Sarkozy Tries to Bring Obama back down to Earth

One blogger wrote that Sarkozy "emasculated" Obama at the special Security Council meeting last Thursday in New York, that was supposed to be devoted to avoiding nuclear proliferation. I would not go so far as that blogger, but it seems to me that Sarkozy embarassed the American president, in remarks that Sarkozy apparently made in sincere exasperation after listening to Obama talk about universal nuclear disarmament as his dream when the current problem, the immediate problem, is the obtaining of nuclear bombs by Iran and North Korea.

Sarkozy said:

Mr President Obama, I support the outstretched arm of the Americans.
What have these proposals for dialogue brought to the international community?
Nothing.
More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and to top it off, last but not least [Sarkozy's words in English], a declaration by the Iranian leaders proposing to erase a member of the United Nations from the map. There is a time when the facts are stubborn and one must take decisions. If we want a world without nuclear weapons on the way, let us not accept violations of the international rules. [additional text translated here][CNN video]

And in the original French:

Monsieur Président Obama, je soutiens la main tendue des Américains.
Qu'ont amené à la communauté internationale ces propositions de dialogue?
Rien. Plus d’uranium enrichi, plus de centrifugeuses, et de surcroît, last but not least [en anglais], une déclaration des dirigeants iraniens proposant de rayer de la carte un membre de l’Organisation des Nations Unies. Il y a un moment où les faits sont têtus et il faut prendre des décisions. Si nous voulons un monde sans armes nucléaires à l’arrivée, n’acceptons pas la violation des règles internationale. [L'article sur ce suject sur L'Express, 25 Septembre 2009, ici]

At least somebody among the world's political leaders, understands reality. While Obama avoided talking about how to deal with Iran, which violates its signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, speaking more generally instead about "a world without nuclear weapons," Sarkozy was quite specific. He mentioned Iran's violation of international law referring implicitly to both its violation of its signature on the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to its threat to destroy Israel, whereas threats against other states are also forbidden by the UN Charter.

The American people probably did not realize what problems they were going to get into by electing President Obama. With all his delays and postponed deadlines and evasion of the issue, one might think that he wants Iran to get nuclear bombs!! Zbig Brzezinski would be proud of his protégé.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Previous posts on the Iranian Bomb project at Emet m'Tsiyon:
Arab states too oppose an Iranian Bomb [here] & US delegate to the IAEA (Int'l Atomic Energy Agency) talks a good game warning of Iranian deception in working towards a bomb, but the Bush Administration does little concrete against the Iranian Bomb project [here]
Sarkozy govt in France more evenhanded, less pro-Arab than before [here]

Barack Hussein Obama: Slick, Subtle, Sinister and Deceitful -- And Racist against Jews

UPDATING 9-28-2009. Diagram of Obama's insinuations at bottom. 11-2-2009

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

Many lies resembling truth, Hesiod

Barack Hussein Obama's UN General Assembly speech was racist in denying Jewish rights to settle in Judea-Samaria and Gaza [settlements are not "legitimate"]. It also subtly justified Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. How so?

We must remember that the greatest price of this conflict is not paid by us. It's not paid by politicians. It's paid by the Israeli girl in Sderot who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night. It's paid for by the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own. These are all God's children. And after all the politics and all the posturing, this is about the right of every human being to live with dignity and security. That is a lesson embedded in the three great faiths that call one small slice of Earth the Holy Land.

Here Obama insinuates that Israel is to blame for the "boy in Gaza who has no clean water and no country to call his own." This is done by juxtaposition with the Sderot girl under rocket attack, obviously a deliberate act of Arab terrorists in Gaza, and the carry over from that situation to the "boy in Gaza who has no clean water. . ." Israel regularly supplies water to Gaza despite the de facto state of war with that territory. Hamas, which has governed Gaza since January 2006 is responsible for the lack of clean water of Gaza, if the claim is true at all. Huge sums of international aid from rich Arab states, from the EU, the USA, and Japan, as well as various EU states separately, have been available to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority [PLO/Fatah] before it for building infrastructure, for an improved society and for a state. But Hamas and the PA have generally avoided building water and sewage facilities, homes, hospitals, etc., for their people. It is more politically useful to keep them visibly poor so that they have something to blame Israel for. Meanwhile, the foreign funds go to the insiders whose hands are close to the plate, as well as for buying weapons, explosives, etc. Indeed Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both don't much care for building infrastructure. Both would rather use the money to fight jihad. Certainly, good, clean drinking water for that Gaza boy is far down on the list of priorities.

