EU illegal settlement and occupation activity

EU illegal occupation and settlement activity.

Barry Shaw on a Regavim field trip reveals how the EU are conducting illegal occupation and construction in Judea & Samaria (Area C) in breach of the Oslo Accords which remains under sole Israeli security and civil control until a permanent peace agree with the Palestinians.

EU put down structures and the PA are illegally transferring into the area migrant Bedouin tribes and families in order to create “facts on the ground” in defiance of signed agreements.

European Union illegally constructing settlements in Area C of Judea & Samaria (known as the West Bank) and transferring Bedouin population into the area in contravention of the Oslo Accords.

Conferentie Parijs 14 en 15 januari 2017

images

Het recht van de Staat Israël.

Naar aanleiding van Veiligheidsraad resolutie 2334 en de toespraak op 28 December 2016 van de Amerikaanse minister van buitenlandse zaken Kerry,  spreken wij onze diepe bezorgdheid uit over de voorgestelde conferentie in Parijs op zondag 15 januari 2017.

Het lijkt erop dat leden van de Veiligheidsraad en andere landen, zonder toestemming van Israël, maatregelen willen treffen die duiden op het aannemen van- of erkenning geven aan de volgende standpunten die door de Palestijnse Bevrijdingsorganisatie sinds de jaren 1970 worden bepleit, en die Israël betwist. Deze maatregelen omvatten:

  • Erkenning van de 1949 wapenstilstand lijnen (de “4 juni 1967 lijnen”) als de standaard de facto “grenzen” tussen Israël en “Palestina” in het geval er geen overeenstemming kan worden bereikt over dit onderwerp tussen de PLO en Israël;
  • Erkenning van het zogenaamde “recht” van het Palestijnse volk op een onafhankelijke staat Palestina, en “Oost-Jeruzalem” nomineren als hoofdstad van de “staat Palestina”; en
  • Erkenning van een verplichting aan Israël zich “terug te trekken uit de bezette Palestijnse gebieden” (misschien binnen een opgegeven tijd) op de basis dat alle Israëlische nederzettingen in deze gebieden illegaal zijn en/of dergelijke bezetting is “illegaal.”

Naar ons oordeel dient, elke resolutie of  internationaal ondersteunde maatregel die tot strekking heeft één van deze voorwaarden zonder toestemming van Israël te implementeren als–‐contra productief en ondermijnt de echte kansen voor vrede, omdat zij een éénzijdig verhaal ondersteunen dat volledig voorbij gaat aan Israëls echte historische, religieuze en veiligheidsproblemen.

Maar net zo belangrijk is het, dat een dergelijke resolutie of maatregel zelf inbreuk zal maken op een aantal belangrijke beginselen van het internationaal recht:

  1. Deze maatregelen zouden een ernstige schending betekenen van de legitieme aanspraken en rechten van de staat Israël en het Joodse volk met betrekking tot de soevereiniteit over “Oost-Jeruzalem” en de “Westelijke Jordaanoever” volgens het volkenrecht. De San Remo-resolutie (1920) en het Mandaat voor Palestina (1922) erkende de bestaande rechten van het Joodse volk op zelfbeschikking –‐ gebaseerd op hun nauwe historische band met het land. Onder het Mandaat voor Palestina had het Joodse volk recht op “nederzettingen” in heel Palestina. Deze rechten, erkend en gemaakt onder deze bindende instrumenten van internationaal recht zijn uitdrukkelijk overgenomen in artikel 80 van het VN-Handvest, en in geen enkele manier afgewezen of beëindigd. Ook uit hoofde van het beginsel “uti possedetis juris” bepaalden de grenzen van het Mandaat voor Palestina de grenzen van de nieuwe staat Israël op 14 mei 1948.
  1. Zij ondermijnt volledig de rechten van Israël onder de Oslo akkoorden en zou in strijd zijn met de verplichtingen van de PLO onder deze overeenkomsten. Zij zou ook een inbreuk zijn op de verplichtingen van de Verenigde Staten en Rusland als ondertekenaars van deze overeenkomsten. Deze overeenkomsten, die geldig en bindend voor de partijen blijven, geven aan dat alle kwesties rond de “permanente status” zoals de status van Jeruzalem, “nederzettingen”, “veiligheidsregelingen” en “grenzen” dienen te worden vastgesteld door middel van bilaterale onderhandelingen tussen Israël en de PLO. Door voorwaarden op te leggen – direct of indirect–‐ door middel van VN resoluties, is de PLO ernstig in strijd met zijn verplichtingen uit hoofde van de Oslo-akkoorden, en met de goedkeuring van dergelijke claims zijn de ondertekenaars van die akkoorden ook in strijd met hun verplichtingen.
  1. Zij afbreuk zou doen aan het principe van soevereine gelijkheid van staten en het fundamentele recht van de staat Israël aan territoriale integriteit/onschendbaarheid, politieke onafhankelijkheid, zoals omschreven in het Handvest van de VN en Veiligheidsraad resoluties 242 en 338. Alle VN-lidstaten zijn verplicht deze rechten te erkennen, en zij hebben geen enkele bevoegdheid om de grenzen te bepalen van een andere soevereine VN lidstaat of op enigerlei andere wijze afbreuk mogen doen aan Israëls recht op territoriale integriteit en politieke onafhankelijkheid.
  1. Door de afwezigheid van robuuste veiligheidsregelingen, is het aanvaarden van de “4 juni 1967 lijnen” als de facto grenzen een ondermijning van het bestaansrecht van Israël als een soevereine staat, met veilige grenzen. Het wordt algemeen erkent dat, zonder bindende garanties en afdwingbare veiligheidsregelingen op de grond, de  wapenstilstand lijnen van 1949 volledig onverdedigbaar zijn.
  1. Door “Oost-Jeruzalem” en de “Westelijke Jordaanoever” deel te laten gaan uitmaken van een Islamitische staat Palestina, zonder verdere overeengekomen maatregelen, zou de bescherming van de rechten van alle niet-‐Moslim minderheidsgroepen om te bidden ontnemen en de vrijheid van godsdienst in Jeruzalem, Judea en Samaria beperken. In het algemeen hebben de Palestijnse instellingen volledig gefaald in het aantonen dat zij niet bereid zijn en in staat om Joden en christenen de toegang tot hun heilige plaatsen in de gebieden die onder hun controle staan, met inbegrip van de Tempelberg – de heiligste plaats in het Jodendom, en een belangrijke plaats voor veel christenen, te garanderen. Integendeel, zij hebben openlijk gepleit voor de verwijdering van alle Joden uit deze gebieden. De huidige Israëlische overheid van “Oost-Jeruzalem”, aan de andere kant, heeft sinds 1967 bewezen dat het zowel bereid is, als in staat is, om op te komen voor de bescherming van de vrijheden van minderheidsgroepen, veel meer dan enig andere natie in het Midden-Oosten.
  1. Zij ondermijnt het VN-Handvest beginsel van het verbod van de overname van grondgebied door geweld, en de verplichting van alle VN-lidstaten zich te onthouden van daden van agressie en beslechting van hun geschillen op vreedzame wijze. De wapenstilstand lijnen van 1949 waren zelf het resultaat van de gewapende aanval op de jonge staat Israël op 15 mei 1948. De facto erkenning van deze lijnen als “grenzen” erkent de geldigheid van deze aanval op de staat Israël, en impliciet valideert het het consistent gebruik van gewapend geweld door de PLO om zijn doelen te bereiken.
  1. Ten slotte, zou het voorbijgaan aan het feit dat “Palestina” niet voldoet aan de criteria als Staat krachtens het internationaal recht. In het bijzonder, ontbreekt het “Palestina” volledig aan een effectief gezag dat in staat is Oost-Jeruzalem, Gaza en de Westelijke Jordaanoever te besturen. Totdat een dergelijke autoriteit is gevestigd kan de staat Palestina gewoon niet bestaan krachtens het internationaal recht, en het is de taak van de VN-lidstaten een dergelijke staat niet te erkennen totdat een rechtmatige autoriteit is vastgesteld.

Wij roepen de internationale gemeenschap op om deze beginselen te eerbiedigen, zodat de kans op daadwerkelijke verzoening en echte vrede mogelijk blijft. De enige weg naar vrede in Israël/Palestina in volledige overeenstemming met het volkenrecht is door middel van wederzijdse acceptatie, onderhandelingen en samenwerking–‐ niet door middel van eenzijdige maatregelen.

eu-obsessie

WESTERN CHARITIES ARE FUNNELING FUNDS TO TERRORISTS

dessert
by ELLIOTT ABRAMS August 13, 2016

The Palestinian Authority names parks and schools after murderers and broadcasts anti-Semitic hate.

