Ari Shavit, Martin Kramer, Efraim Karsh en . . . . . Lydda, Lydda, Lydda !!!

Martien Pennings

Een inscriptie op de gevel van de Dahmash Moskee, ook wel genoemd “Kleine Moskee”, in Lydda. In het Arabisch staat er: “De moskee werd gesloten als gevolg van de monsterlijke massamoord gepleegd door de bezettingsmacht in 1948 en werd in 1996 gedeeltelijk heropend.” (FotoMartin Kramer)

Eerst een paar inleidende woorden. Er zijn nu een paar maanden verstreken sinds in de zomer van 2014 Ari Shavit zijn New York Times bestsellende Judas-kus aan Israël in de vorm van een cultuur-verraders-boek in een waarachtig links-narcistische zelfmanifestatie-triomftocht langs alle “literaire” hotspots in Amerika en Europa . . . . . eh . . . . . . . verkocht. Ik heb van dat verschríkkelijke boek alle 17 hoofdstukken één voor één geanalyseerd, steeds onder de titel “Het Stockholm-dualisme van Ari Shavit” met het betreffende hoofdstuk-nummer er achter. Wie naar analyse nummer 17 gaat, vindt onderaan nummertje 16 de hyperlinks naar de analyses…

View original post 6,107 more words

Turkey doesn’t want a terrorist state on its borders

Who does…

Turkey Voting For Christmas
By Alan | October 12, 2014 | BBC bias

Interesting take on the world from the BBC.

It has been telling us recently that Turkey is in a dilemma concerning ISIS. On the one hand it doesn’t want a terrorist state on its borders, on the other it doesn’t want to see the Kurds becoming more established and powerful.

So Turkey has plumped to support ISIS…probably not too hard a decision for the Islamist Erdogan who no doubt fancies resurrecting the Ottoman Empire.

Such a stance might also reflect the opinion of Israel as it faces the reality of what a terrorist state on its borders looks like.

Mandela, When number 46664 is no more

Now that the health of former ANC leader Nelson Mandela (94) is deteriorating, I ask myself – and I think rightly so – what is going to happen with the white farmers in South Africa. We do not read so much about it in the media because after all they are only whites. Genocide of other peoples and cultures is much more interesting.
Since apartheid was abolished in South Africa is a lot has changed. This time it’s the white farmers turn to get killed, but the Western mainstream press remains silent … It’s politically correct to kill whites these days so …

Nelson Mandela

Mandela is known by the majority of the world as the man who was incarcerated for years because he fought for the freedom of his country and his countrymen. And that we should feel sorry for him or even find him noble because things like these are written about him:

“This is a man who earned respect, in his nonviolent struggle against injustice and racism. In his humble honesty, he is a model for all politicians. His name will echo in history as one of the great ones of the earth “(source – 4th comment).

The ANC and Mandela are big supporters of Marxism-Leninism and aren’t shy to use violence to achieve their goal.
People all over the world wish him strength and recovery. Some thank him for what he has done. But no one is talking about the real Mandela who was not for nothing in a cell on Robben Island, sentenced to life imprisonment.

“In 1964 he was convicted for his involvement in the Rivonia gang. This gang plotted assassinations against whites across South Africa, but especially against leaders of the Afrikaners and their families. In this ‘Rivonia Trial’ due to his involvement he got life. ” (Source)

Mandela knew even back then that the whites were necessary for the economy in South Africa. That alone is the reason they are still there. It has even got Mandela the Nobel Peace Prize (1993). A ridiculous price, that every terrorist on this planet can get. As long as one fights for justice all means are justified to arrive at the goal, unfortunately.


The ANC is nothing more than a terrorist organization were terror and corruption prevail. What about the car fire killings in 2003, during President Tabo Mbeki’s reign, Mandela’s successor and also a member of the ANC. What about the bombing in Pretoria with 19 deaths?
Another sweetie from the South African club, but democratically elected, is Jacob Zuma the current president of South Africa and fellow party member of Mandela and Mbeki. We all know his song called Kill the Boer.

The ANC is a feeble excuse for a party, meant for people who want to give in to their animal instincts. The future of South Africa in the hands of this kind of people. The future of their own people, the white farmers, but also that of the South African economy. And if we look at other African countries where the local population is in power, it’s not a hopeful prospect

Every coin has two sides

Of course it’s not just only misery the ANC and Mandela have brought to South Africa. Apartheid was abolished and South Africa is almost free from the colonial mindset brought by white Westerners.

The white farmers who still live there, should we see them then as collateral damage?

By Mike Tomale @miketomale

International injustice and Israel

A group of rabid anti-Semites proposed a to the dutch government to engage Israel to tear down the protective wall built to keep terrorism out. It’s success is very clear, slaughter of innocent civilians by groups of Cisjordanians practically dropped to zero.

According to the initiators, the construction of the wall is in violation of international law. It relies in that regard on the uncritical non-binding opinion on the matter issued by the International Court on 9 July 2004. The opinion needs some critical comments. The advice does not begin to do justice to the complex historical and legal reality that forms the background of the current situation in Israel and the territories in Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem (in the media often: West Bank, Cisjordania), which lie east of the “green line “.
The green line in 1949 between Israel and Jordan is an agreed ceasefire line after the War of Independence .The International Court wrongly classifies these areas without reserve as “occupied territories”, with all the legal consequences. The court overlooks, however, the central importance of the Palestine Mandate of 24 July 1922. It was adopted by the League of Nations granted as core obligation to the administration of the British Empire Palestine : the establishment of the Jewish national home (art. 2), at least in the area west of the Jordan. The mandate was further provided in the promotion of Jewish immigration and settlement.

The area east of the Green Line to the Jordan, which since 1948 was occupied by Jordan, became under Israeli control in June 1967 after having defeated an unprovoked act of war from amongst many other Jordan. So it is the disputed territories not occupied territory for the purposes of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which defines territory occupied by another State .The ICJ ignores this and considers the Jewish settlements in the disputed areas without thought in conflict with the prohibition of an occupying power to move parts of its own population to the “occupied territory”. For voluntary settlement by “settlers” who use the mandate given in the right of establishment this is not the case. It is in view of the history is very bitter that Israel is required to make the disputed territories, including East Jerusalem “Jude Rein”.

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that the court in its opinion hardly gave serious attention to the considerations which have led Israel to establish the security barrier . Its aim was the protection of Israeli civilians which since the start of the second Intifada (September 2000) were plagued by horrible (suicide) attacks, in which 900 civilians were killed and thousands were injured. The safety barrier is a relatively peaceful and nonviolent means to stop terrorists. This is for the people of the disputed territories many times better than an armed action against terrorists. The absolute nadir of the advice is the way the court has denied Israel’s the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This would be limited to the case of an armed attack by one State against another State. Because Israel claimed that it was attacking terrorist groups and not other states it could not rely on Article 51.The text of this article limits the right of self-defense but not at all to only an attack by another state. Israel was in other words, denied the right to its most fundamental state task: the defense of its own citizens against violence. The court thus ignored the not only for Israel relevant fact that modern warfare usually does not take place between two or more ‘regular’ states, but nowadays mainly involves conflict between a State and one or more terrorist groups.

(translated from dutch from a piece by an associate professor at the Department of Legal Theory in Utrecht. )

Alternate views of reality in the Middle East

Being right and getting it is proving ever more difficult. When Jordan annexed a part of the river Jordan’s valley way back that annexation was never recognized by anyone. Nobody cared about a stretch of land in the desert even though originally it was alloted to the Jewish state during the English Mandate.

When Israel took possession of this legally Nomansland after they were attacked by Jordan and others the world cried murder.

Recently an Israeli court ruled quite rightly that:

The panel headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy found that the term of occupier is not applicable to Israel since the West Bank never belonged to a Palestinian state and its capture by the Kingdom of Jordan never won international recognition. The team proposed the creation of a special court for property disputes. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu referred the report to the Ministerial Committee on Settlements for decisions on implementation.

the denouncement was fast.

The ever so morally just USA worded:

Washington has sharply criticized the Israeli legal panel ruling that Jewish settlements on the West Bank are not illegal under international law: US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said Monday: “We do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity and we oppose any effort to legalize outposts.”

Here we get this having your cake and eat it. Any bunch of ragtag squatters has the right to settle Nomansland except Israel, international law be damned.
Next time the USA makes claims under international law they better look in the mirror the see the hypocrisy on their faces.