AntiSemitism > Israeli Arabs Attack Amnesty's racist report; UK rejects Amnesty UK's racist report

..

Israeli Arabs launch scathing attack on Amnesty’s ‘apartheid’ report

Feb 4, 2022 | News

Israeli Arabs have reacted in disgust following Amnesty International’s notorious report accusing Israel of ‘apartheid’.

It didn’t take long for the Palestinian Authority to call upon the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Jewish state, but they certainly don’t represent the voice of many Arabs in the region, including Israeli and Palestinian, who disagree with the shameful anti-Israel narrative.

Among them was Bassem Eid, a Palestinian human rights activist, who tweeted, “Amnesty International is lying about Israel. As a Palestinian peace activist and the founder of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, I’m here to set the record straight: Israel is not an apartheid state.” 

 "Israel is not an apartheid state.” 

In an accompanying video, Eid says, “Just a few days after Israeli President Isaac Herzog met with Emirati leader Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed to make peace and normalise relations, Amnesty International released a report full of misinformation and lies about Israel. Amnesty International and other Israel haters can’t seem to live with the fact that the world is embracing Israel with open arms. They want to continue demonising Israel and denying it the right to exist as the one and only Jewish State.”

In comments for Jerusalem Post, Yoseph Haddad said, “As an Israeli Arab who grew up in Nazareth, Amnesty International’s recent report tries to distort my identity.”

He was referring to the fact that the 211-page report constantly refers to an “apartheid” against “Palestinian citizens of Israel,” making no differentiation between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank or under the control of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

“What about Israeli Arabs like me? We live under the democratically elected government of Israel with equal rights like any Jewish citizen. No matter how many times Amnesty International tries to erase my identity for trying to advance their political agenda, that doesn’t make it the truth.

“I was born an Israeli, and I will remain an Israeli. I am entitled to all the same rights as any citizen of Israel. I was a soldier in Israel’s Defense Forces protecting the north of Israel, where most of the Israeli-Arab community lives, from terrorist rockets attacks by Hezbollah.

“Not only that, but I was also a commander of dozens of Jewish soldiers. What kind of an “apartheid” would let Arabs give orders to Jews? The non-existent kind.

“A recent report by the NGO Israel Democracy Institute showed that the majority of Israeli Arabs do not, in fact, identify as Palestinian but as Arab or Israeli Arab. Only 7% of those surveyed even identify as Palestinian. A subsequent poll showed that 81% of Israeli Arabs prefer to live in Israel over living in the US or in any other Western country. I guess life isn’t that bad under ‘Israeli domination,’ contrary to the lies Amnesty spreads about our lives in the only democracy in the Middle East. “

Lorena Khateeb, an Israeli-Druze, tweeted a photo saying, “As an Israeli Arab citizen, I condemn amnesty report. I grew up studying and working with Muslim Christians, Druze and Jews, we all put together the Israeli puzzle, despite the challenges, we enjoy equal rights and even work to fix what is not. This is what apartheid looks like?”

‘We do not agree’: UK rejects Amnesty report against Israel

Feb 4, 2022 | News

The United Kingdom on Thursday rejected an Amnesty International report accusing Israel of apartheid.

“We do not agree with the use of this terminology,” a spokesperson for the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office told The Times of Israel.

“Any judgment on whether serious crimes under international law have occurred is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for governments or non-judicial bodies,” they said.

The spokesperson added: “As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue on human rights. This includes encouraging the government of Israel to abide by its obligations under international law and do all it can to uphold the values of equality for all.”

The UK has joined other countries who spoke out against the biased Amnesty report, including Germany, the USA, Australia, and, of course, Israel.

Israel called the report “false, biased, and antisemitic” and accused the organisation of endangering the safety of Jews around the world.

“Amnesty’s report effectively serves as a green light… to harm not only Israel, but Jews around the world,” read a statement Monday from the Foreign Ministry spokesman’s office.

The statement said that the organization “uses double standards and demonization in order to delegitimize Israel. These are the exact components from which modern antisemitism is made.

“Its extremist language and distortion of historical context were designed to demonize Israel and pour fuel onto the fire of antisemitism,” it said.

The Israeli foreign ministry also said that Amnesty UK was “notorious for being corrupted by racism and xenophobia, and the organization’s secretary-general has previously accused Israel – with no basis or evidence – of murdering Arafat. It is not surprising that it took Amnesty eight years to back down from this serious and baseless accusation.”

Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said Monday that the rights group was no longer “a respected organization,”

“Today, it is precisely the opposite,” Lapid said in a video statement. “It isn’t a human rights organization, but just another radical organization which echoes propaganda without seriously checking the facts. Instead of seeking the truth, Amnesty echoes the same lies shared by terrorist organizations.”

He said the report’s claims are “delusional and disconnected from reality.”

“Israel isn’t perfect, but we are a democracy committed to international law, open to criticism, with a free press and a strong and independent judicial system,” he said. “Amnesty doesn’t call Syria — where the regime has murdered over half a million of its own citizens — an apartheid state. Nor Iran, or other murderous regimes around the world. Only Israel.”

Lapid said there was “simply no other explanation” for the organization’s inconsistency other than the fact that Israel is a Jewish state — apparently arguing the bias was of an antisemitic nature.

Antisemitism has no place in so-called human rights organisations and we hope Amnesty International withdraws its report which is filled with lies, distortions and covers up true crimes against humanity carried out by Palestinian groups such as Hamas.

Israeli Minister Calls EU ‘Blind to Hatred’ Following Rejected Report on ‘EU Funding of Terror’

A man wearng a T-shirt with the message, "Boycott Israel Apartheid" holds a Palestinian flag during a protest in Paris, France. © Pascal Rossignol / Reuters

The EU and Israel have clashed over an Israeli report which claimed the bloc’s money funds terrorism and attempts to boycott Israel. Brussels says the claims are unfounded, according to Haaretz.

The May report titled “The millions given by EU institutions to NGOs with ties to terror and boycotts against Israel” was produced by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry and claims that in 2016, the EU paid over 5 million euros ($5.9 million) to European and Palestinian organizations that promote the boycott of Israel. 

Following the release of the document, Gilad Erdan, the head of the ministry behind the report, tweeted: “The EU continues to finance BDS organizations, some of which are linked to terror organizations, with tens of millions of shekels a year.”

BDS stands for ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ and is a broad coalition of NGOs which seek to pressure Israel politically and economically to force it change its policies toward Palestinians. Supporters of BDS perceive their effort as similar to what was used to pressure South Africa to end its apartheid regime. Israel considers the movement an attempt to delegitimize its existence and a threat to national security.

The difference between the Palestinians and black South Africans is that black South Africans were not generally determined to murder every Africaaner in the country. Israel could ease restrictions on Palestinians, but they would risk their very existence to do so.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini responded to the report in a letter to Erdan, which was obtained by Haaretz, the newspaper reported on Tuesday. The European official rejected the report’s assertions that the EU money went to fund the BDS movement and terrorism, saying the allegations were “unfounded and unacceptable.”

“The title of the report itself is also inopportune and misleading; it mixes terrorism with the boycott issue and it creates unacceptable confusion in the public eye regarding these two distinct phenomena,” the letter sent two weeks ago reportedly said. She suggested that if Erdan had evidence to the contrary, he could come to Brussels and present it.

Those two 'distinct phenomena' are not so distinct. Both are born out of a hatred of Israel, or, at the very least, a willful belief of the outrageous propaganda coming from Palestinians.

Mogherini said the EU allocates funding to particular projects and takes care that its money does not support BDS activities, which the union does not back. She added, however, that the bloc does support freedom of expression and that “any action that has the effect of closing the space in which civil society organizations operate by unduly restricting freedom of association should be avoided.”

In other words, they have no trouble supporting organizations that support BDS; but they are sure all EU money goes toward non-BDS activity. That such support could free up resources for BDS activities, doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Or, that by supporting such organizations they are giving them legitimacy, doesn't seem to bother them either.

Asked for comments on the letter, Erdan lashed out at the EU and its top foreign policy official, saying: “Mogherini admits that most of the funded orgaynizations which appear in my ministry’s report indeed promote boycotts of Israel, yet she employs the ridiculous excuse that the money is given to the boycott organizations but used for other purposes, and not for their activities aimed at boycotting Israel.

“Regrettably, excuses like these also represent the European Union’s policy on other issues, such as its attitude toward Iran and Palestinian terror,” he added. “On these issues, too, the EU has chosen to act like an ostrich and behave as if it were blind to the hatred, incitement and boycotts.”

Firing back, the EU said its “fight against terrorism has never been stronger,” and that it was “confident that our funds have not been used to support boycott of Israel, in particular not BDS activities.”

The EU's support of Israel has, I believe, been weakening over the past couple decades and, almost certainly has to do with the dramatic rise in Islamic populations in EU countries. This will only get much worse before it gets better. The New Normal will be a highly anti-Semitic Europe, and they seem to be halfway there.

IEA Predicts Nightmare Scenario for OPEC

© Mike Stone / Reuters

The US will supply much of the world’s additional oil for the next few years, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Over the next three years, the US will cover 80 percent of the world’s demand growth, the IEA says in its newly-released Oil 2018 annual report. Canada, Brazil and Norway will cover the remainder, leaving no room for more OPEC supply.

The irony is that the substantial gains in output from shale will only be possible because of the OPEC cuts, which has tightened the market and boosted prices. This fact is not lost on OPEC producers. "If you are a shale oil producer, who brought you back? It was OPEC," the UAE’s oil minister Suhail Al Mazrouei, said at a recent industry conference, according to Bloomberg. "Without OPEC there’d be chaos in the market."

Indeed, the IEA’s new report paints a pretty gloomy picture for OPEC members, who are hoping to phase out their supply cuts after this year. With non-OPEC supply rising quickly, particularly in the US, OPEC may struggle to figure out a way to increase output without pushing down prices, according to the IEA’s analysis.

That could put pressure on the cartel to keep the production cuts in place for longer than they had wanted, although it seems hard to imagine they maintain the production ceilings for another three or four years. Doing so would mean handicapping themselves and ceding even more market share to US shale and other non-OPEC producers. Still, it is unclear how this plays out – returning to full production, even if phased in gradually, presents its own problems, if the IEA’s forecast is accurate.

The IEA sees demand for OPEC oil actually declining in absolute terms over the next few years as it is edged out of the market by non-OPEC supply. OPEC production only grows by 750,000 bpd through 2023 under the energy agency’s forecast, although that also takes into account a 700,000-bpd decline in Venezuela.

The bottom line is that the IEA sees oil demand rising by 6.9 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2023, with more than half of those increases coming from China and India. Meanwhile, supply grows by about 6.4 mb/d, with a whopping 3.7 mb/d coming from the US, nearly 60 percent of the total global supply increase.

By sector, petrochemicals starts to take on a larger role in driving oil demand, especially as the transportation sector starts to see a greater adoption of electric vehicles. But it isn’t just EVs – abundant oil and cheap natural gas are fueling a surge in petrochemical investments.

Nevertheless, while the IEA sees an explosion of shale output for the next five years or so, beyond that the story is different. The massive cuts to upstream investment since the collapse of oil prices in 2014 will begin to cause supply problems at the beginning of the next decade. Spending levels are only now starting to pick up, but are still at a fraction of pre-2014 levels, which means that there will be a dearth of new, large-scale conventional oil projects in several years’ time. “This is potentially storing up trouble for the future,” the IEA wrote in its report.

Moreover, natural depletion from existing fields essentially wipes out 3 mb/d of supply every year. That, combined with demand growth, means that the oil industry needs to replace “one North Sea each year,” the IEA says. But the industry is no longer spending enough to cover that gap. In 2017, new oil discoveries fell to another record low, with less than 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent found. The lack of new oil in the works is sowing the seeds of supply problems in the 2020s.

“The United States is set to put its stamp on global oil markets for the next five years,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director, said in a statement. “But as we’ve highlighted repeatedly, the weak global investment picture remains a source of concern. More investments will be needed to make up for declining oil fields – the world needs to replace 3 mb/d of declines each year, the equivalent of the North Sea – while also meeting robust demand growth.”

The IEA report will provide a fascinating backdrop to the start of the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston, where industry titans and oil ministers will gather this week. No doubt the aggressive forecast for US shale will provide a lot of fodder for conversation for both shale boosters and anxious OPEC representatives.

US Ready to Turn Syria into Another Libya

US ready to ‘fight for justice’ in Syria without UN approval – Haley

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. © Brendan McDermid / Reuters

The US does not consider itself constrained by the United Nations Security Council and might seek “justice” in Syria on its own terms, the US representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, has said. The US took similar action in Libya in 2011.

“With the unity of this council, or alone, unrestrained by Russia’s obstructionism, we will continue to fight for justice and accountability in Syria,” Haley said, blasting Russia’s vetoing of the draft resolution on the extension of the Syrian chemical weapons probe on Friday.

The draft, proposed by Japan, envisioned the “technical extension” of the probe for another 30 days. Explaining Russia’s decision to block the resolution, Russian UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya said that there is no sense in prolonging the mission if some glaring flaws in its work are not amended.

"There can be no other way after the JIM’s [the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism] leadership disgraced itself with its fictitious investigation into the sarin use incident in Khan Shaykhun and signed off on baseless accusations against Syria,” he said.

Haley went on to accuse Russia of showing no flexibility in negotiating the conditions of the probe, claiming that Moscow had only “dictated and demanded” while the US had “incorporated elements of the Russian draft” into its own in the hopes of reaching a consensus.

Russia vetoed the US draft on Thursday, with Nebenzya calling it “unbalanced” and solely designed to discredit Russia and its role in the Syrian settlement. Haley subsequently accused the Russian mission of ignoring the US delegation's attempts to contact it before the vote.

Haley’s remarks on the impossibility of reaching the Russian mission provoked an angry reaction from Moscow, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov calling it “fake diplomacy.” Lavrov said that "it seems we are witnessing a new phenomenon in international relations, as now, apart from fake news, there is also fake diplomacy."

The rival draft was co-sponsored by Russia and China, and “aimed at the extension and qualitative improvement” of the fact-finding mission, according to Nebenzya. However, it also failed, gaining the support of only four Security Council members.

While both Russia and the US used their veto powers on the respective resolutions, Haley accused Moscow of obstructing the work of the UNSC and its efforts to find “the truth.”

The 'truth' as decided beforehand. See: Khan Sheikhun Sarin Gas Attack was a False Flag Operation

Russia has repeatedly criticized the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM)’s report on the chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun as being filled with “omissions, inconsistences and contradictions.” It also says it does not follow standard procedures for an impartial inquiry as it relies on questionable testimonies provided by rebels and NGOs, some of which are suspected of links to terrorists. In particular, it pointed to experts’ refusal to visit the site of the attack despite security guarantees.

Another Libya?

In 2011, the US intervened in the region to curb the violence in the ongoing civil war in Libya. Under the pretext of a UN mandate to establish a no-fly zone in the country and save civilian lives, the US-led NATO coalition waged a full-fledged campaign that eventually resulted in the slaughter of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and multiple civilian deaths, the number of which varies from 72, according to Human Rights Watch, to more than 1,000 in unconfirmed reports. The country is still in tatters and the war involving tribes and militants is ongoing. 

It's time to end the war in Syria, not prolong it as long as possible. Let the country begin to rebuild so Syrians can stay in Syria and perhaps even some migrants in Europe can return home. 

As evil and horrible as Bashar al-Assad is, he is not worth destroying what little remains of Syria and destroying Europe to take him out. That's insanity. 

If the USA's determination to keep the war going in Syria is to humor their Saudi friends, they are not worth it. If it is just to keep weapons rolling off the assembly-lines, that is prostitution of the worst kind.

End the war in Syria! It is within reach. Stop trying to one-up Russia at the expense of Syria and Europe.

Despite the UN not giving the greenlight for a full-fledged campaign in Syria, US Defense Secretary James Mattis claimed that the organization sanctioned action there, justifying it with the struggle against Islamic State terrorists. Damascus has repeatedly blasted the US for operating on Syrian territory without its consent and in violation of international law, and views the US presence as an invasion.

Saudi Arabia Funding Terrorist-Breeding Mosques – ex-UK Ambassador to Riyadh

If you have been reading this blog for a while this story will not be news to you. This is the biggest fear for those of us opposed to large numbers of Muslims entering western countries. They come a peaceful, good people and then get drawn into Wahhabism or Salafism which is basically radicalization.

