As last week’s SEAL strike on Osama bin Laden continues to sink in, the military codenames given to earlier efforts to eliminate this one-man terror superpower come to mind: Operation Infinite Reach was the Pentagon’s codename for the 1998 missile attacks on bin Laden’s compound in Afghanistan and a purported chemical facility in Sudan with tenuous links to bin Laden; and the original codename for the post-9/11 campaign actually was Operation Infinite Justice—not Operation Enduring Freedom. To be sure, these codenames are just words. But set against the backdrop of the last decade—and especially last week—these words have a deep meaning that is not lost on America’s enemies.

In short, the enemy is learning that the U.S. military has staying power—and gets its man. This is an important message to get across because America’s enemies—especially bin Laden and his ilk—grew to doubt both propositions over the last few decades.

From bin Laden’s vantage point, America talked tough but seldom if ever followed through. “When tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you,” he yelped. “The extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the heart of every Muslim and a remedy to the chests of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut, Aden and Mogadishu.”

For the record, he was referring to the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 241 Marines and forced President Reagan to abruptly pull out a U.S. peacekeeping force; the “Blackhawk Down” debacle in 1993, which ended with 18 Americans killed in an ambush, the man responsible for the ambush—Farrah Aidid—granted safe passage and U.S. forces hastily withdrawn by President Clinton; and the 2000 USS Cole attack in Aden, which claimed 17 sailors and went unanswered. Add to this list Iran’s attack on the U.S. embassy in 1979, a humiliation which was never punished or avenged, and Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which was reversed by a U.S.-led coalition but left Hussein in power and left many in the Middle East with the impression that America didn’t have the nerve to finish the job.

This is the prism through which bin Laden saw America. This is why he concluded, with a smirk, that America was a paper tiger lacking both the stomach and the staying power for the kind of war he unleashed on 9/11.

He was wrong.

Indeed, in my discussions with active-duty officers, many say the reason we had to go into Afghanistan and Iraq—boots on the ground—was not only to topple terror states like the Taliban’s Afghanistan, not only to remove regimes with the means and motives to do worse than maim Manhattan, not only to begin the long-overdue process of remaking the Middle East, not only to end the cynical realism that propped up Hussein and his kind, but to obliterate this notion that America could not or would not fight.

Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of intervening in Libya. Indeed, conservatives are divided over the war, with some arguing that intervention was unnecessary because Libya poses no threat to U.S. interests, others arguing that supporting the rebels is very much in the American tradition of assisting pro-freedom movements, others arguing that the U.S. has a special role in the world and can’t sit by while civilians are being butchered, and still others citing the need to help longtime allies in France, Italy and Britain, whose security could be threatened by the fallout. Setting aside that debate, which will go on as long as the war lasts, let’s stipulate that intervention prevented Moammar Qaddafi from turning Benghazi into another Srebrenica and the rest of eastern Libya into another Rwanda. The U.S. in specific and NATO in general deserve credit for preventing such a massacre. However, after trying to do the right thing, NATO and the U.S. are going about it the wrong way.

As before—in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan—NATO’s latest war by committee is producing its share of headaches. Dubbed “Unified Protector,” the NATO operation above and around Libya is not exactly living up to its name.

First, the allies are anything but unified. Italy, for example, threatened to block the use of its airbases if NATO didn’t take full control of the operation. Germany warned NATO not to try to do too much. France, which wanted to bypass NATO altogether and develop a Franco-Anglo-American command, is pursuing regime change. Turkey lectured the rest of the alliance about “pointing a gun” at Libya and is now freelancing a ceasefire deal. And the U.S. was always more focused on handing off the operation than on carrying out the objectives of the operation. Early on, the White House talked about a “time-limited, scope-limited” mission. In fact, the U.S. was so eager to step back from the lead role it played in the first week of Unified Protector that NATO now has to request assistance from U.S. aircraft before they will be deployed on strike missions.

Not surprisingly, as soon as the U.S. receded into the “supporting role” promised by President Barack Obama, the intensity and effectiveness of the air war diminished:

• “NATO has disappointed us,” rebel military commander Abdul Fatah Younis said after NATO failed to provide adequate air support to rebel forces in the port city of Misrata. “If NATO wanted to remove the siege on Misrata, they would have done so days ago,” he added.
• Similarly, Ali al-Essawi, the foreign policy director for Libya’s Transitional National Council, blamed “bureaucratic delays” within NATO for “putting civilians’ lives at risk,” according to The New York Times.
• The Financial Times notes that “Britain and France are straining to fill the gap left by Washington’s decision to pull back.”

In fact, although 17 nations are contributing air assets to Unified Protector, only France and Britain are allowing their planes to fly without restrictions, The Washington Post reports.

Hence, French foreign minister Alaine Juppe has called on NATO to “play its role in full…which means preventing Qaddafi from using heavy weapons to bomb populations.” Juppe describes NATO’s current tempo and tactics as “not sufficient.”

Likewise, his British counterpart, William Hague, recently urged nations participating in the Libya intervention to “expand our efforts in NATO,” pointedly adding, “That is why the United Kingdom in the last weeks supplied additional aircraft capable of striking ground targets that threaten the civilian population. Of course, it would be welcome if other countries did the same.”

Hague is politely directing his message at Washington. The U.S. accounted for 90 of the 206 NATO planes initially deployed in support of Unified Protector, and an even higher percentage of the planes capable of carrying out precision ground-attack missions. However, according to Air Force Magazine, the U.S. Air Force contribution to Unified Protector has plummeted to just 39 planes.

In the early hours of May 31st, Israeli Defense Forces boarded ships claiming to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza. Since 2007, Israel has maintained a defensive naval blockade to prevent rocket supplies and terrorists from reaching Hamas and fortifying advanced offensive positions close to Israeli citizens.

Convoy captains ignored orders to divert to the nearby port so passengers and contents of the vessels could be inspected. Israel assured the volunteers that, after proper search, supplies of humanitarian nature would reach Gaza inhabitants, but the boats continued on their course.

Determination to force entry to Gaza justified Israeli commandos boarding the main vessel, where they were attacked by the “peaceful” pro-Palestinian representatives armed with knives and pipes. According to early reports, one of the Gaza-bound workers seized an Israeli gun and began firing. Several volunteers and Israeli soldiers were killed in the ensuing exchange. Eventually, the subdued “missionaries” and their ships were brought to Ashdod.

From start to finish, the Humanitarian flotilla was a textbook operation in the chief war against Israel, the war of global opinion. Those who organized the convoy were well aware that, arriving in proximity to Gaza, they would be stopped by Israeli Defense Forces. The purpose of the convey was to choreograph another drama in which Israel would be obliged to choose between being cast on the international stage as the evil starvers of innocent, trapped women and children, or avoiding the censure by allowing ships, possibly carrying weapons and warriors, into Gaza.

For Israel to survive, she needs the moral and physical support of the United States. The Leftist strategists trying to sever this support are using lessons learned about us during the last wars we have fought; wars are won or lost by the microphone and the camera. A still-shot of “heartless” Israelis denying food, clothing, and Kleenex to a camp population is Oscar Worthy and is more lethal than the rockets stowed under the bandage rolls. It is an image stolen from real occupation, an image intended to confuse the victims with the perpetrators and provoke universal outrage against innocent Isralis and extort pity for people who elected genocidal terrorists to run their government.

