Pommy whingers and haters of Israel seem to want to stop Israel from defending itself by opposing the shipping of vital components for their defence forces.
William Pollack discusses Israel in the wake of the killings by Palestinian terroristsÂ in a synagogue in Jerusalem.
Just days ago, Barack Obama, the Commander in Chief and honorary Islamic Protectorate, stated the savage beheading of yet another American by ISIS, Peter Kassig, was not representative of â€śany faith, LEAST of all Muslim.â€ť If Muslims are the â€śleastâ€ť representatives of worldwide terrorism, whom might we expect to be more prominent, Lutherans?
Days ago and now vanished from the headlines, four Jewish worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue and a security guard were viciously attacked by Palestinian MUSLIM terrorists armed with meat cleavers, axes and guns. President Obamaâ€™s all-too-common response was to make a moral equivalence between Israel, a nation of laws, and a band of cold-blooded murderers. The Palestinian Authorityâ€™s leadership response was typically indifferent, coughing up a statement of regret that â€śanyâ€ť citizens were harmed, Â then blaming Israel for everything under the sun.
Reminiscent of the Palestinians celebrating dead Americans following the 9/11 attack on the United States, Palestinians handed out candy in honor of killing men dressed in prayer shawls. This horrific event followed weeks of savage Palestinian attacks on Israelis, including ramming cars into bystanders. One of the numerous casualties was a child.
The United Nations, a wasteful and irrelevant piece of real estate, paused momentarily from their relentless condemnation of everything Israel to offer stoic regret. With the notable exception of the sincere and meaningful comments by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, worldwide statements of sympathy for the slain innocents were matched by the obligatory nod for more peace talks; as if Israel has a Palestinian peace partner; which they donâ€™t.
Ever heard the Old Testament phrase of an eye for an eye?
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This saying of Jesus is generally interpreted as criticism of the Old Testament teaching, and often taken as implying that “an eye for an eye” encourages excessive vengeance rather than an attempt to limit it.
The Qur’an mentions the “eye for an eye” concept as being ordained for the Children of Israel.The principle of Lex talionis in Islam is Qasas (Ů‚ŘµŘ§Řµ) “O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution (Qasas) for those murdered â€“ the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But whoever overlooks from his brother anything, then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that will have a painful punishment.” Shi’ite countries that use Islamic Sharia law apply the “eye for an eye” rule literally.
A court in Iran has ruled that a man who blinded a woman with acid after she spurned his marriage proposals will also be blinded with acid.
The ruling was reported in Iranian newspapers on Thursday.
The punishment is legal under the Islamic Sharia principle of qias, equivalence or analogy, which allows retribution for violent crimes.
The court also ordered the attacker, 27-year-old Majid Movahedi, to pay compensation to the victim.
The acid attack took place in 2004. The victim, Ameneh Bahrami, went to Spain for surgery to reconstruct her face but efforts to restore her sight failed.
The ruling was a response to her plea to the court in the Iranian capital Tehran for retribution.
-BBC News 28 November 2008
You may be interested to know that in the end the victim did not get her retribution.
From the post about ISIS, Olivia Pierson writes:
I’m so glad you put this up Cameron. I have to say I felt a twinge of disgust when I read Andrea Vance’s op-ed; again with the staggeringly militant ignorance of NZ journalism on geopolitical issues which deeply matter!
Firstly – Vance says; “In the last two decades, Iraq has not been far off the military radar.
Military intervention to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was builtÂ on a fallacy, years of slaughter failed to remove the threat of terrorism or install democracy.”
The removal of the psychopathic Saddam Hussein Baathist regime was inevitable and appallingly long-overdue, a reality which Tony Blair knew along with President Bush – hence the Anglo-American coalition to overthrow it. The questions around WMD was only ONE of the reasons which put this coalition on the right side of history.
According to the United Nations, there are four egregious acts where breaking even one of them, can and should result in regime change; Saddam broke all four:
1 – committing genocide (against the Kurds),
2 – the invasion of a neighbouring state (Iran & Kuwait),
3 – proliferating nuclear weapons (Saddam himself boasted that Iraq was on its way to acquiring a centrifuge (we now know he only had a blueprint) and remember the 550 metric tons of yellow cake airlifted out of Iraq and shipped straight to Canada in 2008? Should the world have just taken a violent psychopath’s word that the enriched uranium was intended for peaceful purposes only?)
4 – aiding and abetting terrorism (Saddam was a renowned and prolific supporter of terrorism to many Islamist militant organisations, among them Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who moved freely between Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan and Iraq – a fact which obviates Saddam’s blessing.) Read more »
Six Iranians who appeared in a video singing along to the American pop songÂ HappyÂ have been given suspended sentences of six months in prison and 91 lashes for obscene behaviour. Â Read more »
Tablet has an essay about the media manipulations in reporting the Israel/Gaza conflict.