I’ve written about a half-dozen times in the past about UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the U.N. agency that deals with Palestinians: here in 2014 and here in 2015, for example.

Simply put, UNRWA has long had employees who were sympathetic to Hamas and engaged in acts of anti-Semitism, but it has overlooked their actions and indeed often protected them. That appears to be the culture of the place.

In the past week, we’ve learned something new: that employees of other leading charitable and development agencies like World Vision and the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) may also be diverting funds to Hamas.

Israel has detained employees of both World Vision and UNDP. Australia has frozen contributions to World Vision’s Gaza programs until the entire matter can be sorted out, and the German offices of World Vision have frozen their own programs in Gaza.

Here’s the UNDP story:

Israel said Tuesday it had charged a United Nations staffer with helping the Islamist movement Hamas, the second indictment involving aid workers in Gaza in a week.

Engineer Waheed Borsh, who has worked for the UN Development Programme (UNDP) since 2003, was arrested on July 16 and charged in a civilian court in Israel on Tuesday, a government statement said. The UNDP said it was “greatly concerned” by the allegations while Hamas, which has run the Gaza Strip since 2007, denied any involvement.

The government said 38-year-old Borsh, from Jabaliya in northern Gaza, had been recruited by “a senior member of the Hamas terrorist organisation to redirect his work for UNDP to serve Hamas’s military interests.”

It said he had confessed to a number of accusations, including diverting rubble from a UNDP project in the coastal strip to a Hamas operation to build a jetty for its naval force. He is also alleged to have last year persuaded UNDP managers to focus home rebuilding efforts in areas where Hamas members lived, after pressure from the group.

08_11_Hamas_Terror_01Palestinian Mohammad el-Halabi, a manager of operations in the Gaza Strip for U.S.-based Christian charity World Vision, accused of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas in Gaza, at the Beersheba district court in southern Israel on August 4. Elliott Abrams writes that the Palestinians are not being held to global standards of morality. The Palestinian Authority names parks and schools after murderers and broadcasts anti-Semitic hate. DUDU GRUNSHPAN/REUTERS

And here is the World Vision story:

The Gaza head of the U.S.-based humanitarian aid organization World Vision funneled as much as $7 million a year over the past 10 years to Hamas’s terror activities, Israel’s domestic security agency said Thursday.

The Shin Bet said the aid group’s Gaza director, Mohammed el-Halabi, is an active figure in Hamas’s military wing. He was indicted by Israeli authorities Thursday, accused of diverting some 60 percent of World Vision’s annual budget for Gaza to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that rules the coastal enclave.

He was charged with transferring money and working with a terror group. Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union. Israel has fought three wars with Hamas since 2009.

In addition to the $7 million a year in funds transferred to Hamas coffers, Shin Bet said, Halabi also handed over to Hamas piles of cash — an additional $1.5 million a year. The Israelis also said he gave Hamas $800,000 taken from a United Kingdom donation to help build a Hamas military base. The money was designated for civilian projects in the Gaza Strip, Israeli authorities said.

The accused are innocent until proved guilty, although they are said to have confessed.

What we can now see clearly is that none of these organizations—UNDP, World Vision or UNRWA—was ever going to find the facts, fire people, clean out the Hamas agents and solve these problems. That will require the intervention of donors, and those steps in Germany and Australia are remarkable only in that they have not been followed universally.

According to Reuters, “Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) called the allegations ‘deeply troubling’ and said in a statement that it was ‘urgently seeking more information’ from World Vision and the Israeli authorities. ‘We are suspending the provision of further funding to World Vision for programs in the Palestinian Territories until the investigation is complete,’ it said.”

Quite right—but what about all the other donors?

The larger question is the culture of foreign aid to the Palestinians, much of which falls under what President George W. Bush once called (in an entirely different context) “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and some of which falls under the category of terrorism, threats and plain fear.

As to plain fear, look at the last line of the first story, about UNDP: “He is also alleged to have last year persuaded UNDP managers to focus home rebuilding efforts in areas where Hamas members lived, after pressure from the group.”

Perhaps Hamas made him an offer he could not refuse. “Pressure from the group” in this context may well mean his life was in danger.

The “soft bigotry” is the failure to hold the Palestinians to global standards. We see this, for example, when it comes to the toleration—by every government, including our own and that of Israel—of the way the Palestinian Authority glorifies terrorism and terrorists, naming parks and schools after murderers and broadcasting on official stations all kinds of anti-Semitic hate.