Obama also lies in the claim about the boy in Gaza having "no country to call his own." After all, Gaza is governed by Arabs, by his fellow Palestinian Arabs.


Candidate Barack Obama in Sderot receiving a T-shirt saying "I love Sderot" from then Sderot mayor Eli Moyal [summer 2008]. Note the horizontal stacks of remnants of rockets shot at Sderot from Gaza. This collection is kept at the Sderot police station.

Now, if Israel is to blame for a Gaza child lacking clean water, then maybe Hamas is right to shoot rockets at the civilian population of the oppressor state. Hence, Obama was justifying Hamas shooting rockets by insinuation, by comparing deliberate acts of Hamas and other Gaza terrorist groups [shooting rockets] with the supposed lack of "clean water" which is Hamas and PA's fault, if it is true at all, not Israel's fault.

This is a very slick attack by Obama on Israel. The part of his UN GA speech dealing with Israel was a rather clever propaganda/psychological warfare assault on Israel. To wit, Israel has things and denies them to the poor folk of Gaza. Israel causes their deprivation.

Barack Hussein Obama is also signaling an overture to Hamas by these basically soft comments, in which seeming criticism of Hamas for rocket shooting is vitiated by blaming Israel for deprivation in Gaza.

Of Obama's denial of "legitimacy" to Jewish rights to live across the 1949 armistice line in Judea-Samaria is a racist position. Is he a friend of Israel?
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-28-2009
Obama draws false parallels in his UN GA speech
He clearly insinuates Israeli moral equivalency with Hamas, making Israel at fault for Hamas' rockets, blaming Israel for infrastructure and political problems in Gaza.
Let's look at this in diagram form:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A Child Victim on Each Side //\\ What Does Each Suffer & Who Causes It?

1)
the Israeli girl in Sderot } She fears "that a rocket will take her life" --
the Israeli girl in Sderot } - - a rocket shot by Hamas or other Gaza terrorists,
the Israeli girl in Sderot } - - but Obama doesn't say who shoots the rockets.
2)
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} He "has no clean water and no country" --
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} Obama doesn't say who denies the
the Palestinian boy in Gaza} boy "clean water" and a "country." but he insinuates that it is Israel because if her suffering is caused by the other side [Hamas/other Gaza terrorists], then his suffering too is caused by the other side [that is, Israel].

So Israel is guilty by insinuation of denying "clean water" and a "country" to the Gaza boy. This is bad enough, but these alleged denials by Israel could also be considered justified reasons for war [casus belli] and therefore Israel may be or is guilty that Hamas and other Gaza terrorists shoot rockets at its civilian population.

As said above, in fact Israel supplies drinking water to Gaza. If there are shortages in drinking water in Gaza, then Hamas is responsible as explained above. Further, does the Gaza boy really lack a country? After all, Gaza is self-governing and generously supplied with funds by outside donors. Perhaps the boy doesn't have the country that he wants. Maybe. Then we could ask about the Jews' lack of a country, their country, for more than a thousand years, partly because of Arab rule in the Land of Israel. Maybe the Hamas' program for genocide of the Jews [as per Article 7 of the Hamas charter] is good reason for Israel not to let Hamas expand its sphere of territorial control.

Obama is using the gestalt effect here. This effect depends on insinuation and following a logical pattern even to where it is not explicit.
Besides the obnoxious moral equivalency here, Obama is justifying Hamas attacks on Israel and uttering lies.
- - - - - - - - - -
Also see Meryl Yourish on the UN speech [here]
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 11-2-2009 Obama's remarks on the boy in Gaza quoted above seem, on further thought, to touch on old, traditional Judeophobic themes. I wonder what his speechwriter intended. These themes are:
1- Jews harming an innocent boy, as in the typical ritual murder charge [Hugh of Lincoln, Simon of Trent, the Beilis case], &
2-- Jews poisoning wells, since Israel denies "clean water" to "the Palestinian boy in Gaza." He is not making the innuendo that Israel denies water to the boy in Gaza, but that the water, if supplied, is not "clean," that it is --somehow-- unhealthy, maybe poisonous.

Camera confirms that Israel sends water to Gaza:
". . . despite the virtural declaration of war against Israel by the Hamas rulers of Gaza, Israel still sends to Gaza another 4 MCM of Israeli water annually. "

What Prime Minister Netanyahu Ought to Tell the UN General Assembly

PM Netanyahu ought to tell the world through the UN Assembly several things that he failed to mention in previous speeches.

1- The Jews have been historically oppressed, persecuted, exploited monetarily and humiliated over the centuries in both the West and the Arab-ruled lands.

2- Arabs collaborated in the Holocaust, most notably the chief Palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni].

3- The continuing dehumanization and demonization of Jews in most Arabs lands, in the broadcast and print media, in the schools, mosques, public discourse, are an obstacle to peace.

4- Likewise, the continuing dehumanization, etc. of Jews in some European lands [including EU states] is an obstacle to peace.

5- Poverty and lack of good drinking water and other failures of infrastructure in Gaza and the other Palestinian Authority zones are the fault of the PLO, PA, and Hamas which have not used the billions of dollars and euros received from international donors for constructive purposes
like water and sewage plants, housing, homes, hospitals, and the like. They prefer to use the money for funding terrorism and enriching the in crowd, the top leaders and their associates who are closest to the plate, to the pie pan.

6- Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria are grounded in historical reality of Jewish history, as well as being recognized by the League of Nations in 1922.

The Moral Incompetence of the UN, of its "human rights council," and of the UNHRC's Goldstone Commission

UPDATINGS 9-16 & 9-21-2009 & 10-21-2009 & 11-27-2009 links added at bottom

The Goldstone Commission report is now delivered. But vital issues concerning its background remain. Before having time to deal with analysis of the report, which is now going on, here are considerations about the moral competence of the UN itself in general, of the UN "human rights council" in particular, and of some members of the commission. This statement was prepared earlier and is still valid of course.

Can the world expect a reasonable, factual judgment about human rights violations during January’s Gaza War, “Cast Lead,” to emerge from the upcoming report of the Goldstone Commission? Indeed, we can expect the opposite.

First of all, we may say in general that the UN is a body made up of states, each of which has its own interests –which may in themselves be right or wrong, just or unjust. Yet, secondly, the Goldstone Commission was appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council, one of the more disreputable, more Orwellian, of UN bodies.

Thirdly, the mandate that this “Human Rights Council” gave to Goldstone refers only to crimes supposedly committed by Israel, not to crimes committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians and its own people through the use of “human shields” explicitly forbidden by the international laws of war. This makes the Goldstone Commission rather obviously one-sided. The Commission did come to Israel to take testimony but would not go to Sderot to hear witnesses there. Yet Sderot had been a target of rockets shot from Gaza for eight years at the time of the war. Hence, Goldstone’s Commission could not see with their own eyes the results of Hamas rocket bombardments there nor learn from victims there of how they and their children had suffered from Hamas rockets.

Fourthly, a member of Goldstone’s Commission is one Christine Chinkin who has already very blatantly expressed her hostility to Israel.

How can a balanced, reasonable, factually based report come out of this background?

Now, we can elaborate on points made above. The UN is a collection of states, each taking part in UN debates, votes, and other activities with a view toward protecting or advancing its own interests, be they reasonable or unreasonable, just or unjust, or perhaps just in the view of that state’s government and/or its people. In this group of states, the 20-odd Arab League states have special power, since they tend to vote as a bloc on many issues, especially in regard to Israel. The Arabs are reinforced by more than thirty non-Arab Muslim states that sit with the Arabs in the OIC, the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC with its nearly sixty members is in an especially favorable position in the UN because of what Americans call “logrolling.” That is, in a voting assembly, a large bloc of votes or delegates can get its way without being a majority. That is because other delegates want the support of the bloc for their own interests. Hence, a state that is neither Arab nor Muslim will be tempted to support the Arab League or OIC position in UN voting in order to obtain support for its own positions, needs, interests, etc. One glimpse of the OIC’s character came at a meeting in Malaysia several years ago. This OIC conclave was the venue for an ugly, bigoted attack on Jews by Mahathir Muhammad, then prime minister of Malaysia. He charged that Jews controlled the world and its economy, although a half-dozen states belonging to the OIC, such as Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi are among the states with the highest per capita income in the world, exceeding many Western countries.

Now, Malaysia brings us to another problem of the UN “Human Rights” Council. The legislation in Malaysia makes almost half the population there suffer from inferior rights and unjust restrictions. I am not referring to the women, although their status is legally inferior. I am referring to the non-Muslims in Malaysia, most of them of Chinese and Indian descent. They are not Europeans. They suffer from the “Bhumiputra system.” This is a whole system of limited freedoms, inferior rights, and legal restrictions imposed on non-Muslims. It is a system inspired by traditional Muslim law. Yet the Malaysian denial of human rights on religious and ethnic grounds is not the subject of regular debate and condemnation at the UN “Human Rights” Council. Indeed, in 2006, Malaysia was selected for a three-year term as a member of the Council!! [see link: http://forum-asia.org/hrc/?p=180#more-180 ]

In the same vein, Libya, an oil rich Arab despotism, was elected to be chairman of the predecessor body of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, in January 2003. At that time, Libya was holding as prisoners five Bulgarian nurses working in Libya plus one Palestinian Arab physician on the spurious charges of deliberately infecting Libyan children with AIDS. The nurses were sentenced to death by firing squad [link: http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2004/RE040511.html ] Here we are not talking about a mere member of the HR Commission but about the chairman. In any case, the chief difference between the previous UN HR Commission and the present UN HR Council is the name council instead of commission. The UN Human Rights Commission was the UN body that organized the monstruous 2001 anti-Jewish hate fest in Durban where mobs full of hate for Jews roamed the grounds of the so-called "anti-racism" conference. Mary Robinson was the UN High Commissioner for "Human Rights" at that time. She prepared the Durban conference in cooperation with the regime of the bigoted ayatollahs in Teheran, Iran.

The Human Rights Council [formerly HR Commission] was and is Orwellian because it is a body made up –even led in Libya’s case— by states that regularly abuse human rights yet hide behind the motto, the cover of human rights. That is, a lofty principle hides a reality that violates the lofty principle. As far as many Muslim state members are concerned, they do not recognize or acknowledge human rights even in principle, since they adhere to traditional Muslim law, the Shari`ah, that grants rights solely to Muslims whereas non-Muslims are dependent on the whims of the Muslims. Moreover, the Muslim states affirmed their opposition to the principle of human rights, which must be universal by definition [that is, applied to all humans], by their support of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam [1990] that was meant as a rejection of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948]. Having states that reject the very concept of human rights being dominant --or even only influential-- in a world council ostensibly devoted to human rights is one of the many Orwellian absurdities that mark the UN but are seldom noted by diplomats, politicians, and the communications media.

The mandate of Goldstone’s Commission is found here. On January 12, 2009, United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) adopted Resolution S-9/1. The Council:

14. Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission

Note that
1) Israel is called "the occupying power" in Gaza, although Israeli troops had not been stationed in Gaza since 2005; this is willful misinterpretation of "occupation."
2) the "Palestinian people" is a victim, not the people of Israel. This is a form of racism.
3) Israel's defensive war is stigmatized as "the current aggression."

This is the Goldstone Commission's mandate. It does not recognize the possibility that Hamas may have committed war crimes before and during the January war in Gaza.

Lastly, we have the bias of members of the Commission. Christine Chinkin, one member in good standing, has openly and blatantly expressed her hatred for Israel. She said in a public statement with others of her ilk:

"Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime."

As the blogger Ami Isseroff has commented, "She has already decided the matter, it would seem that from her point of view there is no need to have any investigation. In a fair judicial procedure, a judge like Chinkin would have to recuse herself, but the nature of this "judicial procedure" should already be evident."

Goldstone himself, a former judge in South Africa who cooperated with apartheid [see letter of Louis Garb, Jerusalem Post, 3 September 2009], has been a board member of the dishonest and discredited “Human Rights Watch,” another body with an Orwellian character

We cannot expect any reasonable, fair, honest judgment to emerge from the forthcoming Goldstone Commission report.

- - - - - - - - - -

Goldstone has now --15 September 2009-- delivered his report to that paragon of righteousness, the UN. He and his commission performed as badly as expected.

- - - - - - - - - -

UPDATING 9-16-2009

Pres Shimon Peres on Goldstone report [here]

Lorenzo Cremonesi's report in Corriere della Sera about Hamas use of human shields during the Gaza war [in English here][in italiano qui], January 21, 2009.
Title in Italian:
"'Cosi i ragazzini di Hamas ci hanno utilizzato come bersagli' Abitanti di Gaza accusano i militanti islamici: 'Ci impedivano di lasciare le case e da li sparavano'"
"'Thus the Hamas boys used us as targets'. Inhabitants of Gaza accuse the Islamic militants: 'They prevented us from leaving the houses and shot from them.'"

Alan Dershowitz [here]

Ari Shavit in HaArets on double standard for killing civilians [here].

Israel's foreign minister on Goldstone report [here]

Augean Stables here & here.

Jackson Diehl of the WaPo: "As for the Goldstone report, the heat it briefly produced last week will quickly dissipate; the panel was discredited from the outset because of its appointment by the grotesquely politicized U.N. Human Rights Council." [see here]

10-21-2009 Claudia Rosett in Forbes [here]
See the all important website on the "Goldstone Report", Understanding the Goldstone Report [here]

Gregg Rickman on UN "Human Rights" Council [here; hat tip SPME]
Edwin Bennatan on goldstone, UNHRC, HRW, and related matters [here]
UPDATING 11-27-2009 Hugh Fitzgerald on UN corruption generally, & pro-Arab, Judeophobic corruption in particular [here]

Arabs Refute the Big Lie of "Israeli Apartheid"

One of the big accusations against Israel in the last 15 or 20 years is that Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. It is commonly made with much fanfare by such international Judeophobic hate-inciters as jimmy carter, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, awarded the American presidential freedom medal by President Obama, etc. In the long run, such hate incitement as carter et al. indulge in is likely to lead to war.

Now, Apartheid was a system that existed in South Africa from the late 1940s up to the about 1990. It meant very strict segregation of the races, going farther than jimcrow in the southern United States. It comprised rigidly segregated housing with fences and gates, separate public transport vehicles enforced by law, a ban on interracial sex, separate schools enforced by law, Black exclusion from "white only" places of entertainment, shopping, restaurants, etc etc. None of this exists in Israel. In Jerusalem, several Arab families live on my street, one close by across the street, others around the bend. Arabs go to medical clinics [kupot holim clinics] with Jews, ride the buses and sit with the Jews, go to Jewish restaurants as Jews may go to Arab restaurants. About 15% of the student body at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem are Arabs and some were in classes with my sons. And of course, Arabs often enjoy patronizing the Jerusalem shopping malls with Jews.

Furthermore, skin color --the basis of apartheid-- is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, Arabs are now stereotyped as "non-white" or "people of color," although they always considered themselves "white," especially compared with black Africans [read the stories involving Blacks in the One Thousand and One Nights (alf layl wa-layla), the famous collection of Arab tales from the Middle Ages]. Jews today are somehow stereotyped as "ultra-white" or "the whitest of white", whereas when their skin color was most discussed, in the 19th century and up to the Second World War, they were viewed as swarthy, Oriental, dark, un-European, etc. Now, presto changeo, abracadabra, Jews are depicted as ultra-European. Some Eurocentric Europeans psychologically displace onto the Jews all the negative traits and behavior attributed to Europeans. To sum up this paragraph, there is a broad spectrum of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs. Many Jews are in fact darker than many Arabs. Skin color is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Here are some photos taken in a Jerusalem shopping mall in September 2009 that show Jews and Arabs mixing in daily life. It is obvious that apartheid is not a feature of life in Israel. Those who want to measure differences in skin color may take a photometer and bring it up close to the photos. Those who are not convinced can come and ride the buses with us, visit our shopping malls and restaurants, visit the university, tour residential neighborhoods where Jews and Arabs live together, etc.

There are those who openly practice and promote and even demand apartheid in Jerusalem. These are the EU and the consulates of all EU states represented here. They hold separate celebrations of their national holidays [Bastille Day, Queen's Birthday, etc] for Jews and Arabs. Hence, they try to prevent mingling of the two peoples. Mary Robinson ought to look at herself in the mirror for subscribing to this collective EU apartheid policy, although Ireland does not have a consulate here as far as I know. Former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek used to complain to the EU about this segregation policy. Of course they did not pay him any heed.

