FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Massacres and wanton killings by Israel are a recurring theme in the Arab and Palestinian narrative. Deir Yassin, Ruach Shaked, Jenin, al-Dura, Sabra and Shatila (in which case the killing was done by Israel’s allies), and on and on. Now a graphic novel by Joe Sacco, “Footnotes in Gaza“  tells the story of another two incidents in which large numbers of Palestinian civilians were supposedly killed. In a very positive review in the NY Times, Patrick Cockburn wites,

The killings [allegedly — ed.] took place during the Suez crisis of 1956, when the Israeli Army swept into the Gaza Strip, the great majority of whose inhabitants were Palestinian refugees. According to figures from the United Nations, 275 Palestinians were killed in the town of Khan Younis at the southern end of the strip on Nov. 3, and 111 died in Rafah, a few miles away on the Egyptian border, during a Nov. 12 operation by Israeli troops. Israel insisted that the Palestinians were killed when Israeli forces were still facing armed resistance. The Palestinians said all resistance had ceased by then.

Sacco’s book will undoubtedly do much to further inflame anti-Zionist hatred. His research consisted of interviewing Palestinian “witnesses and survivors” in 2002-3. Although I can’t prove this without asking him, I’m almost certain that he did not talk to Israeli soldiers who were present. According to this review, he did not identify the Israeli units involved in the alleged massacres. Surely this information is available and would have led him to witnesses on the other side.

Why this is important is that Palestinians have made an industry out of lying about, exaggerating, and entirely faking atrocity stories.

• Al-Dura probably was not shot at all, and could not have been hit by Israeli bullets
• The Jenin Massacre simply did not happen
• The Ruach Shaked incident was a fight with armed combatants
• Many of the incidents described in the UN’s Goldstone Report on the war in Gaza have been shown to be invented or exaggerated
• The Red Cross ambulance attack in 2006 and numerous other ‘atrocities’ of the 2006 Lebanon war were invented

So given this history, it should be clear that ‘eyewitness testimony’ by Palestinians or other Arabs needs to be taken with a truckload of salt. A real historian or investigative journalist must take all possible steps to collect evidence from both sides involved in highly controversial events. Otherwise the product is historical fiction, not history.

Of course historical fiction is appropriate if your intention, like that of Goldstone, is to contribute to the demonization of Israel.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, massacres, Joe Sacco, Footnotes in Gaza

Universal Jurisdiction sounds like such a great idea (well, to some people, anyway). One moral nation, acting for a moral world, can bring war criminals to justice, even when crimes are committed outside of its territory. You can understand why in principle this could be a good idea, especially if said war criminals are powerful enough in their own countries as to be untouchable. The concept has been supported by those watchdogs of international morality, the ‘human rights’ NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, etc.

Anybody that lives in the real world must know that the facts of international politics make the just application of this principle impossible. It would seem to me that anyone who has finished elementary school and read at least one history book would understand this, but apparently the people at the NGOs either don’t meet this standard or are dishonest. Judging by what they did with the war in Gaza, I vote for the latter.

The fatal defect of this idea is that it is based on analogy to criminal law inside a jurisdiction, where there is, at least in the best circumstances, a disinterested justice system and rules of evidence and of judgment intended to ensure fairness. For example, in our courts hearsay is not admitted as evidence, and juries are selected in ways designed to produce impartiality. Even rules for determining probable cause for an arrest are stringent. But this is exactly what isn’t the case in the international arena.

Take, for example, the Goldstone report, based on (read: copied from) mendacious NGO reports, which is cited as ‘evidence’ for the prosecution of various Israeli officials in such countries as the UK and Spain. Palestinian ‘witnesses’ spoke to NGO representatives in the presence of Hamas operatives, their words were taken as fact and duly appeared in the Goldstone report.

Now add to this the fact that we do not live in a normal time, with its ‘normal’ collection of more or less violent international conflicts. Rather, we live at a time which is gripped by a hysterical anti-Zionism, a product of

• Muslim rejection of a Jewish state inside dar al-Islam,
• the vestiges of Soviet polarization of the Mideast conflict,
• Arab and Iranian use of conflict with Israel as a domestic issue,
• Western interest in sucking up to Mideast oil producers,
• the guilt-driven obsession of the Left to cleave to the oppressed of the third world,
• European guilt for the Holocaust,
• and a big helping of good old Jew hatred.

So the idea that Palestinian activists in the UK, for example, could file a complaint against Tzipi Livni, the former Israeli Foreign Minister, which could actually result in her arrest if she visits the UK, seems perfectly natural to the NGO-heads, British Muslims, and some feminists.

In attempt to turn the tables, some Israelis who were injured by Hamas rockets have petitioned Belgium to try Hamas leaders for their actions. I think that’s a really poor idea. The concept of universal jurisdiction is stupid whichever way it cuts.

Technorati Tags: universal jurisdiction, Tzipi Livni, Israel

I think  it’s certain that Israel will agree to something like Hamas’ conditions for the release of Gilad Shalit:

After the nocturnal inner cabinet meeting ended overnight Monday, reports began emerging that the seven-member forum had reached its decision. Israel Radio cited an unnamed senior Israeli official as confirming one such report.

Former Fatah-Tanzim leader and terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life sentences after being convicted in fatal attacks against Israelis, would be allowed to return to his West Bank home, a Palestinian close to the negotiations said. Hamas agreed that several other hard-core convicts would be deported, he said…

After more than four hours of talks, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office released a statement early Tuesday morning [today] saying only that instructions were given to the negotiating team about “the continuation of efforts to bring Gilad Schalit home safe and sound.” There was no word of a decision, further meetings or steps. The decision to continue negotiations came in lieu of any final decision by the government to agree unequivocally to Hamas’s demands.

The inner cabinet met into the night Monday in what was described by insiders as a final marathon discussion on the prisoner-swap deal that would end Schalit’s Gaza captivity.

According to sources close to the deliberations, the proposal to release some 950 Hamas gunmen and activists, some of whom have been convicted of fatal terrorist attacks, for the 23-year-old soldier was expected to gain approval by the forum, after which it would be presented to the full 30-member cabinet. — Jerusalem Post

Israel — and it really is the whole country — is facing a “Sophie’s choice“. To let a young man rot in a Hamas bunker where he’s already spent more than three years of his life and where his life could end at any moment, or alternatively, to free 1000 of the worst of the worst murderers and terrorists, including Marwan Barghouti, who is now serving five life terms for masterminding at least that many murders, and who would quite likely become the next Palestinian Authority President if released.

This ‘prisoner exchange’ would be the culmination of a series of similar exchanges over the last few years, each one worse than its predecessors.

The terrorists who will be released will assuredly kill many more Israelis. In addition, tomorrow they can take another hostage. The damage they can do to the nation is immense. ‘Technical’ solutions like deporting them will have no effect. Everyone knows this, Israel and Hamas. There is no way to draw a line after Shalit.

What is being exchanged is one life today for more lives in the future. The near future. Maybe even the Jewish state. Maybe this will be the point at which people decide that continued sacrifice isn’t worth it.

If it were my son, who incidentally spent many days during his army service in Hezbollah-infested Lebanon, I would say “to hell with the state, just let my son free.” In a country where everyone’s son or daughter could be Gilad Shalit, a lot of people think this way, even if it’s someone else’s son. Maybe Jews have an overdeveloped sense of empathy.

May Hashem erase Hamas from the universe for committing this remarkably cruel crime. If Hashem is busy the IDF could do it too, given the political will.

I don’t think the will is there. I think there will be another surrender, with lots of explanations and rationalizations. And for a good cause, to save this boy. Did I say that he could be my son? And yet, the correct choice is clear.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Gilad Shalit, Hamas

News item:

The military plans to use “paralyzing power” to demolish illegal settler construction where building has continued in defiance of the 10-month freeze on such activity, according to an IDF document obtained by The Jerusalem Post on Saturday night…

Under the moratorium, settlers and contractors working on projects in which the foundations had not been finished must stop work for 10 months. But many settlers have vowed to continue building, anyway.

The IDF, therefore, is planning a second phase of enforcing the freeze, which will involve entering settlements to demolish all illegal construction work…

Physical force would have to be used against the settlers, since it is assumed they would not peacefully stop work and evacuate construction sites when ordered to do so, the document states.

The settlers believe the moratorium is the start of a second disengagement and will do everything possible to prevent the demolitions, the document said. There is no concrete information that the settlers intend to take up arms, said the document, but it added that anything was possible.

The document goes into great detail, outlining different scenarios that could occur. It also distinguishes between “moderate” and “violent” settlements, such as Yitzhar.

Initially, the IDF would try to come to a verbal resolution with the settlers, but if that fails, they would surprise the settlers with what the army termed “paralyzing force.”

The air force is expected to get involved by doing reconnaissance flights over the area. The IDF plans to shut down cellular phone services during the enforcement operation and to ban reporters from the scene.

Somebody has lost his mind.

Israel faces an existential threat from Iran and her proxies, a war which could affect every inch of Israel more severely than any since 1948 could break out at any time, and this is what the government wants the IDF to do?

Instead of Hamas and Hezbollah, they are to be asked to fight their brothers and sisters!

The break between the state and the national-religious sector which has more and more come to bear the brunt of the conflict will now be made permanent. What about the soldiers who will be disciplined for insubordination when they refuse to take part in the operation? Will they be ready to risk their lives for this state?

And why? Because an American President has decided (either from ignorance or malevolent advice) to accept the demands of an antisemitic Arafatist who will always escalate them another notch, who has absolutely no intention of ending the conflict?

The Palestinians have had chance after chance to end the conflict and get a state. They always said “no, we want to fight until we get everything”. Does anybody actually believe that this time is different? How stupid is it possible to be?

Suppose the IDF succeeds in stopping the construction at the cost of only a few dead ‘settlers’. Then what? Does peace appear in the east like a beautiful sunrise? I don’t think so.

Israel’s enemies must be licking their lips as they see their victim tearing itself apart.

What must happen now is that every Israeli who thinks that there should be a Jewish state of Israel should work together to stop Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons and to destroy the ability of Hezbollah and Hamas to hold the nation hostage to their rockets.

That has to be the top priority, not the political insanity of the settlement freeze.

Update [10 Dec 0855 PST]: The IDF has responded to reports like the above in the Israeli press by saying that the document in question was ‘just a draft’ and that “the civil administration, the Israeli Police and the Border Police are the relevant authorities who deal with Israeli civilians, as is customary.” See story here.

Technorati Tags: Israel, IDF, settlements

Naveed Afzal Haq. He thought that what he was doing was right.

Today’s news contained an article about the second trial of Naveed Afzal Haq, the man who shot six women at the Seattle Jewish Federation in 2006, killing Pamela Waechter. Haq was tried last year, and acquitted on one attempted murder charge. The jury was unable to decide on the other charges, including the murder of Waechter, and now his second trial on these charges has been turned over to a jury.

In both trials, Haq’s lawyers argued that he should be acquitted by reason of insanity. There is no question that Haq suffered from some serious personality disorders, but the insanity defense requires more than that.

I’m not a law professor or even a lawyer. But the jury isn’t made up of law professors either, and they will have to decide what to do with Haq.

The State of Washington employs the well-known “M’Naghten Rule“, the original form of which is this:

Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and . . . that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

So in order for his client to be acquitted, Haq’s lawyer has to convince the jury that either he didn’t know what he was doing, or was too crazy to know that it was wrong. The lawyer, Christopher Swaby, is going for the latter. Here’s what he said:

He thinks that he did the right thing — that is, the inability to see right from wrong. and that is why he is not guilty by reason of insanity.

He thinks that he did the right thing.

If that’s good enough for insanity, then Nidal Hasan, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and Osama bin Laden are insane too. Did any of them not think that they were doing the right thing?

Haq, a Muslim, told authorities he was angered by the war in Iraq and U.S. military cooperation with Israel...

According to a statement of probable cause, Haq told a 911 dispatcher: “These are Jews and I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.” — Washington Post

This of course is exactly what Bin Laden and other jihadists have said. Haq’s own jihad was on a smaller scale, and apparently he doesn’t belong to a recognized terrorist group, but both his motivation — a radical Islamic ideology — and the act he chose to express it — the random killing of people  somehow related to your enemy — were the same as those of more celebrated terrorists.

Both Hasan and Haq were unstable, unhappy people who perhaps sought a purpose that they were unable to find elsewhere in radical Islam. And both of them clearly knew what they were doing; indeed, each prepared carefully for his actions.  Haq bought his weapon in advance, observing the three-day federally mandated waiting period. And he carefully purchased hollow-point ammunition, in order to do the maximum damage.

But although neither of them believed that his actions were wrong, their lawyers will have to prove that they were “laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind” that they were unable to know this.

Haq’s lawyer referred to “the inability to see right from wrong” as if that were all there was to it, but there is a disease-caused ‘inability’  and an ideological one.

Only the former will get him acquitted. I hope the jury clearly understands this distinction.

Update [15 Dec 1215 PST]: Haq was found guilty on all counts!

Technorati Tags: Naveed Haq, jihad