Jacob's Soap Box

14 September, 2009

Recently I came across a snippet of news that on the advice of its fund’s Ethics Council , Norway state’s pension funds (previously Oil Fund) divested themselves from share holding in the electronic company Elbit Systems Ltd. Elbit is an Israeli hi-tech corporation heavily involved with defence projects.

The Norwegians cited the reason for divesting from Elbit that apparently, Elbit supplies components that are used in surveillance on the fence between Israel and the West Bank, the fence specifically built to block easy passage of suicide bombers into Israel.

You see, it is all about ethics, another term that has been hijacked by the loony left and liberal activism. No longer ethics is a set of values, axiomatically a force of good but it has become a spin intended to indoctrinate students of activists liberal professor into their political agenda, after all no one likes people who behave unethically.

Once upon a time ethics was about decent behaviour, personal or professional. These days the term imply activism, particularly, but not limited to, the environment.

Whilst originally ethical investments may introduced by the environmentalism movement in an attempt to encourage investment decisions towards companies which are doing the “right” thing by the environment, the eco-whackos quickly moved from encouragement to penalty, They no longer “pushing” investments in “worthy” enterprises but instead they “punish” those who they, the “ethics police”, consider unfriendly to their (environmental) cause.

About twelve out of some twenty six banned corporations from the Norwegian Pension Fund are American including Boeing, General Dynamic, Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart. The reason vary from participation in the production of nuclear weapon, cluster bombs, land mines to alleged breaches of Human Rights and environmental “crimes” that cover both (real) pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

To this impressive list of causes the Ethics Council now added a new cause, Palestinianism, a term coined by Bat Yeor, the author of the book Eurabia and describe the European anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Israel.

Heading the Corporate Governance of the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) until 2007 was Dr. Henrik Syse, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO), a man with no qualification in banking or investment whatsoever who is suppose to look after a fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars, some ethic!

Question: What is common to environment, peace human rights and Palestinianism causes?

Answer: Marxism! But somehow, unlike Stalin’s one, an ethical Marxism, are you kidding me? Some ethics!

Once more we see is the infamous environmental watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Let us just examine those causes and those who are pushing them;

One of the causes pushed by NBIM and its “peace scientist” head was anti- nuclear weapon. The Norwegian central bank took the high moral ground “punishing” American corporation that are alleged to be involved with the development of nuclear weapon whilst at the same time, Norway, as a member of NATO, is quite prepared to accept the outcome of such developments and stay under the nuclear umbrella provided by the USA to its allies, some ally, some ethics!

The front line jetfighter aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Air Force is the F-16 (Falcon) developed by General Dynamic and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, BOTH are excluded corporations by the investments Ethics Council of Norway. Do you get it? American corporations that are so crucial to Norway’s national defence are banned as unethical, some ethics!

Norway’s so-called Oil Fund (now renames “Pension Fund” has been established to preserve the wealth that comes from Norway’s North Sea oil and gas. The idea is that as oil is finite resource, thus the benefits it brings must be preserved by a special fund for future generations.

In order to avoid the new riches affecting the Norwegian economy (how?), by law the fund is prohibited from investing in Norway. In other words the people of Norway are denied their oil and gas wealth developed by their own tax money through a government owned (now privatised) Statoil, hopefully their children or grandchildren will. In other words, the current generation paid for the development of the resource but is not allowed to participate in the wealth it brings for ethical reasons, some ethics!

The echo-whackos call it sustainability, hardly a day pass that we don’t hear the word, what is sustainability? The concept is simple to explain, suppose you go to the supermarket to get your favourite bread, when you get to the bread shelves you see the last of loaves sitting lonely on the shelf. You are now suppose to leave that loaf of bread to someone “more deserving” who will come later, who that someone is or why that someone is more deriving then you is never explained, it is a question of sustainability and ethics, some ethics!

And let us not forget, the source of that investment funds, fossil fuels, the villain of global warming. Yes, I agree, global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind but I don’t go around selling oil then wagging fingers at corporation who use it describing them as unethical for burning fuel that I has sold them, some ethics!

And if we are talking about global warming (aka Climate Change) let just concentrate on one aspect of it, ethics. In a recent BBC’s HARDtalk program, Stephen Sackur interview the CEO of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, who incidentally calls himself “climate scientist” watch:

Global Warming Lies (aka emotionalism)

Now do you want to get more emotionalised, do you want to see some photo of “cute” polar bears? Perhaps some seals cubs? But never the two together because polar bear EATS seals cubs.

SOME ETHICS!

* * * * *

Let us now turn to Palestinianism. According to Bat Yeor, who coined the term, Palestinianism is

… the moral justification for the elimination of Israel

One does not have to look far into the histories of anti-Semitism in Europe and United State, to understand why Palestinianism has become so successful in Europe.

This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism, nor anyone who criticise Israel is anti-Semite as not everyone who disagree with president Obama is racist but there is no doubt an anti-Semitism element ma

The divesting of $5 million out of Elbit represents less then 1% of Elbit’s capital, thus is financially meaningless but not so symbolically. It support the Arab propaganda that the wall represents some sort of apartheid.

Here is what apartheid looks like:

Apartheid sign on Durban beach

You will not find signe like this on any beach, or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. There are no laws in Israel forbidding sex between Jews and Arabs or segregating Arabs citizens in any shape or form. The fence was erected primarily to stop suicide bombers cross over into Israel, yes, to save innocents lives. Yet the Ethics Council seem to think that monitoring the fence is somehow unethical, some ethics.