It is by Â Matti Friedman who isÂ aÂ former AP correspondent who explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters. What she writes echoes what I saw in Israel.
The lasting importance of this summerâ€™s war, I believe, doesnâ€™t lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourseâ€”namely, a hostile obsession with Jews. The key to understanding this resurgence is not to be found among jihadi webmasters, basement conspiracy theorists, or radical activists. It is instead to be found first among the educated and respectable people who populate the international news industry; decent people, many of them, and some of them my former colleagues.
While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human beings in positions of responsibilityâ€”in this case, journalists and editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction that is occurring in that professionâ€”my professionâ€”here in Israel.
She looks at the disproportionate staffing and reporting on Israel compared with other countries.
Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the â€śArab Springâ€ť eventually erupted.
To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The APâ€™s editors believed, that is, that Syriaâ€™s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I donâ€™t mean to pick on the APâ€”the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.
The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 livesâ€”that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of Americaâ€™s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.
News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 womenÂ murdered in Pakistan last yearÂ (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoingÂ erasure of TibetÂ by the Chinese Communist Party, theÂ carnage in CongoÂ (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or theÂ Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012:Â 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners ofÂ IndiaÂ orÂ Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.
That is an indictment in itself right there. That is a massive news imbalance. Â Â Read more »
Seems Israel isn’t the only one tired of radical Islamists, as Arab nations normally opposing to the on again, off again conflict turned a blind eye to Israel pummeling the extremists launching rockets at Israel. Egypt’s own military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood and began a crackdown on the organisation hostile to Zionism in 2013:
CAIRO â€” Battling Palestinian militants in Gaza two years ago, Israel found itself pressed from all sides by unfriendly Arab neighbors to end the fighting.
Not this time.
After the military ouster of the Islamist government in Cairo last year, Egypt has led a new coalition of Arab states â€” including Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates â€” that has effectively lined up with Israel in its fight against Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip. That, in turn, may have contributed to the failure of the antagonists to reach a negotiated cease-fire even after more than three weeks of bloodshed.
â€śThe Arab statesâ€™ loathing and fear of political Islam is so strong that it outweighs their allergy to Benjamin Netanyahu,â€ť the prime minister of Israel, said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Wilson Center in Washington and a former Middle East negotiator under several presidents.
â€śI have never seen a situation like it, where you have so many Arab states acquiescing in the death and destruction in Gaza and the pummeling of Hamas,â€ť he said. â€śThe silence is deafening.â€ť Read more »
Welcome to part three of my series of posts where I invite you to compare and contrast what happened in the past with what is happening now.
Lets look at how Germany kept its preparations for war hidden from the world prior to WWII and what Hamas has successfully hidden from the world until now.
Jon Voight is standing up to the Hollywood luvvies who have signed an letter denouncing Israel.
He tells a few home truths…I wonder if his daughter, Angelina Jolie, will take pause to read what her father has written.
My name isÂ Jon VoightÂ and I am more than angry, I am heartsick that people likeÂ Penelope CruzÂ andÂ Javier BardemÂ could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused.
They are obviously ignorant of the whole story of Israelâ€™s birth, when in 1948 the Jewish people were offered by the UN a portion of the land originally set aside for them in 1921, and the Arab Palestinians were offered the other half. The Arabs rejected the offer, and the Jews accepted, only to be attacked by five surrounding Arab countries committed to driving them into the sea. But the Israelis won. The Arabs tried it again in 1967, and again in 1973, launching a sneak attack on the holiest Jewish holiday. Each time the Jews prevailed but not without great loss of life.Â And when Israel was not fighting a major war, it was defending itself against terrorist campaigns. Â Read more »
Recent news items have highlighted a feminist agenda in New Zealand. It is not a middle of the road agenda but an extreme one, that some would refer to as Militant or Feminazi.
We have a women’s group applauding Cunliffe apologising for being a man because some men in New Zealand abuse women. We have a young activist being used as a political pawn in order to attack National but also to add gravitas to a proposed law change to shift the burden of proof in rape cases. A law change that turns our entire system on its head as the assumption of innocence until proven guilty would be taken away.
So why is all this ok? It seems that if it is good for women then we dare not question or criticize it. Well I am criticizing it and let me tell you why.
I used to drive my poor Dad nuts with the feminist stuff I used to say in my teens. I had a poster on my door especially to upset him that said…..
I thought it was really funny at the time. My other poster had a quote from Charlotte Whitton on it which said……
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”