Rouhani: Iran wants good relations 'with all countries we officially recognize' - which obviously doesn't include Israel

Iranian president speaks at Davos World Economic Forum; says Iran committed to reaching comprehensive deal on nuclear program.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani Photo: Reuters

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addressed the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Thursday, saying he wanted to have good relations "with all countries we officially recognize," in an apparent suggestion that Tehran does not have plans on seeking relations with Israel.

Rouhani said that Iran was committed to reaching a comprehensive agreement with the West on its nuclear program, which he insisted was purely peaceful.

The Iranian president said that Iran merely wishes to have the same rights as the dozens of other countries in the world that enrich uranium.

Rouhani attempted to woo business back to Iran as sanctions loosen, calling on western business leaders to visit Iran to see the numerous investment opportunities in the country.

President Shimon Peres, who flew to Switzerland with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, plans to hold a press conference soon after Rouhani’s speech to provide a rebuttal Netanyahu is to then address the forum in a session titled “Israeli Economic and Political Outlook.” His speech is expected to focus on economic issues.

The prime minister, upon landing in Davos, said the goal of his visit was to speak to leading international companies and to interest them in investing in Israel. Soon after landing he met with Yahoo president and CEO Marissa Mayer and put forward the advantages of investing in blue-and-white technology.

Netanyahu, according to a statement put out by his office, asked what he could do to increase Yahoo’s investments in Israel. Mayer said she planned to visit the country in July.

The prime minister is to take part in a panel at the conference on Thursday on information technology.

In addition, he is scheduled to meet with a number of government leaders from Africa, Asia and Europe. He is scheduled to meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry before he leaves on Saturday night.

Jeruselam post 

"Only anti Israel need to apply " : UN job application question points to pro-Palestinian bias, watchdog says

 

UN Watch said in a press statement that the OHCHR had posed the question to applicants seeking an entry-level position.

Looking for a job at the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva? You might have to prove you support the Palestinians first, according to watchdog organization UN Watch.

On Tuesday, UN Watch unveiled a written exam question it obtained from the OHCHR that the watchdog group says was administered to job applicants two years ago.

Here is the question, reproduced in full on UN Watch’s blog: “WRITTEN EXERCISE “The Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Adequate Housing, on the Rights to Water and Sanitation and on the Right to Food have been sending allegation letters to Israel raising concerns about the demolition of houses, water tanks and agricultural structures in the West Bank throughout 2011.

NGOs and UN actors are encouraging them to issue a press release on their concerns.

At the same time, the Palestinian request for recognition of statehood is being discussed at the Security Council and General Assembly.

“1. Please choose either exercise 1.a. or exercise 1.b. [maximum 700 words]: 1.a. Please draft a briefing note for the Chief of the Special Procedures Branch, who would like to advise the three mandate holders on the pros and cons of issuing such a press release and its timing.

“OR 1.b. Please draft speaking notes for one of the three mandate holders (your choice) to be used if a journalist wishes to follow up with a telephone interview.

“2. Please draft a concept note (substance, format, possible participants and audience, steps needed, etc) for the organization of a side event on this topic, to be held during the presentation of special procedure reports to the General Assembly, which could be shared with States that may wish to sponsor such an event [maximum 1,500 words].”

UN Watch said in a press statement that the OHCHR had posed this question to applicants seeking an entry-level position.

“Because the exam obviously reflects the real-life working methods of the OHCHR, it also reveals a level of professional complicity in the bias of the UN’s political bodies that was not hitherto documented,” the watchdog group’s executive director, Hillel Neuer, said in the press statement. “This is the office that helped produce the notoriously biased Goldstone Report, and now we know how they hire their staff.”

In response, OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville told UN Watch that it was “quite possible” other countries had been used in other writing tests, but given that in the office’s 20 years, “hundreds of such tests have taken place all across the world for a wide range of jobs,” it was impossible to determine how many times this specific question had been administered.

Colville maintained that the tests “are of no importance per se, but only for what they reveal about a particular candidate’s capabilities.”

The OHCHR did not respond to a request from The Jerusalem Post for comment or for verification of whether this was a former question job applicants had received.

The Israeli mission to the UN in Geneva did not respond to a request for comment, either.

On Tuesday, the OCHCR marked the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society…shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for [human] rights and freedoms and by progressive measures.” 

Jeruselam post

Australia to UN: Stop Bashing Israel

Australia recently surprised everyone by abstaining on two UN General Assembly resolutions targeting Israel, signaling that the folks “down under” are growing fed up with the world body’s biased approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Like most other nations, Australia typically votes in favor of the dozens of UN resolutions targeting Israel every year. By the end of the General Assembly’s current session, it will have passed 22 resolutions against Israel, and only four against the rest of the world combined.

Australian media wondered: why the change? A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Julie Bishop (pictured) told the Canberra Times that the recent abstentions “reflected the (Australian) government’s concern that Middle East resolutions should be balanced.”

The newspaper noted that the two resolutions on which Australia refused to vote condemned Israeli “settlement activity,” while making no mention whatsoever of continued Palestinian terrorism and incitement.

In related news, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued to demonstrate his overt support for and love of Israel in his attendance of the annual Jewish National Fund gala dinner in Toronto.

Harper told the attendees that “Israel will always have Canada,” before taking the stage and delighting the guests as the lead singer of a four-man rock band.

Israel today 
------------

Netanyahu prophetically correct at UN

It is yet to be seen whether or not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the UN gained any diplomatic or political ground for Israel. The message, however, was certainly ground-breaking. On the floor of the United Nations General Assembly, in front of the nations of the world, Netanyahu quoted from the Bible no fewer than five times. Surely more than any other speech in UN history.

“Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”

Calling up the fathers of faith, Israel’s Prime Minister pronounced to all that it is not the United Nations, nor the United States, nor a slipshod “two-state solution” that will establish the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, but only the promises of the God of Israel as spoken in His word to their forefathers.

For Israel’s Prime Minister, it seems, God’s word is as politically correct and relevant today as ever.

“The Persian king Cyrus issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.”



In this brilliant admonition of Iran’s anti-Israel madness, Netanyahu pointed out that it was the Persian King Cyrus himself who supported the return of the Jewish people to Israel. How shrewd of the Prime Minister to remind the Iranian people that they themselves were instruments in God’s hands to fulfill His plan to establish the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. What a stunning rebuke of a regime that regularly threatens to destroy the Jewish state.

Like the prophets of old, Netanyahu directly confronted that ancient enemy of Israel calling upon them to abandon the path of fighting against God’s will concerning the Jewish people. Fighting against the purposes of God will only backfire in the end. For “presidents of Iran have come and gone,” said Netanyahu, “and (yet) we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.”

“A wolf in sheep’s clothing”

Apparently, Israel’s Jewish Prime Minister also reads the New Testament. This quote taken directly from the Gospel of Matthew suggests that the true nature of Israel’s foes will be revealed by their actions, as seen in the following verse in Jesus’ sermon: “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

After systematically recalling a long list of the new Iranian president Rouhani’s murders, killings and terror over the years, Netanyahu exposed the “brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rouhani’s words and Iran’s actions.”

One could almost picture Jesus himself over-turning the tables in the Temple as Netanyahu tried to shake the world’s leaders out of their apathy and wake them up to the imminent dangers of Iran’s deceitfulness. Abandoning all politically correct diplomacy, he stunned the weary diplomats in the General Assembly, exposing lie after lie of Iran’s deceptive “charm offensive” and denouncing it as a “rogue regime.”

“Israel will stand alone”

Asher Intrater, a Messianic Jewish leader in Israel, pointed out that when Netanyahu declared in his speech that if necessary Israel would stand alone to defend herself against the Iranian nuclear threat, the Prime Minister was referring to a prophecy in Deuteronomy 33:28.

The prophecy reads, “Then Israel shall dwell in safety, the fountain of Jacob alone…happy are you O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord.”

Constantly under pressure from the nations of the world, Israel’s prime minister seems to have internalized the profound truth that more than any other nation in the world Israel must trust in the Lord for her salvation.

“I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again”

Quoting from the Prophet Amos in English and then in Hebrew, Netanyahu made it clear to all who are listening that no threat, nuclear or otherwise, will remove Israel from the Land. For the Lord Himself has established His people here.

“The people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again,” concluded Netanyahu.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il

Posted with Blogsy

A nation with spine, a nation with a backbone - Israel will go it alone if need be and will NOT allow a nuclear Iran

Israel is ready to act "alone" to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb, Prime Minister  has warned.

He rightly said the only way to peacefully stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat.

Mr Netanyahu argued Israel's future is threatened by a "nuclear-armed" Iran seeking its destruction and Israel has the right to defend themselves. 

He told the UN General Assembly: "Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Don't let up the pressure (on Iran)."

He added that the only deal that could be made with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, was one that "fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program."

He was rightly dismissive of President Rouhani's diplomatic overtures and sweet talking to the West, and his strong denials that the Tehran government was seeking a nuclear weapon.

Mr Netanyahu said: "Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.

"But like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani's words, but we must focus on Iran's actions."

He said Iran’s "vast and feverish" effort to acquire nuclear arms has continued since President Rouhani’s election.

"Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it," he claimed.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be a more dangerous threat than North Korea, Mr Netanyahu added.

"As dangerous as a nuclear armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear armed Iran," he said.

"A nuclear armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn't be another North Korea  - it would be another 50 North Koreas."

Israel has the right to self defence and one would hope that Israel's allies would stand by her, but the weak responses from America, Britain and Europe prove that Israel, is yet again alone.

The West should be ashamed of themselves and we on this blog just hope that if it does come to Israel going it alone, then the likes of Obama, Cameron, the UN and Europe just shut their mouths and don't dare comment.

Netanyahu takes case against Iran from White House to UN

After presenting his case against Iran  privately to Obama  for a few hours on Monday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will condense but dramatize his argument and take it to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

It is unlikely, however, that Netanyahu will openly come out against direct US-Iranian talks, especially since a CNN poll on Monday found that three-quarters of Americans say they favor direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran.

Netanyahu has been careful in the past not to come out against direct negotiations with Iran – neither US-Iran talks nor talks between Iran and the world powers known as the P5+1, which include the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.Tellingly, he did not oppose the dialogue during his statement to the press in the White House after his meeting with Obama.

What he is likely to stress in his UN speech, however, as well as in a media blitz afterward, is that those talks must have a clear deadline and not be open-ended, that the sanctions must not be relieved – and should indeed be stepped up – until Tehran takes concrete steps to dismantle its nuclear program, and that a credible military threat must remain in the background.

A frequent user of props in major speeches to embellish his point, Netanyahu last year took out a red marker and drew a line on a cartoonish- looking picture of a bomb to illustrate Israel’s redline on Iran’s nuclear program. That speech was the most memorable one from the 67th UN General Assembly, and it captured headlines around the world.

At the UN General Assembly in 2009, Netanyahu unfurled the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to castigate the delegates at the UN for listening quietly to anti-Semitic rants and the Holocaust denial of then Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Netanyahu feels comfortable behind the UN podium, having served there as Israel’s ambassador from 1984 to 1988.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office would not say if Netanyahu would use a prop this time around or what it would be.

Netanyahu was scheduled to return to New York Monday evening from Washington to continue tweaking his UN speech.

Following his noon-time meeting with Obama, he met with US Vice President Joe Biden at the White House and US Secretary of State John Kerry at the State Department. He also was scheduled to meet in the late afternoon with Congressional leaders at a going-away reception for Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren, who ended his more-than- four-year term in Washington on Monday and will be replaced by Ron Dermer.

Netanyahu is scheduled to meet Tuesday, after his speech, with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and then begin a media blitz to explain Israel’s position on Iran to the American public.

Netanyahu will be the fourth-to-last of some 195 speakers at the UN General Assembly’s general debate, which began last Tuesday. He will speak after the representative of Dominica and before Togo.

Source

Jerusalem Post 

Obama deserves Nobel War Prize - Bolivian President..

 

Egypt

Tunisia

Syria

Syria

Morales said this in a statement in Caracas, where he'd arrived to meet another vociferous critic of the US policy, President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.

Morales arrived in Caracas straight from New York in the wake of his attendance of the UN General Assembly session.

According to the Bolivian leader, the number of wars around the world has been growing since Obama came to power, armed conflicts continued specifically in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the last but not least, in Syria.

Morales claims Obama feels he has the right to invade any country boasting mineral resources without seeking any UN approval first.

Afghanistan

According to the Bolivian President, the situation prompts (us) to consider the need for setting up an international tribunal of nations that would have the authority to try anyone, including the US President.
Morales also said he would contact some Nobel Peace Prize winners and human rights organizations to start work on the proposal. He said that someone should be able to stop Obama and that things shouldn't be left as they are now.

On Thursday, the Bolivian leader also called for holding working meetings in the UN framework in neutral countries, since he believes that the world leaders who adhere to anti-imperialist positions do not feel safe in New York.

Iraq

According to Morales, these kinds of meetings should be held on a rotating basis, alternately in Switzerland, Austria and Brazil.

Libya

source

Posted with Blogsy

Bring on the clowns and let the circus commence as Iran cons westernleaders

US, UK and European allies have again gullibly welcomed what they called a "significant shift" in Iran's attitude to its nuclear programme at a meeting in New York.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said after a meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif he was struck by the "very different tone". 

It's funny but Nevell Chamberline said something similar when he came back from Munich, but not long after Czechoslovakia was invaded and not long after Poland launching World War Two. 

But Mr Kerry said Iran still had questions to answer, which is an understatement - questions like do the Iranians still believe the Israel should be wiped off the map, does Iran intend on halting the government murder of gays? the status of women as second class? and does it intend on halting its program of legalised and aggressive anti Semitism? 

Substantive talks with Iran on its nuclear programme are due to take place in Geneva from 15 October.

They will involve the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, Russia, Britain, France and China - along with Germany, known as the P5+1.

It would be interesting what the Iranian response would be if Israel were included to make a P6+1? Somehow we thing the false mask would come off very fast.

The US-Iran meeting in New York represented the highest-level direct contact between the countries in six years. Diplomats from the P5+1 were also present.

A con trick

Mr Zarif called the talks "constructive" and said they had made progress on resolving international issues in a manner that respected the rights of the Iranian people.

What he really meant was that he's going to carry on with this charade as long as the western leaders swallow it and it all goes Irans way.

Mr Zarif insisted Iran's nuclear programme was "nothing but peaceful" and he pledged to prove it to the international community once obviously they could ensure a good coverup back on Iran. 

And Kerry the Cherry swallowed it like a baby swallows the milk from its bottle.

The Iranian foreign minister then called sanctions against Iran "counterproductive" and added he hoped all bilateral, unilateral and multilateral sanctions would be lifted in the near future.

We bet he did and the gullible leaders sat around him obviously never wondered that all the smiles and assurances and promises were all meant to lead up to this. 

US President Barack Obama has welcomed the new Iranian president's more "moderate course", as does David Cameron and Likewise, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, or Mr William Vague said afterwards the tone and spirit of the meeting were "extremely good".

Are these so-called leaders completely brain numb or totally insane? Have their minds been so pickled over the years from a mixture of liberalism and Islamism that hey can't see the contrick being performed in front of their very eyes? Or was the dose of Islamism stronger than that of the liberalism and they do know? 

Whatever, but history WILL judge this charade as it judges the Munich Agreement in 1938 - again as lambs being seducded and led to the slaughter

Lies, lies and more lies - UN bias against Israel - A MUST SEE VIDEO

The UN has made the  State of Israel, a genuine democracy, the target of incessant condemnation, campaigns and slander, while at the same time ignoring and neglecting its mandate in challenging the oppressive and genuinely murderous regimes around the world.

The following film clip uncovers the factors behind the United Nations bias against Israel. We encourage you to view the clip, forward to friends, and partner with us to counter the hypocrisy and expose the truth.

The head of the United Nations even admitted in August that the organization he heads has had a bias against Israel. YES HE ADDMITTED IT!

“Unfortunately, because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel has been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias and sometimes even discrimination,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon admitted during his visit to Jerusalem, according to the European Jewish Press (EJP).

Addressing students participating in the Rishon Lezion College of Management’s Model UN program at the UN headquarters in Jerusalem, Ban said Israel should be treated equal to all the other 192 UN member states.

The comments came in response to complaints by the students that Israel receives more criticism than any other member country in the world body.

The irony is, Ban said this on a Friday, then the following Monday forgot everything he'd said three days earlier when questioned - Obviously one of the arab cartel in the UN got to hear - Some things never change.

UN probe: 8 massacres by Syria regime, 1 by rebels

 And the world sits back & watches.

GENEVA - Evidence confirms at least eight massacres have been perpetrated in Syria by President Bashar Assad's regime and supporters and one by rebels over the past year and a half, a UN commission said Wednesday.

Calling Syria a battlefield where armed forces are getting away with large-scale murder, the UN commission investigating human rights abuses in Syria said that in each of the incidents since April 2012 "the intentional mass killing and identity of the perpetrator were confirmed to the commission's evidentiary standards."

Its latest report Wednesday also notes that the four-member commission is probing nine more suspected mass killings since March. With those, it said, the illegal killing was confirmed but the perpetrator could not yet be identified. In other cases, it said, the circumstances of the killing were not sufficiently clear to be able to determine the legality.

"Relentless shelling has killed thousands of civilians and displaced the populations of entire towns. Massacres and other unlawful killings are perpetrated with impunity," the commission concludes. "An untold number of men, children and women have disappeared. Many are killed in detention; survivors live with physical and mental scars of torture. Hospitals and schools have been bombarded."

The report updates the commission's work since 2011 to mid-July, stopping short of what the United States says was an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack on rebel-held areas that killed hundreds of civilians. Since the commission has not yet been given permission to carry out its work in Syria, the information in the latest report was based on interviews conducted in the region and from Geneva, including via Skype and telephone.

The commission said it has carried out 2,091 interviews since September 2011. Most of the information is coming from the 2 million Syrian refugees streaming across the borders into neighboring countries.

The commission created by the UN's 47-nation Human Rights Council says both sides have committed heinous war crimes during the 2 ½-year conflict that has killed over 100,000 people. The council is due to take up the report and the commission plans to hold a news conference next week.

In a statement accompanying the report, the commission chaired by Brazilian diplomat and scholar Paulo Sergio Pinheiro said most casualties result from unlawful attacks using conventional weapons and any response to end the conflict "must be founded upon the protection of civilians."


The Times of Israel

Posted with Blogsy

Ain Tarma where 1,300 innocent Syrians were gassed in their beds - but the anti-Israel 'human rights' activists are silent about this - no word from BDS on this!

Deliberate murder - and BDS has nothing to say on this

Bodies are still being discovered after an alleged chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus that killed hundreds of people and the death toll will rise, a Syrian opposition spokesman said today.

The opposition accused government forces of gassing hundreds of people on Wednesday by firing rockets that released deadly fumes over rebel-held Damascus suburbs, killing men, women and children as they slept.
'We expect the number (of dead) to grow because we just discovered a neighbourhood in Zamalka where there are houses full of dead people,' Syrian National Coalition spokesman Khaled Saleh said in Istanbul, where the opposition has held regular meetings throughout the conflict.

Decomposing bodies

Fahad Almasri, spokesman for the rebel Free Syria Army in Paris, said its branch in Damascus had documented 1,729 deaths following Wednesday's attack. He added that 6,000 people were also suffering from breathing problems.
As innocent civilians recuperated in hospital, President Bashar Assad's forces - who are accused of being behind the chemical attacks - are said to be pressing on with their offensive in the rebel-held eastern Damascus suburbs.
The opposition said Assad's forces fired rockets that released deadly fumes over rebel-held eastern Damascus suburbs, which are part of what is known as the Ghouta.
The area is an expanse of old farmland dotted with large built up areas inhabited mostly by members of Syria's Sunni Muslim majority that have been at the forefront of the uprising against Assad's Alawite rule.
The government has denied the 'absolutely baseless' allegations that it used chemical weapons in artillery barrages there yesterday.

The attack will again test President Obama's warning in 2012 to Syria that using chemical weapons would be crossing a 'red line' - but a White House representative refused to give a definitive answer about whether this attack would prompt action from America.

But even the most conservative tally would make it the deadliest alleged chemical attack in
Syria's civil war and the world's most lethal chemical weapons attack since the 1980s.
As governments discussed a potential plan of action, activists said Assad's forces were firing rockets from multiple launchers and heavy mortar rounds on the neighbourhoods of Jobar and Zamalka, which are on the eastern outskirts of the capital.


Mass graves have become a norma sight in
Islamic hell-holes

Rockets also hit the nearby district of Qaboun to the north, where rebel fighters have repelled attempts by loyalist forces to overrun the area, and the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp area to the south, the activists added.

Speaking from Ghouta, activist Khaled Amer said explosions from rockets hitting Zamalka were being heard.
In Jobar, a Damascus neighbourhood only two miles) from the historic centre of the ancient capital, explosions were heard at an army fortification and another compound housing tanks, apparently from a rebel attack on the facilities.
Fadi al-Shami of the Tarhrir al-Sham Brigade, which operates in the eastern Ghouta region, said scattered fighting was taking place along the Jobar-Zamalka axis and that opposition forces have moved closer to loyalist lines, partly to be in safer positions in case of another chemical attack.
But despite Syrian officials' denials about the attack, the U.S., Britain and France have demanded that a team of U.N. experts, who are already in the country to investigate previous alleged attacks, be granted immediate access to investigate the site.
The U.N security council did not explicitly demand a U.N. investigation of the incident, although it said 'clarity' was needed and welcomed U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's calls for a prompt investigation by a U.N. inspection team.
The council's statement was watered down to accommodate objections from Russia and China, diplomats said. Moscow and Beijing have vetoed previous Western efforts to impose U.N. penalties on Assad.
It would appear that many rebels and activists in the opposition area say they had lost interest in U.N. investigations or help from Western powers abroad. Some say the rebels should take matters into their own hands and retaliate.
'The families of Ghouta have lost hope in any investigation committees, which have offered us no relief since the revolution began two years ago... We are 7 kilometres away, just a 5 minute car ride from were they are staying.
'We're being exterminated with poison gas while they drink their coffee and sit inside their hotels,' said activist Bara Abdelraman.
'As leaders of the activists and opposition, of course we still call for the entrance of investigators and vow to protect them, as it is a responsibility before God to do everything we can for our people who are being massacred.'
The government forces alleged continued bombardment of the ring of rebel-held suburbs around the capital, known as the Ghouta region will further hinder U.N. investigators from entering the area, only a few kilometres from where the team's Damascus hotel, activists claimed.
'We are asking for this team to go directly, with complete freedom... to the site of the crimes which took place yesterday,' George Sabra, a prominent member of the umbrella opposition's National Coalition.
He said the U.N. Security Council should amend the mission of the team, tasked with investigating a few sites of previous alleged chemical attacks, to give it the right to visit any site.
'But we are doubtful because the mission of these experts is constrained by the Syrian regime, limited to a few areas which it will take them to,' he said.
Syrian National Coalition spokesman Khaled Saleh warned there would be limited time to inspect the scene: 'There is a time limit for when the inspectors can prove with high probability that chemical weapons were used. We are saying let the inspectors go in either today, or tomorrow at the most.
'Politics is knocking on closed doors and we understand that the U.N. is one of those closed doors for us," he said. "We will continue pursuing a political solution but at the same time that does not stop us from pursuing other alternatives.'

France said today that the international community would need to respond with force if allegations that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack on civilians proved true.

'There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community, but there is no question of sending troops on the ground,' Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French television network BFM.

If the U.N. Security Council could not make a decision, one would have to be taken 'in other ways,' he said, without elaborating.

The attack highlighted the sense of impunity within Assad's government, he said.
Fabius said that if Assad refused to let the U.N. inspection team investigate the site, he would have been caught with 'his hand in the till.'

Fabius, who had a working dinner with Foreign Secretary William Hague in Paris last night to discuss Syria, said the alleged attack had come almost exactly a year after U.S. President Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a red line.

It remains unclear whether this latest attack will bring about action from the U.S., as yesterday Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest avoided a definitive answer about America's next move in a briefing with journalists.

When reporters pressed Earnest on whether President Obama is 'willing to use the stick along with the rhetoric' on Syria, he quipped that it was 'a philosophical question which I think is a legitimate one.
'It might be better answered by the Commander-in-Chief himself.'
Earnest insisted that a UN inspection team, which has been on the ground in Syria since Tuesday, should be allowed to investigate the sites of alleged chemical weapons use before the U.S. or any other country mounts an organized response.
'We think it's important for that investigative team to be given access to that area,' he said.
He would not comment, however, on whether or not a 'red line' would be crossed if the Assad government interferes with that investigation or refuses to grant the UN team access to critical sites, including those shown in videos that circulated online Wednesday.

 

 

 

 Source  Mail online

UN yet AGAIN takes sides AGAINST Israel as the UN rights chief challenges US and Israel on drones. We wonder when the UN will be concerned over rocket attacks against Israel or the murder of civilians world wide by Islamists?

Legal terms of US, Israel drone use examined by UN, which asks to clarify basis of strikes in areas of conflict 
     Navi Pillay told a UN Security Council meeting Monday on protection of civilians that "the current lack of transparency surrounding their use creates an accountability vacuum and affects the ability of victims to seek redress."

Pity they weren't as interested in the protection of Israeli civilians as rockets come in from Gaza or other innocents around the world murdered in the name of our enemies?

Pillay said she is "seriously concerned about human rights implications for the protection of civilians of armed drone strikes carried out in the context of counter-terrorism and military operations including in Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza."
 
"I urge relevant states to clarify the legal basis for such strikes as well as the safeguards in place to ensure compliance with applicable international law," Pillay said.








Source edited from Ynetnews

Muslims Demand Germany "Make Islam Equal to Christianity" - WHILE - UN Pressures Germany to Bow to ‘Hate Speech’ Hysteria

Muslims attending the German Islam Conference were apparently offended by the insinuation that Islam could be radical or violent.

A major conference on German-Muslim relations has ended in failure after Muslims attending the event refused to acknowledge the government's concerns about the threats to security posed by radical Islam.
German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich had wanted the eighth annual German Islam Conference, held in Berlin on May 7, to focus on finding ways the government could work together with "moderate" Muslims in Germany to combat Islamism and extremism.

But Muslims attending the gathering were apparently offended by the insinuation that Islam could be radical or violent, and demanded instead that the German government take steps to make "Islam equal to Christianity" in Germany.

The German Islam Conference was launched by former Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble in 2006, and has been billed as the "central forum for dialogue" between German politicians and representatives of the estimated 4.3 million Muslims now living in Germany.

The stated aim of the annual event -- where Muslim organizations and individuals are invited to sit at the table with representatives from federal, state and local government -- is to promote Muslim integration into German society.

This year's event was focused around three main themes: institutional cooperation between Muslims and the German state; gender equality as a common value, and prevention of extremism, radicalization and social polarization.

Muslims attending the conference evidently wanted to focus only on the first theme, which included "promoting the introduction of comprehensive Islamic religious instruction in public schools, including through conferences and publications." Although the government has already made many concessions in this regard, Muslims complained about German "interference" in selecting the teachers who provide Islam training in German schools.

In respect to the second theme -- gender equality -- the German government had hoped to find solutions to the problems of honor violence and forced marriage. But Muslims refused even to acknowledge any connection between Islam and forced marriage. Instead, they managed to turn the gender issue on its head by demanding that German employers promise not to discriminate against Muslim women who want to wear burkas to work.

The third theme -- the prevention of Islamic extremism and radicalization -- undoubtedly caused the most controversy at this year's conference.

Interior Minister Friedrich had been hoping to enlist the support and cooperation of Muslims at the conference to help in the fight against the radicalization of young Muslims in Germany.

Since taking office in 2011, Friedrich has led Germany's multifaceted response (here, here and here) to the rise of radical Islam there. Friedrich and other German security officials are increasingly concerned about the threat posed by home-grown terrorists inspired by Islamic extremists, who openly state that they want to establish Islamic Sharia law in Germany and across Europe. (A recent poll found that more than half of all Germans view Islam as a threat to their country and believe it does not belong in the Western world.)
But Muslims were perceptibly furious when Friedrich refused to give in to their demands to drop discussion of security-related aspects of Islam at this year's conference.

The director of inter-religious dialogue at the Turkish-Islamic Union for Islamic Affairs [Türkisch-Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion (DITIB)], Bekir Alboga, complained that Friedrich had rendered the conference "pointless" by bringing "security policy themes too far to the fore." Alboga said the German Islam Conference "makes no more sense in its current form. I do not see any genuine partnership." He added that "we [Muslims] do not want to be seen as being a security factor."

In a speech he delivered at the conference, Alboga used logical gymnastics to blame Germany of promoting "extremism and radicalization" by not doing enough to stop "Islamophobia."

Later, in an interview with the German news agency Deutsche Welle, Alboga said he was hoping that German Chancellor Angela Merkel would be defeated in federal elections in September 2013 so that the Muslim-German dialogue could continue in a more positive way with a new government led by the more Muslim-friendly Social Democrats. "I yearn for a real partnership," he said.

It should be noted that Alboga's DITIB is a branch of the Turkish government, which controls over 900 mosques in Germany. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long used DITIB to dissuade Turkish immigrants from integrating into German society.

Alboga's complaints were echoed by the Secretary-General of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany[Zentralrats der Muslime in Deutschland (ZMD)], Aiman Mazyek, who said the Islam conference "urgently needs a general overhaul" because it is not a "dialogue among equals."

The head of the Turkish Community in Germany [Türkische Gemeinde in Deutschland (TGD)], Kenan Kolat, called on the German government to create a new Integration Ministry that would take the responsibility for organizing the German Islam Conference away from the Interior Ministry.
The director of the Islamic Council of Germany [Islamrats für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IR)], Ali Kizilkaya, described the German Islam Conference as "a train heading in the wrong direction" because the event is built on "security concerns and mistrust."

The center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), eager to court disgruntled Muslim voters in a desperate bid to unseat Merkel this fall, has jumped on the anti-Friedrich bandwagon with enthusiasm.

The Interior Minister of Lower Saxony, the SPD's Boris Pistorius, accused Friedrich of fomenting "Islamophobia" by making "insensitive comments." Pistorius said the original goal of the German Islam Conference "was to talk about Islam" but Friedrich and his predecessor, Thomas de Maizière, changed the focus to "security and terrorism" and this shift has "alienated" Muslim participants. Pistorius said that after the federal elections, a victorious SPD would re-conceptualize the conference by "carefully separating the concepts of Islam and Islamism."

The parliamentary secretary of the SPD, Thomas Oppermann, accused Friedrich of leading the Islam Conference to an impasse, and said, "We want to put the dialogue with Muslims on a new basis." The Integration Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, SPD politician Guntram Schneider, hinted at what such a "reorientation of the conference" might entail when he complained that the event did not address "Islamophobia."

Potential SPD coalition partners also joined the electioneering. Left Party politician Christine Friedrich Buchholz accused Friedrich of not being really interested in a genuine dialogue with Muslims. Green Party leader Renate Künast said the conference needed a "reset" because Friedrich had "smashed too many dishes."

In any event, this is not the first time the German Islam Conference has ended in failure. The official focus of the conference in 2012 was to find ways to deal with the spiraling rates of forced marriages and domestic violence among Muslims in Germany.

But Muslim representatives attending that event were in no mood for compromise. Then, like now, they refused to accept responsibility for any of the innumerable irritants in German-Muslim relations. Instead, they insisted that the German government amend its "misguided" approach to Muslim integration.
The 2012 event ended without a joint press conference because of lingering Muslim pique at "offensive" comments that were allegedly uttered at the press conference that ended the 2011 event.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org


UN Pressures Germany to Bow to ‘Hate Speech’ Hysteria

A recent decision by the United Nation’s (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD) foreshadows an ominous future for free societies should Muslim entities like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) achieve their goal of having “Islamophobia” defined internationally as a form of prejudice.

Former German central bank board member Thilo Sarrazin has got himself in trouble with the UN, as the Turkish Union in Berlin-Brandenburg (Türkischer Bund in Berlin-Brandenburg or TBB) stated with satisfaction in an April 18, 2013, German-language press release.  The spokesman of this German-Turkish interest group, Hilmi Kaya Turan, praised a February 26, 2013, “historic decision” by the CERD condemning Germany for not having prosecuted Sarrazin’s criticism of Arab and Turkish immigrants.

Sarrazin, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands or SPD), produced astorm of controversy with his August 2010 book Deutschland Schafft Sich Ab: Wie Wir Unser Land aufs Spiel Setzen (“Germany Abolishes Itself:  How We Are Risking Our Country”).  In the context of this controversy, CERD’s detailed 19-page decisionextensively excerpted in English translation a fall 2009 interview with Sarrazin.  In the interview, the Berlin magazine Lettre International discussed some of the upcoming book’s themes.

CERD complained that “[i]n this interview, Mr. Sarrazin expressed himself in a derogatory and discriminatory way about social ‘lower classes’, which are not productive’ and would have to ‘disappear over time’ in order to create a city of the ‘elite’.”  Sarrazin specified that about 20% of Berlin’s population depended on welfare payments, which he wanted to cut, “above all to the lower class.”

Berlin’s indigent included within the immigrant population a “large number of Arabs and Turks in this city, whose numbers have grown through erroneous policies, have no productive function, except for the fruit and vegetable trade.” Compounding the problem for Sarrazin was a birthrate among Arabs and Turks about three times their percentage of the population.  Sarrazin thereby saw “Turks…conquering Germany just like the Kosovars conquered Kosovo: through a higher birth rate.”  Sarrazin “wouldn’t mind if” these immigrants “were East European Jews with about a 15% higher IQ than the one of Germans.”  Central to Sarrazin’s thesis was the assumption that “human ability is to some extent socially contingent and to some extent hereditary.” Sarrazin’s “solution to this problem” was “to generally prohibit influx, except for highly qualified individuals and not provide social welfare for immigrants anymore.”

As noted by CERD, Sarrazin’s interview comments prompted on October 23, 2009, a criminal complaint by the TBB under the German Criminal Code’s Article 130 against “Incitement to Hatred” (Volksverhetzung).  Yet upon review, German prosecutors suspended their investigations on November 23, 2009, deciding that Sarrazin’s views fell under the protection of free speech contained within Article 5 of Germany’s Basic Law (Grundgesetz).  Prosecutors quoted by CERD had judged Sarrazin’s statements as a “contribution to the intellectual debate in a question…very significant for the public.”

Following this domestic defeat, the TBB turned in 2010 to Article 14 of CERD’s governing convention (Article 14), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  Article 14 provides that the CERD may “consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within” a consenting State Party’s “jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in this Convention.”  In response, CERD agreed with TBB that Sarrazin had made discriminatory comments and that the German “State party failed to provide protection against such discrimination.”  CERD thus wanted the “State party” to “review its policy and procedures…to give wide publicity to the Committee’s Opinion,” and to deliver “within 90 days, information from the State party about the measures taken.”

CERD’s decision did not involve Islam directly, for Sarrazin had referenced the ethnicity of Arabs and Turks, not their majority-Muslim faith.  Yet CERD’sdecision noted various party submissions according to which in Germany the “labels ‘Turks’ or ‘Arabs’ are applied as synonyms for Muslims.”  Citing various evidence examples, CERD agreed with one submission that “Mr. Sarrazin’s statements led to public vilification and debasement of Turks and Muslims in general.”

Any such foreign judgment of a country raises sensitive questions of national sovereignty, particularly when involving limitations of free speech.  Sarrazin’s case was no exception, especially in light of CERD members mocked by the German conservative website Politically Incorrect as “torches of democracy and human rights.” Analyzing this roster, Germans might well wonder what they could learn in equality under the law from members hailing from Algeria, Burkina Faso, China, Niger, Pakistan, Russia, Togo, and Turkey, among other countries.

The Sarrazin case exemplifies how international law and its institutional developments can impact domestic matters.  Observers of the OIC, an international organization of 57 majority-Muslim nation-states (including “Palestine”), would be well advised to keep Sarrazin in mind when considering the OIC’s longstanding campaign against “Islamophobia.” This campaign would only too willingly extrapolate from Sarrazin’s comments about Arab and Turk immigrants, however controversial, to a condemnation of criticizing Islamic ideas as well.

Defenders of free speech should beware.  The transnationalist, multiculturalists and OIC have a new mechanism to override domestic legal hate speech decisions.  Precedent is slowly but surely being set. 

 source  

Posted with Blogsy