How do you know you are in trouble?

Very simple: when Roger Cohen, one of the NYT luminaries of freedom, progress and let's-feel-good-about-the-life-the-universe-and-everything tells you that your situation could hardly be better, like in:

This is not 1938 revisited, or even 1967. Israel is strong today, a vibrant economy and the Middle East’s only nuclear-armed state. Its unwavering ally, the United States, is home to a Jewish community that has never been more integrated or influential. Turbulent Arab states are focused on their own reinvention, not Israel; Iran’s principal regional ally, Syria, teeters on the brink.

you should consider getting rid of the stock ASAP. Roger Cohen, a man who rarely misses an opportunity to miss a point, put me in dire straits with this "vibrant" thing. The last time he called something "vibrant", it was the Iranian democracy. A bit before the last Iranian elections where Mahmoud the Mad achieved his everlasting victory, if you still remember...

Usually my approach to anything predicted by Jolly Roger is to do the opposite of what he recommends and expect the opposite of what he predicts.

So what now?

Pet peeve time

To fellow bloggers: I know, people, that the visitors to your blogs belong (roughly) to three categories: the regular readers, the human trolls and the inhuman spambots. While the proportion of membership in each category varies from blog to blog, the latter is repulsed by automatic spam filters and/or a rather annoying requirement to manually enter some text that will prove your benign intentions. Like this one:

I don't know how many spambots are turned away by this measure (usually the automatic spam filters work quite well), but the annoyance value of that manual check-up grows with time, as the texts to enter become longer and longer, reaching the threshold when leaving a comment becomes too much trouble.

So, folks, please consider the fact that erasing a comment takes just one click, rely more on automatic spam filters and let's get read of this maddening ceremony.

What say?

Nick Cohen adds his voice to criticism of HRW

A few days ago, I posted an article on how the founder of Human Rights Watch had "dissed" his own creation. Now Nick Cohen has added his voice, on the occasion of the Executive Director of HRW, Kenneth Roth, releasing his annual report.

Cohen starts his excellent article from The Spectator as follows: "Human rights campaigners need to follow a self-denying ordinance if they are not to become enemies of the values they espouse. Like a civil servant or judge, they must leave their passions at the office door…" It will come as no surprise that he immediately notes that this fails to happen. Thus, he continues that "...the record of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International tells you that it is hard for them to do so. To their politically committed workers impartiality can feel a thin and bloodless doctrine. It requires them to criticise people they regard as friends and provide inadvertent comfort to enemies."

Here, on Simply Jews, we are well aware of this. Nevertheless, it is valuable to have Nick Cohen confirming that what happens is that while "Human Rights Watch’s main concern is opposing western governments [and f]air enough, there is much to oppose, particularly in their policies on the Middle East", there is "[..] the danger is that liberals start believing that their enemy’s enemy is their friend, and embrace Islamists, who are anything but liberal." This, he says, is unfortunately what has happened to HRW and Amnesty International.

He goes on to note (last quote) "The point to bear in mind is that wealthy westerners, who call themselves liberals and feminists, have become the least reliable defenders of liberals and feminists from the poor world, who need their support. Nowhere more so than in the Middle East." He links to a book he has written on this matter, and that is "What's Left?", and while that is, of course, on this topic, so is at least the first third of his latest book (which is as far as I've read to date) "You Can't Read That Book".

The second half of this article directs us to Gita Saghal and her Centre for Secular Space and the open letter/petition she is writing to Kenneth Roth of HRW. It is certainly worth a few minutes of your time following the link to the letter and reading it. You could also, as Cohen says, consider signing it, especially if (in my opinion) you are able to add a weighty institutional name to your e-signature. The whole article is here.

By Brian Goldfarb.

56 Islamic States Slam Gays for "Abnormal Sexual Behaviour"

What do you know?

A Pakistani spokesman for the UN’s Islamic bloc sparked outrage today after announcing to the UN’s top rights body that its 56 member states would ignore a scheduled UN rights panel on anti-gay violence, saying they were “disturbed” at the “attempted focus on certain persons” on the grounds of their “abnormal sexual behaviour,” which “have nothing to do with fundamental human rights.”

And that too:

Gays threaten the continuation of the human race, Libya’s delegate told a planning meeting of the UN Human Rights Council today, reported the Geneva-based UN Watch monitoring group. It was the first appearance in the 47-nation body by the post-Gaddafi government, whose membership was restored in November following Libya’s suspension in March.

Tell me more about the Arab Spring, please...

Is an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities imminent?

And we all know who would be imminenting that attack, don't we? (Sorry for the assault on the English language.) What follows is from from the Henry Jackson Society (which I've mentioned before) and popped up today in my wanderings around the net. It is cross-posted from the UK's Daily Telegraph. It is about whether, and if so, when, Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear-bomb making facilities.

It has to be noted that only the credulous and ideologically committed Islamists/Jihadists (to the extent that these are different categories) believe the stories emanating from Tehran that this is all for the peaceful development of electricity for domestic consumption. From a country with 20% of the world's proven oil reserves? With abundant gas reserves? (Any readers of simplyjews who live in or near London should try and get to The Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, north-west London, before 1 April - no, it's not an April Fool - to see "The Bomb - A Partial History", from which these figures come.) Unlike many of these efforts, given that this effort fits the classical definition of agit-prop (and to my cynical surprise), Israel is treated both fairly and, where appropriate, humorously.

Anyway, the author, Julia Pettengill, a Research Fellow at the HJS, argues that "the possibility that Israel has finally had enough is not exactly far-fetched. This will no doubt prove the ultimate factor in Israel’s decision to attack; yet the wider regional context may also present Israel with compelling strategic incentives to act sooner rather than later." What she means by this is that, among other factors, Saudi Arabia has had enough as well, as have the Gulf States. Thus, whatever their public stance in the event of Israel doing the deed and doing to Iran's nuclear programme what it did to Iraq's nuclear programme back in the early 1990s, they will, behind the scenes, be congratulating Israel on a job well done. As I commented elsewhere and at another time, the Saudis prefer a sane Israel (which it is, even with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister) to a mad Iran.

Further, with Bashir Assad possibly not much longer for the Presidential Palace in Damascus, the balance of power in the Moslem Middle East is set to change, and the Saudis are looking to get control of their sphere of influence back, unthreatened by Shias to the north-east of them. What all this means is that the author suggests that "Israel may also judge the current regional dynamics as presenting the most propitious opportunity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities."

Pettengill concludes that "the end-game for Israel has always been clear – a disarmed Iran, no matter what the costs. Yet the current strategic context could well furnish Israel with additional powerful incentives to fulfill Leon Panetta’s prediction that we could be seeing an attack as early as this spring." Further, a successful destruction of, or even heavy setback to, Iran's nuclear programme would also have the extremely useful (especially if Assad disappears from the scene) unintended and desirable consequence of severely undermining Hamas and Hezbollah. No tears and no flowers of condolence from me (or you?), that's for sure.

How would Israel achieve this oh so desirable outcome (even allowing for possible undesirable consequences for Israel itself)? Consider this: a little while ago: back on 23 September, 2011, JPost had this item, reporting that President Obama had authorised the transfer of several dozen of the new US "bunker-busting" bombs to Israel. Who was it who said that Obama was seriously less pro-Israel than his immediate predecessors? Especially given the suggestion in the column that President G.W. Bush had refused to transfer these self-same bombs to the IAF.

By Brian Goldfarb.

Another book on "not to read" list

At least, judging by this: "He had a deep voice with high testosterone level..."

Yeah...

Underwear bomber files notice of appeal. And deserves it.

As WaPo reports:

A Nigerian man who was given a mandatory life sentence for trying to blow up a packed jetliner using a bomb sewn into his underwear on Christmas Day 2009 has appealed the punishment.

His lawyer is right:

Anthony Chambers, an attorney assigned to help Abdulmutallab, said a mandatory life sentence was cruel and unconstitutional punishment for a crime that didn’t physically hurt anyone except Abdulmutallab.

I mean, the man is practically a walking martyr. And the term "man" is, strictly speaking, a bit of a hyperbole here.

Reminder.

Bob from Brockley on Israeli democracy and other things

Just because Bob from Brockley is on the blogroll doesn't mean that you necessarily get to read him. So, there's this from his site. His topic is, inter alia, an exploration of the problems that Israel's version of parliamentary democracy throws up.

Although it's not our place, as non-Israelis, to pass judgements on the electoral system that Israel's founders chose, as a Jew, I'm going to anyway. It's like responding to a question with a question, at least, it is if you're Ashkenazi. So why wouldn't I question Israel's voting system?

It is, of course, all Ben Gurion's fault. Just like the comments he never made about clearing the area set aside for Jews, in the Peel partition proposal, of Arabs (go google it and make sure you include Dina Porat of TAU in your google, if you don't already know - and yes, I can talk to you like that, because I'm among friends, aren't I?), we can blame him for Israel's crazy proportional representation system. In Bob's article, he quotes from political scientist Daniel J. Elazar as follows: "Any group that wins a touch more than a bare 1 percent of the popular vote in a Knesset election gains a seat in the Knesset and, under present conditions, a chance to enter the governing coalition and indeed the government itself under advantageous conditions. The end result of all this, however, is to frustrate both necessary dimensions of good government. The government that results must rest upon so delicately balanced a coalition that it cannot muster the energy necessary to govern effectively, while the electoral system is so party-based that the people feel unrepresented most of the time."

As I commented on the Engage site, when the (un)lovely Ran Greenstein (Associate Prof of Sociology at the Uni of Johannesburg and ex-Israeli - not that that stops him doing an "asaJew" number on us) was arguing in favour of BDS - in this case concerning the water project between Ben Gurion Uni, Al Quds Uni and the Jordanians - the Israeli electoral system throws up coalition governments that no-one voted for and no-one likes, but every Israeli has to live with. I mean, as Bob notes, did those of you not living in Israel know that there are 14 (that's FOURTEEN) political parties represented in the Knesset, as we speak? And there are only 144 seats available in that Parliament. No wonder nothing meaningful ever happens. For goodness sake, the UK Parliament has, at present, 635 MPs representing (please allow me to exclude Northern Ireland, if only because that hurts my head at this time of night) some 5 political parties and 70 million people. Which system makes more sense? Even allowing that the UK should have a better system.

There's lots of other goodies in Bob's article. I hope you read this far and the whole article, even though the link is at the beginning of the article.

By Brian Goldfarb.

Update: There are several technicalities to correct in that post:

• First of all, the original post on Bob's place is written by TNC (The New Centrist).
• Then, as indeed it was commented, there are 120 seats in the Knesset and not 144.
• And finally, the threshold for getting a party into Knesset is already 2% now, which doesn't seem to help, so probably a rise is indicated, with appropriate protection for minorities built-in.

Apropos the hapless Iranian bomber from Bangkok

I mean the one that blew off his leg, only to have the other leg amputated for his troubles.

Yes, so the question is: since he could be considered only a partial martyr, with the upper part of his body remaining (for now) in this world, are his (definitely martyred) legs entitled to some quantity of virginal legs in the martyrs' paradise?

Just asking...

The Council Has Spoken!

Council Winners

• *First place with 2 1/3 votes! Rhymes With Right – Should The Catholic Church Go Medieval Over ObamaCare Regulations?
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – Joshuapundit-President Obama Demands All Bow To His New Religion
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – New Zeal -Econonomic Sabotage? A Case for the FBI? Occupy Wall Street and the Cuban Connection
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – The Noisy Room-The Day the Music Died
• Second place *t* with 1 2/3 votes – The Right Planet-In Memory of Kevin Eve: The Last Breathing Hole
• Third place *t* with 1 vote – The Colossus of Rhodey-“Good to know these folks are on our high court”
• Third place *t* with 1 vote –The Razor -Does Romney 2012 = McCain 2008?
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Simply Jews – It’s still a free world, is it?
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote –The Mellow Jihadi –German Sailors Support Occupy Wall Street?
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – The Independent Sentinel – Obama And The Global Push To Ban Small Arms In The United States.
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Bookworm Room –White House takes down petition asking it to stop pretending that Catholic institutions aren’t being forced to pay for ideologically offensive products
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – VA Right! –Ron Newtorum Wins CPAC 2012 Straw Poll With 62%
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Is Obama expecting economic crisis to last until 2018?
• Fifth place *t* with 1/3 vote – The Glittering Eye –

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 3 1/3 votes! – Victor Davis Hanson-Iran 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 submitted by Joshuapundit
  
• Second place with 3 votes – The Daily Caller – Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations submitted by The Glittering Eye
  
• Third place with 2 votes – Sultan Knish A Tale Of two Warsubmitted by The Political Commentator
• Fourth place with 1 2/3 votes - Wolf Howling –A historical perspective on religion and Obama’s HHS mandate submitted by Bookworm Room
• Fifth place with 1 1/3 votes - Promethean Antagonist –Snippets…(rants on Leftdom) submitted by The Razor
• Sixth place with 1 vote - Michelle Malkin – ‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’ submitted by The Right Planet
  
• Seventh place *t* with 2/3 vote -Christian Aid Watch – Why Did They Go?submitted by Simply Jews
• Seventh place *t* with 2/3 vote -The Compass –Is Terrorism OK If Israel Does It? submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Seventh place *t* with 2/3 vote - The Jersey-Texan –The Racism of Daily Kos for GOP Candidate Mia B. Love submitted by Va Right!
• Eighth place *t* with 1/3 vote -Rush Limbaugh –Obama Didn’t Cave on the HHS Mandate; He’s Making an Unprecedented Power Grab submitted by The Noisy Room
  
• Eighth place *t* with 1/3 vote -The Enterprise Blog –How Romney can start to energize conservatives submitted by Gay Patriot

A few questions for a BDS supporter

The article Pennsylvania BDS conference draws controversy, attacks calls for attention not  because of its whiny title - does its author really expect a BDS gathering not to cause some waves? - but because of its multiple internal controversies. Also because the author, Uri Horesh, as many other BDS supporters, is consistently coy about his own vision of a solution for Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some fisking and some questioning is in order, so relax and find yourself a comfortable chair. To start with, approximately a third of the article is dedicated to so called "attacks" leveled at the Pennsylvania BDS conference. Let's leave aside the fact that Mr Horesh profusely quotes various protesters and critics of the worthy venture but doesn't even try to refute their criticism. I have some down-to-earth technical questions re the conference, such as:

• With all the controversy was the conference forbidden by the UPenn?
• Dis somebody assault the participants? Prevent them from entering the building(s) where the conference took place? Spit on them? Insult them?
• Were there attempts to prevent any of the speakers from giving their presentations?
• Was any such presentation interrupted by provocateurs in the auditorium?
• Was police or security intervention required to rescue the speaker?

After dispensing in that long an torturous way with the "controversy and attacks", Mr Horesh with obvious satisfaction reports on the diversity of the participants in that event:

I was one of a handful of Israeli participants in the conference, but the diversity amongst the audience and the presenters was so great that it was hard not to feel at home. Among us were Palestinians, Jewish-Americans, Queer activists, rabbis, imams, pastors and atheists, students, professors, laborers, senior citizens and even high school students.

I am all for diversity myself, it will be a suicide to be against the diversity nowadays. If I were a suspicious person, though, I could imagine that the organizers have selected 300 (the number of participants according to the author) men and women of 300 different kinds just to stress the diversity. Although that will be reaching, of course. But then Mr Horesh jumps to a following conclusion:

The demographic makeup of the conference attendees alone was enough to refute accusations that we were nothing but a war-mongering hate group.

Now I feel a question bubbling up from the depths... oh well:

Couldn't a group of 300 janitors, Hindus, bus drivers, rocket scientists, obstetricians, Indonesian rickshaws, Hungarian politicians, Native Americans, Satan worshipers, boatswains, hydrologists, book thieves, chess players, linguists, teenage lambada dancers and even Nepali Sherpas be united in their hate of, for instance... er... Israel?

Then Mr Horesh makes an absolutely valid observation:

A prevalent theme in the various sessions of the conference was the analogy between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and South African apartheid.

Indeed, this ubiquitous weapon of anti-Israeli discourse is one of several easily consumed and easily digestible buzzwords beloved by the anti-Zionist crowd, where all of the conference participants belong (yes, I guess even high school students). But then, after scoring such a bull's eye, Mr Horesh has to mar it by expressing his incomplete satisfaction:

This comparison is rightfully gaining ground in the global discourse, yet many in the Israeli left are still quite hesitant to take part.

And I, on the other hand, can't but ask another question:

Could the reluctance of many on the Israeli left "to take part" stem from the fact that this "Israeli apartheid" thing is a contrived, pernicious and, above all, false invention of anti-Zionist propaganda?

Between many general grievances (dontcha love that word?) Mr Horesh didn't forget a personal angle:

As a gay man and a queer activist, I have been disturbed by Israel increasingly touting itself as a gay oasis in the midst of an evil, homophobic, Middle East. In Philadelphia, where I currently reside, an annual event entitled “Equality Forum,” which celebrates LGBTQ pride from a global perspective and each year chooses a “Featured Nation” on which to focus, chose Israel in 2012.

Etc... and of course, a few more questions for Mr Horesh popped up:

• Isn't Middle East, generally speaking, homophobic?
• Where do the outed gay folks flee (aside of Pennsylvania BDS conference) from the Palestinian territories?
• What does it mean "Israel increasingly touting itself"? That above mentioned Equality Forum: is it a branch of Israeli government? Or of the tourism board?
• Could you name 3 Israeli politicians using the relative freedom enjoyed by LGBTQ community in Israel in their speeches?
• Nah, could you name one?

Now, after dealing with all kinds of minor matters, let's try and guess/question the beliefs of the author himself. Since, as I said, he is not exactly forthcoming (in his other articles too) with his views on the best and just settlement of the I/P crisis, I offer to use as litmus paper the BDS conference keynote speaker that is obviously held in considerable respect by Uri Horesh: one Ali Abunimah, founder of Electronic Intifada and, some claim, a friend (in the past, at least) of the current POTUS. Due to abundance of material on Mr Abunimah, I have put some of it aside in the appendix to that post. If you are not familiar with life and deeds of Ali Abunimah, don't miss this appendix. Now to more questions for Mr Horesh.

• If you are a supporter of one state solution, what do you think about that "disastrous situation" for the Jews that (according to Mr Abunimah) may arise after the said OSS is implemented?
• Do you personally think that the "disastrous situation"  may arise or will arise?
• Do you mind a bit of genocide as part of that OSS?
• If you are not a supporter of one state solution, what do you make of the fact that Mr Abunimah is one of your leaders?
• Or of the fact that many other speakers would like to see Israel eliminated?

Well, enough with questions. Let's hope for some answers. Meanwhile, I have to share with you the sentiment about this BDS conference best expressed by Rabbi Andrew Jacobs in this post:

The video featuring J.J, Goldberg, Hannah Mermelstein, Kathleen Peratis and Yonatan Shapira (http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/jewish-perspectives-boycott-divestment-sanctions-bds-campaign) disturbed me greatly not just because of the anti-Zionist sentiments that were expressed in the video but also because of the hatred of Israel that was expressed in the video and the tremendous distortion of the facts by speakers.

What the heck, I have to ask Mr Horesh another question:

Mr Horesh: why do you and your friends hate Israel?

And, since the promise to stop the questions was already broken, here is another point: one of the commentators to Mr Horeshs' article was quite open about the BDS goals:

zayzafouna
Thursday,
February 9, 2012
8:36 pm

I support BDS because it is a peaceful way of replacing israel with a free Palestine from the River to teh Sea. The Middle East will not support a colonial entity, and at least with BDS, no one will call us terrorists. While Tel Aviv may be more comfortable with gays, once LGBTQ is recognized as a key ally against Israel, I expect that gays will gain credibility even in Islamist states for their part in the struggle and will gain tolerance too.

So, another question to Mr Horesh and his friends:

Why, for crying out loud, can't you all be as straightforward and truthful as zayzafouna?


Appendix: Ali Abunimah.

A polished graduate of Princeton University and the University of Chicago, Ali Abunimah is mostly careful in his speeches, espousing, as in that BDS conference, his staunch stand "against all forms of bigotry: against racism, against Islamophobia, against anti-Semitism; ... against sexism, against homophobia, against discrimination due to physical ability..." However, his hate of Israel makes for frequent slips of the tongue, revealing his real face from time to time.

And excellent selection of such tongue slips is presented by NGO Monitor in their article on Electronic Intifada, where Mr Abunimah is a chief player. Scroll to the part titled "Ali Abunimah, co-founder and executive director of EI". Here are some excerpts:

• Abunimah is a leading advocate of the one-state solution. To actualize this, he says “coercion is necessary,” and dismisses Jewish concerns of living under an Arab majority as “irrational, racist fears.”
• He acknowledges that in a one-state solution “we couldn’t rule out some disastrous situation” (4:43) for Jews.
• Labels PA President Mahmud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad as “collaborators”, and PA participation in peace talks as “collaboration.” Collaboration is punishable by death in the PA and Gaza.
• In a conference in Madrid on the one-state solution, Abunimah refers to Peace Now as a “right-wing Zionist racist group” (Arab World Geographer, Vol 10, No 1, 2007).

Are you shocked by the above? Don't be, there is more, much more.

Like Tweeting the century-old Al-Aqsa libel - obviously to promote the peace in the region.

Like using the Israel-Nazi comparison as if there is no tomorrow.

And still more...

But yes, in the battle against anti-Semitism Ali Abunimah will be in the first row of foot soldiers. Especially - after he eradicates Israel, of course. No doubt about it.

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

Have You Heard the One About the Moslem Zionist?

Despite the date line on it, this is an oldish story of great importance. If you haven't already read it, I urge you to do so. 

No further comment from me is necessary.

By Brian Goldfarb.

Thai officials: Attacks in Thailand aimed at Israelis

This story, whether it is precise in its details or not, reads like a parody of a thriller Laurel and Hardy slapstick:

Two suspects have been arrested, and police were in pursuit of three additional suspects. The first arrest is an Iranian man was hospitalized Bangkok when a bomb he was carrying exploded and blew one of his legs off. The second is 42-year-old Mohammad Hazai, who was arrested at the airport just before boarding a flight to Malaysia.

And:

Shortly before the blast that wounded the Iranian bomber there had been an explosion in a house the man was renting in the Ekamai area of central Bangkok, and shortly afterward, another blast on a nearby road.

And, as if the above wasn't enough:

A taxi driver told Thai television the suspect had thrown a bomb in front of his car when he refused to pick him up near the site of the first blast. He was wounded slightly.

The whole story comes to its climax here:

Government spokeswoman Thitima Chaisaeng said police had then tried to move in and arrest the man but he attempted to throw another bomb at them. It went off before he was able to do so, blowing one of his legs off. A doctor at Chulalongkorn Hospital told reporters the other leg had had to be amputated.

Of course, historic reminiscences are in order too:

In 1994, suspected Islamist militants tried to set off a large truck bomb outside the Israeli embassy in Bangkok but they abandoned the bid and fled after the truck was involved in a minor traffic accident as it approached the mission.

Oh well, let's hope they will continue in the same vein. One day someone in Hollywood will pick up that tune, and then - sky is the limit.

P.S. Have you counted the blown off legs? Frankly, I am somewhat confused...

Update: In spite of Thai officials reporting that the "suspects" were Iranian, CNN has chosen an original way to report the event:

Israel blames Iran for Thai bombings

Go figure...

Cross-posted on Yourish.com

Watcher’s Council Nominations – The Morning After The Night Before Edition

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.
Council News:
Ah, transitions…this week marks the departure of our dear friend and colleague Debbie Hamilton of Right Truth,who is leaving the Council as she dials back her blogging to concentrate on other pursuits. Aside from her writing skills, Debbie has always been the quintessential good ol’ girl in the best sense of the word, loyal, sweet and steadfast to her friends and a joy to have around. We shall all miss her.
But on the other hand, look what we got here! This weeK also marks the debut of two new Council members, Dan at Gay Patriot and Sara at The Independent Sentinel, and both of them I think you’re really going to be impressed by.
This week, Crazy Bald Guy, Liberty’s Spirit and Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.
You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.
Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.
It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?
So, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

• The Colossus of Rhodey – “Good to know these folks are on our high court”
• The Noisy Room – The Day the Music Died
• Joshuapundit- Libya: War By UN Diktat
• The Political Commentator – Conservatives Dumb, Liberals Mute?
• The Right Planet – In Memory of Kevin Eve: The Last Breathing Hole
• The Independent Sentinel –Obama And The Global Push To Ban Small Arms In The United States.
• Simply Jews – It’s still a free world, is it?
• Rhymes With Right – Should The Catholic Church Go Medieval Over ObamaCare Regulations?
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Crescent Crash
• New Zeal – Econonomic Sabotage? A Case for the FBI? Occupy Wall Street and the Cuban Connection
• The Razor – Does Romney 2012 = McCain 2008?
• VA Right! - Ron Newtorum Wins CPAC 2012 Straw Poll With 62%
• The Mellow Jihadi – German Sailors Support Occupy Wall Street?
• The Glittering Eye -Is There Such a Thing as Moral Failure?
• Bookworm Room – White House takes down petition asking it to stop pretending that Catholic institutions aren’t being forced to pay for ideologically offensive products
• Gay Patriot – Is Obama expecting economic crisis to last until 2018?

Honorable Mentions

• Crazy Bald Guy – Santorum surges… for now
• Liberty’s Spirit-Contraception vs Separation of Church and State
• Capitalist Preservation – Move over GI Joe. There’s a new bad ass in town.

Non-Council Submissions

• Natural Born Conservative – Is Mitt Romney Severely Conservative? submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Rush Limbaugh –Obama Didn’t Cave on the HHS Mandate; He’s Making an Unprecedented Power Grab submitted by The Noisy Room
• Victor Davis Hanson – Iran 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 submitted by Joshuapundit
• Sultan Knish -A Tale Of two Warssubmitted by The Political Commentator
• Michelle Malkin – ‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’ submitted by The Right Planet
• Yid With Lid – With Friends Like Obama And The PA – Israel Doesn’t Need Enemies submitted by The Independent Sentinel
• Christian Aid Watch – Why Did They Go? submitted by Simply Jews
• Ben Shapiro/Right Wing News – Video: Is The Tea Party Dead? submitted by Rhymes with Right
• The Compass – Is Terrorism OK If Israel Does It? submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Accuracy In Media – David Brock Out of the Closet, Again submitted by New Zeal
• Promethean Antagonist –Snippets…(rants on Leftdom) submitted by The Razor
• The Jersey-Texan – The Racism of Daily Kos for GOP Candidate Mia B. Love submitted by VA Right!
• Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion –Providence begs for mercy, probably won’t get it submitted by The Mellow Jihadi
• The Daily Caller – Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Wolf Howling -A historical perspective on religion and Obama’s HHS mandate submitted by Bookworm Room
• The Enterprise Blog -How Romney can start to energize conservatives submitted by Gay Patriot
• Iowahawk – A Fistful Of Rebates submitted by The Watcher
• Seraphic Secret – Passover, 2011: In Every Generation submitted by The Watcher

Enjoy! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

UN: the travesty continues

The article by Anne Bayefsky has a longer title:

Syria crackdown continues as UN refuses to call for an emergency special session

Since most people don't care to click on most links, here goes the full article. It is a worthy read, I promise.

The UN General Assembly is huffing and puffing about Syria today, while crimes against humanity perpetrated against Syria’s civilian population continue unabated. The spectacle exposes the wholly undeserved status of the United Nations as an agent for the common good and the disastrous nature of the three-year love-affair that the Obama administration has carried on with the organization.

Though the Assembly meeting today is full of breast-beating avowals of care for the Syrian people, it is actually not the highest level of concern which the Assembly is empowered to express.

For starters, it is not an "Emergency Special Session."

After Russia and China vetoed a painfully weak Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4, 2012, the General Assembly was entitled to convene an emergency special session under a procedure introduced in 1950 by the United States as a response to Soviet vetoes during the Korean war.

Why hasn’t the General Assembly, therefore, called an emergency special session on Syria? Answer: because it would interfere with the UN’s treatment of its favorite whipping boy – Israel.

There have been only ten emergency sessions of the Assembly in its history.

Five have been directed at Israel alone, and the most recent – the “tenth” emergency session – began in April 1997. The “tenth” session has been “reconvened” fifteen times – that is, kept as a private weapon in the political arsenal of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. An 11th emergency special session of the General Assembly on Syria would require ending the tenth session on Israel. And the Arab League has its priorities.

The General Assembly never had an emergency special session on genocide in Rwanda, despite 800,000 dead, or on Darfur, Sudan with more than 450,000 dead and millions displaced. So as far as the Assembly is concerned, Bashar al-Assad is just warming up.

In fact, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is not even counting. In response to a question concerning the numbers of Syrian dead at a press conference on February 10, 2012, spokesperson for the OHCHR Rupert Colville said: “numbers were climbing every day, but issuing a ballpark figure was not appropriate.” Odd, considering that the OHCHR has no problem broadcasting any number of alleged victims manufactured by Palestinians – including worrying about “hundreds of trees” in their fall 2011 “briefing notes.”

And then there’s the flagship human rights body, the UN Human Rights Council. Since April of last year the Council has been busy sponsoring and gathering reports on Syria.

Last December they hurried to create – in March 2012 – a special rapporteur who will be asked to report next fall. In the meantime, the Council is scheduled to adopt formally a “universal periodic review” (UPR) report on Syria in March.

The Obama administration’s ambassador to the Council, Eileen Donahoe, has called the UPR process “an incredible success.” More precisely, when the Syrian review took place last October, Syria rejected “recommendations” to stop the horrors, and received the following response from the Council president: “we’ve noted the commitment of Syria to abide by its [treaty] obligations…We wish you every success for the future in your country.”

The General Assembly now has before it a draft resolution on Syria which is all about promoting the Arab League and what it might (or might not) do to stop the bloodshed.

Even the UN Secretary-General has become – more overtly – the servant of the Arab League.

The draft concludes: “Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution, in consultation with the League of Arab States.” And as the draft resolution makes clear – ever mindful of their members’ own transgressions – the League steers clear of major interference with Syria’s “sovereignty.”

A resolution the League itself adopted Sunday “invites” the Security Council to form an “Arab peacekeeping force” “joint” with the UN “to oversee the implementation of the cease-fire” – a ceasefire which is non-existent.

The moral bankruptcy of the world body is perhaps most evident by noticing today’s simultaneous meeting (and public webcast) of the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) “at the ambassadorial level.”

The Committee will adopt its annual program of work and receive a report from its chairman on a Committee-sponsored “Seminar on Assistance to the Palestinian People” held in Cairo on February 6 and 7, 2012.

The Cairo seminar did not discuss assistance to Egyptian Christians or American hostages in Egypt, but did support recent “achievements” on “Palestinian state-building.” Though on February 6 Mahmoud Abbas decided to form a unity government with Hamas, a group openly committed to the annihilation of the Jewish people, state-building via the embrace of genocide wasn’t mentioned.

Instead, the UN’s CEIRPP will agree to spend the next year producing reports and publications, drafting resolutions, holding seminars and conferences around the world, building NGO networks, and developing a massive UN-Palestinian website– all dedicated in practice to fomenting anti-semitism, or as Cairo seminar participants put it, railing against “Judaizing” Arab land and Israeli “apartheid reborn.”

The contrast between today’s non-emergency session of the General Assembly and the CEIRPP meeting is instructive. Imagine how many Syrian (and other Arab) civilians might have been saved if the UN was not a gang of Israel-bashing firsters.