Freeze Arab Illegal Construction First!!

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's calls for a freeze on Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem while Arab construction, which far exceeds Jewish development, continues unfettered - are clearly biased.

Arabs claim that Jewish settlements "change the status" of the Territories and represent a distortion of the Oslo Accords.

The phrase applies to acts that change the political status of the disputed territory - such as outright Israeli annexation, or a Palestinian declaration of statehood.

Since Jewish settlements are legal, any halt in construction should be reciprocated.

The Oslo Accords do not forbid Israeli or Arab settlement activity. Charging that further Jewish settlement activity preempts final negotiations by establishing realities, requires reciprocity. If Jews were forcibly expelled from the "West Bank" in 1948 during a war of aggression aimed at them, then these Territories must be considered disputed Territories, at the least

The Israeli-Palestinian border dispute is like every other major and minor boundary dispute around the globe. The "West Bank" was redeemed in 1967 in a war of self defense and is not "Occupied Territory" gained illegally by a bellicose power, and since this fact is recognized in the wording of UN Resolutions 242 and 338 that call for a settlement to institute "secure and recognized boundaries."

According to David Bar-Ilan, a former policy planning official, the tempo of Arab construction is "more than 10 times the number of buildings under construction [in the Territory] than those approved [by the Israeli government] for the [Jewish] settlers."here

source

Posted with Blogsy

Bringing to light media manipulation: On Hezbollah, The Washington Post’s Conspicuous Omission

Sherlock Holmes famously advised those who sought his deductive assistance to be alert to the curious incident of the dog that didn’t bark in the night. A close relative to that complacent canine appears in The Washington Post’s “Sunnis, Shiites clash in Lebanon; Fighting in seaside town shows entanglement in Syrian war is growing,” June 19.

Post foreign desk correspondent Liz Sly’s final paragraph reads: “Under the peace accord that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war in 1990, Hezbollah is the only militia legally allowed to carry arms.” A conspicuous omission, akin to the silent watchdog Holmes suspected of knowing an intruder.

Three U.N. Security Council resolutions, all subsequent to the agreement The Post mentions, call for Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Resolutions 1559 (2004), 1680 (2006), and 1701 urge the Lebanese government to fully extend and exercise its sole and effective authority throughout the south and to "exert control over the use of force on its territory and from it.” The Security Council aimed these measures at Hezbollah, the party obstructing Beirut’s sole, effective authority and key extra-governmental armed force.

Resolution 1701 (2006), helped end that year’s Hezbollah-Israeli war. It requires, among other things, the disarming of all non-governmental groups in Lebanon. Like resolutions 1559 and 1680 it focuses on Hezbollah, the one remaining private military group [text of resolution at bottom of U.N. press release].

Two years later, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said “Hezbollah’s maintenance of a paramilitary capacity poses a key challenge to the government’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force,” according to an Associated Press 

report (“U.N. chief calls for Hezbollah disarmament,” USA Today, April 24, 2008). Ban asserted “it is high time … for all parties concerned, inside and outside of Lebanon [meaning Hezbollah’s Iranian and Syrian backers], to set aside this remaining vestige of the past.”

Ban repeated his call during a 2012 visit to Beirut, only to have Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah immediately reject it.

The Post generally identifies Hezbollah (the Iranian-founded, funded, armed and trained Shi’ite “Party of God”) as Lebanon’s dominant political and “military” party. It usually calls its gunmen “militants.” It is one thing for the newspaper rarely to remind readers of Hezbollah’s 1983 destruction of the U.S. Marine barracks and embassy in Lebanon, 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847, reported involvement in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, or its U.S. government designation as a terrorist organization. It’s quite another to state, without qualification, that “Hezbollah is the only militia legally allowed to carry arms.” Curious, and conspicuous.

Camera

Al-Dura Hoax Continues: Karsenty Found Guilty of 'Defamation'

Al-Dura Hoax Continues: Karsenty Found Guilty of 'Defamation'

The al-Dura Incident

French media analyst Philippe Karsenty has been convicted of defamation for accusing French state television of staging anti-Israel hoax.

French media analyst Philippe Karsenty has been convicted of defamation for accusing French state television of staging the infamous footage of Mohammed al-Dura, the Arab boy who fueled a campaign of lies against the state of Israel and became a symbol of the second “intifada.”

The footage, broadcast on September 30, 2000 by the France 2 state television network, showed the boy cowering in fear beside his father amid a firefight in Gaza and alleged that he was intentionally killed by Israeli soldiers.

The Paris Court of Appeals, which had overturned Karsenty’s libel conviction in 2008, convicted Karsenty on Wednesday, fining him 7,000 euros, approximately $9,000, in the prolonged legal battle against the French television station.

While France 2’s Israel correspondent Charles Enderlin did not personally witness the incident, he claimed that al-Dura had been shot dead by IDF soldiers.

Karsenty claimed the footage of al-Dura crouching with his father behind a barricade amid a whirlwind of bullets was orchestrated and perpetuated by French media which is determined to portray the Jewish state as a barbaric nation of child killers.

