UN debacle over Libya again shows up BBC fetishism of “international law” as a tyrant’s charter, while slating of “criminal” Israel persists

Robin Shepherd
robinshepherdonline.com
17 March '11

http://www.robinshepherdonline.com/un-debacle-over-libya-again-shows-up-bbc-fetishism-of-international-law-as-a-tyrants-charter-while-slating-of-criminal-israel-persists/

Regular readers of this website will be aware of a line I frequently refer to in exposing the blatantly propagandistic approach taken by the BBC in its reporting of Israel. It appeared again following the Itamar massacre of five Jews in a West Bank “settlement” last week. The settlements, the BBC said, “are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this”. In its construction, the logic of the sentence may be compared to something like this: “The square route of nine is three, according to basic mathematics, though Robin Shepherd disputes this.” In both cases a proposition is established as being beyond all reasonable dispute. It is then pointed out that there are some (weird or wicked or possibly deviant) types out there that have the temerity to take a different view. This is called giving both sides of the argument, though it is deliberately done in such a way as to make a categorical statement about who is right and who is wrong: Robin Shepherd is a mathematical dunce; the Israelis are shameless criminals.

At this point one could take the discussion in several directions. But, unfolding right before our eyes, there is a fine (if that’s the right word) illustration of the futility of using “international law” in this manner as Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi slaughters his own citizens in broad daylight while the world twiddles its thumbs because China and Russia refuse to give “legal authority” to any form of intervention via the UN Security Council. Ponder that thought:


Two dictatorships — China, which massacred 3,000 peaceful demonstrators in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and holds millions in labour camps; and Russia, which has killed at least a hundred thousand in Chechnya in the last 15 years and which now occupies part of the sovereign state of Georgia — have the power to determine what does or does not constitute “international law”. That puts things in some perspective doesn’t it? And to be honest, there’s nothing especially difficult in exposing the fatal flaw in the international-law-as-categorical-imperative line of thinking.

Where Is The Outrage Now?

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
25 February '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1914/libya-outrage

Obama and many others in the international community have been quicker in condemning settlement construction in Israel than atrocities by Arab dictators against innocent civilians.

Has retired South African judge Richard Goldstone considered the possibility of heading a special commission of inquiry to look into the war crimes that are being perpetrated against Libyans and other Arabs?

Settlements may be a problem, but they are not more dangerous than the massacres that are being perpetrated against Arabs.

It took President Barack Obama nine days to condemn Col. Muammar Gaddafi's massacres in Libya as "outrageous" and "unacceptable."

It took the UN Security Council more than a week to hold a closed-door meeting and issue a tempered statement condemning the violence in Libya and calling for its immediate end and for those responsible to be held accountable. This is the same Security Council that one week earlier held a special and open session to condemn construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Fourteen out of fifteen members of the council voted in support of the anti-settlement resolution, which was vetoed by the US.

The same members, however, saw no need to hold a vote on the slaughtering of thousands of Libyans by Gaddafi.

But both Obama and the Security Council stopped short of calling for Gaddafi's removal from power for perpetrating atrocities against his own people.

The Europeans have also been cautious in their response to the carnage in Libya. They too have refrained from calling for regime change in Libya.

One can understand why Americans and Europeans are worried about their economic interests in Libya, especially with regard to oil. It is also likely that the West is embarrassed about its relationship with the Libyan dictator who, despite his crimes, was welcomed back into the international community in 2003.

Then, Gaddafi was apparently forgiven for his role in the Lockerbie plane explosion and support for countless terror groups in the Arab and Islamic world. Gaddafi was forgiven because he had agreed to abandon his nuclear ambitions and promised to be good..

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, on the other hand, who for over 30 years served Western interests in the Middle East and did his utmost to preserve the peace treaty with Israel and support moderate Arabs and Muslims, was thrown to the dogs by the Obama Administration as soon as his people started demanding regime change.

Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to be more troubled by the death of 300 Egyptians than the brutal massacring of thousands of Libyans. Obama and Clinton seem to be more worried about construction in Jewish settlements than war crimes and serious human rights violations in the Arab world.

The US Administration and the rest of the international community have once again sent a message to the Arabs that they do not really care about human rights and democracy and that they are ready to sacrifice thousands of Arabs to keep the oil prices as low as ever. Mubarak was unfortunate because his country does not have oil.

Now at least the Arab people know that they can no longer rely on Obama and Clinton to support any of their pro-democracy movements.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Forget Arab Democracy, Let’s Pretend It’s about Israel

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org
February 21, 2011

This article by Anne Bayefsky and Benjamin Weinthal appears today on National Review Online.

It is no coincidence that the Hezbollah-dominated Lebanese government, a non-standing member of the U.N. Security Council and an Iranian subsidiary, sponsored a resolution last Friday condemning Israeli housing construction in the disputed territories. The anti-Israel-resolution activity diverted the U.N. Security Council from passing resolutions against such authoritarian regimes as Iran and Libya for shooting their citizens and suppressing pro-democracy efforts.

Arab despots — and Iran’s regime — have a tried-and-true method for deflecting attention from their profoundly anti-democratic and repressive political systems: Formulate a U.N. resolution to condemn the Jewish State and its vibrant democracy. The fact that EU countries — for example Germany, which asserts that Israel’s national security is integral to German interests — joined the diplomatic assault on Israel is nothing short of a major body blow to the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

The resolution placed the Obama administration in a bind, especially in light of its having made the U.N. the cornerstone of its foreign policy, notwithstanding the organization’s inability to define terrorism or stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and its anti-Israel obsession. But in the end, the president knew that the resolution would be a death knell to the peace process — because instead of negotiating over what are clearly final-status issues, like settlements, the U.N. would have decided outcomes in advance — so the administration vetoed the resolution (with “regret”) over the votes of the 14 remaining council members. But the mere fact that the resolution got this far is a stark indication of the Obama administration’s foreign-policy impotence.

President Obama consumed an hour on the telephone in an attempt to convince Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw the anti-Israel resolution, but was snubbed, in what will surely be one of the more humiliating memories he takes from office. And the Palestinian leader isn’t finished. The veto in the Security Council now opens the door for a so-called resumed emergency session of the U.N. General Assembly. That would be almost the 20th time that the “10th” emergency session has been “resumed” since 1997. In all those years, there has never been a U.N. General Assembly emergency session on any other subject, genocides and horrors around the world notwithstanding. Abbas wants another one, which he will probably get, about Israeli construction.

The explanation U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice gave to the Security Council after casting her negative vote neatly captured the Obama administration’s Dr.-Jekyll-and-Mr.-Hyde approach to the Jewish State. Instead of taking the opportunity to mention the critical problems unfolding in the Middle East — the agenda item was called “The Situation in the Middle East, Including The Palestinian Question” — she labeled Israel’s home-building “folly and illegitimacy” and castigated our only democratic ally in the region as “devastat[ing] trust . . . and threaten[ing] the prospects for peace.” Make no mistake, Iran, Libya, Algeria, and the rest of the thugs brutalizing their populations took notice. After all, this took place in the U.N. body with ultimate responsibility for protecting international peace and security.

In Libya, Gaddafi Sounds Scared

Claudia Rosett
pajamasmedia.com
13 February '11

http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/in-libya-gaddafi-sounds-scared/

“We need to create a problem for the world,” Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi declared on Libyan state TV Sunday, in what Reuters describes as his first major speech since a popular uprising toppled Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak last Friday. The problem Gaddafi would like to create, as he explicitly urged in his speech, is a siege of Israel. Saying “this is a time of popular revolutions,” Gaddafi called for Palestinians to mass along Israel’s borders, by land and sea.

These are the words of a dictator who has a big problem of his own. Gaddafi’s real problem has nothing to do with Israel, or with the Palestinians. Gaddafi’s problem is Libya, where Libyans have even more reasons to hate him than the Egyptians had to hate Hosni Mubarak. Since Gaddafi came to power in a coup in 1969, he has ruled for more than 41 years — that’s 12 years longer than Mubarak ruled Egypt. Like Mubarak, Gaddafi has been arranging to turn his dictatorial rule into a dynasty, with one of his sons, Saif al-Islam, being the heir apparent. For decades Gaddafi has lived large, funneling his country’s oil wealth into schemes to maintain his own power, while crushing his countrymen. Whatever terrorism he might have abjured abroad in order to get out from under international sanctions, he still rules on the basis of terror at home. His regime — with its ruthless secret police, ghastly prisons, and jailing or outright murder of those who dissent from his crackpot controls over virtually every aspect of life — is exactly the kind of rotting relic that an angry, captive populace might wish to sweep aside.

Now come the popular revolts and the ouster of ossified dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya, opponents of the regime have called for a Day of Rage this Thursday, Feb, 17th. That day is the fifth anniversary of protests that began as a staged demonstration in 2006 against the Danish Mohamed cartoons — and then spun out of control. Libyan security forces fired on the crowd, killing at least 10. Over the next three days, as American-Libyan human rights activist Mohamed Eljahmi reported shortly afterward, protesters expressed their fury with the regime by burning government buildings, police cars, and branches of Gaddafi’s revolutionary committees. The Libyan government had to bring in special forces to regain control.

Faced with the possibility of a replay inspired by uprisings that have actually succeeded in kicking out the despots, up pops Gaddafi, with a page right out of the aging dictator’s playbook: When you’ve got trouble at home, try to deflect it toward somebody else. Libyans who wish for freedom in their country have higher hurdles than did the Egyptians. Gaddafi rules Libya as a much more closed society; access and communication are more difficult, and it is unlikely that an endless parade of international camera crews would be able to materialize on the streets of Tripoli or Benghazi. But neither are Libyans entirely cut off from the world, or from each other. Libyans have one of the world’s worst tyrants to contend with. The risks of opposing him are enormous — for a sample of where even the most peaceful dissent can lead in Libya, recall the case of a brave outspoken dissident, Fathi Eljahmi (brother of Mohamed Eljahmi, cited above). But Libyans who wish to throw off 41 years of Gaddafi’s tyranny have two things in their favor right now. They have just seen that elsewhere in their despot-infested region, it can be done. And Gaddafi, for all his wealth and power and brutality, does not sound confident. He sounds scared.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel Wins, Hamas and Libya Lose in Latest Blockade Stunt

Leo Rennert
American Thinker
15 July '10

After days of bluster by Libya that its aid ship was going to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza, the Libyan-rented, Greek-owned, Maldovan-flagged vessel turned tail and, following IDF orders, docked instead at the Egyptian port of El-Arish.

Israel obviously emerges as the big winner from this episode -- the first time a Gaza-bound ship turned around without the Israeli Navy even having to board it or escort it to an Israeli port.

But there also are some notable losers as well and it bears singling them out:

LOSER NO. 1--The Hamas regime in Gaza. Even as the Amalthea headed toward 'El-Arish, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Hanyeh pleaded for it to remain on course toward Gaza. Hamas even arranged a seaside welcoming ceremony. A well-merited come-uppance for Hamas.

LOSER NO. 2--Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi and his son, who under the guise of a Libyan charity, launched this ill-fated challenge to Israel's blockade. Qaddafi is bound to lose face with fellow Arab leaders because at Arab summits he usually taunts them for leaving the Palestinians in the lurch -- accusing them of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. After the worldwide criticism of Israel for its botched raid on a Turkish flotilla on May 31 which ended with nine Turkish activists dead after they attacked Israeli boarding commandos, the Quaddafis evidently saw a chance to strike next and to prove to the rest of the Arab world that they weren't going to be cowed by Israel. But when the chips were down, the Libyan leadership blinked. Qadaffi, Sr., according to reports from Tripoli, even gave orders to prevent his son from taking a private plane and heading for Gaza. Both Qaddafis eventually stepped back from the brink.

LOSER No. 3--Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who must have thought that the publicity he reaped from his provocative misadventure in failing to break the Gaza blockade would prompt a follow-up wave of ships heading for Gaza. Iran threatened to send its own ships and have its Navy escort them into Gaza. It was all talk. Then, there were anti-Israel elements in Lebanon who were going to have an all-women crew and passengers aboard a blockade-running vessel. It also didn't happen.

For its part, Israel this time didn't wait for a confrontation on the high seas to explain its right to blockade Hamas-run Gaza. Instead, it launched a major pre-emptive diplomatic strike, enlisting the European Union and the Obama administration in a concerted effort to apply as much pressure as possible on Libya and the Greek owners of the Amalthea to desist.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel vows to stop Libyan 'peace' ship

Rick Moran
American Thinker
11 July '10

I'm not sure what the unbalanced Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi is trying to accomplish here. The ship full of activists is registered under the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation so it is obviously a ploy of some kind beyond simply provoking a reaction from the Israelis. He has no relations with the Jewish state so he can't break them off. He's not crazy enough to start a war - I think. Perhaps he just wants a little attention from the international press.

Whatever the reason, the Israelis aren't playing:

Israel made clear on Saturday night it would not allow the Moldovan-flagged ship commissioned by a Libyan charity to dock in Gaza, amid conflicting reports about whether the ship was headed for Gaza or the Egyptian port of El-Arish.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a statement saying that the ship was "an unnecessary provocation," and it would have been better had it not set sail.

"It is possible to bring merchandise into Gaza, after it has been checked, through the Ashdod port," Barak said. "However, we will not allow the entrance of arms and ammunition into Gaza. We recommend to the organizers of the flotilla to accompany Israeli naval ships into Ashdod or to sail directly for El-Arish."

The Amalthea departed on Saturday evening from a port southeast of Athens, carrying 2,000 tons of cargo, including sacks of rice and sugar, and corn oil and olive paste, mostly donated by Greek companies and charities, organizers said.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

U.N. Human Rights Council Welcomes Some New Members

Anne Bayefsky
National Review Online
13 May '10
Posted before Shabbat

On Thursday, the General Assembly elected 14 members to its top human-rights body, the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.N. human-rights policymakers now include Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Qatar, and Uganda. On a secret ballot, a whopping 155 countries, or 80 percent of U.N. members, thought Libya would be a great addition.

Obama’s diplomats, sitting in the General Assembly Hall throughout the election, made no attempt to prevent the farce or even to object. On the contrary, Ambassador Susan Rice left the hall before the results were announced in order to hightail it to the microphone. Attempting to spin what was a foregone conclusion, she refused to divulge those states which the U.S. supported. When pressed, she said only that the Obama administration regretted some states on the ballot, but “I am not going to name names. I don’t think that it’s particularly constructive at this point.”

Not constructive because, Rice suggested, it was no big deal. She described the countries on the Council — which include human-rights experts Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba in addition to the incoming freshman class — as just “countries whose orientation and perspectives we don’t agree with.” And later on she described the election as one which “yielded an outcome that we think is a good reflection on the potential of the Human Rights Council.”

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Ha'aretz, Holier Than the Pope

YG
CAMERA/Snapshots
04 May '10

Ha'aretz's reaction to the visit of an Israeli Arab delegation with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi revealed just how tenuous the media outlet's grip on reality is. The delegation's harsh condemnation by those on the right of the Israeli political spectrum was apparently too much for the editors of Ha'aretz, who promptly spoke out to defend the Arab delegation and to attack those who dared criticize it.

An April 30 editorial ("Arab MK's Libya Trip a Path to Mideast Peace") stated:

Hysteria gripped the right wing in the Knesset after an Arab delegation of MKs and dignitaries visited Libya. . . .The tongues of Habayit Hayehudi and National Union, two parties that could unite under the name "the Racist Union," were abruptly unleashed as though they were dealing with an unparalleled act of treason. . .
Libya is not on the list of enemy states. . . Libya signed the Arab League's peace initiative, holds the League's rotating presidency, and its ruler Muammar Gadhafi maintains excellent relations with the U.S. administration.

Following the depiction of Libya as one of the most important and enlightened countries in the world, the editorial writer explains to us, the ignorant readers, the motive and the justice of the Israeli Arab visit:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Cultural Watch: Great Moments in Syrian Cinema; Qadhafi Meets the Real Cuckoo Clock

Barry Rubin

The Rubin Report

05 September 09

A MEMRI story arrives on the new government-controlled Syrian television series—also on Iranian and Hizballah television—showing how Jews plot world conquest while snacking on murdered children.

Although the MEMRI story doesn’t reveal the surprise ending of the new Syrian television series, my sources tell me that it’s this: The Zionists plan the atomic bomb attacks on Japan in 1945 as part of their murderous efforts. That’s not a joke.

In response to my telling him about this, an Arabic-speaking reader notes another Syrian film he once saw. Here’s the plot:

“The eldest son of the family died and everybody was heartbroken. Shortly afterwards the father of the family died and everybody was distraught. For a moment, they were directionless fearing that their enemies may destroy them.

“But then the second son took hold of the reins and everybody was happy again.

“Hmmmmm..... What could that mean............?”

Of course, my correspondent knew precisely how the plot was put together. The Assad family has ruled Syria for almost 40 years. The eldest son (Basil, not Sonny) ran his sports car into a bridge abutment (though in the other film, the rival mob got him at a toll both), the father (dictator Hafiz, not Vito), died.

But then the second son (Bashar, not Michael) came to power.

Or as the song in The Producers, “Springtime for Hitler” put it (slightly modified):

“[Syria] was having trouble
What a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore
Its former glory
Where, oh, where was he?
Where could that man be?
We looked around and then we found
The man for you and me.”

And since then it’s been springtime for Bashar and Syria. But there was a controversy in the film: It was the first Syrian film to show an actual kiss. This set off a big debate. As my correspondent puts it:

“Apparently the local authorities were outraged. Jews drinking children's blood? No problems.

A kissing scene? Scandal! Outrage!”

And he concludes quite accurately: “True story. That's the thing about Syria. Anything you made up wouldn't be as bizarre as what actually goes on.”



Meanwhile, as aspiring Syrian filmmakers plan future productions of “Citizen Bashar,” “How the Golan Was Won,” and “West Beirut Story,” Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi continues to pack in the audiences with his Borad impressions.

The Libyan ruler, straight from his success at receiving Britain’s surrender--why should the murder of 270 people in the bombing of an airliner get in the way of an oil deal, that country’s prime minister seemed to say—is now conducting a battle against Switzerland. (Incidentally, anyone see a human rights’ group or trade unions calling for a boycott of Libya or war crimes’ trials for that regime?)

Seems that Qadhafi’s youngest son beat up two servants, an activity frowned on in Switzerland, where he was visiting at the time. Of course, that’s how they behave back home. One former foreign student in Libya told me how he returned to his dorm room early to find his Libyan roommate, leader of the campus secret police apparently, torturing another student.

But here’s the important lesson: Switzerland groveled and apologized. In fact, the Swiss president went to Libya to say how sorry he was for letting his government enforce the country’s laws. Qadhafi, however, reneged on his promise to release two Swiss businessmen being held hostage (obviously, he hasn’t learned about humanitarian releases from the British). There is some indication he will continue his assault on the Swiss.

What is the lesson for world leaders, including President Obama?: Just because you apologize doesn’t mean they still won’t come after you.

.

Lockerbie, the Anger

As American anger grows at the release of the Lockerbie Bomber (for "compassionate" reasons) the real story is starting to break. According to the London Sunday Times:

Secret Letters Reveal Labour’s Libyan Deal

"DURING the past year a small ship bristling with computers and seismic equipment has been crisscrossing the Gulf of Sidra, in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast. Its mission: to help to find BP’s next offshore oilfields.

The company’s search for oil off Libya and in a 20,000-mile area in the west of the country potentially offers as much as £15 billion in new revenue. But less than two years ago it was feared that the deal could founder — and the reason was wrangling over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the jailed Lockerbie bomber.

BP was finally given the go-ahead six weeks after a volte-face by the British government to include Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya under which prisoners could serve out sentences in their home countries. Jack Straw, the justice secretary, revealed this decision in a letter to his Scottish counterpart. He cited “wider negotiations” and the “overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom”.

Sources in the UK and Tripoli said last week that those wider interests included BP’s hoped-for share of Libya’s untapped oil and gas reserves. The decision to include Megrahi in the prisoner transfer arrangement was seen by Libyan officials as paving the way for his release — and BP’s much-coveted deal was finally ratified." -more

So tell me. Are you surprised?

Mideast Peace (1991)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon from 1991.

The bizarre delusion that the Middle East would settle down and be peaceful if only the "Palestinian problem" were solved continues to this day.
Yikes!

Lockerbie Outrage

The news as reported by the Reuters News Agency:

LONDON, Aug 23 (Reuters) - "Scotland, unaccustomed to the hot spotlight of international diplomacy, fought to justify its release of the Lockerbie bomber on Sunday, after a U.S. official angrily accused the country of rewarding terrorism.

Scotland, which is part of the United Kingdom but has its own devolved powers, including its own parliament and a separate legal system, has been under assault since deciding on Thursday to free Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, the Libyan who carried out the Lockerbie airline bombing, on compassionate grounds.

The head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, wrote to Scotland's justice minister on Saturday accusing him of making a mockery of the rule of law and saying his much-criticised decision "rewards a terrorist"." -more

* * *So do YOU think he'll be dead within 3 months? Nu?

Related: Freeing of Lockerbie bomber to hero’s welcome in Libya ....