Arab Prisoner of Arabs Says No Human Rights in Arab World

The usual suspects, Amnesty International and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, have been making the expected hypocritical comparisons of Gilad Shalit's treatment to that of the 1000 Arab prisoners, including hundreds of mass murderous terrorists, who were released today in a trade for Gilad Shalit. Ban, who is supposed to be neutral as UN secretary-general, made a equivalence, just like Amnesty did. How curious!! He told Reuters today:

"I am very encouraged by the prisoner exchange today after many many years of negotiation," Secretary-General Ban told Reuters today. "The United Nations has been calling for (an end to) the unacceptable detention of Gilad Shalit and also the release of all Palestinians whose human rights have been abused all the time."[UN Watch]

Omri Ceren summarizes the Amnesty statement [here]. More pro-Hamas propaganda. That is, more propaganda that equates the mass murderers of Hamas with the civilized state of Israel:

But Amnesty’s statement on the Shalit trade, titled “Israel-Hamas prisoner swap casts harsh light on detention practices of all sides,” is a barrel-scraping embarrassment even by the organization’s notoriously low standards. The vast majority of the press release is handed over to criticizing Israeli detention policies, while a grand total of two paragraphs are spent condemning Shalit’s ordeal.

Shalit’s name does not even appear below the fifth paragraph of the 20-paragraph statement, while alleged Israeli human rights violations- relevant to the swap or not – are repeatedly noted. Israel is explicitly and twice accused of Geneva violations.

Amnesty's statement is, again, clever propaganda.

NGO Monitor explains that neither Amnesty nor the ineptly named Human Rights Watch raised its voice in over five years of Shalit's incarceration under conditions illegal by int'l law. That is, he was not allowed any visits by the Red Cross [ICRC] nor was he allowed into the sunshine nor, it seems, outdoor exercise. Apparently, he was kept underground. We know about the lack of sunshine since it has been reported that he has a Vitamin D deficiency, a result of not getting sunshine [Ayala Hasson on Israel TV Channel 1 tonight]. Other so-called "human rights groups" too failed to demand that Shalit be treated according to the international law of war regarding prisoners.

On the other hand, let's hear the testimony of an Arab --a Palestinian Arab in fact-- who was the prisoner of an Arab regime. Ashraf al-Hajouj was a physician held prisoner in Libya for 8 1/2 years by the Qaddafi regime, along with 5 Bulgarian nurses. They were all charged with deliberately inoculating 438 Libyan children with AIDS virus in the Benghazi pediatric hospital. Dr Hajouj and the nurses were released in July 2007 by the intervention of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Hajouj said after his release:

In the Arab world, there are no human rights. . .
En el mundo arabe no hay derechos humanos. . .
[El Pais, 26 July 2007; tambien Pagina/12]

He spoke of

the corruption that rots away at Libya and many other [Arab] countries.

Since he had been brought to Libya when he was two years old and raised there, he was bitter over how the Libyans treated him:

I always considered Libya my country. . . If [Libya and the family members of the children who got AIDS] seek the truth about the AIDS contagion, they will have to look away from us [himself and the Bulgarian nurses] because we are all innocent. [El Pais, 26 July 2007]

Al-Hajouj was apparently abandoned by the PLO/PA who did not defend him or the nurses against the silly charges of deliberately infecting the children. Nor did the Arab League defend him. So he was granted Bulgarian citizenship and went to Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, after his release. Only al-Hajouj and two of the nurses --out of five-- were well enough to talk to the press. "We have returned from hell to paradise," one of the nurses said. "Only God knows that I will show the whole world that we were always innocent," Dr al-Hajouj added. One nurse tried to commit suicide because she could not tolerate the torture she underwent, including electrical shocks. Another nurse said that their first year was the worst when the women were kept in a tiny room in a police station with one single mattress as their only furniture. In that year they were allowed four visits with diplomats from the Bulgarian embassy -- but they were not allowed to talk to the diplomats. The husband of one of the women was also living in Benghazi. He too was incarcerated but only for five years up to 2004. After that, since he was not allowed to leave the country, he stayed in the Bulgarian embassy until leaving Libya at the same time as his wife.

The five nurses and the physician were taken into the elite military hospital in Sofia for a physical and psychological check up. The director of the hospital, General Stoyan Tonev, stated that they were suffering "submarine sailors syndrome," which affects people who have lived "enclosed for a long time in small spaces under bad conditions."

So it seems that these six prisoners in Libya were held under conditions closer to those of Shalit than to those of the terrorist prisoners in Israel. But Amnesty, Ban Ki Moon and HRW want to draw a false moral equivalence between how Israel treats prisoners and how Hamas treats prisoners. Recall that Shalit was never allowed a visit by the Red Cross, as required by the international law of war.

During part of the time of the nurses' and the Arab physician's imprisonment in Libya, Libya held the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission. One does not suppose that the Commission ever criticized Libya on account of how the nurses and the physician were being treated.

Strong words from Claude Lanzmann about the pro-Hamas Lies in the MSM concerning the Turkish Thug Armada

Claude Lanzmann is a rare bird on today's political landscape. He was an assistant to Jean-Paul Sartre as a young man and inherited Sartre's mantle and legacy as chief editor of Sartre's heavy weight intellectual journal, Les Temps Modernes, after Sartre's death. He had strong words for Hamas and its Western supporters and sympathizers, including those in the French press and media, over the Turkish Thug Armada and the fighting on board the Mavi Marmara on 31 May 2010. We translate below his speech given at a rally in Paris on behalf of freedom for Gilad Shalit on 22 June 2010, as well as presenting the speech in French below that. Lanzmann's pro-Israel position shows once again the falsehood of the "right-left political spectrum" notion, especially but not only in regard to Israel.

Who Is Delegitimizing Israel?
by Claude Lanzmann

What happened after Israel's boarding and seizure of the so-called humanitarian flotilla and what we could read and hear in so many newspapers, on all of our television networks, our radio stations, on a thousand unsupervised blogs, in discussions among web surfers in which hatred fought it out with stupidity, was really frightening. What joy, my friends, my brothers, what happiness in being able once again, without any restraint, to stigmatize Israel, a scapegoat laden with all crimes, and first of all with the original sin of existing. Those who were so prompt to condemn Israel, without having any other source of information than that thundered by Hamas propagandists and their faithful, didn't care one bit about the reality of the facts, of their genesis, of the reasons for the blockade, or of the warnings given by Tsahal to the "peace activists." They were only motivated in fact by one single dream: to get into a fight and thereby tear the veil off the true face of the Jews before the world: drinkers of blood, starvation-causers, thieves, cowards and I won't bother to go on; or, what comes down to the same thing, to unveil the true face of Israel, a pirate state. We instantaneously read and heard this obscene refrain in the dailies, on the broadcasting stations, and the networks, whose names it would be best not to mention.

The blockade has an origin: It is called Gilad Shalit, a young soldier fallen, in Israeli territory, into an ambush set by Hamas, and held hostage for four years now by his kidnappers, who play on the nerves of his family and the country by promising a phantom release. Hamas or Hezbollah have most usually handed back dead bodies for hundreds of live Palestinians that Israel had released, because this pirate state --it has proven it a hundred times-- has always been ready to repatriate its dead or its living at any price.

The second origin [of the blockade] is the Hamas itself, which declares itself in a state of war with Israel, having conducted indiscriminate bombardments of its villages for months without respite. This is the Hamas that calls in its press, its schools, in all its propaganda, for the eradication of the Jewish state. It is first of all by Hamas that the blockade was cynically imposed on Gaza. By Hamas but also by Egypt that, fearing for its regime from the jihadist contagion, has closed its land border at the south of the Gaza Strip. But, as we know, a profitable trade which enriches Arab millionaires brings all the merchandise possible and imaginable to Gaza through tunnels dug in the sands of Sinai.

Know this, detractors of Israel. You are being lied to and you are lying. Gaza is stuffed with goods. You can find there televisions, the most modern computerized gadgets, the IPhones, the IPads, the top of the line refrigerators, etc. And especially, people there eat as much as they need. No one in Gaza is dying of malnutrition nor suffers thirst nor hunger. Where are the fleshless bodies, where the skin hanging from the bones in the photographs of the plump, well-fed high officials of the Hamas government? Have you seen faces of emaciated children, skeletal bodies? We can be certain that if, by chance, they existed, the Hamas' master propagandists would transmit them to us continuously ad nauseam. No, Gaza is not the Warsaw Ghetto, though that may displease the true believers who hurriedly visit for several hours, though that may displease the UNRWA and Mister Goldstone. And let's finish off another lie. Israel never wanted to starve Gaza. It has, as is its right, demanded to inspect the merchandise. It forbids some things for security reasons and sends every day dozens of trucks that, starting from the Ashdod port, unload their contents at the northern entrance to the Gaza Strip.

Out of the six ships of the abovementioned flotilla, five, we know, let themselves be brought to Ashdod after being boarded non-violently by the Israeli navy. What they were carrying was put on the dock, checked and immediately shipped to the northern border of Gaza, where the Hamas people refused to accept delivery. The perishable materials spoiled in place. All that remained under the sun was a comical number of wheel chairs brought by the "humanitarians" for the legless amputees who form --in the "humanitarians'" minds the majority of the people of Gaza.

Don't imagine, good people, that Gaza is a brotherly, classless society. There are poor and rich in Gaza, billionaire land owners, living on the heights of luxury residences, who never raised a finger to help their supposed brethren of the poor neighborhoods and the refugee camps.

It was necessary that Gaza remain --and this is what Jean-Paul Sartre reproached them for before me in 1967, three months before the Six Day War-- a morbid focus of attention, a canker sore defying any solution (while it would have been so easy for the oil rich to help them) , thus making it possible to condemn Israel forever. That continues. The unanimous concert of loud, angry voices aroused by Israel's refusal to allow the humanitarian convoy to pass is the best proof of that. On the sixth boat, chartered by the Turkish branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch, the Israelis were awaited by armed men determined to make Jihad. That is, to kill and be killed, certain of being immediately received in Allah's dwelling by caressing maidens.

If we do not have the right to rebuke Israel for boarding and seizing the ships, we may be astonished at the impressive naiveté with which the soldiers acted. The naval commander had told them: "You will be greeted with spitting, insults, burning cigarettes. Above all, don't retaliate." What happened was entirely different: Coming down from a helocopter in a geostationary position above the Mavi Marmara, the soldiers slid down one by one on a smooth rope, letting themselves be picked off by long clubs, sling shots, iron bars, long knives, etc, before even touching the deck. Many were injured, some very seriously, one being thrown from the upper deck to the lower deck. He was found with his back broken. It is the rule in the Israeli army: the soldiers have the right to shoot if their lives are in danger. This was the case.

The investigating commission formed by Israel, a model democracy, will give its conclusions and it should be believed. The barking dogs understood moreover that they had gone too far and are now putting a muffler on their vitriolic invective. In such circumstances, we Jews have a duty of solidarity toward Israel in danger, threatened in the North as in the South by Ahmadinejad's allies. Meanwhile Ahmadinejad is readying his nuclear arsenal. The same duty of solidarity commands us to express and to bring, as rightful citizens of the French Republic, a severe judgment of contempt for the pathetic fools who call for a boycott of Israel and demand removing Israeli films from a schedule, which is a way of calling for its death. We will not allow that. It is not the policy of Israel that delegitimizes that state, as some would have us believe. It is first of all the irredentism of the Arab extremists and, we regret that a certain number of complacently conformist Jews, who have been silent up till now, were not more perceptive when they signed a text which, as the flotilla affair has unmistakably demonstrated, was a tissue of unrealistic ideals, unrealistic principles and unrealistic aspirations.

(a speech given on 22 June 2010 in Paris, during the demonstration organized by the CRIF, in support of Israel and Gilad Shalit) [the CRIF is the umbrellas organization of French Jews]

«Qui délégitime Israël ?», par Claude Lanzmann

Ce qui s’est passé après l’arraisonnement par Israël de la flottille soi-disant humanitaire, ce que nous avons pu lire, voir et entendre dans tant de journaux, sur toutes nos chaînes de télévision, nos stations de radios, sur mille blogs incontrôlés, dans des discussions entre internautes où la haine le disputait à la stupidité, est proprement effrayant. Quelle joie, mes amis, mes frères, quelle félicité de pouvoir à nouveau, sans retenue aucune, stigmatiser Israël, bouc émissaire chargé de tous les crimes et d’abord du péché originel d’exister. Ceux qui étaient si prompts à condamner Israël, sans avoir aucune autre source d’information que celle tonitruée par les propagandistes du Hamas et leurs affidés, se souciaient comme d’une guigne de la réalité des faits, de leur genèse, des raisons du blocus, des avertissements prodigués par Tsahal aux « activistes de la paix » qu’un seul rêve animait en vérité : en découdre et dévoiler ainsi au monde le vrai visage des Juifs buveurs de sang, affameurs, voleurs, lâches et j’en passe, ou, ce qui revient au même, le vrai visage d’Israël, Etat pirate. On a lu et entendu instantanément cette obscène rengaine dans des quotidiens, des stations et des chaînes, dont il vaut mieux taire le nom.

Le blocus a une origine : elle s’appelle Gilad Shalit, jeune soldat tombé, en territoire israélien, dans une embuscade tendue par le Hamas, et otage depuis maintenant quatre années de ses ravisseurs, qui jouent sur les nerfs de ses proches et du pays en promettant une libération fantomatique. Hamas ou Hezbollah ont le plus souvent restitué des cadavres contre des cen taines de Palestiniens bien vivants qu’Israël relâchait, car cet Etat pirate —il l’a cent fois prouvé— a toujours été prêt à rapatrier ses morts ou ses vivants à n’importe quel prix. La deuxième origine, c’est le Hamas lui-même, qui se déclare en état de guerre avec Israël, ayant procédé pendant des mois et sans répit à des bombardements indiscriminés sur ses villages, le Hamas qui appelle, dans sa presse, dans ses écoles, dans toute sa propagande, à l’éradication de l’Etat juif. C’est d’abord par le Hamas que le blocus est imposé cyniquement à Gaza. Par le Hamas, mais aussi par l’Egypte qui, craignant pour son régime la contagion djihadiste, a fermé sa frontière de surface au sud de la bande de Gaza. Mais, on le sait, un fructueux trafic, qui enrichit des millionnaires arabes, amène, par des centaines de tunnels creusés dans le sable du Sinaï, toutes les marchandises possibles et imaginables à Gaza. Sachez-le, détracteurs d’Israël : on vous ment, vous mentez, Gaza regorge d e biens, on y trouve les téléviseurs, les outils informatiques les plus modernes, les Iphone, les Ipad, les réfrigérateurs de grand luxe etc. Et surtout, on y mange autant qu’il se doit : nul à Gaza ne meurt de malnutrition, ne souffre de la soif ou de la faim. Où sont les décharnés, où la peau sur les os, dans les photographies des membres bien en chair du gouvernement du Hamas ? Avons-nous vu des visages d’enfants émaciés, des corps squelettiques ? Soyons certains que si d’aventure ils existaient, les maîtres propagandistes du Hamas nous les repasseraient en boucle ad nauseam. Non, Gaza, n’en déplaise aux dévots pressés, visiteurs de quelques heures, n’en déplaise à l’UNRA et à Monsieur Goldstone, n’est pas le ghetto de Varsovie. Et finissons-en avec cet autre mensonge : Israël n’a jamais voulu affamer Gaza, il a, comme c’est son droit, demandé à contrôler les marchandises, interdit certaines pour des raisons de sécurité et envoie chaque jour des dizaines de camions qui, à partir du port d’Ashdod, déchargent leur contenu à l’entrée nord de la bande de Gaza. Sur les six navires de ladite flottille, cinq, on le sait, se sont laissé conduire à Ashdod après leur arraisonnement non violent par la marine israélienne. Ce qu’ils transportaient a été mis à quai, vérifié et expédié immédiatement à la frontière nord de Gaza, où les gens du Hamas ont refusé d’en prendre livraison. Les matières périssables ont pourri sur place, seules demeurent sous le soleil un nombre comique de chaises roulantes apportées par les « humanitaires » pour les culs-de-jatte qui dans leur esprit forment la majorité du peuple de Gaza. N’imaginez pas, braves gens, que Gaza est une société fraternelle et sans classes. Il y a à Gaza des pauvres et des riches, des très riches, milliardaires propriétaires des terres, vivant sur les hauteurs dans de somptueuses demeures, qui n’ont jamais levé un doigt pour venir en aide à leurs prétendus frères des bas quartiers et des camps de réfugiés. Il fallait que Gaza —et c’est ce que Jean-Paul Sartre leur reprochait déjà devant moi en 1967, trois mois avant la guerre des six jours— reste un abcès de fixation, un chancre défiant toute solution (alors qu’il eût été si facile aux opulents du pétrole de leur venir en aide) et permettant de condamner Israël pour l’éternité. Cela continue, le concert unanime de vociférations suscité par le refus de laisser passer l’escadre humanitaire en est la meilleure preuve. Sur le sixième bateau, affrété par la branche turque des Frères Musulmans dont le Hamas est la branche palestinienne, les Israéliens étaient attendus par des hommes en armes résolus au Djihad, c’est-à-dire à tuer et à se faire tuer, certains d’être reçus aussitôt chez Allah par de caressantes pucelles.

Si on n’a pas le droit de reprocher à Israël l’arraisonnement des navires, on peut s’étonner de la naïveté formidable avec laquelle ses soldats ont agi. Le Commandant de la marine leur avait dit : « On vous accueillera avec des crachats, des insultes, des cigarettes enflammées. Ne ripostez surtout pas. » Ce fut tout autre chose : à partir d’un hélicoptère en position géostationnaire au-dessus du Mavi Marmara, les soldats qui glissaient un par un sur une corde lisse se faisaient cueillir avant même d’avoir touché le pont par de longues matraques, des lance-pierres, des barres de fer, des coutelas, etc. Beaucoup furent blessés, certains très grièvement, l’un d’eux fut balancé du pont supérieur vers le pont inférieur, on le retrouva avec le dos brisé. C’est la règle dans l’armée d’Israël : les soldats ont le droit de tirer si leur vie est en danger. C’était le cas. La commission d’enquête formée par Israël, démocratie exemplaire, rendra ses conclusions et il faudra la croire. Les aboyeurs ont d’ailleurs compris qu’ils avaient été beaucoup trop loin et mettent maintenant une sourdine à leurs vitupérations. En de telles circonstances, nous autres Juifs, avons un devoir de solidarité envers un Israël en péril, menacé au Nord comme au Sud par les alliés d’un Ahmadinejad, qui fourbit son arsenal nucléaire. Et le même devoir de solidarité nous commande de l’exprimer et de porter, en tant que citoyens de plein droit de la République française, un jugement lourd de mépris sur les tristes imbéciles qui appellent au boycott d’Israël et demandent la déprogrammation de ses films, ce qui est une façon de crier à la mort. Nous ne le permettrons pas. Ce n’est pas la politique d’Israël qui, comme on a voulu le faire croire, délégitime ce pays. C’est d’abord l’irrédentisme des extrémistes arabes et l’on regrette qu’un certain nombre de Juifs bien-pensants, et qui se taisaient jusque là, ne s’en soient pas avisés avant de signer un texte dont l’affaire de la flottille démontre sans fard l’angélisme.

(Allocution prononcée le 22 juin 2010 à Paris, lors de la manifestation, organisée par le CRIF, de soutien à Israël et à Gilad Shalit; voir ici)

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.

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.