Ever wondered why Israel is always in the news, and why the U.N. has condemned this tiny country more than it has all the tyrannies of the world combined? It’s pretty obvious why the Arabs hate Israel. They hate Israel because of the Jews. But why does the Left also treat this tiny Jewish state as an international pariah? Look no further than this little presentation below for the answer.
October 17, 2011
September 26, 2011
This is what speaking truth to power REALLY looks like. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu delivers one of the tightest, most fact intensive political speeches I have ever heard.
Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East, is unjustly singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Is it possible that tiny Israel is worse than China, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran, Myanmar, etc., and the rest of the world’s dictatorships COMBINED? Is that truly possible? Seriously folks, the persecution of Israel by this corrupt world body held hostage by the Muslim block and Arab Oil, and populated by the worst thugocracies on the planet might almost be mistaken for apocalyptic. It’s sick and bizarre. Netanyahu warns of a malignancy that is sweeping the world called militant Islam (why is nobody else at the U.N. addressing this?) which opposes, not the policies of Israel, but its very existence. He slams Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran for suggesting 9/11 was an American conspiracy, warns of the consequences should Iran acquire a WMD, the rise of militant Islam across the Middle East, and the creation of a Palestinian state. Speaking about the U.N., he says:
This is an unfortunate part about the U.N. institution, it’s a theatre of the Absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain, it often casts REAL villains in leading roles. Ghaddafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. commission on human rights. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq headed the U.N. committee on disarmament. Hesbollah controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. security council. This means in effect that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing world security [and recall Sudan’s comic/tragic membership on the U.N.’s human rights committee]. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
Netanyahu addresses the claim by President Abbas that the core of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the “settlements”:
Well, that’s odd. Our conflict was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas says is true, then I guess the “settlements” he’s talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheva. Maybe that’s what he meant when he said the other day that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for sixty-three years. He didn’t say from 1967, he said from 1948. It illustrates a simple truth — the core of the conflict is not the settlements. The core of the conflict is the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state in ANY border.
Responding to demands that Israel make a “sweeping” offer in order to secure peace he says:
There’s only one problem with that theory. We’ve tried it and it hasn’t worked. In 2000 we made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it. Palestinians then launched a campaign of terror that claimed a thousand Israeli lives. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an even more sweeping offer to the Palestinians. President Abbas didn’t even respond to it.
But Israel has made more than just sweeping offers:
We have actually conceded territory. We withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, and from every square inch of Gaza in 2005. We left Gaza hoping for peace. We didn’t freeze the settlements in Gaza, we uprooted them. That didn’t calm the militant Islamic storm that threatens us. It only brought the storm closer and made it stronger. Hesbollah and Hamas fired thousands of rockets against our cities from the very territories we vacated. When Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, the moderates didn’t defeat the radicals, the moderates were DEVOURED by the radicals.
On the consequences of Israel’s concessions:
We did exactly what the theory says. And I don’t think people remember how far we went to achieve this. And then having done all that, we gave the keys of Gaza to President Abbas. You can all remember the world applauded the withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. As a bold act of peace. Now, the theory says it should all work out. But ladies and gentlemen, we didn’t get peace, we got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority in one day.
On a Palestinian state in the West Bank:
President Abbas says the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yup. Hopes, dreams, and ten thousand missiles and grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya and elsewhere. Thousands of missiles have already rained down on our cities. So you might understand, given all this, Israelis rightly ask what’s to prevent all this from happening again from the West Bank. Israel is prepared to have a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but we are not prepared to have another Gaza there.
And he was just getting started. I haven’t quite understood why Abbas declaring a Palestinian state in the West Bank was so threatening to the Israelis, but I get it now. Makes perfect sense why peace must be achieving FIRST, before statehood is awarded to the Palestinians, which he explains here. The consequences otherwise could quite literally mean the start of a regional war.
Full transcript here.
June 28, 2010
Iran blinks. The cost of saving the pooor Gazans is simply more than Iran is willing to pay.
June 25 (Bloomberg) — Iran said the June 27 departure of a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip has been canceled because of Israel’s vow to prevent Iranian and Lebanese vessels from breaching its blockade of the Palestinian enclave.
“The Zionist regime has made sending aid to Gaza a political issue,” [LOL] Hossein Sheikholeslam, head of the Iranian agency to support Palestinians, was cited as saying by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency late yesterday.
He referred to Israel’s warning to the United Nations that it may take military action to prevent ships from reaching Gaza. “In order not to give the Zionist regime an excuse, we will send the aid through other routes and without Iran’s name,” said Sheikholeslam, a former lawmaker and diplomat.
“The costs of sending aid to Gaza has increased,” Sheikholeslam said. [Sheik Hole Slam???] “As Israel has said it will confiscate ships, no company is prepared to rent their vessels.” [Clearly, saving the pooor Gazans from utter starvation and death is not worth the cost of a smallish Class VI bulk freighter] Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor declined to comment on the cancellation of the Iranian voyage when reached by telephone today.
Israel said in letters to the UN June 18 that it may use its military to block ships from Lebanon that plan to sail to Gaza with aid. The organizers of the Lebanese effort may be linked to Hezbollah and some have said they wish to become “martyrs,” according to the letters from Israeli UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalev. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on June 23 that plans to send ships from Iran and Lebanon were an attempt to “create a provocation.” He said on June 2 that there were no shortages of food or medicine in Gaza. Israel agreed on June 20 to allow all food items and a wider range of building supplies into Gaza by road, while banning materials that might be used for attacks.
The Red Crescent Society’s chartered vessel was scheduled to leave the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas with 1,100 tons of medicine, food and hygiene goods donated by Iranians, the organization said. Five Red Crescent representatives and five journalists were going to be on board, it said.
The International Committee of the Red Cross, in a June 14 report, called on Israel to end the blockade, saying it subjected Gaza’s civilians to “collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law.” [Newspeak. The bar on “collective penalties” forbids the imposition of criminal or military penalties (imprisonment, death, etc) on some people for crimes committed by other individuals– you know, rounding up and killing 100 villagers for every German soldier killed by partisans. Blockades or sanctions were never meant to fall under that prohibition. Notice the launching of rockets on innocent Israelis is never referred to as “collective punishment” by these Leftwing types. Their concern for “human rights” is always a one-way street, and never in a direction that favors Israel.] It also urged those with “an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza’s civilian population.” [Doing their “utmost” does not include the possibility of getting your freighter confiscated]
The Hamas government’s economy minister, Ziad Zaza, dismissed Israel’s relaxing of the blockade as “nonsense,” saying Israel was trying to reduce international pressure on it. [Then running the Gaza blockade–instead of delivering supplies through the Israeli port of Ashod– is equally “nonsense,” as this is similarly done for the purpose of increasing international pressure on Israel] Hamas, which won Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, ousted forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah group and seized full control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, leaving Abbas in charge of the West Bank. Hamas is considered a terrorist group by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union.
June 22, 2010
There’s truth, and then there are FACTS, and rarely the twain shall meet. Here a U.N. group won’t allow the facts to get in the way of their “truth”.
The United Nations Correspondents Association recently screened a film for foreign journalists that purported to show Israel attacking innocent activists. An Israeli request to show a second film that would put the events of the first in a more accurate light was originally granted, then denied at the last minute.
The screening was organized by the president of the Correspondents Association, Giampaolo Pioli, who invited correspondents to see an “Israeli attack on human rights activists.”
The film shown was shot by one of the passengers on a Gaza-bound flotilla that aimed to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Hamas-controlled region. Israeli commandos boarded the boats after they refused, when asked peacefully, to turn aside and dock in Ashdod. On one ship, the Mavi Marmara, soldiers were violently attacked by Turkish activists wielding knives and blunt instruments, leading to a clash in which nine passengers were killed and several passengers and soldiers were wounded.
The footage shows Israeli troops preparing to board the vessel, then switches to scenes in which passengers treat the wounded.
Mirit Cohen, spokeswoman for Israel’s UN delegation, asked to attend the event and show a film prepared by the IDF Spokesperson’s unit. The IDF has released a film showing members of the pro-terrorist Turkish group IHH on the Mavi Marmara attacking soldiers with metal clubs and throwing one soldier overboard; a second film shows the ship’s Chief Officer testifying that the violent attack on soldiers was premeditated.
The UN group originally accepted Cohen’s request and agreed to screen the Israeli film. However, just two hours before the event was to begin, Pioli informed Cohen that he would be dropping the Israeli film. He offered to show Israel’s side of the story at a different time.
Israel distributed a complaint to foreign correspondents Thursday. “Offering UN media facilities to screen video produced by a one-sided activist while actively preventing a member state of the United Nations an opportunity to respond in real time is severely unethical,” Cohen wrote.
The decision to cancel the screening of the Israeli video with just two hours notice “raises grave doubts as to the reason behind this decision,” she added. Cohen demanded an official apology for the incident.
May 27, 2010
When it comes to Islam, I don’t think “mainstream” or “moderate” means what you think it means.
Grant death for blasphemy: Islamists to UN
Demanding a permanent ban on Facebook, over two dozen Pakistani religious groups working under the umbrella of the JuD have decided to contact the UN for enacting a global law “against blasphemy of prophets and awarding death penalty to violators.”
The decision to contact the UN and envoys from Muslims and non-Muslim states was made at a meeting of clerics belonging to the JuD, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat Ulema-e-Pakistan, Tanzeem-e-Islami, Markaz-e-Ahlesunnat, Muslim Conference, Jamat-e-Ahlehadis, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Pakistan Ulema Council and International Katham-e-Nabuwat.
The meeting, held yesterday at the JuD’s headquarters Markaz Alqaadsia in Chawburji, was presided over by JuD chief Hafiz Mohd Saeed.
“The ambassadors of Muslim and non-Muslim states will be told that blasphemy against prophets not only hurts the feelings of one religion but also sows a seed of hatred against the people of other religions,” the meeting observed.
May 25, 2010
The perceptions shapers are at it again. Ann Althouse exposes the MSM frauds:
If you’re going to criticize the new social studies curriculum adopted by the Texas Board of Education, you’d better quote it. Or at least link to the text. And if you choose to paraphrase and not even link, and I have to look up the text myself, and your paraphrase is not accurate, it is my job to embarrass you by pointing that out.
The Washington Post writes:
The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards….
The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated — something most historians deny –…
The students are required to “describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government…” The word “vindicated” is inflammatory and unfair. What is the Washington Post saying historians deny? One can be informed of the reality of what the Venona Papers revealed about communist infiltration into the U.S. government and still understand and deplore the excesses of “McCarthyism.”
…draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis’s and Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural addresses…
Students are required to “analyze the ideas contained in Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address and Abraham Lincoln’s ideas about liberty, equality, union, and government as contained in his first and second inaugural addresses and the Gettysburg Address.” The word “equivalency” is uncalled for. The requirement is to analyze, not to be indoctrinated that the ideas are the same.
… say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty…
What I’m seeing is “explain the significance of the League of Nations and the United Nations” and “analyze the human and physical factors that influence the power to control territory, create conflict/war, and impact international political relations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), or the control of resources.” Where is the language that can be paraphrased “imperil American sovereignty”?
.… and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn.
Students are required to “explain the roles played by significant individuals and heroes during the Civil War, including Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, and congressional Medal of Honor recipients William Carney and Philip Bazaar.” Only Davis and Lee were Confederate officials! There is also this: “describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo [in the Civil Rights Era].” That’s obviously not from the Civil War, but I can see why it’s annoying to Democrats.
They also removed references to capitalism and replaced them with the term “free-enterprise system.”