(By the way, the fence has brought another benefit to Israel, a drastic decline in car theft. May I ask the ethics council what happened to their level of car theft since their gates were opened to Muslim immigration? Hmmm? Just asking!)

From a cultural point of view, Israel is largely a European county. It has more in common with Europe than with the Middle East, any feminist, homosexual, atheist, trade unionist, whether incorporated in one person or more, can walk the streets of Israel with safety, something they cannot do in any other country in the Middle East. Yet the Ethics Council find the fence that contributes to that safety objectionable, some ethics!

For crying out loud, we have just seen a female journalist arrested in Sudan for …. Wearing “inappropriate” trousers, This is the same country that arrested a British teacher because of “inappropriate” teddy bears. But you would not hear a peep from the ethics council about Sudanese Human rights, the reason is a question of ethics, some ethics!

* * * * *

It is fair to say that Norway is not alone in having either ethics council, supporting Palestinianism or displaying anti-Israeli sentiments. The situation is very across the border in “neutral” Sweden and to lesser extent across the water in Denmark and France with the rest of Europe not far behind.

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally so close to Europe, is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

In other words, the EAD does not only cements the Arab ant-Israel policy with Europe in exchange for oil (surprise, surprise), it also set European policy apart from America for the purpose of being apart, and oil and, of course ethics, SOME ETHICS!

If you never heard of EAD, do not despair, you are not alone the EU is doing its best to hide the EAD in an assortment of euphemisms and diplomatic jargon. One of the main reasons why Israel has never agreed that Europe be part of the peace talks is the EAD. You see, Israel interpretation of ethics is different.

Have I got the meaning of the word wrong?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer, 2009 – All rights reserved.

21 June, 2009.

So there you have it, Mr. Netanyahu bowed to Obama pressure and acknowledged a two states solution or word to that affect, depending on the inspiration of the journalist or the talking heads. I wonder, how many so-called journalist actually listened to (or read transcript of) the speech, They got pre-occupied with one aspect of the speech, perhaps one and a half if we count those who mentioned the settlements too.

Some took the view that if there is an Obama angle in this, it must be historical. Our (Australian) foreign minister, Stephen Smith said on the ABC that:

[He] think[s that] the key point for the international community is for the first occasion we have an acknowledgement that a two-state solution is required as the basis for peace in the Middle East. [My highlighting]

First occasion? Are you kidding me? In his speech Bibi reminded his listeners that Israel agreed to a two state solution 61 years ago! It is in his speech, for crying out loud. I am reminded of the joke about an old man who goes to see his doctor, the following dialogue ensues:

Patient: Doctor, I thing that I suffer from Amnesia.

Doctor: How long you have been suffering from it?

Patient: Suffering from what?

On 29 November, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution No 181, commonly known as the Partition of Palestine Plan that, among other sings said:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.[My highlighting]

This looks to me as two states solution as two state solution can be AND that the solution includes … a Jewish state. 1947 Messrs. Obama and Smith! Not 2009!

The leadership of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (the Ishuv) agreed to the plan whilst the Arab countries (repeat: Arab countries) rejected it, Note that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, or their leadership, had no say on the matter. (also note that at that time there was no such thing as Palestinians, the inhabitants of area under the British Mandate of Palestine, were known as either Jews or Arabs).

As the last British soldier left Palestine on 15 May, 1948, the Jews of Palestine declare the State Of Israel within the partition boundaries. The same day, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan (Jordan), Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and a volunteers army called the Arab Liberation Army (note: no “Palestine” in sight) invaded the new country. Israeli War of Independence erupted.

Israel War of Independence 1948

All this is in the Netanyahu’s speech but the corrupt bumper sticker editors of the media would not mention it in a month of Sundays because it runs against the two state solution bumper sticker slogan advanced by the Grand Mufti of Washington DC in Cairo earlier this month.

Have no doubt my friend, the invading Arab armies aim was to annihilate the new independent nation of Israel and carve the spoils amongst themselves, not to create another Arab country. They opposed ANY NEW state, not only the Jewish one.

During the ensuing war some 700,000 Arabs left, BOTH the Jewish and the Arab areas of the partition plan, at the behest of the Arab countries. They were promptly rounded up in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Arab Refugee problem was born.

Since 1948 the world has known many refugees problems, Europe, Eastern Europe, India-Pakistan, Korea War, Vietnam War, Cambodia, some in Africa and even as late as ten years ago in Bosnia. All such refugees problems has been resolved except the Arab (later renamed Palestinian) refugee problem, why?

From its inception, the so-called Arab/Palestinian refugee problem was kept alive by the Arab government as a diversion from their shaky inept, often corrupt hold on their people. Whilst the Arabs are vocal when it come to Human Rights, they deny basic human rights to Palestinian living in their country.

Yet there some one million Arabs living inside Israel as full citizen with more rights that any other Arabs in the Middle East – there have never been any refugee camps for Arabs inside Israel albeit there were some for Jewish refugees, some from Arab countries, in the 1950’s

Despite Israel continuing declaration that it seek peace with its neighbours, the Arab countries not only steadfastly refused to recognise Israel but also had developed a common doctrine to annihilate Israel in a coordinated invasion as indeed they attempted and failed in 1967 and 1973.

Israel security policies were to meet such threats through a one command military (IDF) which rely on reserve manpower, competent intelligence organisation (Mossad, Shin Beth and the Military Intelligence) and development of military and aeronautical industries to reduce dependency on imports and reduce the effects of Arm embargoes.

Contrary to common belief, America’s relations with Israel were hostile to cold until 1968. Whilst the USA was the first county to recognise Israel, it also adhered to the international embargo on arms shipment to the Middle East in 1948/49 which was in fact an embargo against Israel only

The CIA assessment at the time was that the new state is unlikely to survive the (1948) war and if it did, having regard to its “socialist” background, in all probability it would join and be part of the Soviet bloc. America was “neutral”, the USA has no interest in risking its relation with the Arab world. The word “neutrality” has received a whole new meaning, George Orwell’s one.

Whilst it was quickly realised that the CIA (and the State Department) were wrong on both counts when Israel supported the West in the Korea War, it took a further 20 years before president Johnson agreed to sell American weapon to Israel.

Whilst the Arab countries were receiving weapons from the Soviet Union on a “never never” basis, Israel was forced to scrounge its weapon from whoever was prepared to sell it for cash.

For nearly 19 years (between 1948 and 1967) the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule, both busting at the seams with Arab refugees, (that what they were called) yet not a peep about Palestinians let alone about a Palestinian state.

The Arab countries, quietly abandoned their doctrine to destroy Israel by a coordinated military invasion after their defeat in 1973 (Yom Kippur War). Indeed in 1979, Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt and 1995 with Jordan.

* * * * *

In 1959, Yassir Arafat, together with four others, founded the Fatah organisation and introduced the term “Palestinians” to mean the Arab inhabitant of the West part pf the British Mandate over Palestine that included Jordan of today in it. The aim of the organisation was to provide a venue for the newly created Palestinian identity to take charge of its destiny, namely, taking back Falastin (Israel) by force (terror). It was not until January 1965 when the first terror attack took place as the Fatah failed to sabotage the (Israeli) National Water Carrier.

In 1964 the Arab countries created the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), a parent organisation for a number of Palestinian terror organisations, including the Fatah, also defining the Palestinian nation and it right for land of Falastin, being Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Have no doubt, the Palestinian terror is the forerunner of the Global Islamic terror. The Muslim terror, that has no equivalent in any other religion, born out of Muslim Brotherhood principles, and was surreptitiously developed as “fine art” with training, equipment and propaganda, by the Soviet Union (and China to a lesser degree). The relation between the Left and the Palestinian terror was forged in Soviet training camps.

As Communism itself survived the fall of the Soviet Union, so did the Socialist support to the so-called Palestinian cause. There is no single American university that respects itself that does not have department for Middle East Studies that are no more than a channel for vile Palestinian propaganda and sheer Anti-Semitism dressed up as “academic freedom”.

Since the 1960’s Israel has been warning the West against idolising terrorists in general and Muslim terrorists in particular and calling for international measure against Muslim terror. But with a very few exceptions, most western countries look at the problem as an Israeli only problem, not an international one … until it hit home and even then, the fault was not Islam’s.

No one symbolised such obtuse attitude as the deputy assistant commissioner of the (London) metropolitan police, Brian Paddick who said:

As far as I am Concerned, Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.

This is not politically correctness gone mad, this is not moral equivalence gone bad, this is mad!!! If such people are in charge of our safety from terror, God save us all!

Too often the terror apologisers tell us that the terrorist are only a small core of extremists. Have no doubt, Muslim terror is NOT an action of a few radical nutcases, Muslim terror is a well coordinated world-wide movement, it is also known as political Islam.

Political Islam, also referred to as radical Islam or Islamism (I hate this word, but this is another story) is the movement seeks to achieve a global hegemony of Islam, nothing short of that. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, Taliban Wahhabism are all example of Political Islam.

Ehud Yaari, a well known Israeli commentator on Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict explains that as the Arab countries have given up on destroying Israel (Iran is not an Arab country), Political Islam has stepped into the vacuum in the forms of the Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and alike. They brought with them a new doctrine, muqawama, a doctrine that many seem to loose sight of its effects.

Muqawama, which, incidentally, forms a part of the Hamas’s name, Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), means “resistance” but the muqawama doctrine is characterised by a lot more than just resistance and its affects are felt far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Muqawama has the following characteristics:

Fighting against a superior forces: The enemy is always powerful, such as the Israeli, American or Turkish military, depending on the circumstances

Fight not for territory: That may seem strange in the “two states solution” age but the aim is not territory, THE AIM IS BLOOD, plenty of it and on both sides including innocent civilians, children and women. The aim is a war of attrition by blood letting, the more blood spilled the better. The sensitivity of the enemy (us) to our casualties alone will cause public outcry for surrender.

Shahada: Martyrdom and death are objectives on their own right, the afterlife world is more important than the here and now. This is how suicide bombers are glorified.

Fight not for victory: Victory is only a long term objective. This is part of the doctrine to avoid frustrations due to lack of real achievement in the short run.

In fact muqawama doctrine has familiar tone to it, they don’t want to win, they want to fight.

* * * * *

When you examine events in the Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Western Turkey in light of muqawama you quickly realise that the Islamic terror is a lot larger than “a few radical Islamists”

Further, if you understand muqawama, you would also understand why the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates (NOT the Hamas) was quick on their feet to reject Netanyahu’s speech not for what is in it, but for what is not.

If you have been watching the Palestinian leadership, all of them, you would note that every time it looks as if they are getting closer to achieving a state they run away from it, under one pretence or another – indeed they don’t want a state, they want to fight for one.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

14 march, 2009

It was recently revealed that our Governor-General, our Queen’s representatives down here, Quentin Bryce, is about to take a controversial 18 days 9 African counties trip, apparently canvassing for Australia seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC)

The trip is controversial because, contrary to conventions, our G-G agreed to participate in partisan politics, but this is to be expected when a socialist megalomaniac PM like Kevin 747 appoints a fellow Queenslander, socialist activist republican to represent the queen.

Leaving the constitutional question of the trip aside, it seems that our illustrious PM’s sudden urge to for substantial engagement with Africa has nothing to do with Kumbaya but to pander to the Africans, canvassing their support for Australia’s (non-permanent) seat on the UN Security Council in the 2012 General Assembly vote for 2013/14 tenure.

Whilst there is nothing wrong or unusual about Australia seeking a UNSC seat per se, Australian interests, or world peace, does not appear to be the motive of Kevin747, not in my opinion anyhow.

As an avid Kev watcher, I cannot escape the feeling that this is all done to satisfy Kevin’s control freakishness, megalomaniac tendencies and a further excuses to dance on world stages. I would not be surprised if behind it all is the background of Kev eventual assault on the job of Secretary General when Kev is “elder statesman” former PM and Ban Ki Moon had enough.

My main concern is that, if I am judging the situation correctly, Australia’s interests are about to be trampled on for a personal agenda. Oh, don’t tell me, Kevin does not do it for himself, it is all for Australia. Bull dust!

The UN is the most corrupt organisation in the world, there no revere can come to Australia from associating with such shady body (in it current structure) that is anything but what its founders intended.

How does it works?

The Security Council

The Security Council (UNSC) is the only UN body with “teeth”; unlike the General Assembly, it has the powers to enforce its resolutions (if it wishes) by mastering peace keeping forces, apply sanctions, embargoes or even engage in a military campaign as it did in the Korea War and the Gulf War I.

The UNSC also vets and recommend admission of new member states to the UN for approval (or not) by the General Assembly (GA).

It also select the new Secretary General for member states approval by a vote in the Assembly (or not).

The UNSC is the “executive branch” of the UN, similar to a Board Of Directors (except the veto powers) whilst the general Assembly is akin to the shareholders of a company

The UNSC comprises of fifteen members, fives permanent, perms in UN jargon and ten rotating members, non-perms.

The Five perms are United State, Untied Kingdom, France, Russia and China, each has a veto power on any UNSC resolution.

Every year five of the ten non-perms are voted for a two years tenure, similar to the half senate elections. Their composition is based on the following key:

Africa: 3; Latin America & The Caribbeans: 2; Eastern Europe: 1; Asia: 2; Western Europe & Others: 2.

In addition, there must always be at least one Arab member that comes off either from the Asian or the African allocation.

The “others” in the Western Europe group include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Israel is the 57^th state member of the UN, in order of joining. Israel Was accepted as a UN member state on 11 May, 1949. It preceded countries such as Austria, Finland, Italy, Portugal Spain and the vast majority of Africa (the exception are Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa).

Because of Arab opposition, Israel was not accepted as part of the Asian bloc, it became an “untouchable” bloc of itself, a bloc that is not entitled to a seat on the security council.

In 2000 Israel was accepted “temporarily” to the Western Europe & Others bloc ON THE CONDITION that it would not seek a seat on security council, still untouchable.

There you have it, whilst the Arab countries always guaranteed a seat on the Security Council, Israel is “guaranteed” never to have one. What about cultural diversity, social inclusion and other PC spins? Heh?

The United State has requested Israel not to “rock the boat” on the issue of seat on the UNSC in exchange for a US “diplomatic umbrella”. This is the real source for the USA support of Israel in the UN, rather than “strong Jewish lobby” although there is little doubt that USA support for Israel needs no special agreements.

The purpose of these facts are not to present Israel as a victim, just to demonstrate one of many hypocrisies that rule the UN.

To gain a seat on the Security Council, Australia must get the two third of the votes in the General Assembly (GA) or 128 vote out of total 192 members. The fact that Finland and Luxemburg have also put their candidacy forward makes it a three horses race.

The charade has commenced, now let us turn to the working of GA.

The General Assembly

The General Assembly (GA) is the forum of All 192 members states of the UN, practically all the countries in world, except Taiwan and the Vatican.

The voting in the GA is one state one vote, thus the vote of the USA or Russia is equal to the votes of, say, Maldives or Andorra.

Not so when it comes to funding the UN. The UN is funded by its members according to their relative capacity to pay (measure by the respective Gross National Income). The top six of the contributors to the UN provide about 64% of its budget (2006 figures) whilst the last third of members provide less then one thousandth of it (0.1%).

Russia is the only UNSC perm that does not make the first fifteen contributors list, nor would you find any OPEC member in that list.

The GA meet yearly from September to December but may be called for extraordinary seatings. About two third of members, also known as known as G77 (although they are nowadays about 130 in number) or the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) practically control the stage on the assembly when they vote en bloc which is most times.

NAM was founded during the Cold War days by India’s Nehru and Yugoslavia’s Tito as supposedly a bloc of counties that are not aligned with the West or with the USSR. These countries were also known as the third world, developing countries etc. Today, counting observers status too, the bloc includes all the countries in Africa, all the countries of Asia (except Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Israel) and all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbeans (except Argentina).

Like all UN euphemisms, the tern non-aligned is nothing but a bad joke. The phrase suppose to denote a forging policy independent from the USA and Russia; Really? How foreign policy independent is NATO member such as non-aligned Poland? The same question can be asked of former USSR states such as Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan who enjoy the Russian bear hug?

Be that as it may, you now realise that if you want a resolution passed in the UN you have Buckley’s chance of getting it unless you have the 113 votes of Non-Aligned, or about 130 votes if you include “observers” (and hangers on) which is just over two third of the UN vote that will guarantee control on the assembly.

But wait, it is getting even better, 54 members of the non-aligned bloc also belong to the 57 states strong Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) meaning that just about half of the so-called non-aligned countries are the Muslim countries; put it in other words, as there is no veto powers in the GA, the UN General Assembly is in fact controlled by the Muslim world!!!

Now, you don’t really need to be a rocket scientists to see the reasons for the constant obsession of the UN and its institutions with constant condemnations of Israel. Do you really believe that had Mamma Teresa headed the Israeli government the relations of Israel with the UN would have been any better? if you do I have some excellent investment opportunity for you in one of Bernard Madoff’s secured investment funs.

Although the resolutions of the GA are not binding, they are often used as excuses to limit our liberties for the greater good of the planet … or such like similar crap. How many such UN resolutions have been used in such a manner? Let’s look at some examples:

On 6 December, 1973 (in a middle of oil embargo against the West by OPEC, mind you) the UN passed Resolution 307, the LIMA DECLARATION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION, also known as the Lima Declaration in short, that mandated the largest ever transfer of wealth from of the developed word to the Third World. e.g:

25. [The signatories declares that They] resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order;

27. That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis;

[Emphasis and highlights provided]

(Hey, who needs conspiracy theories?)

Let us look at another issue, the Environment. The REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as the Rio Declaration, The forerunner to the Kyoto Protocol. Again, the UN General Kumbaya agree that we must save the planet but … wait … not if it hurts some poor none-aligned.

Principle 6 of the declaration makes sure that saving the planet is a NIMBY (Not In My back yard) affair.

The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

The futility of global warming aside, the same principle is used by China and India to excuse themselves from taking action on global warming, not because it is a the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on human kind but because the proportionality doctrine that says that it is now their “turn” to emit carbon dioxide.

Perhaps we can also agree that all those nations who missed out on slavery be allowed to introduce it provided it is proportionate to previous slavery, how about it? It is their turn!

And so the Third Word gets away exempting itself from a whole host of UN resolutions due to cultural sensitivities, We, in the west, are prevented from discipline our kids by the UN Convention On The Right Of The Child, whilst third world countries may continue to practice child slavery and deny education to Muslim girls having regard to economic, social and cultural rights as permitted by Article 4 (and elsewhere) in the convention.

Women may be bitten and honour-killed in conformity with cultural sensitivities simply because the Organisation of Islamic Conference control the Third World voting bloc in the General Assembly, the same applies to other human rights that are too culturally sensitive to be adopted in Muslim countries.

The whole travesty they call human rights, in the context of the UN, is an issue by itself, but you can do no more than shaking your head in disbelief observing countries such as Libya, Sudan, Iran and other with abhorrent human rights records leading the Untied Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reprimanding western democracies on the subject.

But don’t think that if you don’t like what you see you have a right to criticise it, you don’t! Take a look at the UN Resolution 62/154 Combating Defamation Of Religions, which has been dubbed as Anti-Islamophobia Resolution. It calls for countries to take measure to stop criticism of Islam.

But I guess that Muslim have a cultural sensitivity that allow them to call Jews and Christians apes and swine.

The UN has ceased to fulfilled its intended functions sometimes in the 1960’s. It has become a tools to drag humanity back to the seven century, limit our sovereignty and rid us of our liberties.

Too often we see narrow and radical self interests within our countries use the UN to subterfuge the democratic process and liberties as if the UN is some sort of a supreme benevolent umpire (*gulp*).

Next time that you see a UN resolution, just before you get all wet an worm on the inside, remember Who the hell is actually running this charade we call the United Nation.

1 March, 2009

You must give it to them, them the politically corrupt industry, how so elegantly they snuck this one on us whilst we were daydreaming, this new term Abrahamic Religion rolled of the production line. No ceremonies, no ribbons snipping, it just appeared in the middle of the day, as if it was always there, no explanation needed.

The idea is simple. Islam, that despite movies such as Arabesque and Lawrence Of Arabia, has acquired some image challenges over the years, particularly when some people in the West got the opportunity to examine it closer. In order to meet its image deficiency Islam needed that something which would finally convince us all that it is not just another religion, but that we, who the Koran call the followers of the book, are part of Islam and Islam is part of us, Kumbaya.

No kidding!

The basis for this whacky PC idea is that as Muslims believe that Arabs, thus Muhammad, are descendants of Ishmael (Ismail in Arabic), Abraham’s son to Hagar, they too are part of the extended Judea-Christian family, thus all we need is a new bumper sticker, brilliant!

I first came across the term very recently, last Christmas, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exercised his “right of reply” to the Queen Christmas massage when he said, among other things:

Upon the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, Son of Mary, the Word of God, the Messenger of mercy, I would like to congratulate the followers of Abrahamic faiths, especially the followers of Jesus Christ, and the people of Britain.

The travesty of a need for “reply” to the queen Christmas massage, by whom, and the use of Abraham tells it all. The Abrahamisation of Islam into the Jodeo-Christian religions is a product of the PC, multi-culti brigade and it has nothing to do with religions, Christianity, Judaism or Islam for that matter. It is simply a feel good term.

Let me be clear, I do not question Muslim’s beliefs about Abraham, this is not the issue. The issue is the use of Abraham for politically correct reasons.

* * * * *

There is no such things as Abrahamic Nation, Abrahamic Religion, Abrahamic Nation or Abrahamic anything for that matter. The term Abrahamic Religion was coined by the political corrupt multicultural brigade with the active support of the useful idiots of Islam to create an impression that somehow Islam belongs in the Jodeo-Christian groups of religions – IT IS NOT!

One would not like to use harsh terms such as “disagreement” or, God forbid, “dispute” when it comes to warm feeling on the inside, thus I shall use some UN language innovations and point out some divergences between Judeo-Christianity and Islam.

Let us start with the BIBLE; The Old Testimony of the Bible is the holy book to both Jews and Christians. Whiles the Koran cites biblical individuals and events, the Bible itself is not a holy (to Muslims). Muslims regard some parts of the Bible as “corrupted”, they don’t study it, they don’t read it and it is not allowed in the birthplace of the prophet, of Saudi Arabia. Divergence No 1

* * * * *

The Bible also provides us with a continuing chronological events time-line between Abraham and Jesus, something which does not show up in Muhammad’s curriculum vitae (CV). Instead, Ishmael, whom I will discuss further down below, disappeared from the biblical tales, only to resurface, some two thousands year later with a me too story.

Believe the Bible or believe the Koran it is still a divergence no 2.

* * * * *

Turning to the man himself, Abraham, there is a discord with the Muslim section of the Abrahamic feel Good misnomer as to who was Abraham? Sura 3:67 of the Koran says:

Ibrahim [Abraham] was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists. [Koran 3:67]

True, Abraham was not a Jew or a Christian, he was Hebrew, the Bible says:

And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram. [Genesis 14:13]

Believe it either way, it is still a Divergence No 3.

* * * * *

From father to son. Muslims believe that Ishmael is the patriarch of all Arabs. Muslims also believe that Ishmael, not Isaac was the subject of God’s test of Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his son. Muslims celebrate it with the Festival of Sacrifice (Eid Al Adkha) which marks the beginning of the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Isaac or Ishmael? Believe in what you may, it is still divergence no 4.

* * * * *

Now let’s turn to Ishmael’s mother, Hagar (also Agar and Hajar). The most striking point about her is that the matriarch of Islam is not mentioned in the Koran! Not even once! (As a matter of interest, Jerusalem, the third most holy city to Islam, does not get a mention in Koran either).

According to the Bible, Hagar was EGYPTIAN maid of Sara (Abraham’s wife) who bore Ishmael to Abraham, because Sara was barren, or so the thought. After Sara’s miracle birth to Isaac, and at here behest, Abraham sent Hagar and her son away.

Not only his mother was Egyptian but Ishmael also married an Egyptian woman. In other words, the two most important women in Ishmael’s life, his mother and his wife were Egyptian.

And he [Ishmael] dwelt in the [desert] of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. [Genesis 21:21]

(Comment: For some reason the St James version of the Bible, translates the Hebrew word midbar as wilderness., this is incorrect. I use correct word for midbar which is desert ).

Believe that two Egyptian women are the matriarch of the Arab nation or not it is still Divergence No 5

* * * * *

Muslims claim that the Paran Desert, Hagar, Ishmael and his family last known residence, is in Mecca. This bears the question: How would Hagar find another Egyptian woman in Mecca of pre-Hajj days? The more likely explanation is that Paran was part of Egypt those days. The word Paran may well have also derived from the word Par’oh (Pharaoh), which may support an Egyptian connection to the plave

The name Paran appears in the Bible a number of times. The spies that Moses sent to explore on the promised departed to their mission from the Paran Desert.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them. And Moses by the commandment of the LORD sent them from the [desert] of Paran: all those men were heads of the children of Israel. [Numbers 13: 1-3]

The exact location of Paran Desert is not known for certain but it is most likely somewhere between the Sinai Peninsula and the Negev in Israel of today. Wadi Paran (wadi is Arabic for “dry creek”) that runs from the centre of the Sinai Peninsula into the Arava plains between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Eilat (Gulf of Aqaba) in Israel may give us some cluse as to where the Paran Desert might be found.

Wadi Paran In the Arava in Israel

The Bible mentions Paran in a number of times, for example:

These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the [desert], in the [Arava] over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh-Barnea [Deuteronomy 1:1-2]

Horeb (Khorev) is a mountain near Mount Sinai or another name for Mount Sinai. Kadesh-Barnea is one of he places the spies went through their tour, it is said to mark the most southern point of Erez Israel (the Land of Israel) which out it at shores the Red Sea, near Eilat of today. Although none of this give us a precise position of the Paran, it has as much chances as being anywhere near Mecca as being near Sydney, Divergence no 6.

