THE JEWISH CLAIM TO PALESTINE FROM 2 SOURCES

In 135 CE, after having long-become a province of the Roman Empire,
Judea’s third and last revolt against Rome was crushed by Emperor Hadrian;
but Rome’s army also suffered devastating losses, including the complete
annihilation of its illustrious XXII Legion. In furtherance of Rome’s
costly victory, Hadrian — in a blatant propaganda effort to delegitimize
further national Jewish claims to the Land — renamed the province
Palestina (Palestine) after the Philistines, a long-extinct Aegean people
who had disappeared from History approximately a millennium earlier.
However, although the province had been converted from Judea (– Land of
the Jews –) into Palestina (– Land of the Philistines –), it continued
to be populated by Jews, together with substantial minority populations of
Christians and Samaritans, but hardly any Arabs, at least until the great
Arab invasion of 638 CE, as a result of which, 73 years later, Byzantium’s
Christian basilica known as the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, which
then sat atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, was remade into Islam’s Al-Aksa
mosque. But even under the rule of the Arab and all subsequently
superseding empires, the Jewish people nevertheless maintained a
continuous national presence in “Palestine” — right up until the

resurrection therein of the Jewish nation-state of Israel in 1948 CE.

http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm

The visit of Karl Marx to Jerusalem shows that in the mid 19th century the Jews were in the majority in Jerusalem

 [Quote from Marx starts here]

“The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, this quarter of dirt between  Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. The Jews, however, are not natives, but from distant and different countries, and are only attracted to Jerusalem by the desire of inhabiting the Valley of Jehosophat and to die in the very places where their Redemptor is to be expected.

‘Attending their death,‘ says a French author, ‘they suffer and pray. Their regards turned to that mountain of Moriah, where once rose the temple of Solomon, and which they dare not approach, they shed tears on the misfortunes of Zion, and their dispersion over the world.‘”[2]

[Quote from Marx ends here]

Weinstock continues:

In passing, Marx informs us that Jerusalem had 15,500 inhabitants, including 8,000 Jews and 4,000 Moslems (Arabs, Turks and Moors).

His remarks are confirmed by all contemporary observers. We will leave out the surveys of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, whose objectivity might be questioned by suspicious readers, and rely instead on the accounts of Catholic writers of travel guides for pilgrims to the Holy Land. These edifying tours invariably culminated in the contemplation of the spectacle – both instructive and heartrending – of the downtrodden Jews, living in the most extreme poverty. Frozen in prayer before the Wailing Wall, they formed a living illustration of the degeneration of the “killers of God.” And in order to heighten the impact of this grand finale, a point would be made, before undertaking this final step,  including a visit to the Jewish quarter in the programme.

“This is by far the darkest and most unhealthy part of the whole city. (…) The wretched appearance of the inhabitants and the disgusting state of this district mean that nobody passing through it can forget God’s curse which weighs so visibly on the Jewish people.”[3]

Let’s return to the picture Marx painted of the Jews of Jerusalem.

What does he show us?

* That the Jews inhabit “the most filthy quarter of the town“, “the quarter of dirt.”

* That they were “the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance,“ without this sparing them the insults of the Greeks and persecution of the Latins.

* That in this period the Jews of Jerusalem were not indigenous (in fact, the Jewish population of the city and the larger area had been growing constantly since the end of the 18th century through the addition of newcomers from the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere) and that they awaited death while praying for redemption.

https://4international.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/in-1954-karl-marx-wrote-about-jews-in-majority-in-jerusalem/

EVEN THE ARABS AT FIRST RECOGNIZED THE JEWS CLAIM TO PALESTINE

By Felix Quigley

February 9, 2010

SERIES OF HISTORICAL ARTICLES

Based on opus by Joseph Alexander Norland (from 2004) and other writers

Details of that work can be googled, namely

“23 reasons”
In the latter half of 2002, I started posting a series of 23 articles, each detailing one reason why I oppose the creation of a sovereign Arab state in Yesha. The entire series was posted eventually as one PDF file on a server which no longer operates.

I have now transferred the file to IsraPundit so that it may be downloaded from our site. Click the “Download PDF” link below.

Download PDF

Alternatively, the PDF file is available in ZIP format and may be downloaded by clicking “Download ZIP” below:

Download ZIP

The precise url is

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2004/02/23_reasons.php

Palestine belongs to the Jews. it is their ancestral land.

Joseph Alexander Norland put it like this in his outstanding opus some years ago:

Palestine belongs to the Jews as their ancestral land, a land inhabited by Jews continuously
for thousands of years.  The Jewish connection to Palestine was recognized by the “Internationl
Community” in the form of the League of Nations’ mandate over Palestine.

 

The League of nations Mandate says the following to back up that statement:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory
should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally
made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty,
and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly
understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country ;

and

 

Whereas

 

recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of
the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting

their national home in that country…”

  

Among the parties present at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, were Felix Frankfurter and Chaim
Weizmann on behalf of the Zionist movement, and the Emir Feisal on behalf of the Hedjaz (now
Saudi Arabia).  In the course of their meetings, Feisal wrote a letter addressed to Frankfurter and
dated 3 March, 1919. 

The letter, which may be found at

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal2.html
stated:

 

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy
on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted
with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to
Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our
best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through:
we will wish
the Jews a most hearty welcome home.
Unless Feisal himself recognized the Jewish historical claim to Palestine, there would be no meaning
to the sentence, “we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home”.  Hence it is clear that the
Jewish claim to Palestine was already well established even among the Arabs, when the League of
Nations granted the British a mandate over Palestine on July 24, 1922.

PERSECUTION OF GEERT WILDERS IS ROOTED IN CAPITALIST SYSTEM´S CRISIS

by Felix Quigley

February 8, 2009

Why is Geert Wilders on trial in the Netherlands? He should never be on trial, rather he should be supported by every progressive person who is opposed to the degradation of women by Islam.

On the very basic level of free speech Wilders must be supported by every progressive person. And what about those who are silent on this trial?

These are some people who have spoken out.

BAT YE’OR
Geert Wilders is a hero for those countless Europeans who cherish a free and democratic Europe — a Europe proud of its Judeo-Christian and humanistic values, its civilization, and its achievements in the field of human rights. But this is not today’s Europe. In today’s Europe, synagogues, Jewish schools, clubs, and cemeteries need to be guarded — as if going to a Jewish school or praying in a synagogue were a crime punishable by death as in Nazi-occupied Europe. Intellectuals, scholars, and those who protest the creeping Eurabization of culture and society are threatened, boycotted by their colleagues, thrown out of their jobs, forced to leave their families and go into hiding, or obliged to live with bodyguards. Wilders has devoted his life to freeing Europe from Eurabia’s clutches. To this titanic struggle he has sacrificed the security of his life and the joys of family. Threatened by a desert whirlwind blowing hatred upon Europe from the south, spending days and nights shielded by bodyguards, persecuted and tormented by his feckless Eurabian opponents, Geert Wilders incarnates the free soul of an unbending Europe.

Bat Ye’or is author, most recently, of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis.

This comment by Paul Marshall is very important and it mentions the fact that Wilders has been forced to live in safe houses and is in constant danger

PAUL MARSHALL
The American media’s silence about the Geert Wilders trial is puzzling — the trial is explosive, much more so than most of America’s perennial “trials of the century.” Wilders, leader of the Freedom party, is arguably the Netherlands’s most popular politician, but for years he has had to live in safe houses, including on military bases. He now faces the possibility of imprisonment on charges of “group insult” and “incitement to hatred,” as defined by articles 137 (c) and (d) of the Dutch penal code, for his public speeches and op-eds criticizing Islam.

Apart from its direct and immediate threat to free speech, the trial exposes the growth of political violence and repression in the Netherlands, long lauded as the most tolerant country in Europe, if not the world. Thirty years ago, I interviewed then–prime minister Dries van Agt simply by strolling into his unguarded parliamentary office and asking his secretary if he could spare me a couple of minutes. Now it is a country where politicians and artists are targeted by vigilantes and the state.

In 2002, popular Dutch politician and gay activist Pim Fortuyn was murdered by an environmentalist who took offense at Fortuyn’s criticism of Islam. In 2004, one of the country’s leading documentarians, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered, and almost beheaded, on the streets of Amsterdam in retaliation for a film he made about Islam (Submission). In 2006, a gathering of scholars and commentators critical of Islam and Islamism led the Dutch security service to invoke an alert level just short of “national emergency.” In 2008, the prospective release of Wilders’s film Fitna led to special sessions of the Dutch cabinet. The country’s best-known member of parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for many years had to live in hiding, and even briefly fled the country. This is the situation in the heart of liberal Europe.
The media’s silence is also disturbing since it indicates their reluctance, even fear, when it comes to grappling with the West’s increasing censorship of anything that might be deemed offensive to some Muslims. So far, the effects in the U.S. are small — such as the Yale University Press’s removing the famous Danish cartoons from a book about those same cartoons — but they betray a mindset common to much of Europe: preemptive self-censorship. Media outlets that defended and lauded Salman Rushdie two decades ago, when the Ayatollah Khomeini called for him to be killed over The Satanic Verses, now cringe and shy away from those facing similar threats.

Within much of the Muslim world, political and religious debate, especially amongst Muslims, is shut down in the name of preventing anything that could “insult Islam.” Unless we strenuously defend Wilders’s right — and our own right — to speak, especially to criticize and offend, we will stumble down the same path.

Paul Marshall is senior fellow at Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

The reference to Theo Van Gogh is timely
CLIFFORD D. MAY
I used to think of the Netherlands as a land of tulips, windmills, Anne Frank, and a little boy with his finger in the dike. Increasingly, I think of it as the place where Theo van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight, Aayan Hirsi Ali was betrayed, and free speech is on trial.

Pretty much all you need to know about the prosecution of the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders was summed up in a single (if run-on) sentence attributed to the “Openbaar Ministerie,” which is not, as the name might suggest, a place that serves free whiskey to pastors. It is the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

In response to Wilders’s request to bring in witnesses to establish the veracity of the opinions that got him in trouble with the law, that body issued this statement on January 17: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.”

In other words, the prosecutors believe that the truth is not a defense in the Netherlands, nor perhaps elsewhere in Europe — a continent that appears no longer to have the will to defend its values, culture, and civilization. Very sad.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and militant Islamism.

The crucial issue of the First Amendment is raised by Pipes

DANIEL PIPES
Wilders is in court because the Netherlands has no First Amendment, and so endlessly tries to figure out what speech to permit and what to prohibit. Wilders is hardly the only victim of this predicament; the arrest and jailing in 2008 of a cartoonist who goes by “Gregorius Nekschot” notoriously symbolized the state’s incoherence.
U.S. media should cover the Wilders proceedings because Wilders’s career has implications beyond one man, one party, or one country. It potentially affects all of Europe as the continent works out its response to the Islamic challenge. The U.S. media does an adequate job of informing its audience about this topic, so the near-silence about Wilders comes as a bit of a surprise.

The Islamic challenge forces Europeans to take stock of themselves in an unprecedented way. Colorful examples include the British ICONS project, which features 120 “national treasures” that help define English culture; the Dutch government’s film for potential immigrants that features a topless woman on the beach and two men kissing; and the French prime minister’s decision to expel a man from France for compelling his wife to wear a burqa.

Europe’s future is in play. Wilders’s time in court affects the outcome.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. 

It is very correct and of great importance to link the Wilders case to that of Salman Rushdie all those years ago

NINA SHEA
In 1989, Iran’s supreme leader issued a blasphemy fatwa against Salman Rushdie in London. It was the opening volley in a new Muslim push — later taken up by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference — to force the West to adopt Islamic-blasphemy strictures within its borders. Intimidated, the West has begun to comply. It does so mostly through self-censorship and by prosecuting those who do speak out under religious-hate-speech laws such as those invoked in the Netherlands against Wilders. These laws are the West’s proxy for blasphemy bans.

The danger has not been mass imprisonment — actual convictions have been few — but the creation of a general deterrent to criticism of Islam or anything Islamic. Europe’s leaders likely believe that banning religious hate speech is a small price to pay for greater security; if so, they are wrong. The premise that religion can be easily compartmentalized, relegated to an autonomous sphere separate from politics and culture, is a misconception. Europe’s present path has profound implications for scholarship, political progress, social and economic development, and national security. This chilling of speech, aggravated by Muslim violence, erodes fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and threatens the West’s very identity.

Such laws will not bring social harmony. Anti-blasphemy pushes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, and elsewhere are often driven by implacable ideologues and political opportunists. Muslims who protest the radicals’ agenda are the first to be silenced. As Malaysia’s former finance minister observed, religious hate-speech laws all depend on the “elastic goo” of public sentiment. A nation that entertains such cases will be forced to go from issue to issue, “hostage to the brinkmanship of sensitivities.”

 — Nina Shea is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.

Spencer is very prescient in drawing a link to the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s, and he and Andrew Bostom have written on the very close lin k between the Nazis and islam ideology

ROBERT SPENCER
The Geert Wilders trial ought to be an international media event; seldom has any court case anywhere had such enormous implications for the future of the free world. The case against him, which has all the legitimacy of a Stalinist-era Moscow show trial, is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech sponsored chiefly at the U.N. by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). If Wilders loses, the freedom of speech will be threatened everywhere in the West.

Even if he wins, a dangerous precedent has been set by the fact of the trial itself: It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be opened up to absurdities even greater than the Wilders trial.

But of course what Dutch authorities, Muslim groups in the Netherlands, and the OIC really want to accomplish is to silence Wilders’s truth-telling about jihad and Islamic supremacism. The court’s railroading of Wilders was clear from that fact that 15 of his 18 requested witnesses were disallowed, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the Koran-inspired murderer of Theo Van Gogh who would have proven Wilders’s point immediately. As Wilders himself put it Wednesday: “This court is not interested in the truth. This court doesn’t want me to have a fair trial.” The darkness descending over Europe, as indicated by this trial, may ensure that there is no fair trial there again for a long, long time.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/424251/western-civilization-on-trial/nro-symposium?page=1

Additional note by Felix Quigley

The issue of the trial of Geert Wilders raises the issue of state power. What is not made explicit in these otherwise wonderfully accurate statements by these famous people is that it is the state which is persecuting Wilders, and we have here an alliance of these forces

1. the capitalist state itself, a reflection of the EU as a whole

2. the forces of Islam, once in alliance with none other than Hitler and the Nazis

3. other churches who are silent, not least the Vatican

4.  the Stalinist and Antisemitic left

 

What is also left out by these writers is what to do about this.

