Friends Of Palestine Western Australia Attempt A Satirical Skit (video)

Brought to us by GreenLeftTV:

They introduce the video thus

 "Expose about two pro-Palestine activists facing court on June 28, 2012 in Perth, Australia.  Miranda Wood and Alex Bainbridge were charged with trespass for singing modified Christmas carols in December 2011. They face a two day trial beginning 28 June 2012."

Not a patch on Latma, huh?

"The Absolutely Most Dangerous Thing Is The Jews": Arab Antisemite To Lecture At An Aussie University

Monash University in Melbourne is named in honour of a Jew, Melbourne-born Sir John Monash (pictured), the great civil engineer and general who commanded the Australian Expeditionary Forces during the First World War.

Later this month, the eloquent Dr Tariq Al-Suwaidan, Kuwaiti representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, will be speaking on campus.

Recently, during an interview with the Hamas-affiliated Al-Quds TV station, he said :

"I can change the positions of some Westerners, but at the end of the day, power lies with the politicians, who are influenced by two things only: money and the media, both of which are controlled by the Jews.

So we must not rely on Western aid or on Western popular sympathy. These are minor things. We rely upon Allah and then upon our armed resistance in obtaining our rights.... 

The most dangerous thing facing the Muslims is not the (Arab) dictatorships. The absolutely most dangerous thing is the Jews. They are the greatest enemy.”

For further details see here where there's a video of Dr Al-Suwaidan giving, on his last visit to Australia, a very long triumphalist historically-oriented talk about Islamic civilisation and conquest of the Kufars to an audience of "Brothers and Sisters", in which he declares (I did not listen to it all) that

"the Jews .... were traitors, conspirers against the Prophet continuously. Never forget that...."

 Hat tip: reader Ian

Spinning Alfred Dreyfus For "The New Jews"

Roman Polanski has announced his intention to make a film, called D, about the Dreyfus Affair.
I quote from the Jewish Chronicle:

'The Jewish director, who has lived outside the United States since his involvement in a child sex case in 1978, said telling Dreyfus’s story was something he had wanted to do for a long time.

He said he wanted to treat it "not as a costume drama but as a spy story" to show "its absolute relevance to what is happening in today's world - the age-old spectacle of the witch-hunt of a minority group, security paranoia, secret military tribunals, out-of-control intelligence agencies, governmental cover-ups and a rabid press. [my emphasis]" '

Observes  Hollywood-based screenwriter Mark Tapson inter alia  in a trenchant piece:

'What Polanski means by "the witch-hunt of a minority group," is, of course, Muslims, whom many presume are chafing under the lash of counter-jihad security measures and a tide of "Islamophobic" bigotry. In fact, European Islamists and their apologists have been actively promoting the meme that they are "the new Jews," as even a British Muslim Member of Parliament put it. This shameless claim to the same victimhood status as the targets of Nazi genocide ignores the obvious reality that not even a "tiny minority" of Jews in Nazi Germany were carrying out terror attacks, nor were they striving to destroy European culture and democracy to replace them with a totalitarian theocracy.

 Who is persecuting Muslims? Certainly not the American or European governments, which turn a blind eye to the rise in the West of honor killings, sharia, and Saudi-funded mega-mosques spreading extremism. Unlike Jews in Nazi Germany, Muslims today are not being deprived of their rights, their businesses, or their homes; nor are they being herded into concentration camps to make genocide cheaper and more efficient....

[T]o make a movie about an iconic incident of French Jew-hatred and spin it into a symbol of anti-Muslim victimization at a time when Islamic Jew-hatred itself is spiking in France and throughout Europe is repellent...

 For a Jew to defend an inherently antisemitic ideology is bad enough. One would think that, as the rapist of a 13 year old, Polanski would also think twice about publicly defending an inherently misogynistic ideology that sanctions gender apartheid and the sexual abuse of children throughout the Islamic world.

... And the persecuted minority today is not Muslim but, as always, Jewish."

 Read all of Tapson's piece here

And as an aid to insomnia here is a scary article about Islamic extremism in America

"Israel Stands Tall In Respect For The Law": David Singer Examines The Ulpana Decision

Here, courtesy as usual of the antipodean J-Wire service, is the latest article from one of my favourite Middle East watchers, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst Daivd Singer.  It's entitled "Palestine – Ulpana decision answers Israel's detractors".

Writes David Singer:

'Israel has effectively answered its detractors in its measured response to a ruling by Israel’s High Court ordering the demolition of five stone structures in the West Bank settlement of Ulpana – erected on what the Court deemed to be private Palestinian land.

