RUTHFULLY YOURS

All the settlements created by Israel before the Oslo accords are legitimate, including the new Israeli housing estates created in the extended boundaries of Jerusalem. As long as the “interim period” envisaged in those accords remains in force, Israel is allowed to build within the originally defined pre-Oslo boundaries of the settlements, but is not allowed to change their pre-Oslo status. The Palestinians are not excluded from demanding a total Israeli withdrawal to the ceasefire lines of 1949, but Israel is likewise not excluded from demanding the retention not merely of the settlements but also of any other part of the Mandatory Palestine of 1947.

The Fourth Geneva Convention contains a Part I that applies to wars both within a Power and between Powers. Otherwise, the Convention applies primarily to wars between Powers alone. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians began as a civil war under the British Mandate for Palestine and continued as such until at least the late 1980s. Until then, consequently, Part I of the Convention applied to the conflict, including Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line, but Part III – which purportedly forbids the existence of such settlements – did not yet apply. Part III became relevant, if at all, only for events that postdated the Oslo accords of the 1990s.

If there is anything that perplexes good friends of Israel, it is the issue of settlements beyond the “Green Line” (a misleading term, as we shall see). In a familiar phenomenon, a foreign politician arrives in Jerusalem to make a speech that manifests genuine admiration of the State of Israel and its achievements, but proceeds to an equally genuine cry of distress over its settlement policies. Why? Because they are supposedly “illegal under international law.”

These friends, as we shall see, are making a widespread basic mistake. Because of the endless talk of a “two-state solution,” the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is viewed as if it had always been a war between two states. In fact, it began as a civil war under the British Mandate for Palestine and continued as such until at least the late 1980s. By that time, almost all the present settlements were already in existence. Consequently, the provisions of international law that should apply to them are those that pertain to civil wars, not to inter-state wars.
Preliminaries

To start with, let us set aside some questions whose answer is relatively simple. First, the present Israeli occupation of lands acquired during the Six Day War of 1967 is not illegal per se, because it resulted from aggression by the neighboring states concerned. Hostilities with Egypt started when Egypt blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat, an act of aggression that was followed by Egypt’s demand for the removal of United Nations peacekeepers from the border between the two states (obviously in preparation for further acts of aggression). Hostilities with Jordan began with a Jordanian bombardment of the Israeli part of Jerusalem. As for Syria, it had for years been engaged in constant aggression by way of encroachments into Israeli territory and bombardment of Israeli villages from the Golan Heights. Moreover, a recent expert report (2012) of the International Committee of the Red Cross emphasized that International Humanitarian Law “did not set any limits to the time span of an occupation” (see p. 72); rather, the longer the occupation lasted, the more the “occupying power” was required to upgrade the infrastructure, etc., for the benefit of the inhabitants.

Choudary’s supporters stood up in the gallery during sentencing and yelled “Allahu Akbar.”

A British court has sentenced radical cleric Anjem Choudary, former spokesman for the pro-Sharia Islam4UK movement, to five years behind bars for encouraging support for ISIS — prompting cheers of “Allahu Akbar” from supporters.

London-born Choudary, 49, and Islamic preacher Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, 33 and also a London native, were convicted at the end of July.

According to a release from Scotland Yard, the two “invited support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, namely ISIL, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State, contrary to section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000” between June 29, 2014, and March 6, 2015.

Both received sentences of five years and six months in prison, with 15-year notification orders.

During the four-week trial, evidence “established that Choudary broadcast speeches online providing his rationale to recognise Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the leader of the Islamic State,” Scotland Yard said. They said investigators combed through 20 years of material.

“Rahman uploaded a speech that claimed learned scholars would offer allegiance to Baghdadi and that they would support him so long as he complied with the Sharia Law, and another speech where he discussed Hijrah in which he encouraged people to take up jihad and migrate. Finally the court heard that Choudary and Rahman pledged their allegiance to ISIS using Mohammed Fachry, a convicted terrorist, to publish the oath that had been signed off by Choudary, on an Indonesian website.”

FROM THE SEPTEMBER ISSUE OF OUTPOST

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/the-self-destruction-of-the-jews-rael-jean-isaac.html

Much has been made of the alleged self-destructiveness of Donald Trump who for two weeks lurched from gaffe to gaffe, but who speaks of the far more lethal self-destructiveness of organized Jewry in America? In this case what is involved is not off-the-cuff remarks but thought-out (incredibly foolish) policy positions.

There is nothing more detrimental to the future of Jews in America than a large, ever-growing Moslem population. So why do the major Jewish organizations seek to expand it? In 2013 the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) founded the Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees as a coalition of Jewish organizations. As a start, it agitated for increasing the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States to 100,000 in 2016, roughly four times the already much-expanded number proposed by Obama and significantly larger than the 65,000 requested by the UN Refugee Association. Although the Multifaith Alliance is still heavily weighted with Jewish organizations, others (scarcely noted for their friendship to Israel) have joined, among them Church World Service, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

As far as Jewish organizations belonging to the Multifaith Alliance go, it’s a veritable who’s who of them, starting with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which includes the entire spectrum of Jewish outfits, ranging from Americans for Peace Now on the left to JINSA and American Friends of Likud on the right. Not content with their support through the President’s Conference, some of its members have underlined their support by also joining individually, among them the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York, the Union for Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women, Ameinu and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. A substantial number of individual synagogues have also signed on. Perhaps the most egregious participant is the ADL, given that it raises over $50 million a year on the basis of its stated mission to fight anti-Semitism and it is 100% guaranteed that the more the Moslem population grows, the more anti-Semitism will gain strength.

It’s not as if the evidence is not overwhelming as to what can be expected. Terrorism, which the Multifaith Alliance cavalierly dismisses as an overblown threat (indeed it claims existing vetting is vastly overdone) is merely the tip of the iceberg. France provides the template. University of Paris professor Guy Milliere writes that there are over 570 no-go zones in France (the government calls them ”sensitive urban zones.”) Hundreds of thousands of young Muslims live there, many imbued with a deeply rooted hatred for France and the West. Recruiters for jihadist organizations tell them, directly or through social networks, that if they kill in the name of Allah they will attain the status of martyrs. Twenty thousand people are in the government’s “S-files”, an alert system meant to identify individuals linked to radical Islam and because the task of following so many is overwhelming, most on the list go unmonitored (including the Carlie Hebdo murderers and Mohamed Merah, the killer at the Jewish school in Toulouse).

French President Hollande has no credible answer. His party depends on the Muslim vote (polls show 93% of Muslims voted for Hollande in the last election). Milliere reports that the most important left-wing think tank in France, Terra Nova, has published several reports explaining that the only way for the left to win elections is to attract the votes of Muslim immigrants and to add more Muslims to the population. Already Muslims made up about 10% of the French population; even more worrying, 25% of teenagers in France are Muslims. Unsurprisingly, Jews have been the favored Muslim target with the result, by now well known, that thousands are fleeing, so that in some areas of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Netanya you are more likely to hear French than Hebrew.

Rear Admiral Shaul Chorev (Ret.), Mary Landrieu, Admiral Ami Ayalon (Ret.), Seth Cropsey, Charles D. Davidson, Douglas J. Feith, Arthur Herman, Ron Prosor, Admiral Gary Roughead (Ret.) & Eytan Sheshinski

Authoritarian politics, energy and computer technology and war are rapidly transforming the Eastern Mediterranean.

Political instability — triggered by the Arab Spring — has made the region extraordinarily violent. Syria is disintegrating; millions of refugees from the conflict have spread across the region. Civil war has decimated Libya and Yemen. Turkey, a NATO member, is fighting thePKK and Islamic State as its increasingly authoritarian president transforms the country’s domestic politics. Further complicating the situation, Russia and Iran are capitalizing on American disengagement from the region to expand their military presence on the land, air and sea.

Nevertheless, the region has a few bright spots. Among the brightest are the large offshore energy reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Such reserves are already benefiting Israel and creating potential for cooperation between Israel and its neighbors.

Israel’s energy laws and policies were developed largely when the country was an energy importer. Israeli officials now have to develop a way to handle energy matters that can allow Israel to become not only a substantial energy producer, but an exporter. They must balance antitrust, security, environmental and other concerns while safeguarding Israel’s reputation as a fair and reliable home for foreign investment. They hope to take advantage of the resulting diplomatic openings and domestic job and business opportunities, use energy tax revenues for the public interest.

To address the range of energy and security questions relating to the Eastern Mediterranean, the University of Haifa and Hudson Institute sponsored a “blue-ribbon” commission of senior Israeli and American military officers, policy practitioners and scholars. The commissioners met in Israel and in Washington, D.C. in 2016 and drafted a comprehensive report that addresses Israel’s energy policy, security problems and opportunities in the region and the future of the US-Israel strategic partnership.

The case can be made that Israel and the United States continue to share strategic interests, but those with contrary views are increasingly vocal. It is sensible for Israelis and Americans to reexamine their assumptions about world affairs and how their ties might better serve their interests. This report delineates new avenues for bilateral cooperation while making the case that the United States has no realistic option to disengage or isolate itself from the Middle East.

Sometimes life sends along something to cheer us up. It did so for me, when I came across a stemwinder of a speech made in the Czech Parliament a few months ago by one of its members, Klara Samkova. Samkova is a left-of-center — not “far-right,” even if the Western press would like to label her as such — politician mainly known as a defender of minorities, especially the Roma. In the past, she was even prepared to collaborate with the Union of Czech Muslims, though after being mugged by Muslim reality, that collaboration has stopped. Her speech was part of a parliamentary hearing on the topic “Should We Be Afraid Of Islam?” (Imagine any Congressman in Washington daring to frame a debate in that way, given that in this country, whatever explanation we give for terrorist acts committed by Muslims, It Has Nothing To Do With Islam).

There are two alternative answers to that parliamentary question.

Either:

1) No, Islam is being maligned by Islamophobes using scare tactics, so don’t be worried.

2) Yes, Islam is definitely a danger wherever it spreads – be worried!

The first is what we keep being told by political and media elites all over Western Europe and North America, who are willing to mislead because they don’t know how, at this point, to handle the truth about the ideology of Islam. The second is what you are more likely find in countries whose recent history has taught their people, and governments, some tough lessons; in Europe, those countries were formerly under Communist rule.

After the Brussels attack, the head of Poland’s largest party announced that “after recent events connected with acts of terror, [Poland] will not accept refugees, because there is no mechanism that would ensure security.” Victor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, declared that “we do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see….” Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia, announced that “Islam has no place in Slovakia.” The Czech Republic, which had in the past taken in a few thousand Muslim migrants, regrets even that, to judge by the remark of its President, Milos Zeman, this January, that “it is practically impossible to integrate Islam into Europe,” and made clear that the Czechs will not be taking any more.

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/

SEE VIDEO: http://tundratabloids.com/2016/08/adm-james-lyons-speaks-at-la-can-islam-coexist-with-western-civilization-conference-2016/

All the more reason, then, to heed the words of such speakers at last month’s “Can Islam Co-Exist With Western Civilization?” conference in Los Angeles (sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance) as the witty and wise Admiral James (“Ace”) Lyons USN (retd.).

“It’s un-American, anti-Western. but pro-Islam, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood … whose creed is to destroy us from within, with our own miserable hands,and replace our Constitution with draconian Sharia law,” he declares bluntly.

Erdogan said it best … “Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers. Democracy is the train we ride to our ultimate objective, which is to make Islam dominant throughout the world” .

He couldn’t have said it any plainer … Islam is a totalitarian ideology nent on world domination masquerading as a religion…. We have a national security crisis … The greatest threat to our national security resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue… We have a president who refuses to identify the enemy …

In November … you got a pathological liar … and you want to turn the security if this great country over to her? We must take back America. This is a watershed.”

“If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison. I will radicalize everyone in prison.” — Anjem Choudary, quoted by the Daily Mail.

One of the most troubling factors is the vulnerability of fresh converts to radicalisation. Starting out with minimal knowledge of their new faith, converts are easily lured into adopting strict forms of Islam, guided by existing radicals and by the extremist literature freely available in prisons.

“Political correctness in prisons is allowing extremism to flourish because guards are too afraid of confronting Muslims. …staff fear of being labeled racist” — The Telegraph, citing a report by Ian Acheson, a former British prison governor.

Said al-Shihri, after his release from Guantanamo Bay in 2007, completed and passed the Saudi deradicalisation program, then became deputy leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen, orchestrating the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Sana’a in 2008.

A Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood, pointed out that many of the mentors who are supposed to guide young people away from becoming radicalized are themselves non-violent radicals.

Great Britain is not short of irritating, scoundrelous, extremist figures. One thinks of today’s Labour party leader, the Trotskyite Jeremy Corbyn, a ‘friend’ of Hamas and Hizbullah; the anti-Semitic far-left former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, recently suspended from the same party for anti-Jewish remarks; or George Galloway, who defended and lobbied for Saddam Hussein and called on the Iraqi leader to conquer Israel and retake Jerusalem. We have had more than our share of self-vaunting and holier-than-thou religious figures, too, notably the string of Muslim hate preachers who tour our universities and mosques, radicalizing students and a host of other impressionable and easily-angered young people.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan’s neighbors were not about to let a democratic government with Western influences flourish on their borders, so war broke out.

“[I]t was Massoud and his followers who struggled to uphold human rights, and his enemies who abused them.” — John Jennings, Associated Press.

In 1998, the same year Osama bin Laden released his Declaration of War Against Americans with its “ruling to kill the Americans,” Massoud wrote that Afghanistan had become “occupied by fanatics, extremists, terrorists, mercenaries, drug Mafias and professional murderers.” Citing a “duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism,” he pleaded for American assistance, to no avail.

In 2012, Afghanistan’s National Assembly declared September 9 “Massoud Day. It should be “Massoud Day” in America too.

Before the 15th commemoration of the 9/11 attacks this Sunday, America might also do well to pause on Friday, September 9, to reflect on the 15th anniversary of the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, an Afghan of Tajik ancestry from the Panshjir Valley, who was our best ally in the fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Massoud’s detractors say he was just another warlord, but this is not correct. True, the Lion of the Panjshir, as he was known, was a commander of forces. But in a land of warlords, he stood out as a humanist who by all accounts practiced a tolerant, egalitarian version of Islam. He played chess, read poetry, and traveled with hundreds of books. Some called him the “warrior monk.”

Massoud opposed forced marriages, child marriages, and other kinds of widely-approved abuses of women. He signed and promoted the Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women. That alone makes him more than “just another warlord.”

The immediate reaction of those who fought and feared Brexit was entirely predictable: something much worse than the Seven Plagues of Egypt was about to descend. Wrong, as usual, all they succeeded in demonstrating was the habitual arrogance of the elites.
When we last spoke to each other, the struggling heroine was tied to the railway tracks, the bonds were holding firm, the locomotive was rushing towards her, and the end looked nigh. At the last minute, however, even as her obituaries were being written (“a sad end to a fine life with many great achievements to her credit”, but also “few will regret the demise of this imperious harridan” and “this is not so much a death as an absorption into a greater Oneness”), Britannia suddenly broke free from the bonds, leapt from the tracks, jumped nimbly onto the rushing locomotive, produced a small revolver hitherto secreted in her underwear, placed it against the temple of the surprised driver, and said: “Make straight for the open seas, Buster, and don’t tell me you don’t know the way.”

I refer, as you have guessed, to the decision of the British people by a 52-to-48 per cent referendum vote to leave the European Union and resume being an independent self-governing democracy. It is less than three months since the vote—and early judgments are always suspect—but the result looks today like a much bigger deal for Europe and the world as well as for Britain than even passionate Brexiteers like me guessed in advance. So far there have been three stages in reaction to it.

The first was an almost universal surprise, since it was a truism that Leavers were a tiny handful of fruitcakes. A defeat for Remain was thus unthinkable. In fact there had always been widespread opposition to the EU among voters at all social levels, even though political parties, the media, and most national institutions had treated the idea with contempt and its adherents as eccentric at best. Suddenly the referendum rules meant that Leavers were on television making the case for Brexit nightly and, contrary to their caricature, they seemed quite reasonable. They persuaded some voters to switch to Leave, and Leave voters to be more confident of their own opinions. As the campaign developed, the polls swung towards Leave and many late polls showed the two sides as neck-and-neck. A Leave victory, though by no means inevitable, should have been seen as pretty likely.

In fact the reaction that followed surprise was a set of variations on horror, outrage, indignation, anguish and a desire for revenge. That was on the Remain side; the Leave side was pleased but not extravagantly so. For a while it simply pocketed its unexpected success and watched, bemused, from the wings while Remainers rioted angrily stage-centre. They plainly wanted the referendum result annulled but they were never quite able to explain why. Obviously they couldn’t say simply that they wanted a different result. So they had to invent a series of specious reasons that in their eyes cast doubt on its validity—that the Leave campaign was xenophobic and racist, that its voters (though not Remain voters) had not understood what they were voting for, that it had “told lies” (uniquely so in political campaigns, apparently), and so on and so forth. But the argument advanced with most passion by Remainers and repeated most often in the left-wing press ran as follows: because old uneducated people supporting Leave had outvoted young people with degrees voting Remain, these miserable old geezers had “robbed the young of their future” and, well, it wasn’t right.

No, it wasn’t right—on any number of grounds. First, the argument assumes what has to be proved: if the future outside the EU turns out to be better than inside it, then those who voted Leave will have bequeathed the young a better future. You’re welcome. Second, neither young nor old people voted as blocs; large percentages of both groups deviated from their respective majorities; and because of differential turnout, more older people than younger voted to Remain! Third, the argument that young people with degrees in particular were outvoted by old uneducated ones is a piece of vulgar intellectual snobbery. Happily, it is also false because (a) it confuses education (and, by implication) intelligence with possession of a degree, and (b) it assumes that the value of a degree is stable over time. However, according to a House of Commons Library study of educational changes in Britain: “Overall participation in higher education increased from 3.4% in 1950, to 8.4% in 1970, 19.3% in 1990 and 33% in 2000.” It has hovered around the 50 per cent mark for the last few years.

The burkini is rather more than a peculiar bathing costume, being both a test of the Western freedom to dress as one wishes and part of the Islamic campaign to make the misogynist manifestations of sharia law both commonplace and unremarkable
Public nudity or near nudity and outrageously lewd behaviour on Main Street in the cold light of day might bring the constabulary into play. Of course all kinds of questions arise as to how nude or lewd you are allowed to be. These are questions that Western societies have wrestled with for a long time, and it is true to say that what you can get away with now would have shocked our forbears.

On the other side of the coin, I doubt whether in the history of mankind there has ever been a mandate to restrict the extent to which people can cover up when in purely public places. Widow’s weeds never caused a stir. And quite right too, you might concur. In the normal course of daily life the law has no business telling anybody to partially disrobe.

Here’s the rub. If society brings the law into play to restrict the extent to which people can cover up in public it has to be derivative of other broader laws put in place to protect society from serious harm. Overdress laws cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Not in our tolerant and free Western societies they can’t. Thus Nice and other French towns which are attempting to ban the so-called burkini predictably find it tough going.

The argument is made that Muslim women must be protected from a medieval patriarchal oppression which forces them to cover up. Unfortunately, if asked, that Muslim woman on the beach in Nice, forced to partially disrobe by the police, would say that her choice of garb that day was hers and hers alone. Without the benefit of mind-reading how can we insist otherwise?

Of course oppression can be insidious, working its way into the minds of the oppressed so that they come to regard their subservient status as normal. We might believe that this has happened to many women in Islamic societies. If so, little can be done about it short of Muslim women rising up like latter-day suffragettes. There are already laws on the books preventing one person from harassing and threatening another.

By the way, the woman on the beach would also deny that she is a small part of the Islamic campaign to push sharia law; and, in this case, in the very place in July where 86 people were killed and many more injured in the name of Islam. It is shameful on its face, but she would deny having a political motive. Common sense tells us otherwise, but that doesn’t help.