© Global Look Press

Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques across Europe that are encouraging terrorism through extremists ideologies, the former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia has said.

Sir William Patey claimed that even though the Gulf State – which is the UK’s biggest trade and security ally in the Middle East – does not directly fund terrorism, it still finances religious institutions which radicalize individuals, becoming the breeding ground of terrorists.

 “It is unhealthy and we need to do something about it,” he said, according to the Guardian.

“The Saudis [have] not quite appreciated the impact their funding of a certain brand of Islam is having in the countries in which they do it – it is not just Britain and Europe.

I'm not convinced they don't appreciate what they are doing. Sir William is a diplomat; I am a realist.

“That is a dialogue we need to have. They are not funding terrorism. They are funding something else, which may down the road lead to individuals being radicalised and becoming fodder for terrorism.”

They are not funding terrorism.

They are funding something else, 

which may lead to individuals being radicalised.

Patey, who was the UK ambassador to Riyadh from 2006 to 2010 and previously head of the Foreign Office Middle East desk, called for “a grown up dialogue with the Gulf about what we think,” adding that even if it is not the Saudi regime funding terrorists directly, there are individuals within the country who may defy the government.

The former ambassador’s comments are likely to stir controversy as they come a day after the government refused to publish a Home Office-commissioned report of foreign funding of extremist organizations and individuals in the UK.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the already much-delayed report – commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron – will be permanently kept from the public eye amid “national security concerns.”

The report found that while most funding of extremists in Britain comes from UK-based individual donors, some donations come from abroad.

The decision to not publish the report has caused an outcry and intensified allegations that the government is delaying publishing the report, which was ready six months ago, in order to save diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia – a country largely expected to be named in the paper as financing extremists in Britain.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron hit back at the decision to not disclose all details of the report and accused the government of putting its diplomatic ties above Britain’s values.

“We cannot tackle the root causes of terrorism in the UK without full disclosure of the states and institutions that fund extremism in our country.

“Instead of supporting the perpetrators of these vile ideologies, the government should be naming and shaming them - including so-called allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar if need be,” he said, according to Business Insider.

“It seems like the government, yet again, is putting our so-called friendship with Saudi Arabia above our values. This shoddy decision is the latest in a long line where we have put profit over principle.”

Report on Idlib Chemical Attack Based on Questionable Evidence – Russian OPCW Rep

Some of you will not read this post or watch the video because it is from RT and they are interviewing a Russian representative to the Organisation for Prohibited Chemical Weapons. If you don't, you will deny yourself the opportunity to learn a great deal about the chemical weapon attack and its aftermath. 

It is not the easiest interview to listen to, Mr. Shulgin's English is quite broken, but it is certainly worth the effort. A few excerpts are below, but the there is much, much more in the interview video.

FILE PHOTO: Civil defense members inspect the damage at a site hit by airstrikes in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria April 5, 2017 © Ammar Abdullah / Reuters

The latest OPCW report on the April Idlib chemical incident lacks sufficient evidence and is based on data provided mostly by only one side of the Syrian conflict without necessary verification, the Russian OPCW representative, Aleksandr Shulgin, told RT.

“The conclusions of this report are based on questionable data provided primarily by all kinds of the Syrian armed opposition groups and NGOs, including the infamous White Helmets,” Shulgin said, referring to the report of the fact-finding mission (FFM) reviewed by the UN’s chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), on Thursday.

This blog has shown where the White Helmets have faked news stories on several occasions, always in an effort to demonize the Syrian Army.

The Russian representative drew attention to the fact that the report itself repeatedly says that the FFM investigative team decided not to visit the incident scene due to “security factors” and was thus unable to gather the necessary material evidence directly on the spot.

The team then had to rely on evidence provided by “various NGOs” that were working on the scene and testimonies of the alleged attack victims as well as those of the medical specialists, who treated the victims in “one of the neighboring countries.”

The report further says that the team was unable to implement the chain of custody for the samples they obtained from third parties, despite the fact that it is a standard basic procedure for such types of investigation, Shulgin noted.

The FFM report seen by RT indeed says that “the team was unable to implement a complete chain of custody, by the team, for samples from source.” Shulgin explained that the lack of the full chain of custody makes such evidence questionable, as its source cannot be verified with certainty.