It is necessary to create a new leadership because the same forces who are ranged against Wilders are also ranged against Israel, and in the 90s were ranged against the Serbs. And they will of course be ranged against trade unionism, against socialism and against all working class and progressive liberties.

What to do?

It requires a new leadership in the left which will be able to tell the truth and to posit these issues in the overall context of capitalist crisis.

Whatever individual governments may say there is a need by every capitalist government, for example in Britain, for example in the US, to stop political discussion of these vital matters.

Instead of discussing these issues suddenly we have shady individuals and groups proliferating who are advancing “conspiracy” theories, which in practice all end up in Jew Hatred, that is the oldest hatred which is antisemitism.

“Watch this space” as they say!

I notice that all of these conspiracy nuts are engaged in creating a cover for Ahmadinejad and the aim of the Islamofascists to kill as many Jews as possible.

I read these very good comments above in this light, of the need to educate a cadre, the need to build in the world a revolutionary socialist party, a Trotskyist party.

COURAGEOUS VOICE IN SPAIN OF PILAR RAHOLA

by Felix Quigley

February 4, 2009

Remember 1492 when the cowardly Spanish expelled all the Jews. never let them forget this!

But there is (hopefully and we are confident many more) one Spaniard at least…

(Begin speech by Pilar Rahola here)

A speech given by Pilar Rahola at the Conference in the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism.

Jews of Six Arms, speech by Pilar Rahola*

pilar20rahola

A meeting in Barcelona with a hundred lawyers and judges a month ago.

They have come together to hear my opinions on the Middle-Eastern conflict. They know that I am a heterodoxal vessel, in the shipwreck of “single thinking” regarding Israel, which rules in my country. They want to listen to me, because they ask themselves why, if Pilar is a serious journalist, does she risk losing her credibility by defending the bad guys, the guilty? I answer provocatively – You all believe that you are experts in international politics when you talk about Israel, but you really know nothing. Would you dare talk about the conflict in Rwanda, in Kashmir? In Chechnya? – No.

They are jurists, their turf is not geopolitics. But against Israel they dare, as does everybody else. Why? Because Israel is permanently under the media magnifying glass and the distorted image pollutes the world’s brains. And because it is part of what is politically correct, it seems part of solidarity, because talking against Israel is free. And so, cultured people when they read about Israel, are ready to believe that Jews have six arms, in the same way that during the Middle Ages people believed all sorts of outrageous things.

The first question, then, is why so many intelligent people, when talking about Israel, suddenly become idiots. The problem that those of us, who do not demonize Israel have, is that there exists no debate on the conflict. All that exists is the banner; there’s no exchange of ideas. We throw slogans at each other; we don’t have serious information, we suffer from the “burger journalism” syndrome, full of prejudices, propaganda and simplification. Intellectual thinkers and international journalists have given up on Israel. It doesn’t exist exist. That is why, when someone tries to go beyond the “single thought” of criticizing Israel, he becomes suspect and unfaithful, and is immediately segregated. Why?

I’ve been trying to answer this question for years: why?

Why, of all the conflicts in the world only this one interests them?

Why is a tiny country which struggles to survive criminalized?

Why does manipulated information triumph so easily?

Why are all the people of Israel, reduced to a simple mass of murderous imperialists?

Why is there no Palestinian guilt?

Why is Arafat a hero and Sharon a monster?

Finally, why when Israel is the only country in the World which is threatened with extinction, it is also the only one that nobody considers a victim?

I don’t believe that there is a single answer to these questions. Just as it is impossible to completely explain the historical evil of anti-Semitism, it is also not possible to totally explain the present-day imbecility of anti-Israelism. Both drink from the fountain of intolerance and lies. Also, if we accept that anti-Israelism is the new form of anti-Semitism, we conclude that circumstances may have changed, but the deepest myths, both of the Medieval Christian anti-Semitism and of the modern political anti-Semitism, are still intact. Those myths are part of the chronicle of Israel.

For example, the Medieval Jew accused of killing Christian children to drink their blood connects directly with the Israeli Jew who kills Palestinian children to steal their land. Always they are innocent children and dark Jews. Similarly, the Jewish bankers who wanted to dominate the world through the European banks, according to the myth of the Protocols, connect directly with the idea that the Wall Street Jews want to dominate the World through the White House. Control of the Press, control of Finances, the Universal Conspiracy, all that which has created the historical hatred against the Jews, is found today in hatred of the Israelis. In the subconscious, then, beats the DNA of the Western anti-Semite, which produces an efficient cultural medium. But what beats in the conscious? Why does a renewed intolerance surge with such virulence, centered now, not against the Jewish people, but against the Jewish state? From my point of view, this has historical and geopolitical motives, among others, the decades long bloody Soviet role , the European Anti-Americanism, the West’s energy dependency and the growing Islamist phenomenon.

But it also emerges from a set of defeats which we suffer as free societies, leading to a strong ethical relativism.

The moral defeat of the left. For decades, the left raised the flag of freedom wherever there was injustice. It was the depositary of the utopian hopes of society. It was the great builder of the future. Despite the murderous evil of Stalinism’s sinking these utopias, the left has preserved intact its aura of struggle, and still pretends to point out good and evil in the world. Even those who would never vote for leftist options, grant great prestige to leftist intellectuals, and allow them to be the ones who monopolize the concept of solidarity. As they have always done. Thus, those who struggled against Pinochet were freedom-fighters, but Castro’s victims, are expelled from the heroes’ paradise, and converted into undercover fascists.

This historic treason to freedom is reproduced nowadays, with mathematical precision. For example, the leaders of Hezbollah are considered resistance heroes, while pacifists like the Israeli singer Noa, are insulted in the streets of Barcelona. Today too, as yesterday, the left is hawking totalitarian ideologies, falls in love with dictators and, in its offensive against Israel, ignores the destruction of fundamental rights. It hates rabbis, but falls in love with imams; shouts against the Israeli Defense Forces, but applauds Hamas’s terrorists; weeps for the Palestinian victims, but scorns the Jewish victims, and when it is touched by Palestinian children, it does it only if it can blame the Israelis.

It will never denounce the culture of hatred, or its preparation for murder. A year ago, at the AIPAC conference in Washington I asked the following questions:

Why don’t we see demonstrations in Europe against the Islamic dictatorships?

Why are there no demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of Muslim women?

Why are there no declarations against the use of bomb-carrying children in the conflicts in which Islam is involved?

Why is the left only obsessed with fighting against two of the most solid democracies of the planet, those which have suffered the bloodiest terrorist attacks, the United States and Israel?

Because the left no longer has any ideas, only slogans. It no longer defends rights, but prejudices. And the greatest prejudice of all is the one aimed against Israel. I accuse, then, in a formal manner that the main responsibility for the new anti-Semitic hatred disguised as anti-Zionism, comes from those who should have been there to defend freedom, solidarity and progress. Far from it, they defend despots, forget their victims and remain silent before medieval ideologies which aim at the destruction of free societies. The treason of the left is an authentic treason against modernity.

Defeat of Journalism. We have more information in the world than ever before, but we do not have a better informed world. Quite the contrary, the information superhighway connects us anywhere in the planet, but it does not connect us with the truth. Today’s journalists do not need maps, since they have Google Earth, they do not need to know History, since they have Wikipedia. The historical journalists, who knew the roots of a conflict, still exist, but they are an endangered species, devoured by that “fast food” journalism which offers hamburger news, to readers who want fast-food information. Israel is the world’s most watched place, but despite that, it is the world’s least understood place. Of course one must keep in mind the pressure of the great petrodollar lobbies, whose influence upon journalism is subtle but deep. Mass media knows that if it speaks against Israel, it will have no problems. But what would happen if it criticized an Islamic country? Without doubt, it would complicate its existence. Certainly part of the press that writes against Israel, would see themselves mirrored in Mark Twain’s ironical sentence: “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please”.

