(challahhuakbar) in January, Bulgaria tried to hush reports that suggested that Jews and Israelis were being targeted in the country. According to Haaretz, “Several internet sites in Bulgaria reports that government authorities ignored warnings and alerts by Israeli and Russian sources over a possible attack.”
note: we don’t know is Ghezali was the killer yet. There is a lot of disinfo right now
(timesofisrael.com)Terrorist said to have been a Swedish citizen with a history of Muslim extremist activities. Ghezali was reportedly a Swedish citizen, with Algerian and Finnish origins. He had been held at the US’s Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on Cuba from 2002 to 2004, having previously studied at a Muslim religious school and mosque in Britain, and traveled to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He was also reportedly among 12 foreigners captured trying to cross into Afghanistan in 2009.(weeklystandard.com)In late 2001, Ghezali, a Swedish national, had been detained during the battle at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, handed over to the American military, and sent to the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. According to his lawyers, he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he spoke none of the local languages, Ghezali told his captors, in the midst of the Taliban’s retreat into the mountainous hinterlands of Afghanistan, he had crossed that country’s border with Pakistan to study Islam.After an intense lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson–and a vague promise that the country’s intelligence services would keep a watchful eye on him–Ghezali was delivered to Sweden (on the government’s private Gulfstream jet). The Swedish daily (Dagens Nyhete) noted that Ghezali had achieved “rock star status” upon returning to his homeland, a native victim of America’s rapacious imperialism. And after two-plus years in isolation, the emotionally fragile former prisoner would be happy to discover “that a majority of Swedes were glad that he was home.”
The five Israelis killed in Wednesday’s terror attack are Amir Menashe, 27; Itzik Kolengi, 27; Maor Harush, 26; Elior Priess, 26 and Kochava Shriki, 42, Israel announced Thursday evening.
The five fatalities from the attack were set to be flown home on Thursday evening. A ceremony was being planned for their arrival, with Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov set to represent the government.
(Israel releases the names of the five victims of the Burgas terror attack | The Times of Israel)
Here is just the first sentence:
As the Quartet celebrates the resumption of bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in Jordan this month, a record number of Palestinians find themselves out in the cold this winter due to illegal home demolitions by Israeli authorities in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
Lets examine this sentence.
Its main point – repeated in its press release from December, released along with some twenty other NGOs – is that “a record number of Palestinians ” are displaced.
What is this record number?
The figures show that since the beginning of 2011 more than 500 Palestinian essential structures were destroyed in the OPT, with over 1,000 Palestinians displaced — doubling the number displaced over the same period in 2010, and the highest figure since at least 2005.
Amnesty’s definition of a “record” is apparently “the most in the last seven years.” That is not what the word “record” means.
And note that they aren’t saying 500 homes, but 500 “essential structures.” These include illegally built wells – wells that threaten the entire region’s water supply. Amnesty is claiming that Palestinian Arabs have the right to damage everyone’s access to water, and Israel has no right to stop them in territory they define as “occupied.”
But if Israel is occupying the territory, as Amnesty claims, then Israel’s responsibility is precisely to administer natural resources according to the Hague Convention – which presumably includes water.
Certainly, under the laws of occupation, Israel would be obligated to continue applying Jordanian law that applied to the areas before 1967, and it seems difficult to believe that Jordan did not enforce any zoning laws in the territory it occupied or that it tolerated the wanton illegal construction of housing. Amnesty pointedly does not address that issue – can any (Arab) who desires build anywhere they want in occupied territory?
Now, are the people who previously lived in these illegal structures out in the cold? Are they homeless? The NGOs give no evidence in that regard. This is Amnesty’s hyperbole meant to demonize Israel and they have no basis in fact.
The real fact is that in 2011, the Palestinian Authority built or was expected to build 33,822 dwelling units. In just that one year. Israeli “record demolitions” are less than one percent of the total new construction last year. (In fact, the PA constructed more new units than Israelis did -not in the territories, but in Israel itself!)
And yet again, Amnesty – along with the UN and every other NGO – refers to the territories as “Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
When international law scholar Eugene Kontorovich spoke at NYU last month, I asked him a question afterwards about Jordanian and Palestinian Arab claims to the West Bank. He stated:
If you think that the competing claims to the West Bank are Israel and its previous occupant, Jordan, then you would think that Israel would enjoy undisturbed title, and then this group of Palestinians organized themselves to challenge that title, it would have to be a retroactive challenge, which is the difficulty of it.
When Newt Gingrich said that the Palestinians were an “invented people,” he was much criticized. Some people said, and I think quite rightly, that even if they are invented, it doesn’t really matter, because you can invent a people – people can be invented. If a group of people decide to think of themselves as a nation, that can actually have real force. Who’s to stop a people from inventing themselves?
I completely agree with that. There is nothing wrong with being an invented people; every people is in some sense invented.
The only question is: what’s the date of that invention? If it is a post-’67 phenomenon, it seems hard to understand how that can make territory, whose status changed in 1967, “Palestinian Territory” retroactively.
I have never seen any real legal opinion that describes exactly how Palestinian Arabs can be described as the presumed legal owners of the West Bank. As with the UN, Amnesty seems to be using the term “Occupied Palestinian Territories” as a catchphrase, without any legal basis. It has become part of the discourse based on repetition and wishful thinking, not based on fact. Calling Area C and perhaps Area B “occupied” is defensible from a legal standpoint, but not calling them “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
This single sentence in the Huffington Post shows four separate examples of how Amnesty is less interested in truth than in demonizing Israel. For people who believe that Amnesty is the paragon of impartiality, this should be troubling indeed.
Somehow I don’t think Amnesty International is going to be watching the World Series
I have my differences with G W Bush myself (for the opposite reasons)… but I find this amusing. It is awesome to see how far gone this organization is. It was rather recently that I merely disagreed with them, but still respected them… after all I used to like some of the songs by U2 and Bono… and The Chocolate War (which is dedicated to Amnesty International) is one of my favorite movies. It was with great pain that I disagreed with this group… but the more the facts came out, the more I realized that Amnesty International was beyond the pale.
(NGO Monitor) JERUSALEM – While welcoming the agreement to release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as an important humanitarian act, Professor Gerald M. Steinberg, president of human rights watchdog NGO Monitor, noted that this episode further exposes the moral bankruptcy of international human rights mechanisms.
“Throughout the five years of Shalit’s captivity in Gaza, during which every human rights obligation was blatantly violated, organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), Gisha, and the International Red Cross demonstrated very little interest,” Steinberg stated. “Similarly, the report of the UN Fact-Finding Commission on the Gaza War, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, downplayed Shalit’s captivity in blatant violation of international law. This moral stain will never be erased.”
In addition, NGO Monitor noted that the agreement to release hundreds of terrorists, responsible for heinous crimes, and tried and convicted according to due process of law, highlights the continued erosion of international legal principles. Instead of serving their time for these convictions, the murderers have been freed under extreme duress and compulsion, adding to the incentives for similar actions in the future. Organizations dedicated to human rights have an obligation to condemn such immoral extortion.
Gilad Shalit. It was worth it! 1000 terrorists that Israelis humanely have to pay for versus one hostage that the NGO community was ignoring and was abused is completely worth it. further it allows the Israelis to now shoot those they had to care for before. There is no loss here. Had Bibi waited a month there would of been no Egypt as we know it to negotiate with. It is a hard pill to swallow, but think of the outrageous torture Gilad would of endured that Amnesty International and the Red Cross would of ignored. it’s another example of how comparing the numbers is irrelevant. If we were to compare numbers there would be no Israel at all. We can only compare numbers when we make the assumption that the enemy captives are treated like Israeli captives. This would be a prime example of denying the correlative.
I’m sure you are tired of me pointing this out again… but I don’t understand why anyone would call the behavior of the IDF excessive when they showed up on the ship with paint guns and only switched to bullets when there was serious violence on the ship. One of the IDF soldiers had his ear cut off. What was excessive at that juncture? defending your life is excessive? One thing the Palmer Report pointed out was that the blockade was legal… (of course that was just ignored by Amnesty above), but if the blockade was really found to be legal then why didn’t anyone in the world flinch when Turkey announced that their Navy would give a military escort to the next flotilla? If the blockade is legal then the threat of a military escort is an act of war. Instead of this game of smoke and mirrors, Amnesty is going to have to owe up to some reality sooner or later because there are unbiased third parties and they will lose the ear of these people. The photos and video from the flotilla are hard to obscure. There is a limit to how much spin you can put on the event. You would think that Israel’s enemies would be well advised to move on to the next event, because logic leads to proof of Israel’s righteousness on the flotilla issue. Turkey thinks the blockade’s legality is an opinion, but sea law just doesn’t work that way. What does sound opinionated is when soldiers show up on a hostile ship with paint guns and are attacked by people out of Quentin Tarentino film with actions like cutting an IDF soldier’s ear off… and then Amnesty and the UN call the IDF’s response excessive. I sometimes think this is all just designed to piss us off for the sake of controversy… and possibly if we ignore it… it will just go away, because the claims are so hypocritical that one might think it is all jesting.
unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial involved with Amnesty International event.May 14, 2011
Daoud Abdullah, who is the director of MEMO as well as deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and a senior researcher for the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Palestinian Return Centre, has two major claims to fame. The first is his lead of the MCB’s boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK. The second is his signing of the Istanbul Declaration which potentially endorsed terrorism against British service personnel.
Senior editor of MEMO is Ibrahim Hewitt, who also heads ‘Interpal’ – the charity which has been the subject of three investigations by the Charity Commission and named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial in the United States, as well as having been banned in Israel because of its Hamas connections.
That Amnesty would even consider hosting an event organized by such extremists is highly disturbing and, as with their alliance with Moazzam Begg, a supporter of the Taliban, demonstrates how far the once respected international human rights group has fallen.
We ask that you consider signing the following petition asking Amnesty to cancel the event.