First: in agreeing to remove these structures and relocate the 30 families affected to the nearby neighbourhood of Beit El, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamim Netanyahu announced:

"Even though for some people the High Court decision over Ulpana is hard, we have to respect it"

Israel’s respect for the rule of law stands in stark contrast to the defiance of the rule of law by the Palestinian Arabs – as evidenced in Article 20 of the PLO Charter which states:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void"

The silence of the international community in demanding acceptance of this body of settled international law by the Palestinian Arabs has been one of the principal stumbling blocks to ending the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Israel’s stance also effectively exposes the failure of large parts of the international community itself to respect the law when admitting Palestine as a member state of UNESCO last October – contrary to the well established principles of customary international law as laid down in the Montevideo Convention 1933.

Many of those UNESCO member states cynically continue to claim that Israel’s settlements are illegal in international law. Such claim is no more than an opinion that has never been properly tested in any Court.

Such claim is countered by the claim that the settlements are legal in international law under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter. These two documents – read together – continue to this day to give the legal imprimatur to the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank and Gaza on State land and waste land not required for public purposes.

Indeed Prime Minister Netanyahu has now indicated – following the Ulpana decision – that the pace of building activity will be increased in existing settlements built on state lands and waste lands in the West Bank.

The failure of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider the legal force of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter in its non-binding advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s security barrier being erected in parts of the West Bank – has exacerbated rather than defused the settlements issue.

Regrettably the ICJ decision was reached on the basis of a brief submitted to the Court for judicial advice by then Secretary General of the United Nations – Kofi Annan. Such brief failed to include any reference to the Mandate for Palestine or article 80 of the UN Charter.

The ICJ ignored the warning made by one of the 14 judges in the case – Justice Elaraby – who wrote in his judgement:

"The international legal status of the Palestinian Territory (paras. 70-71 of the Advisory Opinion), in my view, merits more comprehensive treatment. A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently side-stepped. The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain."

Secondly: Israel has rejected the temptation following the Ulpana verdict to resort to retrospective legislation to legalize the construction of the Ulpana houses.

Retrospective legislation is a course of action seldom undertaken in democratic countries.. Israel’s refusal to break with that principle in the Ulpana case is to be commended.

A bill to legitimize the Ulpana houses was roundly defeated in Israel’s Knesset by a vote of 69-22 – when the principle of Cabinet solidarity – another feature of flourishing democracies – was successfully imposed by Prime Minister Netanyahu.

One cannot however rule out a change of heart in the future if exceptional circumstances arise - particularly if the number of successful cases of illegal building activity are found by the Court to have occurred. Compensation – rather than demolition and resettlement of the residents affected – may become the only practical option.

Thirdly: the frequently heard claims of Palestinian victimhood and denial of legal and human rights were again effectively answered with the Ulpana decision. Israel’s legal system has always been available to Palestinian Arab litigants and has found in their favour in many cases. The Ulpana decision affirms that Israel’s legal system will continue to protect their rights when supported by the facts and the law.

The case itself was funded and run by one of the many non-government organizations (NGO) in Israel- B’tselem – that act to protect the rights of the minority Palestinian Arab population. These NGO are financed by donations from foreign supporters such as the European Union and the Ford Foundation. Lack of finance to run cases for Palestinian Arabs residing in the West Bank is not a problem. They can – and do – hire top lawyers to present their cases.

Fourthly: the case highlighted the resilience of Israel’s democracy – as the press in Israel enjoyed free rein to criticise the Government’s policy in regard to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

One of the leaders of the pack baying for the government’s blood following the Ulpana decision was the daily paper Ha’aretz, which propounded the following in one of its editorials:

"Promising to build new homes in the heart of the occupied territories, far beyond the 1967 lines, blatantly contradicts the commitment Israel made in the road map to freeze settlement construction and evacuate all the outposts built in the past decade."

In fact no such commitments were ever made.

The Roadmap proposed by President Bush had expressly stated:

Settlements

 GOI (Government of Israel) immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001.

    Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

Israel however – made 14 reservations to the Roadmap – one of which provided that:

"There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts); the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem; and all other matters whose substance relates to the final settlement."

An agreement to discuss a settlement freeze or illegal outposts is a far cry from a commitment to freeze settlement construction or illegal outposts.

The Ulpana decision once again established that there is no government control of the media in Israel that prevents any claims or criticisms of government policy – right or wrong – being made that would threaten their newspaper offices being raided or closed down.

Fifthly – the unique role that Israel’s High Court plays in standing between the government and its citizens and even non-citizens is bound to ensure that it will not be intimidated in dealing with future cases of illegal  building – by either Jews or Arabs – on private lands,State lands or waste lands not required for public purposes.

Prime Minister Netanyahu confidently asserted:

"I have unequivocal legal opinions that say that the (Ulpana) verdict did not set any precedent and will not affect other cases."

He may well find that the High Court will not agree with those opinions.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaims:

" [The State of Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex"

The High Court will be vigilant in ensuring this provision is scrupulously enforced.

The Ulpana decision has opened up a can of worms that will force it to review further claims of illegal building activities – not only by Jews but by Arabs as well.

It needs to act with fairness and impartiality to correct any infringements of the law – no matter who it is that is infringing.

As the international community grapples with its response to the slaughter and mayhem in Syria against every principle of international law, Israel stands tall in its respect for the law in contrast to those nations who only pay lip service to that principle – whilst ignoring it in practice..

It is about time those other nations followed Israel’s example.'

Cross-posted from here

If You're Irish, Come Into The Petition

The frequency with which the notorious Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign holds demos demonising Israel, and the vehement hatred displayed by certain hardcore activists (who as seen here even travelled to London's diamond district to bait traders, fortunately copping an earful from supporters of the Zionist Entity) should not obscure the fact that there are friends of Ireland in the Emerald Isle, such as this commenter on a current anti-BDS petition:

"I'm tired of Israel always having to stand alone. I am a Christian. I love Israel. I wish to support them in all their troubles."

Here's the text of the petition (to sign it click here):

Many of you will have signed my petition on Avaaz.org.Sadly today Avaaz showed it true colours and removed the petition as it felt it was against their "Community Standards". Avaaz's behaviour has been anti democratic and biased but we the friends of Israel in Ireland and worldwide must stand together and urge Minister Gilmore and the Irish Government to not seek a EU ban on Israeli goods made in the settlements.
On the 15th May 2012 Eamon Gilmore the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs suggested he may seek a EU wide ban of Israeli settlement goods.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0515/1224316131471.html
Israeli settlements are in Area C, Area C of the West Bank under the Oslo Accord was assigned to Israel.Area A and B was given to the Palestinian Authority to control.
If Minister Gilmore wishes to seek a boycott of Israeli settlement goods,we seek an EU wide boycott of goods made in Western Sahara which is occupied by Morocco,Indonesian goods made in West Papua New Guinea and Chinese goods made in Tibet
We urge Minister Gilmore,Minister Creighton and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs not to seek a boycott of Israeli goods ,instead they should look to build bridges between various communities in the Middle East.
Singling out Israel will not secure a lasting peace.

If you would like to keep up to date with this campaign and other Pro Israel work in Ireland please "like" this pagehttps://www.facebook.com/irish4israel

(Hat tip: reader Rita)

In Tahrir Square, More Violence Against Women

The assault on Lara Logan was also at first ignored by the BBC

How the usual suspects such as the BBC (which, given its ignoble way of ignoring or downplaying developments that fail to support its warped politicised agenda, prefers to give upbeat reports like this about women in "the new Egypt") would play up this report, were it to have happened in Israel instead of in post-Mubarak Egypt:

'A mob of hundreds of men have assaulted women holding a march demanding an end to sexual harassment, with the attackers overwhelming the male guardians and groping and molesting several of the female marchers in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

From the ferocity of Friday's assault, some of the victims said it appeared to have been an organised attempt to drive women out of demonstrations and trample on the pro-democracy protest movement....

Earlier in the week, an Associated Press reporter witnessed around 200 men assault a woman who eventually fainted before men trying to help could reach her.

Friday's march was called to demand an end to sexual assaults. Around 50 women participated, surrounded by a larger group of male supporters who joined hands to form a protective ring around them. The protesters carried posters saying, "The people want to cut the hand of the sexual harasser," and chanted, "The Egyptian girl says it loudly, harassment is barbaric."

After the marchers entered a crowded corner of the square, a group of men waded into the group of women, heckling them and groping them. The male supporters tried to fend them off, and it turned into a melee involving a mob of hundreds.
 
The marchers tried to flee while the attackers chased them and male supporters tried to protect them.  But the attackers persisted, cornering several women against a metal sidewalk railing, including an Associated Press reporter, shoving their hands down their clothes and trying to grab their bags. The male supporters fought back, swinging belts and fists and throwing water....'
Read more here

Two Of A Kind

While, on its notoriously anti-Israel "Comment is Free" section, the left-liberal Guardian has been indulging the opinions of a no less a personage than Ismail Haniyeh from Hamas, an outfit known for its decidedly non-liberal credentials and its visceral Jew-hatred, that newspaper's ideological twin the BBC has been pimping a report from Amnesty International that excoriates Israel.

Robin Shepherd has an incisive critique of the former development here, and asks whether the Guardian, which he describes as wallowing in the sewer (I won't disagree!),  is now "the most bigoted newspaper in Britain".

Meanwhile, Gidon Shaviv has an excellent analysis here of Amnesty International's unreliability as a credible source regarding Israel.  (Jeremy Bowen, Jon Donnison, Yolande Knell and Co., please note.)

See also here