* * * * *

In UN speak six counts of divergences must counts as isolation, UNophiles love the word. Ask all the haters of America and Israel. If you understand UN speak you would know that being isolated is worse than being called Holocaust deniers but I am digressing now.

I guess that by now you cans see how ridiculous, this Abrahamic thing is. Above all, had Islam recognised the other Abrahamic religions as being part of the family, there would be no infidels; oh well, may be a few Hindus.

If we are all in the same Kumbaya, who are those people that the Koran call the follower of the book? Not once or twice, we the followers of the book get 34 mentions in Koran. Wow that is 34 more times than the words Jerusalem, Hagar and Abrahamic religions appear in the Koran.

________

P.S. It seems that the Koran foreshadows its useful idiots in America, Australia, Britain, Holland and all others where bleeding hearts can be found:

He it is Who caused those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book [Jews and Christians] to go forth from their homes at the first banishment you did not think that they would go forth, while they were certain that their fortresses would defend them against Allah; but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts; they demolished their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers; therefore take a lesson, O you who have eyes! [Koran 59:2]

Abrahamic what?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer

16 January, 2009

Here is math question for fifth grade:

There are about 900 people in the neighbourhood, half of them went to watch a football game. The number of kids watching the game represents one third of the total neighbourhood and the number of women and kids represent 40% that neighbourhood.

Question: How many of each men, women and children are at the game?

Answer: 90 men, 60 women and 300 children (all about)

What that got to do with anything?

If you have listen carefully to the Hamas propaganda parroted by the UN and the media you will learn over a number of bulletins that: Total casualties is 900 (as of Monday 12 January, 2009) half are civilians, one third are children and 40% are women and children.

In solving this simple arithmetic problem we learn that, according to the Hamas, the ratio of children fatality is two dead children for each non combatant adult fatality or four dead women and children for every man. Can some please offer an explanation for such disproportion?

If you believe the Hamath numbers please tell us why are there two dead children to each adult? what are there four dean women and children for every man? Where are the parents of those kids? and where are the husbands and fathers of those woman and children? why aren’t these disproportionate victims not in bomb shelters? There are many such question but don’t expect the media to ask them.

The media main concern is that Israeli casualties are not higher, plain and simple.

Unless anyone under the age 50 is defined as “child” the number of kids that were hurt are highly exaggerated or kids are being pushed forward to front the Israeli troops to achieve Hamas’s propaganda targets. The true facts of this conflict will come out eventually, as they did nearly seven years ago when Israel invaded the West bank town of Jenin.

* * * * *

In April 2002 after a spates of suicide bombing, Israel invaded the town of Jenin in the West Bank in an attempt to clean it out. The international hysteria that followed included “eyewitness” accounts of Israeli atrocity including 500 dead citizens, mass graves etc. etc. At the same time Israel said that according to reports by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) the number is about 50, most of which are Hamas and other terror organisation fighters.

On April 18, in an article titled Jenin ‘Massacre Evidence Growing’ the BBC quoted , Prof Derrick Pounder of Dundee University, who they described as “A British forensic expert” saying:

I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn’t lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see

You would think that four months later, the true might finally come out, yet as late as 1 August 2002 the UN General Secretary issue a press statement SG2077 headed REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON RECENT EVENTS IN JENIN, OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES which, among other things, says that:

— Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus.

Eventually independent investigation has proven that the number of confirmed Palestinian casualties were 54, most of whom (40+) were terrorist. Even a weekly like the Time magazine, not exactly a pro-Israel publication, published the result for its investigation, it concluded that:

… there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. According to the U.N., 54 Palestinians are confirmed dead. An additional 49 are missing; it is unclear how many of them perished in the fighting and how many either fled or were captured by Israeli troops

[Emphasis provided]

* * * * *

The lesson from Jenin is clear; Palestinians exaggerate their casualties and the media is keen to cooperate spread any information that makes Israel look bad, what else is new?

You may have noticed, that this time there are no calls for investigation of “war crimes” by Israel as was the case during the Jenin operation, the loons have learned that investigation may prove, as it did in Jenin, no Israel wrong doing, which defeat their purpose.

All the reports from Gaza come from local “journalists”. Since the BBC’s Alan Johnston was kidnapped (and released) in Gaza, no foreign journalist is stationed in Gaza (or Ramallah for that matter), journalists seem to prefer the somewhat more secure environment of the Dan Hotel in Tel Aviv, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and slum Israel from as far away from the Hamas as possible.

This is hilarious, although they parrot Hamas’s propaganda they still prefer to do it from the safety (and comfort) of Israel.

Israel has learnt from their misjudgment of the foreign press in the Lebanon War of 2006 and now bans the foreign press from Gaza area that has been declared a close military zone by the IDF. The bans were not apply to the Israeli press.

An appeal by the organisation of foreign journalists in Israel to the High Court failed on a ground that the Israeli law does not automatically provides equal rights to non-citizen, and the IDF has the legal power to decide who can enter a close military zone. You see, support for the Hamas is not regarded as a “human right” in Israel.

* * * * *

The Palestinian casualties allegedly come from hospital casualty records. It would be a matter of time before the number itself can be verified, particularly of the alleged disproportion of children victims.