Defeat of critical thinking. To all this one must add the ethical relativism which defines the present times: it is based not on denying the values of civilization, but rather in their most extreme banality. What is modernity?

I explain it with this little tale: If I were lost in an uncharted island, and would want to found a democratic society, I would only need three written documents: The Ten Commandments (which established the first code of modernity. “Thou shalt not murder“ founded modern civilization.); The Roman Penal Code; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And with these three texts we would start again. These principles are relativized daily, even by those who claim to be defending them.

“Thou shalt not murder” … depending on who is the target, must think those who, like the demonstrators in Europe, shouted in support of Hamas.

“Hurray for Freedom of Speech!”….. , or not. For example, several Spanish left-wing organizations tried to take me to court, accusing me of being a negationist, like the Nazis, because I deny the “Palestinian Holocaust”. They were attempting to prohibit me from writing articles and to send me to prison. And so on… The social critical mass has lost weight and, at the same time ideological dogmatism has gained weight. In this double turn of events, the strong values of modernity have been substituted by a “weak thinking”, vulnerable to manipulation and Manichaeism.

Defeat of the United Nations. And with it, a sound defeat of the international organizations which should protect Human Rights. Instead they have become broken puppets in the hands of despots. The United Nations is only useful to Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad, or dangerous demagogues like Hugo Chavez which offers them a planetary loudspeaker where they can spit their hatred. And, of course, to systematically attack Israel. The UN, too exists to fight Israel.

Finally, defeat of Islam. Tolerant and cultural Islam suffers today the violent attack of a totalitarian virus which tries to stop its ethical development. This virus uses the name of God to perpetrate the most terrible horrors: lapidate women, enslave them, use youths as human bombs. Let’s not forget: They kill us with cellular phones connected to the Middle Ages. If Stalinism destroyed the left, and Nazism destroyed Europe, Islamic fundamentalism is destroying Islam. And it also has an anti-Semitic DNA. Perhaps Islamic anti-Semitism is the most serious intolerant phenomenon of our times; indeed, it contaminates more than 1,400 million people, who are educated, massively, in hatred towards the Jew.

In the crossroads of these defeats, is Israel. Orphan and forgotten by a reasonable left, orphan and abandoned by serious journalism, orphan and rejected by a decent UN, and rejected by a tolerant Islam, Israel suffers the paradigm of the 21st Century: the lack of a solid commitment with the values of liberty. Nothing seems strange. Jewish culture represents, as no other does, the metaphor of a concept of civilization which suffers today attacks on all flanks. The Jews are the thermometer of the world’s health. Whenever the world has had totalitarian fever, they have suffered. In the Spanish Middle Ages, in Christian persecutions, in Russian pogroms, in European Fascism, in Islamic fundamentalism. Always, the first enemy of totalitarianism has been the Jew. And, in these times of energy dependency and social uncertainty, Israel embodies, in its own flesh, the eternal Jew.

A pariah nation among nations, for a pariah people among peoples. That is why the anti-Semitism of the 21st Century has dressed itself with the efficient disguise of anti-Israelism, or its synonym, anti-Zionism. Is all criticism of Israel anti-Semitism? NO. But all present-day anti-Semitism has turned into prejudice and the demonization of the Jewish State. New clothes for an old hatred.

Benjamin Franklin said: “Where liberty is, there is my country.” And Albert Einstein added: “The World is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don’t do anything about it”. This is the double commitment, here and now; never remain inactive in front of evil in action and defend the countries of liberty.

* For those of you not familiar with Dr. Rahola, she is a Spanish Catalan journalist, writer, and former politician and Member of Parliament.

Pilar Rahola has published several books in Spanish and Catalan and is a columnist in La Vanguardia, Spain; La Nación, Argentina; and Diario de América, USA. Rahola appears frequently on television and has taken part in several university lectures. From 1987 to 1990, she was director of the Catalan publishing house Pòrtic, and as a journalist, she covered the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, the Balkan Wars, the Gulf War, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. As a politician, Rahola was the only member of the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya in the Spanish Congress of Deputies in 5th and 6th Spanish legislatures. She also served as vice-mayor of Barcelona. Rahola also participated in several committees of investigation, especially those related to political corruption such as the comisión Roldán. In 1996, she left Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya to join Àngel Colom and Joan Laporta in a new political group, the “Partit per la Independència”, but after this failed, she concentrated on journalism and writing. Her areas of interest include women’s rights, international human rights, and animal rights. In recent years she has attracted controversy in Spain for her critical support of Israel and Zionism.

// <![CDATA[
//OBSTART:do_NOT_remove_this_comment
var OutbrainPermaLink=”http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=20252&#8243;;
if(typeof(OB_Script)!=’undefined’){
OutbrainStart();
} else {
var OB_demoMode = false;

var OBITm = “1213211595”;
var OB_Script = true;
var OB_langJS = “”;
document.write (“”);
}
//OBEND:do_NOT_remove_this_comment
// ]]>

THE PRICE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN FIGHT WITH ISLAM

by Felix Quigley

February 4, 2010

Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch has this vital analysis which concerns how political correctness is causing the deaths of many fighters against the Taliban in the American and other armies there

Remember that if the Taliban win millions of Afghan women will be immediately enslaved

Take note of this all those antisemites in Britain, the Media and the Left so called

(Begin Robert Spencers analysis of political correctness here)

In Human Events this morning I discuss a simple truth that American policymakers prefer to ignore:

Last Friday an Afghan interpreter shot dead two of his employers, American soldiers serving in Afghanistan. He was able to gain access to them, of course, and to be in their presence, because he had won their trust with his translation work and they let their guard down.Their trust was misplaced; and they were not the first American soldiers to die in this way and — tragically — likely won’t be the last. This episode yet again illustrates a key but almost completely overlooked difficulty that hamstrings our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as well: there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a potentially violent jihadist short of elaborate behavioral profiling such as the Israelis do on air travelers.

The U.S. military denies that he was a jihadist at all, saying that he was a “disgruntled employee” angry about pay and treatment. Our military is so awash in political correctness that they — to paraphrase the words of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey — would think it more tragic if their commitment to “diversity” were damaged than if another massacre such as the Fort Hood murders occurred.

The denial that the Afghanistan bomber wasn’t a jihadi doesn’t ring true, any more than did the official denials that the Fort Hood jihad massacre had anything to do with jihad. I myself once had a job in which I was disgruntled about pay and treatment; perhaps not so oddly, I never opened fire. There is obviously more to this story than is being revealed, and most likely, here again what is being left out has to do with Islamic jihad, and with the impossibility of distinguishing a “moderate” from a “radical” Muslim.

Given the almost universal acceptance of the iron dogma that Islam is a Religion of Peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, this impossibility may come as a surprise. But in reality, there is no mainstream sect of Islam or school of Islamic jurisprudence whose authorities have renounced and rejected violent jihad and Islamic supremacism, and declared that anyone who holds to the idea that Muslims have a collective responsibility to wage war against Infidels and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law is a heretic.

