Facebook and The Third Intifada
©2011 By David Talbot
Facebook is amazing. Over the past 3 years I have been able to meet many new friends and renew old friendships using this “Social Networking” site. Facebook brings people together for a variety of purposes: friendship, business, reunions, sharing of information, and all manner of social interaction purposes.
Some in the social networking universe are giving credit to Facebook, and other similar sites, for the Middle East democracy movements ability to connect to thousands of protestors in very short periods of time. In effect, Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, and My Space have been more reliable sources of information for combatants on both sides of the conflicts, than any other source.
Proof of the value of these sites to the rebels was the immediate shut down of the internet by the governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, as a first reaction to conflict. This occurred even before they shut down cell phones and put the clamps on other information sources.
Recently, a pro-Palestinian group opened a Facebook page called the Third Intifada, encouraging Palestinians to return to guerilla-terrorist tactics against Israel. Using the flawed Goldstone UN Report on Israel’s operation in Gaza as a basis for the call to arms. Within days, the site had amassed 300,000 “Friends” and growing at an astounding 25,000 new friends a day. The site was loaded with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric and was just becoming a phenomenon when the massacre of the Fogel family occurred in Itamar in the West Bank a few weeks ago.
One example of the rhetoric posted on the site was the slogan: “From the River to the Sea.” This refers to the total annihilation of every Jew in Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Last week, Facebook management, gave in to international pressure and took down the offensive page saying it violated Facebook’s “Terms of Use” policy. And, was that the end of the story?
Of course not! Within an hour of the removal of the Third Intifada page, at least 100 other sites popped up, in many languages, and the call to arms continues. But now, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Peace Now, and the Palestinian Authority are not making overt threats.
Instead, these sponsors of terrorism are hiding their ultimate goal, the total removal of every Jew in Israel, dead or alive, behind well known messages that all understand, but are not explicit calls to terrorize Israel.
To Facebook these new sites, evil as they may be, are permitted on Facebook as political speech and do not violate it’s Terms of Use policy since no specific threat is mentioned.
From the river to the sea rhetoric continues and the number of new anti-Israel sites is expanding. It is now impossible to determine who is a terror sponsor and who is just espousing a “legitimate” political point of view.
On Monday, April 4, 2011, Judge Richard Goldstonethe of South Africa, author of the Goldstone Report, recanted almost everything in his infamous report to the United Nations. However, no where in the US liberal press, the international press, and certainly in the Arab press, is there any mention of the reversal of Goldstone. So, the lies and the outcry stemming from the lies, ares perpetuated.
In my opinion, Israel and the international community would have been better served by allowing the Third Intifada Facebook page to stay online. Knowing what’s transpiring on any particular site is better than trying to figure out what’s taking place on a thousand sites, in dozens of countries, in many languages.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
You can contact me at: talbotnotes@gmail.com.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
United Nation Human Right Council
United Nations Human Rights Council
©2011 By David Talbot
What a strange world we live in, and nothing is more perplexing than the United Nations. A discussion of this body would take multiple volumes of books, many pages in length. So, I’ll confine my discussion to what’s bothering me today, and that’s the Human Rights Council (HRC).
The HRC was established by General Assembly Resolution 60/251 on April 3, 2006, as a replacement of the Commission on Human Rights. Among it’s charter duties were the following (for a full list see the UN Website):
“Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal
respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;”
“Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the
principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development;”
Both of these duties, as well as all of the Charter responsibilities, are admirable goals and statements in support of universal rights of citizens of all countries across the globe.
However, a quick review of the countries who are members of the Council, and thus responsible for carrying out the implementation of the charter of the HRC, reveals the hypocrisy of the UN and it’s institutions.
There are 47 member states on the Council, with staggered five year terms. Here is a partial list of the watchdogs of human rights on the Council:
Angola
Bahrain
China
Cuba
Libya
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Uganda
This week Libya was removed from the Council as a result of the situation on the ground there. No one wonders if their membership would have been revoked had the fighting not started a few weeks ago.
Do I need to review the human rights abuses of Angola, China, Cuba, and Uganda? Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are facing the same fate as Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen.
And here’s the last straw, as if the current make-up of the Council isn’t enough. The General Assembly is set to elect Syria to the seat vacated by Libya. Syria, who murdered 20,000 of it’s citizens just a few years ago who were demonstrating for their human rights. In the past few days, reports of the Syrian Army firing on civilians have been circulating.
The mood at the UN seems to be, “Who cares?” And, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, in comments aired on FOX News on March 30, 2011, stated that inlcuding these regimes, and meeting with them on HRC issues, has had a positive impact on their Human Rights records.
