German Double Cross on Durban II
Remember that Germany had the courage and conviction to refuse to participate in the Durban II racist "anti-racism" conference? Remember that Germany decided it would not sit on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday - opening day of Durban II - and listen to Iranian President Ahmadinejad promote another Holocaust? Remember that Germany refused to lend credibility to Durban II by deciding not to attend any of it?
That was weeks ago when the fiasco of Durban II was in the public eye. Today, the same Germany has double-crossed Jews, Israel and all those who care about anti-Semitism and the demonization of the Jewish state.
Germany has now agreed to the outcome document from Durban II - the document which "reaffirms" Durban I's smear that Israelis are racists.
Confirmation of Germany's position on the Durban II outcome document can now be found on the website of the German mission to the United Nations: the "document, from the German point of view, is an acceptable basis for the continuing struggle against racial discrimination and xenophobia."
German officials also now admit that they have highlighted their new found enthusiasm for Durban II to UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay in a bilateral meeting.
Furthermore, the Draft Report of the UN High Commissioner's office on Durban II, claims that Germany attended the conference. Germany is listed under the heading "The following States were represented at the Review Conference." In fact, Germany was not physically present and its chair was empty throughout. German officials, however, have confirmed that they have not asked the UN High Commissioner to correct the report.
So here is how Germany in 2009 does business - the dirty business of encouraging anti-Semitism while claiming it is doing the opposite:
(1) Germany represents itself to the world as a country which rejects Durban II as a vehicle for combating racism. On April 19, 2009 German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared that "there is still a risk the conference will be used as a platform for the pursuit of other interests, just as its predecessor in 2001 was. That is something we cannot accept." The German UN mission website subsequently explained their refusal to participate by saying "we feared that this conference, just as the previous conference in 2001, would be abused as a platform for other interests. Unfortunately, these fears were confirmed."
(2) Behind closed doors Germany represents to the UN that it accepts the product of this platform for anti-Semitism.
(3) Germany decides to cover-up the fact that it had denied Durban II legitimacy by refusing to participate - and is allowing the UN to claim that it participated, when it didn't.
EYEontheUN.org Editor, Anne Bayefsky, asked on April 17th, 2009 during the last Durban II planning meeting: will Germany grant legitimacy to a forum which tolerates the presence of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people? The answer, we now know, is "yes."
Comment on this item
by Soeren Kern
Hamas would likely resort to violence to thwart any attempts to disarm the group. It is therefore highly unlikely the Europeans would confront Hamas in any meaningful way.
Spanish intelligence agents met secretly with Hezbollah operatives, who agreed to provide "escorts" to protect Spanish UNIFIL patrols. The quid pro quo was that Spanish troops would look the other way while Hezbollah was allowed to rearm for its next war with Israel. Hezbollah's message to Spain was: mind your own business.
If the European experience with Hezbollah in Lebanon is any indication, not only will Hamas not be disarmed, it will be rearmed as European monitors look on and do nothing.
What is clear is that European leaders have never been committed to honoring either the letter or the spirit of UN Resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701, all of which were aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming.
by Debalina Ghoshal
According to former Bush administration official Stephen Rademaker, for the United States to respond to Russian violations of the treaty by pulling out of it would be "welcome in Moscow," which is "wrestling with the question of how they terminate [the treaty]" and thus, the United States should not make it easier for the Russians to leave.
by Guy Millière
Belgian security services have estimated that the number of European jihadists in Syria may be over 4000.
European leaders have directed their nastiest comments against the Jewish state, none of them has asked why Palestinian organizations in Gaza put their stockpiles of weapons in hospitals, homes, schools and mosques, or their command and control centers at the bottom of large apartment buildings or underneath hospitals. None of them has even said that Hamas is a terrorist organization despite its genocidal charter.
The majority of them are wedded to the idea of redistribution. Their policies are anti-growth, do not afford people any economic opportunity, and are what caused these economic crises in Europe in the first place. The United States seems to be following these thoroughly failed policies as well.
"Europe could not stay the same with a different population in it." — Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.
by Raymond Ibrahim
"I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah... There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell." — Abubakar Shekau, leader of Boko Haram.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization.
In Malaysia -- regularly portrayed in the West as a moderate Muslim nation -- any attempt to promote religions other than Islam is illegal.
"The reason they want to kill me is very clear -- it is because of being a convert to Christianity." — Hassan Muwanguzi, Uganda.
by Dexter Van Zile
Rev. Hanna Massad does not mention that perhaps Hamas actually wants the blockade to end so it can bring in more weapons and cement to build attack-tunnels so it can "finish the job."
Hamas does not just admit to using human shields, it brags about using human shields. Why does Massad have to inject an air of uncertainty about Hamas's use of human shields when no such uncertainty exists?
The problem is that any self-respecting journalist would confront Massad with a follow-up question about Hamas's ideology and violence, but not the folks at Christianity Today.