Archive for the ‘EU’ Category

US [like Canada] Pulls out of [Arab Muslim racist dominating push at] UN’s “Durban” conference – European states consider boycotting it too

March 1, 2009

US [like Canada] Pulls out of [Arab Muslim racist dominating push at] UN’s “Durban” conference – European states consider boycotting it too

United States Pulls Out of Durban II
 
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(IsraelNN.com) The Obama administration announced Friday that it is boycotting the Durban II conference on racism unless there are significant changes to what the State Department called “unsalvageable” anti-Israeli resolutions.

The decision by the State Department pleased Kadima leader and acting Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Knesset Member Silvan Shalom, Livni’s predecessor, who said it is “a sign for the entire world.” Livni stated that the policy move “must lead the way for more countries that share the same values” to boycott the convention, scheduled for April. Canada already has said it will not participate.

Israel has been concerned by the new American government’s change in policy to participate in preliminary committee meetings for the convention, which is to be held in Geneva but bears the name of the South African city where the first meeting was held in 2001. The United States walked out of it because of harsh anti-Israeli resolutions.

The proposed motions for the April meeting single out Israel for its presence in Judea and Samaria and include a Palestinian Authority proposal for “international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory” effectively claiming that Arabs are victims of alleged Israeli racism and that the U.N. should protect them.

The Durban planning committee, chaired by Libya, also rejected a European Union (EU) condemnation of Holocaust denial.
 
The State Department announcement came after growing domestic protests of the Obama administration’s participation in the planning committee. It would reconsider its boycott if the conference drops its reference to any specific country, which so far names Israel but no other nation, and if it does not affirm the 2001 Durban resolutions that singled out Israel.

“Unfortunately, the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said. “As a result, the United States will not participate in the forthcoming negotiations on this text, nor will we be able to participate in a conference that is based on this text.”

The Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations praised the American government for backing out of the conference.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130187

European states consider boycotting Durban 2 summit
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban was meant to lay down a blueprint for nations…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067540.html

[News, Editorials] Updates on the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN’S NUKES DANGERM

December 5, 2007

[News, Editorials] Updates on the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN’S NUKES DANGERM

NIE: “Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence…”
The new estimate is sure to have considerable political impact. Before deciding on what the NIE means for policy, one should first be sure what it says. The reality is that the estimate says little about whether Iran still aims to produce nuclear weapons or when it might do so. The NIE’s information supports the theory that Iran has simply changed the sequencing of its nuclear weapons effort — not necessarily the theory that Iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2689

Bush softens tone but insists Iran is dangerous
“Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” he said, emphasising that …

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/wiran204.xm

Rice says easing of pressure on Iran a “big mistake” [Reuters]

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Tuesday it would be a “big mistake” to ease world pressure on Iran …

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0454283520071204

Bush insists Iran poses danger, despite report
AFP
WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States refused to rule out a military attack on Iran and vowed to step up pressure on Tehran, despite a surprise US …
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7iyoBcxg7oQU0mmoayWHnO5aWXg

US: Iran Still Able to Develop Nukes
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRqjZV1Meppj40hTs8IBOv4DdsQwD8TA7RN81

Hadley: US Policy Toward Iran Nuclear Weapons Must Continue
FOX News – Dec 3, 2007
It also concludes that Iran’s decision to halt the program is likely based on a cost-benefit approach, influenced by international pressure…

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314782,00.html

Tehran defiant on nuclear enrichment
Reuters, The Associated Press, The New York TimesPublished: December 2, 2007

TEHRAN: Further UN sanctions will not solve the dispute with the West over Iran’s nuclear plans, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said Sunday, a day after six world powers discussed imposing new penalties on Tehran.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/02/africa/iran.php

To the Arab Muslim anti-Israel propagandist:

October 28, 2007

To the Arab Muslim anti-Israel propagandist:

1) Are you denying that the Arab racist attacks on Jews in Israel/”palestine” has started since 1838 (Safed) [so were the attacks in 1883, 1920, 1921, 1929 – Hebron, etc.]? 2) Had Israel be a (mostly) Arab-Muslim State, would the intolerant Arab-Muslim Goliath world not accept them?