If there were such a sect or school in Afghanistan or elsewhere where there is an American military presence, one could rely on the peaceful group and shun the group that taught violence. But there is no such group. Contrary to popular belief, not only is the principle of jihad warfare against unbelievers not the province of a “tiny minority of extremists,” but it is taught by every mainstream sect and school of Islam.

The U.S. government, of course, denies this fact and bases numerous policies upon the assumption that the vast majority of Muslims share universally accepted notions of human rights, and abhor jihad terrorism. The deaths of these two soldiers are the fruit of that false assumption — and just as they were not the first casualties caused by this mistaken idea, they will not be the last.

This is not to say, of course, that nothing at all can be done with the locals in Afghanistan. The problem in Afghanistan is not unique to that country: the locals can be paid off to fight, but even then their loyalty is not guaranteed. And once the money flow stops, they will fight for the next paymaster — and when no paymaster is there, they will fight each other. This is a weak reed on which to build a reliable alliance, and has already been shown to have been a spectacular failure in Pakistan, where the U.S. government has showered billions over the years upon the Pakistanis in order to induce them to fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, only to see a good amount of that money funneled to those very groups by jihadist ideologues within the Pakistani government. Yet the Pelosi Congress’s solution to this problem was to triple aid to the Pakistanis, without devising any improved mechanism for accountability.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration is going to have to make some hard decisions about the level of access that Muslim employees and collaborators of all kinds are given to U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and elsewhere. But this will require Administration officials to take off their politically correct blinders and face some hard and inconvenient truths. If they do so, these two soldiers who died in Afghanistan will not have died in vain.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

GIRL BURIED ALIVE…FAMILY UNHAPPY SHE HAD MALE FRIENDS!

By James Stephens

February 4, 2009

Of course, Islam is just like all the other religions, Judaism Hinduism and Christianity (irony intended)

This is from Hugh on Jihadwatch

(Begin story of honour killing here)

Girl buried alive in honour killing in Turkey: Report,” from AFP, February 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

ANKARA – A 16-year-old girl was buried alive by relatives in southeast Turkey in a gruesome honour killing just because she reportedly befriended boys, the Anatolia news agency reported Thursday.Acting on a tip-off, police discovered Medine Memi’s body in a sitting position with her hands tied, in a two-metre-deep hole in a chicken pen outside her house in Kahta town, Adiyaman province, 40 days after she went missing, the agency said.

A subsequent post mortem revealed that she had a significant amount of soil in her lungs and stomach, meaning that she was buried alive, foresic experts told the agency.

The autopsy result is blood-curdling. According to our findings, the girl — who had no bruises on her body and no sign of narcotics or poison in her blood — was alive and fully conscious when she was buried,” one anonymous expert said.

Medine’s father and grandfather have been formally arrested and jailed pending trial over her killing, the agency said.

The father is reported to have said in his testimony that the family was unhappy she had male friends.

In honour killings, most prevalent in Turkey’s mainly Kurdish southeast, a so-called family council names a member to murder a female relative considered to have sullied the family honour, usually by engaging in an extra-marital affair.

But the practice has gone so far as to kill rape victims or women who simply talked to strange men.

 

The introduction tothis article from Hugh on Jihadwatch gives some background to this barbaric practice and issue

Girl buried alive in honor killing in Turkey

Syria recently scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'”

That’s right: two years for murder! You can serve more time than that for serial double parking.

In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”

And a manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

That’s why these honor killings keep happening — because they are broadly tolerated, even encouraged, by Islamic teachings and attitudes. Yet no authorities are calling Islamic leaders to account for this.

VISIT THE NEW GEERT WILDERS WEBSITE

by Felix Quigley

February 4, 2009

The new international website for the Geert Wilders trial is on

www.wildersontrial.com

The issue of this trial is vital because we have to defend the right of the freedom to speak. Islam is very reactionary because it seeks to close down the debate and discussion, and also the capitalist governments are playing along with this, and are part of the conspiracy, as is seen so well in the prosecution of Wilders

The following is on it

In January 2009 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ruled that the Public Prosecutor had to prosecute Geert Wilders on the basis of his political beliefs. This trial is in fact a political trial. What has already happened in non-democratic countries is now also taking place in the Netherlands, in the heart of Europe.

Yet this is not merely a lawsuit against Geert Wilders, it is also a lawsuit against freedom of speech, democracy and the truth.

  • Do we stand for the freedom of speech in the Netherlands? Or do we abolish our most important fundamental right?
  • Is the Netherlands really a democracy? Or do we by now only allow politically correct views?
  • Can the truth be told in the Netherlands? Or do we proclaim the multicultural utopia?
  • Will the lights go out? Or will freedom triumph? That is what it is all about.
  • This trial is a trial against all freedom-loving people. A trial against millions. This is a trial against freedom.

Plus this

 Geert Wilders: No fair trial

 

The Amsterdam District Court apparently doesn’t want to hear the truth about Islam. Nor is it interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. In one swift move, the Court brushed aside fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses the defence had requested to be summoned.

Only Hans Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan were allowed to be heard as expert-witnesses. Their testimony will be heard in a session behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must remain a secret.

Geert Wilders: “This Court is not interested in the truth. This Court doesn’t want me to have a fair trial. I can’t have any respect for this. This Court would not be out of place in a dictatorship”.

The Court also brushed aside the preliminary objections concerning its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Public Prosecutor.

Nevertheless, Geert Wilders remains extremely motivated to seek justice: “I’m still counting on an acquittal”.

On his site he explains about this great new site facility

Wednesday February 3rd 2010 Dutch politician Geert Wilders launches two websites on the political trial against him and the freedom of speech. From now on both the Dutch (www.wildersproces.nl) and the international public (www.wildersontrial.com) are able to keep up with the trials’ proceedings.

Both websites not only include the latest news on the trial but also provide background information on the trials’ participants, the summons, the cause and the importance of this trial for freedom of speech in the Netherlands and –possibly- for the whole of Europe.

Geert Wilders: “This trial is not just about me. It is about the future of freedom of speech in the Netherlands. The outcome of this trial affects the freedom of all Dutch citizens. With these websites, I want to make it possible for people to follow the latest developments concerning the trial.”

Links to both websites:

www.wildersontrial.com (International version)

www.wildersproces.nl (Dutch version)

Preview Wednesday February 3rd

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 February 2010 00:32

On Wednesday February 3rd the District Court in Amsterdam will give a decision in the pre-trial review of Wednesday January 20th last. The District Court will decide as to whether it has jurisdiction and as to whether the Public Prosecutor can proceed with the prosecution. The District Court will also decide as to whether Geert Wilders will be heard by the examining judge and which of the 18 witnesses and experts requested by Geert Wilders will be summoned. Wednesday the District Court will also decide on the further course of the proceedings: When will the witnesses and experts be heard? Will this take place in a session behind closed doors or in a public hearing? When will the substantive deliberation begin? On Wednesday we will know the answers to these questions.

Report of the pre-trial review of 20 January 2010

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 February 2010 17:12

The pre-trial review in the criminal case against Geert Wilders took place on Wednesday January 20 th, 2010. The pre-trial review was a public hearing that was held to insure that the deliberation of the criminal case takes place as effectively as possible. It was not a substantive deliberation of the case. The Court that will deliberate upon the case consists of Mr. J.W. Moors, LL M, (president), Mrs J.M.J. Lommen-van Alphen, LL M, and Mr. M.M. van der Nat, LL M.

