Friday, July 02, 2010

  • Friday, July 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From YNet:
United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency Hamad al-Kaabi has confirmed reports that Iran is using Dubai ports to smuggle equipment needed for its nuclear program, but noted the steps his country had taken to clamp down on blacklisted companies.

This is the first official acknowledgement from the state that it is a popular transit point for smuggling.

The UK newspaper Telegraph last month revealed the existence of a deal made by an Iranian company with links to the nuclear program. The company bought control systems from a German electronics manufacturer via trading firms from Dubai. The UK paper reported Thursday that al-Kaabi had confirmed the previous reports.

Computers and control systems are among the forbidden goods reaching Iran, as well as cables and communication equipment. The goods were sold to Iran without the German producer's knowledge using fake purchasing certificates.
I guess this is what happens when your entire police force spends months dedicated to finding out who killed a terrorist.

(I forgot who first mentioned this to me, so h/t to an EoZ reader.)
  • Friday, July 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Right on the heels of my post about how the vaunted Palestinian Arab state building is really an illusion comes a much more authoritative article saying the same thing.

Nathan Brown, writing in Foreign Policy magazine a shortened version of a paper he wrote for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, shows in detail what is happening on the ground in the PA. He analyzes both the successes and failures of the PA in building a state - and the failures outnumber the successes. To be sure, most of the failures are due to the difficult political environment in which Fayyad is working - often against Fatah.

A quote from the paper:
A dispassionate analysis reveals that rather than building institutions, Fayyad’s cabinet is reviving some of them and attempting to inject elements of greater competence and efficiency in selected bureaucratic locations. This is then a program of improved public administration rather than a statebuilding effort.
But is there any harm in the boosterism about “Fayyadism?”
Yes. The international infatuation with the effort obscures two extremely unhealthy developments, both of them tied to the schism in Palestinian politics—the effort is predicated on the denial of democracy and human rights, and it is bypassing (and perhaps even enabling) the further deterioration in Palestinian institutions that lie outside of the realm of government. The Palestinian political system is deeply troubled; Fayyadism does not address the crisis. At best it manages administration in the face of crisis; at worst it allows international and domestic actors to ignore it—for now.

His conclusion from the FP article:
Fayyad is not building a state, he's holding down the fort until the next crisis. And when that crisis comes, Fayyad's cabinet has no democratic legitimacy or even an organized constituency to fall back on. What he does have -- contrary to those who laud him for not relying on outsiders -- is an irreplaceable reservoir of international respectability. The message of "Fayyadism" is clear, and it is personal: if Salam Fayyad is prime minister, wealthy international donors will keep the PA solvent, pay salaries to its employees, fund its infrastructural development, and even put gentle pressure on Israel to ease up its tight restrictions on movement and access.

Fayyad may be a good person, but finding a good person is not a policy. If he is making mild administrative and fiscal improvements in some areas, this cannot obscure the deeper problem that most Palestinian political institutions are actually in deep trouble and the most important ones are in a state of advanced decay.
This is real research, of someone spending significant time on the ground in the West Bank and talking to a wide variety of people about the details of the PA's performance.

This is in stark contrast to the the facile cheerleading of NYT's Thomas Friedman who wrote this week:
Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the former World Bank economist ...has unleashed a real Palestinian “revolution.” It is a revolution based on building Palestinian capacity and institutions not just resisting Israeli occupation, on the theory that if the Palestinians can build a real economy, a professional security force and an effective, transparent government bureaucracy it will eventually become impossible for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.
Brown's analysis is methodical, Friedman's is wishful. It is a shame that so many in the West rely on Friedman for their facts - oblivious to the danger of making policy decisions on the basis of his vaunted expertise.

Thursday, July 01, 2010

  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Five years ago, I did a Google News search of the phrases "extremist settlers," "extremist Palestinians," "moderate settlers" and "moderate Palestinians."

At the time, the ratio of extremist settlers to extremist Palestinians was 106-1 and for moderate settlers to moderate Palestinians, 0-125.

Over the years,  the routine use of those phrases in the media has diminished, but the ratios haven't changed that much.

