So-Called "human rights" NGOs Betray Gilad Shalit

The record of so-called "human rights" NGOs in regard to the rights of Gilad Shalit is shockingly inhumane. The "NGOs" have regularly disregarded his plight, although some have issued statements from time to time in his favor while often exploiting the occasion to heap even stronger accusations on Israel for its alleged violations of rights.

Gil`ad Shalit is an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas and allied forces in Gaza in June 2006 and held incomunicado since then [if he is still alive]. Part of the reason for the neglect by these NGOs lies in the fraud contained in their name -- NGO. These initials stand for "non-governmental organization." However, the name is fraudulent. Most of these "NGOs" get funding and political direction from governments. And if governmental funding is minimal or non-existent, they still take their political direction from governments. They are not committed first and foremost to the lofty goals that they ostensibly espouse. Amnesty International for instance has its headquarters in London and seems to take political direction from the UK govt intelligence services, although certain American intelligence services may also have some input on Amnesty.

It should be borne in mind that Amnesty made a drastic change in its stated principles some 20 years ago. Originally, when founded in the 1960s, Amnesty championed "prisoners of conscience," that is, political prisoners who DID NOT advocate violence or the violent revolutionary overthrow of their governments. This principle was replaced about 20 years ago by one that approved of aiding advocates of violence.

In any case, it is obvious that governments have their interests which they pursue by various means. These means may not be in harmony with human rights or civil rights or peace. However, using an ostensible NGO may be effective as a kind of unofficial diplomacy which hides behind lofty liberal slogans in order to reach goals and serve interests that may be diametrically opposed to liberal and universal principles. The UK secret services have long been masters at these techniques of dissembling and disguise. The Arab/Muslim techniques of kasb and taqiyyah and kitman cannot begin to be compared in effectiveness to the sophisticated means and techniques developed by the UK.

NGO Monitor has helpfully documented NGO inaction, neglect, and bad faith in the Shalit Affair, while also spelling out Shalit's rights under international law. For our previous posts on the Shalit Affair see here & here & here & here & here & here.

Betrayed by Silence: NGOs ignore Gilad Shalit´s rights
NGO Monitor
March 26, 2009

The evidence plainly demonstrates that Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs, despite NGO claims to the contrary. There is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have made only infrequent references to Shalit. These are always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."
After NGO Monitor publicized this issue, Amnesty published a report entitled "Detainees used as bargaining chips by both sides in Israel/Gaza conflict." The authors drew an absurd parallel between the Shalit family situation and Palestinian families whose visiting rights to prisoners were limited.
Most Israeli groups - PHR-I, Gisha, Yesh Din, and ACRI - have published one or two statements in support of Shalit. (As expected, Palestinian groups that claim to promote human rights have a similar record. )
B'Tselem’s minimal comments on Shalit's predicament contrast with the frequency and emphasis on allegations of Israeli "violations of international law."
Introduction:

On March 15, 2009, to mark 1000 days since his kidnapping, NGO Monitor issued a press release about Gilad Shalit, "highlight[ing] the almost total silence and inaction of human rights NGOs over his fate," in particular Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and B'Tselem. Shalit has been held captive in Gaza since June, 25 2006 without access for the International Committee of the Red Cross, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention. During this period, when international and Israeli NGOs published hundreds of reports and press releases alleging Israeli "war crimes," especially regarding Gaza, only a handful of statements addressed Shalit's plight, despite the irrefutable, ongoing violation of his rights. As the evidence plainly demonstrates – though these organizations do not dispute the grave violation of his rights – Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs.

Shalit's Rights:
International humanitarian law was enacted to guarantee the rights and protections of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention lays out these rights unequivocally: the right to humane treatment (article 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (article 23); the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis (article 71); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (article 126), and others.

Inadequate NGO "campaigns" on behalf of Gilad Shalit
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights or calling for his release. Instead, some NGOs have published occasional statements (tending to correspond to the one-year and 1000 day anniversaries of Shalit's capture), while others have ignored Shalit completely. Additionally, many NGO reports mention Shalit to condemn Israel for counterterrorism measures taken in the aftermath of his capture; Israel is accused of "war crimes," while Shalit's rights are erased.Amnesty International – Relative to HRW and Israeli NGOs, Amnesty International has taken a slightly more active interest in Gilad Shalit. Since June 2006, Amnesty has published 33 "urgent actions" relating to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None has addressed Gilad Shalit. But according to a news report, "Amnesty International has been working with the Shalit family," and Amnesty's Philip Luther claimed that "the Shalit case... had been taken up as a campaign by group members." At the same time, Amnesty's official mechanisms for confronting rights violations, including global "appeals for action," and press releases and reports that are widely adopted by the international media, have largely been silent on Gilad Shalit. When Amnesty does call for the protection of his rights, it is always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."

Read Rest of Article Here.

So why do the NGOs overlook the scandal of Hamas holding Shalit incomunicado for nearly three years? Probably this is because the major "human rights" NGOs represent --unofficially-- governments that support the Arab cause, the Hamas cause, against Israel --at least unofficially-- and therefore supporting Shalit would distract from the main message of support for Arabs against Israel, against Jews, for Arab/Muslim terrorism, etc.

What should Israel's government do in this situation? It should not negotiate over Shalit's return without seeing him. That could be photos of him taken by and with Red Cross [IRCR] personnel. In other words, first we have to know with our own eyes that he is alive. Olmert's govt betrayed us before by releasing a live criminal scum in return for the dead bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. If Hamas refuses to allow access, then that is a serious violation of international law and should lead to denial of humanitarian services to those in the Hamas-ruled territory. After all, reciprocity is also part of int'l law. Further, governments that have come close to recognizing Hamas [UK, EU] or have already done so [Norway], should be publicly scolded for doing so. Why not expel the Norwegian ambassador and downgrade the state of Israeli diplomatic relations with Norway, if Norway refuses to break its relations with Hamas after an open Hamas refusal of access to Shalit. Indeed, there are many reasons to consider Hamas in violation of int'l law besides holding a prisoner incomunicado. Lowering the level of ties with Norway could also mean reducing the number of Norwegian citizens allowed to operate in Israel, whose operate is to undermine Israel and boost the Arabs. We can go on about this.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.

The Mecca Massacre 1987 -- The Power/Influence of Saudi Arabia in the USA

UPDATING 3-19 & 3-21 & 3-26-2009 & 1-19-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

A bloody event in Mecca on July 31, 1987, demonstrated the power or influence of Saudi Arabia in the United States, and over the communications media in particular. During the yearly Muslim haj pilgrimage to Mecca --occurring in July that year according to the Gregorian calendar-- Saudi police beat to death [or shot] a mass of Iranian pilgrims, estimated in numbers from 400 to 1500. Either the minimal or maximal number would be a shocking number of victims of police brutality. Now, police brutality had become a theme for outrage for many Americans, especially those considering themselves "liberals", "progressives", "leftists" and "radicals". If this shocking incident would end up by applying the label of "police brutality" to Saudi Arabia, that could cause difficulties for the Saudi-American relationship, a relationship which was profitable in money terms not only for the Saudi royal family but for their numerous American associates, followers, hangers on, hirelings, and so on. It should be added that the US-Saudi relationship provided military security/protection for the Wahhabite monarchy which would in any case be threatened by enemies within the Arab and Islamic worlds for all sorts of reasons.

What happened that day in Mecca? Other than the issue of just how many were killed, which I cannot pretend to answer with authority, there is the issue of who began the incident and how, the issue of how to describe the incident [massacre of civilians unprovoked by them, a riot by these Iranian pilgrims, a mere political demonstration by the Iranians in favor of Khomeini which the Saudi royals could not tolerate for various reasons, including the Sunni-Shi`ite split, etc], and the issues of who were killed [only Iranians or Saudi police too] and how [by shooting or beating]. From what I know, the Iranians were sent on pilgrimage by their government --by Khomeini's regime-- with the purpose of embarassing the Sunni Saudis by staging a pro-Khomeini demonstration during the pilgrimage. When they staged their demo, with prepared signs featuring political-religious slogans, the Saudi police reacted by beating them, perhaps on the orders of their commanders. And they beat them to death. At least 400 Iranian demonstrators, according to the low figure of which I am aware, were killed.

