UN Workers Fueling Palestinian Rampage, Three Observations, Russia Plans To Increase Airstrikes To 300 Per Day

UN Workers Fuel the Palestinian Rampage

On the same day as Palestinians torched a site containing Joseph’s Tomb in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank city of Nablus, the United Nations Security Council held an “emergency” session to address the escalating violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank.  The October 16th meeting was called by Jordan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has expressed his willingness to meet with the Palestinian leadership and resume peace talks immediately without preconditions, in order to bring calm to the region. The Palestinian leadership’s response was to have Jordan act as their promoter-in-chief and call on the Security Council to hold the “emergency” meeting for the purpose essentially of condemning Israel and rationalizing the Palestinian violence spree.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein also blamed the escalating tension on various Israeli actions, including “the ongoing settlement expansion” and “recent restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities on Palestinian worshippers wishing to access the Al-Aqsa compound.”

UN senior officials are not only silent in the face of the daily Palestinians’ murderous rampage against innocent Israelis. They are offering pathetic rationalizations for the violence, which in actuality is fueled by hate spread by Palestinian social media and taught to Palestinian children in their schools and in the TV programs they watch.  

“Palestinian leaders have established an incubator to raise children as terrorists,” Israeli UN Ambassador Danon said. During his remarks to reporters, he held up a picture providing children a graphic pictorial demonstration on how to stab a Jew. “We talk about a lot about incitement- here you see what Palestinian incitement looks like. This picture is what is being taught in middle schools,” he said.  

Mr. Zerihoun, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, acknowledged the “impact of social media and irresponsible rhetoric” in playing “a dramatic role in escalation.” However, he disgracefully indulged in the UN’s typical moral equivalence narrative, saying that “both sides have much to be blamed for.” He failed to reference the incontrovertible evidence that the abuse of social media and irresponsible rhetoric to incite violence are coming almost exclusively from the Palestinian side, not the Israeli side. Then again, he is in synch with President Obama, whom last week called on both sides “to try to tamp down rhetoric that may feed violence or anger or misunderstanding.” Yet more of the moral equivalence fiction.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to UN senior officials or the UN’s booster President Obama, but there is disturbing evidence that personnel working at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are themselves guilty of feeding Palestinian violence with incendiary rhetoric. UN Watch has issued a report, which it sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and UNRWA chief Pierre Krähenbühl, compiling examples of hate-filled social media posts by individuals claiming to work for UNRWA. Here is a sampling from the UN Watch report:

1: “Stab Zionist Dogs” – caption to a cartoon posted by self-describe d “Projects Support Assistant at UNRWA”

2. Video demonstrating use of guns, knives and Molotov cocktails – posted by individual who said he “works at UNRWA”

3. Video of “mosque sermon in which Sheikh Abu Rajab pulled out a knife and, with violent stabbing motions, exhorted Palestinians to murder Jews in the name of Islam” – posted by self-described “teacher at UNRWA”

4. “Mohammed Assaf, UNRWA’s ‘Youth Ambassador’ and most famous personality —  an ‘Arab Idol’ winner who is a key fundraiser and face of the organization, appointed by UNRWA’s Commissioner-General — has been using his UN imprimatur to glorify violence throughout his Facebook timeline” including display of “three Palestinian  youths who attacked Israeli Jews.” The Palestinians are referred to as “shahid,” which means martyrs. 

Last Friday, at the UN headquarters daily press briefing in New York, I asked the Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary General whether there will be an investigation of claims that UNRWA personnel are themselves contributing to the very incendiary rhetoric that other UN officials condemn. He responded that “it remains to be seen whether these were, in fact, personnel of the UN Relief and Works Agency.” He added that “any time there is any complaint about activities, including Twitter posts or retweets by its staff, it does look into that and it will look into any allegations to see whether they are accurate and to take the appropriate follow-up.” 