3) Why is there a complete silence on the historical fact of Arab immigration late 1800s early 1900s into Israel/”palestine”?

4) What anti-Israel bigotry is stronger, the “Arab racism”; factor? or the ‘Islamic-Jihad’ factor?

5) ‘Moral equivalence’ Do you have Arab activists on behalf of Israeli victims, just like you have Jewish, Israeli, Zionists activists for the (so called) ‘Palestinian cause’ (whatever that is…)?

6) If humane Israel would really go after “unarmed poor palestinians” as the ‘Pallwood’ propagandists tell us, How many Arabs would have survived Israel’s might?

7) Who’s more at fault, the Arab Muslim “Palestinians” parents pushing for Shahid-isim, or the indoctrinating Mullahs, Imams in the holy Mosques for using “Palestinian” kids and women as human bombs and as human shields (so they can blame the Zionists when Arab kids die)?

8] What would have happened if Arab Muslim “Palestinians” would have invested as much energy in rebuilding their lives as they do in destroying both nations’ lives in fascistic Jihad, total hatred and campaign for GENOCIDE [to “drink the blood of the Jews” or to “push them all to the sea”, or to “wipe them off of map”]?

9) Why does “bad” IDF Israeli army announce an area residents’ civilians to evacuate before an operation against terrorists?

10) Why did Humane Israel’s IDF invented specially low range missiles designed to hit ONLY the [terror] target and minimize collateral damage?

11) When was the last time the “Palestinian” well oil-ed propaganda machine has retracted [or even apologized] for it’s usual PALLYWOOD fake images industry?

12) What’s the difference between a Christian in Indonesia, Buddhist in Thailand, Christian in Nigeria, in Philippines, Australians in Bali (2002), non Muslims in London (0707/2005), in Madrid (bombing), “not the-right-kind-of-Muslims” in Shiite-Sunni hateful massacres in Iraq, oppression & massacres in the “Islamic Republic of Iran”, and Israeli victims of the same “evil ideology”?

13) What’s a harder oppression, your “average” Arab Muslim regime’s on it’s own people, Hamas-tan Islamic Apartheid [which most “Palestinians” supported!] on non Muslims, or the pro-Jihad parents’ on their kids?

14) What would have happened if at least ONE Arab Muslim nation [regular or oil-ed one] would really care about the Arab [brothers, that since the 1960’s started to call themselves as] “Palestinians” and let them get off the terror slum into normality and even prosperity?

15) What part of ‘BLIND FASCISM’ do Arab-Muslims deny, the usual obsessed anti Israel demonization [no matter what Israel does] or the reluctance to see Israel’s super kind gestures for those that are trying to kill them [releases from prison, giving away own land vital to it’s security, humanitarian aid, etc.] not as goodness but as “weakness”?

16) Why is it that when Islamists terrorists [Hamas or Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, etc.] succeed in making sure Arab kids die [with their known tactics of cowardly firing among or behind children, etc.] the Arabs, Muslims rejoice and the Israelis, Jews are saddened ?

16) How can land be an issue [or the blatant lies the Arab lobby’s financed: Jimmy Carter has said, though he admitted that Israel is a great equal democracy for all, Arabs and Jews alike!’] if “moderate” Palestinian official government still has venomous hatred and pro ‘death cult’ in it’s regular curriculum and on it’s official TV, or that such “moderate” Arab media outlets [like Al Jazeera] still glorify mass murder as “martyrdom”?

17) Who’s more powerful, the Arab Muslim Goliath Oil mafia “lobby” on the world or a Chinese, Italian, Israeli, Irish, pharmaceutical, cigarettes lobbyists in Washington?

18) Had the International Arab Muslim lobby of nations in the UN [or the EU] not threatened other nations to bash Israel 24/7 [motivated by intolerance only!], What would be then the outcome?