The Israel Haters Club will howl and get their poignant video footage from Al Jazeera, who, as always, just happened to be on hand. The knife-brandishing doves will have purchased at the cost of lives they hold so cheaply another opportunity to wail the Occupation Narrative.
The knives are already sharpened over at the Huffington Post:

“Israeli commandos on Monday stormed six ships carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists on an aid mission to the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens after encountering unexpected resistance as the forces boarded the vessels.”

The operation in international waters off the Gaza coast was a nightmare scenario for Israel that looked certain to further damage its international standing, strain already tense relations with Turkey and draw unwanted attention to Gaza’s plight.

“These savages are killing people here, please help,” a Turkish television reporter said. The broadcast ended with a voice shouting in Hebrew, “Everybody shut up!”

If the attempt to elicit sentimental universal condemnation of Israel is to be thwarted, the only real weapon is fact. Discover the Networks provides information crucial to dispelling the “founding myths,” of “Palestine.” Israel 101, Does Israel Have the Right to Exist? Does the United States?, and What Really Happened in the Middle East, give extensive and irrefutable documentation that the victims in the war are the citizens of Israel, and the aggressors are the terrorists who wish to annihilate them. As Joseph Klein reports in How Hamas Tortures Gaza, the chant of Hamas, upon its takeover of Gaza in 2006 was and remains:

“The earthquake in the Zionist towns will start again and the aggressors will have no choice but to prepare their coffins or their luggage.”

It is no surprise that examination of the “Relief Boats” exposed shipments of weapons, undoubtedly destined for use by Hamas to shake the earth.

The international political consensus, the media, and even “un-biased” UN NGO’s form their own blockade around the truth. We can win the battle for support for Israel here by running this blockade, by educating ourselves and those we know about the reality of the War on Israel.

Following leads provided by the interrogation of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, FBI agents fanned out across the Northeast today in raids that led to "several people" being taken into custody, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.

US officials told ABCNews.com that the operation was focusing on people who may have helped move money for Shahzad in his failed bombing plot. Initially, Shahzad had claimed to have "acted alone," according to US officials. He has been talking freely with FBI agents and federal prosecutors since being taken into custody May 3.

The FBI raids began just after dawn in the Boston suburb of Watertown and in residential areas near Shirley, Long Island in New York.

The people taken into custody were detained on immigration violations, according to Attorney General Holder, who discussed the early morning operation at a Congressional hearing today.

"The searches are the product of evidence that has been gathered in the investigation since the attempted Times Square bombing and do not relate to any known immediate threat to the public or active plot against the United States," Holder said.

Two of the arrests were made at a house in Massachusetts and a third person was taken into custody in Maine," according to a US law enforcement official.

"If Shahzad provided names to the FBI, the US has the ability to track their recent phone calls and determine who they have been talking to, to see if there is some kind of terror cell that exists here," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism official.

The searches were also carried out at a printing shop in Camden, New Jersey, an apartment on New York's Long Island, and at a gas station in Brookline, Massachusetts. [...]

Prosecutors said today that Shahzad continues on a daily basis to waive his right to appear in court, as he continues to provide FBI agents with chapter and verse of his conversion from suburban father of two to Taliban terrorist.

Interesting choice of words.

Officials say the three arrests today may not be the end of it, that at least three others remain under close scrutiny.

Islam, despite its claims of being eternal, unchanged, and handed down in perfect form from on high, did not come up in a vacuum. It is utterly suffused with the baggage of Muhammad's culture, place, and time -- seventh-century Arabia -- not to mention his personal biases and hangups. All of this baggage is made sacrosanct via Qur'an 33:21, which calls Muhammad a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for believers.

Thus, the obsession with virginity described in "Arab cultures" here is tremendously reinforced and encouraged by several major aspects of Islam: the severity of punishments for sexual crimes, the uneven responsibility conferred on women to protect their and their families' "honor" through veiling and seclusion, and the sanction found in Qur'an 4:34 for attempting to "control" women with violence.

Of course, that doesn't stop the author of this report from avoiding the Islamic issue, and tacking on the usual tu quoque boilerplate, noted below.

"The virginity industry," by Najlaa Abou Mehri and Linda Sills, for BBC Radio 4, April 25:

Young Arab women wait in an upmarket medical clinic for an operation that will not only change their lives, but quite possibly save it. Yet the operation is a matter of choice and not necessity. It costs about 2,000 euros (£1,700) and carries very little risk.

The clinic is not in Dubai or Cairo, but in Paris. And the surgery they are waiting for is to restore their virginity.

Whether in Asia or the Arab world, an unknown number of women face an agonising problem having broken a deep taboo. They've had sex outside marriage and if found out, risk being ostracised by their communities, or even murdered.

Now more and more of them are undergoing surgery to re-connect their hymens and hide any sign of past sexual activity. They want to ensure that blood is spilled on their wedding night sheets.

The social pressure is so great that some women have even taken their own lives. [...]

Noor is a trendy professional who works in Damascus. He's fairly representative of young Syrian men in a secular society. But although Noor says he believes in equality for women, underneath the liberal facade lies a deep-rooted conservatism.

"I know girls who went through this restoration and they were caught out on their wedding night by their husbands," he says. "They realised they weren't virgins. Even if society accepts such a thing, I would still refuse to marry her."

Muslim clerics are quick to point out that the virginity issue is not about religion. "We should remember that when people wait for the virgin's blood to be spilled on the sheet, these are all cultural traditions," says Syrian cleric, Sheikh Mohamad Habash. "This is not related to Shariah law."

But killing for adultery (Sahih Bukhari 8.82.816), and demanding four witnesses to "prove" sexual crimes such as rape (Qur'an 24:4) most certainly are related to Sharia.

And now, some hastily tacked-on moral equivalence:

Christian communities in the Middle East are often just as firm in their belief that women should be virgins when they marry.

Arab writer and social commentator, Sana Al Khayat believes the whole issue has much to with the notion of "control"....

But where did that come from?

Just three days after a man was murdered by a qassam rocket in southern Israel, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon visited the Gaza Strip and told the people of Gaza “we stand with you.” Ban called for an end to a so-called siege or blockade on the terrorist controlled territory, and one has to ask what siege or blockade Moon is referring to when in 2009 738,576 tons of humanitarian aid was transferred into the Gaza Strip.

Can the UN really claim there is a “Gaza Siege” when they have given $200 million to the Gaza Strip following a military operation that is claimed to have had 1,300 casualties amongst a population of less than 1.5 million, and they have only given $10 million to the natural disaster in Haiti that claimed the lives of an estimated over 230,000 people and affected over 3 million? Of course, that is without mentioning that Haitians have not been attacking an innocent nearby civilian population for a near decade and were the subject of a natural disaster.

The international community has bought this bold faced lie about some Israeli implemented siege on the Gaza Strip while ignoring the facts on the ground.  International humanitarian aid has been flowing rapidly into the Gaza Strip for years and in no way stopped after Operation Cast Lead, as 30,576 aid trucks entered the territory in 2009. In 2009 4,883 tons of medical equipment entered the Gaza Strip with this equipment continuing including for example a new CAT Scan machine just last month.

As the Gaza Strip has been called terms like “the world’s largest prison” referencing residents not being able to exit the territory, in 2009 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel, and just weeks prior nearly 500 patients and companions from Gaza received medical treatment in Israel.

The UN has continued to promote this lie of a “Gaza Siege” while not promoting how much money they have pumped into the Gaza Strip following Operation Cast Lead. In an UNRWA report to measure the progress of UN aid 6-months after Operation Cast Lead, they reported that of the aimed goal of over $300 million they planned to give to Gaza, they had transferred almost $200 million.

Before his upcoming Gaza visit, Ban Ki Moon just returned from a visit to the earthquake devastated Haiti. There he promised the citizens more help and said the UN was leading a revised plan to raise another $1.4 billion in aid. That goal has not been met yet but what the UN did give up until the end of January was $10 million in aid.

There have been major US government officials as well, such as Congressmen Keith Ellison and Brian Baird both of which visited Sderot with the Sderot Media Center, that have promoted this idea of a “Gaza Siege.” They must be ignoring the fact that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged $900 million in aid to be sent to the Gaza Strip following Operation Cast Lead. While in a USAID and DOD report calculating the aid has been sent to the earthquake decimated Haiti, as of last month all the US Government programs gave just over $700 million in aid, nearly $200 million less the terrorist controlled Gaza Strip.

Over a year has past since Operation Cast Lead and the international community is still buying the bold faced lie about a “Gaza Siege,” while the Sderot Media Center reports over 330 rockets and mortars have hit Israel from Gaza in that same year. Five minutes away from the Erez Crossing into Gaza, Ban Ki Moon should have visited Kibbutz Netiv HaAsara where a foreign worker was murdered by a qassam rocket last Thursday and  Kibbutz Nirim to see where a rocket destroyed a building the week before, instead of working to promote a lie by visiting the Gaza Strip.

Jacob Shrybman is the Assistant Director of the Sderot Media Center, www.SderotMedia.org.il.

Although news reports have frequently described the situation in Sderot as back to normal—with real estate having gone up 20 to 30 percent, 1,400 new homes approved for construction, and families returning to the city—behind the headlines the impact of last year’s rocket war is still hammering away at the population.
Hila Barzilai, the director of the Sderot Resilience Center (Merkaz Hosen) recently told Sderot Media Center that in the past six months following Operation Cast Lead, hundreds of Sderot children have turned to the resilience center for therapy treatment.

“These kids come to us with their parents to seek therapy for the trauma built up from years of rocket attacks,” says Barzilai. “These problems did not just begin post-Operation Cast Lead. We are talking about eight years of constant rocket attacks whose psychological effects are now emerging during this period of calm.”

Over 364 new patients arrived to the resilience center six months after Operation Cast Lead, according to Barzilai.

“We do everything possible to limit the long-lasting affects of these rocket attacks but it is a long and drawn-out process.”

The average recovery period for a child can take up to eight months or more, said Barzilai. One of the challenges of trauma patients face in the recovery process are the sporadic rocket attacks that still continue to hit Sderot and the western Negev region.

Barzilai notes in frustration that “it takes one rocket attack to destroy any progress in the patient’s therapy. The siren alert will trigger the flashbacks of terror and fear in the child or adult, which means that the therapy process has to start over again.”

The over 20 Gaza rockets fired in early January 2010, bought on a new wave of trauma patients to the center according to Barzilai, who also stated that this was the resilience center’s final year of operation due to financial issues.

Barzilai is not the only health professional in Sderot who has seen a sharp increase in the number of patients suffering from health issues during the calm.

Orna Hurwitz, the director of the Sderot Bon Tone Hearing Institute, told Sderot Media Center on Monday that hearing loss has become an ailment unique to Sderot and Gaza-border residents.

“The hearing impairments suffered by residents of Sderot are akin to the hearing loss that soldiers experience during war. The repeated blasts of the rocket explosions harm the ear drum to the point that many residents have to be treated for hearing loss, dizziness, tinnitus, and/or central auditory processing disorders,” says Hurwitz.

“Many of these victims do not seek out treatment for such internal injuries immediately. After a rocket attack, the first things that are treated are the physical injuries and the shock. Less noticeable are the internal injuries. Many victims therefore fail to realize that their hearing may have also been impaired.”

“It is during the calm and quiet—like this third ceasefire with Hamas—that residents are discovering that they have been injured in other ways.”

“Hearing loss is an especially sensitive subject,” said Horowitz. “It takes time for people to process that they have a hearing problem and many are embarrassed to seek help—especially the younger victims.”

The expensive cost for the treatment is another reason why Sderot residents do not get the necessary assistance. According to Horowitz, many low-income residents simply do not have the budget to purchase a hearing aid, which can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000, or seek more professional care.

“In Sderot, we have over 200 residents with hearing impairments as a result of rocket explosions. Most cannot afford the treatment that they need to get better.”

Horowitz says that although the city appears to be returning to some semblance of normalcy, “the beautiful new parks and playgrounds do nothing to address the real health issues of residents.”

“Hearing is one of the five basic senses that human beings need to live and enjoy life to the fullest. Although things may look normal on the outside at this moment, there are many residents here who continue to suffer in silence,” she says.

“Hearing loss among my patients has led to loss of jobs, depression, and strained family ties. It’s a never-ending battle that I see Sderot residents struggle with in my office every day.”

Anav Silverman is the international correspondent at Sderot Media Center, SderotMedia.com, a social media organization dedicated to bringing the voices of Sderot residents to the attention of the global community.

In 1981, future terrorist leader and spokesman Mousa Abu Marzook began building, within the United States, a network of violence supporting Palestinian-oriented groups, which would later become the basis for a well-financed Hamas infrastructure. Today, that network has been severely crippled. However, parts of it yet exist, all of which hail from the American propaganda wing of Hamas, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), one of which is a chapter of the IAP itself.

On December 8, 2004, Joyce and Stanley Boim, an American couple, were awarded $156 million by a federal court jury for the murder of their teenage son, David, who had been shot and killed during a May 1996 Hamas terrorist operation in Israel. The four defendants who were found liable for the murder included three organizations, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the Quranic Literacy Institute (QLI), and one individual, a Chicago resident named Muhammad Salah.

Of the three organizations, only the IAP was still in existence at the time of the trial. However, that would soon change, as then-Communications Director of the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Chicago) Ahmed Rehab, in January 2006, e-mailed this author declaring that the IAP was no more.

In the time that the IAP was operating, from the years 1981 to 2005, the group had created a number of local chapters throughout the U.S., using aliases as names. These included the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine (AMELP) and the American Muslim Society (AMS).

Like the IAP, most of these groups are gone. However, there is still one chapter that is in operation, the American Muslim Society of the Tristate Area of Pennsylvania, New Jersey & Delaware (AMS Tri-State).

AMS Tri-State was established in December 2000 and incorporated the following month, in January 2001. According to the Pennsylvania Department of State, the group’s corporation is still active.

The registered address of AMS Tri-State is 1860 Montgomery Avenue, located in Villanova, Pennsylvania. It is the same address as the Foundation of Islamic Education (FIE), a satellite campus for Cairo, Egypt’s Al-Azhar University.

Since it began, AMS Tri-State has held board meetings at FIE and has held annual conferences at FIE. These conferences, which were co-sponsored by FIE, featured a number of leaders from various radical Muslim groups, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

The website address of AMS Tri-State was recently renewed, as the expiration date of it has changed from December 16, 2009 to December 16, 2010. The Registrant, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact of the site is Iftekhar Hussain. According to the website of CAIR-Pennsylvania, of which Hussain acts as Chairman of the Board, Hussain is “currently serving as Secretary General of the American Muslim Society of the Tristate Area of PA, NJ & DE.”