I do not know whether the United States holds separate, segregated national holiday celebrations here for Jews and Arabs. Readers might inquire with the State Dept. However, the State Dept of the USA, the EU Commission, and the present government of South Africa all deny the right of Jews to live in parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967 and ethnically cleansed of Jews in a process starting in December 1947 when Jews were driven by Arab militias out of a neighborhood in what later became "east Jerusalem." And this in a city, Jerusalem, where Jews have been the absolute majority of the population since 1853, if not earlier. So those who make accusations of apartheid are themselves practitioners of apartheid.

Here are views of life in a Jerusalem shopping mall.

An Arab Muslim woman walks through a Jerusalem mall. Jewish women are in the background.


A Muslim Arab woman walks toward the elevators carrying her purchases. The elevators go down to the parking garage. She didn't come to the mall riding a camel or donkey or walking barefoot on a pebble strewn dirt path. She came to the mall by car.



An Arab father with two sons shops for dairy products in a Jerusalem supermarket. Note the Hebrew word for milk, חלב , halav, on a green sign above his head [click on photo to enlarge]. He was identified as an Arab by speaking to his children in Arabic.

An Arab-Muslim woman with baby stands in front of a store selling socks, stockings, and underwear, mainly for women. Note two Jewish boys sitting on the bench at left.

An Arab-Muslim woman with baby sits on a bench in a Jerusalem shopping mall. The other woman on the bench identified herself as an Ashkenazi Jewess. Note that the Jewish woman is noticeably darker skinned than the Arab child, although the two women have about the same skin color. If you click on the photo to enlarge it, you can see a Jewish symbol on the black briefcase.


Proud Arab parents with child in an upscale housewares shop in a Jerusalem shopping mall. Note that father is holding the baby stroller while the mother smiles on the left.


An Arab-Muslim woman, apparently the same one as in the first photo at top, strolls through a Jerusalem shopping mall. Note the Israeli soldier bent over at lower left, apparently looking at a display case of watches or rings.

Arabs refute the apartheid slander by coming to the shopping malls, riding the buses, eating in restaurants, living in neighborhoods, etc. Meanwhile, Western powers within and without the EU promote apartheid, as does the PLO/Palestinian Authority of course.
- - - - - - - - - -
Definition:
"Apartheid implies the total separation of races socially, economically and in the last resort territorially. . ." [Alan Bullock & Oliver Stallybrass, eds., Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (London: Fontana Books 1977].

Source on Arab racial attitudes:
Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East [New York-Oxford: Oxford Univ Press 1990]
Bernard Lewis, Race and Color in Islam [New York 1971].

Read All About It!! "human rights" watch's military and weaponry expert cum "human rights" investigator Is a Devoted Collector of Nazi Souvenirs

UPDATING link & photo added 9-10 & 9-11-2009

. . . Many lies resembling truth. . .
Hesiod, Theogony, v. 27

Marc Galasco, a top honcho at "human rights watch" and serial smear jockey against Israel in favor of the Hamas, is -- an avid collector and connoisseur of Nazi souvenirs and memorabilia. One of his jobs at hrw is to supply an authoritative mask for smears of Israel based on technical data about weapons and military affairs. He did once work for the Pentagon and is so expert in the Nazi memorabilia field that he published a book about it, with a special interest in the Luftwaffe, the Nazi air force. It makes sense that someone who objectively aids the genocidal aims of Hamas also admires the murderous Nazi armed forces that already carried out genocide against Jews.


Here is photo of Garlasco at a leisure moment. He wears a sweatshirt with an iron cross [eisenkreuz] on it. The photo was posted on a Nazi memorabilia website by Garlasco himself. I feel sorry for his child.

Special kudos go to Omri Ceren of Mere Rhetoric for his research and to Elder of Ziyon.

Garlasco's book is available at Amazon with a retail price of $100 dollars. His Amazon review page is here.

We are living in bizarre times indeed. Imagine a "human rights investigator" who is also a Nazi admirer/Nazi regalia collector. And "human rights watch" had to know who he was and what his pastime hobbies were. The moral corruption of "human rights watch" stinks to high heaven. See our earlier post on hrw here & here & herehere.

Read more on the Mere Rhetoric site.
Camera's comment here & here [referring to Israel-hater Helena Cobban]

& UPDATE 10 Sept 2009
HRW's press release in defense of Garlasco plus analysis and more details by NGOMonitor [here]
IsraellyCool here with photo.