During the pre-trial review Bram Moszkowicz, the lawyer of Geert Wilders, started with the elaboration on his preliminary objections. Two points were put forward:

Read more: Report of the pre-trial review of 20 January 2010

Contact information Court of Amsterdam

Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail

Last Updated on Wednesday, 03 February 2010 00:43

On the 20th of January the case of Mr. Wilders will start at the Court of Amsterdam.

Many have requested information on the address-details of the Court and the names of the judges. Below you can find the address of the Court of Amsterdam and the names of the judges.

Judges:

J.W.  Moors 

J.M.J. Lommen- van Alphen

M.M. van der Nat

The Court of Amsterdam Postbus 845001080 BN Amsterdam

Quote

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Thomas Jefferson

NETANYAHU AND THESE ISRAELI ELITISTS WILL DESTROY THE JEWS

by Felix Quigley

February 3, 2010

What was the Gaza war all about?

Israel had been hit by Hamas rockets and shells for all of 8 years and Israel had decided NOT TO RESPOND which is one of the most foolish things to do.

The very first rocket attack on to Israeli soil by these antisemites should have been answered by massive force and that massive force should be supported by everybody in the world WHO IS NOT AN ANTISEMITE.

Got that! After the Holocaust Israel in defending itself from antisemites must be supported by everybody who is not actually an antisemite.

That is the position of 4international. It is not (sorry to say) the position of the Israeli elitist and ruling class politicians who rule over Israel and who have ruled over it since 1948.

The war with theser antisemites in Gaza was certainly fought completely the wrong way.

These Israeli ruling class politicians are more worried about what the world thinks than about the defence of their own soldiers and their own Jews.

So the utter stupidity! They engaged in an extensive programme of telephone calls to Arabs telling them that it Israel was going to attack certain places.

Has any war ever been fought in such a way?

You cannot ever fight a war like this. Part of the winning of any war is to inflict huge damage on the substructure of the state of the enemy. That means that the enemy is also the civilian population which is the supporters of the enemy, and therefore IS the enemy.

In this case this is without any little doubt at all because these very Arabs of Gaza HAD ELECTED THESE VICIOUS ANTISEMITES OF HAMAS.

So then why the telephone calls? It is too absurd for words.

The whole of the “international law” talk is just pure and utter bullshit, and a moment thinking about how the imperialists fought all of their wars down through the centuries proves this.

The only correct conduct in any war is to use all means that are necessary to win it.

The same idea is contained in this quote from Leon Trotsky

“There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.”

How simple! How true!

It is this one sentence which cuts the ground from under the antisemites who attack Israel over Gaza, especially that antisemitic report led by Goldstone

Goldstone paid not one little bit of heed to the circumstances under which Israel had to fight that war.

1. Israel was fighting against a Fascist enemy which was not dressed in martial combat. So the rules of war do not apply anyway

2. How to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel? If verbal appeal would not work?

So now on to the way in which Israel fought the war.

The first step must have been the wholesale bombing of all of Gaza.

Israel had pulled every last Jew out of Gaza, and well meaning Jews had donated special hot houses for growing vegetables and fruit for the international market, and generally wished for peace thus.

How stupid that really was! They got war of course.

Then having bombed the bejasus out of Gaza Israel should have moved overwhelming troops in, caught these Hamas fascist Antisemitic bastards, and strung them up without ceremony.

Then the Arabs there who elected these antisemites should have been shipped to Saudi Arabia. And Israel should have proclaimed to the world that never again would they trust Arabs to be peaceful.

Now back to Trotsky! We as Trotskyists say that if this stupid Israeli ruling class is not removed from power in a revolution they will destroy the Jews.

Now we print a report created by the quite wonderful DEBKAfile over just how treasonable this Israeli ruling capitalist class and elitists really are. I leave you to digest this report slowly, but if you are Jewish do try to stem your anger.

[Begin Debka report on the treasonous conduct of the Israeli elitists here]

Phosphorus flares in Gaza War
(Phosphorous is used to light up, and to confuse the enemy. It is NOT against any laws of war, it is an accepted part of modern warfare, and anyway that does not matter. In war the only rule is to defeat the enemy)

The two explosives-packed containers washed up on Ashkelon and Ashdod beaches Monday, Feb. 1, did not blow up – unlike Israel’s top military echelons, who were stunned by the exposure of two top Israeli field commanders in the account Jerusalem handed the UN secretary in defense of Israel’s military against the one-sided Gaza war crimes allegations brought by Richard Goldstone. 

(Jerusalem handed this report to the UN, that means the rotten Israeli leaders handed the report to these antisemites in the UN, that means Netanyahu. For that alone he should be kicked out)

 

The 46-page account named Brig. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg, chief of the Gaza division, and Col. Ilan Malka, former Givati commander, as having been disciplined for exceeding orders and hazarding lives by letting an UNWRA facility come under artillery fire during the three-week campaign against the Hamas more than a year ago. The IDF emphatically denied that phosphorus shells were used.

(Good Lord, these bastards in the Israeli elite and Government, these snitches for the UN, have betrayed their own brave and devoted soldiers. Kick Netanyahu out for this!)
debkafile’s military sources report that senior military officials, including the IDF spokesman, made a supreme effort to “kill” the story after it reached the media, but failed to cool the flames.
One unnamed general remarked: “The Jerusalem bureaucrat who named the two officers in the Israeli account to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon threw them to the wolves.” Another said: “How can we be expected to lead our men in future battles when we don’t know what awaits us during or even after the fighting is over?”
” We are used to state inquiry commissions and expect to face the music over possible derelictions from the IDF’s stringent rules of engagement,” said another. “But how can we fight with the international war crimes tribunal hanging over our heads, knowing it may be as loaded against us as Goldstone or other UN institutions?”

The bureaucrat who named the two officers is at the heart of the storm.  His purpose was to prove that months before Goldstone came on the scene, the IDF had conducted a thorough and impartial inquiry into every claim of misconduct during the three-week Gaza campaign. Although the campaign was fought against terrorists using civilian locations, Israel had no agenda to harm innocents or damage civilian infrastructure, including the UN Works and Relief center in Gaza City.

(Let us on 4international say something on this please! This is not about a bureaucrat but about a damaging and lethal illness which is at the heart of Zionism in its bourgeois and petty bourgeois sense. It is NOT about one bureaucrat at all…it is about every aspect of bourgeois Zionism. Remember  Dayan, the General, who having won the war in 1967 went down to the Temple in Jerusalem and handed the Temple across to the amazed Arabs, who were antisemites. Get my point! same thing! it is a deep sickness inside Zionism since 1948)


However, the UN secretary may decide on a different reading, i.e. as grounds for prosecuting Brig. Eisenberg and Col. Malka and the men under their command as international war criminals. It be the first time in the IDF’s history. Its high morality in combat has only ever been impugned by Palestinians, their anti-Israel backers and certain left-wing extremists.

UN officials are pointing the way to this outcome by picking the Israeli account to pieces and making sure to defeat its purpose. Ban Ki-moon may go all the way to this goal in view of his rocky relations with Israel.

(This is enough to make every patriotic Jew and supporter cry. And the next mention of Gunness is just too much to bear)

Chris Gunness, a UN spokesman, told the media that half a dozen unexploded IDF shells were found in the UN compound and their serial numbers were traced to US factories. “The burning down of the UN compound in Gaza is massively symbolic,” he said.
UN officials argue that the use of white phosphorus caused millions of dollars in damage and could have led to a “great loss of life”.