We see it in the failure to reform UNRWA. In these cases, World Vision and UNDP, we probably see both support for terrorism and plain fear.

It’s likely that some percentage of local employees in Gaza are sympathetic to Hamas—and it seems likely to me that administrators don’t want to know it.

If they came face to face with it, what would they do? Fire them? Turn them in to the Israelis? Start difficult and likely very long back-and-forth communications with headquarters, which likely doesn’t want to know and won’t thank the employee who insists on revealing the truth? Simpler to be blind to what is happening.

There’s some evidence of that in these remarks by an Israeli legal group:

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of Israeli legal advocacy groupShurat HaDin, said her organization warned World Vision four years ago its funding was being diverted to armed militant groups in Gaza. She said she discovered this while her group researched a lawsuit against the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which in the past was involved in attacking Israelis.

She said the PFLP used front organizations that appeared as beneficiaries on the World Vision web site. Darshan-Leitner said she is exploring suing World Vision in the United States for aiding and abetting terrorism. “Foreign NGOs want to give money to Gaza,” Darshan-Leitner said, even as they “ignore all the signs that their money is diverted to terrorism.”

Allegations are not proof and these cases need to go to trial. The sensible thing for donors to do is to freeze suspect programs immediately, as World Vision Germany and the government of Australia have done. The only way to solve this problem is for donors to withhold funding unless and until the independence of their programs can be assured.

Yes, the people of Gaza would suffer, but they would know why: because Hamas is more interested in its own terrorist actions than in the welfare of Gazans. Aid donors have turned a blind eye for far too long.

Elliott Abrams is senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://europe.newsweek.com/western-charities-are-funneling-funds-terrorists-489159?rm=eu

Bron: http://www.israelbehindthenews.com

 

Hungary Blasts EU with Common Sense on Muslim Migration

(Click here to learn why central and eastern European nations, Hungary chief among them, are wary of Islam.)

In the course of his speech, Orban made two important points that I habitually make, and which explain the true reasons behind the unprecedented rise of terrorism in EU nations: 1)Islam’s Rule of Numbers; 2) Western enablement of Islam.

In regards to the first point, Orban

issued a stunning rebuke to Mrs Merkel on migration, blaming recent terror attacks on the mas[s] influx of refugees…  Migration, he argued, “increases terrorism and crime” and “destroys national culture” in a thinly-veiled swipe at Mrs Merkel’s decision to roll out the red carpet to millions of people from the Middle East.

This is as simple as it gets.  Over three years ago, in May 2013, a Muslim man decapitated a British solider with a meat cleaver in the middle of a busy London street. I explained it as follows:

It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency:  The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear….

Thus as Muslim populations continue growing in Western nations, count on growing, and brazen, numbers of attacks on infidels—beheadings and such.

And so it has been. While EU leaders and Western media scurry to find pretexts to explain the rise of terrorism—from “Muslim grievances” to wars for “money” and “natural resources,” as Pope Francis recently claimed after Muslims slaughtered a priest in France—reality is much simpler: Islam promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims.

Accordingly, wherever Islam is in power, such as the Muslim world for example, non-Muslims are grossly persecuted—and not just by ISIS, but by “regular Muslims”—from heads of state, to police, to educators, down to the mob.

If Muslims persecute non-Muslims where they are strong, is it any wonder that, as Muslim numbers grow in Europe, as they have in recent times, attacks on non-Muslims grow with them?  Or, as Orban put it, Muslim immigration “increases terrorism and crime.”

The Hungarian prime minister’s second important point agrees with another point I’ve been repeatedly making, most recently last week in an article titled, “Eject Western Traitors, Beat Islamic Terrorists”:

Those who seek to reverse this situation [growing Islamic terrorism] must begin by embracing a simple fact: Islam is not terrorizing the West because it can but because it is being allowed to….

Today [as opposed to historically], Muslim terrorists, rapists, and criminals are not entering the West against its will but because of it….

Orban agrees:

We must make it clear that our problem is not in Mecca, but in Brussels [capital of the EU]. The obstacle for us is not Islam, but the bureaucrats in Brussels.  We would be able to deal with Islam if we were allowed to deal with it in the way we think we should.

Simply put, whatever Islam is or teaches—whether it is violent or not, whatever it does “over there” in Mecca and elsewhere—is not the immediate problem.

Rather, the immediate problem is that EU “bureaucrats in Brussels” are imposing Islam “over here,” or, as I had more bluntly concluded:

Western policymakers who insist that Islam is peaceful (despite all evidence otherwise) and that the West is “obligated” to receive Muslim migrants, are 100% responsible for the daily victims of jihad, most recently an octogenarian priest….  The war begins with them.  Kick them and their suicidal policies out, and watch Islamic terror on Western soil fizzle out.

It’s all very simple: More Muslims equals more violence against non-Muslims.  This formula acknowledges that not all Muslims, or even the majority, are inclined to acts of terrorism.  However, as Muslim numbers grow in general, it’s only natural that the numbers of “radicals” grow with them (e.g., 10 % of 100 is only 10, but 10% of a 1,000 is 100).

And the immediate issue isn’t whether or why Islam is violent; the immediate issue is that Western leaders are the ones enabling and importing it into the West.

It still remains to be seen if Orban is right “that other European nations would come around to Hungary’s no-nonsense way of thinking as the reality of regular terror attacks set in.”

Bron: http://www.raymondibrahim.com

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO AMERICA AND EUROPE

Saturday, July 30, 2016

⚜The Duke of The North⚜

Dear America and Europe,

What Israel does is in Judea and Samaria and specifically what you call Area C is not up to you. You no longer have a say.

You have lost all moral clarity.

The anti-Semitism sometimes not overt, but often virulent brewing within the societies of Europe and now America has made it more clear that Israel must reject the EU and American ideas for a two state solution.

In the end, only Israel can decide where her borders will be.

Since the Palestinians refuse to sit down and negotiate peace based on the “Two State Solution” after being encouraged time and again by the Americams, Europeans, Russians and the Quartet they have now forfeited their rights in Judea and Samaria.

This is clearly not Israel’s fault as the Prime Minister of Israel has called time and again almost on a weekly basis for face to face negotiations to find a comprise, solution for peace.

So as American Presidemt Lyndon Baines Johnson put it, Israel most go it alone!

The French Prime Minister Francois Holland wishes to hold an international conference to force, kick start “Peace Negotiations” between Israel and the Arab Occupying Force (Palestinians).

Yet, this week in another feeble attempt at delegitimizing Israel, Mahmoud Abbas in place of sitting down and negotiating and accepting the invitation of the Prime Minister of Israel. He decided instead to announce he was going to sue England over the Balfour Declaration. He claims the British are responsible for all of Israel’s atrocities.

What atrocities?

Maybe Mahmoud Abbas has forgotten that Britain fought with the Trans-Jordanian (the Arab side of the war) army in 1948 to destroy Israel.

The idea alone should tell anyone interested in peace that the Palestinians are not interested at all in peace, statehood or mutual recognition.

What is clear, as always, is that the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people do not wish to take responsibility for their actions.

Abbas can cry all he wants about the Balfour declaration, but he cannot re-write history in totality.

The truth and Abbas knows this better than anyone is that the Arabs rejected the Two State Solution and have done so since 1948.

Why?

Why do the Palestinians reject peace, stability and statehood?

Why does the leadership of the Arabs who are occupying Jewish land in Judea and Samaria continually reject compromise and mutual recognition?

Racism, the oldest form of racism, anti-Semitism!

Palestinian nationalism has never been about setting up a “home” for the Palestinian people. This is why there still refugee camps in Judea and Samaria that are under the control of the Palestinian Authority(it is sick that the world has allowed the Palestinian Authority to do this).

Palestinian nationalism has always been about blaming all of the Arab worlds failures on Israel with the intent of destroying Israel.

Racism is a mind set of hatred that does not start in the latter stages of life, it must be spoon fed from birth for it to work.

For instance the racism that allowed the horrible and vile system of slavery in the Southern States of America was ingrained into the white population from birth. White Americans in the South, both poor and rich were taught from birth that they were superior as human beings to Blacks.

The same goes with the Arab Occupying Force. Palestinian Jew hatred starts from pre-school.

The forefather of the Palestinian people, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a Nazi SS operative who spent World War Two with Adolf Hitler raising SS battalions for the Fuhrer and devising his own final solution for the Jews of Israel.

This is not theory, this is FACT.

Today the Germans do everything to distance themselves from their horrible past. Yes, they take responsibility for their peoples actions but they call their former leaders demons.

Not so the Palestinians. To them Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Nazi SS operative who had the blood of millions of Jews on his hands is a hero, a man to look up to.

Here we have the core of why there is no peace.

Attaining Peace has nothing to do with Jewish neighborhoods, buildings or the Balfour Declaration.

Israel has proven that if true lasting peace is there for the taking i.e. Egypt and Jordan, Israel will tear down Jewish neighborhoods as they did in Amit in the Sinai Peninsula and as Ariel Sharon did when Israel uprooted Jewish towns that had been rooted for forty years in Gaza.

Peace has been unattainable because the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are just an extension of Nazi Germany. They have been taught since their 20th. Century creation to be Jew Hating anti-Semites, to kill the Jew wherever they find them.

The Jewish Nation through history (the same history that created both the Christian and Muslim religions) through science (archeology) and through its unbroken continued presence in Israel has proven it is the indigenous people of Israel.

The Arabs on the other hand have always been a conquering, imperialistic nation, especially;lay in the Levantine.

Arabs are not indigenous to Israel.

Born in the sand dunes of the Arabian peninsula, far from the Levant, it was only after Mohammad appropriated Jewish history from the Jews who lived in Arabia and made it fit his oppressive, supremacist policies thus creating the political movement of Islam did the Arabs leave Arabia.

Islam which is a fascist, conquer all political movement meshed perfectly with Nazism later in history when Haj Amin al-Husseini merged them to create Palestinian Nationalism.

The majority of Palestinian society today supports violence against Israelis.

Palestinian leadership and the society below it have called for the ethnic cleansing, genocide and then annihilation of Israel.

This makes sense inside of a Nazi society.

Today Israel has the ability and technology to kill every single Palestinian in Gaza and Judea and Samaria if it wanted, but it doesn’t even though this society continually tries to destroy Israel through war and diplomatic terrorism.

If the roles were reversed, we all know the genocide that would happen to Israel. The Palestinians aren’t even ashamed to say this loudly on TV and in front of crowds of hundreds of thousands.

When Israelis send their children to summer camps they learn sports, science and math. When Palestinians send their children to camps they learn to hate and kill Jews.

This is why there has never been peace.

Three times the Palestinians have been offered statehood, three times they have turned it down.

The first time was in 1948, the United Nations Partition Plan which was accepted by the Yishuv (the Jewish government in pre-State Israel ) and rejected by the Arabs. In this instance the Arabs did not just reject peace, they started a war in which their leaders promised to make the water of the Mediterranean Sea red with Jewish blood. Again, this is fact, this is but one of the vile promises from the Arab leadership.

In 2000 the Clinton proposal offering full statehood was accepted by Ehud Barak and rejected by Yassar Arafat. Again, Arafat believing his own lies felt Israeli society would buckle, so he started another war. He failed to realize that Israel, the indigenous society, would never buckle or fail.

In 2008 Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinian Authority full statehood in his Peace Plan, which was formally rejected by Mahmoud Abbas.

How on earth anyone can even attempt to assign any type of blame towards Israel is anti-Semitism, period.

Shame on this world, the holocaust was not enough for you!

Shame on this world for letting this Nazi society perpetuate the Shoah against Israel with impunity.

Shame on the world for not FORCING the Arab Nation to take responsibility for the crimes it committed together with Nazi Germany. Oil money has afforded the Arabs much.

Shame on Europe for exporting Islamic Terrorism to Israel. The EU by giving aid to the Palestinian Authority long after Israel gave proof to the EU that EU Tax Euros were being used to produce school books calling for the destruction of Israel.

Shame on the left for abandoning its ethos for Jew hatred.

The world must be reminded that it was the Palestinians who brought suicide bombings, plane high jacking and now the lone wolf knife attack and the lone wolf hit and run attack to the international stage.

Yes, Americans and Europeans you can thank the Palestinians for these inventions.

It was fine when it happened in Israel but now that it is happening in Europe and America it is terrorism.

When it comes to America the Palestinians are about to have a serious rude awakening.

The next President of the United States of America will not be so kind to the Palestinians as Barak Obama.

Whether it be Donald Trump who sees the Palestinians as enemies.

Or Hillary Clinton who was rebuked by Abbas after getting an Israeli Prime Minister to agree to a freeze in building in Jewish Neighborhoods of Judea and Samaria for the first time in history.

Hillary Clinton who was the First Lady and saw first hand her husbands amazing peace deal rejected by the Palestinian leadership, watching the Palestinian leadership spit in the face of the American President.

The question is Europe.

Is it possible for Europe and the European Union to finally wake up and realize the Palestinians are nothing more then an extension of the Nazi Party?

America and Europe must realize quickly, Israel will do whatever it needs to do to survive and it is not up to America or Europe to tell us how to behave or where to set our borders.

We are a sovereign nation with full membership in the United Nations.

You no longer have a say!

Bron: http://www.maccabeeisrael.blogspot.nl

Call upon European Parliament for resolution against BDS and all forms of anti-Semitism

gftUHixWXSElFFE-800x450-noPad

We call upon the European Parliament in Brussels to take the moral leadership in the international fight against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which demonizes Israel and legitimizes anti-Israel rhetoric whilst advocating openly for Israel’s elimination.

In recent months, leaders from across the political spectrum, from the Liberal government of Canada to the Conservative government in Britain, have recognised  that boycotts against Israel are illegal under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and GATT agreements.  Moreover, the French High Court has decreed that BDS constitutes incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or group of persons because of their origin or their membership in an ethnic group, nation, a race, or religion.

“Now the time has come for the European Parliament to take one step further and condemn those acts that have historically preceded violence and pogroms; namely boycotts and the singling out of Jewish businesses, which today are organized under the banner of BDS,” said Tomas Sandell, Founding Director of the European Coalition for Israel.

The words ‘NEVER AGAIN’ have to be followed by actions, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her speech at  the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism (ICCA) conference in Berlin in March. Surveys show that antisemitic incidents rise after BDS activities on university campuses and colleges.

As citizens and organisations from many EU countries, we call upon the European Parliament to take a firm stand against BDS and make clear that discriminating against Israel is illegal and will not be tolerated by the EU.

Thank you.

Sign Petition!!!

Co-signatory organisations:
Christians for Israel International, The Netherlands
Israel Europe Freedom Center, Austria
EIPA- Europe Israel Public Affairs, Belgium
African Chamber of Commerce Scandinavia, Denmark
The Alliance for Peace in the Middle East, Belgium
Freundschaft Deutschland-Israel, Germany
All With Us – Tous Avec Nous, France
Association Shalam, France
Christen an der Seite Israels – Österreich, Austria
Christenen voor Israël België, Belgium
Cristiani per Israele, Italy
Pro-Israel-Initiative NEVERAGAIN, Germany
Belgian Coalition for Israel, Belgium
European Apostolic Leaders, Norway
Confederation of Friends of Israel- Scotland, UK
Portugueses por Israel, Portugal
Anagenisis Free Methodist Church, Greece
Bulgarian Christian Friends of Israel, Bulgaria
Victory Christian Center, Sofia, Bulgaria

The EU is Coming to Close Down Your Free Speech

by Douglas Murray
June 11, 2016 at 5:00 am


  • The German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel wanted to know how Facebook’s founder could help her restrict the free speech of Europeans, on Facebook and on other social media.
  • Then, on May 31, the European Union announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube.
  • It was clear from the outset that Facebook has a definitional problem as well as a political bias in deciding on these targets. What is Facebook’s definition of ‘racism’? What is its definition of ‘xenophobia’? What, come to that, is its definition of ‘hate speech’?
  • Of course the EU is a government — and an unelected government at that — so its desire not just to avoid replying to its critics — but to criminalise their views and ban their contrary expressions — is as bad as the government of any country banning or criminalising the expression of opinion which is not adulatory of the government.
  • People must speak up — must speak up now, and must speak up fast — in support of freedom of speech before it is taken away from them. It is, sadly, not an overstatement to say that our entire future depends on it.

It is nine months since Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg tried to solve Europe’s migrant crisis. Of course having caused the migrant crisis by announcing the doors of Europe as open to the entire third-world, Angela Merkel particularly would have been in a good position actually to try to solve this crisis.

But the German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel was interested in Facebook.

When seated with Mark Zuckerberg, Frau Merkel wanted to know how the Facebook founder could help her restrict the free speech of Europeans, on Facebook and on other social media.Speaking to Zuckerberg at a UN summit last September (and not aware that the microphones were picking her up) she asked what could be done to restrict people writing things on Facebook which were critical of her migration policy. ‘Are you working on this?’ she asked him. ‘Yeah’, Zuckerberg replied.

In the months that followed, we learned that this was not idle chatter over lunch. In January of this year, Facebook launched its ‘Initiative for civil courage online’, committing a million Euros to fund non-governmental organisations in its work to counter ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ posts online. It also promised to remove ‘hate speech’ and expressions of ‘xenophobia’ from the Facebook website.

It was clear from the outset that Facebook has a definitional problem as well as a political bias in deciding on these targets. What is Facebook’s definition of ‘racism’? What is its definition of ‘xenophobia’? What, come to that, is its definition of ‘hate speech’? As for the political bias, why had Facebook not previously considered how, for instance, to stifle expressions of open-borders sentiments on Facebook? There are many people in Europe who have argued that the world should have no borders and that Europe in particular should be able to be lived in by anyone who so wishes. Why have people expressing such views on Facebook (and there are many) not found their views censored and their posts removed? Are such views not ‘extreme’?

One problem with this whole area — and a problem which has clearly not occurred to Facebook — is that these are questions which do not even have the same answer from country to country. Any informed thinker on politics knows that there are laws that apply in some countries that do not — and often should not — apply in others. Contrary to the views of many transnational ‘progressives’, the world does not have one set of universal laws and certainly does not have universal customs. Hate-speech laws are to a very great extent an enforcement of the realm of customs.

As such it is unwise to enforce policies on one country from another country without at least a very deep understanding of that countries traditions and laws. Societies have their own histories and their own attitudes towards their most sensitive matters. For instance in Germany, France, the Netherlands and some other European countries there are laws on the statute books relating to the publication of Nazi materials and the propagation of material praising (or even representing) Adolf Hitler or denying the Holocaust. The German laws forbidding large-scale photographic representations of Hitler may look ridiculous from London, but may look less ridiculous from Berlin. Certainly it would take an enormously self-confident Londoner unilaterally to prescribe a policy to change this German law.

To understand things which are forbidden, or able to be forbidden, in a society, you would have to have an enormous confidence in your understanding of that country’s taboos and history, as well as its speech codes and speech laws. A ban on the veneration of communist idols, for instance, may seem sensible, tasteful or even desirable in one of the many countries which suffered under communism, wish to minimise the suffering of the victims and prevent the resurrection of such an ideology. Yet a universal ban on images or texts which extolled the communist murderers of tens of millions of people would also make criminals of the thousands of Westerners — notably Americans — who enjoy wearing Che Guevara T-shirts or continue their adolescent fantasy that Fidel Castro is an icon of freedom. Free societies generally have to permit the widest possible array of opinion. But they will have different ideas of where legitimate expression ends and where incitement begins.

So for Facebook and others to draw up their own attempt at a unilateral policy of what constitutes hate-speech would be presumptuous even if it were not — as it is — clearly politically biased from the outset. So it is especially lamentable that this movement to an enforced hate-speech code gained additional force on May 31, when the European Union announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube. Of course, the EU is a government — and an unelected government at that — so its desire not just to avoid replying to its critics — but to criminalise their views and ban their contrary expressions — is as bad as the government of any country banning or criminalising the expression of opinion which is not adulatory of the government.

That these are not abstract issues but ones exceedingly close to home has been proven – as though it needed proving – by the decision of Facebook to suspend the account of Gatestone’s Swedish expert, Ingrid Carlqvist. In the last year Sweden took in between 1 and 2% additional people to its population. Similar numbers are expected this year. As anyone who has studied the situation will know, this is a society heading towards a breakdown of its own creation, caused (at the most benign interpretation) by its own ‘open-hearted’ liberalism.

Countries with welfare models such as Sweden’s cannot take in such numbers of people without major financial challenges. And societies with a poor integration history cannot possibly integrate such vast numbers of people when they come at such speed. As anyone who has travelled around there can tell, Sweden is a country under enormous and growing strain.

There is a phase in waking up to such change which constitutes denial. The EU, the Swedish government and a vast majority of the Swedish press have no desire to hear critiques of a policy which they have created or applauded; the consequences will one day be laid at their door and they wish to postpone that day, even indefinitely. So instead of tackling the fire they started, they have decided to attack those who are pointing to the fact that they have set the building they are standing in on fire. In such a situation it becomes not just a right but a duty of free people to point out facts even if other people might not want to hear them. Only a country sliding towards autocracy and chaos, with a governing class intent on avoiding blame, could possibly allow the silencing of the few people pointing out what they can clearly see in front of them.

People must speak up — and speak up now, and speak up fast — in support of freedom of speech before it is taken away from them, and in support of journalists such as Carlqvist, and against the authorities who would silence all of us. It is, sadly, not an overstatement to say that our entire future depends on it.

Douglas Murray is a current events analyst and commentator based in London.

Bron: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org

gatestone-logo

Public Support for the European Union Plunges

“The EU policy elites are in panic”