The approval of Syria to the HRC by the General Assembly seems to be a certainty. I guess that’s why Syria is shooting at it’s civilians now, so it can improve later.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Mesa, Arizona
Contact me at talbotnotes@gmail.com.
©2011 By David Talbot
What a strange world we live in, and nothing is more perplexing than the United Nations. A discussion of this body would take multiple volumes of books, many pages in length. So, I’ll confine my discussion to what’s bothering me today, and that’s the Human Rights Council (HRC).
The HRC was established by General Assembly Resolution 60/251 on April 3, 2006, as a replacement of the Commission on Human Rights. Among it’s charter duties were the following (for a full list see the UN Website):
“Decides that the Council shall be responsible for promoting universal
respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner;”
“Decides further that the work of the Council shall be guided by the
principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development;”
Both of these duties, as well as all of the Charter responsibilities, are admirable goals and statements in support of universal rights of citizens of all countries across the globe.
However, a quick review of the countries who are members of the Council, and thus responsible for carrying out the implementation of the charter of the HRC, reveals the hypocrisy of the UN and it’s institutions.
There are 47 member states on the Council, with staggered five year terms. Here is a partial list of the watchdogs of human rights on the Council:
Angola
Bahrain
China
Cuba
Libya
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Uganda
This week Libya was removed from the Council as a result of the situation on the ground there. No one wonders if their membership would have been revoked had the fighting not started a few weeks ago.
Do I need to review the human rights abuses of Angola, China, Cuba, and Uganda? Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are facing the same fate as Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen.
And here’s the last straw, as if the current make-up of the Council isn’t enough. The General Assembly is set to elect Syria to the seat vacated by Libya. Syria, who murdered 20,000 of it’s citizens just a few years ago who were demonstrating for their human rights. In the past few days, reports of the Syrian Army firing on civilians have been circulating.
The mood at the UN seems to be, “Who cares?” And, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, in comments aired on FOX News on March 30, 2011, stated that inlcuding these regimes, and meeting with them on HRC issues, has had a positive impact on their Human Rights records.
The approval of Syria to the HRC by the General Assembly seems to be a certainty. I guess that’s why Syria is shooting at it’s civilians now, so it can improve later.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Mesa, Arizona
Contact me at talbotnotes@gmail.com.
Monday, March 28, 2011
DUTY-HONOR-COUNTRY
US ARMY CODE OF CONDUCT
I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
I. I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
II. I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
III. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
IV. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
V. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
VI. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Anti Jewish Violence on the Increase World Wide
Anti Jewish Violence on the Increase World Wide
©2011 By David Talbot
The disturbing trend around the world of violence specifically targeting Jews seems to be accelerating even as the democracy movements in the Middle East are forcing change in governments.
No country is immune from the anti Jewish violence. What is disturbing is the almost complete lack of coverage in the media, except from the Israeli press. It doesn’t matter that the event takes place in the United States, France, Israel, Libya, or the United Kingdom. But if an Israeli decides to refurbish one little apartment in the West Bank, that’s a cause for world wide condemnation, hand wringing at the UN, and threats of violence in the West Bank, Gaza, and even in America.
Here is a re-cap of a few recent incidents that you probably never saw on American News Outlets:
From Israel: “(Israelnationalnews.com) On Shabbat (March 5th, 2011), a group of Jewish worshipers who had just finished morning prayers at a synagogue adjacent to the Tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik in Jerusalem were savagely attacked by an Arab mob, many of them teenagers from a nearby Arab high school. The worshipers were attacked with stones and bricks.”
From the United States: March 5, 2011, A student has brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, saying the university did not protect her from being attacked because she is Jewish. Her suit alleges that Husam Zakharia, a fellow student and the head of Students for Justice in Palestine, rammed into her with a metal cart because of the pro-Israel sign she was holding during a pro-Israel demonstration on the Berkeley campus on March 5, 2010.
From Australia: “Between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009, an unprecedented 962 reports of anti-Jewish violence, vandalism, harassment and intimidation were received by Australian Jewish organizations”.
And the latest from Israel: An attack by Palestinian Arabs, which is being aired here in the United States, murdered a family of 5 in their home yesterday (March 11th) in a West Bank settlement. Included in the dead were 3 children, one of whom was an infant, all stabbed to death. Do I need to ask how the murder of innocents can ever be justified by anyone?
