Where Is The Outrage Now?
Obama and many others in the international community have been quicker in condemning settlement construction in Israel than atrocities by Arab dictators against innocent civilians.
Has retired South African judge Richard Goldstone considered the possibility of heading a special commission of inquiry to look into the war crimes that are being perpetrated against Libyans and other Arabs?
Settlements may be a problem, but they are not more dangerous than the massacres that are being perpetrated against Arabs.
It took President Barack Obama nine days to condemn Col. Muammar Gaddafi's massacres in Libya as "outrageous" and "unacceptable."
It took the UN Security Council more than a week to hold a closed-door meeting and issue a tempered statement condemning the violence in Libya and calling for its immediate end and for those responsible to be held accountable.
This is the same Security Council that one week earlier held a special and open session to condemn construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Fourteen out of fifteen members of the council voted in support of the anti-settlement resolution, which was vetoed by the US.
The same members, however, saw no need to hold a vote on the slaughtering of thousands of Libyans by Gaddafi.
But both Obama and the Security Council stopped short of calling for Gaddafi's removal from power for perpetrating atrocities against his own people.
The Europeans have also been cautious in their response to the carnage in Libya. They too have refrained from calling for regime change in Libya.
One can understand why Americans and Europeans are worried about their economic interests in Libya, especially with regard to oil. It is also likely that the West is embarrassed about its relationship with the Libyan dictator who, despite his crimes, was welcomed back into the international community in 2003.
Then, Gaddafi was apparently forgiven for his role in the Lockerbie plane explosion and support for countless terror groups in the Arab and Islamic world. Gaddafi was forgiven because he had agreed to abandon his nuclear ambitions and promised to be good..
Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, on the other hand, who for over 30 years served Western interests in the Middle East and did his utmost to preserve the peace treaty with Israel and support moderate Arabs and Muslims, was thrown to the dogs by the Obama Administration as soon as his people started demanding regime change.
Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to be more troubled by the death of 300 Egyptians than the brutal massacring of thousands of Libyans. Obama and Clinton seem to be more worried about construction in Jewish settlements than war crimes and serious human rights violations in the Arab world.
The US Administration and the rest of the international community have once again sent a message to the Arabs that they do not really care about human rights and democracy and that they are ready to sacrifice thousands of Arabs to keep the oil prices as low as ever. Mubarak was unfortunate because his country does not have oil.
Now at least the Arab people know that they can no longer rely on Obama and Clinton to support any of their pro-democracy movements.
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz