No point if your correspondence goes in the spam bin. Write about it as I have done here? Of course.

Continue to be a squeaky door where “Facts are…meant to be… Sacred”

Both! Because I can! And will.

October 20, 2009

Lying for Israel. Where ‘Facts are Sacred’, Harold Evans does it in bulk. Fact is purged, again!


…It’s actually quite simple. If it isn’t the “acknowledged” Sovereign Territory of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt or Israel,
then it’s a territory of Palestine…

Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-gw

Almost every statement in Harold Evans’ CiF article is either a lie or an unsubstantiated statement of opinion. How can such blatant lies be allowed space where “Facts are Sacred”? Different points of view, certainly should be allowed. However, absolute bullshite in this article, is quite beyond the pale. Talknic posts pointing to substantiated facts, from verifiable, irrefutable sources have been completely purged (ironically, at the appearance of PetraMB & Sydk)

The headline is enough to tell us that this is going to be a propaganda pack of bullshite straight from the Israeli handbook.

Harold Evans – A moral atrocity – Judge Goldstone has been suckered into letting war criminals use his name to pillory Israel

Who are these war criminals Harold Evans speaks of, he fails to mention any.

“It was to be expected that the usual suspects of the risible UN human rights council would be eager to condemn Israel for war crimes in defending itself against Hamas.”

Defend itself? It’s defending the notion that Israeli citizens can live in non-Sovereign territory. The areas in reach of Hamas’ weapons are not Israeli. They reach only into non-annexed areas, illegally acquired by war. Areas cleansed of many of their rightful inhabitants by war, by 1949.

“If you treat people as the Chinese do the Tibetans or Uighurs (“Off with their heads!”); or as the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents; or as the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings, the evictions of 800,000, rape and cruel treatment of prisoners; or as the Egyptians get prisoners to talk (torture) and the Saudis suppress half their population … well, go through the practices of all 25 states voting to refer Israel to the security council for the Gaza war, and you have to acknowledge they know a lot about the abuse of humans. Anything to divert attention from their own atrocities.”

I’d’ve thought a journalist would at least familiarize themselves with the mandate under which the UN and it’s instruments are enabled. The UN cannot interfere in internal matters of Sovereign countries. At best all the UN can do through the UNHRC is support the victims. So, as ghastly as they might be, his examples are quite pointless.
“..the Chinese do the Tibetans or Uighurs” – Internal & does China even allow UNHRC in? NO!
“..the Russians eliminate Chechen dissidents” – Internal & does Russia even allow UNHRC in? NO!
“..the Nigerians tolerate extrajudicial killings, the evictions of 800,000, rape and cruel treatment of prisoners”– Internal
“..the Egyptians get prisoners to talk” – Internal
“..the Saudis suppress half their population” – Internal
Have any of the countries railed against prevented ALL the civilians of their neighbour from fleeing a war zone by having ALL means of escape closed, including the closure of border crossings that are NOT it’s own (Gaza / Egypt under the 2005 agreement), including flight into the sea. Then proceeded to attack the territory with some of the world’s most advanced weaponry? Geneva Convention 1V…Section II..Occupied territories…….Art49…The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

“Poor Judge Goldstone now regrets how his good name has been used to single out Israel. The Swiss paper Le Temps reports him complaining that “This draft [UN human rights council] resolution saddens me … there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope the council can modify the text.” Fat hope.”

Harold Evans’ link leads to Haaretz reporting, Israeli Army radio reporting, Le Temps.

A) Mr Goldstone did NOT say he ” regrets how his good name has been used to single out Israel” It simply does not appear anywhere other than in unsubstantiated accusations. Why does Harold Evans lie?
B) The original Le Temps goes on to say: The judge, however, defends its conclusions: “The Americans talk about errors in our report, but they do not advance a single fact to demonstrate tangible.” Despite the politicization of his report – including Hamas – it can only regret, he remains confident that it will make its way and will support peace in the region. As for the virulence of Israeli attacks, he expected, “but not to such venom. It is a sad experience. “

Meanwhile the UNHRC has altered the text to include Hamas. The report was adopted in Geneva on Friday. The resolution proposed by Palestine on crimes committed by Israel and Hamas in Gaza has been approved by 25 votes to six against and 11 abstentions. Why does Harold Evans lie?

“The truth is he was suckered into lending his good name to a half-baked report – read its 575 pages and see. He said that, as a Jew himself, he was surprised to be invited. He shouldn’t have been, and should never have accepted leadership of a commission whose terms of reference were designed to excuse the aggressor, Hamas, and punish the defender, Israel.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? The truth is, Mr Goldstone demanded that Hamas be included BEFORE he took the position and there are nine pages in the report condemning Hamas.

“The council’s decision was to “dispatch an urgent, independent, international fact-finding mission … to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and [it] calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully co-operate with the mission”.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? The council’s decision was changed at the demand of Goldstone to include Hamas.