For Hussain to be involved with both groups is no strange coincidence, as the IAP was the parent organization of CAIR. CAIR was founded by three leaders of the IAP: IAP National President Omar Ahmad, IAP National Public Relations Director Nihad Awad, and AMS-Chicago President Rafiq Jaber, who later became IAP National President.

In fact, some can make the claim that AMS Tri-State is the parent organization of CAIR-Pennsylvania, which was established in 2004. AMS Tri-State founding Secretary General Iftekhar Hussain served as CAIR-Pennsylvania Chairman; AMS Tri-State founding President Zaheer Chaudhry served as a CAIR-Pennsylvania board member; and AMS Tri-State founding Chairman Masood Ghaznavi served as a CAIR-Pennsylvania advisor.

Remnants of Hamas, such as AMS and CAIR, exist as a cautious reminder of a violent movement that began in the 1980s and that persists to this day. Unfortunately, when the IAP was shut down in 2005, its offspring were left to flourish.

Unlike CAIR, though, which has grown to over 30 chapters across the United States, AMS Tri-State appears to be an oversight. The memory of David Boim, along with all the other innocents who have perished at the hands of Hamas, cannot be served by its continuance.

Why the IAP lingers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware is a mystery that can only be known to the group itself. And whatever the reason is, it cannot have anything but a sinister motive attached to it.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Young Zionists.

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

In its most recent response to the Goldstone report, the Israeli government has catalogued the investigations being conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces:

“Of the 150 incidents, so far 36 have been referred for criminal investigation. To date, criminal investigators have taken evidence from almost 100 Palestinian complainants and witnesses, along with approximately 500 IDF soldiers and commanders. The Paper describes some of the challenges encountered in the conduct of the investigations, including accessing evidence from battlefield situations and the need to make arrangements, together with non-governmental organizations such as B’Tselem, to locate and interview Palestinian witnesses. To address these challenges, special investigative teams have been appointed and are currently investigation complaints arising from the Gaza Operation.”

Some charges being investigated derive from the Goldstone report. Others go beyond the report. The Israeli response explains the extensive investigatory mechanisms employed by Israel, several of which are completely independent of the military chain of command. It compares the Israeli investigatory mechanisms with those of other democratic nations, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

It then discloses the results of investigations regarding several of the charges made in the Goldstone report, proving by photographic and other evidence that they are unfounded or exaggerated. Of the 150 charges investigated, “36 criminal investigations [were] opened thus far.” The investigations are ongoing.

No other democratic country in the world, with comparably thorough investigative mechanisms, would be told that it had to do more—that a judicial investigation was also required. Neither the United States nor United Kingdom have been told that a judicial inquiry, beyond the investigations already underway, must be conducted. But the Goldstone report demands that Israel and Israel alone must go beyond its normal investigative mechanism and bring in outside judges. This reflects yet another double standard.

Nonetheless, it would be prudent for Israel to conduct a completely independent judicial review. Not that its results would ever satisfy the world’s numerous Israel-bashers. It ought to be conducted to satisfy Israel and supporters of Israel that no stone has been left unturned.

Such a review could include the issuance of subpoenas to soldiers, commanders and policy makers, as in a trial. Or it could be limited to traditional “judicial review” of the findings of military investigators, as in an appeal. That should be up to the Israeli government to decide.

Whatever type of review is decided upon, it will be real—as distinguished from the so-called “investigation” conducted by Hamas, which has already decided that those who fired rockets into Israel had no intention to kill Israeli civilians. Why then did they fire the rockets when children were on the way to school? Why did they fire them in the direction of cities and towns?

What will happen if Israel conducts a probing investigation and Hamas conducts a whitewash? According to the Goldstone report, that should result in referring Hamas, but not Israel, to the International Criminal Court and other tribunals. Will that happen? Don’t hold your breath.

The reality, which any truly independent investigation of Hamas and Israel would disclose, is that many of the civilians who were killed during Operation Cast Lead were, in fact, the victims of a deliberate and willful policy of killing Palestinian civilians in order to gain a non-military advantage. The real question is who killed these civilians and who should be held responsible for their deaths.

Any fair assessment of the evidence leads to the following conclusion: Hamas deliberately conducted its terrorist activities against Israel in a manner calculated by Hamas to produce Palestinian civilian deaths from Israeli weapons. Any fair assessment of the evidence also leads to the conclusion that, while Israel loses from the death of every Palestinian civilian, Hamas gains from every such death. As Golda Meir once put it: “We can perhaps forgive you for killing our children, but we can never forgive you for making us kill your children.”

The last thing Israel wants to do is kill innocent Palestinian civilians. But every democracy is obligated to protect its own civilians from rocket attacks. The truth is that Hamas deliberately fired rockets at Israeli civilians from densely populated civilian areas precisely to put Israel to a Hobson’s choice: either do nothing and allow Israeli civilians to be subject to indiscriminate rocket attacks; or attack those who are firing the rockets, thereby assuring that there will be some Palestinian civilian deaths. The Goldstone report inverted these conclusions because of the evidentiary bias it showed in evaluating the facts. It falsely blamed Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian deaths caused, both factually and morally, by the longstanding Hamas tactic.

It is a well-accepted principle of law, both domestic and international, that when a terrorist fires from a crowded area at innocent people, and the only way the police have of stopping the terrorist from endangering innocent lives is by shooting at him—if the policeman, despite his best efforts, shoots and kills innocent civilians, the terrorist is responsible for those deaths, not the policeman. Any fair assessment of the events in Gaza must begin with that principle—a principle totally ignored by the Goldstone report.

"Explosives wash up on Israeli beaches," from CNN, February 1:

Jerusalem (CNN) -- Two barrels filled with explosives washed up on beaches in Israel on Monday, according to Israeli authorities.

Authorities disposed of both without injury.

Islamic Jihad, the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades issued a leaflet in Gaza claiming responsibility for sending three explosive devices to Ashkelon and Ashdod.

A large barrel filled with explosives was found on a beach in the Ashkelon area Monday morning. The beach was closed.

Policemen and bomb disposal experts neutralized the explosives, according to police spokesman Miki Rosenfeld.

A second barrel filled with explosives was discovered later in the day on the shore of the city of Ashdod.

Authorities conducted a controlled explosion on the second barrel. Police were combing the beaches, and nearby areas were closed to the public. Authorities have not discussed a third device.

The Israel Defense Forces, in a statement Monday, said several Palestinian groups had claimed responsibility January 29 for a maritime terrorist attack after the detonation of two sea-born explosive devices about two kilometers (1.24 miles) off the coast of Gaza....

And just imagine if the Islamic jihadis turned all this energy and ingenuity to something constructive, instead of devoting it all to devising new ways to murder people.

"Terrorists 'plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies' to foil new airport scanners," by Christopher Leake for the Mail On Sunday, January 30 (thanks to Doug):

Britain is facing a new Al Qaeda terror threat from suicide 'body bombers' with explosives surgically inserted inside them.

Until now, terrorists have attacked airlines, Underground trains and buses by secreting bombs in bags, shoes or underwear to avoid detection.

But an operation by MI5 has uncovered evidence that Al Qaeda is planning a new stage in its terror campaign by inserting 'surgical bombs' inside people for the first time.

Security services believe the move has been prompted by the recent introduction at airports of body scanners, which are designed to catch terrorists before they board flights.

It is understood MI5 became aware of the threat after observing increasingly vocal internet 'chatter' on Arab websites this year.

The warning comes in the wake of the failed attempt by London-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day.

One security source said: 'If the terrorists are talking about this, we need to be ready and do all we can to counter the threat.'

A leading source added that male bombers would have the explosive secreted near their appendix or in their buttocks, while females would have the material placed inside their breasts in the same way as figure-enhancing implants.

Experts said the explosive PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate) would be placed in a plastic sachet inside the bomber's body before the wound was stitched up like a normal operation incision and allowed to heal.

A shaped charge of 8oz of PETN can penetrate five inches of armour and would easily blow a large hole in an airliner....

The Goldstone Report is much more scurrilous than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. According to the report, Israel used the more than 8,000 rocket attacks on its civilians merely as a pretext, an excuse, a cover for the real purpose of Operation Cast Lead, which was to target innocent Palestinian civilians—children, women, the elderly—for death.  This criminal objective was explicitly decided upon by the highest levels of the Israeli government and military and constitutes a deliberate and willful war crime.  The report found these serious charges “to be firmly based in fact” and had “no doubt” of their truth.

In contrast, the Mission decided that Hamas was not guilty of deliberately and willfully using the civilian population as human shields.  It found “no evidence” that Hamas fighters “engaged in combat in civilian dress,” “no evidence” that “Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack,” and no support for the claim that mosques were used to store weapons.

The report is demonstrably wrong about both of these critical conclusions.  The hard evidence conclusively proves that the exact opposite is true, namely that:

[1] Israel did not have a policy of targeting innocent civilians for death.  Indeed the IDF went to unprecedented lengths to minimize civilian casualties; and

[2] That Hamas did have a deliberate policy of having its combatants dress in civilian clothing, fire their rockets from densely populated areas, use civilians as human shields, and store weapons in mosques.

What is even more telling than its erroneous conclusions, however, is its deliberately skewed methodology, particularly the manner in which it used and evaluated similar evidence very differently, depending on whether it favored the Hamas or Israeli side.

I have written a detailed analysis of the Goldstone Methodology, which is now available online.  It is being sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations for inclusion in critiques of the Goldstone report received by the United Nations.  This analysis documents the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.  It demonstrates that the evidence relied on by the report, as well as the publicly available evidence it deliberately chose to ignore, disproves its own conclusions.

The central issue that distinguishes the conclusions the Goldstone Report reached regarding Israel, on the one hand, and Hamas, on the other, is intentionality.  The report finds that the most serious accusation against Israel, namely the killing of civilians, was intentional (and deliberately planned at the highest levels).  The report also finds that the most serious accusations made against Hamas, namely that their combatants wore civilian clothing to shield themselves from attack, mingled among the civilian populations and used civilians as human shields, was unintentional.

These issues are, of course, closely related.  If it were to turn out that there was no evidence that Hamas ever operated from civilians areas, and that the IDF knew this, then the allegation that the IDF, by firing into civilian areas, deliberately intended to kill Palestinian civilians, would be strengthened.  But if it were to turn out that the IDF reasonably believed that Hamas fighters were deliberately using civilians as shields, then this fact would weaken the claim that the IDF had no military purpose in firing into civilian areas.  Moreover, if Hamas did use human shields then the deaths of Palestinian civilian shields would be more justly attributable to Hamas then to Israel.

Since intentionality, or lack thereof, was so important to the report’s conclusions, it would seem essential that the report would apply the same evidentiary standards, rules and criteria in determining the intent of Israel and in determining the intent of Hamas.  Yet a careful review of the report makes it crystal clear that its writers applied totally different standards, rules and criteria in evaluating the intent of the parties to the conflict.  The report resolved doubts against Israel in concluding that its leaders intended to kill civilians, while resolving doubts in favor of Hamas in concluding that it did not intend to use Palestinian civilians as human shields.  Moreover, when it had precisely the same sort of evidence in relation to both sides—for example, statements by leaders prior to the commencement of the operation—it attributed significant weight to the Israeli statements, while entirely discounting comparable Hamas statements.  This sort of evidentiary bias, though subtle, permeates the entire report.

In addition to the statements of leaders, which are treated so differently, the report takes a completely different view regarding the inferring of intent from action.  When it comes to Israel, the report repeatedly looks to results and infers from the results that they must have been intended.  But when it comes to Hamas, it refuses to draw inferences regarding intent from results.  For example, it acknowledges that some combatants wore civilian clothes, and it offers no reasonable explanation for why this would be so other than to mingle indistinguishably from civilians.  Yet it refuses to infer intent from these actions.

Highly relevant to the report’s conclusion that militants did not intend for their actions to shield themselves from counterattack is that the Mission was “unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purpose,” “did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities,”  did not find evidence “that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes,” and did not find “that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat actives from United Nations facilities that were used as shelters during the military operations.”

There is, however, hard evidence that Hamas did operate in mosques and, at the very least, near hospitals.  Circumstantial evidence (precise weaponry) was used to prove Israeli intent.  Regarding Hamas, the circumstantial evidence even stronger in inferring intent.  It is beyond obvious that militants do not fire rockets in the vicinity of mosques or hospitals because it is easier to launch rockets near community institutions.  Rather, they do so only because of the special protections afforded to hospitals and religious centers in war.

The report—commissioned by an organization with a long history of anti-Israel bigotry, and written by biased “experts,” with limited experience and a pre-ordained result—is one-sided and wrong in its fundamental conclusions.  This should not be surprising since conclusions can be no better than the methodology employed, and the methodology employed in this report is fundamentally flawed.

So now it is up to Richard Goldstone to explain the evidentiary bias that is so obviously reflected in the report, and that is documented in my lengthier analysis available online.  The burden is on him to justify the very different methodologies used in the report to arrive at its conclusions regarding the intentions of Israel and the intentions of Hamas.  Failure to assume that burden will constitute an implicit admission that the conclusions reached in the Goldstone report are not worthy of consideration by people of good will.

The past year brought a fresh wave of anti-Israel rhetoric and accusations, most of which cited Israel’s “siege” of Gaza during last winter’s Operation Cast Lead as evidence of Israel’s injustice toward the Palestinians. The international press frequently echoed calls by human rights groups and activists to “end Israel’s illegal blockade” and “liberate Gaza.” Such messages have been conceived to undermine Israel and present a very misleading picture of the actual Gaza conflict.

In a typical blockade, no supplies would be allowed to enter into enemy territory. Similarly, most English dictionaries define siege as an “act or process of surrounding and attacking a fortified place in such a way as to isolate it from help and supplies.” But in fact Israel has allowed substantial shipments of aid into Gaza. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ website has reported that in 2009 alone, Israel allowed 703, 224 tons of humanitarian aid and 105,600,128 liters of fuel to be delivered into the Gaza Strip following Operation Cast Lead.

“The IDF invested major resources to enable the flow of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip,” said Col. Moshe Levi, the head of the IDF’s Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, in November 2009. According to Levi, humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip increased by 900 percent compared to the previous year. Over 22, 893 humanitarian aid trucks entered into Gaza throughout 2009.

All of this has been pointedly ignored by Israel’s critics. Most recently, the Gaza Freedom March illustrated the way in which pro-Palestinian organizations and left-wing groups have been able to use the international press and media to communicate their Gaza narrative using the “blockade” and “siege” narrative. Organized by Code Pink’s co-founder, Medea Benjamin, who also happens to be Jewish, the Gaza Freedom March received worldwide media attention as protestors set to break the “siege” of Gaza.

The march was able to attract some well-known celebrities, like Roger Walters of Pink Floyd and American novelist Alice Walker. But it was not the support of these two celebrities and others like them that attracted the attention of the press. The Gaza Freedom March organizers had Hedy Epstein, an 85-year old Holocaust survivor and pro-Palestinian activist affiliated with the radical International Solidarity Movement, put in the spotlight for their cause. When Epstein declared a hunger strike to support the Gaza Freedom March, she became an instant international poster girl for the march and made headlines across the world. In its reports about the Gaza Freedom March, the Huffington Post quoted Epstein explaining her support for the Palestinians by likening Israel to Nazi Germany. “[E]everything is due to the Holocaust,” Epstein explained. “But Israel is not being persecuted now. Israel is now the persecutor.”

Unfortunately, those who support the Gaza Freedom March and Palestinian rights, like Hedy Epstein and Medea Benjamin, disregard the other side of the Mideast conflict. Operation Cast Lead took place to stop the thousands of Gaza rockets striking Israeli schools, playgrounds, homes and communities each year. Equally absurd is the way such groups ignore Israeli policies that are set to ensure Palestinians’ access to humanitarian aid and goods – despite the fact that Palestinian terror attacks continue on the Israeli border crossings through which these goods pass.

The original intention of the Gaza Freedom March protestors was to demonstrate that Israel was the sole cause of hardship for Gaza’s Palestinians. Inadvertently, the Gaza Freedom March actually brought to light the siege-like policies of Hamas, the extremist Islamic regime that took over Gaza in 2007.

Haaretz reported earlier this month the Hamas government imposed a “siege” of its own on Gaza residents, prohibiting them from providing lodgings to several hundred international protestors. According to the article, “tough, Hamas security men,” accompanied the peaceful activists during their visit to Gaza and blocked them from speaking with ordinary Gazan residents. “The march turned into nothing more than a ritual, an opportunity for Hamas cabinet ministers to get decent media coverage in the company of Western demonstrators. Hamas hijacked the initiative and we gave in,” said one protestor quoted in the article.

There were barely any Palestinians who took part in the Gaza Freedom March, and absolutely no Palestinian women. Italian photojournalist Anna Selini reported that most of the marchers were international supporters. “Hamas did not encourage, even discouraged local people from participating,” Selini said. Haaretz has similarly reported that activists got the impression that “non-Hamas residents live in fear, and are afraid to speak or identify themselves by name.

This is not surprising. In December 2008, the Hamas parliament imposed Islamic Sharia law onto the Palestinian judicial system. Hamas punishments for Palestinian offenders include whipping, severing hands for stealing, crucifixion and even hanging. Few if any among the 1,300 international protestors of Israel’s alleged repression of Gaza realized that their message of freedom for Gaza would have been far more effective had it been directed towards Hamas.

Anav Silverman is the international correspondent for Sderot Media Center, a social media organization dedicated to bringing the voices of Sderot and Negev residents to the attention of the global community. ]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/25/eyeless-in-gaza/feed/ 30 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/shocker-iran-formally-rejects-latest-iaea-proposal-for-compromise-on-nuke-program.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/shocker-iran-formally-rejects-latest-iaea-proposal-for-compromise-on-nuke-program.html#comments Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:02:48 +0000 Marisol Back in December, one report stated: "The [Obama] administration had given a rough deadline of the end of 2009 for Iran to respond to an offer of engagement and show that it would allay world concerns about its nuclear program."

It's 2010 now, and Operation "Don't Just Do Something, Sit There!" continues. "Iran rejects heart of nuclear proposal," by George Jahn for the Associated Press, January 19:

VIENNA - Iran has told the head of the U.N. nuclear agency that it does not accept an international proposal committing it to quickly export most of the material it would need to make a nuclear warhead, diplomats said Tuesday.

For months, Iranian officials have used the media to criticize the plan backed by most of the world's major powers and to offer alternatives to one of its main conditions -- that the Islamic republic ship out most of its stock of enriched uranium and then wait for up to a year for its return in the form of fuel rods for its Tehran research reactor.

While critical of such statements, the United States and its allies noted that Iran had yet to respond to the International Atomic Agency regarding the plan, first drawn up in early October in a landmark meeting in Geneva between Iran and the six world powers, and then refined later that month in Vienna talks among Iran, the U.S., Russia and France.

But Iran now also has told the IAEA -- which chaired the Vienna talks -- that it wants an alternative to the plan. Its version effectively rejects the key demand that it agree to a tight timetable in shipping out most of its enriched uranium supply, said the diplomats.

The talks in Vienna came up with a draft proposal that would take 70 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium to reduce its stockpile of material that could be enriched to a higher level, and possibly be used to make nuclear weapons.

That uranium would be returned about a year later as refined fuel rods, which can power reactors but cannot be readily turned into weapons-grade material. Iran maintains its nuclear program is only for the peaceful purpose of generating energy.

The Geneva talks grouped the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany around the negotiating table with Iran. Diplomats from three of those big powers said Tuesday that Iran's counterproposal to the IAEA was essentially a rehash of an already publicly floated offer that fell far short of the six nations' expectations....

But hey, it bought them more time.

In its four years of existence,The Huffington Post (aka “HuffPost”) has grown from obscurity into the world’s most-visited blogsite, and one of America’s most popular news sites. It now has more monthly visitors than the Washington Post, and is supported by some of the largest advertisers in the world. Its representatives have been allowed to ask questions at presidential press conferences, and one was even given preferential treatment. It now enjoys access to, and influence over, the top levels of the U.S. government. Top members of the U.S. Senate are among HuffPost’s official bloggers, including John Kerry, Carl Levin, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer and others.

A significant reason for HuffPost’s success and “legitimization” are its claims that it is a nonpartisan “newspaper,” dedicated to “ferret(ing) out the truth,” and “debunking the left-right way of thinking.”

HuffPost also claims to be non-partisan in its moderation of user comments. Arianna Huffington, the site’s founder and Editor-In-Chief, claims HuffPost has “a zero tolerance policy” for hate speech, and that it acts vigilantly to keep its comment threads free of offensive content, 24-7.

Unfortunately, HuffPost consistently “frames” news stories in such a way that incites anti-Israel perceptions and hatred. Further, in violation of its own policies, it approves and tolerates user comments submitted in response to these stories that contain incendiary, hate-filled libels against Israelis and Jews, as well as links to anti-Semitic hate websites.

Given the fact that an estimated 135,000 of Huffington Post’s unique monthly visitors reside in Iran and Pakistan, there is great concern among informed observers that its incitement against Israel influences perceptions far outside the United States.

This report, the result of three years of observation, documents:

• Numerous examples of Huffington Post’s incitement of anti-Israel perceptions, and the defamatory user comments that have appeared on the site in response, with special focus on Israel’s recent Operation Cast Lead.

• The fact that many of the most egregious violators of Huffington Post’s stated policies, including some of its most prolific anti-Semitic propagandists, remain active users – some, with tens of thousands of comments in their archives.

• The fact that contrary to Huffington Post’s public statements, since at least March 2008, it has been pre-moderating all user comments, meaning that all of the hateful and defamatory comments that appear have been approved by its moderators.

All of the following anti-Semitic user comments were published after HuffPost announced, in March 2008, that the only comments that would appear on its site are those that a human moderator had reviewed, approved and made the decision to publish. Ms. Huffington confirmed this fact, several months later.

“Jews are evil. Israel runs the world. Lets kill ‘em all and give the land back to Islam; result-perpetual peace. Seig Heil.”
By “pedrothemigrant,” 5/23/08

“Funny how [Israelis] had NO problem with wiping the [Palestinians] off the face of the earth until they discovered they might actually be able to strike back in a meaningful way. proof that bullies like this are nothing but cowards.”
By “peacekitten,” 1/2/09

“There’s a reason they [Jews] have been the most problematic group for thousands of years.”
By “Amennyc,” 1/4/09

“[W]omen holding limp little bodies of children in their hands, crying, as an Israeli soldier aims an AK.-47 at her head. With each civilian casualty Israel gets closer to the regime in Germany that provided the impetus for the creation of Israel.”
By “SkepticHume,” 1/3/09

“Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am, stuck in the middle with Jooooz [Jews]“
By “JamesR.,” 11/22/08

“They [Jews] all need to be rounded up and gassed.”
By “markoze,” 12/30/08

Perhaps more shockingly, all of these comments were posted by users whose accounts are still active (they have not been banned), some of whom HuffPost has allowed to post thousands of additional comments. This stands in stark contrast to the fact that HuffPost routinely bans other users who don’t violate its policies — some after as few as six comments — but dare to challenge or mock the radical leftists that the site attracts.

These comments are representative of thousands of others containing anti-Semitic and Israel-bashing libels, hate and propaganda that have been published on HuffPost in recent years. Columbia University professor Lincoln Mitchell recently claimed that on nearly every HuffPost news story concerning international affairs, regardless of the topic, he and his friends usually find that it takes no more than ten comments before its users are finding a way to blame Jews.

The most incendiary of these comments are usually submitted in response to “news” stories that HuffPost publishes regarding Israel, which it consistently “frames” in ways that incite inaccurate and unjustifiably negative perceptions of the Jewish state, and particularly its military. HuffPost does this primarily through the use of inflammatory, decontextualized headlines and headline imagery, and biased “news” sources. Examples of this incitement include:

• Its daily depiction of Israel’s incursion into Gaza in December 2008, in which it cast Israeli soldiers as thuggish villains, Palestinian civilians as their targets, and Hamas terrorists (often labeled as “security forces”) as victims. One example of this was its headline on 12/29/08 that featured a picture of a dead Muslim toddler, alongside text that claimed, “Israeli assault targets symbols of Hamas power.”

• Its headline story on 3/11/09 featured Charles Freeman’s claims that a Jewish conspiracy led him to withdraw his nomination to a national security post. HuffPost did not post any indication of the broad, bipartisan opposition to his nomination.

• It uncritically uses biased Arabic “news” sources – including the jihadist-celebrating al Jazeera (also a past HuffPost advertiser) – as single-sources for its headlines. One example was its 5/29/09 article that used a little-known Arabic “news” source’s account of what it described as an “activist” that was killed by the Israeli military. 24 hours earlier, the “activist” was identified by CNN as a suspect in several deadly terror attacks, and that the Israeli military had attempted to arrest him. Instead, he opened fire on them, and was killed. None of this was covered in HuffPost’s depiction of the incident.

• Its prominent positioning on 8/19/09 of a blood libel against Israel — that it murders Palestinians in order to harvest their organs — even though the “reporter” behind the story admitted in the article that he has “no idea… no clue” if the allegations are true or not. Soon thereafter, credible sources determined that these allegations were physically impossible, and further discredited the “reporter.” Yet HuffPost gave these stories little to no “play” (certainly nowhere near the prominence of the original blood libel).

Given the growing resurgence of anti-Semitism worldwide, HuffPost — like every other “legitimized,” advertiser-supported “newspaper” — is obliged to ensure that its “news” stories concerning Israel are fact-based and contextual. Further, HuffPost is obligated to enforce its nonpartisan comment moderation policy. In both of these regards, HuffPost is failing profoundly.

It is hoped that this detailed report will spur HuffPost to take corrective measures to ensure that it is living up to its self-proclaimed standards, particularly in regards to Israeli and Jewish affairs.

Click here to read the full report.

via Bret Stephens: Can Intelligence Be Intelligent? – WSJ.com.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the media reported ALL the news from the front, rather than just the bad news?

War is horrible of course, but even under terrible conditions, our troops have made much progress thus far, and they’re justly proud of what they’ve accomplished. As a former Marine myself, I tend to pay extra attention to news about The Corps, and have strong paternal feelings for those terrific kids serving today. The following letter from a company commander in Afghanistan was just forwarded to me by one of my fellow Vietnam vets. Marines are trained to improvise, overcome & adapt, and  they’re certainly earning their pay right now. In The Corps we like to say that our job is to take bullets for civilians. I’ve never been more proud of  my boys than I am right now.

Letter from an in-country Company Commander of the Third Battalion, Fourth Marines.

I finally have a minute to sit down and write a letter concerning the 
past few weeks here in Now Zad. I wanted to make sure that I got the word
out to everyone, so please send this out to friends and family that I may 
have missed on the distro list. I first want to say how incredibly proud of 
my boys I am. These Marines have been amazing and continue to be amazing.
 Between them and the amazing support staff that we have in 3/4 that allows
 us to do quite literally whatever we want to the Taliban, this has almost 
been an easy operation. Here are the up sides:

1) Not a single Marine was killed or seriously wounded during this 
operation.

2) We have taken more ground, run off more Taliban, liberated more 
villages, and seized more weapons and Home Made Explosives than has ever
happened in Now Zad. One of the caches of HME that we blew up was over 1100
lbs of HME (for a reference, that’s over 16 “Mine-Proof” vehicles completely
destroyed) and it was the largest find in Helmand Province. Ever.

3) We air inserted two companies, behind enemy lines, while my company
went straight up the gut of the enemy’s defense on the ground. The enemy
was so terrified that he abandoned his stockpiles and ran away to where he
thought he was safe. Some of them ran right into the arms of the British 
Battalion to our East, some of them we have hunted down since they ran.
More importantly, we have begun to HOLD the ground by immediately building
coalition positions in strategic locations all over the valley and
partnering with the local Police and Army units. Let’s not forget, the 
infantry is a TERRAIN based organization. We don’t have to kill people in
order to do our job, only if those people don’t want us on that specific
piece of dirt and wants to come get a taste.

4) We aggressively sought out and crushed a Murder and Intimidation
racket that was going on in our AO. (M&I campaigns are used when the enemy 
has no other tactic but overwhelming fear to instill on the local 
population. The ‘night letters’ that were being delivered said things like:
”If you accept help from Coalition Forces we will kill your children one by
 one…” Except that Marines got to the letter writers first. Whammy.

5) We have re-opened a once deserted town to the people and have begun 
to pay them to clean it up. Quick cash infusion + Heavy labor for young men
+ promise of more work = no young guys re-enlisting in the Taliban. One of 
the key components of this plan was to instantly follow up with a Civil 
Affairs Group that would handle local national problems that weren’t related 
to the Taliban (food, shelter, work, etc…)

6) We have begun Medical Programs for the locals with what supplies we
 have. Those supplies are limited, but they are able to cover things like
 burns, and kids stepping on mines (yes, we MedEvac them just like we would a 
Marine), and skin rashes, and even an infant with pneumonia who is just
 fine, now.

