Wednesday, October 21, 2015

The UN's New Intifada

Report: UN Officials Inciting Murder of Jews, Call to “Stab Zionist Dogs”

"GENEVA, October 16, 2015 – At least ten different UN staffers are using the imprimatur of their official positions to incite Palestinian stabbing and shooting attacks against Israeli Jews, with one calling on Facebook to “stab Zionist dogs,” according to a new report issued today by UN Watch, the Geneva-based non-governmental organization that is accredited by the United Nations with the mandate to monitor the world body’s compliance with its charter.

UN Watch submitted the report today to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UNRWA chief Pierre Krähenbühl, and U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power, whose government’s $400 million annual grant makes it the largest funder of UNRWA.

“The UN and top funders of UNRWA such as the United States government must act immediately to terminate employees who are inciting murderous anti-Semitism and fueling the deadly pandemic of Palestinian attacks against Israeli Jews that have claimed innocent men, women and children, aged 13 to 78,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“Despite UNRWA’s promise, in the wake of our previous report, to take action and dismiss UNRWA perpetrators of incitement, there has been no accountability whatsoever,” said Neuer. “On the contrary, UNRWA’s main response has been to try and intimidate UN Watch.”"
Why don't we ever hear of Israelis running around stabbing Palestinians? Because it doesn't ever happen.

Many more details at the SITE.


Dragon fang said...

Wasn't there an Israeli who stabbed an other Israeli because the first Israeli thought the victim was Palestinian? Refusing medical attention to a 13 year old boy and repeatedly chanting "die you son of a whore"? We also have killing a teenager and planting a knife next to his body.

Maybe we don't hear of it because the dozens (and even +hundred) settler violence every month doesn't get media attention?

Stan said...

Point to actual documentation, and I'll post it. Otherwise, it is not fact, it is conspiracy theory. Yes, I do remember two Israeli boys stabbing someone, possibly a palestinian, not long ago. They were arrested and charged.

The thirteen year old boy you reference without mentioning his crime, had just attacked an Israeli with a knife; yes he deserved medical attention, as do all criminals who are injured in the process of their crimes. I suspect that he got medical attention, but not with the speed you might wish. As for the yelling at him, that was wrong, but not as wrong as the boy's crime, by a long shot. So, are you justifying the additional knifings based on this boy's experience, which was being injured in his knifing attack process? It appears that you do.

Dragon fang said...

I also remember decades of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, occupation, land theft, murder, bombing, and oppression of Palestinians; they were not arrested and charged.

Do all criminals have their heads bashed with sticks and metal pipes after being apprehended?

For settler violence in October:

Burning a Palestenian house killing an 18 months old:

Israeli stabbing a false Palestinian:

Israeli goes on a stabbing spree against Palestinians:

Shooting an unarmed Palestinian in response to mob wishes:

Extrajudicial killing on unarmed Palestenian woman:

An other execution of unarmed woman:

Shooting an innocent, who was later attacked by mob while bleeding to later die of his injuries (you can find video yourself: Haftom Zarhum):

It is within the Palestinians' right, even by international law, to resist foreign occupation, whether it is through a gun, bomb, knife, words and thoughts, though I personally do not support targetting civilians. If you find that too harsh, how would you fare if your land was occupied?

Stan said...

I don’t have much time to discuss your charges, many of which are at least based in true events which I did hear about. However, I would like to address this post:

My understanding is that the checkpoints were set up during the period when Palestinian suicide and other types of bombers blew up buses full of civilians. Explosives hidden on their persons as they crossed the previously-open borders were used to mass-murder Israelis. It is no wonder that checkpoint inspections were begun.

“Occupation”: inflammatory term for the partition determined by the UN after WWII. Captured areas, some of which were returned (to Egypt), were kept. They were captured after the new Israel partition was attacked from all sides by several nations of Islamists – who were soundly defeated. Some captured areas (Golan heights) are deemed necessary holdings for self-defense, and have been kept. During that first Islamic war on the new Israel, Islamic residents of Israel, some, not all, left Israel, abandoning their homes due to the false rumored claim that Israelis would ethnic-cleanse them. There was no ethnic cleansing, except in the Takiyya minds of the defeated Islamists.