He claimed that the Mohammad al-Dura affair—as it has become infamously and globally known-- created “truth” out of pure fiction in an effort to demonize Israeli in the eyes of the international community.

Karsenty was convicted of libel in 2006, but the Paris appeals court overturned the verdict.

Last year, France’s highest court overturned the appeals court verdict, leading to Wednesday’s decision.

The Israeli government issued a report in May declaring that the footage was a hoax and that Mohammed al-Durah was not killed by Israeli fire.

The report noted the lack of blood stains on the boy and analyzed the direction of fire, which was determined to not have come from the Israeli side.

“Contrary to the report’s claim that the boy was killed, the committee’s review of the raw footage showed that in the final scenes, which were not broadcast by France 2, the boy is seen to be alive,” the report maintained.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the accusations aired on France 2 were “a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel.”

Minister of International Affairs and Strategy Yuval Steinitz called the accusations baseless and said the affair was “a modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel.”

The Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center further asserted that "criminal charges should be filed, and Charles Enderlin should never be allowed to practice journalism in Israel again” as the result of his baseless campaign of lies. 

soure

MK: Arab MKs’ Incitement Has to Stop

Shas MK: Arab MKs are cursing Israel from the Knesset podium, it has to stop.

The Knesset must put a stop to unbridled anti-Israel incitement in its halls, MK Nissim Ze'ev of Shas said Wednesday in an impassioned speech from the Knesset podium

cont/reading....here

Related articles

• Knesset Review Reveals: Israel Does Not Exist in PA Textbooks (israelnationalnews.com)
• Knesset Bills Would Define Israel as Jewish State (jewishpress.com)

EJC: EU Readily Labels 'Settlements', Refuses to Ban Hizbullah

European Jewish Congress blasts EU's move to label goods over 'Green Line' as body refuses to label Hizbullah a terror organization.

Hizbullah forces

In a letter sent to all leaders of European Union member states, European Jewish Congress President Dr. Moshe Kantor has compared the EU’s moves to label goods from Israeli companies operating over the ‘Green Line’ with the long overdue proscription of Hizbullah.

“Firstly, this policy is seen as discriminatory as the European Union appears to be singling out one disputed territory of the world for special treatment, whereas the European Union has no similar policies for the other tens of territories that are the subject of international disputes.”

“Moreover, the timing of the labeling issue is inauspicious as it is diverting energies that could be better placed supporting positive moves towards restarting direct negotiations between the parties,”

 Kantor wrote. “I believe that the implementation of a policy which is seen as one-sided and biased at this time will only serve to negatively affect this positive momentum and increase ill-faith and bad feeling between the parties.”

The EJC also argues that this policy will also have a negative effect on the Arab population, many of whom work or are supported by these Israeli companies.

“This policy will also have the additional problematic effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Palestinians who work for these Israeli companies, earning pay far greater than in the Palestinian Authority, and their dependents, who would suffer an enormous financial blow from the ramifications of this policy,” Kantor said.

Kantor wrote in the letter that while the labeling of goods originating over the ‘Green Line’ was problematic, it is made worse by the comparative lack of traction on the issue of adding Hizbullah to the EU list of terrorist organizations.

“The greatest concern to us as European citizens is that while there is a consensus and movement on the labeling issue, there appears to be little movement on the goal of proscribing Hizbullah as a terrorist organization within the European Union,” Kantor wrote in the letter to the European leaders. “While the European Union’s oft-stated goal is to achieve peace and security in the Middle East, these words will remain hollow if an organization with a proven and undisputable record of murder and terrorism in Europe and around the world, and whose goal is to destroy the Jewish State, is allowed to act freely, recruit and raise funds unimpeded on the European continent.”

“I would urge you to prioritize the proscription of an organization whose aim is to derail security and stability in the region and beyond, and whose ongoing role will ensure that peace will not be achieved in the Middle East. This is the greatest contribution the European Union can make to US Secretary of State Kerry’s efforts, and the efforts of those who wish to see a restart of negotiations which will lead to a resolution of the protracted conflict,” Kantor concluded.

Arutz 7

Related articles

• EU Fails to Blacklist Hizbullah (israelnationalnews.com)
• Lieberman: If EU Won't Blacklist Hizbullah, it's Irrelevant (israelnationalnews.com)

Obama Sends U.S. Troops to Prop Up Morsi

In yet another remarkable display of Obama’s determination to secure the Middle East for Islamofascists, 400 U.S. troops will reportedly be deployed to Egypt to augment the police force of Islamist President Mohamed Morsi. They will be part of a 13-country force stationed in Egypt in anticipation of protests, scheduled for June 30th, calling for the removal of Morsi. Curiously, whereas Obama readily threw former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus in 2011, the White House is now eager to defend the regime of Morsi, who, like his Muslim Brotherhood sponsors, is well on his way to imposing the Saudi Arabian model of governance on Egypt.

The so-called “peacekeeping mission” on which the U.S. troops will serve is expected to last nine months. It follows six months of training by troops at both Fort Hood, Texas and Fort Irwin, California. That training reportedly included crowd control measures as well as Molotov cocktail attack response. ”Soldiers encountered Molotov cocktails and other dangerous items in the training,” reported a local TV news station out of Killeen, TX that broke the story.

A Fort Hood Press Center release reveals that a battalion task force from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team will be part of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) peacekeeping contingency based along the southeast coast of the Sinai Peninsula between Eilat, Israel, and Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt. Once there, they will man positions and checkpoints, report any violations of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, and remain prepared to respond to threats. That treaty required Israeli forces to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula and for Egypt to keep the area demilitarized. An exception to the treaty was authorized in 2011 when Israel allowed several hundred Egyptian troops into the area to quell violence that occurred then.

Troops assigned to the MFO are not under operational command of their respective nations, but commanded by the MFO itself. The MFO’s headquarters are located in Rome, Italy. With regard to American troops, the MFO website notes they will be expected to provide a Quick Reaction Force should the need arise.

The need is likely to arise. Since former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was ousted–with the blessing of the Obama administration–Mohamed Morsi has moved swiftly to consolidate his power. He has suppressed the media and the arts, and issued an edict boosting his power and sidelining the judiciary in the process. He removed key officers from the Egyptian military, and allowed Muslim Brotherhood loyalists to rewrite the nation’s constitution. Attacks on Coptic Christian churches has occurred with alarming frequency, and women also face a dark future in a nation sexual harassment in endemic, and Muslim Brotherhood members condemned a UN report that gave judges, rather than husbands, authority in cases of divorce while granting women full rights to file legal complaints against their husbands for rape or sexual harassment.

As a result of his overreach, there is massive opposition to Morsi’s oppressive regime. A liberal secular group known as the Rebels has collected 15 million signatures on petitions calling for Morsi’s impeachment. That number represents a substantially larger total than the 13.2 million votes Morsi got in the 2012 election. The group intends to deliver the petitions to Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, the nation’s highest, prior to the June 30 demonstrations. ”The regime did not take one step toward fulfilling the goals of the revolution,” said Rebel volunteer Amir Mahrous, 21, who was gathering signatures in Cairo. “This is why we are rebelling again.”

Morsi supporters claim they have garnered 10 million signatures in support of the regime. On June 21, 100,000 of his supporters held a pro-government rally in Cairo. Signs carried by the demonstrators read, ”The Koran is the constitution” and “Islam is the solution.” Morsi himself contends the Rebels petition carries no weight.

Thus, there is a burgeoning standoff between liberal secular Egyptians one side, and dedicated Islamists on the other. One that could precipitate widespread violence in four days. And President Barack Obama has sent American troops to Egypt–to stand with the Islamists.

Adding to the spectacular absurdity of U.S. troops protecting Morsi’ thuggish regime–and by extension a Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al Qaeda and Hamas–is the reality that some of the troops deployed there come from the same military base where another Islamist, Maj. Nidal Hasan, killed 13 and wounded 32 of his fellow soldiers in 2009. That attack was labeled “workplace violence” and troops and their families were denied Purple Hearts and survivors benefits when the administration claimed that such awards, given to those ”wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States” would ”set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist,” thereby jeopardizing his ability to receive a fair trial.

As is often the case with the “most transparent administration in history,” the White House has maintained silence regarding American troops being deployed into a potential nation-wide firestorm. Egyptian military spokesman Ahmed Ali insists that media reports regarding the deployment are inaccurate and that American troops will be nothing more than part of “the periodical renewal routine for the US faction of the 13-state multinational force deployed in Sinai since the peace treaty.” He further insisted the MFO “is not armed with military operations gear.”

Egyptian Major Ahmed Shaaban echoed that contention insisting the 400 troops were only part of a “routine” replacement of fellow U.S. soldiers on Sinai’s border. “They are only training to protect themselves as a matter of high-level security,” he insisted. “I don’t think these trainings are necessary because the peacekeeping force is not even authorized to conduct any military operations; they are only there to observe and report,” he added.

In the meantime, Reuters reports that Egyptians are stocking up on food, fuel and cash in anticipation of protests that “many fear will be the most violent and disruptive this year.” Furthermore, the U.S. embassy announced it would be closed on June 30, and warned Americans in Egypt to get enough supplies to make it through an “extended period of time.”

Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry released $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid to the Morsi regime, despite a law that requires him to certify that the Egyptian government ”is supporting the transition to civilian government, including holding free and fair elections, implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion, and due process of law.” Kerry waived that restriction–despite writing a May 9 memo indicating that ”we are not satisfied with the extent of Egypt’s progress and are pressing for a more inclusive democratic process and the strengthening of key democratic institutions.”

In the year since he has come to power, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has done virtually everything in his power to undermine a more inclusive democratic process and the strengthening of key democratic institutions. Yet the beat goes on for a president and an administration so desperate to maintain its Arab spring narrative, nothing remotely resembling reality intrudes.

In 2009, one of the few genuine spasms of resistance to Islamofacism broke out in Iran. Obama chose not to “meddle,” and thousands of pro-democracy Iranians were subsequently brutalized into submission. History is on the cusp of repeating itself in Egypt, with perhaps millions of Egyptian ready to stand up for democracy. This time Obama has “upped his game.” He now stands with the Islamists in no uncertain terms.

via :  Right Side News

Americans Suing the State Department Over Palestinian Aid File Opposition Brief

The 24 Americans living in Israel who had sued the State Department over US aid to the Palestinians have filed their opposition brief to the government's motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs allege that aid money to the Palestinians is not being carefully scrutinized nor administered and funds terrorism.

The lawsuit was originally filed in November, 2012 in the United States District Court for  Washington, DC.  On  April 8, 2013, however, attorneys for the US government filed a motion to dismiss their claims. 

The plaintiffs contend that the State Department has recklessly ignored congressional safeguards and transparency requirements which govern US aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA).  The Americans, some of whom are victims of terror themselves, allege that as a result of White House non-compliance with federal regulations, funds have been flowing to terror groups like Hamas. These Americans call on the US government to stop all funds to the Palestinians until the latter "fully comply with federal prohibitions against support for terrorism."

In its response to their complaint, the US government, has asked the court not to allow the case to continue, claiming that the  plaintiffs lack standing to bring this civil action  and that the case  raises "political questions" best left to the other branches of government.

The plaintiffs are opposing the motion to dismiss and argue that the suit is indeed "justiciable" and that far from being an "abuse of discretion," as the defendants contend, enforcing limitations on federal foreign aid to the Palestinians against State Department abuses is the judiciary's job.

The lawsuit makes it clear that it does not challenge the President and the State Department's right to conduct foreign policy nor fund the Palestinians. These American plaintiffs simply object to the executive branch's funding of the PA without oversight. It is a legitimate objection by two dozen Americans, who are the class of individuals Congress sought to protect through their safeguards. US funds are being utilized by the Palestinians for terrorism which threatens Americans and others and the plaintiffs are demanding their day in court to expose these dangerous abuses. 

It is estimated that since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the United States State Department, via USAID has given over $4 billion to Palestinians. During the last four fiscal years, average aid has been roughly $600 million per year. Additionally, the United States gives approximately $200 million to the United Nations body UNRWA, each year, and during the fiscal years 2008 and 2009, UNRWA gave roughly $500 million of their funding to recipients in the West Bank and Gaza.

Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the State Department is required to certify that the Palestinian government is committed to a peaceful co-existence with Israel before distributing funds, and ensure that no part of funding is used for terrorism. 

Rather than defend the government's foreign aid policy on its merits and provide proof that it truly knows where taxpayer money to the PA is going, the government's lawyers are trying to dismiss the lawsuit on legal technicalities. They are saying that it is pure speculation that Americans can be injured by terrorism in Israel and that the issue of funding is a foreign policy power reserved to the US President and cannot be reviewed by the courts. It'll be up to the court to decide.

For a copy of the plaintiffs' memo in opposition to the motion to dismiss: http://www.scribd.com/doc/149859043/Bernstein-v-Kerry

And Join With Shurat HaDin on the October 2013 Ultimate Mission to Israel: http://israellawcenter.org/page.asp?id=330

Yours,

Nitsana


Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center
10 Hata'as St. Ramat Gan, 52512 Israel
Phone: 972-3-7514175    |    Fax: 972-3-7514174
info@israellawcenter.org
http://www.israellawcenter.org
Blog: http://israellawcenter.wordpress.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ShuratHaDin
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/ShuratHaDin

The UAV Arms Race (terrorists with UAV-based intelligence)

in the next confrontation, the other side will possess aerial intelligence
gathering resources

The UAV Arms Race
Terrorist organizations are acquiring UAVs, military organizations use them
for strike missions and enthusiasts can purchase advanced gliders for 300
Euro. How is the world preparing for this global revolution?

Alon Unger 21/6/2013
http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2205

The UAV Arms Race The change has already taken place. Over the last year,
the world of UAVs has experienced a true revolution, at the conclusion of
which it may be stated that an "arms race" has begun in the field.

To fully understand this revolution (as opposed to slow, consistent
evolution), one needs to go back: the scope of the global market for UAVs
has shown a consistent and impressive growth trend for the past decade.
Following the atrocities of the September 2011 terror attacks, the US - the
world's leading UAV superpower - decided that the optimal modern response
for the need to cope with gaps concerning intelligence gathering and strikes
against Time Sensitive Targets (TST) is the UAV solution. Since then, more
than 1,500 types of UAV systems have been developed around the world, with
about one fifth developed in the US.

The UAV market has developed consistently, mainly in the western world,
which chose to solve the "fog of war" problem by means of UAV systems of
various types. Beyond the US borders, it was Israel that succeeded in
expanding the global deployment of UAV systems. However, a number of events
that occurred over the last year have pointed to a substantial change in the
global empowerment trend of unmanned systems and the expansion thereof into
an "arms race" phenomenon.

The first event was the entry of China and Russia into the UAV market, and
their declaration of their serious intention to capture a substantial share
of that market through price competition and selling to countries that
experience difficulties developing UAVs on their own or purchasing these
weapon systems from western countries.

