Saturday, December 13, 2014

The dilemma is, why do we spend millions of dollars each year supporting an organization that passes Resolutions but never takes the time to implement them

Unlike UN General Assembly resolutions that are considered more matters of political expedience than matters of law, the UN Security Council resolutions are serious matters, matters that can lead to sanctions and even military response.Under the terms of Resolution 1373, the UN Security Council “decided that all States should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the willful provision or collection of funds for such acts.  The funds, financial assets and economic resources of those who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts and of persons and entities acting on behalf of terrorists should also be frozen without delay.

Read more: UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) | Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks | The Blogs | The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
The Council also decided that States should prohibit their nationals or persons or entities in their territories from making funds, financial assets, economic resources, financial or other related services available to persons who commit or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts.  States should also refrain from providing any form of support to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts; take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts; deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, commit terrorist acts and provide safe havens as well.”
Why, then, is this Resolution, unanimously accepted, still one of the best kept secrets around?
For if it is not a secret, then how come the world continues to funnel billions of dollars to terror entities such as Hamas? Why does the UN continue to embrace countries like Qatar, like Turkey that provide a safe haven to known terrorists and support organizations that facilitate terrorist groups? And why is it that no one talks about the obvious, that country after country is doing its best not to comply with binding International Law they find inconvenient?
One could assume that perhaps the fault rests with the language in which the Resolution is written which might lend a basis for misinterpreting or misunderstanding it, though the language is quite clear and comprehensive, or perhaps the voting abstention of some members could be an excuse, but there were none.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that in today’s world, the inconvenient truth dictates that such a Resolution continues to be kept in the drawer where it has been safely tucked for the last 13 years. Exposing it, enforcing it might undermine the status quo of a politically correct world run and guided by some fearful, spineless leaders who are terrified of ruffling the feathers of those very same entities against whom this Resolution has been so carefully crafted.
It is also the same dread of the inconvenient truth that has led the blind world to make up, as Ms. Glick further states in that debate, “imaginary international laws” that “require” it to sanction Jewish projects on Jewish land in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem.
George Orwell  (“1984″)  would laugh to see his thoughts reflected in the behavior of the International organization founded to promote peaceful resolution to international problems choosing to redefine everything to appease the world’s bullies,  equating Jews trying to live in peace, building homes, with terrorists murderers launching 1000’s of rockets to kill Jewish civilians — In Orwell’s words that apply to our reality today  “war is peace”  “freedom is slavery”  and Jews wanted to pray quietly at their holiest place on the planet is “aggression”.
The dilemma is, why do we spend millions of dollars each year supporting an organization that passes Resolutions but never takes the time to implement them yet makes up imaginary laws and spends millions of dollars on enforcing them?

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Israel’s proposed constitutional legislation to confirm its status as the “nation state” of the Jewish people has caused concern

 December 9 

Israel’s proposed constitutional legislation to confirm its status as the “nation state” of the Jewish people has not only generated controversy within Israel, where it has helped bring down the current parliamentary coalition, but has also drawn criticism from the U.S. and Europe. The draft legislation has been decried as extreme and undemocratic. (To be clear, no draft bill has been approved, only a set of compromise principles for reconciling several rather different versions; apparently, people do not have to read the bill, or know any of its provisions, to oppose it.)
These objections do not hold water. For one, ensuring Israel’s status as a Jewish nation state is a goal expressly endorsed by the same critics, when it comes to pressuring Israel into diplomatic concessions. Second, the law is far from unusual by Western standards: it actually does far less to recognize Jewish nationhood or religion than provisions common in other democratic constitutions. This post will consider the general parameters of the legislation in comparison to constitutional provisions of other Western democracies. Tomorrow, a second post will relate the law to the “two state solution.”
The nation state bills mostly constitutionalize the national anthem, symbols, holidays, and so forth. There is nothing racist, or even unusual, about having national or religious character reflected in constitutional commitments, as research by my colleagues at the Kohelet Policy Forumdemonstrates. Seven EU states have constitutional “nationhood” provisions, which typically speak of the state as being the national home and locus of self-determination for the country’s majority ethnic group. This is even the case in places like the Baltics, with large and alienated minority populations.
For example, the Latvian constitution opens by invoking the “unwavering will of the Latvian nation to have its own State and its inalienable right of self-determination in order to guarantee the existence and development of the Latvian nation, its language and culture throughout the centuries.” It continues by defining Latvian “identify” as “shaped by Latvian and Liv traditions, Latvian folk wisdom, the Latvian language, universal human and Christian values.”
Or consider the Slovak constitution, which opens with the words, “We the Slovak nation,” and lays claim to “the natural right of nations to self-determination.” Only then does it note the “members of national minorities and ethnic groups living on the territory of the Slovak Republic,” which are not part of the “We” exercising national self-determination.Then there is language. Israel has Hebrew, the majority language, Arabic, and English (a leftover from the British Mandate) as its official languages – and new bill does not change that. This is very unusual. Most multi-ethnic, multi–lingual EU states give official status only to the language of the majority group. Spain’s constitution, for example, makes Castilian Spanish the sole official national language and requires all citizens to know it, even if their mother tongue is Basque or Catalan. Most exceptionally, Ireland grants “primary” official status to Gaelic, though only a small percentage of citizens actually speak it. This is an obviously enshrines the state’s special relation to the Irish ethnic group.
Then there is religion. Contrary to common conception, Judaism is not the official religion of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state. (It has no official religion, but all religious groups get funding from the government). Nothing in the proposed bills establishes a religion.
In this respect, Israel is far more liberal than the numerous European countries with an official religion. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, seven European countries (from Iceland to Greece) have constitutionally-enshrined official religions, despite large Moslem minorities, to say nothing of atheists and other Christian denominations. Moreover, in five European countries the head of state must actually belong to the official religion. In Israel, by contrast, the president certainly can be a non-Jew, and indeed a Druze has been one (on an acting basis).
It is noteworthy that most of the European constitutions affirming a particular national heritage are both recent and involve nations with sizable ethnic minorities. It is hard to understand why what works for them should be so widely denounced when it comes to Israel.
[Comments now enabled.]