There are two histories of Israel. Both cannot be true. Considering the inverted ethics of the Islamists, such as hiding in hospitals, schools, civilian neighborhoods and other “safe” zones such as firing from behind civilian women and children; such as training children first to hate Jews, then the proper method of murdering Israelis; such as continually firing ordnance into Israel at random; there is little intellectual and ethical defense that can be mounted for such a culture, from either a western standpoint, or from a “good neighbor” standpoint, much less as a source of “true history”. The entire force of being and self-knowledge within a Palestinian has been forged into the burning desire to kill Israelis and take the UN sanctioned and recognized country of Israel for Palestinians, themselves alone. This is obvious by the refusal of Palestine to ever accept offers of statehood, unless they dominate the Israel from which they will ethnic cleanse all non-Islamics - just as ISIS is currently doing.

Israel as a nation has both the right and duty to protect its citizens (who are far more diverse than in Gaza). This frustrates Palestinians. And yes it does involve monitoring the inputs and outputs from Gaza in order to stop the shipments of implements of war from being shipped into Gaza, and then transferred into Israel in order to commit mass murder of Israelis, which is ethnic cleansing on a small, personal scale.

There is little doubt in my mind that the Palestinians will ultimately develop their tactics to the point of full assault on Israel, and perhaps even accomplishing their desire to ethnically cleanse Israel as is said in the Palestinian constitution.

Israel is under constant assault, and is therefore at war constantly; it cannot exist otherwise. In warfare, why are Palestinians surprised and offended that their acts of brutality are met with consequential acts of brutality?

Why was Mussolini hung upside down, and beaten beyond recognition?

Talon said...

Why was Mussolini hung upside down, and beaten beyond recognition?

Because human beings are vindictive savages who turn into an irrational angry mob with sufficient provocation? The beating of an already shot Mussolini(and possibly his mistress) beyond recognition reminds me of the beating death of Madeline Murray O'Hair at the hands of former AA colleague David Waters and cronies, his rage and hatred of her was so great her remains were unrecognizable, she had to be ID'd via a serial number on her artificial hip. Waters had been humiliated by O'Hair after his firing and wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than obliteration of her, her family and her organization. There's nothing righteous about such animalistic fury, beating a dead atheist, no matter how insufferable, didn't make things better.

Answering brutality with brutality has predictably led to more brutality; you don't negotiate with an animal nor forgive a demon, so both sides feel they must be committed to wiping the enemy from the face of the earth. Neither should cry and play the victim card when criticized, they know the rules and are in no position to point fingers elsewhere when they agreed to play the game.

Talon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dragon fang said...

Apartheid through walls and checkpoints were planned long before the bombing incidents, furthermore they are irrelevant to stop bombing. The vast majority of these checkpoints are internal to the Westbank; see the picture of the people crammed in a tight corridor? They are not waiting to exit the west bank and going through a tedious procedure once, they are 600-1000 people crammed waiting for the checkpoint to open to go or come back from work. Add in people seeking treatment (ex. pregnant women) in the larger cities/town and wanting to visit relatives.

Bombing incidents sharpley dropped due to negotiations long before the wall and checkpoints were completed:

The wall was 20% complete between 2003 and 2004. The Hamas ceasefire happened before 2005, and the wall was 50% complete between 2006 and 2007.

Furthermore, 6000 sneak past the westbank fence every month:,7340,L-4473355,00.html

An other estimate is more than 1200 per week:

So a partially completed wall, crossed routinely by at least hundreds of Palestinians every week, is supposed to prevent suicide bombing?

Same with rockets:

Not to mention the annexation with the wall being twice the size of the 1967 cease fire (demolishing homes and building along the way). It is more of a colonization tool than a security measure.

No foreign government or international body ever had a right to partition Palestine or establish any entity in that country without the consent of the Palestinian Arabs, the inhabitants of Palestine, the indigenous population and the sole owners of the land. Therefore, there is no moral or legal distinction between the colonization and occupation of the regions of Palestine conquered in 1948 -which is an area larger than what the null and void 1947 partition plan that was never agreed on allocated to the usurping Zionist entity- and 1967.

A very pro-zionist site:

“Mounting operations against enemy population centres located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

“Destruction of villages – setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris – especially those population centres which are difficult to control continuously.

“Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

Israel annexed the Palestinian Arab territories of Galilee, Auja, parts of Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank, all of which were parts of the Palestinian Arab state according to the Partition resolution. Israeli forces had attacked Palestinian territories, particularly Galilee, well before the Arab states entered the war.

Dragon fang said...

Bring me something beside Israeli cartoons that reports any use of human shields by Palestinian resistance, or hiding in populated areas.

In contrast, Israel's systematic use of human shields is well documented. Heck, the Israel High Court discussed IDF's ("The most moral army in the world" and the only one taking 12 years old to military courts to be held in solitary confinement for months) use of human shields 1200 times in five years:,7340,L-3154142,00.html

Here are some of examples:

Here is an Israeli general admitting to supporting collective punishment and delibertly targeting civilian infrastructures:
Right, it is the civilian's fault they got killed, and 1.8 millions are to be considered human shields and legitimate targets for being resident in the open air prison of Gaza. Considering that Gaza is one of the most condensed population areas in the world, and have travel infrastructures such as roads and highways destroyed, I wonder where one ought to flee considering the area is block off on all four sides. How does a baby or an elderly person make a choice to flee? Do they abandon their houses and starve in a city under siege? What prevision is made for them in a humanitarian sense if they choose to leave?

Once asked why so many Palestinians willingly, with zero armed presence nearby, go onto roofs they would say that they did not think they would be at risk as long as they remained indoors or because they had no safe place to go.

Seeing a neighbour or relative torn to shreds by zionist bombs would be enough to install hatred on Zionists and cancel any 'good neighbour' philosophy. Peaceful resolution requires the other side to display humanity and consciousness.

The fear monger is real. I wonder how one of the most popular Palestenian leaders, George Habash, could be Christian... I am also shocked how PLO can exist with Jewish members, or how Jews coexists with Christians and Muslims for hundreds of years... pretty weird.

Amid the current conflict, he elaborated, “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

Earlier this spring, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon sparked a storm in Israel-US ties when he told a private gathering that the US-Kerry-Allen security proposals weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Netanyahu on Friday said the same, and more, in public
Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. This is not merely demanding a demilitarized Palestine; it is insisting upon ongoing Israeli security oversight inside and at the borders of the West Bank. That sentence, quite simply, spells the end to the notion of Netanyahu consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Dragon fang said...

Fayyad has said that his plan to build a new state “is intended to generate pressure” on Israeli–Palestinian negotiations, and the direct talks recently started by the two parties have a late summer 2011 deadline that coincides with Fayyad’s.7 Mike Herzog, former chief of staff to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, told me, “Ultimately, I think Fayyad calculates that political negotiations will not succeed and his plan [to establish a state] will be the only game in town.” The danger, for Israel and the Palestinian Authority alike, is what will happen if negotiations fail and Fayyad’s plan does not produce significant concessions from Israel. “We are not going to withdraw from certain areas just because there was a declaration or a UN resolution,” Herzog said. In that event Hamas will be able to present a persuasive argument that violence is the only means of achieving national liberation. “Fayyad sets an arbitrary date and says, ‘Okay, now all of you break your heads if you want to avoid a catastrophe,’” Herzog said. “What he did is very risky but also very smart.”

Along with statements like these and continuous war crimes, please don't talk about Zionists seeking peace, nor portray the fascist state as some sort of victim.

Israel is under occupation law, which ensures greater protection for the civilian population by not displacing them and the occupier's civilians by not placing them on occupied lands. As a foreign invader and occupier, it has no right to use any level of force in defence of its military occupation and colonial regime.

I wonder what you will justify next in your defence of Religious Zionism.

Stan said...

” “We are not going to withdraw from certain areas just because there was a declaration or a UN resolution,” Herzog said. In that event Hamas will be able to present a persuasive argument that violence is the only means of achieving national liberation.”

1. Israel is rationally justified in keeping its war-gotten gains UNTIL Palestinians agree to stop their attacks AND to grant Israel the right to exist as a state, as has the rest of the world via the UN declarations.

2. Palestinians have consistently rejected offers of recognized state-hood, instead demanding all of Israel.

3. By not getting their demands and huffily remaining in stasis – by their own decisions – they try to project themselves as victims.

4. Israel is decidedly not a colonial power, having stepped out of Gaza completely thus leaving Gaza as a self-administered de facto state.

5. Until the Palestinians agree to the conditions in #1 above, a state of war automatically exists, not due to the existence of Israel or its policies, but due to the intransigence and hegemony of the Palestinians.

6. If the borders and nations set by the UN in ’47 be invalidated, then all the nations created at that time are non-valid as well. Perhaps this is what you desire, an open free-for-all across a middle east without borders, without governance, and no law but Sharia for all but locally administered. I suspect that to be the case. That would be consistent with the one-world caliphate, and with ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, etc.

Stan said...

7. The west, now including Russia, will not allow #6 to happen.

8. Continuing in the same pattern that Palestinians currently insist upon following could produce a stasis of mild violence for many more decades. Or if ISIS intervenes, both sides of the fence will be reduced to rubble.

Now. Your arguments in the above comments reflect information gotten from anti-Semitic sources. Considering additionally the takiyya issue, I cannot bring myself to give credence to any of them. The American Left cannot distinguish between truth and lies, and in fact makes up whatever “information” fits their class-war narrative. It is my impression that something similar to that is going on here, with the Victimhood Class containing the self-victimized Palestinians. The Oppressor Class is “Zionism”, which is code for the existence of Jews.

Further, charges of Israeli Fascism fall into the category of projection, another favorite tactic of the American Atheist Left. It seems odd to charge Israel with Fascism when Fascism is the character of many, if not most, Islamic controlled states. In fact, the class-war approach is that of all totalitarians, from Marxists to National Socialists. And even “cosmopolitan” Turkey is going the way of totalitarianism and class war.

So this perpetual Palestinian petulance appears to me to be just another hegemonic class war, and as usual is anti-Semitic.

As an aside, I think Netanyahu was probably right in his statement regarding the Grand Mufti of Palestine; I wish that he had quoted reliable references, but this was not a scholarly occasion. Some say that the Grand Mufti got his anti-Semitism and Fascism from Hitler, not the other way around. I wish there could be a reliable way to know. Either way, it is undeniable that he was an active de facto Nazi, despite not qualifying as Aryan.

Finally, I have to comment on the assertion that Palestinians do not hide in hospitals, schools, behind civilians – because the population density doesn’t allow them any open ground from which to fire off rockets at Israeli civilians. That is a tacit admission that they do, in fact, use human shields, the excuse being this: no open space. That is absurd on the face of it. The point is this: by firing rockets at Israeli civilians, they place their own civilians at risk when the Israelis attempt to neutralize their attackers. And then the Palestinians weep about their civilian casualties – which would be prevented by not the simple act of NOT firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Entirely preventable by the Palestinians, themselves, and entirely caused by the Palestinians themselves. It is irrational to think that an attacker should not be neutralized, so long as the attacker is Palestinian.

Stan said...

Typo in the above: too many "nots" in the 3rd sentence from the end, which should read,
"which would be prevented by... the simple act of NOT firing rockets at Israeli civilians".

Stan said...

Last, your reference to the JPost article ( an interesting psychological view into yourself. You took the article to mean that extermination of civilians for no apparent reason is policy for the IDF (or so your comment appears to me). But that is not what the article said at all. In fact, the article – which you referenced, so you must give it at least some credibility – confirmed the Palestinian use of civilians as shields:

”It would be natural to think that such a notification would deter Eizenkot from making similar remarks in the future. On Sunday though, he proved the opposite, when at a conference in Tel Aviv he said the IDF would continue to apply this doctrine in the future.

“Hizbullah is the one that is turning these areas into a battleground,” Eizenkot said of future plans to bomb homes in Lebanese villages where Hizbullah is storing rockets and maintains command posts. “I hope this will restrain them... but if not, we need to explain to ourselves and to others thatthis is something that Hizbullah has brought upon itself since it is building its combat zones inside these villages.”

”THE SAME is true for Hamas. Since Operation Cast Lead, Hamas has not changed its strategy of using civilian infrastructure to launch attacks. Quite the contrary. And it is augmenting its tunnel systems throughout Gaza. It is placing command-and-control centers on the bottom floor of apartment buildings with the aim of deterring IAF strikes.

As a result, in a future conflict, the outcome will likely not be much different than it was last winter. As long as Hamas continues to fire rockets from schoolyards and store its weapons in mosques and people’s homes, the IDF will have no choice but to venture into the built-up areas where collateral damage is statistically greater.

Dragon fang said...

So in short you, and Religious Zionist law, permit:

1- Targeting and killing civilians
2- Collective punishment
3- Ethnic cleansing
4- Terrorism on civilians
5- There are no rules in time of war

Your ethics are disgusting. Why do you object to knife attacks and bombing then? According to your Religious Zionism ideology, aren't 'civilians' in a battlefield combatants because they spiritually or economically support soldiers, are one call away from being conscripted from reserve? Isn't bombing a bus merely 'targeting the vehicle' with no intention to harm 'civilians'?

Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents -- babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.

Indeed, R. Israeli goes even further, and seems to adopt the view that those who simply extend support to terror – by encouraging acts of violence with mere words – can be labeled combatants as well. This is not, R. Israeli posits, any form of collective punishment, as only people who are guilty (whether of murder or conspiracy to commit
murder) are actually being punished.

In many ways this provides guidance into the ethical issues associated with a modern airplane (and long range artillery) based war. Air warfare greatly expands the "kill zone" of combat and (at least in our current state of technology) tend to inevitably result in the death of civilians. The tactical aims of air warfare appear to be fourfold: to destroy specific enemy military targets; to destroy the economic base of the enemy's war-making capacity; to randomly terrorize civilian populations; and to retaliate for other atrocities by the enemy to one's own home base and thus deter such conduct in the future by the enemy.

The basis thesis of Broyde’s essay, then, is that the conduct of war is in fact the suspension of the normative ethics of Jewish law to prevent the eradication of Jewish society. Ethics in warfare are therefore fundamentally different from ethics in all other situations. Broyde goes on to note that this explains what he regards as the paucity of halakhic material on the conduct of war. Since Halakhah envisions war to entail the suspension of all violations–from the prohibition to kill downward–it permits the violation, as military need requires, of every prohibition with the single exception of avodah zorah [idolatry]. Assessing this need falls under the purview of military leaders, not rabbis or ethicists.

The same can be said for collective punishment of vast segments of society for the active misconduct of the few. The final obligation in the Noahide code - basic frameworks of commandments forming the universal law code that Jewish law believes to be binding on all humans - is dinim, commonly translated as "laws" or "justice" Two vastly different interpretations of this commandment are found among the early authorities, but they both share the basic approach of permitting collective punishment. Maimonides rules that the obligations of dinim require only that the enumerated Noahide laws be enforced within the system of justice to be established - but that absent such enforcement, all members of society may be punished.

Dragon fang said...

1. Then Palestinians are rationally justified to in restoring illegally colonialism-gotten gains. What are the responsibilities of a conquering army? (whisper: Not displacing the ingenious population, allowing refuges to return, and not placing the army's civilians in the conquered land)
2. And they have the right to reject it as the ingenious people; they merely demanded Palestine.
3. Colonists are always aggressors.
4. The colonized and ethnically cleansed land from river to sea says otherwise.
5. That is what you would like, wouldn't you? No a state of colonialism is in place.
6. Factually incorrect. The plan simply never went into effect, other borders may be legitimate regardless of the partition plan. You shouldn't use ridiculous strawmen or terms you have no idea what they mean; they make you look foolish.
7. Neither will the neighbouring Arab nations in a state of war with the usurping Zionist entity.
8. It is too early to discuss the procedure of post-liberation, nor does it have to be instantaneous rather than gradual.

Can you explain the difference between "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Zionist"?

Considering that you are a Christian (incoherent concept of God btw), you permit lying to further your agenda, therefore I won't trust a word you say.

1 Corinthians 9:20-23
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Acts 9:11
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.

Acts 21:39
39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

Acts 22:27
27 The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”
“Yes, I am,” he answered.

Acts 23:6-7
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

You think Netanyahu was right because you want him to be right regardless of historians disagreeing. Nice methodology and intellectual honesty.

You asked you for evidence of use of human shield (like I presented of the IDF) beside cartoon sketches. You failed.

Phoenix said...


Firstly, is there any crime such as stealing, rape, pedophilia and murder mentioned in the above verses? No, therefore one cannot accuse Paul of using ANY tactic to further his agenda, unlike Muhammad who did all of the above mentioned crimes.

Secondly,what Paul is doing is called self abnegation, sacrificing his own identity by putting himself in the other persons shoes to understand where they're coming from.


Acts 9:11
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying.

How is this deception? Paul was previously known as Saul from Tarsus

Acts 21:39
39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people.”

Acts 22:27
27 The commander went to Paul and asked, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?”
“Yes, I am,” he answered

Again, how is this deception? Tarsus was part of the Roman Empire, thus making Paul a Roman citizen
Acts 23:6-7
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

Ok, Paul is his Christian name, and prior to his conversion he was known by his birth name Saul, a Pharisee Jew from Tarsus in the Roman Empire. Still no deception here.

Usually I don't quote Wiki but due to time constraints I'll make an exception

"Paul the Apostle (Greek: Παῦλος Paulos; c. 5 – c. 67), originally known as Saul of Tarsus (Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎; Greek: Σαῦλος Ταρσεύς Saulos Tarseus),[1][2] was an apostle (though not one of the Twelve Apostles) who taught the gospel of Christ to the first-century world.[7] He is generally considered one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age.[8][9] In the mid-30s to the mid-50s, he founded several churches in Asia Minor and Europe. Paul took advantage of his status as both a Jew and a Roman citizen to minister to both Jewish and Roman audiences".