Here in the United States, Peter King (R-NY), started hearings on “Home-Grown” terrorism on Thursday, March 10th. His premise is that U.S. Muslim organizations are not doing enough to assist authorities in identifying who the potential terrorists, living among us, may be. Indeed many mosques preach Sharia Law and encourage followers to take up arms against Americans, and American Institutions.
Just prior to the Senate Hearings, an article published in The Hill, and quoted in Newsmax, indicated, “Some members of U.S. Jewish organizations, backed by several congressmen, are raising questions about the Obama administration’s commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. They are raising the concerns in light of a dangerous increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish organizations around the world.”
These include violent attacks on synagogues and individuals in France, spray-painted swastikas and desecration of Jewish graves in Germany, and assertions by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's government that "Semitic banks" have been ruining the economy.” The Hill reported.
Now we are being told by the Administration, and others, including many liberal U.S. Jewish organizations, that referring to terrorists as radical Muslims is improper. That it is stereotyping or profiling. That the overwhelming majority of the U.S. Muslim community is peaceful and law-abiding.
As long as the Obama Administration, and until this “Religion of Peace” take concrete action to turn around the terrorist mentality rampant in their community, things will only get worse.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2011 By David Talbot
The disturbing trend around the world of violence specifically targeting Jews seems to be accelerating even as the democracy movements in the Middle East are forcing change in governments.
No country is immune from the anti Jewish violence. What is disturbing is the almost complete lack of coverage in the media, except from the Israeli press. It doesn’t matter that the event takes place in the United States, France, Israel, Libya, or the United Kingdom. But if an Israeli decides to refurbish one little apartment in the West Bank, that’s a cause for world wide condemnation, hand wringing at the UN, and threats of violence in the West Bank, Gaza, and even in America.
Here is a re-cap of a few recent incidents that you probably never saw on American News Outlets:
From Israel: “(Israelnationalnews.com) On Shabbat (March 5th, 2011), a group of Jewish worshipers who had just finished morning prayers at a synagogue adjacent to the Tomb of Shimon Hatzaddik in Jerusalem were savagely attacked by an Arab mob, many of them teenagers from a nearby Arab high school. The worshipers were attacked with stones and bricks.”
From the United States: March 5, 2011, A student has brought a federal civil rights lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley, saying the university did not protect her from being attacked because she is Jewish. Her suit alleges that Husam Zakharia, a fellow student and the head of Students for Justice in Palestine, rammed into her with a metal cart because of the pro-Israel sign she was holding during a pro-Israel demonstration on the Berkeley campus on March 5, 2010.
From Australia: “Between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009, an unprecedented 962 reports of anti-Jewish violence, vandalism, harassment and intimidation were received by Australian Jewish organizations”.
And the latest from Israel: An attack by Palestinian Arabs, which is being aired here in the United States, murdered a family of 5 in their home yesterday (March 11th) in a West Bank settlement. Included in the dead were 3 children, one of whom was an infant, all stabbed to death. Do I need to ask how the murder of innocents can ever be justified by anyone?
Here in the United States, Peter King (R-NY), started hearings on “Home-Grown” terrorism on Thursday, March 10th. His premise is that U.S. Muslim organizations are not doing enough to assist authorities in identifying who the potential terrorists, living among us, may be. Indeed many mosques preach Sharia Law and encourage followers to take up arms against Americans, and American Institutions.
Just prior to the Senate Hearings, an article published in The Hill, and quoted in Newsmax, indicated, “Some members of U.S. Jewish organizations, backed by several congressmen, are raising questions about the Obama administration’s commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. They are raising the concerns in light of a dangerous increase in attacks on Jews and Jewish organizations around the world.”
These include violent attacks on synagogues and individuals in France, spray-painted swastikas and desecration of Jewish graves in Germany, and assertions by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's government that "Semitic banks" have been ruining the economy.” The Hill reported.
Now we are being told by the Administration, and others, including many liberal U.S. Jewish organizations, that referring to terrorists as radical Muslims is improper. That it is stereotyping or profiling. That the overwhelming majority of the U.S. Muslim community is peaceful and law-abiding.
As long as the Obama Administration, and until this “Religion of Peace” take concrete action to turn around the terrorist mentality rampant in their community, things will only get worse.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Is Israel an Apartheid State?
Is Israel an Apartheid State?
©2011 David Talbot
Organizers across the globe are gearing up for the 7th annual “Week of actions in support of Palestinian Civil Society's call for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).” This media feeding frenzy against Israel is based on Palestinian claims that Israel is an Apartheid State. Last year 55 cities around the world participated.
What exactly is an Apartheid State, and does Israel meet the definition?
The word “Apartheid” comes from Afrikaans meaning: To keep apart. It was the system of Political, Economic, and Social segregation introduced in South Africa in 1948 to completely segregate black people from virtually all white society.
Under Apartheid in South Africa, black could not live in white areas; go to white schools and universities; work in certain jobs that were reserved for whites; or, use the same amenities such as parks, beaches, or public transit. They (black people) could not marry white people or have physical relations with them. Black people could not be appointed to the countries civil or legal institutions, stand for political office, and, most importantly, were denied the right to vote. Apartheid finally ended in 1994 after much international pressure.
Some critics, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, have accused Israel of being an Apartheid State. And, for 7 years, the Palestinian Authority, along with Israel’s critics, have been holding events in March designed to pressure the United Nations and other world organizations to declare Israel guilty of Human Rights violations akin to South Africa in 1948.
Is the accusation true?
In Israel, are housing areas segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No, it is prohibited by law.
In Israel, are public schools and universities segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No. Of course there are certain, private, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religious schools in Israel.
In Israel, are certain jobs reserved by race, religion, or national origin. No. Even the IDF has Muslims, Christians, and Jewish soldiers and officers.
In Israel, are parks, beaches, or public transit segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No. There are, however, segregated beaches for men and women on specific days for purposes of modesty.
In Israel, are there any restrictions based on race, religion, or national origin for holding public office, appointment to commissions or boards, or participate in legal institutions? No. There are Muslims, Christians, and Jews at all levels of government in Israel.
Most importantly, is any Israeli citizen denied the right to vote because of race, religion, or national origin? Absolutely not.
What is the National Language of Israel? It’s a trick question because there are two: Hebrew and Arabic.
What do you call an Arab that stayed in Israel in 1948, when Israel was granted statehood by the United Nations? They are called Israelis.
What do you call Arabs that fled Israel in 1948 to live in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, & Lebanon? They are called refugees by the host countries and have no rights or citizenship in those countries, often living in disgusting refugee camps.
Israel is not an Apartheid State. It's a democratic, vibrant, participatory democracy. The only one in the Middle East.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2011 David Talbot
Organizers across the globe are gearing up for the 7th annual “Week of actions in support of Palestinian Civil Society's call for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS).” This media feeding frenzy against Israel is based on Palestinian claims that Israel is an Apartheid State. Last year 55 cities around the world participated.
What exactly is an Apartheid State, and does Israel meet the definition?
The word “Apartheid” comes from Afrikaans meaning: To keep apart. It was the system of Political, Economic, and Social segregation introduced in South Africa in 1948 to completely segregate black people from virtually all white society.
Under Apartheid in South Africa, black could not live in white areas; go to white schools and universities; work in certain jobs that were reserved for whites; or, use the same amenities such as parks, beaches, or public transit. They (black people) could not marry white people or have physical relations with them. Black people could not be appointed to the countries civil or legal institutions, stand for political office, and, most importantly, were denied the right to vote. Apartheid finally ended in 1994 after much international pressure.
Some critics, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, have accused Israel of being an Apartheid State. And, for 7 years, the Palestinian Authority, along with Israel’s critics, have been holding events in March designed to pressure the United Nations and other world organizations to declare Israel guilty of Human Rights violations akin to South Africa in 1948.
Is the accusation true?
In Israel, are housing areas segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No, it is prohibited by law.
In Israel, are public schools and universities segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No. Of course there are certain, private, Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religious schools in Israel.
In Israel, are certain jobs reserved by race, religion, or national origin. No. Even the IDF has Muslims, Christians, and Jewish soldiers and officers.
In Israel, are parks, beaches, or public transit segregated by race, religion, or national origin? No. There are, however, segregated beaches for men and women on specific days for purposes of modesty.
In Israel, are there any restrictions based on race, religion, or national origin for holding public office, appointment to commissions or boards, or participate in legal institutions? No. There are Muslims, Christians, and Jews at all levels of government in Israel.
Most importantly, is any Israeli citizen denied the right to vote because of race, religion, or national origin? Absolutely not.
What is the National Language of Israel? It’s a trick question because there are two: Hebrew and Arabic.
What do you call an Arab that stayed in Israel in 1948, when Israel was granted statehood by the United Nations? They are called Israelis.
What do you call Arabs that fled Israel in 1948 to live in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, & Lebanon? They are called refugees by the host countries and have no rights or citizenship in those countries, often living in disgusting refugee camps.
Israel is not an Apartheid State. It's a democratic, vibrant, participatory democracy. The only one in the Middle East.
Anyway, that’s my opinion, What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)