“Israel is not an “occupying power” in Gaza in either fact or international law. Four years ago it voluntarily pulled out all its soldiers and uprooted all its settlers.”

The UNSC tells us that Gaza is a part of the Occupied Territories.

The Security Council“Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008), “Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

“Here was a wonderful chance for Gaza to be the building block of a Palestinian state, and for Hamas to do what the Israelis did – take a piece of land and build a model state. They didn’t. Instead of helping the desperate Palestinians, they conducted a religious war.”

A) A part of a proposed state cannot declare Sovereignty. In order to declare, the entity must have control over ALL it’s territories. Same rules applied to Israel.
B) A religious war? No Mr Evans, it’s a war against a neighbour who has continued to steal Palestinian territory for 61 years.

“The terms of reference he accepted validate the torment of Israeli civilians.”

Why does Harold Evans lie? Goldstone demanded the terms of reference be change BEFORE he accepted the position

“The rockets were war crimes and ought to have been universally condemned as such. While new rockets hit Israel ….”

A) They have been condemned by HRW as War Crimes. They were condemned by the Goldstone report as War Crimes.
B) Israel’s Sovereign territories are those recommended by UNGA resolution 181. Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside of it’s Sovereign territory.

“…over many months there was no rush by the world’s moralisers – including Britain – to censure Hamas”

Miliband criticized Hamas’ rocket attacks on Israel and implicitly urged Syria to exert its influence on the group to stop such attacks.
“I argue that Hamas’ violence hurts Syria, which says it believes in a comprehensive peace,” Miliband said. “The rockets are a threat to the successful process.

“…no urgency as there was in “world opinion” when Israel finally responded. Then Israel was immediately accused of a “disproportionate” response without anyone thinking: “What is a ‘proportionate’ attack against an enemy dedicated to exterminating your people?” A dedication to exterminating all of his?”

Perhaps a better question is, what is the justification for illegally acquiring your enemies territory over 62 years and thus prompting them to want rid of you?

Israel risked its own forces by imposing unprecedented restraint. In testimony volunteered to the human rights council (and ignored), Colonel Richard Kemp, a British commander in Bosnia and Afghanistan, stated: “The Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

By preventing civilians from fleeing a war zone, then attacking the territory with some of the most modern war technology in the world.

“No doubt there were blunders. A defensive war is still a war with all its suffering and destruction. But Hamas compounded its original war crime with another. It held its own people hostage. It used them as human shields.”

Mr Evans’ rhetoric is straight out of the Israel propaganda handbook.

Had Israel allowed civilians from fleeing the war zone, they’d not have been in this alleged predicament. I say alleged, because it is a well known, transparent and age olde propaganda ploy, to demonize one’s enemy. It is a fact however, that Israel prevented them from fleeing the war zone, by having all means of escape closed, even the borders between Gaza and Egypt, under the 2005 agreement. On the other hand, it is only alleged, by Israel, that Hamas held it’s own people hostage. Furthermore, Hamas did not just drop out of the sky they are all volunteers, Palestinians, their own people, fighting for the cause of their own people. They can exist only with the support of their own people. So it does not make one iota of sense to have their own turn against them.

“The Goldstone report won the gold standard of moral equivalence between the killer and the victim. Now Britain wins the silver. Who’s cheering?”

Harold Evan$ perhaps? I can think of no other reason why one would stoop so low. Statistics show us who the killers are, by a ratio of about 100 :1

The “moral atrocity” is the absolute shite dished up by one Harold Evans.

October 19, 2009

Lying for Israel since 1948. The BIGGEST LIE!


Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-gm



THE BIGGEST LIE!
UNGA res 181 is irrelevant, Israel’s borders have never been defined

Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948
“MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

Also bear this in mind. Israel has never legally annexed any territory outside it’s Declared Sovereign borders. Ever!

How many people on the planet believe the fallacy?
Prime Ministers, Senators, Presidents, politicians, civilians
and worst of all ISRAELI CITIZENS!!

Israeli citizens who have been led to believe they are living in Israel.
Israeli citizens in Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba.
Israeli citizens in a big chunk of territory bordering Lebanon.
Israeli citizens whose lives have been sacrificed for the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel.

How much longer can the world allow this fallacy to pollute the issue?
How much longer can the International Community turn a blind eye to this deceit?
How much longer will honest Israeli citizens allow themselves to be used by a corrupt, cabal of people who are willing break the very basic tenets of Judaism?

Enough is enough already!
Jewish folk were given, completely gratis**, a big chunk of land for a Sovereign homeland. Enough territory for every Jewish person on the planet today.
The extent of Israel’s Sovereignty had been declared & confirmed by the Israeli Government with the UNSC on May 22nd 1948 admitting to having territories “outside of Israel” It was further confirmed with the UNSC by the Israeli Government on June the 15th 1949
Instead of being grateful, Israel has taken more and more and more.
Illegally ‘acquired’ by war, illegally acquired through illegal annexation.
Illegally acquired through illegal settlements in “territories occupied” NOT belonging to Israel!
ILLEGALLY sold to those who are either complicit, or ignorant of what has and is still being done in the name of all the world’s Jewish population.

** ‘real estate’ is not territory.
The US paid Mexico for their territories.
How much did Israel pay?

Watching the hypocrisy where “the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”


The CifWatch banner proudly extols
“the voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”

Unfortunately at hypocrisy central, the silencing of Talknic takes precedence. Nary a sign of the posts I’ve offered. Are they that pi$$ weak?

As for their ‘badge of honor’. What is ‘honorable’ about being booted off a tawk bored for being a bunch of ghastly, lying, toilet humorist, bigots?

CLASSIC FIB from the lil’ CiFWatchers

October 18, 2009 at 3:54 am
The Anti Discriminator

This fresh in from CIF
RecurringDisaster.

##Berchmans, deleted HUNDREDS OF TIMES because of anti-Semitic posts marked as such by even The Guardian moderators:##

Who are they trying to kid? CiF give no reasons for deleting posts.

October 17, 2009

Watching AKUS make a fool of himself on CiFWatch. Another idiot for Israel


Shortlink http://wp.me/pDB7k-fS

This is a guest post by AKUS

“This is not a critique of the fatally flawed Goldstone report itself, which has been ably carried out by many more competent experts than me and which could be continued pointlessly ad infinitum. Even the announcement advertising the discussion of the report this week and the terms of reference for the “fact-finding mission” reveal the bizarre world which the UNHRC inhabits which makes such discussions essentially meaningless and certainly fruitless:

The holding of the Special Session comes at the request of Palestine.

There is no such country as “Palestine”. In the Draft Resolution the word “Palestine” is given an asterisk, and a footnote explains that it is a “Non-Member State of the Human Rights Council”. In fact, it is a non-state, non-member of the Human Rights Council.

A) AKUS is an expert now? WOW!!!
B) United Nations Charter Article 35

l. Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.

2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter.

C) The LoN Mandate for Palestine refers to the LoN Charter article 22, under which Palestine held the status of a Provisional State. This status has never legally altered. A Provisional State that has been hacked away by the formation of Jordan and Israel. What remains of the Provisional State of Palestine is still Palestine. It has not been renamed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. When you eat half an apple what’s left? Apple or does it magically change into something else, perhaps AKUS’s ziocaine induced Hasbara bullsh*te?

Some expert AKUS turns out to be.

There is, in fact, no need to read the report in order to anticipate its methods and conclusions. It is more interesting to look at how it has been received, and what actions will be taken as a result.

Uh huh. ‘in fact’? ‘In fact’, IT’S JUST YOUR OPINION! (I guess he just ‘listens’ to the moaning of the losing team in order to ‘watch’ a football match)

D) Furthermore, under the UN Charter Chapt XI, Israel, as the Occupying Power, has a duty towards the Palestinians. To protect them, their property and their territory and to assist them in achieving effective independent statehood.

October 16, 2009

Has Professor Geoffrey Alderman no shame? A Professor? Of what? BullShite?


(Post post pre-post postscript) My apologies to Professor Alderman in respect to the struck out part of this post (see replies for the apology)

Where “Facts are Sacred” the Ziofied ‘facts’ remain, polluting the discourse! Factual counter argument, has been purged.

geoffreyalderman 15 Oct 09

stell: There was no such country as “Jordan” – and no such “people” as “Jordanians” – until well after WW1. The land we now call Jordan originally comprised about three-quarters of the total land mass of Mandate Palestine. The British decreed that Mandate Palestine east of the Jordan river should be reserved exclusively for Arabs (including, of course, Palestinian Arabs) and be prohibited to the Jews. This was of course agreed to by the Arabs.

KrustytheClown asks me two questions:
1) Do you believe that the only ‘Palestinian state’ is in Jordan? Answer No.
2) Do you believe that the occupied West Bank belongs only to the Jewish people? Answer No.
OK?
Geoffrey Alderman”

BUT WHAT IS THIS PROFESSOR ALDERMAN ?
geoffreyalderman 12 Oct 09

“…It must be remembered that the Palestinians already have one state of their own – Jordan, the territory of which was part of the original Mandate given to the UK by the League of Nations.”

Have you no shame? Have you no history books? On 25 May 1923 , the Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: ????? ??? ?????? ?Imarat Sharq al-?Urdun ) was proclaimed an independent state. It’s citizens were known as Jordanian. TransJordan became a sovereign state in 1946. It’s citizens were known as Jordanian. When the name was changed to Jordan , it’s citizens were known as Jordanian

Q: How many Israelis were there before 1948?

October 13, 2009

Bearing false witness for Israel. Ignoring International Law and breaking the basic tenets of Judaism! Is it a sickness?


When it comes to Israel, the basic tenets of Judaism are thrown out. Everything is Ziofied.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/your-brain-zionism

Your brain on Zionism – Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR.
– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/your-brain-zionism

Comments in green

The internet and news services are flooded with Pro-Israeli propaganda. Blatant lies, transparent cherry picking, fallacies and mis-information are propagated by the unwitting, the ignorant, outright bigoted and sad to say, those from one would expect better than bullshite. From the top to the bottom, they all seem to be stricken with the same symptoms. Ziofictation

Netinyahu, whose speech at the UN was an insult human intelligence.

Moshe Arens a journalist, who it seems, has not actually read the Goldstone report.

Prof Geoffrey Alderman A professor no less, who should know better

Prof Gerald M Adler Another professor, who should also know better

Elliott A. Green who should also know better

Obadiah Shoher of Sampson Blinded, who openly advocates ethnic cleansing AND justifies the slaughter of non-Jews.


A license to kill…By Moshe Arens “While the Goldstone report is being eagerly read in Israel and in capitals around the world, it is also being intensively studied by terrorists bent on destroying the State of Israel – and they must be breathing a sigh of relief. This is not only because the Hamas terrorists in Gaza are in effect getting off scot-free in the report ….”
The report has nine pages condemning Hamas’ actions. Need one go on? Either Moshe Arens has not read the report or he is a liar.


Ironically, where “Facts are Sacred”, the fallacies are allowed to remain. Common sense posts, with links to the source documents dis-proving Prof Alderman’s fallacies, are completely purged.

geoffreyalderman 12 Oct 09, 1:00am “…It must be remembered that the Palestinians already have one state of their own – Jordan, the territory of which was part of the original Mandate given to the UK by the League of Nations.”
” Professor” Alderman? A professor should surely be able to think! But it seems not.
Common sense tells us that only the Palestinians from the area that became Jordan (TransJordan), had a right to citizenship in Jordan. Palestinians who did not come from that particular part of pre-1946 Palestine, did not. They were and still are citizens of what is left of Palestine. When one eats a part of an apple, what remains is still apple.
As Palestine has been whittled away, what has remained is still Palestine. Anyone born in Jordan since 1946 is Jordanian. In 2009, if they’re under 63, they’re ‘Jordanian’ Jordanians.

“Concerning the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, the right of Jews (as distinct from Israelis) to dwell therein was guaranteed by the League and endorsed by the UN at its foundation. “
A) But Professor Alderman you’re trying to justify illegal ISRAELI settlements in the West Bank. It is the ISRAELI Government issuing the construction contracts, yes?
B) The League and the UN of course were referring to a state called Palestine, in which Jewish folk could have a homeland under Palestinian Law and as citizens of Palestine. HERE is what Balfour says.

BALFOUR : “The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.”

It is interesting to note he says “the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine, which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish ‘state’, but a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine. HERE is what the British Mandate says, in particular Article 7:

Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. “

There is actually NOTHING about a separate Jewish State, or building illegal ISRAELI settlements in the West Bank, in any of the documents the good Professor cites.
“There is a full and definitive explanation of this right by Professor Gerald Adler in the September 2009 issue of Journal of the Law Society of Scotland…”
Alas Professor Gerald Adler, like Professor Alderman, completely ignores International Law SEE HERE

Furthermore, these ‘Professors’ seem to be oblivious to the fact that the British Mandate over Palestine ENDED on 14th May 1948!

So again, where “Facts are Sacred”, the fallacies are allowed to remain. Posts with links to the source documents dis-proving Prof Alderman’s fallacies, are completely purged.

geoffreyalderman 12 Oct 09, 2:24pm “..I am on record as supporting the right of Palestinians who claim they were forcibly expelled from Israel to have their claims investigated by a truly independent body, and compensation awarded. Of course a similar right must be extended to the 750,000 or so Jews who claim they were forcibly expelled from Arab and Muslim countries at the time of Israel’s re-establishment. That’s only fair, isn’t it?”
a) RoR is an inalienable right. I.e., it applies to ALL civilians who flee a conflict, regardless of why they fled, regardless of who told them to flee, regardless of who started, stopped, won or lost a war, because they are CIVILIANS. They are civilians who might not have voted for, or even been able to vote for, the regime that started the war or who told them to flee or why they should flee.
B) People who take up citizenship in a new country no longer have refugee status. They forgo all that refugee status grants them. Are there any Jewish refugees today?
C) The good ‘professor’ denies for Palestinians, who are still refugees, who have not forgone their refugee rights, what he claims for Jews, who are no longer refugees.

“… Khaled Meshaal, the Syria-based leader of Hamas [too frightened, apparently, to return to Gaza] has reiterated that his party demands “Palestine from the sea to the river, from the west to the occupied east, and it must be liberated.” The BBC report explains that he is referring to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea “and therefore the state of Israel.” Not much hope of peace with him and his ilk, then, is there?”
This ‘Prof’ Alderman is a ‘professor’ of what? Ignorance?
Hamas is only a political party. Political parties cannot form states because they can change, regimes can dis-appear completely. A large percentage of the population might not have voted for them or might not have even been able to vote at all.
Look to the Declaration of a Jewish state for a good example. A People’s Council is necessary to Declare on behalf of ALL the people, regardless of their politics. A People’s Council is non-political and only exists to Declare statehood and administer until a Government is formed.


Professor Gerald Adler Sept 2009 Journal of the Law Society of Scotland Mr Ritchie’s article omits to make even a single reference to the role and earlier judgments of the Israeli Supreme Court. Since 1967, it has opened its doors to receive petitions for redress submitted by Palestinians alleging personal injury and harm or damage to their property within the OPT..”
A) Why should Mr Ritchie reference a court that has no Jurisdiction in an Occupied Territory? B) Professor Gerald Adler admits it’s the OPTs. Yet he doesn’t know that the Occupying Power has NO RIGHT to institute Israeli Civil Law in the OPTs? That the Israeli Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the OPT. The premise of his argument is based on IGNORING International Law. Israel’s claims are ALL based on ignoring International Law.

Laws of War Art. 55. “The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.”

 



Elliott A. Green ” USING INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM”
“International law has recognized Jewish rights to sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to settlement throughout the land. In April 1920…”
A typical Ziofied dialogue. No where does it mention ‘sovereignty’. It simply does not exist in the documents cited.


In support of their arguments, ALL of them cite their Ziofied versions of International Law, adding, changing, using words that simply do not exist in the actual documents. Yet ALL of them completely ignore International Law when it comes to Israel.

All of them ignore the FACT that Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory, ever! They ignore that the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem was declared ILLEGAL by the UNSC.

How can this be? Ignorance? No, some are Professors of Law. How can they be ignorant of the Law? Naive? No, they all lay claim to having ‘studied’ the the issue. How can they have missed the points raised here? How can they just ignore International Law as though it doesn’t exist. If it isn’t a sickness, are they lying? And if they’re lying, which is against the basic tenets of Judaism, why?

October 10, 2009

Watching AKUS put it’s shoes on backwards at CifWatch….again


The busy little beaver AKUS at CiFWatch sure knows how to put things through the Ziofier.

The headline on CiF….Circumcision – above the law? In anything other than a religious context, male circumcision would be regarded as a crime.
……is surely warning enough that what follows is a dialogue looking at the situation whereby, under the law, a male sexual organ may be mutilated on religious grounds.

However, the Ziofied headline on CiFWatch blares out FGM Represented on CiF as a ‘Freedom’ and ‘Equal Rights’ Issue .

In order to reach this startling confusion (sic), there’s a number of mandatory steps that must be taken from the Ziofier handbook. 1st ignore the bulk of the article. 2nd concentrate on a couple of sentences. 3rd Mis-construe ’em.

AKUS missed “the most cogent argument against circumcision – the fact that it is fundamentally at odds with English law.”

Missed “The term “genital mutilation” sounds far less civilised that the commonly used term “circumcision”. Yet the former is only ever used in relation to the removal of parts of female reproductive organs, and the latter, generally, for the removal of the foreskin from a male’s penis. Make no mistake, a circumcision is the mutilation of genitals regardless of the terminology.”

Missed ALL of this “Male children from the Jewish and Muslim faiths have their foreskins removed at a young age under as part of religious practice. This is an irreversible procedure that would otherwise be classed as grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The fact that it is performed with parental consent has been deemed sufficient in allowing this procedure to be performed under English law.

The argument that parental consent suffices to override the law falls flat when compared with the act of tattooing. The Tattooing of Minors Act prohibits the tattooing of any person under 18, regardless of whether a parent consents on their behalf. A tattoo is arguably less permanent than a circumcision. If a person must reach the age of 18 before being deemed able to understand and consent to the permanence of a tattoo, then why should this not apply to a male child being circumcised?”

Missed this “Furthermore, if circumcision of males is allowed on religious grounds, then the ruling in the case of Adesanya must have been erroneous. The court here decided that a Nigerian woman could be prosecuted for cutting her teenaged sons’ faces according to her cultural norms. It seems that freedom to commit GBH only extends to males, and only then of particular faiths or cultural backgrounds.”

Missed all but two sentences “Why then is male circumcision allowed at any age, and female circumcision proscribed even after a woman turns 18? Surely religious freedom cannot be given solely to males.”

Which is of course, a dig at the law, rather than advocating FGM. The law is an ass. If you’re Jewish/Muslim and a male, we can have some non-medical practitioner mutilate your penis, with impunity.

You’ve done it again CiFWatch, congratulations.

October 8, 2009

Israel vs Palestine – Spot the propagandists, bigots, abusers and racists for a Greater Israel


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-dN

They’re easy to spot….On almost any forum or comments related to the Palestinian / Israeli issue you’ll find ’em. palestinians, palestine, arabs, arab, muslim, muSlime, islam.

Meanwhile other names, such a Israel, Israeli, Jews, Jewish, Judea or Samaria, are Upper case

No better are those who lower case jews and or israel while upper casing Palestine etc

A typo? Sticky keyboard? Spelling or grammatical error? An inadvertent mistake? It’s reasonable to question why they apply it only to one party.

Classic example

JeffB says:
December 21, 2013 at 2:36 pm
I wish. When the response to a discussion of Israel / palestine is “where is Israel? Are the Jews the ones with the funny hats or are the Jews the muslims?” then the world is treating a tribal war between two tribes with six million people appropriately. Until then, yes they are still putting the Jews ahead of other people.

A mistake? There are no other mistakes…only to one party in the conflict

What kind of person purposefully belittles by lowercasing proper nouns relating only to one ‘tribe’? Racists? Bigots? Over and over, EVERY time they write “arab” or “palestinian”. Like Serial abusers.

Are they the kind of person you’d want supporting a state declared on behalf of all the world’s Jewish people?

How does it serve the interests of peace? How does it serve the interests of Israel or Palestine?

It doesn’t! They’re either sick or if it does exist simply evil!

Their deceitfulness is shown time and again as they side step, obfuscate and deliberately avoid answering honestly.

One JeffB when asked “who was PM of Israel 100 years ago? Currency? Flag?” comes up with

JeffB says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:33 pm

You mean produce stuff like:

Judea 285-246 BCE, another from the same period, Judaea, Valerius Gratus, Roman Prefect under Tiberius, 15 – 26 A.D or Judaean Kingdom, Herod Agrippa I, 37 – 44 A.D.

You may not like the facts. But it was a Jewish country for centuries.

He completely avoids 100 years ago and produces a host of irrelevant material, none of which is from a 100 years ago and none of which is relative to Israel’s current legal sovereign extent or Israel’s non existent right to claim territories it has illegally acquired by war since having proclaimed its borders.

The JeffB’s of the world are deceitful bigots and full of sh*te.

October 6, 2009

Liars for Israel, again. Obadiah Shoher breaks the basic tenets of Judaism!


ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-dn

From Obadiah Shoher – Samson Blinded Org. A rebuttal of the Goldstone report – The actual Goldstone Report

The lies begin in the 1st sentence…Comments in green
Goldstone report: the rebuttal
The Goldstone report’s title, Human rights in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, reveals its leanings. Since Gaza is also a part of Palestine, “other occupied Arab territories” can only refer to Israel proper.
“Israel ‘proper'”? Israel has never legally annexed any territory, Arab or otherwise. Israel proper is Sovereign Israel, as defined by the borders Israel Declared Sovereignty over May 14th 1948.

The UN commission was composed of professional human rights advocates, none of whom were experienced in military or anti-terrorism realities. To cover that glaring gap, the commission included one Colonel Travers, a human rights activist with no meaningful wartime experience.
Desmond Travers is a recently retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. In a career spanning over forty years, he served in various command and instructional appointments in the Infantry Corps. He was a founder of two of the Forces’ teaching and training institutions. He also served in command of troops and in key operational appointments with various UN and EU peace support missions. These were in the Middle-East (Cyprus, Lebanon) and in the Former Yugoslavia (Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina).

The fact that the Goldstone commission received the “full support” of the Hamas government (page 6) despite its nominal mandate to investigate Hamas’ crimes suggests that the terrorist group was assured of slap-on-the-wrist treatment.
The author attributes his own suggestion to the report.

The official Palestinian participant in the hearings, Muhammad Srour, was arrested in Israel immediately thereafter on security grounds.
Muhammad Srour was not charged with anything. He was released on 23 July 2009.

“The Goldstone commission heavily relied on the testimony of terrorists from both the Hamas and PA sides.”
An assumption by the author, with nothing to back it up.

The conclusions were predetermined by limiting the inquiry to the events following the July 2008 ceasefire (page 7). During the ceasefire, naturally, relatively few rockets were fired at Israel until the December escalation. As a result, Palestinian war crimes—indiscriminately launching 8,000 rockets at Israeli population centers over the last nine years—are only sketched in the report.
103. Palestinian armed groups have launched about 8000 rockets and mortars into southern Israel since 2001 (Chapter XIII). While communities such as Sderot and Kibbutz Nir-Am have been within the range of rocket and mortar fire since the beginning, the range of rocket fire increased to nearly 40 kilometres from the Gaza border, encompassing towns as far north as Ashdod, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
104. Since 18 June 2008, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza have killed 3 civilians inside Israel and 2 civilians in Gaza when a rocket landed short of the border on 26 December 2008. Reportedly, over 1000 civilians inside Israel were physically injured as a result of rocket and mortar attacks, 918 of which were injured during the time of the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
105. The Mission has taken particular note of the high level of psychological trauma suffered by the civilian population inside Israel. Data gathered by an Israeli organization in October 2007 found that 28.4% of adults and 72-94% of children in Sderot suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. 1596 people were reportedly treated for stress-related injuries during the military operations in Gaza while over 500 people were treated following the end of the operations.
106. Rocket and mortars have damaged houses, schools and cars in southern Israel. On 5 March 2009, a rocket struck a synagogue in Netivot. The rocket and mortar fire has adversely impacted on the right to education of children and adults living in southern Israel. This is a result of school closures and interruptions to classes by alerts and moving to shelters and also the diminished ability to learn that is witnessed in individual experiencing symptoms of psychological trauma.
107. The rocket and mortar fire has also adversely impacted on the economic and social life of the affected communities. For communities such as Ashdod, Yavne, Beer Sheba, which experienced rocket strikes for the first time during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, there was a brief interruption to their economy and cultural brought about by the temporary displacement of some of their residents. For towns closer to the Gaza border that have been under rocket and mortar fire since 2001, the recent escalation has added to the exodus of residents from these areas.
108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law.

The UN commission set an incredibly high standard of criminal behavior: “restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedoms relating to Israel’s strategies and actions in the context of Israeli military operations (page 7).“ Certainly, all military operations involve certain restrictions on rights and freedoms, and any army could be condemned with such a sweeping inquiry. Conspicuously, the commission chose not to investigate numerous violations of Israeli human rights by Palestinians, including a prohibition on visits to Palestinian-controlled areas by Jewish Israeli citizens.
A) Israel, under the 2005 agreement had ALL crossings into Gaza closed. It didn’t even allow journalists into Gaza. B) The report was a Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict

While accusing Israel of war crimes, the Goldstone report states explicitly that it does not “pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials (page 9).” In the same paragraph, the commission explicitly abrogates presumption of innocence for institutional bodies such as IDF or Israel, reserving the principle to individuals. The result of this approach is that Israel is blamed by default for all injuries to human rights in Gaza, whether she is culpable or not.
25. On this basis, the Mission has, to the best of its ability, determined what facts have been established. In many cases it has found that acts entailing individual criminal responsibility have been committed. In all of these cases the Mission has found that there is sufficient information to establish the objective elements of the crimes in question. In almost all of the cases the Mission has also been able to determine whether or not it appears that the acts in question were done deliberately or recklessly or in the knowledge that the consequence that resulted would result in the ordinary course of events. The Mission has thus referred in many cases to the relevant fault element (mens rea). The Mission fully appreciates the importance of the presumption of innocence: the findings in the report do not subvert the operation of that principle. The findings do not attempt to identify the individuals responsible for the commission of offences nor do they pretend to reach the standard of proof applicable in criminal trials.
26. In order to provide the parties concerned with an opportunity to submit additional relevant information and express their position and respond to allegations, the Mission also submitted comprehensive lists of questions to the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities in advance of completing its analysis and findings. The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.


Need one go on? Why do so many who defend Israel’s illegal activities break the basic tenets of Judaism?

About : Google banned our site from the AdSense advertising program for “unacceptable content,” “advocating against a group,” and “sensitive content.” Yahoo/ Overture restricted our ads to a few odd keywords. Adbrite closed our account. Amazon deleted all reviews to stop the discussion. Russian ad provider Begun rejected our ads as “extremist.” Many other sites and conventional media outlets refused our ads. China blocked our site

Is it any wonder?

October 4, 2009

Watching CifWatch lower themselves, resorting to toilet humour….


Unable to actually quote anything I’ve ever said said that fits their criteria, the folk who are unable to honestly address difficult questions on CiF or here. The same people who declare on their web site : “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard”, proudly announce …..
Time for Some Toilet Humor…Ever wondered why certain Guardianistas are able to spend so much time online talknicing out of their backsides…”

The irony of the ‘humor’ they’ve chosen to exhibit, their childish vindictiveness and choice of words, seems to escape them. It serves Israel how exactly? Who’d want to be associated with such people, let alone believe anything they have to say? If they’re representative of Israel, Israelis or Jewish folk, do they realize what kind of an ugly, spitefull, picture they’re presenting?

AKUS (re-appeared recently on CiF as Akusia ?), who is unable to produce a map of Israel’s Sovereign territory, because no doubt it’s too embarrassing, bravely leads the comments


October 4, 2009 at 12:32 am
AKUS
Indeed!
Typical outback humor!! And then, when the mods get into action – all those long, long, nitpicking comments just flushed down the toilet….
Free Eora! The Cadigals will rise again!!


October 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chas N-B
Superb! Shows they are going through the motions and that it’s good that CifWatch is flushing them out. I love how you guys cut the crap.
CifWatch: wiping clean the marble and smashing the cistern!
(Enough already.)

Indeed. Enough already to show folk who it is running off to the mods in what appears now as a self confessed and concerted effort to have folk banned, rather than addressing the points those folk might raise. Which makes their credo “The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard” seem rather incongruous and more than a tad shallow.

Enough already to show how un-aware AKUS is of his own transparency, blabbering on in ignorance about people with whom I have a close relationship and who he claimed were wiped out.

Enough already to show Chas N-B’s ‘toilet’ vocabulary has him in appropriate company.

How sad. In a world where real Antisemitism actually exists and should by all means be revealed, CiFWatch is busy revealing it’s adherents to be nothing more than hypocrites and sad little gutter snipes.

October 1, 2009

CiF on ‘alleged’ War Crimes. Israel vs the UN. Should Ehud Barak have immunity?


The Guardian CiF Afua Hirsch guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 September 2009The attempt to arrest the Israeli minister in Britain has rekindled a lively debate on diplomatic immunity from international law

First we should look at what International Law actually says. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Preamble: The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

Part I. General Provisions
Art 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

The UK, as a signatory to the Conventions, is a High Contracting party.

Art. 146.The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

Art. 149. At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Convention.

If agreement has not been reached concerning the procedure for the enquiry, the Parties should agree on the choice of an umpire who will decide upon the procedure to be followed.

Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay.

The answer seems to be NO! The operative words are ‘alleged to have’.

Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact that Israel confined the entire population of Gaza, preventing them from fleeing a war zone, by having all crossings closed under the 2005 agreement, including those between Gaza & Egypt. Escape was not possible, ironically, not even into the sea.

Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace. What exactly is he talking about though?


Why is Netanyahu lying again? Netanyahu’s speech to UNGA on 24th September 2009 was a litany of lies. Can we believe anything this man utters? Common sense should tell us, no!

Haaretz Netanyahu: UN Gaza report spells death for peace
Earlier Wednesday, Netanyahu said that allowing the International Criminal Court in the Hague try the war crimes alleged in the report would deal a death blow to peace. Speaking during a meeting with ambassadors from Asia and the Pacific islands, Netanyahu said that the Goldstone report and its conclusions could impede peace and make it difficult for democratic nations around the globe to fight terror.

Netanyahu explained to the ambassadors that the principle that a democratic nation has a legitimate right to respond to terror has been “crushed by a body belonging to the United Nations.” “This is a serious blow to the UN,” he went on to say. “It [the UN] could revert back to the days when it compared Zionism to racism. It’s starting in Israel, but it will reach other nations and it will hurt the UN.”

“Anyone who supports the Goldstone report and its conclusions is in effect against peace,” the prime minister continued, “since no country, and no people, would be willing to take risks for the sake of peace if their right to self defense was taken away.” “If the report reaches the international court in Hague, it will bring the peace process to a halt because Israel won’t take the risks necessary to achieve peace if it is not assured the right to defend itself. Anyone who desires peace must stop this report right now,” the prime minister concluded, asking the ambassadors to pass the message along to their respective governments.

No one is suggesting taking away Israel’s right to self defense. They do propose though, as a matter of course, that defense be in accordance with the UN Charter & Laws of War (both mandatory for all UN Members), and the Geneva Conventions Israel has ratified. This is no more or less than is asked of all UN Member States. Why should Israel be exempt?

So why does the Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel, stand before the world and continually break one of the basic tenets of the faith for Jewish people, time and time again? Has lying become the norm? Could Netanyahu be worried that at last 62 years of deceit is un-ravelling and the world is at last seeing the little emperor without it’s clothes?

When a country believes it’s own propaganda, it’s in deep shite! The Gulf of Tonkin Affair led to the US being bogged down in Vietnam for years and countless deaths. The ‘WMDs in Iraq’ conspiracy theory, led to death and destruction in Iraq, which continues today. Israel has been at it for 62 years. ‘Rockets target Israeli cities in Southern Israel’ blare the headlines. Yet Israel has never annexed ANY of the territories it illegally acquired by war by 1949, North or South. Netinyahu must surely know which territories the state of Israel has annexed!

Netinyahu must surely know that a Sovereign State has a right to defend itself from within it’s Sovereign borders. So what exactly is he talking about? Like the demographic threat fallacy, Netinyahu is talking about what Israel has illegally taken, that which is not it’s own.

Illegally acquired territory in the north, never annexed
illegally acquired territory in the north, never annexed
Illegally acquired territory in the south, never annexed
illegally acquired territory in the south, never annexed

And of course East Jerusalem, also not legally annexed.

Israeli propaganda and lies over the last 62 years has spelled death for the peace process, for 62 years. It has spelled death for tens of thousands of innocent people, Israeli and Palestinian. There are no doubt billions of dollars tied up in the construction contracts for the illegal settlements, another bullet against peace. It has now become a convoluted and complex web, ensnaring innocent Jewish people who’ve been fed the notion that Israel somehow has a legal right to these territories. They now blindly walk down a path that guarantees there will be no peace, oblivious to the consequences of breaking the basic tenets of Judaism.

Blog at WordPress.com.