7) Our engineers breached a mine-field that had completely frozen other 
forces. Our Danish friends brought some tanks to help us out and they were
 able to break up one or two ambushes for us. Nothing is cooler than getting 
ambushed and having tanks with you to respond. Nothing.

Your Marines stayed on point, in the freezing cold weather, with the 
rain soaking them to the bone, to hunt down the Taliban who had been
abusing, killing, and stealing from the people of the Now Zad Valley.

9) We are bringing back government into Now Zad, so people have an 
alternative than the Taliban to settle their legal disputes, and have
someone to hold accountable for a lack of medical coverage, and to go to
 with their grievances about farming and commerce and security. They won’t 
NEED us to hold them up any longer.
 If all of this sounds like hubris, maybe it is. But I’m so proud of my 
Company and my Battalion for the planning and the execution and the follow
through that they have done. Be proud of your Marines, they did good work in December.

Merry Christmas to everyone. Much Love to all, let your friends know, we’re winning and it feels good.

Related posts:

1. You’re Fired! Open Letter to the Men of Afghanistan
2. Cable News Fleshes Out Afghanistan Quagmire – Are Congressional Democrats Listening?
3. Afghanistan: 52 Days And Still Waiting For A Decision

Rome, December 29 - Two Italian soldiers were slightly injured in Afghanistan Tuesday when an Afghan soldier taking part in an allied operation opened fire, killing one American soldier, the defense ministry reported here.

The incident was said to have taken place in Bala Morghab, in the western province of Herat, while members of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), together with Afghan army regulars, were unloading a supply helicopter.

The injured Italians were treated for their wounds by medics on hand and returned to duty, the defense ministry said. The Afghan soldier who shot the Italians and killed the American, and was himself injured when ISAF force returned fire, was arrested, according to reports from Afghanistan....

If a major homegrown terrorist attack happens on U.S. soil in the coming years, 2009 will be looked at as the year when the warning signs were missed. According to the Rand Corporation, the U.S. has experienced 30 homegrown terrorism plots since 9/11. One-third of these occurred in 2009; a frightening spike that warrants more attention than it is currently being given by public officials.

The Obama Administration began its term by refusing to include terms like “radical Islam” as part of its lexicon. The Global War on Terrorism was alternatively called an “overseas contingency operation” or “a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.”

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, described terrorism as a “man-caused disaster. When asked about not even mentioning the word “terrorism” in her first address to Congress, she said, “That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear towards a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

The homegrown terrorist activity this year has startled the Obama Administration, which now is forced to privately conclude that the radicalization of American-Muslims is increasing.

In today’s 30-second news culture, shocking incidents such as these quickly fade away as the topic of coverage as other news develops. A summary of some of the biggest incidents this year is needed for the American people to understand how much activity took place:

* In May, authorities broke up a plot by four prison converts to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and fire Stinger missiles at aircraft flying around the Air National Guard base in Newburgh, New York.

* On June 1, a Muslim convert shot up a military recruiting center in Arkansas, killing one soldier and wounding another. The attacker, Abdulhakim Muhammad, was previously jailed in Yemen for traveling on a fraudulent Somali passport. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org reported that a “well-placed source” informed him that he had gone to Yemen to try to study under a radical cleric named Yahya Hajoori.

* In July, seven Muslims were arrested in North Carolina for training with high-powered weapons in preparation to join a jihad overseas. The leader of the group, Daniel Patrick Boyd, had previously trained in guerilla camps in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and enlisted his two sons in his plans.

* In September, FBI and local law enforcement raided two apartments owned by Afghans in New York after the occupants were visited by Najibullah Zazi, a suspected terrorist who had traveled to an Al-Qaeda training camp last year. Nine backpacks and cell phones were confiscated, and Zazi was found to have purchased chemicals similar to those used in the 2005 London subway bombings, causing concern that the suspects were planning an attack styled after that operation.

* Also in September, FBI sting operations led to the arrest of two desiring to carry out acts of terror. A Jordanian named Michael Finton, an admirer of the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh, was arrested for planning to set off car bombs outside of a courthouse in Illinois and a skyscraper in Texas. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi was arrested in Texas after trying to detonate a decoy car bomb underneath an office tower.

* In October, the FBI tried to arrest a radical imam in Detroit connected to a range of criminal activity. When they arrived at a warehouse to get Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, he responded with gunfire, killing one of the FBI’s dogs before he was shot and killed. Six of his associates were arrested. In the same month, Tarek Mehanna was arrested in Boston for planning to attack a shopping mall and assassinate two public officials.

* The next month, Nidal Malik Hassan carried out the horrific shooting at Fort Hood, killing 13 people. He is now known to have previously expressed his support for suicide bombers and to have communicated with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical imam in Yemen who has acted as a recruiter for Al-Qaeda and praised Hassan’s shooting. To this day, President Obama and senior officials have not publicly described the incident as terrorism.

* Most recently, five Americans were arrested in Pakistan on their way to link up with the Al-Qaeda and Taliban. They were arrested at the home of a member of the Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorist group, who is the uncle to one of the suspects.

These are only some of the major incidents related to radical Islamic activity in the U.S. that occurred this year. A total of 14 Somali-Americans from Minnesota have been indicted for helping to recruit fellow members of their community to join the Al-Shabaab terrorist group fighting for control of Somalia. The case of Rifqa Bary received considerable attention, as did the honor killing in Arizona of a daughter by her father for being “too Westernized.”

The Christian Action Network, where I serve as a national security researcher, released the “Homegrown Jihad” documentary in February about the isolated communities in the U.S. run by a radical Islamic group used as paramilitary training and recruitment centers. A new tape provided to me as part of CAN’s investigation into the group called “Muslims of the Americas” shows female recruits of the organization receiving such training at their headquarters in New York called “Islamberg.”

The media is failing to compile all these events and see the frightening increase that the Obama Administration is now admitting exists. When the problem is mentioned, the ideological component is not discussed or is misunderstood. On December 12, Kimberly Dozier reported on the Obama Administration’s realization regarding the problem on CBS Evening News, but attributed the rise in homegrown terrorism to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying they were “portrayed by the militants as America’s war on Islam.”

Dozier also said that “Muslim community leaders here say young people are also being driven to extremes by post-9/11 anti-Muslim propaganda” and cited the Council on American-Islamic Relations as saying that civil rights complaints by Muslims have increased by ten percent in 2009, attempting to draw a connection between bigotry against Muslims and homegrown terrorism. If Dozier had done her research on her source, she would have found that the view of the War on Terror as a war on Islam that she says is causing the increase in homegrown terrorism is actually promoted by CAIR.

2009 should put to rest the idea that any homegrown terrorist plot is an isolated incident. The participants in these plots might not be operationally connected, but a political-religious ideology binds them together. The fight for the home front continues into 2010.

The warrant charged Ms. Livni—the current leader of the Knesset opposition—with war crimes allegedly committed by Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last winter. Ms. Livni and other Israeli leaders have always staunchly defended their operation against Hamas, and the arrest warrant was withdrawn Monday when it became clear Ms. Livni would not be in Britain as previously scheduled. But the fallout from this misguided warrant will linger long after it fades from the headlines.

Universal jurisdiction originated centuries ago to deal with hostes humani generis (“the enemies of all mankind”) such as pirates or slavers, who were not under any state’s control but legitimately concerned them all. It has grown explosively in recent years, as self-styled human-rights advocates have pushed to criminalize national actions that they find offensive.

via John Bolton: Democracy Under Arrest – WSJ.com.