However, hospitals can certify death from injury caused by a bullets, shrapnel, falling debris or explosion but they cannot determined if the bullet is from an Israeli gun or a Hamas purge act. Shrapnel can also come from Hamas rocket exploding during production or launching (so-called industrial accident), accidental trigger of Hamas’s mine or booby traps intended for the Israeli troops, and there are plenty of them around.

Here is a Palestinian school in Gaza that had been booby trapped from a neighbouring zoo. Although, the IDF disabled this particular booby trap, there are many other all over Gaza , as indeed was the case in Jenin.

Hamas Booby Trap a School And a Zoo

Why would the Hamas booby trap a whole school? Did they expect IDF using the class rooms for pottery lessons? or were the Hamas waiting for the schools to fill up with kids before they, the Hamas, detonate the charges and claim “Israeli bombing of schools”?

There is of course the possibility that the Hamas simply inflate the number of casualties and the proportion of children fatalities, I have no doubt that this is the case but as the Hamas, the TV networks and the UN all insist that I am wrong how about they explain why are children casualties are disproportionate to adult casualties?

If you accept the Hamath, why are there two dead kids for every adult or why are there four dead women and children for every man? Apparently, the UN who parrots that information on behalf of the Hamas has seen noting unusual about it. they are too busy demonising Israel.

1 January, 2009

As expected the peace loving world did not disappoint. If you watch the BBC in recent days you quickly realise that unlike its rude American cousins, auntie, has class, and more important a genuine concern over the lack more Israeli casualties

How else would you interpret BBC anchormen and woman, mostly with distinct multicultural names and look to go with it (Charley, are you sure it is a British channel you put on? Looks a bit … Pakistani … or something) persistently question Israeli spokesmen and women about the “vast gap” in casualties between Israeli civilian that were killed by the Hamas rockets and those who were killed by Israel response.

You see? If only Israel could allow more civilian casualties on its side, that would make the war in Gaza more … appropriate?

How about bricking in all the bomb shelters In Shderot (except one reserved to BBC camera crews) and advise all its citizens that from now on, when the sirens are sounded in Shderot it is a call for all kids to get out of their homes, run down the street to the nearest civil defence post to collect their free lollies. Don’t worry about explosions, they are just rehearsals for New year celebrations.

Whilst the Israeli cabinet consider the BBC proposal, the world has been united, well, nearly, in its peace seeking mission. I think that we ought to examine them some of the criticism level on Israel to see if they have merits

The United Nation

As we know the Korean Secretary General of the UN, Ban-Ki Moon Issued a statement in which he said:

The secretary general is deeply alarmed by today’s heavy violence and bloodshed in Gaza, and the continuation of violence in southern Israel.

“[He] appeals for an immediate halt to all violence [and reiterates] previous calls for humanitarian supplies to be allowed into Gaza to aid the distressed civilian population.”

I think that Israel must learn from the secretary’s home country experience when South Korea was attacked. The way to handle the dispute is to get the US Army to acquire some UN flags and come to fight the Hamas – indeed, why waste your own ammunition if you can get the American to do it for you?

And don’t forget the royalties from MASH II.

Britain

The British Foreign Office issued as strong statement as follow:

The only way to achieve lasting peace in Gaza is through peaceful means. Whilst we understand the Israeli government’s obligation to protect its population we urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties.

Yes, the Brits have raised a number of good points, especially when they talk about “peaceful means” and “maximum restrain”.

Israel should follow the British example when they, the Brits experienced rockets attacks falling on London. If you are not sure what was that British “peaceful means” and “restraints” perhaps you care to check with the people of Dresden, Berlin Hamburg and some other German cities.

Russia

The Russian foreign Ministry:

Moscow considers it necessary to stop large-scale military action against Gaza, which has already led to major casualties and suffering among the civilian Palestinian population.

Israel could learn a thing or two from the Russians about how they avoid large-scales military actions in Georgia when provoked and how they put a superior military power to good use. If I remember correctly the Russian Army was helping with seasonal fruit picking in South Ossetia.

You are right Komrad Putin, when it come to dealing with Muslim extremists, Israel should definitely follow the Russian example of never to inflicting “major casualties and suffering”.

Israel is hereby undertakes that the scale of its military action, Hamas’s major casualties and suffering in Gaza shall never exceed those that were experienced by the Chechens. Da?

France

Good old France just called for a “pause” in the fighting to allow the Hamas to restock and regroup.

Does anyone recall France requesting a “pause” in rocket being launch into day case centres in Shderot? Anyone? Anyone? No, I can see no hands.

Be that as it may, Israel should take note and quickly study France’s Algerian War with the FLN (the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale) to see whether the is a lesson to be learnt.

Well, the FLN’s casualties were six times the French ones (approx 150,000 to 25,000) a definite case of … wala! a use of “disproportionate force”!!!

France is not alone! Vive le France!

The Arab League

Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General said:

We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. So we have to expect that there will be many casualties. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe.”

Mr. Moussa, who incidentally is an Egyptian, represents a find organisation, with human right record from Egypt using Chemicals on Yemenite rebels, to Syrian wiping the town of Hama in Syria off the face of the earth in 1982. Israel does not use chemical weapons but wiping Gaza of the face of the earth? Well if you insist.

If you wish to cite more recent Arab human rights achievements how about Darfur, Mr Moussa? Sorry, As much as Israel wish to aspire to your organisation height of human right achievement, it pass.

Kleenex anyone?