Here is an expanded survey from today's Google News that explains a lot about subconscious media bias and its long-term effect on ordinary consumers of the news:

"Extremist Arabs" - 0
"Extremist Palestinians" - 0

"Extremist Settlers" - 11
"Extremist Israelis" - 3



"Moderate Arabs" - 7
"Moderate Palestinians" - 7
"Moderate Settlers" - 0
"Moderate Israelis" - 4

And, just for kicks...

"Extremist Muslims" - 15
"Extremist Jews" - 3

"Moderate Muslims" - 57
"Moderate Jews" - 1

Over years, the effects of constantly seeing the loaded phrases consistently used together must have a cumulative effect on the readers. And the result is that, subconsciously, many people automatically assume that Israelis are more extremist and intransigent than Palestinian Arabs are - a complete 180 degrees from the truth.
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the NYT slamming "occupation":

The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is widely acknowledged to be unsustainable and costly to the country’s image. But one more blunt truth must be acknowledged: the occupation is morally repugnant....Our ally, Israel, is using American military support to maintain an occupation that is both oppressive and unjust. Israel has eased checkpoints this year — a real improvement in quality of life — but the system is intrinsically malignant.

EoZ reader Zach has written a response:

Nicholas Kristof, in his article, Two-Sides of a Barbed Wire Fence (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/opinion/01kristof.html?_r=1&hp), offers one of the most simplistic and wrongheaded op-eds the New York Times has seen since Roger Cohen's columns on Iran before the recent, stolen elections. So simplistic and wrongheaded, that I want to dissect it piece by piece. I think this article grew out of Kristof's anger to the flotilla incident, because he generally stays away from discussing Israel, but this article is symptomatic of a greater malady plaguing journalism generally - writing emotional articles, devoid of facts, in order to be headline grabbing and ensure popular appeal.

Kristof begins by calling Israel's military occupation, "morally repugnant." This is not a legal statement, but a moral one. Unfortunately, the morality of occupation, that is, as a philosophical study, is largely unstudied. However, one prominent moral philosopher (one of the greatest living experts on Just War Theory, second only to Michael Walzer, but also a serious critic of Just War Theory), Jeff McMahan, wrote an essay on the subject in 2009 for the Loyola International and Comparative Law Review, called, "The Morality of Military Occupation" (which can be found here in full: http://tinyurl.com/24m3npt). The whole essay is worth reading, but here are three relevant and notable excerpts:

(1) "As in the case of a just war, the most important condition of a just occupation is that there should be a just cause—not, of course, a just cause for war, but a just cause for occupation. As I understand it, this is not merely a requirement that there be some significant good to be achieved by the occupation. It is, rather, the requirement that there be a wrong, or set of wrongs, that the occupation would prevent or correct, and for which the occupied people are sufficiently responsible to make them morally liable to suffer the effects of occupation. To say that the people occupied are liable to occupation is to say that because of their responsibility for the problem that the occupation addresses, they are not wronged by being subject to occupation, or have no valid complaint about being occupied."

(2) "Consider, for example, the occupation of a country whose unjust war of aggression has just been defeated. If the unjust war was a natural and predictable consequence of the culture that the citizens themselves had contributed to creating and sustaining, and if the war enjoyed significant popular support, as was true of the unjust wars fought by Germany and Japan in the middle of the twentieth century, then the principal justification for a post bellum occupation is that most of the people occupied have made themselves liable to occupation until the relevant features of their culture and political institutions can be sufficiently altered to ensure that their society will not again erupt into aggressive war."

(3) "In a just occupation following a just war, what the occupiers owe to the occupied people may be different depending on what the just cause for the war was. For example, what the occupiers owe may be different in the aftermath of a war fought to defeat unjust aggression from what they owe after a war of humanitarian intervention."

Elsewhere, Kristof chooses to speak in legal terms and calls Israel's occupation, "both oppressive and unjust," as if to suggest that not all occupations are 'oppressive.' Yet, as we saw above, some occupations are legal, others are illegal, and whether Israel's is just or unjust, legal or illegal, I leave unspecified because I think a good case can be made that it is both legal and just. But Kristof would rather summarize Israel's occupation in two emotionally-heavy words, rather than examine the nuance that should be required when discussing complicated conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian one. When simple answers are presented to complicated problems, you can be sure that the author knows not what he speaks of.

Kristof proceeds to examine the living conditions around Hebron, arguably one of the most divisive and politically sensitive cities in all of Israel/Palestine (this is similar to when the New York Times went looking for American Jews' opinions of Israel and found them in Alabama). He also adds that Israeli soldiers rip down Palestinian structures, but of course fails to mention that Israeli soldiers rip down any illegal building structures, including (and it happens often), Jewish ones. But again, let's ignore the nuance because nuance makes for bad op-eds.

Let's continue our journey, says Kristof. On the other side of the barbed-wire fence, there is a "lovely green oasis that looks like an American suburb," "lush gardens," "kids riding bikes and air-conditioned homes," and so we are introduced to the Jewish community of Carmel. This would be like going to the projects in New York City and then comparing them to Michael Bloomberg's townhouse, or better yet, it would be like saying that Israeli settlers in the West Bank swim in pools while Palestinians do not even have water to drink. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what Amnesty International said, but fortunately, this is not true. Palestinians in the West Bank also have their pools (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=890972) and have plenty of water to drink, well above the unsourced claims of Amnesty International (http://tinyurl.com/2e5lpt4). As if echoing the Amensty report verbatim, Kristof quotes Elad Orian, "an Israeli human rights activist," who "nods toward the poultry barn and [says]: 'Those chickens get more electricity and water than all the Palestinians around here.'" Yes, indeed.

But here comes the revelation, that should have been prefaced in a disclaimer: "B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization that I’ve long admired, took me to the southern Hebron hills to see the particularly serious inequities Palestinians face here." B'Tselem is a politically motivated human rights group, as are all human rights groups. But B'Tselem is notorious for their 'Hebron tours' and casting a particularly damning picture of Israel generally, from this specific little area. On this subject, Yaacov Lozowick has documented his trip with B'Tselem quite extensively. Here is his conclusion, though his story is worth reading in full:

"The small group of Israelis who populate the dozens of so-called "Israeli Human Rights Groups" insist their positions are not politics. True, they all congregate on the political Left, mostly at its far edge, but this is coincidence. Their agenda is human rights, and they call on Israel to preserve the human rights of the Palestinians no matter what form the conflict may be taking.

I know many of these people personally, and have never accepted their conceit. Oren of B'tselem was one of the least strident I've encountered, to his great credit. Yet his gentle and moderate demeanor couldn't hide the fundamental flaw in his argument. At one point he told that: "there are bits of these Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights all over the West Bank; the reason we bring you to Hebron is because here they're all concentrated in one spot".

To which a reasonable response would be: If this is the worst you can show, the Israeli occupation must be quite reasonable in its respect of Palestinian human rights. The one place in the entire West Bank which is worse than all others, according to you, can be walked from end to end in ten minutes. It's surrounded by a thriving Palestinian city, in which there are no Israeli human rights at all, because there are no Israelis. Your insistence on casting this as you do is pure politics."



Before finishing his diatribe (because that's what this is) Kristof documents the ongoing settler violence, which is surely reprehensible and should be condemned as terrorist, but these are generally not unprovoked events and they are isolated (not to detract from the severity of each of these condemnable attacks: the perpetrators should be punished swiftly and harshly if proven to be guilty). Hebron, Kristof's flawed case study, is historically the site of vicious and ongoing Arab-Jewish violence, ranging from the 1929 Hebron Massacre, which left 67-100 Jews killed and maimed, to Baruch Goldstein's terrorist shooting spree killing 29 Muslims praying at the Cave of Patriarchs. But Kristof downplays the violent back-and-forth: "For their part, settlers complain about violence by Palestinians, and it’s true that there were several incidents in this area between 1998 and 2002 in which settlers were killed." Violence need not be murderous to be criminal, and Kristof's use of the word 'several' bears testament to his myopia: settler violence need not be murderous to be criminal, whereas Palestinian violence needs to be (such is the implication).

Finally, Kristof makes this bald assertion: "Meanwhile, the settlements continue to grow, seemingly inexorably — and that may be the most odious aspect of the occupation." No statistics are offered for this statement, no citations, nothing. This is because it's patently false. Israel, by this I mean the government, has not authorized the building of new settlements since at least the Oslo Accords: "After the signing of the agreements, Israel refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban" (http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/housing-starts-in-israel-the-west-bank-and-gaza-strip-settlements-1990-2003).

Ignoring the incessant efforts of Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank since the concluding moments of the 1967 War in UN deliberations spanning to the most recent offer by Ehud Olmert (which Abbas has yet to respond to), the only thing that's 'wrong,' as Kristof concludes about Israel's ongoing occupation, are Kristof's facts.

To which I would add that for Kristof to condemn the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria based solely on an arranged tour with an anti-settlement organization is more than unfair.

Did he speak to a single Jew in Carmel? Did he ask what they thought of the barbed-wire fence, or how they lived their lives before it was built? For than matter, did he speak to any Jews in communities in the area who are forced to live within their own fenced-in areas because of Arab terror attacks? Did he speak to anyone who could recall how those awful "settlers "and Arabs lived together in neighboring communities, going to each others' weddings and shopping in each others' villages, before the first intifada? Did he speak to any Arabs who work in the settlements and manage to maintain an excellent standard of living as a result? Did he interview any Arabs who live in the many mansions easily visible from the highways and ask them how oppressed they are?

No, he spoke to an advocacy group and happily parroted what they told him to say. This is not even close to anything approaching journalism.
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
PA prime minister Fayyad has been praised for his supposed groundwork in building a Palestinian Arab state, and it is clear that he is taking a page out of the Zionist playbook in saying that he will build state institutions independently so they will be ready if a state is ever declared - just like the Zionists did in the decades leading up to 1948.

However, there is a significant divergence between how the PA is acting and how Zionists acted before 1948, and these betray the difference between truly wanting to build a state and only pretending.

For one, it is unclear what institutions Fayyad and the PA are really building. There has been a lot of talk about Salam Fayyad's revolutionary program of state-building, but there doesn't seem to be too many specific examples. As Barry Rubin writes,

.. I don't see any Palestinian state-building going on. Yes, there is some improvement in the West Bank security forces, including U.S. training, but the changes are not enormous. And at any moment, these forces could launch a war on Israel or start fighting each other. Yes, there is some economic improvement happening but it's based on foreign aid money and much of it is unproductive (i.e., real estate and housing speculation). And again, it could be blown up any moment in a new Palestinian-Israeli or Fatah-Hamas war or just major instability.

...The article [raving about state-building, in the Foreign Policy site] provides not a single example of any material action being done to create strong institutions or do anything else that a state requires. Indeed, the only actual action was the passing of a resolution saying that the Palestinian Authority is building a state.
The Zionists of the 1930s and 1940s didn't rely on the world's largesse to build their institutions, and by 1947 they already had a functioning state without the state.

Another difference is that the Palestinian Arabs do not seem to be trying at all to create economic independence - rather than creating a network of private Arab benefactors, they are instead completely dependent on Western money and support. They have floated the idea of their own currency, but that would quickly turn into a joke (imagine them trying to pay Hamas' electric bills in Gaza to Israeli fuel companies with Palestinian pounds!) They get some charity from places like the UAE but where is the massive investment in their future from the rest of the Arab world, or from the Palestinian Arab "diaspora"?

Thirdly, even though there is a large degree of autonomy within the PA, there is no desire to dismantle the "refugee camps" of the West Bank (or Gaza) and integrate those members into normal society. Zionists did everything they could to integrate their new citizens into the mainstream, even as they stumbled a bit with those from Arab countries. Yet the PA is more than happy to allow UNRWA to continue to administer camps within areas they control! A people who crave independence would consider these outsiders to be an unacceptable intrusion on their sovereignty, rather than a crutch to avoid the realities of tackling real problems with real governing.

Fourthly, there is no call for Palestinian Arabs in the "diaspora" to move to Palestine - today. If an Arab Palestine is going to be a safe haven for stateless Palestinian Arabs to come to live, shouldn't there be a push for them to immigrate? (I do not know if that is allowed under existing agreements, but that is not relevant to the desire to bring in as many of the suffering people as possible, as quickly as possible.)

Arabs have been trying to turn the PalArabs into the Jews, and have been consciously usurping Zionist motifs and themes (such as the term "diaspora".) However, the comparison falls apart very quickly as we see that the Palestinian Arab leadership is behaving in the exact opposite way than the ZIonist leadership did in the years before statehood.

They are talking a good game, but they are not even close to delivering anything but hot air.
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1245845947279&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayoutIf disagreeing with the supposed Islamic rule that women must wear veils covering their faces is Islamophobia, then both Egypt and Syria have more than their share of Islamophobes.

In Alexandria, Egypt, some restaurants, clubs and beaches have banned women from wearing the niqab, causing some controversy. About 17% of women in Egypt wear the veil.

Meanwhile, in Syria, nearly 1200 schoolteachers who wear the veil have been suspended from working in classrooms altogether:

[Syrian Minister of Education Ali] Saad justified his decision by arguing that the face veil is not in line with the secular policies followed by the state as far as education is concerned.

“Education in Syrian schools follows an objective, secular methodology and this is undermined by wearing the face veil.”

He also pointed out that the face veil disrupts the teaching process as it hinders eye contact, which is extremely important for the relationship between teacher and student. Therefore, information is not delivered properly to the students. 
Is that also Islamophobia, or does that term exclusively apply to the West?
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Zvi does some research on Judge George Bathurst-Norman, who just essentially instructed a jury to acquit people from causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage - because the material might have gone to Israel:

It is impossible to run a society based on the rule of law if the courts refuse to enforce the law.

The Implications
Let's remove Israel from the picture for a moment and examine the implications of the judge's instructions.

War is always hell, and true anti-war activists have a valid, if often naive, cause. Suppose that anti-war activists have exhausted all democratic means and have been unable to stop the UK from fighting wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Suppose that they have been unable to stop British arms manufacturers from selling weapons to third world countries. Apparently, anti-war activists are allowed to break into any munitions factory in the UK and do hundreds of thousands of Pounds worth of damage. Apparently, the rights of the factory owners are meaningless. The factories may be supplying the British armed forces and/or a variety of British partners and clients. None of that matters. War is always hell. British weapons are always designed to kill people.

There is, of course, another possible option. War might only be hell for Arabs who are fighting against Israel.

It is possible that war is not hell when Angola purchases 30 million Pounds worth of armored vehicles from the UK. It is possible that war is not hell when the UK sends 180 tons of arms to genocidal Sudan. It is possible that war is not hell when BAE alone sells 43 billion Pounds worth of arms contracts since 2005 to Saudi Arabia, which is currently fighting in Yemen and enforcing a strangling blockade through which no food or medicine is permitted to pass. It is possible that war is not hell when the UK sells weapons to Iraq, or when UK planes bomb Iraqi cities. It is possible that war is not hell when the UK sells weapons to Pakistan, and when Pakistan sought to acquire nuclear weapons (see below). It is possible that war is not hell when the UK sells weapons to Sri Lanka (thousands of Tamil civilians indiscriminately slaughtered by the Sri Lankan armed forces during the bombardment of the surrounded LTTE).

But to believe that war is only hell for those who are fighting against Israel, a person must not only ignore reality and objectivity; he must abandon all semblance of rational thought.  

Proof, Assertion & Recusal  
Next thought.

The judge made statements about the war in Gaza while instructing the jury. But I don't believe that any proof was offered up to demonstrate that these statements were factual. Is unsupported assertion the new standard of proof in the British courts? Or is this only true where Israel is concerned?
If a judge has political positions that lead to bias, then is he not required to recuse himself?

Who & Why?
Next thought. From the Elder's source:

We need not have worried! Perhaps the fact that His Honour was born in the Arab town of Jaffa opposite Tel Aviv might have something to do with it! Judge George Bathurst-Norman was brought out of retirement to hear the case.

I'm curious. Who "brought him out of retirement to try this case," and on what grounds?  


Double Standard?
In 2003, Judge Bathurst-Norman jailed a man for 3 months for decapitating a statue of Margaret Thatcher. In that decision, the judge said that although many people sympathized with the man, smashing up property deserved a custodial sentence.

Nuclear Weapons are not a Big Deal, Apparently
In 2001, Judge George Bathurst-Norman handed down a "remarkably lenient" sentence to 
Abu Bakr Siddiqui, one of the procurement agents of the A.Q. Khan nuclear tech smuggling network(facilitating Pakistan's nuclear weapons program and the nuclear weapons programs of rogue states such as North Korea and Iran).

I guess "hell on earth" does not describe what would happen if Pakistani nuclear weapons were used against India, or Iranian nuclear weapons were used against Israel.
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
  • ,
In a brilliant monograph written by Asher Fredman for NGO Monitor and JCPA, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch's seemingly factual statements regarding the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) are examined - and found to be sorely lacking.

Fredman goes through the NGOs' writings concerning Operation Cast Lead and shows that their conclusions concerning the use of white phosphorus and UAVs do not reflect international law as it is (lex lata) , but rather how they would like international law to be (lex ferenda.)

Excerpts from the summary:

It is shown that the NGOs’ [1] descriptions of the means and methods of warfare contain numerous unwarranted assertions and unsubstantiated claims. In other cases, the NGOs present unrealistic depictions of the nature of modern combat, leading them to problematic evaluations of Israeli actions. It appears that these result at least in part from a lack of expertise in relevant areas.

From the legal perspective, it will be argued that the NGOs’ presentation of several key LOAC principles is inaccurate or incomplete. In other instances, AI and HRW present controversial interpretations of LOAC treaties as widely accepted customary law. This suggests that the NGOs may be engaged in “standard setting” [2] rather than in objective evaluations.

On white phosphorus (WP):

Among the findings are that:

LOAC, as reflected in state declarations and practice, recognizes the right of a commander to consider military needs, particularly force protection, when evaluating what actions and precautions are feasible in a given situation.

HRW’s claim that Israel could feasibly have used a different type of smoke obscurant to the same effect as WP is contradicted on several counts by military sources and weapons experts.

AI and HRW's arguments regarding the feasibility of using other means and methods to deliver WP are unsubstantiated and based upon information unavailable to the NGOs. Suggested alternatives may, in fact, have posed a greater danger to civilians.

Contrary to the claim that Israel’s use of WP was indiscriminate and hence unlawful per se, its use was “directed at a specific military objective” and therefore lawful under LOAC.

On the use of UAVs:

Among the findings are that:

The evidence AI and HRW present to establish their claims regarding the weapons platforms and munitions allegedly used is rendered questionable by military and defense industry sources. In a number of instances, the witness testimony relied upon heavily by the NGOs is contradicted by widely published media reports or the NGOs themselves.

AI and HRW present an unrealistic depiction of the factors influencing targeting decisions on the modern battlefield. They fall prey to the “allure of precision” that leads “those beyond the battlefield [to] impose unreasonable demands on the military or postulate norms that go beyond treaty or custom” (Schmitt, 2004, p. 466).

Israeli actions are judged based on hindsight, in contrast to LOAC standards as affirmed by the declarations of 13 countries when ratifying Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
The NGOs misrepresent LOAC definitions of legitimate military objectives. On the basis of this misrepresentation, they presume the absence of legitimate military objectives in the vicinity of a strike.

Once presuming the absence of legitimate military objectives, the NGOs assume that civilians injured in a strike were deliberately targeted. This allows them to ignore LOAC’s recognition of the possibility and lawfulness of proportional collateral damage in attacks on military objectives.

Conclusion:
The findings of this study indicate that at least in their reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, AI and HRW’s reports contain many factual inaccuracies and problematic presentations of international law. It is therefore suggested that AI and HRW, as well as other NGOs dealing with similar issues, carefully evaluate their areas of competency, and ensure that factual and legal assertions are made with the proper degree of expertise. It is further suggested that the NGOs take steps to maintain standards of objectivity and ensure that ideological predilections do not color their analyses. When claiming to evaluate the lawfulness of a party’s actions, the NGOs must not conflate lex lata (the law as it exists) with their preferred lex ferenda (what the law should be).
As I showed in AI's contradictory and HRW's bogus definitions of "occupation."


Policy-makers, diplomats, and journalists should more carefully scrutinize NGO-generated information. Subjecting NGO reports and statements to careful analysis will help ensure that these documents are produced at the highest standards. This would enable NGOs such as AI and HRW to most effectively fulfill their mission of promoting and protecting human rights.
Don't expect HRW or AI to respond in any substantial way. As we have seen, NGOs tend to get very shrill and defensive when light is shined on them.
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
As I mentioned yesterday, Iran has officially announced a boycott of either Israeli or Zionist or Jewish-owned companies, depending on the report.

Assuming that Iran's boycott is only for companies that have a significant presence in Israel, things might get a little hairy. From Zvi:

Among the top 20 non-oil companies in the S&P Global 100 list (not yet updated to reflect Apple's rise), the only companies that DON'T have research labs, joint ventures, strategic investments, subsidiaries, etc. in Israel are:  
 
* lung cancer purveyor Philip Morris  
* WalMart  
* BHP Billiton (diamond miner that does significant business with Israel and uses Israeli technology)  
* Banco Santander  
 
Every other company on the list has a direct presence in Israel. So the IRI would have to boycott the rest of the world's largest companies, including companies that they probably don't want to boycott (such as Samsung, Siemens and Toyota) as well as frequently companies such as Intel and Microsoft. They would also have to boycott most of the world's leading pharmaceutical and medical-device companies - but then, health care has never been the IRI's top priority, has it?  
 
Apple  



The iPad and iPhone 4 include components from Samsung and Micron, which have Israeli R&D centers. Apple's computers use Intel chips.  
 So sorry! Mahmoud, if you were hoping to buy an iPad on your next trip to Europe, you will need to reconsider.  
AMD and Linux  
Iran is on the US list of Embargoed Countries. AMD can't legally sell to Iran. Nevertheless, the IRI regime obtains AMD chips on the black market and has used them to build a 216-processor supercomputer and to conduct aerospace research (i.e. missiles), which Iran then bragged about. An AMD statement says that the company is investigating how the IRI could have obtained these CPUs and that it has alerted the US State Dept. to these reports.  
The IRI is using the SUSE distribution of Linux in its aerospace programs. This is the free distribution from Novell. Novell has a local office in Israel. Want to try again, Mahmoud?  
I'm not going to guess how many contributions to the Linux source come from "Zionists" (Israelis, Jews, Christians who support Israel, Muslims who support Israel, anyone whose country Iran has ever accused of being Zionists, e.g. all Americans, etc.) or from companies on the banned list. However, I definitely encourage IRI bureaucrats to immediately go through the source code and delete every line contributed by these pernicious Zionists, as well as by all companies on the "banned" list, e.g. IBM. The IRI can't possibly want to have evil Zionist code running Iran's computers. Furthermore, I encourage all Iranians who love the Islamic Republic to immediately content their leaders and tell them that it is unacceptable to be running the country using a crypto-Zionist operating system that might be secretly mocking Islam and which might deviously cause Iran's missiles to turn around and blow up Tehran. I do think this is a very reasonable fear for delusional paranoid conspiracy theorists to hold, and I am happy to warn them about this secret plot.  
Coke & Pepsi: failed again  
The IRI is boycotting Coke but not Pepsi; however, in 2008, Pepsi and Strauss formed a joint venture that acquired an Israeli company. Better luck next time, Mahmoud.  

Conclusion  
The whole boycott-Israel is an example of the IRI regime's badly skewed priorities. Instead of working pragmatically to create the greatest value for its people, the IRI regime continues to focus on attacking a country 1000km away and attempting to slaughter a people that has never, in thousands of years of recorded history, initiated military action against Iran/Persia. The Iranian regime will continue to operate in this obsessively destructive fashion until it collapses, because this psychotic obsession is quite literally the backbone of the regime.  
  • Thursday, July 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
In a mind-blowing verdict, a British jury acquitted people who admitted that they purposefully caused damage to an arms factory - because, they said, the arms were being used by Israel:

Five activists who caused £180,000 damage to an arms factory were acquitted after they argued they were seeking to prevent Israeli war crimes.

The five were jubilant after a jury found them not guilty of conspiring to cause criminal damage to the factory on the outskirts of Brighton.

The five admitted they had broken in and sabotaged the factory, but argued they were legally justified in doing so.

They believed that EDO MBM, the firm that owns the factory, was breaking export regulations by manufacturing and selling to the Israelis military equipment which would be used in the occupied territories. They wanted to slow down the manufacture of these components, and impede what they believed were war crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinians.

They are the latest group of peace and climate-change activists to successfully use the "lawful excuse" defence – committing an offence to prevent a more serious crime – as a tactic in their campaigns.

They had decided to act last January after three weeks of Israeli military manoeuvres against Gaza in which many Palestinians were killed.