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law. He also writes and lectures frequently about the Arab-Israel conflict.

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Iran Is Playing With Fire

Iran is playing with fire Analysis: Did the IAF strike in Syria in response to public declaration by Iranian Revolutionary Guard on transfer of advanced missiles to Hezbollah?

 Published: 12.08.14, 00:06 /

 Israel Opinion
The strikes in Syria on Sunday afternoon, which have been attributed to the Israeli Air Force, were likely intended to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry from Iran to Hezbollah. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard continues to play with fire by equipping Hezbollah with arms that have the capability to cause widespread losses and destruction in Israel. Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter The appraisal is based on the fact that the targets were in two distant areas – one near the international airport in Damascus and the other in Dimas, west of the capital, mere miles from the border with Lebanon. It is widely believed that shipments of missiles and other arms destined for Hezbollah land in Iranian cargo jets at the airport in Damascus, then transferred to a Syrian military storage site, until they are sent to over the border to Lebanon. It is reasonable to assume that today's strike, if it actually was undertaken by the IAF through Lebanese airspace, was launched based on precise intelligence and after all operational and strategic aspects were considered. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon has previously announced the three red lines according to which Israel takes action on the northern front. The transfer of "game-changing" weaponry to Hezbollah Chemical weapons Any harm to Israeli sovereignty Since there had been no recent case of breaking Israeli sovereignty, the likely assumption is that the attack was undertaken because of high-end weaponry transferred to Hezbollah or the transfer of chemical weapons – or both. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume that Defense Minister Ya'alon approved and ordered the attack. Today's strike was reminiscent of the May 2013 attack which was attributed to the IAF, when advanced, precise missiles, of the Fateh-110 variety, arrived on planes from Iran. The following night a large Syrian military missile storage site near the Lebanon border was attacked. It is increasingly likely that today's attack – which has been attributed to the IAF but has not been confirmed by Israeli officials – was executed for similar reasons under similar circumstances. In recent weeks, many Hezbollah officials and senior members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard have publicly boasted about the advanced ground-to-ground missiles which Iran supplied Hezbollah and which allow the terror group to threaten almost any target within Israel. Analysts believe the officials were boasting of the Iranian-made Fateh-110 missiles. It is in the realm of possibility that several shipments of these missiles occurred, significantly upgrading Hezbollah's capability to unleash destruction on Israel territory as far south as the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. It is also likely that today's attack was intended to stop another shipment scheduled to arrive at Damascus international airport, from where it was to be transferred to the Lebanese border. Syrian President Bashar Assad, it must be noted, owes Hezbollah a great deal, as the Lebanese terror group defends his regime – which is likely why he carries the risk of Israeli attacks on his territory. It may be assumed that today's attack will not heat up tensions between Israel and Syria. Assad does not make a habit of responding to attacks on Hezbollah weapons transfers in his territory in order to avoid a destructive clash with Israel at a time when he is fighting for his survival against local rebels. It is also assumed that Hezbollah will not respond, either. In the past the terror group launched reprisal attacks over Israeli strikes which destroyed its weapon shipments, but only when these strikes took place within Lebanese territory. The Lebanese terror group has not responded to attacks on its organization in Syrian territory – since Hezbollah chief Nasrallah believes in defending only Lebanese land, while retaliating to an attack in Syria will serve as confirmation which he is receiving illegal weapon shipments from Iran. That's how it worked in the past. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that Hezbollah and Syria will maintain this policy and thus the IDF must maintain alert on the northern front – both on the ground and in the sky. It is reasonable to assume the IDF will change its missile defense deployment, reinforcing positions in the country's north. Meanwhile, it's likely that Iran will respond using armed Palestinian militias in the Golan Heights. Israeli officials did not address the reports in the past – and are not confirming them – in a bid not to corner the Syrian regime or Hezbollah. The Syrian military rushed to condemn the attacks, only because it serves its propaganda line – which claims cooperation between Syrian rebels and Israel.


 Posted by Michael Blackburn at 7:15 PM


Help an Orphan in Israel

Help an Orphan in Israel
Click to send a message of love to Israeli Orphan

The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky