PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12

Rincewind
22-12-2016, 09:26 PM
And not to mention that violence against muslims and mosques in America usually increases after such incidents. Surely a responsible POTUS (elect) should caution against faith based hatred fuelled violence and not encourage it by pitting one religion against another.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2016, 11:40 PM
So Trump has transformed the war against terrorism into a 'war' between Islam and Christianity.
Because that's what it is. Even the leftist Guardian had an article Dying for Christianity: millions at risk amid rise in persecution across the globe (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/dying-for-christianity-millions-at-risk-amid-rise-in-persecution-across-the-globe)


And not to mention that violence against muslims and mosques in America usually increases after such incidents. Surely a responsible POTUS (elect) should caution against faith based hatred fuelled violence and not encourage it by pitting one religion against another.

Really? How many Muslims have been killed as a result in the USA? We do know that Christians are being murdered or are fleeing in places where Obamov left a power vacuum, but his State Department allows hardly any of them into the USA.

Rincewind
22-12-2016, 11:45 PM
Really? How many Muslims have been killed as a result in the USA?

U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims ("http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html)


...
Attacks against Muslim Americans saw the biggest surge. There were 257 reports of assaults, attacks on mosques and other hate crimes against Muslims last year, a jump of about 67 percent over 2014. It was the highest total since 2001, when more than 480 attacks occurred in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
Blacks were the most frequent victims of hate crimes based on race, while Jews were the most frequent victims based on religion, according to the F.B.I. data. But the increases in attacks on these groups were smaller than the rise in attacks against Muslims and transgender people.
...

Patrick Byrom
23-12-2016, 01:48 PM
Because that's what it is. Even the leftist Guardian had an article Dying for Christianity: millions at risk amid rise in persecution across the globe (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/dying-for-christianity-millions-at-risk-amid-rise-in-persecution-across-the-globe)
An article which says:

Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster and head of the Catholic church in England and Wales, said: “It would be a serious mistake to cast this as a Muslim-Christian conflict.” He cited a bishop in northern Nigeria, who had told him the most recent killing in his diocese was of 39 Muslims by Boko Haram. “The extremist groups are certainly perpetrating violence, against anyone who does not share their world view. That includes Christians, but it’s not exclusively Christians by any means.”
The terrorists kill anyone who doesn't share their world view - including other Muslims. But Trump completely ignored the killing of Muslims by extremists in his statement.

If it's a war between Christianity and Islam, then what side do you and other Trump supporters such as Michael Brown expect moderate Muslims to take? It would be stupid to expect moderate Islamic countries such as Turkey and Indonesia to join a war against Islam! However, they will definitely join a war against terrorism.

Rincewind
23-12-2016, 02:02 PM
Indeed and if the recent attack in German was targetting Christians then why ram a public market and not (say) a place of worship?

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2016, 11:37 PM
Of course a leftist newspaper is going to find an own-goal by some church leader. But it still notes:

Attacks on Christians by Isis – Iraq, Syria, Libya

Iraq’s Christian population has decreased dramatically since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, as large numbers have fled because of escalating persecution. Christians, as well as other minority groups, have been targeted by Isis in the large parts of Iraq and Syria under its control. It is believed that more than 100,000 people, many of them Christians, fled Qaraqosh, Mosul and the Nineveh plain in 2014 as Isis swept through. The Islamic extremists present Christians with the choice of converting to Islam, paying a very high tax or being murdered. In February 2015, Isis posted a video purporting to show 21 Coptic Christians being beheaded on a beach in Libya. Two months later, a second Isis video apparently showed another 30 Ethiopian Christians being shot or beheaded.

Ian Murray
24-12-2016, 02:16 PM
UN chief welcomes Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements as ‘significant step’ (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55874#.WF30ElxAoQl)
UN News Centre
23.12.16

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today welcomed the adoption of a Security Council resolution which states that the establishment of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, have “no legal validity,” constitute a “flagrant violation” under international law and are a “major obstacle” to a two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace....

Earlier this afternoon, the 15-member Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 14 in favour and with one abstention – the United States abstained from the vote. The resolution had been put forward by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela.

In the resolution, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard.”

The Council also underlined that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.

The resolution called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, and for accountability in that regard, as well as for both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and previous agreements and obligations, “to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.”

It further called for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism. ...

Patrick Byrom
24-12-2016, 04:21 PM
Of course a leftist newspaper is going to find an own-goal by some church leader. But it still notes:
Attacks on Christians by Isis – Iraq, Syria, Libya
Iraq’s Christian population has decreased dramatically since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, as large numbers have fled because of escalating persecution. ...The non-Christian Yazidis are suffering far worse persecution by ISIS in Iraq. But Trump ignored this in his statement.

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2016, 06:24 AM
The non-Christian Yazidis are suffering far worse persecution by ISIS in Iraq. But Trump ignored this in his statement.

At least he doesn't dismiss ISIS as the "junior varsity team" as his idol Obamov did.

Ian Murray
25-12-2016, 06:34 AM
At least he doesn't dismiss ISIS as the "junior varsity team" as his idol Obamov did.

That was back when al-Quaeda was the main player, and the prime target

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2016, 06:01 AM
When is Criticism of Israel Anti-Semitic? (http://shalom.kiwi/2016/05/when-is-criticism-of-israel-anti-semitic/)
Juliet Moses, NZ Herald, Shalom Kiwi, 06 MAY 2016


Criticism of Israel is not in itself anti-Semitic. Nobody claims Israel, New Zealand, or any other state is perfect. Indeed, some of the harshest criticism of Israel comes from within Israel. That is to be expected of a liberal democracy with a Parliament that represents wide-ranging political views, a vibrant media and a robust judicial system, and it should be celebrated.

Israel should be scrutinised in the same way – no more, no less – as any other state. Criticism involves facts, context, analysis and judgment – in, for example, expressing reasoned disapproval of the comments of the Israeli Prime Minister or of settlement policy in the West Bank.

But when Israel is demonised, delegitimised and discriminated against, as it frequently is, that has gone beyond criticism into something else altogether. Can it be right that this could never be anti-Semitism? That anti-Semitism could never express itself as antipathy towards Israel?

Anti-Israel anti-Semitism can take the form of anti-Zionism. Zionism is the belief in the right of self-determination of the Jewish people in their historic homeland. Anti-Zionists (like New Zealand’s Kia Ora Gaza) support the destruction or dismantling of Israel as a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists believe in the right of other people, such as the Palestinians, to self-determination, but forbid it of only one people, the Jews. It is anti-Zionist to deny that Jews are a people, and to deny the connection of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, despite all historical, archaeological, and genetic evidence to the contrary. Proposing to ethnically cleanse Israel of all Jews – as did Naz Shah, the now-suspended UK Labour party MP – is anti-Zionism, as is claiming that Israel is a racist endeavour. There is no other country in the world whose very right to exist is called into question.

Anti-Semitism arises when Israel is held to a standard that no other nation is held to. It exists when a person refuses to criticise Hamas for using human shields but excoriates Israel for the 2014 Gaza war, ignoring the High Level Military Group’s report that Israel far exceeded the standards of the Geneva Convention. It’s there when China’s and Saudi Arabia’s egregious human rights records are ignored, while Israel receives disproportionate opprobrium. It exists when a person never allows praise of Israel – for example, its proud tradition on gay rights is dismissed as “pink-washing”. It arises when Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank arouses hysteria and hyperbole, but no other occupation anywhere rates a mention.

Rincewind
31-12-2016, 11:06 AM
So anti-Zionism is anti-semitic? That is one way to try and stop people talking about whether Zionism is itself a form of colonialism.

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2017, 06:32 AM
Defund the UN (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46662)
Gary Bauer, 30 Dec 2016


Celebrated Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees that we should defund the UN. It must be noted that Dershowitz is no right-wing conservative. He is an avowed liberal Democrat who supported Barack Obama (although he may be having second thoughts about that).

During an interview [Wednesday], Dershowitz brilliantly prosecuted the case against continued funding of the corrupt UN. Here are some excerpts of his remarks:


“There is an automatic anti-Israel bias at the UN. Consider the following story: This happened less than a year ago. The head of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, put Saudi Arabia on a blacklist of countries that mistreat children during wartime, and the head of the Saudis called Ban Ki-moon and said, ‘Unless you take us off of the blacklist we will stop sending money to the UN.’ And Ban Ki-moon said, ‘Alright,’ and he took them off the blacklist.

"So money counts at the UN. And so what the United States should do now is threaten to defund the United Nations unless the United Nations stops showing this incredible bias against Israel. Forty resolutions this year against Israel, four against the entire rest of the world at a time when Syria is imploding when Russia took over the Crimea. So many violations of human rights are occurring in the world.

"Forty resolution against Israel, only four against the rest of the world. That shows you something about the bias of that UN building.”

During the Nazi years, one of the most disgusting phrases often heard was “Judenfrei” or “Jew free.” As we sadly know, when the Nazis meant “Jew free” they were not only willing to drive people out of their homes, they killed millions of Jews throughout Europe in the Holocaust.

Is there not a mainstream reporter anywhere in Washington, DC, willing to point out that Kerry and Obama are suggesting that Jews living in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem cannot be tolerated because that territory supposedly belongs to Arab Muslims? They are demanding that this land be “Judenfrei.”

Ian Murray
01-01-2017, 06:01 PM
Defund the UN (https://patriotpost.us/opinion/46662)
...There is an automatic anti-Israel bias at the UN. Consider the following story: This happened less than a year ago. The head of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, put Saudi Arabia on a blacklist of countries that mistreat children during wartime, and the head of the Saudis called Ban Ki-moon and said, ‘Unless you take us off of the blacklist we will stop sending money to the UN.’ And Ban Ki-moon said, ‘Alright,’ and he took them off the blacklist....

Are we to believe that Dershowitz has a transcript of a conversation between a head of state and the UNSG?


...Forty resolutions this year against Israel, four against the entire rest of the world at a time when Syria is imploding when Russia took over the Crimea. So many violations of human rights are occurring in the world....

Naive or deliberately misleading? There has been only one resolution carried by the Security Council condemning Israel (but not imposing sanctions) for its illegal settlements and at the same time calling for an immediate end to violence against civilians, including terrorism. Nascent resolutions aimed at Russian seizure of the Crimea and Syrian atrocities naturally did not go beyond Russian veto warnings.. But there have been UNSC sanctions and/or condemnations against Liberia, Sudan and Southern Sudan, Guinea-Bissau, DR North Korea, Iraq and Iran, to name a few.


...Jews living in ...[the Occupied Palestinian Territories] and East Jerusalem cannot be tolerated because that territory supposedly belongs to Arab Muslims? They are demanding that this land be “Judenfrei.”…

The boot's on the other foot. Israel is imposing Nur Juden (Jews Only) enclaves in the occupied West Bank, in flagrant contravention of international law.

Ian Murray
09-01-2017, 07:03 AM
The annexation of Palestine could be closer than you think (https://972mag.com/the-annexation-of-palestine-could-be-closer-than-you-think/124077/)
+972
1.1.17

A perfect storm of domestic Israeli politics combined with the changing of the guard in Washington could create an opportunity for those advocating annexation to finally make their move....

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2017, 12:15 PM
German Court Rules Synagogue Burning is Merely Anti-Israel Criticism, Not Anti-Semitism (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/222120/german-court-rules-synagogue-burning-legitimate-anti-israel-criticism-not-anti-semitism)
If attacking Europe’s Jews over the purported acts of Middle Eastern Jews isn’t the definition of historical anti-Semitism, what is?
By Liel Leibovitz, Tablet, 13 Jan 2017

To most people, attacking European Jews over the alleged acts of completely different Jews in the Middle East is the textbook definition of historical European anti-Semitism. To the court, it was simply a rational if overly rambunctious policy critique. The perpetrators were given suspended sentences.

The last expression of similar anti-Israeli sentiment in Wuppertal occurred in 1938, when Nazis fueled by a passionate distaste for the conduct of Israel—the establishment of which was still ten years in the future—burned down the very same town’s synagogue.

Ian Murray
14-01-2017, 04:09 PM
German Court Rules Synagogue Burning is Merely Anti-Israel Criticism, Not Anti-Semitism

That a court can rule that burning a synagogue is not anti-Jewish beggars belief. There seems to be something about the Western European psyche which breeds and condones ultra-right violence.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2017, 08:09 PM
That a court can rule that burning a synagogue is not anti-Jewish beggars belief. ...Yes, it's worrying when people refuse to recognise blatant anti-Semitism - sometimes even after clear examples are presented to them in black and white. And it's also disturbing that people can blame innocent members of a religious group for actions by completely unrelated members of the same religious group.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2017, 08:11 PM
It appears that Israeli intelligence is concerned that Trump is too close to Russia (and therefore to Iran), so it's reluctant to share intelligence (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4906642,00.html) with the new administration. While it had no problem sharing intelligence with the Obama administration.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2017, 05:21 AM
A GROWING TREND: BRAVE MUSLIM ZIONISTS (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263848/growing-trend-brave-muslim-zionists-noah-beck)
Risking it all to promote genuine peace.
Noah Beck, FrontPage, 16 August 2016

Muslims and Arabs who openly identify as Zionists are growing in number – powered by the freer flow of information and ideas made possible by social media and the search for answers in the wake of the Arab Spring and Islamist terror.

The failure of the “Arab Spring” (https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/19/two-years-on-the-arab-spring-could-use-some-talmud/) may help to explain the growing trend of Muslims and Arabs supporting Israel. As the hope of democratic reform faded and states crumbled into violent chaos and/or merciless crackdowns on protests, some willing to look past anti-Israel propaganda might admire the only example of a Middle East democracy that tolerates dissent, has a burgeoning economy, upholds the rule of law and human rights, and protects minorities.

For example, after Mohammad Hosseini escaped the horrors of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq, he began to question many of the anti-Israel beliefs on which he was raised.

Capablanca-Fan
26-02-2017, 01:30 PM
In my fourth year (at University of Melbourne Law School) I enrolled in the optional subject of International Law, and my lecturer was none other than Professor Gillian Triggs. I dropped out and swapped subjects after two weeks! No—it wasn't because of the lecturer—she was actually very good. It was because I struggled with the entire concept of ‘international law’ and I couldn't see how I could endure two lectures a week for a whole year on a subject I didn’t understand. At the time I couldn’t comprehend how the word 'law' could be applied to the personal opinions of United Nations’ bureaucrats who owed their appointment at the UN to regimes that didn't respect the rule of law and which were neither liberal nor democratic. I must admit that in the thirty or so years that have passed since I sat in Professor Triggs’ class my opinion of international law hasn’t changed a great deal. — John Roskam, IPA

Patrick Byrom
26-02-2017, 04:42 PM
Roskam obviously didn't learn much. I've never studied law, but even I know that 'international law' is much broader than just laws made by the UN! For example, the Nuremberg Tribunals predate the founding of the UN.

And, to state the obvious, UN law only applies to those countries that agree to it.

Ian Murray
26-02-2017, 07:35 PM
What planet does he come from? One that doesn't need rules to govern how nation-states interact?

Capablanca-Fan
27-02-2017, 03:30 AM
Roskam obviously didn't learn much. I've never studied law, but even I know that 'international law' is much broader than just laws made by the UN!
What is it today? If it comes to treaties between states, that's something. If it comes from a body that spends lots of time attacking Israel while ignoring the democides in many member nations, it has no credibility.


For example, the Nuremberg Tribunals predate the founding of the UN.
They were necessary and important to bring the Nazis to justice and especially to punish those involved with crimes against humanity such as murdering 6 million Jews. They were officially military tribunals by the main victor countries of WW2. One problem though is that the prosecutors and judges included the Soviet Union that was guilty of atrocities just as serious as those of the Nazis. E.g. one charge against the Nazis was "Conspiracy to wage aggressive war." With whom did they conspire? A clue should be Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact. They tried to pin the Katyn Massacre on the Nazis but at least for this one the other Allies didn't buy it.


And, to state the obvious, UN law only applies to those countries that agree to it.
Wouldn't that mean any member nation? But the point is, what credibility to laws coming from that body that comprises more despotic states than real particiapatory democracies or republics?

Ian Murray
27-02-2017, 09:03 AM
...Wouldn't that mean any member nation? But the point is, what credibility to laws coming from that body that comprises more despotic states than real particiapatory democracies or republics?

You really should make an effort to understand how the UN works. The General Assembly, your obsession, is a forum in which every member nation has an equal voice and vote. But no power - the GA can only make recommendations. The Security Council has the power of international legislation, military intervention etc, but only with the acquiescence of all five permanent members (US, Russia, China, UK, France), any one of which has the power of veto. So the despotic states you fret about have no power at the UN - the power rests with the five permanent members.

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2017, 04:51 PM
Instead of moving the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the U.S. should move its East Jerusalem ‘embassy’ to Ramallah (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/08/instead-of-moving-the-u-s-embassy-in-tel-aviv-to-jerusalem-the-u-s-should-move-its-east-jerusalem-embassy-to-ramallah)
By David Bernstein, Volokh Conspiracy, 8 March 2017

If the U.S. government refuses to place its Israel embassy in West Jerusalem, what possible rationale could there be for its de facto Palestinian embassy to be in East Jerusalem?

President Trump promised to move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but has run into resistance from the professional diplomatic corps and from America’s Arab allies, who warn that an embassy move would stir anti-American unrest. Fine. Leave the embassy in Tel Aviv for now. But inform Jordan and the Palestinian Authority that the U.S. consulate is moving to Ramallah, so that U.S. government policy on Jerusalem will now be consistent and not seem to prejudice the future of either half of Jerusalem. Such an announcement might even make the P.A. rethink whether it really wants to oppose having the U.S. Embassy relocate to West Jerusalem.

Ian Murray
14-03-2017, 12:12 PM
Instead of moving the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the U.S. should move its East Jerusalem ‘embassy’ to Ramallah (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/08/instead-of-moving-the-u-s-embassy-in-tel-aviv-to-jerusalem-the-u-s-should-move-its-east-jerusalem-embassy-to-ramallah)
By David Bernstein, Volokh Conspiracy, 8 March 2017

If the U.S. government refuses to place its Israel embassy in West Jerusalem, what possible rationale could there be for its de facto Palestinian embassy to be in East Jerusalem?

President Trump promised to move the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but has run into resistance from the professional diplomatic corps and from America’s Arab allies, who warn that an embassy move would stir anti-American unrest. Fine. Leave the embassy in Tel Aviv for now. But inform Jordan and the Palestinian Authority that the U.S. consulate is moving to Ramallah, so that U.S. government policy on Jerusalem will now be consistent and not seem to prejudice the future of either half of Jerusalem. Such an announcement might even make the P.A. rethink whether it really wants to oppose having the U.S. Embassy relocate to West Jerusalem.

The US has no diplomatic relations with Palestine, as it does not recognise Palestine as a state. Opening a mission in Ramallah would effectively be recognising Palestine. Is that really what Bernstein is proposing? Or is he simply unaware of the ramifications?

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2017, 11:19 AM
US Boycotts UN Anti-Israel Debate, Demands Reforms (https://unitedwithisrael.org/us-boycotts-un-anti-israel-debate-demands-reforms)
The US stood with the Jewish state against the UN Human Rights Commission’s anti-Israel bias and demanded reforms.
20 March 2017

The US expressed “strong and unequivocal” opposition to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) anti-Israel Item Seven General Debate and boycotted a session on the issue on Monday.

Agenda Item Seven, “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” is a permanent UNHRC agenda item that mandates discussion on any alleged Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians. It is debated three times a year.

For the last four years, Israel has asked countries to boycott the debate on the agenda item. In the past, some Western states have participated in the debate, including a few European nations. The US has always boycotted the Agenda Item Seven debate.

“Today’s actions in the Council are yet another reminder of that body’s longstanding bias against Israel,” the State Department said in a statement. “No other nation has an entire agenda item dedicated to it at the Council. The continued existence of this agenda item is among the largest threats to the credibility of the Council.”

The US was expressing its “deeply-held conviction” that the bias against Israel “must be addressed in order for the Council to realize its legitimate purpose.”

Rincewind
21-03-2017, 11:44 AM
The US has always boycotted the Agenda Item Seven debate.

How is this news and how is it able to be portrayed as a positive for the Trump administration relative to Obama. For example Eileen Donahoe specifically called out agenda item 7 for criticism in 2012.

Patrick Byrom
21-03-2017, 01:35 PM
How is this news and how is it able to be portrayed as a positive for the Trump administration relative to Obama. For example Eileen Donahoe specifically called out agenda item 7 for criticism in 2012.As evidence of anti-semitism in the Trump administration continues to grow, Capablanca-Fan is becomingly increasingly desperate to demonstrate that Trump is more supportive of Israel than Obama. Even though Trump's policies are practically identical to Obama's, and support for Israel is not even necessarily evidence against anti-semitism (as I've pointed out, but C-F has ignored).

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2017, 02:54 PM
As evidence of anti-semitism in the Trump administration continues to grow, Capablanca-Fan is becomingly increasingly desperate to demonstrate that Trump is more supportive of Israel than Obama.
Projection, much? You dispute Jewish NEverTrump legal scholars with ample documentation to the contrary. The Israelis clearly regard Trump as a better friend.


Even though Trump's policies are practically identical to Obama's, and support for Israel is not even necessarily evidence against anti-semitism (as I've pointed out, but C-F has ignored).
Some things deserve to be ignored.

Rincewind
21-03-2017, 03:27 PM
Some things deserve to be ignored.

That seems to be your MO when it comes to inconvenient evidence.

Patrick Byrom
21-03-2017, 05:53 PM
Projection, much? You dispute Jewish NEverTrump legal scholars with ample documentation to the contrary. The Israelis clearly regard Trump as a better friend.And what have these legal scholars to say about Bannon's anti-semitic film script or Gorka's membership of an anti-semitic organisation? Have they explained why the Trump administration didn't mention Jews or anti-semitism in its Holocaust Memorial Day press release? Or Trump's response to a reporter's question on anti-semitism? All of which - apart from quoting Wikipedia about Gorka - you've also ignored.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2017, 04:16 AM
‘Algeria, where are your Jews?’ – Hillel Neuer at U.N. human rights council
United Nations Human Rights Council, Agenda Item 7 (targeting Israel), 20 March 2017.

UN Watch (Executive Director Hillel Neuer): Mr. President, let me begin by putting the following on the record: Everything we just heard — from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech — is absolutely false; and, indeed, Orwellian.
Today’s report does not consider Israelis to be deserving of human rights — consistent with the approach of this council, where today’s notorious agenda item against Israel completely ignores their human rights.

Over the weekend, President Abbas announced he was giving his highest medal to Rima Khalaf, who resigned from the Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia, a Beirut-based UN agency of 18 Arab states, after Secretary General Guterres rightly instructed her to remove an absurd report which accused Israel of “apartheid.”

Mr. President, why is Mr. Abbas celebrating a report written by the notorious Richard Falk, after his own Palestinian Mission here, tried in 2010, to remove Mr. Falk on the basis that he was “a partisan of Hamas,” as we know from WikiLeaks?

The accusation against Israel is absurd. Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs

Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court.

Now I’d like to ask the members of that commission, that commissioned that report, the Arab states from which we just heard. Egypt, Iraq, and the others:

How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews lived in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?

Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.

Algeria had 140,000 Jews. Algeria, where are your Jews?

Egypt used to have 75,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Syria, you had tens of thousands of Jews. Where are your Jews?

Iraq, you had over 135,000 Jews. Where are your Jews?

Mr. President, where is the apartheid?

Why is there a U.N. commission on the Middle East that does not include Israel? From the 1960s and the ‘70s they refuse to include Israel. Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?

Mr. President, why are we meeting today on an agenda item singling out only one state, the Jewish state, for targeting.

Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?

ER
23-03-2017, 04:49 AM
Meanwhile in London
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39359158

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2017, 12:58 PM
Meanwhile in London
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39359158

Horrific. My wife and I were there last September.

ER
04-04-2017, 12:08 PM
No fishing rights for Palestinians in the Dead Sea!!! :lol:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/15040/leftists-fall-mock-petition-blasting-israel-not-elliott-hamilton#

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2017, 02:50 AM
Israel has repeatedly offered a two-state solution, and the Arabs have turned it down each time. So instead of pressuring Israel all the time, how about pressuring the Arabs to recognize the Jewish state.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76NytvQAIs0

Rincewind
07-04-2017, 04:40 AM
I see Ehud Barak makes an appearance in the video. Does the presenter (David Brog) mention that Barak is his cousin or would that undermine the theatre that is PragerU?

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2017, 05:42 AM
I see Ehud Barak makes an appearance in the video. Does the presenter (David Brog) mention that Barak is his cousin or would that undermine the theatre that is PragerU?

Irrelevant. It's hardly something that he tries to hide, e.g. in this Haaretz interview (http://www.haaretz.com/news/david-brog-on-why-christians-support-the-jewish-state-1.186992):


Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is my cousin. He changed his last name from "Brog" to "Barak" during his time in the army. Given Barak's illustrious career in the Israeli army and government, this is a relation of which I'm very proud.

But Barak is only a small part of his video.

Rincewind
07-04-2017, 07:28 AM
Irrelevant.

Pardon? The fact that he is a close relation of a former Israeli Prime Minister is irrelevant when he is "explaining" ni a Prager "University" video how the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Israeli state to find a peaceful resolution to violence in Gaza and the West Bank? Particularly when his cousin was also a participant at the 2000 Camp David summit, discussed in the short video.

Ian Murray
11-04-2017, 09:54 AM
Israel’s ‘right to exist’ and the Palestinian right to resist (http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/israels-palestinian-resist/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=dffba9b929-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-dffba9b929-398533981&mc_cid=dffba9b929&mc_eid=cce18ae402)
Mondoweiss
7.4.17

...The claim that denying Israel’s “right to exist” is tantamount to seeking the complete annihilation of its (mostly Jewish) people has long sat at the core of Israeli apologia. The Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish State is conveniently read as intransigence – a convenient trick from the Israeli box of magic to turn public opinion against them...

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2017, 10:57 AM
↑↑ More of the same denial of the right of the Jewish state to exist. Until they do, there is no point negotiating. And it's moronic to accuse Israel of being an Apartheid state when Arabs in the Knesset and Supreme Court, while the thugoratic Arab states now have almost no Jews aka judenrein.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2017, 10:59 AM
Pardon? The fact that he is a close relation of a former Israeli Prime Minister is irrelevant when he is "explaining" ni a Prager "University" video how the Palestinians are to blame for the failure of the Israeli state to find a peaceful resolution to violence in Gaza and the West Bank? Particularly when his cousin was also a participant at the 2000 Camp David summit, discussed in the short video.

Stop bellyaching. The Brog/Barak relationship has been known for years, and Barak was just one of a number of Israeli leaders mentioned.

Rincewind
11-04-2017, 11:31 AM
Stop bellyaching. The Brog/Barak relationship has been known for years, and Barak was just one of a number of Israeli leaders mentioned.

It's not bellyaching when Brog is spruking Israel's "unblemished" record in peace negotiations as if it is an informative video at PragerU when in relality his partisanship is a non-issue because it is a propaganda piece.

Ian Murray
11-04-2017, 03:05 PM
↑↑ More of the same denial of the right of the Jewish state to exist. Until they do, there is no point negotiating. And it's moronic to accuse Israel of being an Apartheid state when Arabs in the Knesset and Supreme Court, while the thugoratic Arab states now have almost no Jews aka judenrein.

Israel's right to exist is not being challenged. It is its existence 'as a Jewish state' which is not acceptable, as it enshrines the discriminatory treatment of non-Jewish citizens. By definition enactment of laws which favour one ethnic group over another is apartheid. Also by definition it is not democracy.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2017, 12:01 AM
It's time to acknowledge the war on Christianity (http://www.smh.com.au/world/its-time-to-acknowledge-the-war-on-christianity-20170410-gvi70k.html)
Tim Stanley, SMH, 11 April 2017

We live in an age of martyrs. Also, an age of wilful ignorance. When Christians are killed for being Christians, politicians overlook it and public interest fades.

Those few of us in the West who still go to church don't realise how lucky we are. Others are dying for the right to do that.

The horror is not limited, as the far-right would have you think, to Muslim countries. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Catholics are fleeing into the forests to escape militias targeting church workers and property.

But "Islamic extremism" is the dominant force behind the oppression of Christians in nine out of 10 of the worst countries surveyed by Open Doors. In Nigeria, the murder of Christians by Boko Haram jumped 62 per cent in one year.

Some calculate that between half and two-thirds of Iraq's Christians have died or fled. Up to one million Christian Syrians are now refugees. Those that stay behind in the Middle East face religious taxes, torture, destruction of their temples and rape. There are eyewitness accounts of crucifixions.

We ought to be outraged. Instead the strangely academic tone of Western reaction was captured in an online BBC report about the Egyptian bombings. It read: "The early Church suffered persecution under the Roman empire, and there were intermittent persecutions after Egypt became a Muslim country. Many believe that continues to this day." Many believe?

What an odd choice of words. I wonder how many Copts have to die before this torment is upgraded from a belief to a self-evident fact.

Why do Westerners behave oddly when it's Christians being murdered abroad? Political correctness is partly to blame - that secular form of Christian guilt about things we've done, failed to do, and did a long time ago to foreign people (which means, we seem to assume, that they can do no wrong today).

But also PC allied to realpolitik—the fear that by calling this a religious war on Christians, we confirm the radical Islamist's narrative of Christianity vs Islam and ramp up the sectarian divide.

This anxiety rudely assumes that fundamentalists do indeed speak for an unspoken Muslim tendency towards genocide—even though it contradicts Islamic teaching. The Pope is due to visit Egypt later this month and has been told by Imam Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, to raise the subject of Christian persecution.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2017, 12:03 AM
Israel's right to exist is not being challenged. It is its existence 'as a Jewish state' which is not acceptable, as it enshrines the discriminatory treatment of non-Jewish citizens. By definition enactment of laws which favour one ethnic group over another is apartheid. Also by definition it is not democracy.

More bellyaching about the Jewish state, although it has far more Arabs than the Arab and Islamic states have Jews. So once again, I ask the Islamic states whinging about "apartheid", Where are your Jews?

Rincewind
12-04-2017, 10:23 AM
More bellyaching about the Jewish state, although it has far more Arabs than the Arab and Islamic states have Jews.

Surely this is evidence of the right of return which is a part of Israels Apartheid policies. Why wouldn't Jewish people living in the Arab countries "return" to Israel when they have the right to "return" even if them and their immediate ancestors had never been to Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2017, 06:36 AM
Why Don’t We Care About the Slaughter of Christians? (https://stream.org/dont-care-slaughter-christians/)
MICHAEL BROWN, 13 April 2017

And what about the Islamic terror attack in France, when a driver plowed his truck into hundreds of people in Nice, killing more than 80? That too received day and night coverage, with the bloody footage, including dead children lying in the streets, put before us by the hour.

But when it’s Christians being slaughtered by Islamic terrorists while worshiping the Lord in the safety of their church buildings, it only receives passing mention on our networks. Why?

But I’m not the only one asking this question. Nor is this a new question. For the last decade, a Christian genocide has been taking place in the Middle East representing one of the ugliest chapters in recent human history, yet most Americans remain sadly uninformed. The secular media is complicit.

As expressed by none other than Piers Morgan (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2017/04/11/piers-morgan-christian-genocide-ought-be-dominating-cable-news),


Unfortunately, if it happens in the Middle East, this kind of atrocity, it just does not seem to attract the kind of media attention in America that it would if it happened, as we’ve seen in attacks in Sweden the last few days, in London two weeks ago. I was there for that. Huge attention in the American media. In Paris and Nice. These get huge attention. Yet what happened in Egypt was unbelievably significant.

If you look at what ISIS really stands for, what they are carrying out now in the Middle East and the Egypt in particular, is a kind of genocidal attack on Christians and Christianity. They want Christianity eradicated and they want to convert all Muslims to their crusade, they want it to be a holy war. They want Christians gone. And I don’t think that narrative is getting the attention it should get in the American media and, I have to say, in other media around the world.

These are strong words: What happened in Egypt is a “genocidal attack on Christians and Christianity.” These Islamic terrorists “want Christianity eradicated. … They want Christians gone.”

Patrick Byrom
15-04-2017, 03:08 PM
What's happening to Christians in the Middle East isn't genocide. That implies organised slaughter rather than terrorist attacks. And it has received plenty of coverage in the Guardian (for example). But the Middle East, like Africa and South America, is usually ignored by the media.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2017, 12:21 PM
What's happening to Christians in the Middle East isn't genocide.
But your politically correct ilk has accused opposition to Islam as racist. So that entails that Islam is a race. So why shouldn't Christianity be considered a race too? Therefore a concerted attack on Christians is genocide. Sorry, I've learned from you :P

Patrick Byrom
17-04-2017, 01:55 PM
But your politically correct ilk has accused opposition to Islam as racist. So that entails that Islam is a race. So why shouldn't Christianity be considered a race too? Therefore a concerted attack on Christians is genocide. Sorry, I've learned from you :PExcept I never mentioned race. It's not genocide because it's not a "concerted attack".

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2017, 07:22 AM
IF 'TERROR KNOWS NO RELIGION' WHERE IS ALL THE CHRISTIAN/JEWISH TERRORISM? (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266436/if-terror-knows-no-religion-where-all-benny-huang#.WPZamFBF0XY.facebook)
Benny Huang Front Page, 18 April 2017

In order to bolster his claim that all religions are equally guilty of terrorism he cited a few examples—the 1980s abortion clinic bomber Michael Bray, cult leader David Koresh, and the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Besides the fact that abortion clinic bombings are very, very rare (al-Tayeb reached back a full 32 years to find one), that Koresh was not actually a terrorist, and that McVeigh was a political terrorist and a very lapsed Catholic, his comparison is on solid footing. Okay, not really.

The “double standard” accusation is a serious one that was likely intended to disarm Westerners who are notoriously sensitive about treating others with bias. But is there really a double standard in the way we perceive Muslim violence compared to other kinds? Yes, there is—just not in the way that the Grand Imam suggests. Each time a Muslim terror attack occurs, journalists attempt to lead the public through what can only be called a coping ritual. The ritual has four stages.

The first of these is the “let’s not jump to conclusions” stage in which reporters take great pains not to assume that the attacker is a Muslim just because his name happens to be Abdul or Muhammad or even because he yelled “Allahu Akbar” moments before his killing spree began. Then, when it turns out that he is a Muslim, reporters wonder if his religious affiliation might have been incidental to the attack—which it rarely ever is. In the second stage, the shortest of the four, reporters actually acknowledge the attack and its motive before quickly moving on to the third stage. I’ll call this the “Muslims fear backlash” stage, and it’s characterized by stories about hijab-snatchings (that usually turn out to be hoaxes) or Muslims getting dirty looks in the street. It isn’t even necessary to find any actual incidents of backlash after an attack because the fear of a backlash, not the backlash itself, is the real story. The fourth and final stage is when reporters begin to ask how the right-wing might “exploit” the story. This serves as a warning that taking action to stave off civilizational demise is somehow letting the terrorists win.

So yes, there’s a double standard. No other kind of terrorist attack is reported this way.

Presumably all of these attacks have proportional counterparts committed in the name of other faiths, right? No, they don’t. Though Lutherans represent the largest religious group in Sweden, there has never to my knowledge been a Lutheran terrorist attack in that country or any other. Likewise there are no Russian Orthodox suicide bombers. There is no Anglican approximation of ISIS. If the Muslims don’t have a complete monopoly on religious terror, they’re pretty darned close.

Yet terror-deniers never tire of trying to draw some kind of false equivalence between Muslim terrorism and other kinds, no matter how much of a stretch it is. They often deny or downplay Muslim terrorism, or they assume that every white terrorist is both Christian and religiously motivated, or they blame Christians for Muslim terrorism.

Patrick Byrom
19-04-2017, 02:07 PM
If McVeigh is a political terrorist, then so is ISIS. And what about the IRA or the Stern gang? Every religion has produced terrorists, even Buddhism.

Capablanca-Fan
19-04-2017, 02:39 PM
If McVeigh is a political terrorist,
He was a lifelong anti-Christian, to his last day on earth (https://townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/2002/10/28/timothy-mcveigh,-christian-terrorist-n760330):


McVeigh's last public act before he was executed was to distribute copies of the 1875 poem "Invictus." It begins: "I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul," and ends "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul" -- sentiments that to a Christian are at least vaguely blasphemous.


And what about the IRA
Rev. Dr Mark Durie, a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, points out the truth (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/news-story/f9922ffab098a376582a6977b18bf533):


The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA’s ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic. IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.


or the Stern gang?
Secular Zionists.


Every religion has produced terrorists, even Buddhism.
Don't forget the secular suicide bombers, the Tamil Tigers.

See also Muhammad killed many, Jesus none: Pastor (http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program/program_featured/2017/04/17/muhammad-killed-many--jesus-none--pastor.html)

Patrick Byrom
19-04-2017, 05:27 PM
He was a lifelong anti-Christian, to his last day on earth (https://townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/2002/10/28/timothy-mcveigh,-christian-terrorist-n760330): ...
Maybe not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh): "The execution date was reset for June 11, 2001. McVeigh invited California conductor/composer David Woodard to perform pre-requiem Mass music on the eve of his execution. He requested a Catholic chaplain. He requested two pints of mint chocolate chip ice cream for his last meal."
But my point was exactly the opposite: ISIS is a political movement, just as McVeigh's aims were mainly political.


Rev. Dr Mark Durie, a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, points out the truth (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/creed-of-the-sword/news-story/f9922ffab098a376582a6977b18bf533):

The example of the IRA, so often cited as Christian terrorists, illustrates the Christian position, because the IRA’s ideology was predominantly Marxist and atheistic. IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the teachings of Christ.
But it arose out of Catholic nationalism (https://www.thoughtco.com/guide-to-the-irish-republican-army-3209135), just as ISIS is the product of Islamic nationalism:

The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which traces its roots to Catholic Irish nationalism in the early 1900s, was considered by many to be a terrorist organization because of certain tactics like bombings and assassinations it used to oppose British rule in Ireland.
The IRA became Marxist, but it wasn't originally. And what about the Loyalists, lead by the Reverend Ian Paisley, who described Pope John Paul II as "The scarlet woman of Rome"? That sounds like a religious basis for terrorism to me.


See also Muhammad killed many, Jesus none: Pastor (http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program/program_featured/2017/04/17/muhammad-killed-many--jesus-none--pastor.html)But the followers of Jesus have killed far more people than the followers of Muhammad.

Ian Murray
19-04-2017, 08:52 PM
...
But it arose out of Catholic nationalism (https://www.thoughtco.com/guide-to-the-irish-republican-army-3209135), just as ISIS is the product of Islamic nationalism:

The Irish Republican Army (IRA), which traces its roots to Catholic Irish nationalism in the early 1900s, was considered by many to be a terrorist organization because of certain tactics like bombings and assassinations it used to oppose British rule in Ireland.
The IRA became Marxist, but it wasn't originally. And what about the Loyalists, lead by the Reverend Ian Paisley, who described Pope John Paul II as "The scarlet woman of Rome"? That sounds like a religious basis for terrorism to me.

The Provisional IRA ("Provos") was Marxist; the Official IRA was simply nationalist.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2017, 10:11 AM
‘Four million Jews could have been saved,’ Netanyahu states on Yom Hashoah (https://worldisraelnews.com/four-million-jews-could-have-been-saved-netanyahu-states-on-yom-hashoah)
24 April 2017

In his address Sunday evening at the official state ceremony marking the start of the Holocaust Memorial Day at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decried the inaction of the Allies during the Holocaust and their failure to save the Jews.

Referring to newly released UN documents showing that the Allies understood the dire situation of Europe’s Jews already in 1942, Netanyahu stressed the importance of a strong Jewish state.

“If the powers in 1942 had acted against the death camps — and all that was needed was repeated bombing of the camps — had they acted then, they could have saved 4 million Jews and millions of other people,” he said.

“The powers knew, and they did not act,” he stated. “When terrible crimes were being committed against the Jews, when our brothers and sisters were being sent to the furnaces, the powers knew and did not act (https://worldisraelnews.com/allies-knew-of-holocaust-in-1942-years-before-earlier-assumed/).”

The Israeli leader also condemned the “hypocrisy” of the United Nations (UN), which he said, transfers its “hatred of the Jews to hatred of the Jewish state.”

Ian Murray
25-04-2017, 07:20 PM
...“If the powers in 1942 had acted against the death camps — and all that was needed was repeated bombing of the camps — had they acted then, they could have saved 4 million Jews and millions of other people,” ...

Irrational. Except maybe for Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, in 1942 the death camps were beyond the range of the allied strategic bombing offensive. In any case the high altitude nighttime bombing of the time was notoriously inaccurate and incapable of the type of precision bombing required.

Capablanca-Fan
26-04-2017, 09:01 AM
Irrational. Except maybe for Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen, in 1942 the death camps were beyond the range of the allied strategic bombing offensive. In any case the high altitude nighttime bombing of the time was notoriously inaccurate and incapable of the type of precision bombing required.

Anyway, he presumably didn't mean bombing the camps themselves because they contain the victims of the Nazis, but what about the railroad marshalling places used to transport the Jews to the camps and the railway lines?

There were a number of camps in Germany itself, such as Dachau and Sachenhausen, and there was Natzweiler-Struthof in France near the German border. And surely they could have disrupted some of the associated infrastructure of the ones in Czechoslovakia and Poland around 1943/4?

Ian Murray
26-04-2017, 10:34 AM
Anyway, he presumably didn't mean bombing the camps themselves because they contain the victims of the Nazis, but what about the railroad marshalling places used to transport the Jews to the camps and the railway lines?

There were a number of camps in Germany itself, such as Dachau and Sachenhausen, and there was Natzweiler-Struthof in France near the German border. And surely they could have disrupted some of the associated infrastructure of the ones in Czechoslovakia and Poland around 1943/4?

Presumably Netenhayu either meant what he said or had no idea what he was talking about.

Dropping a dumb bomb on a railway line at night from 20,000 ft was impossible. Bomber Command adopted area bombing in 1942, dropping lots and lots of bombs in the hope that some of them hit something.


Lacking accurate radio navigation equipment and flight radar, the British and Canadian bombers could only "precision" bomb in daylight. But without long' range fighter escorts to protect them during day missions, they raided by night, dropping explosives from high altitudes on industrial areas, hoping to hit something-anything-of importance. This was "indiscriminate" or "area" bombing. If they missed, well, they'd make a mess and at least destroy German morale.

In a secret memo, October, 1942, Air Marshall Sir Charles Portal framed Bomber Command's new policy: "I suppose it is clear that the new aiming points are to be the built-up areas, not for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories."

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/bombing%20raids.htm

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2017, 10:52 AM
Presumably Netenhayu either meant what he said or had no idea what he was talking about.
Or he was talking about the infrastrucure around the camps, by metonymy. Compare the acronym GULag, which stands for Главное управление лагерей (Glavnoye upravlenie lagerey), meaning "Main Camp Administration", but used metonymously for all the camps themselves. No one was proposing directly bombing camps with thousands of innocent people in them.


Dropping a dumb bomb on a railway line at night from 20,000 ft was impossible. Bomber Command adopted area bombing in 1942, dropping lots and lots of bombs in the hope that some of them hit something.
Maybe hit the railway marshalling yards. Anyway, there was so much needed bureaucracy and infrastructure to keep the people coming to the camps, so something could have put some spokes in the wheel.

Ian Murray
28-04-2017, 10:05 AM
Or he was talking about the infrastrucure around the camps, by metonymy. Compare the acronym GULag, which stands for Главное управление лагерей (Glavnoye upravlenie lagerey), meaning "Main Camp Administration", but used metonymously for all the camps themselves. No one was proposing directly bombing camps with thousands of innocent people in them.


Maybe hit the railway marshalling yards. Anyway, there was so much needed bureaucracy and infrastructure to keep the people coming to the camps, so something could have put some spokes in the wheel.

Specifically Netanyahu said: “If the powers in 1942 had acted against the death camps — and all that was needed was repeated bombing of the camps — had they acted then, they could have saved 4 million Jews and millions of other people”. In 1942 the allies did not have the capacity to launch repeated raids deep into Germany, or not without unacceptably high losses. And by the nature of carpet bombing precision targeting was not an option.

In 1944 there was one raid against a French prison. Called Operation Jericho, the aim was to destroy the walls to allow French resistance prisoners to escape. A low-level attack by Mosquitoes successfully breached the walls allowing a mass escape, although several aircraft were lost, over 100 prisoners were killed and most of the escapees were quickly recaptured.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2017, 08:13 AM
Film Premieres Just In Time For 50th Anniversary Of Six Day War (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2017/05/23/film-premieres-just-in-time-for-50th-anniversary-of-six-day-war)
Jerry Bowyer, Forbes, 23 May 2017

Today is a big day for Jerusalem. On the heels of his visit to Saudi Arabia, delivering perhaps the most honest and challenging speech an American president has ever given in the Middle East, President Trump goes to Jerusalem. And during the whole trip, his wife and daughter appear in public without headscarves. Rumors swirl about whether Trump will announce, or at least hint at US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And all of this happens as we approach the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Jerusalem's 'Old City' district during the Six Day War.

And right on cue, CBN releases a fascinating new film, In Our Hands (http://www.inourhands1967.com/), which presents the re-taking of Jerusalem in a docudrama form. The film goes to great effort for the sake of authenticity and accuracy, with dialogue based on actual news reels, letters and diary entries. The film was also compared to Michael Oren's authoritative history of the war for the purposes of accuracy.

I watched the film with my wife, and we expected to be informed, but not to be quite so emotionally moved. There are some very powerful moments in this film. The Paratroopers did not know their way around the Old City, so they needed to stop and ask directions to the Western Wall. A tall Arab man in flowing robes told them that he had been waiting for 19 years for them to come, and then pointed them in the right direction.

Another particularly powerful moment is when the soldiers take time away from the battle to help a lone Arab woman deliver her baby. The soldiers choose life…. Birth pangs of a new world.

The film shows strong Zionist sympathies, which I'm quite comfortable with. I think that an accurate telling of the history of the birth of Israel supports the right to existence of the Jewish state.

One might say accurate history has a well-known Zionist bias. In a world of 'Based on a True Story' historical fiction, In Our Hands stands out as different. All dialogue comes from historical documents. It is meticulous in its fidelity to the historical record.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2017, 08:16 AM
But the followers of Jesus have killed far more people than the followers of Muhammad.
More moral equivalence, although you have a high target when you include the Islamist conquests and slave trade, which were truly following both the teachings and actions of Muhammed. You will not find such things in the actions or teachings of Yeshua.

Rincewind
24-05-2017, 08:22 AM
More moral equivalence, although you have a high target when you include the Islamist conquests and slave trade, which were truly following both the teachings and actions of Muhammed.

The hypocrisy is palpable. You complain whenever a non-christian tells you what the Bible says but as perhaps the most anti-Islamic person on this board you are perfectly happy to pontificate on the teachings of the Quran.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2017, 09:51 AM
The hypocrisy is palpable. You complain whenever a non-christian tells you what the Bible says but as perhaps the most anti-Islamic person on this board you are perfectly happy to pontificate on the teachings of the Quran.

The atheopaths here and elsewhere love to do just that.

ER
24-05-2017, 11:27 AM
The atheopaths here and elsewhere love to do just that.

I tend to believe that the sorry atheopathic quartet here is mainly antichristian rather than atheistic.

I have never seen any of their deplorable ranting (which you tear apart relentlessly while you run rings around them anyway) directed against any other religion!

Rincewind
24-05-2017, 12:55 PM
The atheopaths here and elsewhere love to do just that.

Good luck with ignoring thre charge with a screeching "me too" but your lack of a defense is telling.

Rincewind
24-05-2017, 12:58 PM
I tend to believe that the sorry atheopathic quartet here is mainly antichristian rather than atheistic.

I think you don't understand context very well. If the someone is atheist in a society where Christianity is the vastly dominant religion then a naive analysis will always come up with that false conclusion. A petty whinger in Indonesia (say) would conclude that a domestic atheist is mostly anti-Islam.

Patrick Byrom
24-05-2017, 01:27 PM
More moral equivalence, although you have a high target when you include the Islamist conquests and slave trade, which were truly following both the teachings and actions of Muhammed. You will not find such things in the actions or teachings of Yeshua.
Christians in WWI alone would have probably killed more people than all the people ever killed by Muslims.

Desmond
24-05-2017, 02:52 PM
I tend to believe that the sorry atheopathic quartet here is mainly antichristian rather than atheistic.

I have never seen any of their deplorable ranting (which you tear apart relentlessly while you run rings around them anyway) directed against any other religion!
Who's in this quartet?

Patrick Byrom
24-05-2017, 06:32 PM
I tend to believe that the sorry atheopathic quartet here is mainly antichristian rather than atheistic. I have never seen any of their deplorable ranting (which you tear apart relentlessly while you run rings around them anyway) directed against any other religion!I think you're confusing me with someone else. I've never criticised Christianity, or any other religion here (although I have made a lot of posts, so it's possible I've overlooked one or two). I have criticised the behaviour of Christians, and Muslims, and no doubt members of other religions as well. But so has Capablanca-Fan - probably more than I have!

And if he is "run[ing] rings around" me, they must be smoke rings, because the last two times I quoted the Bible, he vanished in a puff of smoke, and still hasn't replied to my posts :(

Patrick Byrom
24-05-2017, 06:35 PM
Who's in this quartet?I think the "Gang of Four" is you, Ian, Rincewind and myself. Apparently Elliot thinks we're all acolytes of Rincewind or something.

Rincewind
24-05-2017, 07:19 PM
Apparently Elliot thinks we're all acolytes of Rincewind or something.

Thinks is too strong a term.

Desmond
24-05-2017, 07:25 PM
I think the "Gang of Four" is you, Ian, Rincewind and myself. Apparently Elliot thinks we're all acolytes of Rincewind or something.

Oh right, didn't I criticise Waleed and Yasmin whatserface as well as condemn the Indonesian heresy decision just recently? Oh well don't let the truth get in the way.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2017, 03:36 AM
Christians in WWI alone would have probably killed more people than all the people ever killed by Muslims.

A very secular evolutionized Germany was Christian? Are you claiming that WW1 was a religious war now? It was arguably a crass war, which didn't really end until 1945, since 1918 was just a 21-year armistice.

Violence in the Bible—How Should We Respond? (http://www.kairosjournal.org/InsightDetail.aspx?InsightID=1861&L=1)
Dr. Mark Durie is vicar of St. Mary’s Anglican Church in Caulfield, Melbourne, Australia. He is fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities and the author of Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam.

Violence is regarded by the Bible as an inherently evil symptom of the corruption of the whole earth after the Fall: “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). In contrast the prophet Isaiah looked forward to the day when violence would be no more: “Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise” (Isa. 60:18). Astoundingly, and in absolute contrast to the earlier kings of Israel, Isaiah describes the Lord’s anointed as unacquainted with violence: “And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth” (Isa. 53:9). This prophecy, of course, reaches its fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ.

The key question for Christians is “What did Jesus have to do with violence?” When we turn to consider Jesus and His followers, we find a systematic rejection of religious violence. Jesus’ message was that His Kingdom would be spiritual and not political. Jesus explicitly and repeatedly condemned the use of force to achieve His goals: “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52).

As Jesus goes to the cross, He renounces force, even at the cost of His own life: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).

Jesus’ take on violence was reinforced by the apostles Paul and Peter, who urged Christians to show consideration to their enemies, renouncing personal retaliation and revenge, living peaceably, returning cursing with blessing, and showing humility to others (Rom. 12:14–21; Titus 3:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:20–24).

If only Christians had maintained this New Testament position down the centuries, the world would have been a better place. The invention of “Christendom” in the fourth Christian century, and the later influence of a centuries-long struggle against the Islamic jihad, ultimately led Christians to develop aberrant theologies which regarded warfare against non-Christians as “holy” and soldiers who died fighting in such wars were regarded as “martyrs.” Thankfully this view of warfare has been universally denounced in the modern era as incompatible with the gospel of Christ.

The New Testament’s teachings on the state continue to sustain the more than 300 million believers who live in over 60 nations where Christians are persecuted. In none of these countries has persecution resulted in Christian terrorism or violent Christian insurgencies aimed at overthrowing civil authorities. On the contrary, China’s 70 million Christians remain loyal to their nation and government, despite 50 years of the most intense oppression. In Nepal it is the Maoists who have been engaging in terrorism, not the half a million indigenous Christians.

The example of the IRA, so often cited as “Christian terrorists,” actually proves our point, because its ideology was predominately Marxist and atheistic. Unlike modern-day jihadists, who constantly quote the Qur’an in their public statements, the IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the peaceful teachings of Jesus of Nazareth!

ER
25-05-2017, 09:56 AM
Who's in this quartet?

LOL definitely not you!

well sometimes you sound like you are part of the deplorable quartet. led by the mother superior whose silly members tend to agree with each other in EVERY aspect of the socio/political agenda they push.

That agenda consists of anti-Christian, Pro - Palestine, and some times Pro_Islam, Anti - Jewish/Israel, leftard, rhetorics not to mention other topics such as climate change and solar power which can be more agreeable.

It's logically impossible to have a group of people agreeing with each other in every possible topic of discussion without some pre-decided modus operandi!

It's logically impossible to have people who happen to disagree with their stupid policies or express their own ideas like Capablanca_Fan, Michael Baron, Igor Goldenberg or myself (*)sometimes
targeted in such a vulgar, rude, and bullying way!

You are not a mouthpiece, You are not a sheep, you have your own way of thinking!

You are not an acolyte of the mother superior.

I have met you and your family (not yet your son) personally and have great respect for you, something that I believe you know it's true and not a flattering gesture for whatever reason.

As for the members of the sorry quartet which I have and will again refer to in my postings here you can easily locate if you just have a look at my signature.

Now, allow me to continue my relaxing period after my beautiful holiday in the Aegean spring followed by my preparation for my European summer vacation!

Cheers and good luck!

(*) I have to admit that in the past I wasn't very subtle in expressing my opinions here but I also have to admit I have improved during the last couple of years or so!

Rincewind
25-05-2017, 10:33 AM
The example of the IRA, so often cited as “Christian terrorists,” actually proves our point, because its ideology was predominately Marxist and atheistic. Unlike modern-day jihadists, who constantly quote the Qur’an in their public statements, the IRA terrorists found no inspiration in the peaceful teachings of Jesus of Nazareth!

There is no evidence for this assertion but it is a strawman and there are plenty of examples of acts of terrorism carried out by Christians like the Oklahoma City bomber and the Norway shooting from 2011. There is also plenty of violence in the Bible particularly the jihad carried out under Joshua. but also in the New Testament like (for example Rev 9:17-21:


17 The horses and riders I saw in my vision looked like this: Their breastplates were fiery red, dark blue, and yellow as sulfur. The heads of the horses resembled the heads of lions, and out of their mouths came fire, smoke and sulfur. 18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur that came out of their mouths. 19 The power of the horses was in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails were like snakes, having heads with which they inflict injury.

20 The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. 21 Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2017, 11:06 AM
There is no evidence for this assertion but it is a strawman and there are plenty of examples of acts of terrorism carried out by Christians like the Oklahoma City bomber and the Norway shooting from 2011.
Where is the slightest evidence that either were Christian, let alone following the teachings of Christ. For the latter, as I documented at the time in Norway terrorist: more media mendacity (http://creation.com/norway-terrorist-breivik-not-christian):


Breivik specifically denied that he was a religious Christian, caring nothing for God and Christ:


“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

In fact, Breivik is clearly a believer in evolution. In a section of his ‘manifesto’ deploring “race-mixing”, he refers to “Nordic/European” features (i.e. blue eyes and blond hair like his own) as “rare characteristics that have been acquired through an evolutionary process which has taken more than 1 million years.”

Elsewhere, in the context of his own destiny after death, he makes the proviso “if there is a God”. This is the proviso of an agnostic, not a Christian. So it seems that he was nothing more than a ‘cultural Christian’. Even the strident anti-Christian Richard Dawkins said of himself: “I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.”



There is also plenty of violence in the Bible particularly the jihad carried out under Joshua.
Yes, for a specific crime, as Rev. Dr Durie pointed out in the article I linked to:


Certainly the conquest of Canaan, as described in the Bible, was a bloody one. Some cities like Jericho were put to the sword.

Isn’t it dangerous to have such material in the Bible? Might not these stories incite Christians to acts of bloodshed or even genocide against others? The answer to this question is a very emphatic “No!”

There are a number of reasons why the conquest of Canaan, and other stories of conflict in the Bible, do not incite Christians into violent acts of insurrection, murder, and genocide.

One is that the account of the conquest of Canaan was entirely situation-specific. Yes, there is a divine instruction reported in the Bible to take the land by force and occupy it: “you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you and destroy all their figured stones and destroy all their metal images and demolish all their high places” (Num. 33:52). However this was not an eternal permission to believers to wage war.

It was for a specific time and place. According to the Bible, the Canaanites had come under divine judgment because of their religious practices, of which, perhaps, the most offensive example was child sacrifice: “And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you” (Deut. 18:12; see also Gen. 15:16).2

The sacrificing of firstborn children by immolating them before an idol (Deut. 18:10) was a persistent trait of Canaanite religion. The Phoenicians were Canaanites, and as late as the second century B.C., the people of Carthage, a Phoenician colony, were sacrificing children to their goddess Tanit. Archeologists have found charred remains of tens of thousands of newborn infants and fetuses buried in Carthage. The practice of child sacrifice made the Romans despise the Carthaginians.

Although the Old Testament does condone the use of force to purge a land of violence and injustice, the Bible’s attitude to such violence is not that it is sacred or holy. On the contrary, King David, who fought many wars with God’s active support and guidance, was not allowed to be the one to build God’s temple in Jerusalem, because there was so much blood on his hands: “You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood” (1 Chron. 28:3).

The conquest of Canaan was indeed a unique moment in the history of God’s dealings with His people. It prefigured a coming day of restoration when evil would be erased from the face of the earth and peace would come. No serious person can suggest that the warring principles involved in securing the Promised Land are to be practiced by Christians today.


But also in the New Testament like (for example Rev 9:17-21:
Nothing in that apocalyptic passage that says that Christians should use violence.

But for you ilk, as well as the Leftmedia and dhimmitudinous politicians, Allahu Akbar = "nothing to do with Islam", while you're happy to blame Christians and the Bible for actions contrary to Christ's teachings and even for those who deny being Christian.

Patrick Byrom
25-05-2017, 12:27 PM
A very secular evolutionized Germany was Christian? Are you claiming that WW1 was a religious war now? It was arguably a crass war, which didn't really end until 1945, since 1918 was just a 21-year armistice.I'm just saying that the majority of the soldiers who killed people in that war were Christians. And thus the number of people killed by Christians exceeds the number killed by Muslims.

Desmond
25-05-2017, 04:41 PM
Thanks Elliott I love you too mate.

Rincewind
25-05-2017, 05:09 PM
Where is the slightest evidence that either were Christian, let alone following the teachings of Christ.

I don;t have to prove any such thing just that they identified as Christian on some level and committed violence because of their particular beliefs. Being a cultural Christian who kills to avoid curruption of Christian culture us still terrorism carried out in the name of Christianity.


Yes, for a specific crime, as Rev. Dr Durie pointed out in the article I linked to:

A lot of special pleading and very little denial of barbaric violence. The claim that it does not inspire Christians to violence is unproven given the existence of Christians who do violence. It is difficult to account for the impact on these individuals that one passage might have had on their propensity for violence. No doubt that a Biblical hero leading an bloody holy war against a foreign nation to dispossess them of the land they had settled is a dangerous role model.


Nothing in that apocalyptic passage that says that Christians should use violence.

No however it does say that God will use extreme violence against the entire population of the globe and an Christian who sees this as the end-times and themselves as an agent of the Lord might undertake extreme violence since billions will be slaughtered in the apocalypse.

In any case a book that says god will wipe out humanity in large numbers is teaching that mass-murder is an acceptable means unto an end.

Patrick Byrom
26-05-2017, 12:41 AM
Thanks Elliott I love you too mate.So who is the Fourth Man, if it's not road runner?

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2017, 02:44 AM
I'm just saying that the majority of the soldiers who killed people in that war were Christians.
Were they? Already Germany was infested in liberal theology, and the UK was a little behind in that regard. And the Ottoman Empire was Muslim.

Then there is the huge Arab Muslim Slave Trade Of Africans (http://originalpeople.org/the-arab-muslim-slave-trade-of-africans-the-untold-story/):


Over 28 Million Africans have been enslaved in the Muslim world during the past 14 centuries

While the mortality rate for slaves being transported across the Atlantic was as high as 10%, the percentage of slaves dying in transit in the Transsahara and East African slave trade was between 80 and 90%!

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2017, 09:33 AM
So who is the Fourth Man, if it's not road runner?

I'd be guessing antichrist, although AC is long inactive. The only other possible target I can think of is Goughfather.

I might have been deemed in caricature to tick the boxes in the first post, but not the second.

ER
26-05-2017, 10:03 AM
I'd be guessing antichrist ...

Your guessing is correct!

Despite personal differences, I have to admit that antichrist, the quintessential troll has a good (yet often ball breaking) sense of humour,
and more qualities to raise a comprehensible and interesting argument than the rest of the deplorable trio put together.

By spitting the dummy and taking his ball home he left his sidekicks like mother superior and her acolytes take over.

Now, we are left with this endless, boring ranting and pointless reference to irrelevant statistics reinforcing some
nonsensical agenda of the cronies who never disagree with each other and the only thing they seem able to do is ganging up against
other members who challenge their favourite directives and express an independent personal opinion about various matters!

Rincewind
26-05-2017, 02:53 PM
So who is the Fourth Man, if it's not road runner?

Harry Lime's younger brother?

Desmond
26-05-2017, 05:52 PM
I was in a flute quintet once, but that involved blowing different sort of air than I do now :lol:

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2017, 06:40 PM
Now, we are left with this endless, boring ranting and pointless reference to irrelevant statistics reinforcing some
nonsensical agenda of the cronies who never disagree with each other and the only thing they seem able to do is ganging up against
other members who challenge their favourite directives and express an independent personal opinion about various matters!

Hmmm, I don't remember Capablanca-Fan and Igor Goldenberg disagreeing with each other on too much. Can't recall Michael getting into heavy flamewars with either of them either. So I'm not sure that the left and right sides of the culture war are all that different.

Desmond
26-05-2017, 07:26 PM
Hmmm, I don't remember Capablanca-Fan and Igor Goldenberg disagreeing with each other on too much. Can't recall Michael getting into heavy flamewars with either of them either. So I'm not sure that the left and right sides of the culture war are all that different.

Or Adamski :)

Isn't goughfather a Christian though?

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2017, 07:41 PM
Or Adamski :)

Isn't goughfather a Christian though?

Indeed he is.

Rincewind
26-05-2017, 10:01 PM
So I'm not sure that the left and right sides of the culture war are all that different.

If AC is included in my coterie then I have definitely gotten into a number of big disagreements with him. Ian and Patrick, less so. RR on occasion perhaps but rarely. Certainly nothing like "never" when AC is included.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2017, 10:50 PM
I tend to believe that the sorry atheopathic quartet here is mainly antichristian rather than atheistic.

I have never seen any of their deplorable ranting (which you tear apart relentlessly while you run rings around them anyway) directed against any other religion!

It's often the way. Dawkins belatedly admitted that radical Islam is much more of a threat than conservative Christianity, but a lot of these atheopaths go out of their way to say that terrorist attacks by radical Muslims have nothing to do with Islam, while attacks by rabid anti-Christians like Timothy McVey and Anders Breivik are the fault of Christianity.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2017, 10:51 PM
Or Adamski :)

Isn't goughfather a Christian though?

Is he? His real religion is leftism, and certainly not biblical Christianity.

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2017, 10:54 PM
If AC is included in my coterie then I have definitely gotten into a number of big disagreements with him.

Indeed, as does anybody who is sane.

ER
26-05-2017, 11:03 PM
Hmmm, I don't remember Capablanca-Fan and Igor Goldenberg disagreeing with each other on too much. Can't recall Michael getting into heavy flamewars with either of them either. So I'm not sure that the left and right sides of the culture war are all that different.

Indeed, however, they had and have different views in different matters.
They never teamed together in each and every topic under the sun to add validity to the nonsensical ranting of the mother superior as the acolytes do on a continuous basis here!

Patrick Byrom
26-05-2017, 11:22 PM
It's often the way. Dawkins belatedly admitted that radical Islam is much more of a threat than conservative Christianity, but a lot of these atheopaths go out of their way to say that terrorist attacks by radical Muslims have nothing to do with Islam, while attacks by rabid anti-Christians like Timothy McVey and Anders Breivik are the fault of Christianity.You can't be referring to me then, as my point has always been exactly the opposite - that terrorist attacks are political, not religious. That's why there are terrorists from every religion, even pacifist ones such as Buddhism.

Patrick Byrom
26-05-2017, 11:24 PM
Hmmm, I don't remember Capablanca-Fan and Igor Goldenberg disagreeing with each other on too much. Can't recall Michael getting into heavy flamewars with either of them either. So I'm not sure that the left and right sides of the culture war are all that different.Exactly. There is definitely more disagreement on the 'left' than on the 'right'.

Desmond
27-05-2017, 02:53 AM
Is he? His real religion is leftism, and certainly not biblical Christianity.

He's a Christian, not a young earther though IIRC.

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2017, 11:11 AM
Another terror attack in London ☹️

Those blasted Anglicans again.

And surely after this second atrocity, those who oppose car control laws are just dancing on the graves of the victims.

Patrick Byrom
04-06-2017, 03:09 PM
And surely after this second atrocity, those who oppose car control laws are just dancing on the graves of the victims.Car owners are registered and licensed, and given years of training, including strict tests before they are even allowed to have a licence. There are also restrictions on what cars may be driven by certain people. And the licence can be removed if a person misuses the car. If all of these also applied to guns in the US, there wouldn't be so much opposition to widespread gun ownership. And the problem with guns are the deliberate mass killings by non-terrorists in countries like the US where there is not enough control over them - there are no deliberate mass killings by non-terrorists with cars.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2017, 07:51 AM
Pamela Geller was banned by Prime Minister Theresa May from entering the country when she was scheduled to speak at a memorial for the young British father and soldier Lee Rigby who was beheaded by devout Muslims in broad daylight on a London street. May banned me because, she said, my visit would not be “conducive to the public good” and it would might “incite Muslims to violence.” Cowed, Theresa May allowed the most vile imams and Islamic hate preachers to enter the country. She has blood on her hands. If the British people were permitted to hear voices of freedom and reason, they would not have two awful choices in the elections. And London’s Muslim mayor says terror is part of living in an urban city. They elected him, so live with it."
Pamela Geller

Patrick Byrom
05-06-2017, 11:37 AM
Pamela Geller was banned by Prime Minister Theresa May from entering the country when she was scheduled to speak at a memorial for the young British father and soldier Lee Rigby who was beheaded by devout Muslims in broad daylight on a London street. May banned me because, she said, my visit would not be “conducive to the public good” and it would might “incite Muslims to violence.” Cowed, Theresa May allowed the most vile imams and Islamic hate preachers to enter the country. She has blood on her hands. If the British people were permitted to hear voices of freedom and reason, they would not have two awful choices in the elections. And London’s Muslim mayor says terror is part of living in an urban city. They elected him, so live with it."
Pamela GellerThe fact that she mis-quotes the London mayor, and - for some reason - mentions his religion, is a good argument for keeping her out.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2017, 04:15 AM
Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło launched an blistering attack on European Union leaders following the Manchester terror attack. (https://venitism.wordpress.com/2017/05/26/europe-rise-from-your-knees-or-youll-be-crying-over-your-children-every-day/)


“We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite,” she railed. “We want to help people, not the political elites.

“Where are you headed Europe?” she demanded. “Rise from your knees and from your lethargy or you will be crying over your children every day.

“If you can’t see this – if you can’t see that terrorism currently has the potential to hurt every country in Europe, and you think that Poland should not defend itself, you are going hand in hand with those who point this weapon against Europe, against all of us.”

“It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.”

Addressing the people of Europe, she asked: “Do we want politicians who claim we have to get used to the attacks, and who describe terrorist attacks as incidents, or do we want strong politicians who can see the danger and can fight against it efficiently?”

Poland has refused to take in any migrants from the Syrian refugee crisis and has been fortunate to not have any terror attacks occur on its soil.

The previous Polish Government agreed in 2015 to take in 4,500-5,000 migrants, the commitment increased by the EU to 6,200, but Szydło’s administration reversed that decision upon taking power and has promised instead to give aid to people in refugee camps in the Middle East.

Brussels has responded by issuing threats of sanctions if no migrants are taken by June. The same threat has been made to Hungary, which also has yet to take any migrants in under the quota system.

Although the Commission has not made clear what sanctions would be applied, politicians in other member states have called for Poland and Hungary to have their EU funding withheld until they participate in the programme.

But Poland’s Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak is defiant, insisting that taking the migrants would be “much worse” than any sanctions the EU could lay down.

“We mustn’t forget the terror attacks that have taken place in Western Europe, and how — in the bigger EU countries — these are unfortunately now a fact of life,” he said earlier this month.

Poland is also proud of its Christian heritage and has rejected the left wing liberal idea that "all cultures/religions are equal".

[Mrs Szydło is Poland's third female PM]

Indeed, Poland has a history of effective response against Islamist invasions. Centuries earlier, the Polish king Jan III Sobieski led the Christian forces in a great cavalry charge that routed the Ottoman Empire army in the Battle of Vienna (1683). This ended the Islamist menace in Europe.

And in more recent times, sure, they couldn't handle both the Nazis and Soviet Communists combined in 1939, but they had smashed the Soviets on their own in the Battle of Warsaw in 1920. This held back murderous gulag Communism from Europe for a few decades.

Patrick Byrom
06-06-2017, 12:30 PM
The Polish PM seems confused - the terrorist attacks have no connection to refugees. And the Poles have an unfortunate history of treating non-Christians very badly - you seem to have forgotten about Dachau, Buchenwald, etc. in your history lesson above.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2017, 02:15 PM
The Polish PM seems confused - the terrorist attacks have no connection to refugees. And the Poles have an unfortunate history of treating non-Christians very badly
Not letting in refugees from Islamist countries, and not suffering terrorists attacks which the mayor of London and other PC politicians claim are something we have to live with—gee, I wonder if there is a connection.


- you seem to have forgotten about Dachau, Buchenwald, etc. in your history lesson above.
I have forgotten more than you're likely to learn, evidently. Both of these were in Germany, not Poland, which was in any cases occupied by Nazis and Communists during the Holocaust.

Patrick Byrom
06-06-2017, 06:17 PM
Not letting in refugees from Islamist countries, and not suffering terrorists attacks which the mayor of London and other PC politicians claim are something we have to live with—gee, I wonder if there is a connection.Except that the terrorist attacks aren't being carried out by refugees. If there was a connection, there should have been repeated attacks in Germany, the country with the largest number of refugees - but there haven't been, of course.


I have forgotten more than you're likely to learn, evidently. Both of these were in Germany, not Poland, which was in any cases occupied by Nazis and Communists during the Holocaust.You're correct, of course. But Auschwitz - the largest concentration camp - was definitely in Poland. And there was a definite rise in Polish antisemitism before the Nazi occupation.

There is also a lot of anti-semitism in Poland currently, despite the fact that Poland has almost no Jews. For example (http://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitism-seen-on-the-rise-in-poland/): "Nearly a third (32%) said they did not want Jewish neighbors, compared to 27% in 2014."

Patrick Byrom
06-06-2017, 07:08 PM
Maybe European countries should apply the same 'logic' to Poland that it applies to refugees (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8439117/EU-migrants-commit-500-crimes-a-week-in-UK.html): "More than 54,000 European Union citizens have been convicted of crimes — including murder — in the past two years The Daily Telegraph can disclose. Poles and Romanians are the worst offenders according to the figures, adding to concerns over the impact of the two most recent EU expansions."

I'm sure Poles would be happy to be barred from every European country because they're considered too dangerous :(

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2017, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure Poland's success in avoiding recent terrorist attacks is because of its policy response or because it simply isn't worth the bother.

Rincewind
06-06-2017, 08:55 PM
I'm not sure Poland's success in avoiding recent terrorist attacks is because of its policy response or because it simply isn't worth the bother.

Certainly ISIS wants to maximise coverage and the best way to do that is to conduct operations is major western cities like Paris, London, etc. Warsaw would not get anywhere near the coverage.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2017, 12:07 AM
I prefer the Polish PM's policies to the appeasement/surrender policies of the current Vic premier a couple of years ago:

Violent extremism part of contemporary Australia: Andrews (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/terror-threat-premier-daniel-andrews-under-fire-for-waving-a-white-flag-on-violent-extremism-20151017-gkbiu6.html)

Patrick Byrom
07-06-2017, 12:44 AM
I prefer the Polish PM's policies to the appeasement/surrender policies of the current Vic premier a couple of years ago:
Violent extremism part of contemporary Australia: Andrews (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/terror-threat-premier-daniel-andrews-under-fire-for-waving-a-white-flag-on-violent-extremism-20151017-gkbiu6.html)Poland's PM seems to be in favour of violent extremism (https://news.vice.com/story/poland-populist-government-far-right-extremism) - as long as it's not Muslim:

Today, ultranationalist politics has a pronounced influence on Polish youth culture, from football stadiums to music to streetwear. Openly xenophobic far-right politicians have seats in Parliament, and the populist government of the conservative Law and Justice party has adopted a nationalist, anti-immigrant platform that shares much ground with the far right. The annual Independence Day demonstration in Warsaw, organized by far-right nationalist groups, now draws estimated crowds of up to 70,000 people, marching under the slogan “Poland for the Poles.”

Ian Murray
07-06-2017, 04:50 PM
Looking at terror attacks ‘per capita’ should make us rethink beliefs about levels of risk and Muslims (https://theconversation.com/looking-at-terror-attacks-per-capita-should-make-us-rethink-beliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449)
The Conversation
7.7.17

...A somewhat baffling conclusion from a long list of research articles states that terrorism is more likely to emerge in democracies, rather than non-democracies. This idea is difficult to reconcile with our intuition of democracy giving people political (and usually religious) freedom – so why should we see terrorism in such free countries?

It turns out that once we analyse terror per capita, democratic nations are less likely to witness terrorism. Again, take India, a large democracy that, at first glance, suffers a lot from terrorism. But, in per-capita terms, terrorism becomes less important.

Another popular belief states that countries with a sizeable Muslim population – such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh or Nigeria – are experiencing more terrorism than non-Muslim countries. This is true when looking at the total numbers of deaths.

But that result is also overturned once we consider terror per capita. A larger share of Muslims in a given country relates to marginally less terrorism. Pakistan (202 million people), Indonesia (258 million), Bangladesh (156 million) and Nigeria (186 million) all feature exceptionally large populations.

This result is informative for the current policy debate. More caution is needed before classifying certain countries as more prone to terrorism based on their religion.

Another – admittedly simplistic – way of considering the link between Islam and terrorism comes from comparing the share of terror attacks conducted by Muslim groups with the share of the world population identifying as Muslim. If Muslims were more likely to be terrorists, we should expect the latter figure to be lower.

Approximately 23% of the world population identifies as Muslim. But, since September 11, Islamist groups have conducted about 20% of terrorist attacks worldwide. Thus, terrorist attacks are – historically and today – less likely to be conducted by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim group....


On an average day, terrorists kill 21 people worldwide. On that same average day, natural or technological disasters kill 2,200 people – or more than 100 times as many.

The likelihood of dying at the hands of a terrorist is comparable to the odds of drowning in one’s own bathtub. ...

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2017, 08:00 PM
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt are socking it to Qatar accusing it of funding terrorists and militants and supporting Iran. (Some of this is very rich indeed coming from Saudi Arabia.) In the UAE expressing sympathy for Qatar is now punishable by up to 15 years in jail.

Patrick Byrom
07-06-2017, 09:21 PM
Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt are socking it to Qatar accusing it of funding terrorists and militants and supporting Iran. (Some of this is very rich indeed coming from Saudi Arabia.) In the UAE expressing sympathy for Qatar is now punishable by up to 15 years in jail.And Trump is pouring petrol on the flames by supporting Saudi Arabia!

Rincewind
08-06-2017, 11:57 AM
The Qatar thing is worrying that could boil over in the next couple of years (i.e. during Trumps first term). Trump turning a blind eye to human rights violations may be emboldening KSA and UAE. The US still has some military bases there and so would not want to get embroiled in a gulf state war.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2017, 05:05 AM
Hiding Christians in the Basement: Fear and Heroism in a Philippine War Zone (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/world/asia/marawi-philippines-islamic-state-christians.html?_r=0)
点击查看本文中文版
By FELIPE VILLAMOR, NYT, 17 JUNE 2017

MARAWI, Philippines — Three Christian civilians said they had cowered in a basement for weeks while militants inspired by the Islamic State went door to door killing non-Muslims in the southern Philippine city of Marawi before fleeing for their lives at dawn on Tuesday.

“We heard them shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ and asking neighbors about religion,” said Ian Torres, 25, a house painter who had come to Marawi for a job. “We could only hear them. If they could not answer questions about Quran verses, gunfire immediately followed.”

Their account, and others from people who have fled the battle zone in Marawi, starkly illustrate the brutal religious calculus of the militants as well as the heroic efforts of local Muslims who risked their lives to protect Christian friends and workers.

Christians and Muslims have long coexisted peacefully in Marawi, Mr. Andilig said.

“I have many friends who are Muslim,” he said. “It was never a problem in the past.”

There was still evidence of that camaraderie at another neighborhood in Marawi, where five Muslim police officers hid and protected five Christian construction workers for nearly three weeks.

Ian Murray
20-06-2017, 08:38 AM
Some courageous Muslims protect Christians from Islamists in Malawi …

Malawi is actually in East Africa, a long way from the Philippines

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2017, 11:33 AM
Thanks, typo corrected. ↑↑

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2017, 12:07 AM
Why do lefties say London Bridge attack was an ‘incident’… but Finsbury Park Mosque attack was ‘terrorism’? (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3846217/why-do-lefties-say-london-bridge-attack-was-an-incident-but-finsbury-park-mosque-attack-was-terrorism/)
In the two days since Darren Osborne allegedly crashed a van into Muslim worshippers, we have seen some startling double standards
By Brendan O'Neill, 21 June 2017

THIS week, leftists finally got animated and angry about an act of terrorism.

They did not just say “Keep calm and carry on”, as they did after the Manchester and London Bridge attacks.

They did not just invite us to lay some flowers and teddy bears and tweet a sad emoji.

They did not try to shush debate or discourage national soul-searching, as they do after Islamist atrocities, always fearing that heated debate might “cause offence”.

No, they said it’s time to get serious about terrorism.

They finally said we Brits need to ask ourselves why our nation is afflicted by ideological violence.

What made them change their tune?

The horrific Finsbury Park Mosque attack. That disgusting assault on innocent Muslims by a suspected adherent of far-right thinking.

This act seems to have agitated some leftists more than any other recent assault on civilians.

The same people who insist we treat Islamist attacks as acts of individual violence, which tell us nothing about society more broadly, are citing Finsbury as proof that Britain is in the grip of hatred.

After Islamist attacks, leftists always balk from naming the ideological problem. Sometimes they even refuse to use the T-word.

Labour MP Diane Abbott referred to last month’s Manchester Arena bombing, in which 22 souls were wiped out by Salman Abedi, as a “horrific incident” — making it sound like a traffic accident.

But she swiftly applied the T-word to the Finsbury assault. This was a “shocking terror attack”, she said on Twitter, even before all the facts were known.

Her party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, did not refer to the Westminster Bridge attack as terrorism for five days.

In his first comment on this Islamist attack in March — in which Khalid Masood killed four civilians and a police officer — Corbyn described it as a “serious incident”.

In his second, the day after the attack, he said it was an “atrocity” but warned us not to “rush to judgement”.

He had no problem “rushing to judgement” on the Finsbury attack, however.

“This is terror on our streets,” he said just hours after it happened. The double standards are extraordinary.

To get a sense of the double standards at play here, just imagine if a politician went on TV after Manchester and said: “There has been an increase in Islamist prejudice all over the country.” They would be shamed, ridiculed and possibly sacked.

Left-leaning publications which insist Islamist attacks are isolated acts by individuals hypocritically claim the Finsbury attack is the product of a bigger hatred.

This attack confirms that we have “allowed Islamophobia to flourish”, says the New Statesman. It shows how “normalised” anti-Islam prejudice has become, says the Guardian.

The Finsbury attack chimes with the Guardian’s leftist prejudice, especially its prejudice against ordinary, non Guardian-reading people.

Perhaps the most striking double standard post-Finsbury has been the swift indictment of tabloid newspapers and right-wing “hate preachers”.

One left-wing writer says the press is “whipping up” the “vulnerable” into “hysteria”.

By “vulnerable”, he means everyday, working-class Brits, who are viewed by many leftists as imbeciles easily coaxed into violent behaviour.

These double standards leave us with only one conclusion: Leftists care more about Muslims than non-Muslims. They find terrorism more repulsive when it is aimed at the Muslim community.

Those of us who genuinely care about democracy and solidarity should reject these double standards and argue that all forms of ideological violence are equally obnoxious.

Kevin Bonham
22-06-2017, 09:04 AM
On the other hand, UK tabloid media were slammed for reporting the incident as simply a vehicle hitting pedestrians, without even hinting at conclusions about terror links before all the facts are known as they would usually do.

It was clearly a terrorist incident just as the attacks by Islamist extremists were terrorist incidents. There is a legitimate debate though about whether blaring "terrorist!" from the rooftops every time one of these things happens is useful or whether it just encourages others. I would not be surprised if this anti-Islamic terrorist hoped to inspire others to fight terrorism with more terrorism.

Patrick Byrom
22-06-2017, 10:52 AM
Why do lefties say London Bridge attack was an ‘incident’… but Finsbury Park Mosque attack was ‘terrorism’? (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3846217/why-do-lefties-say-london-bridge-attack-was-an-incident-but-finsbury-park-mosque-attack-was-terrorism/)
In the two days since Darren Osborne allegedly crashed a van into Muslim worshippers, we have seen some startling double standards
By Brendan O'Neill, 21 June 2017So why can O'Neill only find a few heavily edited quotes to support his position?

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2017, 08:37 AM
GOOD TRUMP: Administration Cuts Funds For U.N. Peacekeeping (http://www.dailywire.com/news/18112/good-trump-administration-cuts-funds-un-michael-qazvini)
Michael Qazvini, Daily Wire, 29 June 2016

The Trump administration is making good on a promise to hold the increasingly corrupt United Nations accountable. Early Thursday, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley put to rest any suggestions that the White House was bluffing when it said it would cut funds to the international body.

“Just 5 months into our time here, we've cut over half a billion [dollars] from the UN peacekeeping budget and we’re only getting started,” she tweeted.

In his first month in office, Trump signed an executive order asking for “at least a 40 percent overall decrease” in U.S. funding for the U.N. organizations that violate certain criteria. One such criterion was whether a given U.N. body recognizes full membership to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, Islamist-inspired political projects accused of promoting terrorism and violence against Jews.

With the scrutiny of a seasoned businessman, Trump called for the cutting of funds to U.N. organizations guilty of: supporting terrorism-sponsoring states; supporting countries accused of violating sanctions; inappropriately engaging with sanctioned countries, and supporting programs which fund abortion.

For her part, Ambassador Haley has blasted the U.N. for it’s egregious anti-Israel bias, demanding a more even-handed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"When the council passes more than 70 resolutions against Israel, a country with a strong human rights record, and just seven resolutions against Iran, a country with an abysmal human rights record, you know something is seriously wrong," she stated last month.

After years of ignoring genocide, excusing the abuses of Islamic dictatorships, and lambasting Western democracies, including Israel, the U.N. may now find itself irreparably weakened.

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2017, 02:08 PM
GOOD TRUMP: Administration Cuts Funds For U.N. Peacekeeping (http://www.dailywire.com/news/18112/good-trump-administration-cuts-funds-un-michael-qazvini)
Michael Qazvini, Daily Wire, 29 June 2016…Is this claim based on the non-existent Trump budget? Of course, cutting funds for peacekeeping simply means more opportunities for Islamic terrorists.

Ian Murray
01-07-2017, 12:55 PM
These are the current UN peacekeeping missions, which Trump feels are biased against the US:

Peacekeeping fact sheet (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml)

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2017, 02:35 PM
We Arabs are damn lucky that Jews do not behave like Arabs (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-arabs-are-damn-lucky-that-jews-do-not-behave-like-arabs/)
Fred Maroun, The Times of Israel, 8 July 2017

During the Israel-Arab war in May 1948, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, announced, “This will be a war of extermination, a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”. Before the Israel-Arab war of 1967, Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad boasted, “The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation”, and Egypt’s President Abdul Nasser threatened, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel”.

If Jews behaved like us, when Israel defended itself against attacks from Gaza and Lebanon, it would have used its military superiority to wipe out those entities and to force their inhabitants to flee, leaving only deserted land that Israel could easily control. Instead, in each case, Israel took extraordinary care to avoid civilian casualties. A former Commander of British Forces said that, “During its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare”. Israel even provides free medical assistance to Syrians, which it has absolutely no obligation to do.

Any Arab who looks at the history of the Israel-Arab conflict with honesty realizes that we Arabs are damn lucky that Jews do not behave like Arabs. We demonize Israel over imperfections such as delays at legitimate security checkpoints, but we have done hundreds of times worse to Jews, and we would have done even worse if we could. We demonize Israel over total fabrications that we shamelessly create, such as the claim of a massacre in the West Bank city of Jenin, which was later recognized to be a lie.

In addition to this, we Arabs are also damn lucky that the world applies a different standard to us than to Jews. We get to behave badly while Jews behave far better than us, yet the world blames them. So not only do we benefit from our own antisemitism, but we also benefit from the antisemitism of non-Arabs. Wow!

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2017, 05:37 AM
No building permit for Australian synagogue — it might draw ISIS-supporter terrorist attacks and endanger neighbors (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/03/no-building-permit-for-australian-synagogue-it-might-draw-isis-supporter-terrorist-attacks-and-endanger-neighbors/)
By Eugene Volokh, 3 August 2017

In any event, the decision (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4?utm_content=Socia lFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=News.com.au&utm_medium=Facebook) imposes a burden on synagogues that other houses of worship (churches, mosques, Buddhist temples) do not have to face. It imposes the burden precisely because synagogues are already burdened by the threat of terrorist attack, thus piling governmental repression on private repression. By giving a “bomber’s veto” — a version of the heckler’s veto, in which the police shut down a speaker because thugs are threatening violence against him — to the Islamic State and its supporters, it encourages them. (“Look, brother: Already our fight for Islam and against its enemies has led to vile synagogues being blocked even in faraway Australia!”) And it encourages would-be copycats of other ideologies, who learn that they can shut down organization X by sufficiently threatening X that the government signs up to help shut X down.

Ian Murray
05-08-2017, 08:03 AM
No building permit for Australian synagogue — it might draw ISIS-supporter terrorist attacks and endanger neighbors
By Eugene Volokh, 3 August 2017

Opposition to the mosque in Bendigo went as far as the High Court before being quashed. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bendigo-mosque-to-be-built-after-appeal-flounders-20160615-gpj8a4.html) Bigotry is not restricted to synagogues.

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2017, 01:49 PM
What are you on about now? The only reason for banning the synagogue was threats of Islamist violence. No one was threatening violence against any mosque.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2017, 02:44 PM
I don't think it's the same as the "heckler's veto" as there is also a concern about potential risk to members of the public. That said, I still don't like it. Our leaders imposed increased risk on us as the price of protection of freedom when they sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan; if we use the same risk as an excuse for curtailing freedom at home then what the hell's the point?

Ian Murray
05-08-2017, 04:30 PM
What are you on about now? The only reason for banning the synagogue was threats of Islamist violence. No one was threatening violence against any mosque.

Not the only reason at all.


...A Waverley Council spokesperson noted the court had supported the council’s position (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4), which was supported by several residents’ concerns.

“The ruling follows Council’s presentation of evidence to the court in support of refusal of the application, based on:

· The proposal does not respond to the context, character and streetscape of the area or provide sufficient residential amenity

· Unacceptable amenity impacts such as adequate solar access, noise and loss of privacy; and

· The site is unsuitable for a synagogue because of the potential risk to users and other members of the general public....

Waverly Council (and adjoining Woollahra Council) are by no stretch anti-semitic. Half their ratepayers are Jewish - there are eight synagogues in their local government areas. And ten Christian churches.

And of course the decision has been upheld at court. Of course further appeals can be expected.

There has been plenty of violence, threatened and actual, against supporters of the Bendigo mosque
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/bendigo-mosque-antiislam-and-antiracist-protester-face-off-in-counter-rallies/news-story/e4591d0767c596b9b3242eed46aaa6b7
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/police-say-they-have-no-doubt-some-going-to-bendigo-mosque-protests-intend-violence/news-story/1c4e4079627596fd28d5c9fe74050625

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2017, 06:16 PM
Not the only reason at all.


...A Waverley Council spokesperson noted the court had supported the council’s position (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4), which was supported by several residents’ concerns.

“The ruling follows Council’s presentation of evidence to the court in support of refusal of the application, based on:

· The proposal does not respond to the context, character and streetscape of the area or provide sufficient residential amenity

· Unacceptable amenity impacts such as adequate solar access, noise and loss of privacy; and

· The site is unsuitable for a synagogue because of the potential risk to users and other members of the general public....

Waverly Council (and adjoining Woollahra Council) are by no stretch anti-semitic. Half their ratepayers are Jewish - there are eight synagogues in their local government areas. And ten Christian churches.

And of course the decision has been upheld at court. Of course further appeals can be expected.

There has been plenty of violence, threatened and actual, against supporters of the Bendigo mosque
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/bendigo-mosque-antiislam-and-antiracist-protester-face-off-in-counter-rallies/news-story/e4591d0767c596b9b3242eed46aaa6b7
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/police-say-they-have-no-doubt-some-going-to-bendigo-mosque-protests-intend-violence/news-story/1c4e4079627596fd28d5c9fe74050625

As far as I can tell only the security-based concerns were upheld in court, which was sufficient to cause rejection of the appeal. See the full judgement at https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/597fbf62e4b058596cba8e75 . The court sided with the applicant's expert witnesses on the remaining issues that were discussed, finding that "the proposed development does not unacceptably impact on the streetscape and character of the area and also does not require a greater residential presence in the streetscape."

Ian Murray
05-08-2017, 08:12 PM
...See the full judgement at https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/597fbf62e4b058596cba8e75 ....

Interesting reading - thx Kevin

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2017, 09:49 PM
As far as I can tell only the security-based concerns were upheld in court, which was sufficient to cause rejection of the appeal. See the full judgement at https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/597fbf62e4b058596cba8e75 . The court sided with the applicant's expert witnesses on the remaining issues that were discussed, finding that "the proposed development does not unacceptably impact on the streetscape and character of the area and also does not require a greater residential presence in the streetscape."That would be my reading of the judgement also. But the security issue was actually raised by the group proposing to build the synagogue, and it seems that all the judge wants is a more detailed response to the security issues they have raised themselves (from Kevin's link):

While Exhibit H makes general comments on the risk of terrorist attacks internationally, nationally and to Jewish people, there is no specific risk assessment for the site (my emphasis). The PTRA makes no assessment of the risk to the site but under the heading of “Threat Scenario” lists a large number of threats and their definitions but fails to identify any particular risk to the site and consequently why the “Initial design recommendations” were proposed. ...
It would seem that a more sophisticated risk assessment process could be required for matters such as a potential terrorist threat.
And there is no "ban", as the group can re-submit their application to the Council once they have addressed the judge's concerns.

There don't seem to have been any significant attacks on Australian synagogues for over a decade, so I'm not sure why this group feels that they need extra protective measures.

Kevin Bonham
05-08-2017, 10:05 PM
But the security issue was actually raised by the group proposing to build the synagogue, and it seems that all the judge wants is a more detailed response to the security issues they have raised themselves (from Kevin's link):

I very strongly suspect they raised the issue because they were required to conduct such an analysis as part of the conditions for a planning application.


And there is no "ban", as the group can re-submit their application to the Council once they have addressed the judge's concerns.

Indeed, but they will only be successful if they have addressed the judge's concerns to the degree required. The council can refuse the development if it reasonably feels that safety risks cannot be adequately minimised.

(I am not criticising the judgement here; I have no reason to doubt it is correct under law. I just dislike the way in which laws can become contaminated with the odious "precautionary principle.")

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2017, 11:32 PM
I very strongly suspect they raised the issue because they were required to conduct such an analysis as part of the conditions for a planning application.I suspect you are correct. But I don't see why they couldn't hire another security expert to provide a less threatening (and, in my opinion, more realistic) analysis.

It would be interesting to see the threat assessment that they relied on. Because, based on the references to it in the court judgement, the issue is not specifically Islamic violence, but anti-semitic violence in general (contrary to some of the claims that have been made here).

Ian Murray
06-08-2017, 08:18 AM
I suspect you are correct. But I don't see why they couldn't hire another security expert to provide a less threatening (and, in my opinion, more realistic) analysis.

It would be interesting to see the threat assessment that they relied on. Because, based on the references to it in the court judgement, the issue is not specifically Islamic violence, but anti-semitic violence in general (contrary to some of the claims that have been made here).

I'd imagine that the development application is permanently tainted by the original security assessment and a second, more specific, assessment would still fail. Note that the application was refused by the council, rather than rejected pending further action. An appeal to a higher court seems to me the more likely outcome.

MichaelBaron
07-08-2017, 05:27 PM
One should also note, that while discussing whether to have or not to have the synagogue, it is oversee the core problem: ''Who are those people who threaten us with Terrorism and how did they get to Australia and why are they still walking on the streets freely''. Likewise, there are many great Australians who are Muslim but have to put up with ''compromised reputation and distrust'' due to other ''so-called muslims'' who are bringing the entire religion into disrepute through their barbaric actions. There are many educated Muslims are great contributors to our society and they too suffer.

Patrick Byrom
07-08-2017, 06:11 PM
One should also note, that while discussing whether to have or not to have the synagogue, it is oversee the core problem: ''Who are those people who threaten us with Terrorism and how did they get to Australia and why are they still walking on the streets freely''. Likewise, there are many great Australians who are Muslim but have to put up with ''compromised reputation and distrust'' due to other ''so-called muslims'' who are bringing the entire religion into disrepute through their barbaric actions. There are many educated Muslims are great contributors to our society and they too suffer.Note that the report that caused the delay wasn't based on any specific terrorist threats (as far as I can tell) - major attacks on synagogues are almost unknown in Australia. And it presumably wasn't restricted to Islamic terrorism.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2017, 10:12 PM
One should also note, that while discussing whether to have or not to have the synagogue, it is oversee the core problem: ''Who are those people who threaten us with Terrorism and how did they get to Australia and why are they still walking on the streets freely''.

In a lot of cases the answers to these questions in western society worldwide are 1. nihilistic idiots with a slim grasp of the religion they espouse 2. they were born here 3. they haven't previously done anything illegal.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2017, 01:22 PM
Not the only reason at all.


...A Waverley Council spokesperson noted the court had supported the council’s position (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/bondi-synagogue-ban-over-terrorism-risk-leaves-jewish-community-shocked-and-furious/news-story/6ec6252d613583df7797c7cac2b25de4), which was supported by several residents’ concerns.
From that link:

"Its evidence, as summarised by the court decision, was:
“The PTRA concludes nothing more than stating:
• western countries face a security threat, currently primarily from ISIS;
• the threat level in Australia is “probable”;"

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2017, 01:30 PM
(I am not criticising the judgement here; I have no reason to doubt it is correct under law. I just dislike the way in which laws can become contaminated with the odious "precautionary principle.")

It is odious. The government infringes on the freedom of potential victims of thuggery instead of stopping the thugs.

Ian Murray
08-08-2017, 03:03 PM
From that link:

"Its evidence, as summarised by the court decision, was:
“The PTRA concludes nothing more than stating:
• western countries face a security threat, currently primarily from ISIS;
• the threat level in Australia is “probable”;"

You hadn't seen the court decision when declaring "The only reason for banning the synagogue was threats of Islamist violence", but relying only on a libertarian site in USA

Waverley Council and the Land and Environment Court judged that, from the developer's own security assessment, the site design included protection of those inside from threats ranging from a 500kg truck bomb to molotov cocktail or chemical attacks, but no consideration was given to protecting neighbours or passers-by from those attacks.

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2017, 09:36 AM
Waverley Council and the Land and Environment Court judged that, from the developer's own security assessment, the site design included protection of those inside from threats ranging from a 500kg truck bomb to molotov cocktail or chemical attacks, but no consideration was given to protecting neighbours or passers-by from those attacks.

You mean from followers of the Religion of Peace? So the terrorists have won already.

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2017, 09:51 AM
... So the terrorists have won already.Only because the developers, or their security assessor, massively overestimated the danger of an attack.

Ian Murray
09-08-2017, 03:35 PM
You mean from followers of the Religion of Peace? So the terrorists have won already.

There has been only one terrorist attack against Jewish targets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Australia) in Australia, and that was 35 years ago. The perpetrators remain unknown. There are small anti-semitic groups, ranging from the far right to the far left, but none pose any known terrorism threat.

Recent terrorist plots/attacks by ISIS sympathisers have been directed against police or security forces, or nations engaged in military action against ISIS. The most recent plot was to destroy an Emirates aircraft leaving Sydney, i.e. an Arab target. Jews and Jewish property have been unaffected.

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2017, 12:18 PM
Only because the developers, or their security assessor, massively overestimated the danger of an attack.

Or the antisemitic council.

Rincewind
10-08-2017, 12:24 PM
Or the antisemitic council.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

Patrick Byrom
10-08-2017, 01:02 PM
Or the antisemitic council.The council, and the court, accepted the security assessment provided by the Jewish developers.

Ian Murray
10-08-2017, 04:00 PM
The council, and the court, accepted the security assessment provided by the Jewish developers.

Australian Municipality: Don’t Blame Us For Banning Sydney Synagogue (http://forward.com/fast-forward/379092/australian-municipality-don-t-blame-us-for-banning-synagogue/)
Fast Forward
4.8.17

SYDNEY (JTA) — A municipal council in a suburb of Australia’s largest city said it was not to blame for a decision to ban the construction of a synagogue because it could become the target of a terrorist attack.

In a statement Friday, the Waverley Council asserted that the decision to reject the synagogue was made by a local land use court, which said the congregation had not addressed the security concerns raised by the congregation in its development application.

“Waverley Council did not refuse this development application,” the council said. “It was a decision of the Land and Environment Court and confirms that a synagogue is a permitted use at this location.”

The Chabad congregation, known as Friends of Refugees of Eastern Europe, or FREE, sought to build a synagogue near the popular Bondi Beach in suburban Sydney. It called the application’s rejection a reward for terrorism.

According to the council, FREE submitted a risk analysis report prepared by a counterterrorism consultant as part of its development application. The report described a number of potential risks and threats to the synagogue. The council noted that FREE sought a ruling from the Land and Environment Court, which ruled that the potential risks were not sufficiently addressed.

“The Waverley community is enriched by our diverse faiths and places of worship, including our synagogues,” the council said in its statement. “Waverley Council has a strong history of partnerships with the Jewish community and will continue to work closely with the Jewish community and Jewish organisations.”

One of Waverley’s three Jewish councilors, Leon Goltsman, told JTA: “The record shows exactly how much this council actually does for the Jewish community, and it’s distressing the way mainstream media is so quick to jump onto a story without first researching the facts.”

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2017, 12:17 AM
John Roskam, IPA, on the inconsistency of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies:

Following my email last Friday many IPA members have been in touch with me to ask whether there's any update on the decision made last week by the NSW Land and Environment Court to stop the building of a synagogue in Bondi in Sydney because it could be attacked by terrorists. The local council involved, the Waverley Council, supported the Court's decision.

I said last week that I completely agreed with the words of Vic Alhadeff, the chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, when he said - "This simply shows how we're losing all our freedoms. Those who want us to be afraid are winning, and this ill-conceived judgment represents a dangerous precedent." Indeed.

I pointed out though that the problem with Alhadeff's remarks is that he and the Board of Deputies had a somewhat inconsistent approach to freedom. He and the Board led the opposition to Tony Abbott fulfilling his election promise to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Put simply, if you lose freedom of speech, freedom of religion follows soon after.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2017, 12:21 AM
By not defending Freedom of speech they enabled an attack on freedom of religion (https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/08/not-defending-freedom-speech-enabled-attack-freedom-religion/)
Whale Oil, after Janet Albrechtesen, Australian

The starting place is the decades-long assault by many on the left to freedom of expression and the concomitant complacency by others towards these assaults. When the human right to freedom of expression is not protected from attacks by social justice warriors, anti-discrimination divas and the political correctness police, other human rights will be imperilled.

That’s the conundrum for Jewish leaders. They were public opponents of reforming section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a law that strikes at the heart of freedom of expression in Australia. Their vocal opposition was enough to send then prime minister Tony Abbott into a meek retreat, ditching an election promise to defend freedom of speech. But those who walk away from freedom of expression inevitably make it easier for others to sideline freedoms, too.

It’s one thing for Jewish leaders to advocate for laws to punish speech that incites violence. But when you defend laws that protect hurt feelings, don’t be surprised when other freedoms are curbed for the wrong reasons. Fine intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes, whether its shutting down speech that offends a person’s feelings or blocking the building of a Bondi synagogue because of the risk of Islamist terrorism.

There are far more egregious precedents of human rights hypocrisy. Not so long ago we had a president of the AHRC in Gillian Triggs who spoke in Orwellian language about a “failure” of the Australian parliament that human rights were not adequately protected through a bill of rights. Then she added that “sadly, you can say what you like around the kitchen table at home”. When even the nation’s human right commissioner vacates the space on freedom of expression, it’s no surprise that Queensland education bureaucrats have issued a statewide edict that states children must not hand out Christmas cards or talk about Jesus. Freedom to practise religion is an expression of free speech.

Patrick Byrom
12-08-2017, 09:03 AM
By not defending Freedom of speech they enabled an attack on freedom of religion (https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/08/not-defending-freedom-speech-enabled-attack-freedom-religion/) Whale Oil, after Janet Albrechtesen, Australian
…or blocking the building of a Bondi synagogue because of the risk of Islamist terrorism.Rubbish - it wasn't blocked because of the risk of terrorism, it was blocked because of the lack of protections in the plan!


...it’s no surprise that Queensland education bureaucrats have issued a statewide edict that states children must not hand out Christmas cards or talk about Jesus..…Complete and total rubbish! I wish you would check the primary sources, instead of relying on these money-making right-wing sites!

Ian Murray
12-08-2017, 02:44 PM
Rubbish - it wasn't blocked because of the risk of terrorism, it was blocked because of the lack of protections in the plan!

Complete and total rubbish! I wish you would check the primary sources, instead of relying on these money-making right-wing sites!

Never let the truth get in the way of a good beat-up!

See Hansard, p2091 (https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2017/2017_08_09_DAILY.pdf)

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2017, 08:29 PM
Another non-Islamic terrorist attack in the USA overnight.

Kevin Bonham
14-08-2017, 12:11 AM
Another non-Islamic terrorist attack in the USA overnight.

Ah yes, he was photographed holding a shield of Vanguard America, an anti-gay anti-semitic Protestant fascist group with lengthy religious outpourings on its website. Just like being seen with an ISIS flag.

There is no point beating about the bush with these terrorists, with loose PC equivalence that their behaviour had nothing to do with their faith. We know who they are as soon as we hear their names and we know what faith they come from. It is time for all Christian elders and politicians to speak out against this travesty or else be responsible for more.
[/parody]

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2017, 01:26 AM
Rubbish—it wasn't blocked because of the risk of terrorism, it was blocked because of the lack of protections in the plan!
Protections against what? Oh that's right, all these Anglican and Buddhist terrorists.


Complete and total rubbish! I wish you would check the primary sources, instead of relying on these money-making right-wing sites!
The Australian is a right-wing site? What does that make The Age, ABC?

Capablanca-Fan
14-08-2017, 01:59 AM
Ah yes, he was photographed holding a shield of Vanguard America,
At first I was wondering how the eminent mutual (managed) fund company Vanguard (https://vanguard.com)that pioneered index investing would be caught up in this, but it's evidently something else with the same name. (https://bloodandsoil.org/category/articles/)

an anti-gay anti-semitic Protestant fascist group with lengthy religious outpourings on its website. Just like being seen with an ISIS flag.
The site shows all this antibiblical Nazi claptrap about "blood and soil" (even its URL) and hero worship of the pagan Roman Republic, and is rabidly anti-capitalist:


America was built in the image of the Roman Republic. Its capitol, imagery, and goals were set with good intentions on that foundation. … A Nation For Our People—An America based on the immutable truths of Blood and Soil. … Vanguard America stands indomitably opposed to the tyranny of globalism and capitalism, a system under which nations are stripped of their heritage and their people are turned into nothing more than units of cheap, expendable labor.

Probably this mob were the only white supremacists still in America, apart from about a few thousand who are still members of the Democrat-founded KKK.


There is no point beating about the bush with these terrorists, with loose PC equivalence that their behaviour had nothing to do with their faith. We know who they are as soon as we hear their names and we know what faith they come from. It is time for all Christian elders and politicians to speak out against this travesty or else be responsible for more.
[/parody]
You mean like this:


Clergy March in Silent Solidarity against White Supremacist Protest in Charlottesville (http://churchleaders.com/news/308287-clergy-march-silent-solidarity-white-supremacist-protest-charlottesville.html)

So where is the Imam March in Silent Solidarity against those claiming Islam as support for terrorism?

Or perhaps:


Ted Cruz Calls Charlottesville Car Attack Deliberate ‘Domestic Terrorism’, Urges Justice Dept. Investigation (http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2017/08/12/ted-cruz-calls-charlottesville-car-attack-deliberate-domestic-terrorism-urges-justice-dept-investigation/)

Cruz (the one I wanted to win the GOP primary but couldn't because of the conceited morons like Kasich staying in long after they had no chance of winning) also said:


It's tragic and heartbreaking to see hatred and racism once again mar our great Nation with bloodshed. Heidi's and my prayers are with the loved ones of those killed and injured in the ongoing violence in Charlottesville. The First Amendment protects the rights of all Americans to speak their minds peaceably, but violence, brutality, and murder have no place in a civilized society.

The Nazis, the KKK, and white supremacists are repulsive and evil, and all of us have a moral obligation to speak out against the lies, bigotry, anti-Semitism, and hatred that they propagate. Having watched the horrifying video of the car deliberately crashing into a crowd of protesters, I urge the Department of Justice to immediately investigate and prosecute this grotesque act of domestic terrorism.

These bigots want to tear our country apart, but they will fail. America is far better than this. Our Nation was built on fundamental truths, none more central than the proposition "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".


Compare that to Obamov calling the Fort Hood terrorist attack "workplace violence".

Or maybe:


Letter from Berlin: The Lessons of History and the Heresy of Racial Superiority by Al Mohler. (http://www.albertmohler.com/2017/08/13/letter-berlin-lessons-history-heresy-racial-superiority/)

Patrick Byrom
14-08-2017, 09:57 AM
Protections against what? Oh that's right, all these Anglican and Buddhist terrorists.Right-wing Christian terrorists are a definite danger, as we've just seen in the US.


The Australian is a right-wing site? What does that make The Age, ABC?Your quote didn't come directly from The Australian, and it was from an opinion column, not the primary source. Although The Australian is now effectively a right-wing money-making website anyway :)

Ian Murray
14-08-2017, 10:07 AM
...

Clergy March in Silent Solidarity against White Supremacist Protest in Charlottesville (http://churchleaders.com/news/308287-clergy-march-silent-solidarity-white-supremacist-protest-charlottesville.html)

So where is the Imam March in Silent Solidarity against those claiming Islam as support for terrorism?...

How many times (http://www.newsweek.com/thousands-muslims-condemn-terrorism-not-us-march-germany-626704) do they have to march?

Patrick Byrom
14-08-2017, 10:15 AM
The site shows all this antibiblical Nazi claptrap about "blood and soil" (even its URL) and hero worship of the pagan Roman Republic, and is rabidly anti-capitalist: ... Probably this mob were the only white supremacists still in America, apart from about a few thousand who are still members of the Democrat-founded KKK.Maybe, but the lack of condemnation from Trump shows that they have support in the White House.


... So where is the Imam March in Silent Solidarity against those claiming Islam as support for terrorism?You mean like this one! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-rally-muslims-protest-islamic-extremism-germany-terror-attacks-uk-nichtmituns-not-with-us-a7792876.html) Or how about this one (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-muslims-marching-against-terrorism-6977099) from 2015?


Or perhaps: ... Compare that to Obamov calling the Fort Hood terrorist attack "workplace violence".Which it was (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-terrorism.html):

Army officials have never called the first Fort Hood mass shooting, in November 2009 — when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot dozens of soldiers in what he said was an attempt to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops — an act of terrorism. Major Hasan was prosecuted by the Army on murder charges, not terrorism-related charges. The Army’s lead prosecutor called it “the t-word.” Throughout Major Hasan’s trial in August at Fort Hood, terrorism was never uttered in the presence of the military jury, neither by prosecutors nor by the more than 100 witnesses they called. Major Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death.

Kevin Bonham
16-08-2017, 11:12 PM
Sad to report, contrary to previous police reports it appears that the chap who blew up his van outside the Australian Christian Lobby building was politically/religiously motivated in his choice of location, although his primary intention was suicide. He's pleaded not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Ian Murray
17-08-2017, 08:04 PM
Charlottesville Jewish Community Hires Security (http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/charlottesville-jewish-community-hires-security/)
Jewish Week
14.8.17

The Jewish community of Charlottesville, Virginia hired security guards for the first time in its history ahead of a far-right event that ended with a deadly attack on protesters against racism.

Rabbi Tom Gutherz of Congregation Beth Israel told Haaretz Sunday that the move was deemed necessary ahead of Saturday, when 20-year-old white supremacist James Fields killed Heather Heyer, 32, and wounded 20 others by driving a car into a crowd of activists protesting an alt-right rally planned for the city that day. ...

Ian Murray
20-08-2017, 12:39 PM
Interesting that arson attacks on a Melbourne mosque are being treated as acts of terrorism

Three men to be charged with terrorism offences over alleged mosque attacks (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/20/three-men-to-be-charged-with-terrorism-offences-over-alleged-mosque-attacks?)
The Guardian
20.8.17

Three men are expected to be charged with terrorism offences following arson alleged attacks at a Melbourne mosque last year.

Two men, aged 25 and 27, are expected to be charged with engaging in a terrorist act over a serious fire at the Imam Ali Islamic Centre on 11 December, Victoria police said on Sunday.

A third man, a 29-year-old from Meadow Heights, is also set to be charged with engaging in a terrorist act in relation to the 11 December fire.

He was arrested after his car was pulled over by police in Roxburgh Park late on Saturday.

The 25 and 27-year-old men will also be charged with engaging in a terrorist act for allegedly causing a fire at the same Islamic centre on 25 November....

ER
21-08-2017, 05:36 AM
Meanwhile in Barcelona ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/julian-cadman-confirmed-among-dead-in-barcelona-attack/8825298

3519

another innocent victim of the blood thirsty ISIS

Ian Murray
21-08-2017, 07:56 AM
Meanwhile in Barcelona ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/julian-cadman-confirmed-among-dead-in-barcelona-attack/8825298
...
another innocent victim of the blood thirsty ISIS

A tragic ending to the story, when for days there was hope he was alive somewhere

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2017, 10:24 AM
Interesting that arson attacks on a Melbourne mosque are being treated as acts of terrorism

Allegedly Sunni extremists attacking Shias.

Capablanca-Fan
25-08-2017, 03:22 AM
Maybe, but the lack of condemnation from Trump shows that they have support in the White House.
There was no lack of condemnation. First he attacked hate and bigotry in general, which certainly applies both to the white supremacists / neo-Nazis and Antifa / Black Lives Matter people. Then he condemned white supremacists explicitly and by name to add to his implicit condemnation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoRZaYU_Sm4


You mean like this one! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cologne-rally-muslims-protest-islamic-extremism-germany-terror-attacks-uk-nichtmituns-not-with-us-a7792876.html) Or how about this one (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-muslims-marching-against-terrorism-6977099) from 2015?
Excellent! Both from Europe, note, but full commendation to them. Such Muslims are exemplary citizens.


Which it was (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/at-fort-hood-wrestling-with-label-of-terrorism.html):

Army officials have never called the first Fort Hood mass shooting, in November 2009 — when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot dozens of soldiers in what he said was an attempt to protect Taliban leaders in Afghanistan from American troops — an act of terrorism. Major Hasan was prosecuted by the Army on murder charges, not terrorism-related charges. The Army’s lead prosecutor called it “the t-word.” Throughout Major Hasan’s trial in August at Fort Hood, terrorism was never uttered in the presence of the military jury, neither by prosecutors nor by the more than 100 witnesses they called. Major Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death.

Yes, a politically correct attempt to avoid stating what sens

Patrick Byrom
25-08-2017, 10:09 AM
There was no lack of condemnation. First he attacked hate and bigotry in general, which certainly applies both to the white supremacists / neo-Nazis and Antifa / Black Lives Matter people. Then he condemned white supremacists explicitly and by name to add to his implicit condemnation.So he implied that anti-fascists and Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of the Nazis (who murdered six millions Jews in the Holocaust) - and you have no problem with that! Did he explicitly condemn the terrorist murder by a neo-Nazi?

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2017, 06:51 AM
So he implied that anti-fascists
The soi-disant anti-fascists are really fascists themselves in their violence and intolerance.


and Black Lives Matter are the equivalent of the Nazis (who murdered six millions Jews in the Holocaust) -
Are modern white supremacists the equivalent of the Nazis (who murdered six millions Jews in the Holocaust)? Certainly white and black supremacists share racism and love of violence with the Nazis.


and you have no problem with that! Did he explicitly condemn the terrorist murder by a neo-Nazi?
So if he doesn't explicitly condemn something that is so obviously horrible that everyone knows it without having to be told, he must approve? I also didn't notice Obamov condemn BLM-inspired murders of cops and burning buildings. The thuggishness in Baltimore and Ferguson was like Kristallnacht.

Patrick Byrom
27-08-2017, 12:18 PM
Are modern white supremacists the equivalent of the Nazis (who murdered six millions Jews in the Holocaust)? Certainly white and black supremacists share racism and love of violence with the Nazis.Even you described them as "neo-Nazis"!


So if he doesn't explicitly condemn something that is so obviously horrible that everyone knows it without having to be told, he must approve? ... When equally horrible events happened in other countries, he was quick to explicitly condemn them. But he was silent on this event in his own country.

Capablanca-Fan
28-08-2017, 03:25 AM
Even you described them as "neo-Nazis"!
I was just making the same comparison as you: neither side yet has committed anything remotely like those in Nazi Germany. Naturally I detest the neo-Nazis (of any race), because even Nazi Germany didn't start off with the Holocaust; this was partly prepared by Kristallnacht with its violence and vilification of the Jews.


When equally horrible events happened in other countries, he was quick to explicitly condemn them. But he was silent on this event in his own country.
He wasn't silent, as has already been amply explained. He condemned all racists and hater and bigots, which implicitly includes the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Then he named them explicitly. By contrast, the Dems had the black supremacist bigots and haters at their Convention.

Patrick Byrom
28-08-2017, 12:07 PM
He wasn't silent, as has already been amply explained. He condemned all racists and hater and bigots, which implicitly includes the neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Then he named them explicitly. By contrast, the Dems had the black supremacist bigots and haters at their Convention.But, as I've pointed out many times already, he didn't explicitly condemn the terrorist attack (in his own country), even though he has been quick to specifically condemn identical attacks overseas. He was silent on an explicit condemnation of that attack.

Ian Murray
28-08-2017, 12:13 PM
But, as I've pointed out many times already, he didn't explicitly condemn the terrorist attack (in his own country), even though he has been quick to specifically condemn identical attacks overseas. He was silent on an explicit condemnation of that attack.

He was also quick to condemn a terrorist attack in Sweden which didn't happen.

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2017, 09:51 AM
‘No more uprooting of settlements in the Land of Israel,’ Netanyahu vows (https://worldisraelnews.com/no-uprooting-settlements-land-israel-netanyahu-vows)
29 August 2017

“This is the inheritance of our forefathers, this is our country,” Netanyahu said. “We came back here to stay forever. There will be no more uprooting of settlements in the Land of Israel.”

“We uprooted settlements, and what did we get? We got missiles,” he said, referring the Israeli disengagement from Gaza. “That will no longer be the case….In defiance of those who want us to uproot — we will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle.”

Capablanca-Fan
10-10-2017, 01:18 PM
The head of a Palestinian village in Jerusalem says almost all of the city’s Arabs would prefer to live peacefully under Israeli administration. (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?3275-Israel-Palestine-religious-terrorism-(was-non-islamic-religious-terrorism)&p=429115#post429115)

Palestinian leaders often claim that they would like to take a less confrontational stance against Israel but are afraid of “losing” the “Palestinian street.”

A new interview with a local Palestinian politician in an eastern Jerusalem Arab neighborhood indicates the opposite to be true: The average Palestinian wants to come home from work and eat dinner with his or her family rather than hearing that their child has become a “martyr” in a violent attack against Israelis.

It is the Palestinian leaders who destroy the chances for peace with non-stop incitement of Palestinian youth, diversion of funds to terror and a resultant lack of economic growth in Palestinian-controlled areas.

Jerusalem village head Ramadan Dabbash goes as far as to say that living under Israeli rule is preferable to living under the Palestinian Authority. Listen to what he says!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRpDGA_ZAtM

Ian Murray
18-10-2017, 08:05 AM
Marking the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, the Institute of Race Relations has waived its paywall on a lengthy study of the background history of British imperialism and propaganda.

Remembering Balfour: empire, race and propaganda (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306396817733877)

Abstract

To mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration (November 1917), which paved the way towards the dispossession of the Palestinians, this article reflects on how imperial strategy, ideas about race, and institutionalised propaganda converged to shape Britain’s contribution to the ‘Palestine problem’. The author illustrates the imperial tradition that shaped British support for Zionism by tracing the trajectory of John Buchan’s career. Buchan was an influential novelist, best known as the author of adventure stories including The Thirty-Nine Steps. He wrote in the service of Empire. During the first world war, Buchan spearheaded propaganda for the Empire’s eastward expansion and directed the propaganda service as Palestine fell to British troops. He began his career in South Africa, mentored by Lord Milner, and worked as a literary spokesperson for the policy of white rule. He ended it in Canada, serving as the country’s Governor General. This article foregrounds Canada as a settler polity with a privileged place in Buchan’s philosophy, and where Buchan’s approach to supporting Zionism thrived. And it explores Buchan’s hostile construction both of a menacing Islam and of ‘the Jew’. Buchan was not the only Briton to disparage Jews ‘at home’ only to find a place for them on the frontier.

Ian Murray
24-10-2017, 02:03 PM
Israeli president accuses Netanyahu and allies of endangering democracy (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/israel-president-accuses-netanyahu-and-allies-of-democracy-revolution)
The Guardian
24.10.17

Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, has launched a stark denunciation of the policies of the rightwing government of the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that Israeli democracy is in danger.

In a speech at the opening of the winter session of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, Rivlin bluntly accused government ministers of promoting efforts to weaken Israel’s supreme court and “silence the free media”.

Changes to the supreme court have become a toxic political issue in a country where the the separation between the judiciary and legislature is hotly contested, and where the political right has seen the court as an obstruction to its agenda...

ER
24-10-2017, 03:41 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-24/melbourne-man-charged-for-financially-supporting-is/9079486

Melbourne disability pensioner accused of financially supporting Islamic State
Updated about an hour ago

A 43-year-old Melbourne man, whom police allege holds "extremist views", has been charged with financially supporting Islamic State after police raids this morning.
The man, a disability pensioner who is married with children, was arrested at his home in Hampton Park, in Melbourne's south-east.
It will be alleged the man provided funds, and services to "persons engaged in the conflict in Syria, supporting Islamic State".

Hey Michael, ok I know it's your money that finance this guy's Islamic State transactions but
don't forget it's OK since it his safety net!!! :D :P

Dear Govt regardless of your political orientation,

Please Introduce the cashless dole card for every centrelink benefits recipient immediately.

Patrick Byrom
24-10-2017, 09:53 PM
Is Elliot suggesting that people on the cashless welfare card will have their charitable donations monitored? So much for religious freedom!

Kevin Bonham
24-10-2017, 10:32 PM
Dear Govt regardless of your political orientation,

Please Introduce the cashless dole card for every centrelink benefits recipient immediately.

What, because one (1) disability pensioner has been accused of financially supporting terrorism with the massive resources available from their disability pension? And specifically doing so in Syria where the money is just going to helping one lot of nasties get themselves killed by another bunch whose government is only very slightly less nasty?

I mean, what kind of extreme response might you propose if, say, some traitorous government had been found to have given, say, the Taliban, say, 43 million dollars because the Taliban said it had done something about drugs?

Oh wait ...

ER
03-11-2017, 02:23 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/five-jailed-for-terror-plot-targeting-government-sites-including-lithgow-jail/ar-AAunMa2?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp

Too lenient!


firearms and ammunition were acquired and there was nothing amateurish about what was planned.
"[Khalid] was corrupted by a dangerous, violent and perverted ideology, to which he unequivocally subscribed, which he wore as a badge of honour, but has no place in a civilised society."

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2017, 12:13 AM
UK Prime Minister Honors Balfour Declaration, Celebrates Israel (https://unitedwithisrael.org/uk-prime-minister-honors-balfour-declaration-celebrates-israel/)
United with Israel, 3 Nov 2017

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hundreds of dignitaries attended a dinner Thursday evening in London, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.

The 67-word document was written as a letter during World War I by then-Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild to be sent on to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, and was published in the press one week later.

The first part of the declaration states. “His Majesty’s government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object… .”

“I believe it to be one of the most significant letters in history, a letter which gave birth to a most extraordinary country,” said May in the beginning of her speech.

She went on to praise the second half of the declaration as well, which took into account the sensitivity of others when it stated, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2017, 12:15 AM
Is Elliot suggesting that people on the cashless welfare card will have their charitable donations monitored? So much for religious freedom!

The card overall seems a better idea, once teething problems are worked out.

Ian Murray
04-11-2017, 07:48 AM
UK Prime Minister Honors Balfour Declaration, Celebrates Israel (https://unitedwithisrael.org/uk-prime-minister-honors-balfour-declaration-celebrates-israel/)
United with Israel, 3 Nov 2017

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and hundreds of dignitaries attended a dinner Thursday evening in London, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.

The 67-word document was written as a letter during World War I by then-Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild to be sent on to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, and was published in the press one week later.

The first part of the declaration states. “His Majesty’s government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object… .”

“I believe it to be one of the most significant letters in history, a letter which gave birth to a most extraordinary country,” said May in the beginning of her speech.

She went on to praise the second half of the declaration as well, which took into account the sensitivity of others when it stated, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”


Rather astute foreign policy of the times, establishing a pro-British bulwark in the Middle East while moving Jews out of England

Ian Murray
06-11-2017, 10:27 AM
Palestinian Reconciliation: Does Cairo’s recent move hold more promise? (http://en.cis.org.il/2017/10/13/palestinian-reconciliation-does-cairos-recent-move-hold-more-promise/)
Commanders for Israel's Security
13.10.17

Egypt’s General Intelligence Directorate (GID) has long held Cairo’s Israel and Palestine ‘files.’ For several years, the GID has attempted, largely unsuccessfully, to tame Hamas and steer it away from its belligerent policy.

While the jury is still out on the long term significance of Egypt’s current initiative, nonetheless events over the past few days suggest that a major play is underway.

Why now and how significant is it?...

Ian Murray
06-11-2017, 12:22 PM
The Moves of a Desperate Man (http://prospect.org/article/moves-desperate-man)
The American Prospect
27.10.17

There are two ways to read the way Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party are acting. The first is that they are doing all they can to keep Netanyahu in office as prime minister of Israel, despite the corruption allegations against him. The second is that they are doing all they can to show that Netanyahu is guilty and politically doomed.

Both readings are correct.

Not that Netanyahu is intentionally pleading guilty in the court of domestic public opinion. It just seems that way when you try to intimidate the national police chief, even as your party tries to legislate the end of the investigations against you. Or, failing that, tries to legislate a long enough postponement of an indictment for you to run for reelection before you're charged.

None of this tells us how the Netanyahu drama will play out, or when it will end. It does show that he's very afraid....

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2017, 02:00 PM
None of this tells us how the Netanyahu drama will play out, or when it will end. It does show that he's very afraid....

Oh yes, just like Trump's opponents, Netanyahu's opponents can't win in the ballot box, so they use their allies in the media, law enforcement, and the bureaucracies to try to cripple their terms with baseless investigations, as Caroline Glick writes (https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-From-Mueller-to-Mandelblit-510967):


Netanyahu and the political Right won a massive electoral victory in 2015. For the first time in many years, the Right won indisputably. There are no coalition partners who place appeasing the PLO at the top of their governing agenda or even in the middle of their agenda.

Netanyahu and his political camp’s victory came as a shock to Israel’s elites. Led by the media, which was itself an adjunct of the anti-Netanyahu campaign, and assisted by the Obama administration, which siphoned US government funds into anti-Netanyahu political groups, Israel’s elites were flummoxed by the election results.

Shortly after the election, the anti-Netanyahu media, with the support of police investigators, went on a hunt to find something – anything – to force Netanyahu from office. In the end, all they could come up with were two otherwise absurd allegations.

First, that Netanyahu received too many gifts from his wealthy friends. Specifically, he allegedly received too many cigars from his friend Arnon Milchen. Second, Netanyahu taped himself discussing with his nemesis, Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes, the possibility of winning less adversarial coverage from Yediot Ahronot in exchange for lobbying Israel Hayom, which is owned by Netanyahu’s friend Sheldon Adelson, to cut back its circulation and so diminish its competitive edge over Yediot. This discussion, which came to nothing, was discovered by police investigators during their investigation of Netanyahu’s former chief of staff for alleged crimes unrelated to Netanyahu.

If the allegations were directed against any other politician, there is no doubt that they would not have led to police investigations. The late president Shimon Peres’s legendary use of the public trough to pay for his lavish parties and lifestyle were never the subject of investigation. Former prime minister Ehud Barak never faced investigation over his allegedly sketchy business dealings or his deeply suspect campaign financing operations. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert was never investigated for the massive collection of expensive pens that he was showered with by “friends” during his tenure in government.

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2017, 12:52 PM
Berkeley's student newspaper refuses to publish my response to an anti-Semitic op-ed, so here it is (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-berkeleys-student-newspaper-refuses-to-publish-my-response-to-an-anti-semitic-op-ed-so-here-it-is/article/2639926)
Alan Dershowitz, Washington Examiner, 7 Nov 2017

Taylor argues that Israel commits “intentional” atrocities against innocent Palestinians including children. The reality is that the Israeli military’s efforts to stop Hamas from indiscriminately killing Israeli citizens with rockets and through terror tunnels has been the opposite of indiscriminate, as Col. Richard Kemp and other military experts have attested. Col. Kemp has argued that no other country in history has gone to such great lengths as Israel to distinguish between military and civilian targets, even in the face of an enemy that regularly uses its own population as human shields, and that hides military equipment in schools and hospitals.

Israel’s efforts to protect its citizens compare favorably to the U.S. and NATO-led military bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria, and other areas, in which civilians have also been used as human shields. Israel goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties – even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians. Yes, Israel has defended its citizens against terrorist attacks by underage Palestinians because Palestinian terrorist leaders deliberately recruit underage Palestinians.

When I engaged in a debate on BDS at the Oxford Union, I issued the following challenge to the audience and to my opponent: Name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel, that has a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law, or seeking to minimize civilian casualties. The room was completely silent.

Taylor argues that Israel commits “intentional” atrocities against innocent Palestinians including children. The reality is that the Israeli military’s efforts to stop Hamas from indiscriminately killing Israeli citizens with rockets and through terror tunnels has been the opposite of indiscriminate, as Col. Richard Kemp and other military experts have attested. Col. Kemp has argued that no other country in history has gone to such great lengths as Israel to distinguish between military and civilian targets, even in the face of an enemy that regularly uses its own population as human shields, and that hides military equipment in schools and hospitals.

Israel’s efforts to protect its citizens compare favorably to the U.S. and NATO-led military bombing campaigns in Iraq, Syria, and other areas, in which civilians have also been used as human shields. Israel goes to enormous lengths to reduce the number of civilian casualties – even to the point of foregoing legitimate targets that are too close to civilians. Yes, Israel has defended its citizens against terrorist attacks by underage Palestinians because Palestinian terrorist leaders deliberately recruit underage Palestinians.

When I engaged in a debate on BDS at the Oxford Union, I issued the following challenge to the audience and to my opponent: Name a single country in the history of the world, faced with threats comparable to those faced by Israel, that has a better record of human rights, compliance with the rule of law, or seeking to minimize civilian casualties. The room was completely silent.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2017, 06:57 AM
Saudi Arabia’s Top Cleric: Fighting Jews Forbidden, Hamas a Terror group (https://unitedwithisrael.org/saudi-arabias-top-cleric-fighting-jews-forbidden-hamas-a-terror-group)
17 Nov 2017

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a ruling forbidding war against the Jews and proclaiming that Hamas is a terror group.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, issued a surprising religious ruling, saying that fighting against Israel was inappropriate and that Hamas is a “terror organization.” (https://unitedwithisrael.org/hamas-what-took-us-51-minutes-we-could-now-do-in-51-days/)

The Muslim cleric issued the ruling while answering a question on a television program regarding the Palestinian riots surrounding the Temple Mount in July (https://unitedwithisrael.org/iran-helped-fund-violent-clashes-over-temple-mount/), Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported.

Israel’s Communications Minister Ayoub Kara welcomed the unexpected decision and invited the Mufti to visit Israel.

“We congratulate Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia as well as the head of Ulema (Islamic scholars), for his fatwa [Muslim religious ruling] forbidding the fight against the Jews and forbidding to kill them,” Kara, a Druze, tweeted on Monday.

Ian Murray
20-11-2017, 09:20 AM
Saudi Arabia’s Top Cleric: Fighting Jews Forbidden, Hamas a Terror group (https://unitedwithisrael.org/saudi-arabias-top-cleric-fighting-jews-forbidden-hamas-a-terror-group)
17 Nov 2017

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia issued a ruling forbidding war against the Jews and proclaiming that Hamas is a terror group...

Remarks made during a television interview do not constitute a fatwa (Muslim edict).

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2017, 05:00 AM
IS ARAB REALISM FINALLY BREAKING OUT? (http://www.melaniephillips.com/arab-realism-finally-breaking/)
Melanie Phillips, 23 NOVEMBER 2017

Yet more Arabs have been making startlingly positive statements about Israel and the Jews.

In an interview broadcast by the Kuwaiti Alrai TV channel last week, Kuwaiti writer Abdullah al Hadlaq declared that the State of Israel was not an occupying force but represented “a people returning to its promised land”. He went further, declaring that the Jews had a right to the land of Israel according to the Koran:

“From the religious perspective, Quranic verse 5:21 proves that the Israelites have the right to the Holy Land. Allah says: ‘When Moses said to his people… Oh my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you.’ So Allah assigned that land to them, and they did not plunder it. The plundering entity is whoever was there before the arrival of the Israelites. Therefore, I do not go for obsolete slogans and terms like ‘Zionist plundering entity,’ and so on. The fact that I am an Arab should by no means prevent me from recognizing Israel.”

Both the interviewer host and a fellow guest were clearly stunned by this. But just look at al Hadlaq’s replies to them:

Host: “So where did we get that name, which we have been defending for 60 years?”

Abdullah al Hadlaq: “It didn’t exist. There were various communities living in Arab countries. They were called ‘Canaanites,’ ‘Amalekites,’ or a whole host of other names. The Quranic verse even says: ‘…in it are a people of great strength [Jabbareen].’ Some people called them ‘Jabbareen.’ Therefore, there was no state called ‘Palestine.’ I insist on this.”

Needless to say, none of this is being covered in the British media. Who can be surprised? How can Britain be shown to be more anti-Israel than the Arabs? Rub your eyes: that’s what might be beginning to happen.

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2017, 05:03 AM
How Ten Dem (Dumb) Members of Congress Encourage the Use of Child Terrorists (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11420/congress-child-terrorists)
by Alan M. Dershowitz [himself a Democrat], Gatestone Institute, 23 November 2017


Now ten members of the "progressive caucus" of the Democratic Party are trying to give these terrorist leaders another reason for using even younger terrorists to kill even more innocent civilians.
The bill fails to acknowledge that some of the most barbaric terrorist attacks against Jewish Israelis have been committed by Palestinian teens who have been recruited by terrorist leaders.
Israel has a right — according to international law — to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, even those committed by young Palestinians. Indeed, it has an obligation to do so.


Palestinian terrorist leaders often use teenagers to commit acts of terror because they know that the Israeli legal system treats child terrorists more leniently than adult terrorists. Now ten members of the "progressive caucus" of the Democratic Party are trying to give these terrorist leaders another reason for using even younger terrorists to kill even more innocent civilians.

So I ask: what do these members of Congress think Israel should do? If children as young as 13 or 14 were roaming the streets of New York, Los Angeles or Boston stabbing elderly women as they shopped at the supermarket or waited at a bus stop, would they protest the apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators? Of course not. No country in the world would tolerate terror in its cities, regardless of the age of the terrorists. Israel has a right — according to international law — to protect its citizens from constant terror attacks, even those committed by young Palestinians. Indeed, it has an obligation to do so.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2017, 08:22 AM
Donald Trump Strikes a Blow against International Anti-Semitism (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454406/jerusalem-embassy-trump-fights-anti-semitism)
David French (himself a staunch Trump critic), 6 Dec 2017

By moving America’s embassy to Jerusalem, the U.S. confronts the bigoted double standards of the international community. President Trump’s decision to formally recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and to announce plans to move America’s embassy to the seat of Israel’s government is one of the best, most moral, and important decisions of his young administration. On this issue, he is demonstrating greater resolve than Republican and Democratic presidents before him, and he is defying some of the worst people in the world.

Think I’m overstating this? Think I’m too enthusiastic about an isolated diplomatic maneuver — especially when that maneuver, to quote the New York Times, “isolates the U.S.” and “has drawn a storm of criticism from Arab and European leaders”? Let’s consider some law, history, and context. First, sovereign nations are entitled to name their capital, and it is the near-universal practice of other nations to locate their embassies in that same capital.

I say “near-universal” because the nations of the world have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel’s capital. They’ve steadfastly placed their embassies outside of Jerusalem. They do so in spite of the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the City of David and in spite of the fact that no conceivable peace settlement would turn over the seat of Israel’s government to Palestinian control — even if parts of East Jerusalem are reserved for a Palestinian capital. Israel’s government sits on Israeli land, and it will remain Israeli land.

Here is the speech (starts 15 min in)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=KU2gB_S2AWw&app=desktop

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2017, 09:12 AM
I was amazed by some reporting that said Trump had declared Israel's capital to be Jerusalem and even that Trump was moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem. I would have thought that Israel decides what its own capital is and that decisions of other countries are merely ones of recognition or political practicality.

Rincewind
07-12-2017, 09:29 AM
Sloppy reporting but a extremely provocative decision by the US government. Seems Trump is interested in the rule of Law only when it works in his favour. When it doesn't then "oh well, we'll do this anyway". It will hugely de-stabilise the ME and further erodes the US standing on the international scene.

ER
07-12-2017, 02:03 PM
Donald Trump Strikes a Blow against International Anti-Semitism (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454406/jerusalem-embassy-trump-fights-anti-semitism)
David French (himself a staunch Trump critic), 6 Dec 2017

By moving America’s embassy to Jerusalem, the U.S. confronts the bigoted double standards of the international community. President Trump’s decision to formally recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and to announce plans to move America’s embassy to the seat of Israel’s government is one of the best, most moral, and important decisions of his young administration. On this issue, he is demonstrating greater resolve than Republican and Democratic presidents before him, and he is defying some of the worst people in the world.

Think I’m overstating this? Think I’m too enthusiastic about an isolated diplomatic maneuver — especially when that maneuver, to quote the New York Times, “isolates the U.S.” and “has drawn a storm of criticism from Arab and European leaders”? Let’s consider some law, history, and context. First, sovereign nations are entitled to name their capital, and it is the near-universal practice of other nations to locate their embassies in that same capital.

I say “near-universal” because the nations of the world have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel’s capital. They’ve steadfastly placed their embassies outside of Jerusalem. They do so in spite of the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the City of David and in spite of the fact that no conceivable peace settlement would turn over the seat of Israel’s government to Palestinian control — even if parts of East Jerusalem are reserved for a Palestinian capital. Israel’s government sits on Israeli land, and it will remain Israeli land.

Here is the speech (starts 15 min in)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=KU2gB_S2AWw&app=desktop

Logical and nothing wrong with it!

Some anti-Semitic cacophony anticipated and expected but hey!

Patrick Byrom
07-12-2017, 03:31 PM
Sloppy reporting but a extremely provocative decision by the US government. Seems Trump is interested in the rule of Law only when it works in his favour. When it doesn't then "oh well, we'll do this anyway". It will hugely de-stabilise the ME and further erodes the US standing on the international scene.It doesn't seem to have any real benefits to anyone (apart from Trump), but will definitely cause a lot of problems.

Patrick Byrom
07-12-2017, 03:34 PM
Some anti-Semitic cacophony anticipated and expected but hey!I didn't realise that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate was an anti-Semite (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/06/us-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-israel-capital-what-it-means):

Patriarch Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox patriarchate, widely seen as the most senior Christian figure in Jerusalem, and a dozen other church leaders in the Holy Land, sent a letter to Trump on Wednesday warning of “irreparable harm”. His move “will yield increased hatred, conflict, violence and suffering in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, moving us farther from the goal of unity and deeper toward destructive division”, they said. Church leaders will be anxious to protect Christian sites.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2017, 04:01 AM
I was amazed by some reporting that said Trump had declared Israel's capital to be Jerusalem and even that Trump was moving Israel's capital to Jerusalem.
Sounds like a lot of garbling then. The speech was very clear: Trump didn't declare what Israel's capital should, but merely that America would respect Israel's choice. It was the American Embassy that would be moved to reflect that.


I would have thought that Israel decides what its own capital is and that decisions of other countries are merely ones of recognition or political practicality.
That was the point of Trump's statement: Israel, like all other countries, has the right to choose its own capital. America was merely recognizing this prior fact.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2017, 04:06 AM
I didn't realise that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate was an anti-Semite (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/06/us-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-israel-capital-what-it-means):

Patriarch Theophilos III, the Greek Orthodox patriarchate, widely seen as the most senior Christian figure in Jerusalem, and a dozen other church leaders in the Holy Land, sent a letter to Trump on Wednesday warning of “irreparable harm”. His move “will yield increased hatred, conflict, violence and suffering in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, moving us farther from the goal of unity and deeper toward destructive division”, they said. Church leaders will be anxious to protect Christian sites.

Yep, sounds like an antisemite then, just like Red Frank, who went against the persistent medieval papal statements denouncing antisemitism, such as Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis).

And of course, the soi-disant Palestinians never fomented "hatred, conflict, violence and suffering" before this recognition, eh? I suppose this is just the excuse Hamas needs to add the annihilation of Israel to their charter. Oh wait, they already had this.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2017, 09:54 AM
Why Trump is right in recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (http://www.jwire.com.au/why-trump-is-right-in-recognising-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-writes-alan-dershowitz/)
by Alan Dershowitz, 7 December 2017

President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a perfect response to President Obama’s benighted decision to change American policy by engineering the United Nations Security Council Resolution declaring Judaism’s holiest places in Jerusalem to be occupied territory and a “flagrant violation under international law.”

It was President Obama who changed the status quo and made peace more difficult, by handing the Palestinians enormous leverage in future negotiations and disincentivising them from making a compromised peace.

It had long been American foreign policy to veto any one-sided Security Council resolutions that declared Judaism’s holiest places to be illegally occupied. Obama’s decision to change that policy was not based on American interests or in the interests of peace. It was done out of personal revenge against Prime Minister Netanyahu and an act of pique by the outgoing president.

It was also designed improperly to tie the hands of President-elect Trump. President Trump is doing the right thing by telling the United Nations that the United States now rejects the one-sided U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967, the United Nations did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

When Israel retook these areas in a defensive war that Jordan started by shelling civilian homes in West Jerusalem, and opened them up as places where Jews could pray, study, receive medical treatment and live, the United States took the official position that it would not recognise Israel’s legitimate claims to Jewish Jerusalem.

After the UN, at the urging of President Obama, made it a continuing international crime for there to be any Israeli presence in disputed areas of Jerusalem, including areas whose Jewish provenance is beyond dispute, President Trump was right to untie his own hands and to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor. Some have argued that the United States should not recognise Jerusalem because it will stimulate violence by Arab terrorists. No American decision should ever be influenced by the threat of violence. Terrorists should not have a veto over American policy. If the United States were to give in to threat of violence, it would only incentivize others to threaten violence in response to any peace plan.

So let’s praise President Trump for doing the right thing by undoing the wrong thing President Obama did at the end of his presidency.

Rincewind
10-12-2017, 10:09 AM
Demonstrating exactly why Dershowitz is an unreliable commentator on Middle East. Thanks for posting.

Ian Murray
10-12-2017, 02:47 PM
Annexation by military conquest is in violation of international law, as Dershowitz well knows


Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Inviolability of rights
Article 47

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Commentary of 1958
It will be well to note that the reference to annexation in this Article cannot be considered as implying recognition of this manner of acquiring sovereignty. The preliminary work on the subject confirms this. In order to bring out more clearly the unlawful character of annexation in wartime, the government experts of 1947 proposed adding the adjective "alleged" before the word "annexation" . Several delegates at the Diplomatic Conference, concerned about the same point, went as far as to propose cutting out the reference to a hypothetical annexation in this Article. The Conference eventually decided to keep it because they considered that these fears were unfounded and also felt that it was wiser to mention such a situation in the text of the Article, in order to be better armed to meet it

A fundamental principle emerges from the foregoing considerations; an Occupying Power continues to be bound to apply the Convention as a whole even when, in disregard of the rules of international law, it claims during a conflict to have annexed all or part of an occupied territory.

Patrick Byrom
10-12-2017, 03:34 PM
Yep, sounds like an antisemite then, ...An anti-semite like Reagan (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/reagan-suggests-he-would-veto-bill-to-put-embassy-in-jerusalem.html)?

WASHINGTON, March 28 - President Reagan said today that it would be ''most unwise'' for the United States to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he strongly suggested that he would veto legislation in Congress to require such a step.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2017, 06:04 AM
Annexation by military conquest is in violation of international law, as Dershowitz well knows

Here are the facts by Prof. Dershowitz (https://www.prageru.com/videos/are-israeli-settlements-barrier-peace), himself one who questions the wisdom of Israeli civilian settlements in those territories:


But Israel has no right to be in the West Bank at all, many say. So, permit me, a law professor at Harvard, to say that on the basis of international law this position is incorrect.

Military occupations are clearly permitted under international law following an aggressive attack by a neighboring state. Jordan, Israel's neighbor to the East, attacked Israel in 1967, despite Israel's repeated efforts to keep Jordan out of the Six Day War.

In defending itself against Jordan, Israel captured the West Bank and the eastern part of Jerusalem. Under international law, until a meaningful peace is achieved and all terrorism against it ceases, Israel has every right to retain military control over this area. Since no peace treaty has been reached and the terrorism continues with new attacks threatened almost daily, Israel is under no legal obligation to leave. Given the danger that Israel would be putting itself in if it did leave the West Bank—exposing its major cities and international airport to rocket attacks—it would be irresponsible to do so, which is why Israel is still there.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=dhbCtAz_BQc

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2017, 06:08 AM
An anti-semite like Reagan (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/reagan-suggests-he-would-veto-bill-to-put-embassy-in-jerusalem.html)?

WASHINGTON, March 28 - President Reagan said today that it would be ''most unwise'' for the United States to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he strongly suggested that he would veto legislation in Congress to require such a step.
So even Reagan wasn't perfect then?

But that was 1984. In the 33 years since, there have been constant terrorists against Israel even without that recognition.

Patrick Byrom
11-12-2017, 12:49 PM
So even Reagan wasn't perfect then?Are you saying that Reagan was anti-semitic? If he wasn't, then clearly it's not anti-semitic to oppose moving the US embassy.

Ian Murray
11-12-2017, 06:31 PM
...Prof. Dershowitz, himself one who questions the wisdom of Israeli civilian settlements in those territories:

He doesn't just 'question' their wisdom, he has long opposed them. As he says, "military occupation is significantly different from building civilian settlements."

They are specifically prohibited by the 4th Geneva Convention (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5):
Art 49 ......The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.


...Military occupations are clearly permitted under international law ...

Military occupation yes, subject to the provisions of the 4th Convention. Civilian occupation is illegal, as is annexation of captured territory. The West Bank settlements and the annexation of East Jerusalem contravene international law.

Ian Murray
12-12-2017, 07:48 AM
EXPLAINER: Why Trump Recognising Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel Matters (https://newmatilda.com/2017/12/12/explainer-why-trump-recognising-jerusalem-as-the-capital-of-israel-matters/)
New Matilda
12.12.17

One of the biggest stories in the world right now is US President Donald Trump recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Many Australians may not understand the significance of this, so Michael Brull explains the context....

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2017, 08:46 AM
He doesn't just 'question' their wisdom, he has long opposed them. As he says, "military occupation is significantly different from building civilian settlements."
As he says! But he clearly stated that they are not illegal. And further, that Israel's enemies were terrorizing civilians before the settlements, and this terrorism increased after Israel totally removed settlements from Gaza.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2017, 08:50 AM
EXPLAINER: Why Trump Recognising Jerusalem As The Capital Of Israel Matters (https://newmatilda.com/2017/12/12/explainer-why-trump-recognising-jerusalem-as-the-capital-of-israel-matters/)
New Matilda
12.12.17

One of the biggest stories in the world right now is US President Donald Trump recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Many Australians may not understand the significance of this, so Michael Brull explains the context....
Oh, Brill, a well-known Israel hater who excuses the double terrorism of Hamas: aiming at Israeli civilians while using their own as human shields.

Ian Murray
12-12-2017, 09:28 AM
As he says! But he clearly stated that they are not illegal.

No he didn't. He dodged the issue, claiming the settlements are not a barrier to peace

Ian Murray
12-12-2017, 09:33 AM
Oh, Brill, a well-known Israel hater who excuses the double terrorism of Hamas: aiming at Israeli civilians while using their own as human shields.

When argument fails, resort to the ad hom

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2017, 09:55 AM
Trump Humiliates Dems, Releases Footage of Clinton, Obama Supporting His Decisions (https://conservativetribune.com/trump-humiliates-dems-clinton-obama)
Martin Walsh, 9 Dec 2017

Following criticism from leftists who said Trump made a reckless decision, the president uploaded a video compilation to his Twitter account showing former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama also promising to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

“Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all,” Clinton said in 1992.

“As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital,” Bush said in 2000.

In 2008, Obama echoed a similar tune saying, “I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again.”

The video then shows Trump speaking at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2016, where he promised to “move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people — Jerusalem.”

The video ends with a clip from Trump’s speech in the Oval Office, where he said the move “is a long overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.”

Trump actually honored his major campaign promise — which three former presidents also said they would do — and yet Trump is the one excoriated by the media.

It’s pathetic, but thankfully Trump is exposing the left’s hypocrisy on this issue and proving that he was the only president brave enough to make this decision.

Democrats are siding with the terrorist-supporting Palestinians because they are angry that Trump actually had the guts to do what former presidents before him never could.

Rincewind
12-12-2017, 11:15 AM
“Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain an undivided city accessible to all,” Clinton said in 1992.

“As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital,” Bush said in 2000.

In 2008, Obama echoed a similar tune saying, “I continue to say that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel. And I have said that before and I will say it again.”

...

Trump actually honored his major campaign promise — which three former presidents also said they would do — and yet Trump is the one excoriated by the media.

Actually on the quotes provided, which I assume are the best ones the writer had, Bush is the only former president that said he would move the embassy.

Ian Murray
12-12-2017, 05:30 PM
Actually on the quotes provided, which I assume are the best ones the writer had, Bush is the only former president that said he would move the embassy.

All foreign embassies in Israel are located in Tel Aviv. The Trump administration is the only one indicating any intention to relocate to Jerusalem.

By Capa-Fan's reckoning, that means all nations bar the US are anti-semitic. Among others, Australian governments of either persuasion would find that assessment surprising.

Patrick Byrom
12-12-2017, 06:11 PM
All foreign embassies in Israel are located in Tel Aviv. The Trump administration is the only one indicating any intention to relocate to Jerusalem. By Capa-Fan's reckoning, that means all nations bar the US are anti-semitic. Among others, Australian governments of either persuasion would find that assessment surprising.He's also implying that several previous US Presidents, including his hero Reagan, were anti-semites.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2017, 05:57 AM
All foreign embassies in Israel are located in Tel Aviv.
Probably the only country with embassies outside the capital city.


The Trump administration is the only one indicating any intention to relocate to Jerusalem.
How dare he actually KEEP his promise, his gutless GOP predecessor, and to officially recognize Jerusalem as capital, unlike his three predecessors? And the job of President is head of the Executive Branch, to execute the laws passed by the Legislative Branch, Congress. This passed a law with a huge bipartisan majority called the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Senate 93–5; House 374–37). The Senate reaffirmed this as recently as 5 June this year, by a 90–0 vote (https://www.timesofisrael.com/senate-unanimously-passes-bill-marking-50-years-since-jerusalem-reunification/):


Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. … reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act [and explicitly] calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions.

So I don't want to hear from any Senator critical of Trump's doing just what they resolved!


By Capa-Fan's reckoning, that means all nations bar the US are anti-semitic.
Pretty much, or at least their foreign offices have been captured by antisemites. And since the UN condemns Israel more than all other nations put together, the UN is an antisemitic organization.

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2017, 05:59 AM
Violence Should Not Determine Policy (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11518/violence-should-not-determine-policy)
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Gatestone Institute, 8 December 2017


Violence should be responded to by police and military action, not by giving in to the unreasonable demands of those who use violence as a tactic.
The reason violence — whether rock-throwing or more lethal forms of terrorism — is used is because it works... as a way to extort concessions from the world. And it works because policy makers often make or refrain from making controversial decisions based on the fear of violent reactions.
Now just imagine what will happen if peace negotiations are commenced and both sides have to compromise. Israel's comprises will be met with law suits, political pushback and possibly resistance from some settlers who will have to be uprooted....
Palestinian compromises will be met with street violence, terrorism and assassinations. That has long been the modus operandi of Palestinian leaders and dissidents.
A clear message must be sent now to these leaders and dissenters: violence will not be rewarded or tolerated. It will be responded to not with policy changes but with police and military action.

So, let the peace process move forward toward a two-state solution, regardless of the violence that may be tactically deployed by the enemies of peace. Do not be fooled by those who say that the two-state solution is dead or that it is time to adopt a one-state solution. Under any resolution, Jerusalem would be recognized as the capital of Israel and its holiest places would remain under Israeli control. Do not allow President Trump's decision to keep his promise to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital to become the latest excuse by Palestinian leaders to refuse to sit down, negotiate and make the painful compromises necessary for a complete resolution of the outstanding issues. President Trump's decision merely restores the balance that was undone by President Obama's decision to engineer a one-sided Security Council Resolution that changed the status quo.

The time has come to end violence as a tool of diplomacy and for both sides to sit down at the negotiation table and agree to an outcome based on honest negotiations.

Ian Murray
13-12-2017, 08:39 AM
...The Senate reaffirmed this as recently as 5 June this year, by a 90–0 vote:


Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. … reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act [and explicitly] calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions.

At the same time the Senate reaffirmed (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-correct-about-history-jerusalem-embas/):


The Senate "reaffirms that it is the longstanding, bipartisan policy of the United States government that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution."

And Trump included in his statement: "In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved."

So US policy towards West Jerusalem amd East Jerusalem remains unchanged - there is no explicit or implicit recognition of the illegal Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Moving the embassy to West Jerusalem merely confirms that the US is not an honest broker in the peace process.


Pretty much, or at least their foreign offices have been captured by antisemites. And since the UN condemns Israel more than all other nations put together, the UN is an antisemitic organization.

Julie Bishop an anti-semite? Well, who would have believed it :)

I know you find the concept hard to grasp, but the UN General Assembly is a forum where all nations of the world can meet, with each nation having an equal vote on resolutions. The UN Secretariat, Security Council and relief agencies work independently, doing the real work.

Ian Murray
14-12-2017, 01:08 PM
3577

Imagine the entire population of Ireland was slowly expelled from the east coast including Dublin. Land stolen, laws passed to discriminate against the people of Ireland. Then the spaces we had left were made smaller and smaller. And anytime objected we were bombed, our electricity was cut off, more checkpoints appeared. Imagine the horrors of Cromwell but in the 21st Century, Imagine Cromwell with F16s and concrete walls. This is Palestine. This is the reality of Israeli Apartheid.
https://www.facebook.com/IrelandAlternative/photos/a.765514230271766.1073741828.765507346939121/903417726481415/?type=3&theater

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2017, 02:44 PM
So US policy towards West Jerusalem amd East Jerusalem remains unchanged - there is no explicit or implicit recognition of the illegal Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem.
Jordan illegally attacked Israel in 1967 so Israel responded by throwing them out of the historic Jewish capital.


Moving the embassy to West Jerusalem merely confirms that the US is not an honest broker in the peace process.
West Jerusalem has always been part of Israel.


I know you find the concept hard to grasp, but the UN General Assembly is a forum where all nations of the world can meet, with each nation having an equal vote on resolutions.
Yes, the murderous kakistocratic dictatorships have an equal vote with the free nations.

As for that silly Irish comparison, the Arabs are not surrounded by sea but by Arab lands hundreds of times the size of Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2017, 02:46 PM
The Conflict over Jerusalem Is ALL Obama's Fault (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11574/jerusalem-conflict-obam)
by Alan M. Dershowitz, 19 December 2017


First, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the UN to tell a sovereign nation what it can and cannot recognize.
The United States often stands alone with Israel against the world, and the US and Israel have been right. The bias of the international community against the nation state of the Jewish people has been long standing and evident, especially at the UN.
Recall the infamous General Assembly Resolution declaring Zionism to be a form of racism. It received overwhelming support from the tyrannical nations of the world, which constitute a permanent majority of the UN, and was rescinded only after the US issued threats if it were to remain on the books.


First, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the United Nations to tell a sovereign nation what it can and cannot recognize. If Turkey, for example, were to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of "Palestine," there is nothing the UN could or would do. (Of course, most UN members would applaud such a move.)

Second, the resolution fails to recognize that it was the December 2016 Security Council Resolution — the one engineered by lame duck President Barack Obama — that changed the status of Jerusalem and complicated the efforts to achieve a compromise peace. Before that benighted resolution, Jerusalem's Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter and the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital were widely recognized as part of Israel — or at worst, as disputed territory. Everyone knew that any peace agreement would inevitably recognize that these historically Jewish areas were an indigenous part of Israel. They were certainly not illegally occupied by Israel, any more than Bethlehem was illegally occupied by the Palestinian Authority (PA). Both Jerusalem and Bethlehem had originally been deemed part of an international zone by the United Nations when it divided the British mandate into two states for two people — a decision accepted by Israel and rejected by all the Arab nations and the Palestinian Arabs in the area. Jordan then attacked Israel and illegally occupied the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, prohibiting any Jewish access to these holy areas, as well as to the University and hospital. Jordan also illegally occupied Bethlehem.

In 1967, Jordan illegally attacked Israel. Jordan shelled civilian areas of Jerusalem. Israel responded and liberated the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter and the access roads to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital, thereby opening these sites to everyone.

That has been the status quo for the last half century, until Obama engineered the notorious December 2016 Security Council Resolution that declared the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter and the access roads to be illegally occupied by Israel, thus changing the status quo.

The bias of the international community against the nation state of the Jewish people has been long-standing and evident, especially at the United Nations. Abba Eban made the point years ago when he quipped that if Algeria presented a resolution that the earth was flat and Israel flattened it, the vote would be 128 in favor, 3 opposed and 62 abstentions. Recall the infamous UN General Assembly Resolution declaring Zionism to be a form of racism. It received overwhelming support from the tyrannical nations of the world, which constitute a permanent majority of the United Nations, and was rescinded only after the United States issued threats if it were to remain on the books.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2017, 03:04 AM
Oh wait, it was an Afghan immigrant using a car: lets do to cars what Howard did to guns.

Melbourne rampage driver is an Afghan immigrant, 32, who was acting alone when he ploughed an SUV into pedestrians during Christmas rush hour leaving 19 injured - including a toddler (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5201021/Car-crashes-Melbournes-Flinders-Street-Station-crowd.html)

Glad no one was killed; sad that these 19 will be spending Christmas in hospital.

Ian Murray
22-12-2017, 06:36 AM
UN votes resoundingly to reject Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as capital (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/united-nations-un-vote-donald-trump-jerusalem-israel)
The Guardian
22.12.17

The United Nations general assembly has delivered a stinging rebuke to Donald Trump, voting by a huge majority to reject his unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The vote came after a redoubling of threats by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, who said that Washington would remember which countries “disrespected” America by voting against it.

Despite the warning, 128 members voted on Thursday in favour of the resolution supporting the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem – which is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians – can only be settled as an agreed final issue in a peace deal. Countries which voted for the resolution included major recipients of US aid such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although largely symbolic, the vote in emergency session of the world body had been the focus of days of furious diplomacy by both the Trump administration and Israel, including Trump’s threat to cut US funding to countries that did not back the US recognition.

But only nine states – including the United States and Israel –voted against the resolution. The other countries which supported Washington were Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.

Twenty-two of the 28 EU countries voted for the resolution, including the UK and France. Germany – which in the past has abstained on measures relating to Israel – also voted in favour.

Thirty-five countries abstained, including five EU states, and other US allies including Australia, Canada, Colombia and Mexico....

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2017, 08:40 AM
Again, who cares, because the vast majority of UN members are kakistocracies. And good on the USA for threatening not to give any more money to countries that vote against it.

Patrick Byrom
22-12-2017, 01:38 PM
Oh wait, it was an Afghan immigrant using a car: lets do to cars what Howard did to guns.You mean require all gun owners to be licenced and registered and have years of training - an excellent idea!

Not sure what a traffic incident by a mentally ill person has to do with Israel and/or Palestine, or even religious terrorism.

Patrick Byrom
22-12-2017, 01:41 PM
Even Trump doesn't believe that Jerusalem is Israel's capital (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/12/the_u_n_vote_on_jerusalem_was_a_dramatic_rebuke_to _trump_that_he_brought.html) - he's just virtue signalling:

The curious thing is that not even Trump seems to have taken his policy shift on Jerusalem very seriously. After making his announcement on Dec. 6, he signed the congressionally mandated waiver that permits a president to keep the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said it will take at least three years to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The U.S. already has a consulate in Jerusalem, and key personnel could move there and anoint it an “embassy” within days if the president wanted them to do so.

Ian Murray
22-12-2017, 01:51 PM
Again, who cares, because the vast majority of UN members are kakistocracies.

A meaningless sweeping statement unless you can back it up with facts. Name at lest 100 UN member states which are kakistocracies. And do tell how you identify their leaders as the worst of their populations.


And good on the USA for threatening not to give any more money to countries that vote against it.

Which frightened Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras into voting with USA. No-one else was interested in supporting Trump's grandstanding.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2017, 12:04 PM
A meaningless sweeping statement unless you can back it up with facts. Name at lest 100 UN member states which are kakistocracies. And do tell how you identify their leaders as the worst of their populations.
Venezuela, a failed communist dictatorship where people are killing animals on the street to eat; North Korea, a giant gulag state; China, a communist dictatorship that forces women to get abortions; Syria that has gassed half a million of its citizens; Iran, a vicious Islamist hellhole; Zimbabwe, a failed racist one-party state; South Africa, another racist state on its way to become another Zimbabwe; Rwanda, site of massive genocide which the UN did nothing about; Yemen, with a brutal civil war and millions suffering famine …

Hayek's famous Road to Serfdom has a chapter “Why the worst get on top (http://www.savageleft.com/poli/rts-ten.html)” in the big-government regimes that you love and constitute the majority of UN member states.

Ben Shapiro REACTS to United Nations Attacking Trump on Jerusalem


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VR_MZGFTgA


Which frightened Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras into voting with USA. No-one else was interested in supporting Trump's grandstanding.
Good; the USA can save billions on foreign aid, as President Trump said.

Ian Murray
24-12-2017, 03:12 PM
Venezuela, a failed communist dictatorship where people are killing animals on the street to eat; North Korea, a giant gulag state; China, a communist dictatorship that forces women to get abortions; Syria that has gassed half a million of its citizens; Iran, a vicious Islamist hellhole; Zimbabwe, a failed racist one-party state; South Africa, another racist state on its way to become another Zimbabwe; Rwanda, site of massive genocide which the UN did nothing about; Yemen, with a brutal civil war and millions suffering famine …

There are 193 UN member states, a "vast majority" of which, you claim, are kakistocracies. So you're talking about 150 or so, as a vast majority. You've named a handful, of which China, Iran and Rwanda are certainly not.

Keep trying - 145-odd to go.

Capablanca-Fan
24-12-2017, 03:22 PM
UN Hypocrisy
Mike Farris

UN Resolution 1514 (2) declares:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Israel has used its right of self-determination to declare that Jerusalem is its capital.

The United States has used its self-determination to recognize that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem—which is another way of the US recognizing Israel’s right of self-determination.

Now the UN has voted overwhelmingly to declare this US recognition to be void.

It should be remembered that UN Resolution 1514 was adopted in response to colonialism.

Israel is not a colony of the UN. The United States is not a colony of the UN. The UN has no jurisdiction over our action.

Fortunately, the UN vote has no enforcement power behind it. Thus, the only thing that was void was the UN vote—it was void of any legal impact.

President Trump got this one right. If our ally says that their capital is a certain city, it is our duty to agree with our ally. We are backing self-determination. The UN has turned its back on a core principle of international law.

Kevin Bonham
24-12-2017, 08:36 PM
President Trump got this one right. If our ally says that their capital is a certain city, it is our duty to agree with our ally. We are backing self-determination. The UN has turned its back on a core principle of international law.

Well there has to be some limit to that. If Germany were to declare Paris its capital it would be our duty to proclaim them to be stark-raving bonkers. The question is at what level of occupation or contested occupation should the line be drawn.

Ian Murray
25-12-2017, 07:46 AM
UN Resolution 1514 (2) declares:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Israel has used its right of self-determination to declare that Jerusalem is its capital. ...

Neither Israel nor anyone else has the right to declare ownership of foreign territory. The Israeli occupation and settlement of Greater Jerusalem is a flagrant breach of international law, affirmed many times by the UN Security Council (e.g. Resolutions 476 (https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826) and 478 (https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB)).

Security Council resolutions are legally binding on all member states.

jammo
25-12-2017, 10:51 AM
Neither Israel nor anyone else has the right to declare ownership of foreign territory. The Israeli occupation and settlement of Greater Jerusalem is a flagrant breach of international law, affirmed many times by the UN Security Council (e.g. Resolutions 476 (https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6DE6DA8A650B4C3B852560DF00663826) and 478 (https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/DDE590C6FF232007852560DF0065FDDB)).

Security Council resolutions are legally binding on all member states.

Who is the legal owner of Jerusalem then? The Ottomans or the Crusaders or perhaps King David?

Capablanca-Fan
25-12-2017, 11:21 AM
Security Council resolutions are legally binding on all member states.
Who cares? Most of the Security Council are despots. No one should give a monkey's that the Soviet Gulag State and the mass-murdering Chinese Communist dictatorship voted for these. About time an American ambassador and president told this kakistocracy where to go.

Desmond
25-12-2017, 02:03 PM
Who is the legal owner of Jerusalem then? The Ottomans or the Crusaders or perhaps King David?
Noel noel noel noel
Born is the king of Israel

sleepless
25-12-2017, 04:06 PM
Why don't the Palestinians just give in - the three Hamas wars have only brought unemployment and poverty, and doddering Mahmoud Abbas needs to be shunted off to a retirement home. UN resolutions and brokered reconciliation plans have all been ineffective. You wonder why those that are mobile don't just find their way over to the Israeli side with a view eventually becoming citizens and providing a decent lifestyle for their families.

Ian Murray
26-12-2017, 07:40 AM
Who cares? Most of the Security Council are despots.

So, of the 15 member states of the Security Council, at least eight are ruled by despots, you claim. Which ones are those? Or is that another of your meaningless sweeping statements?

By and large, the rest of the world does care about UN peacekeeping efforts. When the Security Council directed that all embassies relocate out of Jerusalem, they all did.

Ian Murray
26-12-2017, 07:44 AM
Who is the legal owner of Jerusalem then? The Ottomans or the Crusaders or perhaps King David?

Certainly not Israel, which didn't exist 70 years ago. Under the UN partition plan which created the State of Israel, Jerusalem was to become an international demiltarised city under UN governance.

Ian Murray
26-12-2017, 07:46 AM
...find their way over to the Israeli side with a view eventually becoming citizens and providing a decent lifestyle for their families.

Which Israel will never allow to happen, otherwise the Jewish population would finish up as a minority.

Ian Murray
28-12-2017, 08:54 AM
Trump’s pernicious attempt to starve the UN of cash could yet backfire (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/27/trump-un-cash-budget)
The Guardian
28.12.17

Just ahead of the announcement by the UN that its annual budget is to be cut by 5%, at a time of almost unprecedented global humanitarian need and increasingly bitter and intractable conflicts, the Donald Trump administration revealed that the slash in spending was almost entirely down to its decision to hold back on some $285m in contributions. This is a Trumpian Christmas present, announced as collective punishment for the member states who voted against his incendiary decision to recognise Jerusalem as the “capital of Israel”.

The US announcement may at least save its UN ambassador Nikki Haley from the painful and somewhat lengthy task she had set herself of “taking the names” of the countries who voted to uphold innumerable international agreements over the final status of the city. The easier option might have been to simply send Trump the list of nine assorted Central American kleptocracies and quasi-dependent territory Pacific island states who fell in line behind the White House (and who will now no doubt be expecting special largesse).

The US cuts to its contribution to the UN budget were not, however, unexpected. Earlier this year, for instance, the US was pushing for specific cuts for spending on UN work connected to the occupied Palestinian territories. At the same time, Trump was claiming to still support the “two-state solution” for Israel and Palestine....

Ironically and quite unintentionally, recent events seem likely to lead to a rapid increase in the number of countries ready to recognise Palestine diplomatically and push to accord it full membership of the United Nations. And with the Middle East peace process currently moribund, those who believe that a two-state solution is dying will likely be encouraged. Indeed, that doesn’t offer the long-term solution that could be provided by a secular, democratic, one-state Israel/Palestine where the rights of Jews, Muslims, Christian and none of the above could be guaranteed by international statute. The alternative of unceasing, unending conflict and regional insecurity is what the UN came into existence to discourage and prevent....

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2017, 11:20 AM
Trump’s pernicious attempt to starve the UN of cash could yet backfire (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/27/trump-un-cash-budget)
The Guardian
28.12.17
Of course, the leftist transnational progressivist Guardian would say that. But why is it pernicious? This money comes from American taxpayers, so why should it go to an unaccountable bureaucracy that constantly singles out Israel for attack while ignoring regimes that have real human rights abuses?

What exactly does the UN do right? Many wars and genocides have happened under its watch.

Why should the USA pay almost a quarter of its budget, especially when it hardly does anything but trash the USA, at least when it's not trashing Israel.

I would actually prefer that the USA just left the UN and threw them out of NYC. The UN needs the USA more than the USA needs the UN.

Ian Murray
28-12-2017, 03:34 PM
Of course, the leftist transnational progressivist Guardian would say that. But why is it pernicious? This money comes from American taxpayers, so why should it go to an unaccountable bureaucracy that constantly singles out Israel for attack while ignoring regimes that have real human rights abuses?

What exactly does the UN do right?


The United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend about $30 billion each year, or about $4 for each of the world's inhabitants. This is a very small sum compared to most government budgets and it is less than three percent of the world's military spending. Yet for nearly two decades, the UN has faced financial difficulties and it has been forced to cut back on important programs in all areas, even as new mandates have arisen. Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of December 31, 2010, members' arrears to the Regular Budget topped $348 million, of which the US owed 80%....
https://www.globalpolicy.org/un-finance.html


Many wars and genocides have happened under its watch.

Correlation is not causation. The toll would be much higher without UN peacekeeping forces


Why should the USA pay almost a quarter of its budget, especially when it hardly does anything but trash the USA, at least when it's not trashing Israel.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The UN does a lot more than 'hardly anything'


I would actually prefer that the USA just left the UN and threw them out of NYC. The UN needs the USA more than the USA needs the UN.

There have been numerous attempts in Congress to exit the UN and evict the UN HQ from NYC. None have gained any traction.

Capablanca-Fan
29-12-2017, 02:39 AM
Time To Defund The United Nations (https://www.dailywire.com/news/25119/time-defund-united-nations-ben-shapiro)
Ben Shapiro, 27 Dec 2017

Last week, Democrats and many in the mainstream media became highly perturbed by the Trump administration's suggestion that the United States might tie continued foreign aid to support for its agenda abroad. Foreign dictators agreed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spent the last year arresting dissidents, announced, "Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey's democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear."

Herein lies the great irony of the United Nations: While it's the Mos Eisley of international politics — a hive of scum and villainy — and it votes repeatedly to condemn the United States and Israel, the tyrannies that constitute the body continue to oppress their own peoples. Among those who voted last week to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem were North Korea, Iran, Yemen and Venezuela. Why exactly should the United States ever take advice from those nations seriously?

We shouldn't. And we should stop sending cash to an organization that operates as a front for immoral agenda items.

The United Nations spends the vast majority of its time condemning Israel: According to UN Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council issued 135 resolutions from June 2006 to June 2016, 68 of which were against Israel; the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization only passes resolutions against Israel; and the U.N. General Assembly issued 97 resolutions from 2012 through 2015, 83 of which targeted Israel.

The U.N. has always been a foolish fantasy, a League of Nations knockoff that's been about as productive and twice as irritating. It's an outmoded organization that's outlived whatever small usefulness it once had. There's no reason for us to continue cutting checks to prop up regimes that condemn us publicly for exercising the most basic standards of morality.

Ian Murray
29-12-2017, 07:03 AM
Reacting to Ben Shapiro is a waste of oxygen

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2017, 06:02 PM
Debating BDS with Cornel West (https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11632/debating-bds-with-cornel-west)
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Gatestone Institute, 29 December 2017


Zionism was the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, not a colonial enterprise. Nor is Israel in any way like South Africa, where a minority of whites ruled over a majority of Blacks, who were denied the most fundamental human rights. In Israel, Arabs, Druze and Christians have equal rights and serve in high positions in government, business, the arts and academia.
BDS is not a protest against Israel's policies. It is a protest against Israel's very existence.
West argued that BDS would encourage Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. I replied that Israel would never be blackmailed into compromising its security, and that the Palestinians are disincentivized into making compromises by the fantasy that they will get a state through economic and cultural extortion.