The document on economics does use the term “free enterprise system” throughout, but students are required to “understand that the terms free enterprise, free market, and capitalism are synonymous terms to describe the U.S. economic system,” so what is the problem?
Virtually everything cited in the article to make the curriculum seem controversial is misstated! Appalling!
The devastating rest, here.
May 1, 2010
This one provides us a treasure trove on the U.N. Here we see an exchange at the U.N. Human Rights Commission between members of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), and representatives of Western democracies and human rights NGOs. The NGO representative attempts to read his statement on the human rights abuses under Sharia law (stoning, honor killings, female genital mutilation, etc), but he is impeded at every turn by the Islamic bloc members as well as the U.N.’s dhimmified moderator. Don’t be fooled by their measured tones. It masks a tension that could be cut with a knife. Pay particular attention to how bold, confident and agressive the Islamic bloc is, and how timid and cowed the European members are. White guilt on full display. The representative of Cuba naturally takes the side of the totalitarian Muslim bloc in a classic case of Leftwing/Jihad convergence (communists are never timid). A pit of vipers if I ever saw one.Vodpod videos no longer available.
April 30, 2010
The United Nations beclowns itself once again.
Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”
Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.
Iran’s election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women’s rights.
“Iran’s discriminatory laws demonstrate that the Islamic Republic does not believe in gender equality,” reads the letter, signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies.
The letter draws a dark picture of the status of women in Iran: “women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women’s admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws.”
Yet critics of Iran’s human rights record say the country has taken “every conceivable step” to deter women’s equality. “In the past year, it has arrested and jailed mothers of peaceful civil rights protesters,” wrote three prominent democracy and human rights activists in an op-ed published online Tuesday by Foreign Policy Magazine.
“It has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere — as wives, daughters and mothers — with threatening national security, subjecting many to hours of harrowing interrogation. Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters.”
Iran’s elevation to the commission comes as a black eye just days after the U.S. helped lead a successful effort to keep Iran off the Human Rights Council, which is already dominated by nations that are judged by human rights advocates as chronic violators of essential freedoms. The current membership of the women’s commission is little different.
Mind you, this is the same Iran that has declared that women with a sun tan will be arrested.
January 28, 2010
I apologize for yet another global warming post, but they’re coming fast and furious now. We were told the glaciers were melting, but the only thing melting is the sham perpetrated on us by the IPCC. More eco-hoaxism below.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’ In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
One of the problems bedevilling Himalayan glacier research is a lack of reliable data. But an authoritative report published last November by the Indian government said: ‘Himalayan glaciers have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent years, an abnormal annual retreat.’ When this report was issued, Raj Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, denounced it as ‘voodoo science’.
Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue. Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.
The damage to the IPCC’s reputation, already tarnished by last year’s ‘Warmergate’ leaked email scandal, is likely to be considerable. Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’.
And the U.S. media still refuses to cover this. Yet President Obama pledged that if he was elected President he would restore science to its rightful place because, as we were told ad nauseaum, science had been hijacked by Bush’s wingers and theocrats. So CCHQ challenges President Obama to make due on his promise: to call out the unscientific U.N. IPCC bureaucracy and restore science to its rightful place–back with the scientists, and out of the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.
January 20, 2010
I guess the U.N. doesn’t need our help in Haiti anymore.
A Texas search and rescue team and other similar units mobilized to help earthquake victims in Haiti have been told they are not needed. Members of Texas Task Force 1 have been on standby in Houston since Thursday to head to the devastated island nation.
But the United Nations mission in the country has declared the search and rescue teams already in the nation are sufficient to handle to the task and the Texas team and others prepared to deploy would not be needed.
The Texas unit, which has been on standby at Ellington Field in southeast Houston, was made up of 80 members including doctors and engineers. Four dogs were also part of the team.
The entire country of Haiti is devastated, they are still pulling people out from under the rubble across the entire country. But they turn away one of our best urban search and rescue teams? I bet they still want our money though.