Israel's other weapons sources
Those of you who recall the story from 10 days or so ago when it was disclosed that the United States had
denied Israel Hellfire missiles for use in Gaza, and who are aware that Britain and Spain have placed an embargo on weapons sales to us, might be wondering whether Israel has sources for weapons other than the United States and Western Europe. Unfortunately, while we have such sales
they are negligible.
According to Defense Ministry figures, around one-quarter of the
output of the Israeli defense industry is intended for IDF use. The rest
is exported.
Despite official Israel’s reluctance to get specific
about its arms trade, reports submitted by various states to the UN’s
Register of Conventional Arms shed some light on the matter. For
example, Ukraine’s official reports state that two years ago, Ukraine
sold Israel 193 missiles and 32 launchers. According to reports made as
part of the voluntary disclosure mechanism, in 2010 Ukraine sold Israel
four Strella (SA-7) missiles and two launchers, about 75 Igla missiles
of various models and 10 launchers for them. It is not clear why Israel
purchased so many Russian-made shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
The assumption is that they are being acquired as part of Israel’s
development of systems to counter them, such as the aircraft-defense
system. As recently as February, Defense Ministry officials and Elbit
Systems announced the successful completion of tests of the Sky Shield
system, which is intended to protects civilian aircraft from
shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Arms experts have said it likely
that Russian-made missiles were used in the test. Still, the number of
missiles Ukraine reported selling to Israel is relatively large even for
that purpose. Defense Ministry officials declined to comment for this
report.
Reports in the UN Register that were examined in recent
years point to some more interesting acquisitions, mainly for
Soviet-made arms that are not considered at the forefront of technology.
For example, in 2008 Ukraine reported that it sold Israel a launcher
for BM-21 rockets — a launcher that the Israeli army used in the past
after it was captured as booty in the Yom Kippur War and used during the
first Lebanon War. Hezbollah uses it to fire Grad rockets. In 2006, the
Czech Republic sold Tochka tactical missile systems to Israel. Two
years previously, Bulgaria sold Israel six 130 mm artillery systems
about which no further details were provided.
Against the backdrop of reports about Britain and Spain examining their
arms sales to Israel, an expert characterized the amount of arms that
Israel purchases from countries other than the United States as
“negligible.”
...
Israel has signed several significant defense contracts with other
countries in recent years. Germany provides Israel with submarines from
its HDW shipyards in Kiel. Israel has purchased six submarines so far,
three of which are in use by the Israel navy. The IDF has taken delivery
of two submarines, with additional deliveries scheduled through the end
of 2019.
Italy last year arranged to sell 30 M-346 training
aircraft to Israel. The first of these are already making their first
flights. As part of the deal, Israel sold Italy several defense
products, an Israeli-made satellite and a deterrent aircraft produced by
Israel Aerospace Industries in a deal estimated at $2 billion dollars.
Last
month, the Defense Ministry issued an international tender for the
purchase of “defense ships,” which will be used to protect the offshore
natural-gas drilling rigs in the Mediterranean Sea. According to an
Israeli Navy plan for the protection of the rigs that the defense
minister and the chief of staff approved about two years ago, four more
large vessels will be required to secure the area properly, at a cost of
roughly 100 million dollars per ship. The names of several foreign
shipyards — in Germany, Italy, the United States and South Korea — were
mentioned in the past as possible makers of the ships that would protect
the natural-gas fields.
There are two answers. In the short term, export less and use our own arms. That will help only when the arms in question are arms that we produce domestically. Obviously, there are things (like submarines) that we do not produce domestically, and for which we will still be dependent on other countries.
But in the long run we should be developing our own military industry more than we have been. If we have learned nothing else in the last six years, we should have learned that there are even situations where we cannot count on the United States. We should not be dependent on anyone. Not even the United States. What if Hillary Clinton - or possibly worse Elizabeth Warren is the next President? We would have 4-8 more years of pressure and unreliability. It's time that we learn to cope on our own. We're a big enough economy to pull it off.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Elizabeth Warren, Germany, Hillary Clinton, Italy, military equipment, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, United States, weapons acquisition
Picture of weapons cache from 'Palestinian embassy' in the Czech Republic
Whom were they
planning to kill?
Labels: Czech Republic, Palestinian ambassadors, Palestinian Authority, weapons acquisition
Prague district that hosts 'Palestinian embassy' asks that it be moved
The Prague district in which the 'Palestinian embassy' to the Czech Republic is located has
asked that the 'embassy' be moved in light of last week's 'work accident' in which 'Palestinian ambassador' Jamal al-Jamal
blew himself up with the some of the weapons stored at the 'embassy.'
Czech
officials in the Suchdol district of Prague, where the Palestinian
embassy stands, has requested the embassy move to another location on
Friday, AFP reported. Officials say they feel betrayed by the findings
inside the embassy following the death of the Palestinian ambassador
Jamal al-Jamal on Jan 1 in his home in Prague.
"We asked the Czech foreign ministry for the embassy to be moved out
of our district," Petr Hejl, senior councilor of Prague's Suchdol
district told AFP.
"The district feels betrayed by the behavior
of diplomats who kept weapons and explosives at the embassy, violating
Czech and international law," he added.
"We understand the fears of Suchdol residents," Czech foreign ministry
spokeswoman Johana Gohova told AFP Friday. The ministry would "look into
it," she added.
Keeping unregistered weapons in an embassy violates the Vienna Convention which governs diplomatic relations.
Jamal's family is now claiming that he was killed (by the evil Jooooz?).
Maybe the Czech Republic ought to shut down the 'embassy' altogether.
Labels: Czech Republic, Palestinian ambassadors, Palestinian Authority, work accident
Surprise: 'Palestinian ambassador' to the Czech Republic had enough weapons for 10 people in his official residence
Jamal al-Jamal, the 'Palestinian ambassador' to the Czech Republic who was killed in a
work accident on Wednesday, had
enough weapons in his official residence for ten people.
An illegal arms cache was found Thursday in the home of the
Palestinian Authority (PA) ambassador to Prague, Jamal al-Jamal, who was
killed there in an explosion the day before.
Initially the PA claimed his death was a "work accident,"
that occurred when he opened an old safe that had been untouched for 20
years. Apparently the safe was moved from an older embassy building to
Al-Jamal's new apartment in the recently built PA embassy complex.
However, the PA later backtracked on its story, as a spokesman stated
that the safe "was used on a daily basis at the embassy and it was
opened and closed almost every day."
Czech police confirmed that arms, including heavy firearms, had been found at Al-Jamal's home; Czech newspaper Respekt added that the cache contained enough weapons to arm ten fighters.
The arsenal's existence was unknown to Czech authorities according to Channel 2, casting more doubt on the activities on PA diplomats around the world.
A 'Palestinian diplomat' with a weapons cache in the house? I'm shocked... Just shocked.... The good news is that this might make a few countries think again about having a 'Palestinian embassy' in their countries.
Labels: Czech Republic, Palestinian ambassadors, Palestinian Authority, work accident
Work accident?
The 'Palestinian ambassador' to the Czech Republic died on Wednesday in an explosion at his residence. No one else was injured.
Work accident?
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said ambassador Jamal al-Jamal had been
trying to open a safe that was recently moved to his new home and a
Czech government source told Reuters that the explosion was probably
caused by a security device on the unit.
It was unclear what that
was. Some safes can be fitted with mechanisms designed to destroy
secret documents in the event of the lock being tampered with. The Czech
source said the government did not believe it was a terrorist attack.
Czech
police said the ambassador died of his injuries in hospital after the
explosion on the morning of New Year's Day in the two-story suburban
residence. No one else was injured, police said, although Jamal's family
was at home at the time.
No signs of damage to the house was visible from the street.
"There
has been a detonation of a so far unidentified explosive mixture,"
police spokeswoman Andrea Zoulova said. "The ambassador was ... taken to
hospital with serious injuries."
The 'Palestinian Authority' is sending a 'delegation' to 'help' with the investigation. I'm sure they'll be very 'helpful.'
If there's nothing more to this story than what's stated above, it sounds like he could be an early candidate for a Darwin Award.
Labels: Czech Republic, Palestinian ambassadors, work accident
Munich and Geneva
It's time to learn the lessons of history.
Labels: 1930's, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1
'Worse than Munich'
Bret Stephens writes that the P 5+1 deal with Iran sets a new standard for the
most given away for the least by the many and the strong.
Consider: Britain and France came to Munich
as military weaklings. The U.S. and its allies face Iran from a position
of overwhelming strength. Britain and France won time to rearm. The
U.S. and its allies have given Iran more time to stockpile uranium and
develop its nuclear infrastructure. Britain and France had overwhelming
domestic constituencies in favor of any deal that would avoid war. The
Obama
administration is defying broad bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress for the sake of a deal.
As
for the Vietnam parallels, the U.S. showed military resolve in the
run-up to the
Paris Accords
with a massive bombing and mining campaign of the North that
demonstrated presidential resolve and forced Hanoi to sign the deal. The
administration comes to Geneva fresh from worming its way out of its
own threat to use force to punish Syria's
Bashar Assad
for his use of chemical weapons against his own people.
The
Nixon
administration also exited Vietnam in the context of a durable
opening to Beijing that helped tilt the global balance of power against
Moscow. Now the U.S. is attempting a fleeting opening with Tehran at the
expense of a durable alliance of values with Israel and interests with
Saudi Arabia. "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" is the title of a
hilarious memoir by British author
Toby Young
—but it could equally be the history of Barack Obama's foreign
policy.
That's where the differences
end between Geneva and the previous accords. What they have in common is
that each deal was a betrayal of small countries—Czechoslovakia, South
Vietnam, Israel—that had relied on Western security guarantees. Each was
a victory for the dictatorships: "No matter the world wants it or not,"
Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani
said Sunday, "this path will, God willingly, continue to the peak
that has been considered by the martyred nuclear scientists." Each deal
increased the contempt of the dictatorships for the democracies: "If
ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella,"
Hitler is reported to have said of Chamberlain after Munich, "I'll kick
him downstairs and jump on his stomach."
And
each deal was a prelude to worse. After Munich came the conquest of
Czechoslovakia, the Nazi-Soviet pact and World War II. After Paris came
the fall of Saigon and Phnom Penh and the humiliating exit from the
embassy rooftop. After Geneva there will come a new, chaotic Mideast
reality in which the United States will lose leverage over enemies and
friends alike.
Read the whole thing. Sadly, he's spot on.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israel, Neville Chamberlain, plutonium, Richard Nixon, uranium enrichment, Vietnam, World War II
The Brits favored Chamberlain's Czech policy in 1938 too
A newly-released poll shows that
Americans favor the P 5+1 agreement with Iran by a 2-1 margin.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans
support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in
Geneva, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust
among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a
strong desire to avoid new US military entanglements after long, costly
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49
percent want the United States to increase sanctions and 31 percent
think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want US
military force to be used against Iran.
The survey's results suggest that a US public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.
The poll's conclusions are
startlingly similar to British polls taken around the time of Neville Chamberlain's September 1938 agreement with Adolph Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
Public opinion in 1938 seemed reasonably in favour of Neville Chamberlain and what was later to be termed appeasement when he returned with "peace in our time" after the September 1938 Munich Agreement. Opinion polls appear to show that the majority of the nation was in support of the stance taken by Chamberlain.
"Should Britain promise assistance to Czechoslovakia if Germany acts as it did towards Austria?" (Asked March 1938)
Yes: 33%
No: 43%
No opinion: 24%
"Hitler says that he has no more territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?" (Asked October 1938)
Yes: 7%
No: 93%
"Which of these views comes closest to your views of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement?" (Asked February 1939)
1. It is a policy that will ultimately lead to a lasting peace in Europe: 28%
2. It will keep us out of war until we have time to rearm: 46%
3. It is bringing war nearer by whetting the appetite of the dictators: 24%
4. No opinion: 2%
On March 16, 1939, Hitler invaded the half of Czechoslovakia that was not ceded to him. That (finally) changed British public opinion:
Is the British government right in following a policy giving guarantees to preserve the independence of small European states? (Asked April 1939)
Yes: 83%
No: 17%
Here in Israel we have no delusions (from the first link).
In Israel, a Channel 2 poll conducted Tuesday night showed that a
majority of Israelis backed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent criticism
of the Obama administration’s Iranian policy, with 58% saying the
criticism was justified, and 28% saying it was not.
In addition, most Israelis – 60% – said that the agreement endangered Israel, while 25% said it did not.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli polls, Neville Chamberlain, P 5+1, polls
'I happen to trust Herr Hitler'
In his biography, Chaim Weizmann relates the story of a visit to his home by Jan Masaryk, the son of the founder and first President of the Czech Republic, shortly after Masaryk had visited Neville Chamberlain to try to convince him not to abandon his country to Hitler. Here's
part of what Weizmann reported.
For a while he was silent, then he turned to
us and, pointing to the little dog he had brought with him, said:
‘That’s all I have left, and believe me, I am ashamed to look him in the
eyes.’Once he had broken the silence he went on talking, and
what he told us was terrible to listen to. He had had a conversation
that morning with the Prime Minister, and had taxed him with the
deliberate betrayal of Czechoslovakia. ‘Mr. Chamberlain sat absolutely
unmoved. When I had finished he said: “Mr. Masaryk, you happen to
believe in Dr. Benes, I happen to trust Herr Hitler.”’ There was nothing
left for Masaryk but to get up and leave the room.
A great democratic country, a
magnificent army and a superb munition plant had been delivered to the
future conqueror of Europe, and a people which had fought valiantly for
its freedom was betrayed by the democracies. It was cold
comfort to us to reflect that the misfortunes which had befallen
Czechoslovakia were in a way more poignant than those we faced – at
least for the moment. We could not tell what the future held in store
for us; we only knew that we had little to expect in the way of sympathy
or action from the Western democracies.
Emphasis added by Brian of London.
Read the whole thing.
It could happen again, God forbid.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Neville Chamberlain
Why die for Danzig?
Sarah Honig gives some historical context for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry's
mendacious treatment of Israel.
*Even the definitive end of “the Czechoslovakian problem,” didn’t end
Hitler’s provocations – as the appeasers had trusted it would. Hitler
robbed Europeans of “a nice quiet sleep” with yet new demands. These
involved the Free City of Danzig, a semi-autonomous entity created in
1920 as part of the Treaty of Versailles and placed under League of
Nations protection.
Hot on the heels of the Munich Conference, Hitler began agitating for
Danzig’s incorporation into the Third Reich. In April 1939 Poland
warned that it would defy any German incursion. That presumably would
subsequently oblige Warsaw’s allies to come to its aid.
And to forestall this, Déat wrote his commentary with the stirring
headline that tauntingly asked Frenchmen whether they should really want
to put their lives on the line for Danzig. Not only did Déat think that
they shouldn’t, but he further portrayed the Poles as intransigent
firebrands, whose irresponsible politicking was the source of all their
tribulations. They bring calamity on themselves by opposing Germany’s
territorial demands, he asserted.
This should sound ominously familiar to us Israelis all these decades
after Déat’s powerful pro-appeasement piece. We have been told that we
would bring calamity on ourselves if we continue to oppose Ramallah’s
territorial demands. This reprimand was delivered by none other than
America’s top diplomat – precisely when he and his boss also bent over
backwards to appease the tyrants from Tehran.
Anyone who gets in the way of appeasers is sure to be castigated by
them. In his address to the British people on September 27, 1938, a
couple of fateful days before the signing of the Munich Agreement,
Chamberlain made it seem that Czechoslovakia is the troublemaker, that
it harasses Europe’s fellow-democracies with impertinent expectations:
“We cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole
British Empire in war simply on her [Czechoslovakia’s] account. If we
have to fight it must be on larger issues than that.”
And after putting Czechoslovakia in its place, as a diminutive
no-account bother, Chamberlain proceeded to defend his duplicity as
morality incarnate: “Since I first went to Berchtesgaden, more than
20,000 letters and telegrams have come to No.10, Downing Street. Of
course, I have been able to look at a tiny fraction of them, but I have
seen enough to know that the people who wrote did not feel that they had
such a cause for which to fight, if they were asked to go to war in
order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich.”
This is exactly what Déat did to the Poles six month later – depict
their ostensible obstructionism and obduracy as the only obstacles to
world peace. This is what Kerry does to us Israelis when he warns that
if the so-called peace talks fail, it will be our fault and we will reap
the whirlwind. We will only have ourselves to blame for the misfortunes
we bring on ourselves.
Read the whole thing.
By the way, anyone want to caption the picture at the top of this post?
Labels: 1930's, Czech Republic, history lesson, Palestinian Authority
Saeb has a cow
Chief 'Palestinian'
negotiator bottle washer Saeb Erekat went ballistic over the weekend at a suggestion by Czech President Milos Zeman that the Czech Republic's embassy be
moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Czech President Milos Zeman’s proposal to move the Czech Embassy from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem prompted Saeb Erekat, chief negotiator in the peace talks with
Israel, to send a letter of protest to Prague stating that such a move would
undermine the peace process.
Zeman publicly voiced his views on the
subject at the opening of the annual Days for Israel forum in Hradec Kralove in
East Bohemia last week.
According to the Czech news agency CTK, Erekat
has asked the Arab League and other Arab organizations to call extraordinary
meetings at the ministerial level to support the Palestinian stance.
The
Czech Republic is going to early elections later this month, and Zeman said that
he will try to persuade the new prime minister and foreign minister to consider
moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
Notwithstanding the political turmoil in
his country, the Czech president arrived in Israel on Sunday at the start of a
four day official visit.
Wasn't Saeb the guy who claimed to have offered us 'the biggest Yerushalayim ever'? Maybe he only meant so long as it isn't our capital?
Labels: Czech Republic, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Saeb Erekat
Who's opposed to blacklisting Hezbullah?
It seems that there are several European countries who are afraid to designate Hezbullah a terrorist organization. Some of them could even be
counted among Israel's friends.
Poland and the Czech Republic expressed “reservations” about
blacklisting Hezbollah at a discussion in Brussels earlier this month,
JTA has learned.
Both Poland and the Czech Republic are considered
more supportive of Israel than Western European nations that supported
blacklisting Hezbollah, the source said.
...
Joining Poland and the Czech Republic — both traditional Israeli allies in Europe — was Finland, the source said. The Wall Street Journal has also reported that Austria is opposed, while The Jerusalem Post, quoting unnamed Israeli officials, reported that Ireland was also against. The Irish embassy declined to comment .
On the other hand, some countries that we thought were opposed to designating Hezbullah are now said to be in favor.
Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France support blacklisting Hezbollah, the
source said. It has long been believed that France was blocking such a
move out of concern that it would diminish European influence in
Lebanon, a former French colony.
Decisions in the EU are made by consensus. I find it hard to believe they're going to get one on this.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, designated terror organization, European Union, France, Germany, Hezbullah, Poland, Sweden
Israel 2012 like Czechoslovakia 1938 says...
Israelis have been comparing our position to 1938 Czechoslovakia since at least
Ariel Sharon's Czechoslovakia speech in 2001. Now, the same comparison has been made by a particularly poignant analyst:
The Czech Republic's ambassador to Israel.
Czech Ambassador Tomas Pojar was in the hall attending The Jerusalem Post
Diplomatic Conference in Herzliya on Wednesday when Foreign Minister Avigdor
Liberman made an example of his country, saying Israel was not about to become
“the second Czechoslovakia.”
...
Pojar, in an interview afterward with
The Jerusalem Post, replied with a “yes and no” when asked whether there was
validity in that historical comparison.
No, he said, because the
situation in 1938 in Central Europe, and in the world, was drastically different
than the situation today. “The parallels are interesting, but it is not as if
you can easily implement the lessons from one situation onto another, a century
or half-century later.”
But still, he said, there are
similarities.
“There are certain parallels in that Czechoslovakia was the
only democratic country in the entire region at the time,” he said. “There are
parallels about how much guarantees you can get from outside, and how much you
should rely on them.”
Pojar said that in addition to his country’s tragic
experiences during World War II, it also had experiences under
communism.
All this had embedded in the Czechs’ “natural skepticism,” and
a disinclination to believe in immediate “grandiose ideas and miraculous
solutions.”
“We are the most atheistic, non-religious nation in Europe,
if not in the entire world,” he asserted. “We don’t believe in miracles, and we
don’t believe in political miracles and the solutions of ideologies that [posit
that] something can be easily implemented and solved.”
Pojar said the
Czechs realize “there are huge differences between war and peace. It is not only
either war or peace... Even some interim solutions are sometimes better
than crumbled expectations because of grandiose ideas.”
The ambassador
said one of the lessons the Czech Republic learned from its past is that “we
strongly believe that solutions cannot be imposed from the outside, because they
do not work.”
That firm belief is one of the reasons why the Czech
Republic, alone among the 27 EU countries, voted with Israel and seven other
countries at the UN on November 29 against upgrading the Palestinian status at
the UN to that of nonmember state observer.
Pojar also spoke at length about his country's vote against upgrading the status of the 'Palestinians' at the UN last month.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Czech Republic, Neville Chamberlain, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome
With the exception of the Czech Republic, Israel has no friends in Europe, only interests
Evelyn Gordon argues that Israel needs to stop insulting the Czech Republic by referring to Britain, France and Germany as its
best friends in Europe.
Israel and its supporters need to eliminate the phrase “Israel’s best
friends in Europe” from their lexicon with regard to Germany, Britain,
France and their ilk. This is not just a matter of semantics. Aside from
the insult to Israel’s one real friend in Europe, the emotional baggage
this phrase carries is seriously warping the Israeli-European
relationship.
Just consider the events of the past week, following Europe’s
decision to support (or at least not oppose) the Palestinians’ UN bid
and Israel’s decision to move forward on planning and zoning approvals
for construction in E-1, the corridor linking Jerusalem and Ma’aleh
Adumim. Europeans are outraged; they feel betrayed. They thought they
had an understanding with Israel that it would let the UN vote pass
quietly; they felt Israel was being ungrateful
for their backing during its recent Gaza operation and their imposition
of stiff sanctions on Iran. Israel is also outraged; it feels betrayed.
It thought it had an understanding with the Europeans that they would
oppose (or at least not support) the UN bid; it felt Europe was being
unappreciative of the many concessions it has made to the Palestinians,
from an unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze through various measures
to bolster the Palestinian Authority’s finances. In short, this isn’t a
diplomatic dispute; it’s a lover’s quarrel–which is precisely why it
escalated so rapidly and hysterically into threats of sanctions.
Now contrast this with the response of
dozens of non-European countries that also supported the UN bid and
oppose settlement construction. Has anyone heard any sanctions threats
coming from China or India, for instance? Of course not. And that’s
precisely because Israel’s bilateral relations with those countries are
based on interest, not an imagined friendship. The mutual interests
(mainly economic) are extensive, and both sides are eager to pursue
them. But it’s strictly a business relationship; neither side expects
anything of the other beyond that. Israel knows China and India will
vote against it in every possible forum; China and India know Israel
won’t take their views into account when determining its foreign and
defense policies. And since neither side expects anything more, they
don’t get upset over it.
Well, yeah, and
read the whole thing.
But for the life of me, I don't understand why India perceives its interests as being
not to vote with us.
Labels: Czech Republic, European Union
'A true friend of Israel'
Former President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel passed away on Sunday. Here's what
Prime Minister Netanyahu had to say about him:
“President Havel was a strong, brave voice against totalitarianism, inspiring freedom fighters worldwide. After leading the Velvet Revolution he established a democratic Czech government, and revived the deep friendship of the Czech peoples with Israel. He was a true friend of Israel, and he made efforts in recent years along with other world leaders to counter attempts to de-legitimize the only State of the Jewish People. His courage and confidence will be sorely missed.”
Indeed.
Labels: Czech Republic
Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands pull out of Durban III
On Friday, the Czech Republic announced that it is
pulling out of the Durban III conference, which is scheduled to take place in New York on September 22.
The Czech Republic’s move comes three days after U.N. negotiators quietly circulated a draft of the final declaration that will be adopted at the conclusion of Durban III. Although the writing had been on the wall for a very long time, the alarm bells could no longer be ignored. The “political declaration” focuses particularly on what it calls “victims of racism.” And the Durban Declaration emanating from South Africa names only one state victimizer – Israel. The Palestinian people are listed as victims of racism.
The Zionism-is-racism mantra, the Durban formula being its most recent incarnation, has been circulating around the U.N. for decades. It is the cornerstone of the effort to delegitimize the Jewish state and invoke lethal politics when other weaponry falls short. These days, the campaign is headquartered in a working group of the U.N. General Assembly that is tasked with squaring the circle: reaffirming the contemptible message of the Durban Declaration under a veil of human rights gibberish.
The Czech Republic’s diplomats, however, can read. The current draft of the final declaration for Durban III says that the U.N. must “incorporate the implementation of the Durban Declaration into the human rights mainstreaming in the UN system” and demands an intensification of “efforts at the local, national, regional and international levels aimed at the full and effective implementation” of instruments like the Durban Declaration and beyond.
And there’s more. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation managed to insert a demand for “cultural diversity, solidarity and harmony.” That’s the typical U.N. prescription for stifling free speech—avoiding any action to stop Syrian butchers, for example—and generally keeping criticism of Islamic anti-human rights predilections off the table.
The countries from the so-called non-aligned movement, which comprises 115 developing countries, have also incorporated into the political declaration a claim that “poverty,” “underdevelopment,” and “economic disparities” are “closely associated with racism and racial discrimination.” That’s a familiar form of extortion that starts by labeling donor countries racists.
The Czech Republic rightly decided they’d had enough. The next round of "negotiations," at which Western states are dressed-down and manipulated by the racism charge coming from the Islamic world and others, will be held at U.N. headquarters on July 28.
Read the whole thing.
Norway, where a double terror attack took place on Friday, is among the leaders of the Durban III conference.
On Saturday, the Netherlands and Italy announced their withdrawal. The Netherlands had already warned previously that it would not participate unless the final declaration disavowed the condemnation of Israel in the original Durban conference. Obviously, that's not going to happen.
I received this by email.
Italy and The Netherlands announced over the weekend that they will not take part in the notorious United Nations Durban III meeting scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York City.
Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini pointed out that “The [Durban] Process has been transformed … into a tribunal for accusations against Israel.”
As the main reason for boycotting Durban III the Italian foreign minister pointed to the anti-Israel elements of the Durban Declaration and its progeny. In the past few days, UN negotiators - who are currently drafting a final political declaration for Durban III - signalled rejection of Czech, Italian and Dutch proposals to denounce the anti-Israel portions of the original Durban Declaration. The Italians had asked that Durban III “explicitly recognize that past references, in the context of the Durban Process, to the specific situation of the Middle East are not part of the international commitment against racial discrimination.”
According to the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Netherlands, Italy and the Czech Republic all wanted to include in Durban III a statement that "all participating states emphatically distance themselves from the linking of subjects that have nothing to do with the fight against racism." Their request was ignored by conference organizers, who are largely being driven by Arab and Islamist states, as well as South Africa and UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay, herself a native of Durban.
The real question is why the United States is allowing this conference to take place on American soil. Oh, I forgot. The US has a President whose middle name is Hussein who insists on pandering to Muslims. Yes, I know that the US is not participating in the conference. It's 13 and a half months before the Presidential election.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Durban III, Holland, Italy
