Keynes and the triumph of hope over economics

In a Financial Times op-ed, Benn Steil, author of Money, Markets, and Sovereignty, satirizes the tendency of economists to cite John Maynard Keynes in support of dramatic fiscal interventions where cold analysis should give us pause.

“Citing Keynes gives us special licence to talk economics without using any. To paraphrase the lawyers’ dictum, when the facts are on our side, we pound the facts; when theory is on our side, we pound theory; and when neither the facts nor theory are on our side, we pound Keynes – and to great effect.

Keynes, not coincidentally, had nothing to say about the proper components of fiscal stimulus. This allows him to be cited with great effect by both paternal progressives (who favour government spending) and caring conservatives (who favour middle-class tax cuts).”

Read full story.

Mexico’s Biggest Preparation of War against Drug Cartel

The Los Angeles Times reports Mexico will dispatch 5,000 more troops to Ciudad Juarez, a border city racked by drug war violence.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon said he believed he could have drug violence in the country under control by the time he leaves office in 2012.

Read full story.

British Premier Gordon Brown First World Leader to Sign Anti-Semitism Declaration

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown became the first head of government to sign the London Declaration against anti-Semitism, while encouraging other heads of government to add their names to the document.

The London Declaration, adopted on February 19, 2009, called for various practical measures to combat manifestations of anti-Jewish bigotry around the world. The London conference, hosted by the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA), the British Foreign Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government, which brought together more than 120 lawmakers from over 40 countries, devised an effective framework and forged new strategies to confront anti-Semitism on a global scale.

Among its recommendations, the London Declaration calls for the creation of an international task force of Internet experts to develop metrics for online anti-Semitism and policy recommendations for governments to combat it, the establishment of parliamentary inquiries to determine the state of anti-Semitism domestically and to develop policy recommendations, and a commitment to oppose discrimination against Israel in international organizations such as at the U.N.’s Durban II conference.

Folgt auf die Finanzkrise ein Bürgerkrieg?

Das Volk rebelliert nämlich nie allein deshalb, weil es einen schweren Sack schleppen muss, es lehnt sich nie gegen die Ausbeutung auf, denn es kennt kein Leben ohne Ausbeutung. Das Volk empört sich erst dann, wenn ihm jemand plötzlich und unvermutet einen zweiten Sack aufzubürden versucht. Er rebelliert, weil er spürt, dass du ihm mit diesem zweiten Sack betrügen wolltest, du hast ihn wie ein stumpfes Tier behandelt, den Rest seiner geschändeten Würde in den Schmutz getreten, ihn zum Idioten gemacht. Der Mensch langt nicht nach dem Beil, um seinen Geldbeutel zu verteidigen, sondern seine Würde. (Aus dem Roman König der Könige von Ryszard Kapuściński)

Steht der Zusammenbruch der öffentlichen Ordnung kurz bevor, nachdem die globale Finanzkrise die Ohnmacht der Politik (die mit einer unanständigen Umverteilung von Steuergeldern für die oberen Zehntausend reagiert, anstatt das System grundlegend zu verändern) entlarvt hat? Den genauen Zeitpunkt und die Form des kommenden Bürgerkriegs kann man noch nicht voraussehen. Dass er kommen wird, steht jedenfalls fest. Wann und wie er kommen wird, liegt noch verborgen im Schoße der Zukunft.

Es ist zumindest die ziemlich apokalyptische Prophezeiung der europäischen Denkfabrik European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020, die in einer Pressemitteilung vom 18. Februar 2009 verkündet wurde.

Ein ähnliches düsteres Szenario prognostiziert ebenfalls Igor Panarin, Dekan der Fakultät Internationale Beziehungen der Diplomatischen Akademie des russischen Außenministeriums: ” Der US-Dollar ist durch nichts mehr gedeckt. Die Außenverschuldung ist lawinenartig gewachsen: 1980 hatte es noch keine gegeben, 1998, als ich meine Prognose aufstellte, lag sie bei zwei Billionen Dollar, heute beträgt sie mehr als elf Billionen Dollar. Das ist eine Pyramide, die unbedingt einstürzen wird. Millionen von Bürgern haben ihre Ersparnisse eingebüßt. Die Preise und die Arbeitslosigkeit werden steigen. General Motors und Ford stehen am Rande des Zusammenbruchs. Das bedeutet, dass ganze Städte arbeitslos werden.”

***

Pressemitteilung European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020

Seit Februar 2006 vertrat LEAP/E2020 die Auffassung, dass die umfassende weltweite Krise in vier Grundphasen ablaufen würde, nämlich die Anfangsphase, die Beschleunigungsphase, die Aufprallphase und die Dekantierungsphase. Die Ereignisse der letzten zwei Jahre fügten sich hervorragend in dieses Schema. Jedoch müssen wir uns endlich in die Einsicht finden, dass die Regierenden unfähig sind, die wahre Natur der Krise zu verstehen. Denn seit nunmehr mehr als einem Jahr bekämpft die Politik mit ihren Maßnahmen nur die Symptome der Krise, nicht aber die Ursachen.

Deshalb gehen wir heute davon aus, dass mit dem vierten Quartal 2009 eine fünfte Phase der Krise einsetzen wird, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zerfallen wird.

Nach der Auffassung von LEAP/E2020 werden zwei bedeutende Phänomene diese neue Phase der Krise prägen; die kommenden Ereignisse werden damit in zwei parallelen Entwicklungen ablaufen:

A. Die zwei bedeutenden Phänomene:

1. Das Wegbrechen der globalen Finanzbasis (Dollar + Schulden)
2. Die sich beschleunigende Divergenz der Interessen der großen Staaten und der internationalen Organisationen

B. Die zwei parallelen Entwicklungen:

1. Die rasche Auflösung des gesamten gegenwärtigen internationalen Systems
2. Die Auflösung der Handlungsfähigkeit der mächtigen Staaten und großen internationalen Organisationen

Wir hatten gehofft, dass die Dekantierungsphase den Regierenden dieser Welt ermöglichen würde, die Schlussfolgerungen aus dem Zusammenbruch der Nachkriegsweltordnung zu ziehen. Man kann heute mit größtem Bedauern nur feststellen, dass solcher Optimismus nicht mehr zu rechtfertigen ist.

In den USA wie auch in Europa, in China oder in Japan handeln die Regierenden, als ob die Weltordnung nur von einer vorüber gehenden Krise erfasst wäre und es genügen würde, noch etwas Treibstoff (Liquidität, also weitere Schulden) und weitere Tinkturen (Leitzinssenkungen, staatlicher Aufkauf von wertlosen Forderungen, Konjunkturförderprogramme zu Gunsten insolventer Industriezweige) in das System zu gießen, um den Motor wieder zum Anspringen zu bringen. Sie wollen einfach nicht verstehen, dass, wie der Begriff der umfassenden weltweiten Krise, den LEAP/E2020 im Februar 2006 prägte, zu vermittelt versucht, die Weltordnung nicht mehr funktionsfähig ist. Statt verzweifelt zu versuchen, diese am Boden liegende, unrettbare Weltordnung zu retten, muss endlich die Schaffung einer neuen Weltordnung angegangen werden.

Geschichte wartet nicht, bis die Menschen für sie bereit sind. Da die Schaffung der neuen Weltordnung nicht vorausschauend und planend möglich war, wird der Zerfall der öffentlichen Ordnung während dieser fünften Phase der Krise die Welt in ein solches Chaos stürzen, dass die neue Weltordnung als Zufallsprodukt und Improvisation entstehen wird. Die beiden parallelen Entwicklungen, die wir in dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB beschreiben, werden für einige der großen Staaten und internationalen Organisationen tragisch sein.

Nach unserer Auffassung verbleibt nur ein sehr kleines Zeitfenster, während dem das Schlimmste noch vermieden werden kann, nämlich bis zum Sommer 2009. Dann wird die Zahlungsunfähigkeit erst Großbritanniens und dann der Vereinigten Staaten die Grundlagen des bestehenden Systems zusammen stürzen lassen und Chaos ausbrechen.

Wir gehen sehr konkret davon aus, dass der geplante G20-Gipfel April 2009 die letzte Chance für die bestehende Weltordnung ist, die aktuell wirkenden Kräfte so auszurichten, dass der Übergang in die neue Weltordnung sich mit dem geringst möglichen Schaden vollzieht.

Wenn ihnen das nicht gelingt, wird den Mächtigen der aktuellen Weltordnung die Kontrolle über die Ereignisse vollständig entgleiten, und zwar nicht nur auf globaler Ebene, sondern für einige von ihnen auch in ihren eigenen Ländern; die Welt wird in die Phase, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zusammen bricht, gleiten wie ein Schiff, dessen Ruder gebrochen ist. Am Ausgang dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung wird die Welt mehr dem Europa von 1913 ähneln als der Welt, an deren reale Existenz die meisten noch bis 2007 glaubten.

Die meisten der von der Krise betroffenen Staaten, unter ihnen die mächtigsten dieser Erde, versuchten verzweifelt, das immer weiter anwachsende Gewicht der Krise zu schultern; sie verstanden nicht, dass sie damit die Gefahr herauf beschworen, unter dieser Last zusammen zu brechen. Sie vergaßen, dass Staaten, von Menschen geschaffen, nur solange Bestand haben, wie sich eine Mehrheit dieser Menschen mit ihnen identifiziert. In dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB wird LEAP/E2020 seine Analysen über die Auswirkungen dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung auf die USA und die EU vorlegen.

Es wird für alle, Privatpersonen wie Wirtschaftsführer, dringlich, sich auf eine sehr schwierige Zeit vorzubereiten, in der ganze Bereiche unserer Gesellschaft wegbrechen werden und zumindest zeitweise oder sogar dauerhaft aufhören werden, Bestandteile der Gesellschaft zu bilden.

So wird z.B. der Zerfall des Weltwährungssystems im Sommer 2009 nicht nur den Dollar (und aller Geldanlagen in Dollar) zusammen brechen lassen, sondern das Vertrauen in alle Papierwährungen (also ohne Gold- oder Silberdeckung) massiv unterminieren. Alle Empfehlungen in dieser Ausgabe des GEAB sollen auf diese Situation vorbereiten.

Weiterhin gehen wir davon aus, dass die Staaten, die besonders monolithisch, besonders mächtig, besonders zentralistisch sind, diejenigen sein werden, die von der fünften Phase der umfassenden weltweiten Krise besonders massiv betroffen sein werden. Weitere Staaten, die unter dem Schutz dieser Staaten stehen, werden ihre Schutzmächte verlieren und damit dem Chaos in ihren Regionen ausgeliefert sein.

U.S.-North Korea Missile Tests

Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, currently director of the Missile Defense Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense, says the United States has successfully passed scenarios testing its ability to use its missile defense systems to intercept missiles fired from North Korea.

The Korea Times reports North Korea, meanwhile, has pressed ahead saying it will soon fire a “satellite” into orbit.

Read full story.

Freudenfeuer der Eitelkeiten

Alles muss raus! Trotz globalen Wirtschaftskrise lässt sich im Kunstgeschäft noch Geld verdienen.

In diesem Zusammenhang zieht die Neue Zürcher Zeitung Bilanz zum prominentesten und erfolgreichsteten Winterschlussverkauf des Jahrhunderts bzw. Versteigerung der Sammlung des verstorbenen französischen Couturiers Yves Saint Laurent. Die “Kunstgegenstände” werden diesmal nicht wie am Karnevaldienstag, dem 7. Feburar 1497, auf der Florentiner Piazza della Signoria verbrannt, sondern gegen Bares im Pariser Museum Grand Palais verkauft.

“Gutes Marketing macht sich häufig bezahlt. Die von Christie’s und dem Auktionshaus Pierre Bergé & Associés organisierte (beziehungsweise inszenierte) Versteigerung zog schon im Vorfeld grosse Aufmerksamkeit auf sich. Das lag zunächst natürlich am klangvollen Namen des schon zu Lebzeiten legendären Yves Saint Laurent. Der geniale Couturier hatte bis zu seinem Tod letzten Sommer exakt ein halbes Jahrhundert lang das Leben seines Geschäftspartners geteilt (auch wenn die beiden seit 1976 nicht mehr unter einem Dach wohnten) und mit diesem über Jahrzehnte hinweg eine einzigartige Sammlung aufgebaut.”

Zum Artikel.

Fighting intensifies in Somalia

Al-Jazeera reports at least forty-eight people have been killed in Somalia since fighting broke out yesterday between militant fighters and African Union troops in the country’s capital, Mogadishu.

Meanwhile, the BBC reports the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab, linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist group, overpowered government forces and seized control of the city of Hudur, near the Ethiopian border, early today.

Read full story.

Pakistan’s Battlefield

The New York Times reports that a U.S. unit of more than seventy military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to aid the country’s military in its campaign against militant groups in the country’s tribal areas.

Meanwhile, the Afghan news outlet Quqnoos reports Pakistan’s government has been arming villagers in the country’s northwest in the hopes that they will fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the region.

Read full story.

Press Conference – Boycott Durban II!

Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 11am in Berlin

Location: Presse- und Besucherzentrum, Room 4, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Entrance Reichstagufer 14, 10117 Berlin

In 2001, the “UN World Conference against Racism” took place in Durban, South Africa. This event turned into a platform of hateful agitation against Israel and the jews while the world’s dictatorships attested each other clean records.

The “Durban Review Conference”, announced for April 2009, will do justice to its name. This time we shall not only witness the usual demonization of Israel (“apartheid”) but also more and more attacks on the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression. Human rights are twisted step by step to work as a means of oppression in the name of religion.

Democratic states are seriously challenged by these dangerous reinterpretations. The foundations of an open society must not be put up for negotiations! In the light of this new push, an unambiguous reaction is more than necessary. The initiators and the subscribers of the petition call Germay and other states of the European Union to boycott the “Durban 2” conference and to push forward a comprehensive reform of the United Nation’s Human Rights Council.

The initiative “Boycott Durban II”

Last year, French novelist and essayist Pascal Bruckner with his call to boycott “Durban II” gave the idea to this initiative. More than 30 journalists, authors, scientists and artists, In Europe, the United States and the Middle East have joined Bruckner’s petition, among them Lars Gustafsson, Jeffrey Herf, Benny Morris, Peter Schneider, Seyran Ates, Necla Kelek, Matthias Küntzel, Sharon Adler, Prof. Arno Lustiger and Ralph Giordano. More than 1,000 people signed the petition which will be handed over to the German Federal Government and to other EU member state governments.

To mark the end of the campaign, a press conference will be held at with Caroline Fourest and other speakers will reaffirm the necessity of a boycott.

Participants of the press conference:
– Caroline Fourest, Author/Publisher, Paris
– Nasrin Amirsedghi; Publisher, Mainz
– Alex Feuerherdt; Journalist, Bonn
– Klaus Faber; Secretary of State (ret.), Potsdam
– Anetta Kahane; Chair of the Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung, Berlin

Moderation: Thierry Chervel; Chief Editor of the online cultural magazine Perlentaucher, Berlin

Cooperation partners: Koordinierungsrat deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus; Group of 25th of November u. Föderation unabh. NGOs, Suleymaniya, Kurdistan/Nordirak; Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin e.V. (MFFB)

Contact: Arvid Vormann – Phone: +49 30 50595388 – E-Mail: avmail@web.de

Pressekonferenz – Boycott DurbanII!

Donnerstag, 12. März 2009, 11 Uhr in Berlin

Ort: Presse- und Besucherzentrum, Raum 4, im Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Eingang Reichstagufer 14, 10117 Berlin
 
Im Jahre 2001 fand im südafrikanischen Durban die „UN-Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus” statt. Die Veranstaltung entwickelte sich zu einer Plattform hasserfüllter Agitation gegen Israel und die Juden, während die Diktaturen dieser Welt sich gegenseitig blütenreine Westen attestierten.

Die für April 2009 angekündigte „Durban Review Conference” wird ihrem Namen als Folgekonferenz leider mehr als gerecht werden. Neben der üblichen Dämonisierung Israels („Apartheid”) werden nunmehr auch Angriffe auf die Presse-, Meinungs- und Redefreiheit an Bedeutung gewinnen. Unter dem Vorwand des Kampfes gegen religiöse Intoleranz (und zwar nur gegenüber dem Islam) werden die Menschenrechte Schritt für Schritt pervertiert und in ein Unterdrückungsinstrumentarium im Namen der Religion umfunktioniert.

Diese gefährlichen Umdeutungen stellen demokratische Staaten vor große Herausforderungen. Die Grundlagen der offenen Gesellschaft dürfen nicht zur Disposition stehen! Angesichts des neuen Vorstoßes von Durban II wäre eine unmissverständliche Reaktion überfällig. Daher fordern die Initiator/inn/en und Unterzeicher/innen des Aufrufs die Bundesregierung und Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten auf, Durban II zu boykottieren.

Zur Initiative „Boykottiert Durban II!”

Der französische Schriftsteller Pascal Bruckner gab im Sommer letzten Jahres mit seiner Forderung nach einem Boykott der Durban II Konferenz den Anstoß für diese Initiative, der sich mehr als 30 Journalist/inn/en, Publizist/inn/en, Wissenschaftler/innen und Künstler/innen aus Europa, den USA und dem Nahen Osten anschlossen, darunter Lars Gustafsson, Jeffrey Herf, Benny Morris, Peter Schneider, Seyran Ates, Necla Kelek, Matthias Küntzel, Sharon Adler, Prof. Arno Lustiger und Ralph Giordano. Der Boykott-Appell hat weit über 1000 Unterschriften erhalten. Er wird am 12. März der Bundesregierung und den Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten übergeben werden.

Zum Abschluss der Kampagne findet eine Pressekonferenz statt, auf der Caroline Fourest und weitere Referent/inn/en für die Notwendigkeit des Boykotts einer solchen Veranstaltung argumentieren werden.

Teilnehmer/innen der Konferenz:
– Caroline Fourest, Autorin und Publizistin, Paris
– Nasrin Amirsedghi; Publizistin, Mainz
– Alex Feuerherdt; Journalist, Bonn
– Klaus Faber; Staatssekretär a. D., Potsdam
– Anetta Kahane; Stiftungsvorstandvorsitzende (Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung), Berlin

Moderation: Thierry Chervel; Chefredakteur des Online-Kulturmagazins Perlentaucher, Berlin

Kooperationspartner: Koordinierungsrat deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus; Group of 25th of November u. Föderation unabh. NGOs, Suleymaniya, Kurdistan/Nordirak; Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin e.V. (MFFB).

Rückfragen: Arvid Vormann – Telefon: 030-50595388 – E-Mail: avmail@web.de

Addressing the Problem of Global Anti-Semitism

In the aftermath of Israel’s Gaza offensive and the global economic crisis, a pandemic of anti-Semitism has erupted around the globe, the national director of the Jewish think tank Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Abraham H. Foxman told a group of lawmakers from 40 countries.

“Since World War Two we have not seen so many attacks on Jews, Jewish institutions, synagogues,” said Mr. Foxman.

The parliamentarians were part of a London international conference organized to devise practical solutions to counter and combat global anti-Semitism.

In the News:
Reuters
The Philadelphia Inquirer

American Jewish Committee Annual Meeting 2009

With hundreds of outstanding thinkers and activists from the U.S. and abroad, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) invite you to connect with people whose experience, intellect, and commitment will inspire you. They are all converging on AJC’s 2009 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., who will take place on May 2009.

Will you join us?

You will have an opportunity for an intimate dinner with one of AJC’s overseas office directors, an ambassador or other distinguished guest.

And, you will participate in small, hands-on sessions, each geared to help you develop key skills for becoming an even more effective activist.

Now, when the need for informed, energized advocacy has never been greater, connect with principles close to your heart and people equally dedicated to them.

Featured speakers include:

• Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico
• Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy
• Stuart A. Levey, U.S. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

Register at www.ajc.org  by March 1, 2009 to get the Early Bird $100 discount. Or call 212-891-6718.

Fall Morsal: mutiger Hamburger Richter wagt gerechtes Urteil

Dass ein Mörder lebenslang bekommt, sollte selbstverständlich sein. Dass deutsche Richter bei Straftätern mit muslimischem Hintergrund unfreiwillig ein Auge zudrücken müssen, ist auch bekannt (wer ist schon lebensmüde genug, um freiwillig unter ständigem Polizeischutz leben zu wollen?).

Im spektakulären Prozess um den brutalen Mord an der Hamburgerin afghanischer Abstammung Morsal Obeidi (am 7. September 1991 in Masar-e Scharif geboren; am 15. Mai 2008 in Hamburger Stadtteil St. Georg von ihrem Bruder mit 23 Messerstichen in den Ewigen Osten gefördert worden), die sich nur von menschenunwürdigen Traditionen befreien wollte, hat sich dennoch der Richter Wolfgang Backen von Islamisten nicht einschüchtern, und eine gerechte Strafe gegen den 24-jährigen Täter verhängen lassen.

Das Landgericht Hamburg sprach Ahmad Obeidi des heimtückischen Mordes aus niederen Beweggründen schuldig und verurteilte ihm zu lebenslanger Haft.

Der Vorsitzende Richter am Landgericht Hamburg sagte in seiner Urteilsbegründung, der Angeklagte habe aus “reiner Intoleranz getötet”. “Für den Tod Ihrer Schwester, die Sie als großer Bruder eigentlich hätten schützen sollen, müssen Sie nun die volle Verantwortung übernehmen”, fügte er hinzu.

Bei einem Prozess in Kabul wäre er “längst draußen”, unterbrach ihn der Angeklagte. “Wir sind hier aber nicht in Kabul”, erwiderte der mutige Richter.

Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil

 

My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA. (February 21, 2002, Daniel Pearl forced to state his identity in the video produced by his murderers, before being slain.)

In The Wall Street Journal, Professor Judea Pearl wrote an op-ed in memory of his son Daniel, who was brutally murdered seven years ago by Pakistani Islamists, only because he was Jew.

By Judea Pearl

The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2009

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail.

Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of “the resistance.”

Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism – the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society – was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature. “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use,” explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter’s logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas’s rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: “They should end the occupation.” In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn’t seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, together with honorary membership in PBS’s imaginary “cycle of violence.” In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that “each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression.” He then stated — without blushing — that for readers of the Hebrew Bible “God-soaked violence became genetically coded.” The “cycle of violence” platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror’s victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas – the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains – to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph – another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Author Biography: Judea Pearl is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, an organization committed to interfaith dialogue, and co-editor of I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl.

Pakistan Planned Mumbai Terrorist Attack

A Pakistani official admitted for the first time that the deadly attacks in Mumbai, India, late last year were planned partly in Pakistan.

In a news conference today, Interior Ministry Chief Rehman Malik said legal proceedings have begun for eight suspects connected to militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). Tensions have been high between India and Pakistan following the attacks in Mumbai, which killed 173 people.

Read full story.

Abraham Lincoln at Two Hundred

The Gettysburg Address – the greatest speech of the American history

Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president of the United States of America. He saved the Union, which made it possible for him to free the Black Americans. But he did more than this.

Without him we probably would have had no reason to celebrate the bicentennial first of the Declaration of Independence and then of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln was not a Freemason, but he possessed and displayed all the important qualities of Freemasonry: freedom, honesty, hope, charity, equality, and belief in God.  His political philosophy was affected by Masonic ideals through the Masonic influence on the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. To mark the bicentennial of his birth, Walter Berns recalled the great man. Special thanks to Veronique Rodman, American Enterprise Institute’s Director of Communications, for recording and streaming the event.

David Berger, Editor & Publisher HIRAM7 REVIEW

***

Bradley Lecture by Walter Berns

American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, February 9, 2009

Walter Berns is a professor emeritus at Georgetown University. Mr. Berns studies political philosophy, constitutional law, and legal issues. He has taught at the University of Toronto, the University of Chicago, Cornell University, and Yale University. His government service includes membership on the National Council on the Humanities, the Council of Scholars in the Library of Congress, the Judicial Fellows Commission, and in 1983 he was the alternate United States representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. He has been a Guggenheim, Rockefeller, and Fulbright Fellow. He is the author of many books and articles on American government and politics, including Democracy and the Constitution (AEI Press, 2006) and Making Patriots (University of Chicago Press, 2001).

Click here to download or listen to audio of the event at The American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

***

On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.”

The Gettysburg Address

by President Abraham Lincoln

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Lebanese Armed Forces – Challenges and Opportunities in Post-Syria Lebanon

A new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies looks at the development of the Lebanese Armed Forces since the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in April 2005.

“Executive Summary: The withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon on April 26, 2005, redefined the role of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). The overlapping domestic and regional contests over post-Syria Lebanon, aggravated by the assassination of political and security figures, the Israel-Hizbullah war of 2006, terrorism and the remilitarization of society, placed heavy pressures on the LAF.

Indeed, the struggle over post-Syria Lebanon has also been a contest over the future mission and ideological direction of the LAF. The LAF has shown that it is one of the few Lebanese institutions in the post-Syria era trusted by a substantial cross-section of Lebanese society.

However, its force development over the 2005-2008 period does not reflect its increasingly important institutional role in Lebanese and regional security. The analysis reveals that the LAF has become more representative, more balanced and more capable as a fighting force. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Lebanon could have weathered the turbulence of the post-Syria era without the LAF.

Local and international actors also appreciate the military’s role as a stabilizer in Lebanon and the Middle East. If the Lebanese military is to consolidate its position as the guarantor of Lebanon and as a positive force in the region, the present unique opportunity to develop the LAF as a fighting force has to be pursued in earnest.

Lebanon’s competing parties, the LAF and the country’s international allies – especially the United States – will face important challenges in 2009 and beyond on the road to LAF force development. Recommendations to bolster LAF force development in 2009 and beyond include:

The purpose of this report is to examine the force development challenges that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are facing in post-Syria Lebanon. It also seeks to build on opportunities for Lebanon and its foreign allies to strengthen the LAF both as a local institution, and as a stabilizing fighting force in the Middle East.

• Efforts to control or re-orient the Lebanese military by competing Lebanese actors only serve to undermine the LAF’s effectiveness as a fighting force and a national institution. Such attempts must stop if LAF unity and its stabilizing role in the country and the region are to be preserved.
• The Lebanese government must move quickly to provide the military with the close to $1 billion it requires for essential force development. This can be accomplished by setting national expenditure on defense at 4 to 5 percent of GDP over a three year period to implement an updated force development plan modeled on the fiscally conservative 2006 plan.
• Any attempt to strengthen the LAF so that it can fight Hizbullah will fail. Close to 30 percent of the officers corps is Shi„a and given that the LAF is a reflection of Lebanese society, it cannot be ordered to act militarily against one or another
• The U.S. needs to recognize that building up the LAF as a deterrent against Lebanon’s neighbors undermines Hizbullah’s logic regarding its weapons arsenal. Accordingly, the U.S. should focus on helping the LAF to lay the foundation for Hizbullah disarmament in the mid-to-long term rather than all-out confrontation in the short term.
• U.S. policy towards the LAF is unclear and hurts U.S. efforts to bolster the LAF as a positive force in Lebanon and the region. These policy ambiguities should be revised and the U.S. must articulate clearly whether or not it will provide the LAF with the heavy combat systems it needs for force development.
• Recent spikes in U.S. military assistance funding have not yet translated into additional defense aid to Lebanon. Congressionally appropriated funding should be set at a level that reflects U.S. recognition of LAF needs.
• The U.S. should consider mechanisms that would reform Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to accelerate equipment deliveries to Lebanon. Alternatively, it could allow congressionally appropriated and supplemental funding earmarked for the LAF to be used in the acquisition of military equipment from U.S. allies. Such moves would positively impact the turnaround time for the receipt of new systems by the LAF while also relieving the burden on the U.S. effort to arm and equip the Afghan and Iraqi security forces.”

Read full story.

Nuclear Heuristics: Selected Writings of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter

Pioneers of nuclear-age policy analysis, Albert Wohlstetter (1913-1997) and Roberta Wohlstetter (1912-2007) emerged as two of America’s most consequential, innovative and controversial strategists.

Through the clarity of their thinking, the rigor of their research, and the persistence of their personalities, they were able to shape the views and aid the decisions of Democratic and Republican policy makers both during and after the Cold War. Although the Wohlstetters’ strategic concepts and analytical methods continue to be highly influential, no book has brought together their most important published and unpublished essays – until now.

Edited by Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) research fellow Robert Zarate and NPEC executive director Henry Sokolski, Nuclear Heuristics: Selected Writings of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter demonstrates not only the historical importance, but also the continuing relevance of the Wohlstetters’ work in national security strategy and nuclear policy.

Read full story.

20th Annual U.S. Army War College Strategy Conference

The U.S. Army War College welcomes you to attend the Twentieth Annual Strategy Conference from April 14-16, 2009, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania at historic Carlisle Barracks.

While over the last decade a great deal of attention has been given to how information technologies are changing the strategic environment and shaping warfare, little has been mentioned about other revolutionary technologies, such as biotechnologies and nanotechnologies, in terms of their potential strategic impact. This conference will address that gap.

To register, please click here.

Israels Wahlen 2009

Ein Informationsblatt in deutscher Sprache zum israelischen Wahlsystem gibt es unter folgendem Link.

Die israelische Botschaft in Washington hat ausserdem eine Broschüre für die diesjährigen Wahlen zusammengestellt.

Die israelische Tageszeitung Yedioth Ahronot erklärt in dem folgenden Artikel den Ablauf der morgigen Wahlen.

***

Zum Prozedere des Knesset-Wahlen

Am morgigen Dienstag finden in Israel die Wahlen zur 18. Knesset statt. Am Ende dieses Prozesses wird auch der neue Ministerpräsident des Landes gewählt. Im zentralen Wahlregister sind diesmal 5 278 985 Bürger über 18 verzeichnet (gegenüber 5 014 622 bei den Wahlen 2006). Den Stimmberechtigten stehen 9263 Wahlurnen zur Verfügung (gegenüber 8276 im Jahr 2006).

Die Wahllokale öffnen um sieben Uhr morgens und schließen um zehn Uhr abends (in Ortschaften mit weniger als 350 Einwohnern kann nur zwischen acht Uhr morgens und acht Uhr abends gewählt werden). Gleich nach Schließung der Wahllokale werden die Stimmen ausgezählt.

Das Wahlverfahren an sich ist kurz: Identifizierung mittels Personalausweis, Führerschein oder Reisepass; Entgegennahme des Umschlags vom Wahlausschuss; Wahl der gewünschten Partei auf dem Stimmzettel in der Wahlkabine; Einwurf des unterschriebenen Umschlags mit dem Wahlzettel in die Urne. Leere Stimmzettel oder solche, die nicht die Initialen einer anerkannten Partei tragen, werden für ungültig erklärt und nicht mitgezählt.

Nach Schließung der Urnen zählt jeder Wahlausschuss die abgegebenen Stimmzettel und leitet die Angaben an den zentralen Wahlausschuss in der Knesset weiter, der ggf. auch Beschwerden und Einsprüche entgegennimmt. Die Briefwahlumschläge von Soldaten, Seeleuten, Vertretern im Ausland, Gefängniswärtern u. a.  werden gesondert in der Knesset gezählt.

Gemäß dem Willen des Wählers besetzt der zentrale Wahlausschuss die 120 Sitze der Knesset. Zuerst wird geprüft, was die minimale Schwelle für den Einzug in das Parlament ist: Die Rede ist von zwei Prozent der gültigen Stimmen. 2006 wurden 3 137 064 gültige Stimmen gezählt, die Prozenthürde lag demnach bei 62 742 Stimmzetteln.

Der nächste Schritt ist die Umrechnung auf ein einzelnes Mandat: die Zahl der gültigen Stimmen – abzüglich derjenigen, die nicht die Prozenthürde übertreten haben – durch 120. Bei der letzten Wahl gab es 2 954 374 ‚passierender’ Stimmen, nachdem von allen gültigen Stimmen jene 182 690 von Parteien abgezogen worden waren, die nicht die Prozenthürde überwunden hatten. Ein Mandat in der Knesset war also 24 619 Stimmen wert.

Um eine Verschwendung von Stimmen zu vermeiden, haben die Parteien Abkommen unterzeichnet, in deren Rahmen sie überschüssige Stimmen transferieren, um einen zusätzlichen Abgeordneten in die Knesset zu bringen. Die Arbeitspartei (Avoda) hat solch ein Abkommen mit Meretz, der Likud mit Israel Beiteinu, Kadima mit den Grünen, Beit Hayehudi mit Eichud Hale’umi, die Senioren-Partei mit den Jugendlichen, Shas mit Yahadut Torah, Hadash mit den vereinigten arabischen Parteien und Israel Hasaka mit der grünen Bewegung/Meimad.

Das offizielle Endergebnis der Wahlen von 2009 wird voraussichtlich am Donnerstagnachmittag bekannt gegeben werden. Danach wird der Präsident eine Beratungsrunde mit den Fraktionen abhalten, um zu entscheiden, welche von ihnen die Aufgabe der Regierungsbildung übernehmen wird.

© Yedioth Ahronot, 09.02.2009

Falsche Toleranz am Beispiel der Kapitulation der europäischen Aufklärung vor dem Islamismus

Jede Niederlage beginnt damit, dass man den Standpunkt des Gegners anerkennt. (Winston Churchill)

Und noch etwas passierte, nämlich, dass die Israelis sich selber geholfen haben, ohne die Hilfe der deutschen Linken oder der französischen Linken. Und da erkennen Sie das Wesen der Sorte Gutmenschen: Die sind nur dann für jemanden da, wenn Du ganz tief in der Scheiße sitzt oder wenn sie glauben, dass Du tief drin sitzt und sie glauben, man müsse Dir helfen. Aber jemand, der sich selber helfen kann, für den interessiert sich dieser Typ Gutmensch nicht mehr. […] Und da haben sie die armen Palästinenser entdeckt. (Ignatz Bubis im Gespräch mit Bettina Röhl)

20 Jahre nach der vom iranischen Ayatollah Khomeini ausgesprochenen Fatwa bzw. Mordaufruf gegen den britischen Schriftsteller muslimischen Glaubens Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, zieht Thierry Chervel – Mitbegründer des Kulturmagazins perlentaucher – eine düstere Bilanz über die Unterwerfung Europas vor der islamistischen Reaktion (Islam bedeutet Unterwerfung auf Arabisch, sprich Aufgabe der Individualität, und nicht Friede wie Multikulti-Apostel bzw. Grüne Opportunisten à la Cem Özdemir uns perfiderweise weis machen wollen) und über die Frage, was der Islamismus im Westen und der Linken seitdem angerichtet hat:

“Die Linke hat in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Islamismus ihre Prinzipien aufgegeben. Sie stand für Loslösung von Sitte und Tradition, aber im Islam setzt sie sie im Namen von Multikulti wieder ins Recht. Sie ist stolz, die Frauenrechte erkämpft zu haben, aber im Islam toleriert sie Kopftücher, arrangierte Ehen und prügelnde Männer. Sie stand für Gleichheit der Rechte, nun plädiert sie für ein Recht auf Differenz – und damit für eine Differenz der Rechte. Sie proklamierte die Freiheit des Worts und gerät beim Islam in hüstelnde Verlegenheit. Sie unterstützte die Emanzipation der Schwulen und beschweigt das Tabu im Islam. Die fällige Selbstrelativierung des Westens nach der kolonialen Ära, die von postmodernen und strukturalistischen Ideen vorangetrieben wurde, führte zu Kulturrelativismus und Kriterienverlust.”

Zum Artikel.

Anti-Semitism on Rise in Venezuela

The violent anti-Semitic attack on a Caracas synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath did not happen in a vacuum. It was the latest manifestation of anti-Semitism in Venezuela, a country whose president, government officials, media commentators and others foster an atmosphere of intimidation against the Jewish community, according to a new report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

In the weeks since Israel launched its operation against Hamas in Gaza, Venezuela’s Jewish community of approximately 15,000 has been the repeated target of hateful rhetoric, intimidation, vandalism of property and threats of organized boycotts, according to the ADL report, Chavez’s Venezuela: The Jewish Community Under Threat.

“The anti-Semites in Venezuela feel emboldened and empowered by the rhetoric and actions of President Hugo Chavez and his government,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

“What is troubling about Venezuela is that anti-Semitism is being used as a political tool,” Mr. Foxman said. “Anti-Semitism is fostered by those at the highest levels of government, trickled down the government apparatus and left unchallenged by officials in the Chavez regime, the government-controlled media, and civic and religious leaders who support the regime in Venezuela.

Among the ADL’s findings:

• President Chavez engaged in a series of statements and actions in response to Israel’s operation in Gaza which were anti-Israel to the extreme, and even bordered on anti-Semitism.  In response to the conflict, Chavez expelled Israel’s ambassador to Venezuela along with six other Israeli diplomats and officially severed relations with the State of Israel. He made statements calling in the Venezuelan Jewish community to speak out against the actions of Israel, and promoted a conspiracy theory that the Israeli Mossad and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency were responsible for poisoning former Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.  In other statements, Chavez trivialized the Holocaust and equated Nazi efforts to exterminate Jews with the military actions of Israel against Hamas.
• The political machine built by Chavez echoed his statements in the press, on radio and television, in the streets of Caracas and in cities across Venezuela.  During the Gaza crisis, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements were made by the foreign minister, interior minister, the president of the national assembly, a number of congress members, and governors across the country who support Chavez.
• A number of anti-Israel rallies were held in Venezuela, with many rallies co-sponsored by government officials.  Nearly all of the rallies contained anti-Semitic references comparing Israel’s military actions to those of the Nazis during the Holocaust and used Nazi imagery to portray Israel’s policies.  These rallies typically left behind anti-Semitic graffiti on synagogue walls, city plazas, Jewish owned businesses and the Israeli embassy.
• Opinion articles appearing in official government media and Web sites echoed anti-Semitic canards and promoted conspiracy theories and myths of Jewish financial influence, Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy, Jewish “responsibility” for the death of Jesus, and claimed Jews are “double agents” of Israel.  Some openly called for the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Venezuela as well as multinational companies believed to be owned by Jews.
• A raft of anti-Semitic comments appeared on mainstream and government-related Web sites.  The posts spread age-old myths about Jewish control of finances and economic interests and conspiracy theories about the Jewish lobby controlling the United States and its policies.  Holocaust references abounded, with some comparing Israel to the Nazis, and others sending the message that “Hitler did not finish the job.”

Check out also this article in The New York Times.

Washington…District of Corruption

The New Republic published an op-ed piece by columnist Norman Ornstein  on the expansion of dubious lobbying in Washington, D.C.

How Washington’s new riches destroyed Tom Daschle

by Norman Ornstein – The New Republic, February 4, 2009

“Washington, D.C., is now filled with lobbyists making six-figure salaries. The desire for members of Congress and staffers to please such influential lobbyists has contributed to what has become a culture of corruption, entangling even many honest, hard-working people. The Obama administration should continue to bring sweeping ethics reform, realizing that there will be casualties along the way.

So Damn Much Money is the title of Bob Kaiser’s penetrating book on the explosion of lobbying and corruption in Washington over the past quarter century. Kaiser is right, and so is Barack Obama in his attempt to attenuate the corrosive links between lobbying and government–even with the hiccup created by Tom Daschle’s withdrawal.

In over 39 years in Washington, I have seen the city transformed from a sterile national capital akin to Canberra or Brasilia into a social, cultural, culinary, and economic metropolis that can (almost) compete with London and Paris. In 1969, when I arrived here, there was limited regional theater, the Smithsonian museums, and a literal handful of ‘exotic’ restaurants (the most exotic of which was a Cuban dive called the Omega). Fancy clothing was the purview of Raleigh’s, where Hickey-Freeman was as hip as it got.”

Read full story.

U.S. warns North Korea about possible missile test

A spokesman from the U.S. State Department spoke out on reports that North Korea may be preparing to test fire a long-range ballistic missile, saying such a move by Pyongyang would be “unhelpful and, frankly, provocative”.

Intelligence and military officials believe it could be a long-range weapon capable of reaching the western United States.

Read full story.

U.N. Accusations of “Israeli Attack on School” Were False

At last month’s emergency session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, ambassadors from the world’s dictatorships – and even some democracies – lined up to attack Israel for “targeting a U.N. school.” Canada alone voted in opposition to the grossly one-sided text. 

Now a new report by Patrick Martin of Canada’s Globe and Mail reveals that, contrary to what was reported worldwide:

1. No Israeli shells landed in the UNRWA school compound;
2. No one taking refuge in the U.N. schoolyard was killed;
3. None of these facts prevented a U.N. agency from falsely reporting that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …”

Will the Human Rights Council now apologize for having falsely condemned Israel for the targeting of facilities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in Gaza, including schools?

As usual when it comes to Israel, the Council was little concerned with actual facts. Egyptian representative Hisham Badr, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that Israel did not distinguish between combatants and civilians, targeting United Nations schools. According to Yemen, “The attacks against schools. . . were grave crimes against humanity. Sudan spoke of the the mad attacks by Israel in Gaza, including against United Nations schools. Syria said UN schools have turned into mass graves. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Djibouti joined the fray – as did even several Western countries. Argentina demanded an independent international investigation on the attacks on UNRWA schools. Slovenia condemned Israeli attacks on schools. Switzerland said that at least 46 civilians seeking shelter in UNRWA school were killed.

Will any of these countries issue an apology, or seek to correct the resolution’s false assertions and faulty premises? Don’t bet on it.

For the full story, see the article below.

***

Account of Israeli attack doesn’t hold up to scrutiny

PATRICK MARTIN
The Globe and Mail, January 29, 2009

Jabalya, Gaza Strip – Most people remember the headlines: “Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.”

They heralded the tragic news of January 6, 2009, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.

There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people’s minds, was not quite accurate.

Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.

Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.

While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.

The teacher who was in the compound at the time of the shelling says he heard three loud blasts, one after the other, then a lot of screaming. “I ran in the direction of the screaming [inside the compound],” he said. “I could see some of the people had been injured, cut. I picked up one girl who was bleeding by her eye, and ran out on the street to get help.”But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere.”

The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: “Inside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead.”

“Three of my students were killed,” he said. “But they were all outside.”

Hazem Balousha, who runs an auto-body shop across the road from the UNRWA school, was down the street, just out of range of the shrapnel, when the three shells hit. He showed a reporter where they landed: one to the right of his shop, one to the left, and one right in front.

“There were only three,” he said. “They were all out here on the road.”

News of the tragedy travelled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge.

Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.

Sensing a public-relations nightmare, Israeli spokespeople quickly asserted that their forces had only returned fire from gunmen inside the school. (They even named two militants.) It was a statement from which they would later retreat, saying there were gunmen in the vicinity of the school.

No witnesses said they saw any gunmen. (If people had seen anyone firing a mortar from the middle of the street outside the school, they likely would not have continued to mill around.)

John Ging, UNRWA’s operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that “no one was killed in the school.”

“I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school,” he said.

Why would he do that?

“Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn’t true.”

Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. “They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before,” he said, “in 2007.”

The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.

“Look at my statements,” he said. “I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation.”

Speaking from Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as the bodies were being brought in that night, an emotional Mr. Ging did say: “Those in the school were all families seeking refuge. … There’s nowhere safe in Gaza.”

And in its daily bulletin, the World Health Organization reported: “On 6 January, 42 people were killed following an attack on a UNRWA school …”

The UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited “early reports” that “three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School …” However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …” including the one at issue.

Such official wording helps explain the widespread news reports of the deaths in the school, but not why the UN agencies allowed the misconception to linger.

“I know no one was killed in the school,” Mr. Ging said. “But 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.

“The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?”

© Copyright CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Pope Benedict XVI under pressure

Pope Benedict XVI is under increasing pressure following his decision to revoke the excommunication of several leaders of the ultra-conservative Society of Pius X, among them a Holocaust denier.

Several Catholic bishops expressed their unease over Benedict’s decision ten days ago to allow back in Richard Williamson and others into the Catholic Church. Williamson recently denied that the Holocaust occurred and said that Nazi Germany had never used gas chambers.

Israel’s minister for religious affairs, Yitzhak Cohen, has threatened to suspend relations with the Vatican, the German news magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ reports. Cohen said he recommended “completely cutting off connections to a body in which Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are members.” The Chief Rabbinate of Israel last week broke off official ties with the Vatican to protest the Pope’s decision.

British-born Richard Williamson is one of four bishops who are members of the Society of Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic order, whose excommunication was lifted a week ago. Williamson, who now lives in Argentina, had claimed in a television interview that historical evidence was “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler … I believe there were no gas chambers”. Williamson was excommunicated 20 years ago after being ordained a bishop by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent.

The Vatican said it had been unaware of Williamson’s views on the Holocaust when the decision was made to readmit the group, and the Pope quickly distanced himself from the comments and expressed “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews. However, condemnation from Jewish groups was widespread.