
Showing posts with label Arab League. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arab League. Show all posts
Monday, August 23, 2021
Monday, August 23, 2021
Elder of Ziyon
"Al-Aqsa is in danger!" lie, 1969, Abraham Accords, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Arab League, conspiracy theories, desecration, Mufti of Jerusalem, PalArab lies, Temple Mount
I have been mentioning how Arab media and Palestinian schools still promote the idea that Israel was behind the Al Aqsa fire in 1969 set by a deranged Australian Christian. in order to replace it with a new Jewish Temple.
On the anniversary of the attack on Saturday, the Arab League itself issued a statement that cemented this antisemitic conspiracy theory as official Arab policy.
The statement from the Secretary General of the Arab League said that the arson was a "deliberate and orchestrated crime from the highest level of the Israeli Occupation authorities." It "comes In the context of a systematic and ongoing occupation policy and plans targeting the Holy Mosque and Christian and Islamic sacred places." It goes on to list various imagined Israeli crimes in Jerusalem, including "desecration of Al-Aqsa and attempts to destroy its structure" even today.
Interestingly, Arab attackers who store weapons and rocks in the Al Aqsa mosque are never said to desecrate the holy site. Furthermore, if Israel wanted to build the Third Temple, Al Aqsa wouldn't be the target - the Dome of the Rock would be.
I could not find any similar statements from the Arab League on the anniversary for the past two years. It seems likely that the Palestinian delegation drafted this absurd statement to remain relevant and top-of-mind for the Arab world when interest in the Palestinian issue is waning - and pretending Al Aqsa is in danger is the biggest stick the Palestinians have, a direct continuation of the methods of the Nazi-collaborating Mufti of Jerusalem.
It is a disappointing, however, that the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco continue to allow these lies to be spouted by the Arab League in their name.

Sunday, August 08, 2021
Sunday, August 08, 2021
Elder of Ziyon
1947, 1948, 1967, Arab League, drive the Jews into the sea, From the River to the Sea, jew hatred, Mufti of Jerusalem, Partition Plan
Back in 2014, I looked at the origins of the phrase "drive the Jews into the sea," because some have claimed that the expression was a hoax by Jews and Arabs never used that phrase in reference to Jews in Israel.
I found solid evidence that it was used after 1948, and then saw that the phrase was documented in the book "O Jerusalem" as having been used first by a Jerusalem police chief Kamal Irekat, adopted by the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem and then used by Fawzi el Kaukji, an Arab League field commander.
Yisrael Medad looked at the issue and found a British memo from August 1948 from Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin:
It is quite untrue to suggest that we have let the Arabs down or failed in any obligations towards them. We did not urge them to intervene by force in Palestine, nor did we promise them support if they did so. They went in of their own accord, in most cases without telling us beforehand. Very small measure of military successes which they achieved shows that their forces, while capable perhaps of occupying friendly territory, were not prepared for and incapable of undertaking major military operations, which would have been necessary to achieve the announced object of the Arab states, namely to drive the Jews into the sea.
I wanted to see if I could find an earlier version in contemporary newspapers.
An AP dispatch from June 10, 1948, said that Jews were amused at Arab claims that they already had thrown Jews into the sea:
This article from the News York Daily News in April 1948 quotes Fawzi al Kaukji directly:
An AP analysis from February 8, 1948, uses quotation marks for the phrase referring to Arab leaders in 1947:
The earliest quote I can find is from AP from a December 19, 1947 dispatch, quoting "Arab informants:"
That is a lot of different sources for an identical expression. It sounds like this was a common Arab response to the 1947 partition plan.
Medad also found this cover of an Egyptian pamphlet literally titled "Throw the Jews into the sea" before the 1967 war:

Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Elder of Ziyon
Arab League, Death to Israel, Jerusalem, judaization, mImimetic envy, Occupation, Palestinian Authority, Zionist entity
Back in 2009, the Palestinian Arabs were jubilant that they managed to get Jerusalem declared to be the "capital of Arab culture" for the year, in between Damascus and Doha.
It looks like this UNESCO/Arab League initiative has ended, as the last capital of Arab culture was Sfax, Tunisia in 2016.
So the Palestinians got the Arab League to declare Jerusalem to be the permanent capital of Arab culture!
At a meeting in Cairo, the Palestinians made it clear yet again that their interest in Jerusalem has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with Israel. Their representative said, "The identity of Jerusalem is well established and the attempts of the occupation will collapse in the face of the steadfastness of Palestinians and Jerusalemites in particular." He "reviewed the Israeli attempts to obliterate the Arab identity of the city."
The Palestinian delegation also presented two films, the first about the destruction of the Mughrabi Gate and the second about the theft of the Palestinian heritage by Israel.
Nothing about how important Jerusalem is to them. Only about how awful it is that Jews claim it to be theirs.
Richard Landes, in his talk during my symposium in Jerusalem on Sunday, described the Palestinian desire for the city as "mimetic envy" - a desire that is wholly driven by someone else possessing something you don't have, even though you showed no interest when you did have it.

Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Elder of Ziyon
Arab League, Geneva Convention, ICC, ICJ, Israel, OIC, Rome Statute, sui generis
The International Criminal Court has a list of crimes that are within its mandate to prosecute. The general categories of these crimes are:
The Rome Statute details the specific crimes that are applied. For genocide:
The first seven crimes against humanity:
War crimes include such obvious examples as:
You can see a pattern - the worst most heinous war crimes are listed.
But among all these terrible crimes that are spelled out explicitly by the Rome Statute is this one:
Keen eyed observers will note that this is a huge amplification of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stated "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." By adding "directly or indirectly" it is obvious that the Rome Statute has changed what was originally intended to put a stop to the WWII practice of states actively moving part of their unwilling population into a territory, and instead it was designed for one reason only: to explicitly call Jews moving to their ancestral lands a war crime.
There is no better example of a sui generis law than this.
How did the idea of Jews voluntarily moving to almost completely empty spaces and building houses turn into a war crime on the par of torture or taking hostages? How could the writers of the Statute allow, as far as I can tell, this to be the only part that is not mentioned explicitly by the Geneva Conventions?
It all started in 1999, when the Rome Statute was being drafted. On August 10, 1999, a group of Arab nations -Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen - drafted this text to be added to the Statute:
The US fought against it and proposed its own wording that would limit it to real war crimes:
Being a committee, the US text was rejected and the Arab text was watered down, with the result being the wording we showed above.
The Geneva Convention definition was never tested in any international court as to whether it could apply to Israel and the disputed territories. The ICC's Rome Statute, however, has elevated what was clearly not the intent of Geneva into defining "Jews building houses" as a war crime.
The Arab countries that sponsored this change to Geneva couldn't directly prosecute Israel in the ICC, because it is not their right to do so. Only a state member of the ICC that is the victim of "war crimes" can do that.
Now when you fast forward to today, where Mahmoud Abbas is renewing his threats to go to the ICC, we see the culmination of a process that began in 1999 - during the Oslo process, when it appeared that there might be a Palestinian Arab state sooner rather than later. But even so, the moves by the PLO to get accepted as a state by the UN had this specific idea in mind.
Anyone looking at the situation today can see how the Arab initiative of 1999 was meant to play out eventually - a goal that is now in reach.
It is obvious that this was a long-term strategy by the Arab states to damn Israel. This is only one example of Arab strategy and patience, attributes that the West doesn't understand.
Their goal to destroy Israel is not meant to play out in months or years, but over decades. Western-style democracies think instead in terms of sound bites and election cycles, and they simply cannot think the way that Arabs do.
Over time, this proves to be a fatal shortcoming.
- The crime of genocide;
- Crimes against humanity;
- War crimes;
- The crime of aggression. (this has not yet been defined.)
The Rome Statute details the specific crimes that are applied. For genocide:
- Killing members of the group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The first seven crimes against humanity:
- (a) Murder;
- (b) Extermination;
- (c) Enslavement;
- (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
- (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
- (f) Torture;
- (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
War crimes include such obvious examples as:
- Wilful killing;
- Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
- Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
- Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
- Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
- Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
- Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
- Taking of hostages.
- Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
- Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
- Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
- Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
- Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
- Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
You can see a pattern - the worst most heinous war crimes are listed.
But among all these terrible crimes that are spelled out explicitly by the Rome Statute is this one:
- The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Keen eyed observers will note that this is a huge amplification of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stated "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." By adding "directly or indirectly" it is obvious that the Rome Statute has changed what was originally intended to put a stop to the WWII practice of states actively moving part of their unwilling population into a territory, and instead it was designed for one reason only: to explicitly call Jews moving to their ancestral lands a war crime.
There is no better example of a sui generis law than this.
How did the idea of Jews voluntarily moving to almost completely empty spaces and building houses turn into a war crime on the par of torture or taking hostages? How could the writers of the Statute allow, as far as I can tell, this to be the only part that is not mentioned explicitly by the Geneva Conventions?
It all started in 1999, when the Rome Statute was being drafted. On August 10, 1999, a group of Arab nations -Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen - drafted this text to be added to the Statute:
The perpetrator, directly or indirectly:Given the source, it is quite obvious that this was meant to create an international law that would only be used against Israel....when the time was right.