In another part of its report, Israel says phosphorus was used, but only for “deploying a smoke screen to block the view of Hamas anti-tank crews deployed adjacent to the to the UN center, saving Israeli tank units from having to use reactive fire with the likelihood of greater civilian harm.” Israel has indemnified the world organization for the damage caused in the exchange of fire. 

Then, Tuesday, Feb. 2, another UN source told the London Guardian that the remains of a 500-pount Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb had been found in the ruins of the al-Badr flour mill in northern Gaza. This contradicted the Israel report which said the building had been hit by tank shells as a “legitimate military target” because there were Hamas fighters “in the vicinity of the flour mill.” Israel denied it was a pre-planned target and that it was hit by an air strike. 

Goldstone has called the attack a war crime.
In the background of the Israel-UN hostilities lies a quiet argument going for weeks over whether or not to meet the world body’s demand for Israel to appoint a state commission of independent civilian and judicial figures to investigate the allegations of war crimes Goldstone has brought against Israel and Hamas.  

(Debka may be correct here and we respect their view. But the whole point is that these things must not be “quiet” at all. The discussion must be fought out in the open, and not quietly, but with the greatest force)

 

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu favors this step, but is challenged by defense minister Ehud Barak and chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazy, who refuse to recognize Goldstone’s credentials.

(And they are right- And that is a major reason now why Netanyahu must be forced right out of power with no delay. But that requires a new type of leadership)

 
This outcome could have been avoided had the prime minister exercised his authority for a clear decision.
Now that the IDF’s findings naming names are in UN hands, Israel has lost control of the next stage of the controversy over the anti-Israeli bias of the South African ex-judge’s report on the Gaza war. The world body now has a powerful tool for exercising its authority and taking it further up to and including the railroading of the two Israeli commanders.

(Yes and no! No because it is not just a matter of this one thing. The whole issue shows that this Israeli ruling bourgeois class, so concerned about the Europeans, the Americans, and world opinion , will certainly lead the Jews into another Holocaust, another great killing, and THE ANTISEMITES ARE PREPARING JUST THAT)

The debka article can be found on

http://www.debka.com/article/8577/

Our thanks to them…

 As always our quotes are in brackets()

HIZBALLAH PREPARES TO MAKE WAR ON ISRAEL—5000 trained by Iran

by James Stephens

February 2, 2010

Basically the European Union is an antisemitic force and this is why the troops of countries like Spain over recent years have been travelling to Lebanon just north of Israel, where they have been allowing Hizballah to prepare for war against Israel. None of this will appear in the European press. This is why this report by DEBKAfile is so important to read

[Start DEBKA report here]

EXCLUSIVE: US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah training to seize Galilee towns
DEBKAfile Special Expose February 1, 2010, 9:19 AM (GMT+02:00)

US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas

Jones was not talking out of the top of his head, but on the strength of solid US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have drawn up to send five Hizballah brigades sweeping across the border to seize five sectors of Galilee, while also organizing a massive Israeli-Arab uprising against the Jewish state.
Hamas would open a second front in the south and in the east. Syria is expected to step in at some stage.
This plan with attached special map was first published exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 430 on Jan. 22, 2010. Key excerpts appear here.  
 
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces. 

At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.
(See attached map). 

1st Battalion:
This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000 – or parts thereof.
UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack
A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon. 

2nd Battalion:

 

Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements

 

This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east. (See map). 

3rd Battalion: 

Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of  B’ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel’s Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains. 

Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages: 

One: As a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground “Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers. 

Hizballah’s West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North.
Two:   To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country  to relieve these northern towns.  The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.

4th Battalion:


This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel’s northernmost Galilee Panhandle.

5th Battalion:

Hizballah’s Strategic Reserve.

 Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon

Rocket attacks from Lebanon will focus on disabling Israel’s strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.
Syria’s initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. 

The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency. The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus. 

In recent weeks, both Hizballah and its Syrian allies have mobilized their forces while telling the Arab world that the Jewish state is about to attack Lebanon.
 Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program turns out.
Sunday, January 17, he said: “I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today… that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we [the Lebanese resistance movement] will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region. 

“God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!” 

Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.

The above report by DEBKAfile on http://www.debka.com/article/8575/#8575 shows that the only outcome for Israel is to fight or be totally eliminated

This throws into sharp relief all of those who oppose Israel, who do not support Israel, who do not support the right of this small country to defend itself against such gigantic odds, as is the whole of the Arab world along witht he Islamic world, all seeking to destroy Israel.

 

THE ISLAMIC TORTURE REPUBLIC

by James Stephens

February 2, 2010

On 4international we support the courageous struggle of the Iranians against the brutal Ahmadinejad regime

[Begin report on Iranian repression here]

The Islamic Republic of Iran has an infamous record of torture, rape and murder of its own citizens. It couldn’t care less about the lives of the rest of us.

Two dissidents were hanged in Iran last week and  death sentences have been announced against several political activists who protested the fraudulent June election results. More will be going on trial in an attempt to frighten opposition supporters and discourage future demonstrations.

These brave young people undergo the vilest of torture in Iranian prisons. Those who are not sentenced to death often suffer as cruelly. Civilized countries attempt to guard against sexual assaults in prison. Under the barbaric mullah’s regime, instances of sexual assault and beatings have become instruments of policy for extracting false confessions, satisfying the sadism and perversions of the jailers, punishing the helpless victim, and leaving him with a sense of dehumanization.

Rape in prison is a cruel invasion of a helpless victim. In addition to the physical torment, it reduces the victim to subhuman status — an object to be discarded after use.

This violation is widespread in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s prisons, now particularly in dealing with the young men and women arrested for the “crime” of peacefully demonstrating in the streets to demand accountability from the government for a raft of violations it has committed and continues to commit.

For the past 32 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been denying a long-suffering people all of its human rights. They are guilty of beating, torturing, raping, and killing prisoners of conscience — political, religious, intellectuals, artists, and others. Harsh penalties such as beatings are given for even “victimless crimes” like public expression, homosexuality, apostasy, and poor hijab (covering of the women).

Women, chronically oppressed and disenfranchised from their basic human and family rights, have been most viciously treated by the Islamic system, its hired plainclothes, and the Basij members. The regime metes out punishments reminiscent of the worst in the annals of human history. Amputation of hands and feet, blinding, hanging, and stoning the victim after a quick trial in kangaroo courts without legal representation are commonplace.

The Islamic Republic’s infamous record is replete with instances of child execution, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, imprisonment of journalists, and persecution of religious minorities (with a systematic program of genocide against the Baha’is and their religion).

by Amil Imani from Israel National News

called The Islamic Torture Republic

written January 31, 2010

TAKE UP THE FIGHT IN US CONGRESS AGAINST OBAMA AND ISLAMOFASCISM

by Felix Quigley

February 1, 2009

Bill Levinson who writes on Israpundit has done the whole of the working class movement and the struggle to defend Israel from Islamofascism and Antisemitism by publishing a list of congress people in the US

This list is sobering reading and Levinson is beginning the fight against Islamofascism int he world.

On 4international we support Levinson and Israpundit totally in this.

[Begin the list prepared by Levinson here]

    Of the top 11 CAIR moneygetters in congress, Nick Rahall, James Moran, Darrel Issa, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Jr, John Dingell, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Shelia Jackson Lee and Jim McDerrmott– 7 out of 11 signed on to Ellison’s letter. That makes the Gaza letter a CAIR project. 5 on that list voted against condemning attacks on Israel.

Conyers also wants reparations for slavery even though neither he nor any other living African-American was ever a slave, nor has any living Caucasian ever owned a slave. Our own ancestors lived in Central and Eastern Europe when slavery was abolished in the mid-19th century. In any event, the list begins with some of the worst and most dishonest members of the House of Representatives and goes on from there.

The list consists entirely of Democrats, but we doubt that Ira Forman or his National “Jewish” “Democratic” Council will have anything to say about it because the donkey is automatically good while the elephant is automatically bad, even if the donkey sports a toothbrush mustache and a swastika (the content of what NJDC’s friends at Moveon.org hosted on their Web site). Noting what happened to the United States on 9/11, however, it is not and should not be the responsibility of Jews alone to denounce terrorists, whether Hamas or Al Qaida, as enemies of Civilization.

We encourage our readers to vote for whoever is running against the people on this list. We have highlighted some of the worst actors.

    Update: The Full List of Congressmen who signed on to the letter, by State and District, with contact info, and their current list of challengers in the upcoming elections 

    Arizona

    Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-7) Fax: 202-225-1541 = AZ 7th Distict

    California

    Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-6) Fax: 202-225-5163- CA 6th District
    Rep. Lois Capps (D-23) Fax: 202-225-5632 – CA 23rd District – Challenger John Davidson
    Rep. Sam Farr (D-17) Fax: 202-225-6791- CA 17th district
    Rep. Bob Filner (D-51) Fax: 202-225-9073 – CA 51st district – challenger Nick Popaditch
    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-9) Fax: 202-225-9817 – CA 9th District
    Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-47) Fax: 202-225-5859 – CA 47th District – challenger Van Tran
    Rep. Pete Stark (D-13) Fax: 202-226-3805 – CA 13th District
    Rep. Mike Honda (D-15) Fax: 202-225-2699 – CA 15th District
    Rep. Jackie Speier (D-12) Fax: 202-226-4183- CA 12th District
    Rep. Diane Watson (D-33) Fax: 202-225-2422 – CA 33rd District
    Rep. George Miller (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5609 – CA 7th District

    Connecticut

    Rep. Jim Himes (D-4) Fax: 202-225-9629- 4th district – challenger Dan Debicella

    Indiana

    Rep. André Carson (D-7) Fax: 202-225-5633 – 7th district – challenger Carlos May and Marvin Bailey Scott

    Iowa

    Rep. Bruce Braley (D-1) Fax: 202-225-9129 – 1st district – challenger Rod Blum

    Kentucky

    Rep. John Yarmuth (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5776 – 3rd district – multiple challengers

    Maryland

    Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-7) Fax: 202-225-3178
    Rep. Donna Edwards (D-4) Fax: 202-225-8714

    Massachusetts

    Rep. Michael Capuano (D-8) Fax: 202-225-9322 – 8th district
    Rep. William Delahunt (D-10) Fax: 202-225-5658 – 10th district – multiple challengers
    Rep. Jim McGovern (D-3) Fax: 202-225-5759 – 3rd district – challenger Marty Lamb
    Rep. John Tierney (D-6) Fax: 202-225-5915 – 6th district – Challenger David Sukoff and Bill Hudak
    Rep. John Olver (D-1) Fax: 202-226-1224- 1st district – challenger Jeffrey Paul Donnelly
    Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-9) Fax: 202-225-3984 – 9th district – challenger Vernon Harrison and Keith Lepor

    Michigan

    Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-13) Fax: 202-225-5730
    Rep. John Conyers (D-14) Fax: 202-225-0072
    Rep. John Dingell (D-15) Fax: 202-226-0371

    Minnesota

    Rep. Keith Ellison (D-5) Fax: 202-225-4886 – 5th district – challenger Barb Davis
    Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4) Fax: 202-225-1968 – 4th district – challenger Ed Matthews
    Rep. James Oberstar (D-8) Fax: 202-225-6211- 8th district – multiple challengers

    New Jersey

    Rep. Donald Payne (D-10) Fax: 202-225-4160 – 10th district –
    Rep. Rush Holt (D-12) Fax: 202-225-6025- 12th district – challenger Mike Halfacre and Scott Sipprelle
    Rep. William Pascrell (D-8) Fax: 202-225-5751- 8th district – challenger Danielle Staub

    New York

    Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-11) Fax: 202-226-0112- 11th district
    Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-22) Fax: 202-226-0774 – 22nd district – challenger George Philips
    Rep. Paul Tonko (D-21) Fax: 202-225-5077 – 21st district – challenger Arthur Welser
    Rep. Eric Massa (D-29) Fax: 202-226-6599- 29th district – challenger Tom Reed (in a GOP district)

    North Carolina

    Rep. David Price (D-4) Fax: 202-225-2014 – 4th district – challengers George Hutchins, Lawson and Frank Roche

    Ohio

    Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-9) Fax: 202-225-7711 – 15th district – challengers John Adams and Senator Stivers
    Re. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-15) 614-294-2196 – 9th district

    Oregon

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-3) Fax: 202-225-8941-3rd district
    Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4) Fax: 202-225-0032 – 4th district – challenger Sid Leiken

    Pennsylvania

    Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-2) Fax: 202-225-5392 – 2nd district
    Rep. Joe Sestak (D-7) Fax: 202-225-0280 – 7th district – challenger Patrick Meehan and Dawn Steisland [Sestak may challenge Arlen Specter in the primaries; either way, Pat Toomey can rely on our vote in November.]

    Vermont

    Rep. Peter Welch (D-At Large) Fax: 202-225-6790 – 1st district

    Virginia

    Rep. Jim Moran (D-8) Fax: 202-225-0017 – 8th district – challengers Matthew Berry , Mark Ellmore, J Patrick Murray

    Washington

    Rep. Jim McDermott (D-7) Fax: 202-225-6197 – 7th district
    Rep. Adam Smith (D-9) Fax: 202-225-5893 – 9th district – challengers Dick Muri and James Postma
    Rep. Jay Inslee (D-1) Fax: 202-226-1606 – 1st district – challenger James Watkins
    Rep. Brian Baird (D-3) Fax: 202-225-3478 – 3rd district – challengers David Castillo, David Hedrick and Jon Russell

    West Virginia

    Rep. Nick Rahall (D-3) Fax: 202-225-9061 – 3rd district – challengers Lee Bias, Gary Gearheart and Conrad Lucas

    Wisconsin

    Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-2) Fax: 202-225-6942 -2nd district – Tim Terenz
    Rep. Gwen Moore (D-4) Fax: 202-225-8135 – 4th district – challenger Dan Sebring

    Virginia

    Rep. Glen Nye (D-2) Fax: 202-225-4218 – 2nd district – challengers Ben Loyola, Ken Golden, Ed Maulbeck, Bert Misuzawa, Scott Rigell and Scott W Taylor

// <![CDATA[
//OBSTART:do_NOT_remove_this_comment
var OutbrainPermaLink="http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=20163&quot;;
if(typeof(OB_Script)!='undefined'){
OutbrainStart();
} else {
var OB_demoMode = false;

var OBITm = "1213211595";
var OB_Script = true;
var OB_langJS = "";
document.write ("”);
}
//OBEND:do_NOT_remove_this_comment
// ]]>