UN Watch, which had submitted the report with documentation, called this response “absurd.” As Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, explained:

“Regrettably we seem to be witnessing the same UN strategy of delay and denial that characterized their response last month when we reported 12 other UNRWA officials engaged in antisemitic incitement.”

UNRWA’s previous promises to investigate and take action against UNRWA employees who incite violence have gone by the wayside. Last year three UNRWA schools were found, during the course of the conflict in Gaza, to have been used for storage of rockets for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Yet UNRWA continues to operate with impunity while receiving over $400 million annually - the largest financial contribution of any donor - from the Obama administration. 

Israel has every right to use whatever means of restraint it deems necessary to protect its own civilians from such harm. Indeed, that is the first obligation of any responsible state – to defend its own citizens.  Yet vacuous phrases such as “collective punishment” and “violations of international law” are thrown at Israel for trying to contain the violence instigated by Palestinian sociopaths. Is it any wonder that Israel wisely says “thanks but no thanks” to the idea proposed by the Palestinians and advanced at the UN of introducing an “international” force at the holy sites in Jerusalem? It would become yet another arm of the Palestinians against Israeli Jews, much like UNRWA.  

Three Observations on Israel and the Palestinian Terror Wave

A recent example of Palestinian Authority chairman Abbas’s rhetoric: 

We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing. Every Martyr (Shahid) will reach Paradise, and everyone wounded will be rewarded by Allah.

The Al-Aqsa [Mosque] is ours… and [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem.

Perhaps President Obama can direct his staff to Google-up similar statements by Netanyahu and other “Israeli elected officials.” Obviously there are none; but alleging that Israeli “rhetoric” and Palestinian rhetoric are the same is a very serious libel and a slap to Israel’s democratic credentials.

Israel keeps being subjected to the body-count method. Media reports keep repeating ritualistically that “8 Israelis and 40 Palestinians” have been killed so far. Combined with the other distortions, the impression conveyed is of two sides fighting it out, with one of them considerably more brutal. The same method was used, of course, for the Gaza war in the summer of 2014, with real consequences for Israel as the Obama administration, objecting to Palestinian casualties, cut off Israel’s arms supply for days.

Applying the body-count method to World War II, one finds totals of 450,900 UK casualties, 420,000 American ones, and 9,000,000 German ones. By this standard, then, Germany must have been the much more moral side in the war. Respective totals for the recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts between the forces of democratic countries and those of their enemies are, of course, similarly lopsided, and—by this method—would justify similar conclusions.

 Certain “ethical” issues are explored only with regard to Israel. For instance: if someone attacks you or someone else with a lethal weapon, can you defend yourself or the other person? This “question” arose when Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer was asked on MSNBC if there is “a middle ground beyond shooting these individuals.” As Dermer explained:

When somebody is coming at you with a knife, there is no middle ground. You have to actually take action in order to thwart that attack. Not everybody who has come at different people with knives have been killed, but there have been instances where a guy’s taking a knife and he is going to kill somebody. They say guns kill people. Knives kill people. That’s why you have to take action. 

It seems obvious enough—but not in the case of Israel.

With Israel, though, it gets more “complicated.” Murderous Palestinian attacks on Israelis are seen as acts by desperate people that are at least understandable, or even condonable. Secretary of State John Kerry, asked last week about the latest Palestinian terror wave, replied that “there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing.”

In other words, offending Palestinians leads them to murder people, and one doesn’t have a right to expect any other result. Here it is actually beside the point that there has not been an increase in Israeli settlements in recent years. The words of Kerry—the secretary of state—are very close to a justification for murder; and his instinctual reaction jibed with the way in which many millions of people the world over view murderous attacks on Israelis.

To sum up, despite Israel’s more and more impressive contributions to the world and expanding ties with many countries, when the chips are down—when Israel is under violent attack—it still cannot count on support from any quarter, and can count on unique forms of criticism that can lead to penalization. All this intensifies Israelis’ sense of besiegement, further strengthens the right wing in Israeli elections, and further inclines Israel to view its own military actions as the only solution to murderous threats.

Russia Plans To Increase Airstrikes To 300 Per Day

Russia says it’s planning to increase the number of its aerial missions over Syria to 300 a day, according to a source close to the country’s operations.

President Vladimir Putin’s forces are reportedly flying around fifty missions a day on average.

Construction of a new airstrip as part of the preparations for the increase in air missions has already begun.

Russia has deployed a variety of bombers, jets, fighters and helicopters in its Syrian efforts, sources say.

This news comes as Russia’s involvement is intensifying, the Kremlin calling it a war on terrorism.  British defense secretary Michael Fallon telling the BBC that “what Russia is doing is propping up the Assad regime, making the resolution of all this more difficult.”

A number of monitoring groups in Syria requesting an investigation into Russian airstrikes; many of them believe they may have violated international law.

Putin continues to insist that his country’s airstrikes are solely to fight the international terrorists of ISIS.

The Rutherford Institute :: Things Are Getting Scary: Global Police, Precrime and the War on Domestic ‘Extremists’

• Are you afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms?

• Do you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law?

• Do you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police.

As such, you are now viewed as a greater threat to America than ISIS or al Qaeda.

Let that sink in a moment.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you have just been promoted to the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

I assure you I’m not making this stuff up.

Police agencies now believe the “main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists.”

A New York Times editorial backs up these findings:

Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

So what is the government doing about these so-called terrorists?

The government is going to war.

Again.

Only this time, it has declared war against so-called American “extremists.”

Working with the UN, the federal government will train local police agencies across America in how to identify, fight and prevent extremism, as well as address intolerance within their communities, using all of the resources at their disposal.

What this program is really all about, however, is community policing on a global scale.

Community policing, which relies on a “broken windows” theory of policing, calls for police to engage with the community in order to prevent local crime by interrupting or preventing minor offenses before they could snowball into bigger, more serious and perhaps violent crime. The problem with the broken windows approach is that it has led to zero tolerance policing and stop-and-frisk practices among other harsh police tactics.

When applied to the Strong Cities Network program, the objective is ostensibly to prevent violent extremism by targeting its source: racism, bigotry, hatred, intolerance, etc.

In other words, police—acting ostensibly as extensions of the United Nations—will identify, monitor and deter individuals who exhibit, express or engage in anything that could be construed as extremist.

Consider how Attorney General Loretta Lynch describes the initiative:

As residents and experts in their communities, local leaders are often best positioned to pinpoint sources of unrest and discord; best equipped to identify signs of potential danger; and best able to recognize and accommodate community cultures, traditions, sensitivities, and customs.  By creating a series of partnerships that draws on the knowledge and expertise of our local officials, we can create a more effective response to this virulent threat.

Translation: U.S. police agencies are embarking on an effort to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats. (If you want a foretaste of how “extreme” things could get in the U.S.: new anti-terrorism measures in the U.K. require that extremists be treated like pedophiles and banned from working with youngsters and vulnerable people.)

The government’s war on extremists, of which the Strong Cities program is a part, is being sold to Americans in much the same way that the USA Patriot Act was sold to Americans: as a means of combatting terrorists who seek to destroy America.

Enter the government’s newest employee: a domestic terrorism czar.

However, as we now know, the USA Patriot Act was used as a front to advance the surveillance state, allowing the government to establish a far-reaching domestic spying program that has turned every American citizen into a criminal suspect.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA and the UN’s Strong Cities Network with its globalized police forces, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication progra

We’re living in a scary world.

Unless we can put the brakes on this dramatic expansion and globalization of the government’s powers, we’re not going to recognize this country 20 years from now.

Also see:

With Obama's new plan for Syrian rebels, new worries - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

Netanyahu to Ban Ki-moon: 'Time to Tell the Truth About Palestinian Terrorism' | PJ Tatler

“Freeze and Seize” Bank Accounts Could Happen in One Day | Grams Gold