Technorati –

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

September 9, 2007

The Arab Lobby Controls US Media and Foreign Policy

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2007/09/arab-lobby-controls-us-media-abd.html

Last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. The good prince also owns a chunk of Time/AOL the company who’s unit CNN employs the anti Israel Christiane Amanpour.In November of 2005, Fox’s O’Reilly showed live footage of the French Intifada as it raged in Paris. According to WorldNetDaily, Saudi billionaire Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, (aka Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin AbdulAziz AlSaud), who owns 5-6% of the Fox News Channel, personally called Rupert Murdoch and asked him to change the offensive (but accurate) caption: “Muslim Riots” to the less offensive (and less accurate) “Civil Riots.” Within thirty minutes, the Prince had his way.

In December 2005, Prince Al-Waleed donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to finance Islamic studies. The gift to Georgetown, which set up the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in his honor, was the university’s second-largest donation in history, and the gift to Harvard was among its 25 largest. Any idea of what the skew of thoses studies are.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is the largest single stockholder in Time and Citibank he is a one man Arab Lobby. But you wont hear Messers Walt and Mearsheimer talk about him or any of the other Saudi investors who challenge our free speech and influence American foreign policy.


What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

What’s so nefarious about Jews exercising their right to speech?

By Jeff Robbins

September 7, 2007

A crop of Israel’s critics — most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — have managed something of a feat: They express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that “the Jewish lobby” will accuse them of it.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by Israel’s critics for their “courage” in attacking American Jews, who have allegedly “strangled” criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising.

An anecdote from my own experience with the anti-Israel lobby may shed some light on the absurdity of the Walt-Mearsheimer offensive. Not long after Sept. 11, 2001, I received a call from a major defense contractor asking for a favor. I was serving as president of the Boston chapter of the World Affairs Council, a national organization that debates foreign policy, and the defense contractor was one of the Council’s principal sponsors.

The Saudi Arabian government was sponsoring a national public relations campaign to cultivate American public opinion, and was sending Saudi emissaries around the country to make the case that Saudi Arabia was a tolerant, moderate nation worthy of American support. Would the Council organize a forum of Boston’s community leaders so that the Saudis could make their case?

While this was patently no more than a Saudi lobbying effort, we organized the forum, and it was well-attended by precisely the slice of Boston’s political and corporate elite that the Saudis and their defense contractor benefactor had hoped for. The Saudis maintained that their Kingdom should be regarded as a promoter of Middle East peace, and that the abundant evidence that Saudi Arabia was in fact promoting a virulent brand of extremist Islam should be discounted.

Saudi Arabia paid for the trip of its emissaries to Boston, for the Washington, D.C.-based public relations and lobbying company which organized the trip, and for the Boston public relations and lobbying company that handled the Boston part of the visit. And it drew upon the resources and relationships of the defense contractor, which sells hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, to support and orchestrate its public relations effort.

The billions in petrodollars Arab states spend in the U.S. for defense, construction, engineering and consulting contracts position them nicely to win friends in high places, and friends are what they have. That is true all over the world, is true in this country, and has been true for quite some time. As U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted 60 years ago, “The oil of Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the world’s great prizes.” His successor, Edward Stettinius, opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, stating “It would seriously prejudice our ability to afford protection to American interests, economic and commercial . . . throughout the area.”

The Saudis and their allies have not been shy about supplementing their considerable leverage in the U.S. by targeting expenditures to affect the debate over Middle East policy by funding think tanks, Middle East studies programs, advocacy groups, community centers and other institutions.

To take one obvious example, just last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. Prince Alwaleed, chairman of a Riyadh-based conglomerate, is the fellow whose $10 million donation to the Twin Towers Fund following the Sept. 11 attacks was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Saudi Prince suggested that the U.S. “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinians.”

Georgetown and Harvard had no apparent qualms about accepting Prince Alwaleed’s money. The director of Georgetown’s newly-renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center rejected any suggestion that the Saudi magnate was attempting to use Saudi oil wealth to influence American policy in the Middle East. “There is nothing wrong with [Prince Alwaleed] expressing his opinion on American foreign policy,” he said. “Clearly, it was done in a constructive way.”

In other words, for those who accept the Arab line on the Israel-Arab conflict — namely, that it is the product of Israeli intransigence in some form or another — the increasing proliferation of Middle East-funded enterprises all across the country aimed at advancing the Arab view of the conflict constitute “nothing wrong.” Nor are those hewing to the anti-Israel line troubled by the way in which the massive Islamic bloc of nations, by dint both of their number and their economic leverage over the rest of the world, are able to guarantee an incessantly anti-Israel agenda at the United Nations and other international fora.

Although the aggressive deployment of petrodollars and oil-based influence from foreign sources aimed at advancing a pro-Arab line constitutes “nothing wrong” as far as Israel’s critics are concerned, a new political fashion holds that there is something very wrong indeed about American Jews and other American backers of Israel expressing their support for Israel, and urging their political leaders to join them in that support.

Our major newspapers and networks, with correspondents in Israel able to take advantage of an Israeli political system that is a free-for-all and an astonishingly vibrant and self-critical Israeli press, report daily on every twist and turn of the conflict and are very frequently critical of Israel. As for American campuses, most objective observers would have little difficulty concluding that far from being criticism-free, they are in fact dominated by critics of Israel. Clearly, as strangleholds on criticism go, whatever stranglehold the pro-Israel community has on debate in the U.S. is a very loose one indeed.

If the charge that American Jews are able to stifle criticism of Israel is simply silly, the leveling of the charge that there is something nefarious about Jews urging support for the Jewish state raises questions about whether Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have descended into a certain ugliness. And the tactic of trying to neutralize those questions by loudly predicting that they will be asked, however clever a tactic it may be, does not neutralize them.

It is apparently the authors’ position that, even in the face of the overwhelming leverage of an Arab world swimming in petrodollars, with a lock on the U.N. and an unlimited ability to pay for pro-Arab public relations, American Jews are obliged to stay silent. In essence, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have repackaged the “the-Jews-run-the-country” stuff which has long been the bread and butter of anti-Semites.

Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer deny that they are anti-Semitic, and that is certainly good news. But where they are apparently content with foreign oil money being used to advance a pro-Arab position on the Middle East, but devote themselves to criticizing American Jews for lobbying their public officials in support of the Jewish state, one may legitimately wonder what phrase would apply. Surely, one’s denial that he is anti-Semitic, while welcome, is hardly dispositive; after all, the marked increase in anti-Semitism around the world is well-documented, and yet one rarely hears anyone actually announce that they are anti-Semitic, or that their views are anti-Semitic.

But if anti-Semitism is too harsh a term, and if the word “bigoted” is also taken off the table, perhaps one can be forgiven for concluding that “anti-Jewish bias” fits the bill here. After all, where there is nothing wrong with foreign money from Arab countries advancing a pro-Arab agenda in Messrs. Walt’s and Mearsheimer’s world — but there is something very wrong with American citizens who are Jewish exercising their civic right to speak out on behalf of Israel and taking issue with the pro-Arab agenda — even the most vehement disclaimers of any bias against Jews lack a certain credibility.

The potency of the Middle East-funded anti-Israel lobby around the world and in the U.S. is difficult to ignore. Yet, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer and others who adhere to an anti-Israel line ignore it. In and of itself, this is not surprising. When at the same time they portray American Jews’ efforts to make the case for Israel as morally suspect, however, they open themselves up to reasonable charges of something far more troublesome than mere hypocrisy, and that is anti-Jewish bias, by whatever name.

Mr. Robbins, a U.S. Delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission during the Clinton administration, is an attorney at Mintz, Levin in Boston and represents David Project in the Islamic Society of Boston lawsuit.