At that time, the Iran of the ayatollahs was winning its war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a war that began with an Iraqi attack on Iran in 1981, that is, Iraqi aggresssion. Since Israel was not involved, the UN security council was not much concerned, nor was the international press nor were the so-called pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-civil rights NGOs excessively perturbed by the massive loss of life in the war. Now in the summer of 1987 the war had gone on for six years. Since Iran had come from behind to gain the upper hand, there was the danger that the Mecca massacre might provoke a retaliatory Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia. Many wars in history had begun with much less provocation. Of course, we bear in mind that the USA had supported both Saudi Arabia and Khomeini's regime [quite openly at its very beginning]. One difference between the two Muslim states was that many prominent Americans had a major financial interest in the continued generosity towards them of the House of Saud--we need only mention the House of Bush [two recent American presidents] and the "bright, analytic mind" and foul mouth of one Charles Freeman, a paid Saudi lobbyist who blamed criticism of his appointment to a high intelligence post on another lobby, the Israel lobby, whereas his critics were in the main not paid lobbyists for anyone.

The Freeman case reopens the question of whether Israel and its American supporters, or Saudi Arabia and its American supporters, hired hands or not, are more influential. The Mecca massacre can be instructive in settling the issue. The reaction in the American media shows that Saudi power/influence was much stronger than Israeli at that time and, it is reasonable to conclude, since then up till now. Curiously, although Freeman was a lobbyist for both Saudi Arabia and China, the Tien An Men Square massacre of 1989 in Peking was generally deemed bad and evil, in the USA, whereas the Mecca Massacre was JUSTIFIED by many high US officials and prominent journalists writing in the NYTimes and the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, and so on. Newspaper readers were told that the Saudis just HAD TO DO IT!! Tien An Men was bad; Mecca was good.

Chaz Freeman stands on the common ground of two states that both massacre civilians when necessary. These are two states that he represents for cash compensation. Yet, Saudi massacres and other illiberal Saudi deeds or misdeeds are forgiven --even justified-- whereas American politicians and mass media often scold China for abusing human rights, although China does this much less than Saudi Arabia does. Freeman, to be sure, defended the Tien An Men massacre, complaining only that suppressive action should have been taken earlier. If nothing else, Freeman was consistent in supporting both governments over their massacres.

Clearly, Saudi Arabia, then, and since, has enjoyed a much more favorable approach than either Israel or China from the US mass media, often called the MSM, despite its vast social inequalities, medieval punishments of offenders, massacres of civilians, training and subsidizing of Islamic religious fanatics at home and abroad, prohibitions on non-Muslim religious worship, a ban on Jews entering the kingdom [sometimes waived for stars like Kissinger], the abuse of foreign workers, the fact that 15 out of 19 9/11 terrorist hijackers were Saudis, etc.

Let us note that whereas Israel is constantly scrutinized for the purpose of detecting offenses to liberal principles, civil rights, human rights and so on, and often found wanting, on the grounds of fact or imagination or invention, Saudi Arabia's offenses are overlooked, minimized, etc. Saudi inequalities include the much inferior status of women, the humiliating treatment of foreigners, especially non-Muslims, even Westerners, the abuse of Saudis who happen to be Shi`ites, the legal/judicial system where non-Muslims get Muslim justice, shari`ah justice, not the justice held to be part of 20th or 21st century civilization, etc. Heads, hands and feet are still chopped off in Saudi Arabia according to the offense under shari`ah. Yet Saudi Arabia is spared the opprobrium that other states would receive for the same kinds of actions and social practices. Israel is often charged with offenses against the palestinian Arabs, while the terrorist bodies that dominate palestinian Arab society are often funded in large part by -- Saudi Arabia. But Saudi offenses are overlooked and quite often, so are those of the Saudis' palestinian Arab proteges. Hence, we deduce that for the American mass media, the MSM, human rights and civil rights are out or perhaps simply a stick to beat Israel with.. The so-called "Left" follows the same line as the MSM, likewise the "civil rights" and "human rights" so-called "Non-governmental organizations" funded by governments. Saudi Arabia is over all, uber alles, beyond reproach no matter what. The Mecca Massacre of 1987 is hardly remembered today, unlike Tien An Men.

To close, isn't it insufferably arrogant of Chaz Freeman, a PAID lobbyist for the Saudi royals, to point the finger of blame at the so-called Israel Lobby, when most of those many who opposed him were not paid or professional lobbyists, albeit many were probably supporters of Israel, although not all?? Saudi influence is stronger in Washington but it must work in the shadows. It withers in the light of publicity.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

- - - - -
Researching the July 31, 1987, Mecca Massacre:
First of all, I recommend going back to the American and British press of the time. Check especially the accounts of the events in Mecca plus the editorial and op ed commentary in the New York Times, Washington Post, TimeMagazine, Newsweek, The International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and Christian Science Monitor.
Martin Kramer [here]
MedLibrary [here]
Lastly, see the book by Gilles Kepel & Anthony F Roberts, Jihad: The Trial of Political Islam [2006]
On how American, British and French oil policy helps enrich Saudi Arabia and other oil states.
[here & here with references].
On the Bush family's ties to the al-Sa`ud family, see
Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud (expanded edition; London: Gibson Square 2007).
- - - - - - - - -
If there were ever any company closely connected to the US and its presence in Saudi Arabia, it's the Saudi Bin Ladin Group.
Charles Freeman, quoted in Craig Unger [book ref above], p 6; and Wall Street Journal, 9-27-2001.
Tony Blair claimed that a huge weapons sale by a British firm to Saudi Arabia was a "strategic interest" of the United Kingdom.
UPDATE 3-26-2009 Saudi Arabia's hired mouthpiece, Chaz Freeman, hits Israel again [here].

UPDATE 1-19-2010 Kuwait newspaper reports on recent Iran-Saudi hostility arising from Sunni-Shi`ite differences and also brings up the 1987 massacre:
"A week ago, Iran's conservative-dominated parliament slammed a Saudi Friday prayer leader, saying he insulted neighbouring Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini Al-Sistani. MPs urged the Saudi government to take legal action against prayer leader Mohammed Al-Areefi for allegedly calling Sistani an "atheist and debauched". The Muslim holy places and the annual pilgrimage there which is one of the pillars of Islam have been repeated bones of contention between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past.

"In 1987, Saudi police attempts to stifle a protest by Iranian pilgrims chanting "death to America," and "death to Israel," in the streets of Makkah led to a riot in which 402 people died, 275 of them Iranians. When Saudi Arabia sided with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its 1980-88 war with Iran, Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini accused the kingdom of being a lackey of the United States that was incapable of looking after the holy places. Riyadh cut relations between 1988 and 1991. - AFP" [see Kuwait Times, 18 January 2010, here]
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.

NO DEAL FOR SHALIT; NO FREEING TERRORISTS!!

Various signs indicate that the slimey top echelon here, the ones who like to kowtow Euro Judeophobes of the EU, are working to release hundreds, maybe more than a thousand terrorist murders, for poor Gilad Shalit. All along they have mishandled this situation. They don't know whether he's dead or alive. But we have the precedent of the deal for a couple of dead bodies of poor Eldad Regev and Goldwasser. Yet, a basic part of international law is that the Red Cross [ICRC] should have access to prisoners of war. Israel should have made this a basic demand long before the recent Cast Lead Gaza military operation. Israel should have told Euro hypocrites that want to or already have diplomatic relations with Hamas in Gaza, that have "recognized" Hamas rule in Gaza, that they must not do so if Hamas does not allow Red Cross access. If it does not do so, then it is in violation of international law that all the human rights hypocrites wave around as a sacred idol.

Norway has already "recognized" Hamas rule in Gaza. Israel should have told Norway that Israel is lowering the status of relations with Norway if it does not withdraw recognition and relations with a regime [Hamas] that openly and brazenly rejects human rights and international law.

Our clowns, led by olmert, urged on by our Vichyite media, have never done what should have been done. They must not make any "deal" for Shalit under these circumstances.

Deadly EuroHypocrisy in Spain -- No war criminals except in Israel [can it be?]

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

We have long believed that the UK is the most dangerous Euro state for Israel. Certain forces in Britain have been working for the mass murder of Jews since 1920 or earlier. However, other Euro powers are doing their hypocritical best for that cause as you read this. Spain has long had a pro-Arab, anti-Israel policy. This goes back to the fascist dictator Francisco Franco y Bahamonde as he was fighting the bloody Spanish civil war back in the 1930s. Many Nazi veterans, such as Otto Skorzeny, got refuge in Spain after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Skorzeny was a war criminal as were others of his comrades in Spain. One of the ways that Skorzeny made a few spare pesos in his time was to sell Spanish weapons to Egypt and other Arabs. None of these war criminals in Spain was ever extradited for trial. Nazi commemorative ceremonies were held publicly in Spain.

What is significant is that the pro-Arab, anti-Israel policy of fascist Franco continued to be pursued by the "democratic" governments of Spain, including the socialists, after the Franco regime was removed. Any Spanish politician or official 45 years of age or older would have gone to school [for at least part of his school years] in schools subject to Franco's pro-Arab, anti-Jewish curriculum. That includes Rodriguez Zapatero, the current socialist prime minister and his foreign minister, Moratinos. We might also bear in mind that after expelling the Jews in 1492, Spain forbid Jews to live there legally until well into the 20th century. There is no shame over that historical fact on the part of either Rodriguez Zapatero or Moratinos. Zapatero is said to have made some vile remarks about Israel recently over the Gaza War in which he clearly sided with the Muslim jihadist and Judeophobic Hamas. More recently, a Spanish judge climbed up on his Eurohypocritical hobby horse to indict Israeli military officers for defending their people from mass murderous Hamas terrorism. Now, Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, has exposed the ugly, hypocritical heart of Spain's pro-Arab policy [here]. Samuels' arguments could to one extent or other be made about other officials in other EU states. Here is the Center's press release in toto:

Wiesenthal Centre to Spanish Prime Minister: "Why Does Spain's 'Universal Jurisprudence' Legislation Target Israelis But Not War Criminals and Human Rights Violators in Spain?"

Paris, 2 March 2009

In a letter to Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for International Relations, Dr Shimon Samuels, noted the Centre's "great concern at the apparent misappropriation of Spain's 1993 law of 'universal jurisprudence', which grants power to Spanish judges to prosecute delicts beyond Spanish territory, committed by non-Spaniards against non-Spaniards. As recently witnessed in Belgium, such a regime is subject to political mischief as, indeed, is Judge Fernando Andreu's pursuit for war crimes of seven senior Israeli political and military figures."

"Among them figure, respectively, the former Israeli Defence and Security Minister, Chief of Staff, Commander of the Air Force, the head of the National Security Council and their advisors. Andreu charges them for the 'targeted killing', in July 2002, of Salah Shehadeh, leader of an organisation designated as terrorist in the European Union – 'Izzeddin Al Kassam', the military wing of Hamas. It was Shehadeh who indoctrinated, trained and despatched hundreds of suicide bombers into Israel for the mass murder of Jewish civilians."

In 1996, Samuels had presented to the then Spanish Prime Minister, José-Maria Aznar, the Centre's list of Nazi mass murderers of Jews and their collaborators, who were granted post-War refuge in Spain. These included Léon Degrelle, the Belgian mentor of a new generation of Spanish neo-Nazis," stressing that "none were ever prosecuted and several died with impunity in Spain."

He also lamented "the cosseting of Middle East terrorist movements did not prevent the 2004 Atocha station atrocity in Madrid."

The letter similarly pointed to North Africa, "where Guardia Civil brutality against African refugees seeking to enter Spain's colonial settlements of Ceuta and Melilla has never been publicly investigated, nor has the legality of your 'Apartheid Wall' that separates these enclaves from the surrounding Moroccan territory."

Samuels registered greatest astonishment at "the December 2008 decision of the National Audience Tribunal to leave intact the 1977 Amnesty for political crimes committed under Franco. Compensation has thus been denied to thousands of families of those 'disappeared' in the Civil War and thereafter. The 17 judges have denoted the Franco prelude to World War II as a simple 'rebellion', thereby consigning the victims of Spanish Fascism to oblivion, and effectively granting its perpetrators a State pardon."

The Centre identified one of these Judges as "His Honour, Fernando Andreu, who was, perhaps, distracted in constituting his charge-sheet against Israel," adding that "Andreu, apparently, plans to issue international arrest warrants for the seven Israeli officials, calling for their detention upon arrival in any of the 27 European Union member-states."

The Centre also questioned Prime Minister Zapatero as to:
"Why his authorities have not issued arrest warrants for the Spanish associates of Zapatero's Socialist predecessor, Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez, who were, reportedly, implicated in death squad 'targeted killings' of ETA Basque terrorists?
Do not all terrorists have equal human rights, even when they attack Spanish citizens on Spanish soil? Does your 'universal jurisprudence' regime that targets Israelis, override domestic justice in Spain?"

"There is a Hebrew word that sums up 2,000 years of antisemitism – "HUTZPA". Its Spanish translation – "atrevimiento" – hardly does it justice.
But neither does Spain's arbitrary 'universal jurisprudence,'" concluded Samuels.

For further information, please contact Shimon Samuels at +33.609.77.01.58.
END of PRESS RELEASE

The execution of Shahadeh was legal according to Article 28 of Geneva Convention IV. This article stipulates that the presence of protected persons [non-combatants] where a military target is also located does not grant immunity to that place:

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [quoting Geneva Convention, adopted 12 August 1949]
Article 28

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations
[see our blog entry here]

Shehadeh was responsible as a terrorist leader and planner of mass murder attacks for the murder of dozens of Israelis. If he had not been eliminated, he would been involved in the murder of many many more Israelis.

It's curious that actual genocide went on in the southern Sudan for fifty [50] years at least, with millions of civilians slaughtered, from the year of Sudanese independence, 1956, into the 21st century. The ever so righteous "international community" never took steps to stop that mass murder, which was facilitated by the UK giving the Sudan independence as a unitary state, rather than a federation of confederation or two or more separates. This state, which had never existed before 1956, was a Muslim state ruled by Arabs and arabized blacks who lorded it over tribal Blacks in the South who were Christian or followed traditional tribal religions. So the British set up the conditions for genocide, wittingly or unwittingly, but they did know that the Muslims of the North had long raided the South for slaves [permitted by Islam if the victims are Kaffirs, non-believers, infidels]. The British knowledge of the history of that territory, never a nation or a single people, should have been enough for them to grant to independence to Sudan as some sort of federated or confederal state or as two or more states. Just recently the International Criminal Court indicted the Sudanese genocidist al-Bashir for his crimes in the west of the territory, Darfur, not the massacres in the south.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

UPDATING 3-15-2009
Let us be fair. Many Spaniards are ashamed of their government's pro-Hamas position. Here is one of them, Militos commenting on a post on the blog of Martha Colmenares. Martha is a Venezolana, which makes her doubly brave since she has to watch out to see if Chavez's goons are watching her:

Hola Martha: me alegro que des a conocer esta noticia aunque sea una vergüenza para nosotros los españoles. El único pais de Europa que se pone del lado terrorista.
Un abrazo

Militos says: "It is shameful [sea una vergüenza] for us Spaniards. . . [that our country, Spain] is the only country in Europe to take the side of the terrorists."
- - - - - - - -
Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.

Josef Joffe on Arab Judeophobia, in Newsweek of all places!!

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

UPDATING 3-3-2009 see at bottom

The situation is very threatening what with Obama openly spitting in the Jews' faces, what with his assigning the Muslims in the United States a higher status than the American Jews and promising to cater to Muslim needs, plus his wishy-washy stand on the Durban II atrocity known in advance and the Chaz Freeman appointment to provide the prez with intelligence summaries [whereas Freeman is a Saudi agent and a Chinese (PRC) agent] and the 900 million bucks for rebuilding Gaza, thus rewarding Hamas for attempting to kill Jews every day, while providing no money for the material damage the Hamas sweethearts did in Israel. Meanwhile people are starving in many parts of the world, mass murder is proceeding in Sudan, Americans are out of work [but Gaza gets priority], etc. Obama is as bad or worse than friends of Israel and of a decent, pro-American policy in the Middle East warned of. Obama would seem to have a natural inclination to send US reps to Geneva for the Durban 2 mob extravaganza. This is because Durban I was a Ford Foundation project, and probably Durban 2 too, and the Obominable One has ties to the Ford.

Obama's mother and Sec'y of the Treasury Geithner's father worked together as Ford Foundation operatives. Therefore, he would seem naturally inclined to want to go to Geneva [for Durban 2]. Geithner by the way is reputed to have failed to pay IRS taxes for a couple of years recently, as well as for employing an illegal alien ["expired work papers"]. Obama is getting off to a dishonorable start, which is probably just as well. The expected failure of his "stimulus program" to bring about economic recovery might turn almost everyone in America against him. And that would be good because his policies in the rest of the world look to be generally destructive and Judeophobic in particular.
In this ugly atmosphere, Josef Joffe's op ed article in Newsweek, of all places, comes as a pleasant surprise. See here.

. . . no Arab regime has shown itself willing to truly prepare its people for peace with Israel, which would mean accepting the lasting presence of Jews in their midst. Indeed, anti-Semitism—the real stuff, not just bad-mouthing particular Israeli policies—is as much part of Arab life today as the hijab or the hookah. Whereas this darkest of creeds is no longer tolerated in polite society in the West, in the Arab world, Jew hatred remains culturally endemic. [Newsweek, 3-9-2009]

In case anybody has forgotten, the so-called Road Map for "peace" between Israel and the Arabs stipulated that the hostile, Judeophobic agitprop incitement on Palestinian Authority TV was supposed to be ended as a prelude to peace negotiations. Well, the EU, UN, USA, and Russia --the so-called Quartet-- never seem to have taken that provision seriously and the PA mass media are as virulently anti-Israel as ever. Not to mention the Hamas media in Gaza. This Judeophobic mass murder incitement didn't seem to bother Condonazzia of the Third Rice very much, nor did it seem to bother Prez W Bush II. Just to remind everyone. The Bush family has been closely tied to the Saudis for many many years. Now the Obominable One is in the White House and looks to be continuing the Bush-Condi Rice policy against Israel --but worse. Meanwhile, secretary of state Hilary Clinton starred at the Gaza donors' conference held at Sharm ash-Shaykh, preaching to Israel to be nice to the Hamas statelet. By the way, can anybody explain why it was wrong to send troops to Iraq but OK for Obama to send more US troops to Afghanstan? Keep fighting even as things get worse!!
- - - - -
UPDATING 3-3-2009 Michael Rubin on Chaz Freeman & his defenders. Eli Lake on Freeman.
Martin Peretz on Hilary & the donors' conference. Daniel Pipes on the conference. Pipes points out the surreal quality of the conference as well as the especially nasty remark of the UK delegate. Barry Rubin on the conference asks why the West should pay to rebuild Gaza. Michael Rubin shows how Obama & Hilary encourage terrorism.
Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.