(a) Induced, facilitated, participated or helped in any manner in the transfer of civilian population of the Occupying Power into the territory it occupies.
The US fought against it and proposed its own wording that would limit it to real war crimes:
1. That the act took place in the course of a military occupation with respect to territory where authority of a hostile army was actually established and exercised.The US is clearly interpreting the Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49 according to its original written intent, not the joke interpretation that Israel-haters have been using that has now gained currency.
2. That the accused intended to effect the compulsory transfer, on a large scale, of parts of the population of the Occupying Power into such occupied territory.
3. That the accused effected such transfer of nationals of the Occupying Power into such occupied territory.
4. That the accused intended that such transfer would endanger the separate identity of the local population in such occupied territory.
5. That the transfer worsened the economic situation of the local population and endangered their separate identity.
6. That the transfer was without, and the accused knew it was without, lawful justification or excuse.
Being a committee, the US text was rejected and the Arab text was watered down, with the result being the wording we showed above.
The Geneva Convention definition was never tested in any international court as to whether it could apply to Israel and the disputed territories. The ICC's Rome Statute, however, has elevated what was clearly not the intent of Geneva into defining "Jews building houses" as a war crime.
The Arab countries that sponsored this change to Geneva couldn't directly prosecute Israel in the ICC, because it is not their right to do so. Only a state member of the ICC that is the victim of "war crimes" can do that.
Now when you fast forward to today, where Mahmoud Abbas is renewing his threats to go to the ICC, we see the culmination of a process that began in 1999 - during the Oslo process, when it appeared that there might be a Palestinian Arab state sooner rather than later. But even so, the moves by the PLO to get accepted as a state by the UN had this specific idea in mind.
Anyone looking at the situation today can see how the Arab initiative of 1999 was meant to play out eventually - a goal that is now in reach.
Their goal to destroy Israel is not meant to play out in months or years, but over decades. Western-style democracies think instead in terms of sound bites and election cycles, and they simply cannot think the way that Arabs do.
Over time, this proves to be a fatal shortcoming.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Elder of Ziyon
"pro-Palestinian", apartheid, Arab apartheid, Arab League, BDS, discrimination, double standards, Iraq, media silence, NGO silence, No Israel No News, Palestinian refugees
Apartheid, anyone?
So where are the "pro-Palestinian" rallies outside Iraqi embassies? Where are the anguished articles by Arabs worried that Iraq is turning into an apartheid state? Where are the dozens of books begging Iraq to save its soul by treating its minorities equally? When is the Global March to Baghdad?
I could have sworn that the world was filled with people who are so very dedicated to the Palestinian Arab cause who would move heaven and earth for them.
I guess they are all spending all their free time to ensure that grocery stores don't stock hummus made by a company with partial Israeli ownership. Well, that's important too, I guess.
Palestinian refugees in Iraq say they face widespread discrimination and have appealed to President Mahmoud Abbas to intervene.By any objective measure, Palestinian Arabs in Iraq are treated worse than those in the territories (with the possible exception of Fatah members in Gaza.)
The Iraqi Palestinian Brothers Association said Tuesday that it sent a letter to Abbas, who is in Baghdad to attend the Arab League summit, detailing their plight.
The association said Palestinians have been refused medical care in Iraqi government hospitals and must use fake ID cards to receive treatment. The Palestinian Red Crescent lacks support from the PLO and cannot provide adequate medical care, it added.
Meanwhile, some 90 percent of Palestinians in Iraq are unemployed, Palestinians are refused government jobs and young male Palestinians face particular discrimination in finding work, the association said.
The group said Palestinians were arbitrarily detained because of their nationality or because they are Sunni Muslims. Palestinian students are treated as terrorists and some have left school over fears they will be kidnapped, it said.
They said pressuring the government would not be enough to resolve the problems, and that Abbas should ask the Iraqi government to issue passports to Palestinian refugees, most of whom were born in Iraq, so they can travel internationally.
They also urged Abbas to coordinate with the UN and the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government to transfer Palestinians to Kurdistan, which it said had agreed to receive them.
So where are the "pro-Palestinian" rallies outside Iraqi embassies? Where are the anguished articles by Arabs worried that Iraq is turning into an apartheid state? Where are the dozens of books begging Iraq to save its soul by treating its minorities equally? When is the Global March to Baghdad?
I could have sworn that the world was filled with people who are so very dedicated to the Palestinian Arab cause who would move heaven and earth for them.
I guess they are all spending all their free time to ensure that grocery stores don't stock hummus made by a company with partial Israeli ownership. Well, that's important too, I guess.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)