The second event was the fall of the US stealth UAV, Lockheed Martin's
RQ-170 Sentinel, into the hands of Iran on December 4, 2011 and the
worldwide saga that ensued, starting with a denial and ending with an
admission by the US government. This incident introduced to the general
public around the globe the strategy behind unmanned vehicles and the
various functions they fulfill. Dozens of articles were published in the
various media on the subject of UAVs and related policy, missions and
developments.

However, by far the most influential factor in bringing about the change in
the global trend and initiating an all-out procurement effort was the
increasing number of strikes performed by US-produced Predator UAVs
recently.

The elimination of terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki, a US citizen who had become a
senior Al-Qaeda leader in Yemen, led to furious responses by numerous US
organizations who blamed the Obama administration of resorting to summary
execution. Predator strikes conducted by the British Army led human rights
organizations in the UK to embark on a struggle against the use of these
measures and to various publications on the processes of "stripping" the
citizenship off terrorists of British nationality prior to their
elimination.

Human rights organizations, headed by Human Rights Watch, initiated a global
campaign against the use of strike UAVs, expanding their claims into an
apocalyptic prophecy where mankind violates Asimov's basic rules by
developing robotic systems capable of attacking targets independently. In
this context, they included Israel's Iron Dome system, among others, in the
category of offensive systems that make decisions independently, without
human involvement.

More than 76 countries around the world currently develop UAVs, but this
count does not include organizations that develop unmanned systems, such as
Hamas and Hezbollah, who understood the potential of undermining the
technological advantage of the western world, and have even begun employing
these systems operationally.

The present global arms race, which includes the development and acquisition
of various types of UAV systems (Mini-tactical-MALE, jet propelled and even
UCAVs – Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), will transform the battlefield as we
know it. UCAVs, In particular, will contribute to this transformation as
they change the concept of aerial warfare and lead to the intelligent joint
employment of manned and unmanned vehicles.

The presence of UAVs in the hands of terrorist organizations and hostile
countries necessitates a change in both defensive and offensive concepts. In
order to fully utilize the capabilities of unmanned vehicles on the one
hand, and defend against those available to the enemy on the other hand, we
will be required to address various aspects of air defense, as well as
technological aspects of the immunity of navigation systems, communication
systems, flight control systems, et al.

Furthermore, the various forces operating on the ground must realize that in
the next confrontation, the other side will possess aerial intelligence
gathering resources, and prepare for it accordingly, in terms of combat
doctrines and weapon systems.

However, the new era in the world of UAVs does not apply to the military
field alone. It is also a period of loss of control (in every sense of the
word) over the aspects of UAVs for civil uses, by civilians. The backlog of
news items dealing with the issue of protecting human rights against "Big
Brother" hovering above has been augmented by two news items from March
2013: one about a baby killed by an unmanned helicopter model in Malaysia,
and the other about a near-miss incident – a serious civil aviation safety
issue – where an Alitalia captain reported spotting a hover drone at a range
of 200 meters from his aircraft on the final approach to JFK airport.

Today, complete kits can be purchased over the Internet for less than 300
Euro (especially hover drones, quadcopters, etc.). These kits are incredibly
simple to operate - often using a smartphone as a remote control device -
and have outstanding performance characteristics, making it possible
(whether by choice or due to lack of professionalism) to reach safety
extremes, which endanger the public and could infringe on individual
privacy. In the US and Germany, hover drones are used extensively for law
enforcement and internal security purposes. It was recently announced that a
sheriff in Montgomery, Texas, acquired an unmanned helicopter armed with
tear gas grenades for his department.

The simplicity and accessibility of unmanned systems among flying model
aircraft enthusiasts have made this activity a hit when a group called
"Black Sheep" photographed the statue of liberty and images of New York City
from a flying model aircraft and uploaded the footage to the web. This
phenomenon is becoming widespread in other places around the world, and it
seems to have gone out of control. Apparently, the legal attempts to forbid
dangerous flying of model aircraft and hover drones are doomed to fail owing
to the proliferation, low cost and simplicity of this technology. Even if
such statutes are enacted, it is doubtful whether they can be enforced as
the trend of using these systems for commercial purposes is expanding
rapidly.

Consequently, a different approach should be adopted in order to minimize
the risk to the general public. The legal way in which this hobby may be
enjoyed should also be explored, while heightening general awareness of the
potential risks through proper education and information.

Yet not everything is so wild and disorderly in the UAV world: the organized
civilian market is also developing as full size aircraft manufacturers enter
the field of unmanned vehicles. In particular, preparations are already
under way for the day when UAVs provide a substitute for cargo aircraft.
This huge market is based on the US government's demand for "open skies" by
2015. Even if it takes a few more years, transport aircraft with no pilot
windows may be become a common sight within the next decade

Posted with Blogsy

Poll: Most Israeli Arabs Support Violent Uprising. Most Israeli Arabs oppose a Jewish majority, support a Palestinian uprising and want Iran to have nukes.

Blinded by inbred hate, and IQ -0 what more can we expect from the Arabs living in the only normal, democratic country in the middle east to!!


News alert -  Just a short while ago - PA Arab Impersonating Religious Woman Nabbed

An alert passenger on bus # 143 from Kochav Yaakov to Jerusalem spotted a religious looking woman in large sunglasses holding a open book of assorted Psalms - upside down. She made sure the 'reader' wasn't just dozing; she was actually scanning the bus under the shades.

The driver was informed, and the IDF boarded the bus, apprehending in fact two such impersonators, lacking proper ID.

Take a good look, numbers tell all......

Poll

Arabs protest Israel in Jerusalem (archive)

About 58% of the Arab citizens of Israel say that the Palestinian Authority Arabs would be justified in starting a violent rebellion (“intifada”) if the diplomatic process does not advance. A similar percentage advocate an “intifada” by Israeli Arab citizens if their situation does not improve considerably, according to a poll, which was carried out by Prof. Sami Samoha of Haifa University, with the Israeli Democracy Institute.

The views are in line with the call Monday by an Arab Knesset Member, for an Arab intifada inside Israel.

The poll shows that 63% of Israel's Arab citizens think Iran should continue its nuclear development, despite the evidence that Iran seeks Israel's destruction through nuclear weapons.

About 54 percent of the Arabs prefer Israel over any other country as a place to love. And yet, 70% do not accept Israel's right to maintain a Jewish majority.

While 70% of the Arabs say that the government is treating them like second-class citizens, a full 72% would like the Arab parties in the Knesset to join the coalition – although the Arab MKs themselves oppose this move.

Prof. Samoha said that while the opinions in the Arab sector have become more extreme, “the red lines have not yet been crossed.” However, he warned, “a continued deterioration of relations could cause disquiet and instability.”

Arutz 7

The Anti-War ‘War on Terror’

Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

And a moment before, in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania had been an ally of Eastasia, and at war with Eurasia.^1. It would be deemed a thought crime to know and think otherwise.

And it's a virtual thought crime today to say that we are at war with Islam, or even to suggest that Islam is at war with us. Two presidents said so. At the very most, we're only making "War on Terror." We are fearful of Islam's "extremists," not of the ideology of Islam itself. So, once we identify (playing an intelligence version of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"), foil and stamp out the "extremists," we'll be okay and safe and able to get on with our lives.

Right.

When we engaged Japan and Nazi Germany in a life or death conflict, we did not call it the "War on Kamikazes" and the "War on Blitzkrieg." The phrase "War on Terror" makes little sense and such a "war" will make little headway if we do not remove régimes that fund and endorse attacks on this country. We defeated the Shinto régime that sent the Kamikazes against us and we defeated the Nazis who perfected Blitzkrieg. And then the Kamikazes stopped coming and so did the V2 rockets and Tiger tanks and the whole Wehrmacht. If we hadn't destroyed our enemies' capacity to make war, and physically, militarily refuted the efficacy of their ideologies, we'd probably still be fighting Japan and Germany. Or sued for a negotiated peace on our enemies' terms.

Which is what we are effectively doing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Suing for peace.

The weapons and tactics employed by the Japanese and Nazis were indeed intended to strike "terror" in soldiers facing them and in civilians. But to divorce those weapons from the régimes that employed them in war is a perilously futile and foolhardy exercise in evasion. And that is precisely what we have done with the "War on Terror."

The "War on Terror," on one hand, is an accurate term for the self-blinding policy the U.S. has engaged in for far too long. On the other hand, it is dishonest, cowardly, and evasive. We don't blame the ideology. Heavens, no. Islam is a "religion," and a "religion of peace." Never mind the historical record that it has never been a "religion of peace" in its 1,400-year existence. At least, not the "peace" as the West understands it.

No, we blame the "extremists." The term "extremist" is a smear term intended to vilify anyone who acts on fundamental principles. The American Revolutionaries were "extremists" who fought for freedom. Islamic jihadists are "extremist" "freedom-fighters" - that is, they fight against freedom, for Islamic ideology is anti-freedom. Anti-liberty. Anti-mind.

Stuka dive bombers and the launchers of V2 rockets and divisions of German soldiers are the "extremists" of Nazism. Japanese soldiers in banzai charges and suicidal Kamikaze pilots are the "extremists" of Shintoism.

The phrase "War on Terror" is a tautological oxymoron. Consider the phrase "war on poverty." What does it mean? Nothing. All it does is conjure up an absurd picture of SWAT teams going into slums, guns blazing, to replace steel kettles with Krups coffee makers, and paper plates with Waterford china. The "war on drugs" is no less absurd, as is the "war on obesity" and every other "war" the government has declared. Including the "War on Terror."

Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.^2.

The phrase "War on Terror," from the very beginning, spread by convenient imitation because it helped to obfuscate the irresolution of our political leadership to identify and challenge our enemies. Thinking clearly about Islam is not our leadership's goal. It prefers muddied waters.

I grew tired of the phrase "War on Terror" years ago because I saw that adopting it and the policy behind it only guaranteed its indefinite continuation, with no end in sight. That policy allows our current enemy, Islam in all its manifestations, to conduct unlimited war against us, whether it's in the form of suicide bombers or kitchen pressure cookers and other forms of "terror," or the stealthy introduction of Sharia law in the U.S. or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's attempts to gut the First Amendment with Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's blessings, so that clear thinking would be prohibited and punished.

We have conducted a limited war against, not the ideology, but against its death-loving agents and "soldiers."

Would we have the kinds of controls and spying and political establishment that we have today, had we removed those régimes at the very beginning? No. There'd be no TSA, no DHS, no government nosing into Americans' phone calls and emails, no government "red-flagging" what it deemed offensive speech, no government surveillance of our private speech and behavior conducted behind the guise of "national security," no government imposing suicidal Rules of Engagement on American troops in a war that never occurred. Because that war would've been concluded decades before, with Islam crawling back into its life-hating mosques, fearing to poke its head outside ever again lest it be shot off.

There'd be no mosques in America, either, and no Muslims streaming in to help the Brotherhood populate and conquer America. There'd be no CAIR or ISNA or MSA or any of those Brotherhood front organizations. Any attempt by Islamic enemies to establish Islamic "Bunds" or "civil rights" advocacy groups in America would be discovered, ferreted out, and dissolved.

The agents of a totalitarian ideology - for that is what Islam is, a totalitarian ideology - working to supplant the Constitution with Sharia law, however stealthy, would not be tolerated. We tolerate the Amish, and Buddhists, and even the Baptists because those people are not proposing to impose their will on everyone else. It is only Islam and Muslims.

No 9/11. No 7/7. No Madrid or Bali bombings. No Boston Marathon bombings. None of it. The costly and mind-deadening siege culture we have been living in for the past fifteen or so years would never have congealed around us and asphyxiated us. We wouldn't have even had to endure the plane hijackings and massacres and terrorism of the 1960's and 1970's, for Islam would have been trounced, defeated, and its nose rubbed in the dirt a decade or so before.

We'd have an FBI that would fight the enemy with both eyes wide open.

Muslims coming to America would be ex-Muslims wanting to escape the fetid, murderous hellholes of Islam. Mexicans wanting to come to America would want to undergo the usual naturalization process and leave their crippled, failed country behind, as well.

Neither of the Islam-respecting Bushes would have been elected. The Clintons would have remained in Arkansas to lord it over people whose cars are on cinder blocks. And glib-talking Barack Obama would probably have weaseled his way into Chicago politics instead of being tapped by the Marxists in the Democratic Party to become their point man for the socialization of America.

There'd be no Obamacare, or TARPs, or "Stimuli," nor Obama and Michelle "Minnie the Moocher" giving the country and Americans their middle fingers as they do a poor impersonation of the Roosevelts and fly off on their million dollar vacations. We would never have heard of them, except when the next Chicago corruption scandal erupted on the front pages.

Obama isn't "mismanaging" the "War on Terror," either, as some of his critics are alleging. His policies are consciously designed to cause us to lose it. He is a nihilist and I cut him no slack. His foreign policies complement his domestic policies, which are designed to destroy the country under the rubric of "transformation." Obama may enable Islamic régimes to come to power in the Mideast and North Africa because he has an envious affinity for those régimes. He is enabling the Marxists and Democrats to "reform" the country so that it is multiculturally humbled and unexceptional.

I know that others in the past have made the very same points I make here, but that doesn't ameliorate my disgust with the phrase "War on Terror" because that phrase means absolutely nothing.

Islam must be dealt a mortal blow. The only way to defeat Islam is to cut off its heads as well as its hands.

But someone might object: But...but...that would mean taking out the Saudis, and Iran, and the UAE, and Qatar, and Pakistan. Yes, it would. These were actions the U.S. ought to have taken ages ago, beginning with that looting, medieval dynasty of the Saudis. It might even mean using tactical nuclear weapons. But the longer we do not remove régimes and states that sponsor terrorism, the longer the "War on Terror" will go on. As a country, we cannot afford a perpetual and indefinitely extended stalemate. No country has ever survived that kind of "war."

The late John David Lewis, in his seminal work on the means and ends of warfare, wrote:

Those who wage war to enslave a continent - or to impose their dictatorship over a neighboring state - are seeking and end that is deeply immoral and must not be judged morally equal to those defending against such attacks.^3.

And it is not a stalemate we are facing. It is an incremental retreat lead by the internal enemies of this country in the face of the Left's totalitarian agenda allied with the Islamic blueprint for conquest. These allies are copasetic in their means and ends.

A commander's most urgent task is to identify this central point [an enemy's ideological and moral strength] for his enemy's overall war effort and to direct his forces against that center - be it economic, social, or military - with a view to collapsing the opponent's commitment to continue the war. To break the "will to fight" is to reverse not only the political decision to continue the war by inducing a decision to surrender, but also the commitment of the populations to continue (or to restart) the war.^4.

This is precisely the policy that has been adopted by "Islamists" against the U.S. and the West. They know that the U.S. and the West have no "will to fight," because the U.S. and the West have sabotaged their own ideological and moral strength with pragmatism, subjectivism and multiculturalism. Philosophically, politically, to use an analogy from the Battle of Gettysburg, we have right and left flanks, but no center in the Union position. General Lee attacked the center, thinking it was weak and would collapse. He was wrong. He paid the price.

Our flanks are superfluous, because they exist to defend the center composed of pragmatic, unprincipled mush. Our enemies are pouring through that center and striking at our flanks. And that is why we are paying the price and collapsing.

Lewis wrote:

There is no single strategic pattern, no universal "theory of war," and no moral "rules" divorced from context or purpose to emerge from this book. The major point is to take moral ideas seriously.^5. (Italics Lewis's)

The "War on Terror" will not end until we abandon that anti-concept and adopt the morally correct idea that we are engaged in a War Against Islam.

^1. Nineteen Eighty-Four: Text, Sources, Criticism, by George Orwell. (1949) Edited by Irving Howe. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1963. p. 121.

^2. "Politics and the English Language," in All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays, by George Orwell. Compiled by George Packer. New York: Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008. pp. 270-271.

^3. Nothing Less Than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History, by John David Lewis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. p. 3.

^4. Ibid, p. 6.

^5. Ibid, p. 10.

 source

Syria: Child Tied by U.S.-Supported Jihadis and Forced to Watch Killing of Parents

According to Syrian Truth’s Facebook page, the above photo is of a toddler living in the Deir ez-Zor Governate in eastern Syria, bordering Iraq. She was tied up by members of the U.S.-supported “Free Syrian Army” — which is dominated by foreign, Sunni jihadis — and made to watch as her mother and father were killed for being Shia. Here is how the Obama administration is using your tax dollars — mockingly in the name of “freedom.”

source Raymond Ibrahim

Egypt steps up Gaza tunnel crackdown, dismaying Palestinians

Weapons tunnels run while commercial tunnels closed to Gaza


Egypt has intensified a crackdown on smuggling tunnels between its volatile Sinai desert and the Gaza Strip, causing a steep hike in petrol and cement prices in the Palestinian territory.

Palestinians involved in the tunnel business say that the campaign, which began in March and has included flooding of underground passages, was ramped up in the past two weeks before a wave of opposition-led protests in Egypt expected to start on 30 June.

Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi has come under political fire at home over a strong challenge to his authority by militant Islamists in the Sinai who have attacked Egyptian security forces in the peninsula.

Egypt's military, struggling to fill a security vacuum in the Sinai since autocrat Hosni Mubarak was swept from power in 2011, has pledged to shut all tunnels under the Gaza border, saying they are used by militants on both sides to smuggle activists and weapons.

The moves against the tunnels have dashed the hopes of many Palestinians that Mursi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood from which Hamas was born, would significantly ease Egyptian border restrictions on Gaza, which is also subjected to blockade by Israel.

"Business is clinically dead," said Abu Bassam, who employs 40 workers in a Palestinian tunnel network in Rafah, a town on the border. "Tunnels are almost shut down completely."

Only 50 to 70 tunnels, out of hundreds that have provided a commercial lifeline for the Gaza Strip, are still open and in partial operation, owners said. Other tunnels are used to smuggle in weapons for militants from Hamas and other groups.

The Egyptian army has sternly warned residents in Sinai not to approach the fence with Gaza and to stop trading through tunnels or face punishment, according to Palestinian tunnel owners who learned about the order from Egyptian counterparts.

"Today we have to pay extra money to convince an Egyptian driver to bring goods to us..., resulting in rising prices of basic materials here," said Abu Ali, another tunnel owner, standing beside the shaft of his deserted tunnel.


HIGH PRICES

The price of cement in Gaza has soared from 350 shekels ($95) a tonne to 800 shekels ($217). Palestinians who bought relatively cheap petrol smuggled from Egypt now have to pay for fuel imported from Israel selling for double the price.

The scene of long queues of vehicles outside petrol stations has become common in past two weeks, with taxi drivers waiting to snap up small quantities of fuel trickling in from tunnels that are still operating.

One tunnel owner, who employs 24 workers, said he was now bringing in 50 tonnes of food products a day compared with 300 tonnes two weeks ago.

Many Gaza residents complain they have been without cooking gas for weeks, with tunnel supplies low and imports from Israel scarce.

Ghazi Hamad, deputy foreign minister in the Hamas government, said it understood Mursi's complicated internal situation and would be prepared to close all tunnels if Egypt allowed goods through Rafah, its only Gaza crossing.

At Rafah, where cross-border passenger movement increased significantly soon after Mursi took office, passage has been particularly slow recently and hundreds of people have had to delay their trips.

Egyptian officials cited technical problems.

Israel maintains an overland and sea blockade of the Gaza Strip but has eased some import restrictions in the past several years in the face of international criticism.

It announced on Monday the closure of its only commercial crossing with Gaza until further notice in response to overnight cross-border rocket attacks by Palestinian militants.

source