In his summing up, Judge George Bathurst-Norman suggested to the jury that "you may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time".

The judge highlighted the testimony by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before the activists embarked on their action.
Meaning that the judge pretty much told the jury to acquit them. Unbelievable.

Hove crown court heard the activists had broken into the factory in the night. They had video-taped interviews beforehand outlining their intention to cause damage and, in the words of prosecutor Stephen Shay, "smash-up" the factory.

These statements were posted on the Indymedia website shortly after they were arrested.
Apparently, according to British law, Israel has no right to defend itself from Qassam rockets. Period.

I guess that synagogue bombings can be defended next, because Jews provide material and emotional support for Israel which does all of these war crimes. Then they can go after Melanie Philips.

It turns out that the judge was born in Arab Jaffa, and was brought out of retirement to hear this case, as  a jubilant anti-Zionist notes. Which would explain his directing the jury as to what their verdict should be.

(h/t My Right Word)
I was astonished to find this quote from Mahmoud Abbas in 2005:

In an unexpected move, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called upon Arab countries hosting Palestinian refugees to give them citizenship, asserting that such action would not compromise the Right of Return. "I call upon every Arab government wishing to give citizenship [to Palestinian refugees] to do so.

The Palestinian Authority president insisted that obtaining citizenship in a host country would not compromise the refugees' right to return to their homeland. Palestinians have sought to assert this right since being forced from their homeland 50 years ago.

Abbas explained: "This does not mean resettlement [of refugees]. A Palestinian would return to his homeland whenever he is allowed, whether he carried an Arab or non-Arab citizenship."

In the interview, Abbas criticized claims that the Arab League had banned naturalization of refugees, calling these claims "mere excuses."

"There is no decision, as the Arab League only recommended [not to grant citizenship], but this was not a decision," he said, referring to the recommendation made in the early 1950s when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

While Abbas boldly stated during his visit to Lebanon that he "speaks for all Palestinians," a number of Palestinian officials and refugees in Lebanon disagree with his push for citizenship. Some expressed great surprise over his statement.

Suhail Natour, a member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said: "It comes as a great surprise, as this move is very dangerous."

Natour explained: "Once a Palestinian becomes a citizen of another country, he can't claim his right of return to Israel, as Israel can easily turn around and say, 'you now have a country and can't claim refugee status.'"

"Slowly, as more Palestinian refugees get naturalized, the Right of Return will turn from a national case to a mere personal case against Israel," he said.

According to Natour, naturalizing Palestinian refugees would add to what are "already" serious legal, political and social problems involved with the Right of Return.
Notice that they interview a leader of a terrorist organization as a representative of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon to say they oppose the right to be naturalized citizens - but they didn't interview any real citizens. As usual, self-appointed "leaders" do everything they can to quash their people they are supposedly leading.

On the cached Lebanese forum page from which I found the rest of the Daily Star article, one of the members posted in reaction to this:

Do you think the 350,000 Palestinians in the refugee camps want to be here? Me and my buddies are a group of five guys. One of them is Palestinian who lives in Kfarchima. Four of us are not in Lebanon, scattered between the US, Canada and Australia. The only one left behind is the Palestinian guy, who is stuck in Lebanon with no future to look forward to, and not being able to leave Lebanon because he's not able to get either a travel document from the Lebanese authorities, or a visa to get out...

Abbas must have been pilloried for making his pro-naturalization statement, because he changed his tune pretty quickly after this rare show of true leadership. In 2008, he completely contradicted his 2005 statement:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted Wednesday as rejecting the naturalization of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. "We would never accept any settlement that leads to naturalizing Palestinians in Lebanon," Abbas told pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat.
And in 2009, he went even beyond that:

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will not be offered Palestinian Authority passports, President Mahmoud Abbas said on Monday following his meeting with Lebanese President Michel Suleiman at the Republican Palace.

Abbas’ remark quashed recent rumors concerning the issuing of PA passports to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon...
Abbas could have acted as the conscience of the Arab world and pushed for his people to have the right to live in dignity - and he instead (apparently) caved to pressure and now advocates keeping his people in misery, as permanent second-class citizens in their host countries, without even the basic ability to leave their hellholes of "refugee" camps.

What a great leader the Palestinian Arabs have!

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive