Was the Israeli 'Peace Flotilla' Raid Botched?

Today comes news of multiple deaths as a result of the Israelis taking over the 'Peace Flotilla' ships. The media is calling it a botched raid, given the deaths.

I just wonder how the media thinks the Israelis were expected to stop the flotilla when the flotilla was committed to not stop for any reason. Simple fact, they were told to stop and ignored the warning. This is how bad things happen.

Worse, it is clear that some of the people onboard the vessels took it upon themselves to take on the commandos. Surely, they were convinced that the commandos would not use deadly force. This is a really bad assumption to make, especially given that they already think that the Israelis are indiscriminately killing off Palestinians. I am not suggesting that they are. I am just saying that the 'peace' protesters believe this. And it is this belief that they should have taken into account before engaging in this deadly adventure.

I would think that the goal of the commandos was to avoid injuries. I can't say that I believe the same of the protesters. After all, they can prove useful as a propaganda tool. This case is no exception as outrage grows over the casualties. I do not know the intentions of those who are now dead, but I do know that they have each taken the role of being useful idiots for the cause they were supporting. For shame on the people who took advantage of them.

Instant update:
Do these look like useful idiots to you? Clearly the Israeli commandos were attacked as they boarder the vessel. It is a wonder that more of the protesters are not dead.

---

Click hear to see a larger size.
---
Much more coverage over at the Jawa Report here and here.

-------------------- --------------------

Anchor Countries

One dream, especially in Europe, is of the future society, a Modern Society. Part of getting there, for them, was the formation of the European Union. The EU would fulfill many goals for getting to this Modern Society, including fostering a healthy growing economy, standardization of all sorts of things, facilitate free trade and eliminate the threat of wars with the eventual benefit of not needing military forces.

The United Nations was also setup for many similar reasons. While maybe not including the Modern Society, surely for the advance of mankind in the lesser-developed parts of the world, which in itself helps the rest of us advance even farther.

The world can easily be on the path to a modern society with the United States around. Most likely, the US will be a major contributor of what is required to get us to the level of a modern society. For all the criticism, the US does way more good that bad. The good being the norm and the bad being the exception. Even with the bad, the US goes to great lengths to correct any wrongs its responsible for.

Then you have these countries here listed below. They are examples of what is wrong with this planet. Some of them are bad actors. Others are taking advantage of the situation by protecting them from sanctions. Nonetheless, the result is Governments that really have no place in a modern society. Good lucking reaching a Utopia with them guys around. So here is a short list on the countries I believe are preventing the World from evolving into a much better place.

The Bad States:

Zimbabwe - Total self-destruction
Venezuela - Actions that will take it down the similar path that Zimbabwe took
Cuba - Communist oppression
Sudan - Genocide
North Korea - Communist oppression, State-sponsor of terrorism
Iran - State-sponsor of terrorism
Syria - State-sponsor of terrorism
Mexico - Exporting its population

Then you have the countries that Should Know Better:

Spain - Backing Cuba's human rights abuses. Support of Venezuela, ......

China - Backing of Sudan, Burma's Myanmar Government and North Korea. Lack of human rights.

Russia - The Russian mafia is infamous for its ruthlessness. Now we have Putin's Russia acting like mafia thugs. Executing unfriendly media. Sending assassins abroad. Using energy supplies as a weapon. Ignoring their responsibilities to clean up the nuclear waste in their own backyard, instead leaving the West to pay for it. This attitude goes back to the foundation of the post-communist Russia, when they demanded that Poland pay the expense of withdrawing the Russian Army from Poland. Providing Iran with nuclear technology and weapons.

South Africa - Demands that African countries alone should deal with African problems yet does nothing to stop Zimbabwe's downward spiral other then demand that other nations not act.

Two of the countries listed above are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. When the UN fails to adopt a resolution against a 'rogue' state, it is normally one of these two that stopped the UN from acting.

Putin and Ahmadinejad - Each the other's most Useful Idiot

Speaking of the United Nations:

This is the one entity that was supposed to help lift the world towards the modern society. Instead, it is helping countries drift down to the lowest common denominator. This is the Organization that protects the 'rights' of the countries listed above to abuse their own populations (In violation of UN Conventions) as well as abandon them while the leadership sucks the country dry of assets. This is great for the UN, which can then better reinforce its own need by assuming the responsibility to provide for these people, through the World Food Program and UN Development Program. This may even give those causing the tragedy another income source if the aid agencies pay bribes or facilitation fees to get aid to those they wish to help. Worse, a good portion of the aid may never reach those they intend to help, instead being diverted, again to Government authorities.

United Nations Human Rights Council

This council knows of no human rights violation on this planet other than those claimed to be committed by Israel.

The council is so problematic that even the new UN Secretary General has criticized its work.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Western nations on Wednesday in criticizing the world body's own Human Rights Council for "picking on Israel" as part of an agreement on its working rules.

The European Union, Canada and the United States have already attacked the deal reached in Geneva on Monday under which Israel's actions would become a permanent item on the Human Rights Council's agenda.

A UN statement said: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world." (June, 2007) - Haaretz

Now these anchor countries claim that positions like mine above are typical of the Western Nations meddling in their internal affairs while at the same time blaming the Western nations for any problems they might admit to having. Yet as bad and imperialistic as it sounds, the world would be a much better place, if these third-world countries would be a little bit more like the United States. (Or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, Ireland, Estonia...)

And finally, lets not forget the International Press, which in many cases completely fails to investigate the countries above, or fails to report information damaging to these rogue state. Take this one recent example during an interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad:

When an Israeli journalist asked him something, he just smiled and said: "Next question."

Then the wife of an Israeli soldier abducted by Hizbullah got up and asked Iran to cooperate with the Red Cross to discover his fate. But her question was ignored, and she was drowned out by more questions. - Guardian (As spotted at LGF)

There would far fewer problems in the world if the press reported the news fairly and accurately, instead of distorting stories and sitting on others. Of course, they would not get such a free pass if it were not for all the moonbats parroting their false messages. The Israeli soldiers held hostage by Hamas and Hizbullah is a perfect example.

We have a far way to go before we reach that Modern society as long as these parties listed above have anything to do with it.

Hamas About to be Wiped out by Invisible Force

I had written the following in my post "Really Damaging the UN's Image, Respectability and Credibility - II "

UN Mideast Envoy - Misdirected efforts

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Mideast envoy warned Wednesday of impending economic collapse in the Gaza Strip unless Israel reopens the Hamas-led territory’s main commercial crossing to the outside world to ease international isolation. - LGF

This is kind of amusing. HAMAS violently takes control of the Gaza Strip. They refuse to recognize Israel. They kidnap Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit, killing two other soldiers in the process and have held him hostage for over a year. Yet none of this is a problem for the UN. There is no reason why Israel should reopen the border crossings without some sort of outreach emanating from HAMAS. Maybe the Israelis are waiting to get their soldier back. Maybe they are waiting for a statement confirming their recognition of Israel. The UN's Envoy should perhaps be spending his time talking to HAMAS, pointing out that Israel is prepared to starve them all out. After all, HAMAS thinks that they are capable of doing this. Might as well take advantage of it. One problem, since when has HAMAS been concerned with economic collapse in the Gaza Strip? Not that they have to. They have the UN to be concerned for them. - FFI

Apparently the UN Envoy's plea was not loud enough, so they had to try again:

Gaza could become completely dependant on aid within weeks because of economic damage caused by Israeli restrictions on border crossings, the UN has said.

All 600 garment factories in Gaza have closed, because they cannot import raw materials, a UN relief agency said.

And more than 90% of factories involved in the construction industry have shut down and laid off workers. - BBC

Well this is to be expected as those who are currently in charge of Gaza have an open policy of not recognizing Israel and fight for its destruction. They also continue to hold Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit hostage. So, if anything, Hamas needs to make the next move. At the moment they don't seem too interested in doing so.

You see, Hamas is using the population of the Gaza Strip as hostages. This gives the UN an excuse to rush to their aid which benefits Hamas. They are after all getting their food from the UN like everyone else in Gaza. What do you think would happen if the UN refused to give militants food, provided they could even identify them?

So Israel should continue to increase pressure on the Gaza Government. Since most of the Gaza population is currently dependant on UN food aid, I would reduce the number of aid trucks permitted into Gaza each day by one. That will at least force some sort of conclusion to this standoff.

At the moment, Hamas's strategy of denying the existance of Israel looks like a sure loser. Just who do they think is starving them out?

Really Damaging the UN's Image, Respectability and Credibility - II

Here is an update our earlier post "Really Damaging the UN's Image, Respectability and Credibility" with a new crop of UN related persons who have clearly damaged the Image, Respectability and Credibility of the UN:

UN in Lebanon - Verification of Syria's "complete withdrawal" from Lebanon, including the border areas was a lie.

Mr. Ban's report is notable for its clarity and seriousness. Taken together with the border report, it paints an alarming picture. Though the land grabs are small affairs individually, they collectively add up to an area amounting to about 4% of Lebanese soil--in U.S. terms, the proportional equivalent of Arizona. Of particular note is that the area of Syrian conquest dwarves that of the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms. The farms, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967 and which amount to an area of about 12 square miles, are claimed by Hezbollah as belonging to Lebanon--a useful pretext for it to continue its "resistance" against an Israeli occupation that ended seven years ago. - (Syria Occupies Lebanon. Again. - Opinion Journal)

UN Peacekeepers in Lebanon - Collaboration with Hezbollah

A troubling consequence of this heightened threat to UNIFIL by radical jihadi groups is that some of the troop-contributing countries have begun turning to Hezbollah, hoping to enlist the cooperation of the Shia group in protecting their soldiers. UNIFIL contingents are not supposed to have any direct contact with Hezbollah – or any other Lebanese political groups – as their official channel of communication is through the Lebanese army.

"It's highly forbidden," said Major General Claudio Graziano, UNIFIL's commander. "I have a relationship with the [Lebanese] government through the Lebanese army. I have no relations with Hezbollah in terms of security."

Still, three months ago, intelligence agents from France, Italy and Spain met with Hezbollah representatives in Saida. As a result of that meeting, some Spanish UNIFIL patrols are now "escorted" by Hezbollah militants in cars. Following last month's bombing, Spanish UNIFIL officers met with local Hezbollah officials, according to a South Lebanon-based party official. - Quoted at Barcepundit

UN Peacekeepers from Pakistan - Illegal Arms Sales

Pakistani UN peacekeeping troops have traded in gold and sold weapons to Congolese militia groups they were meant to disarm, the BBC has learnt.

These militia groups were guilty of some of the worst human rights abuses during the Democratic Republic of Congo's long civil war.

The trading went on in 2005. A UN investigative team sent to gather evidence was obstructed and threatened.

The team's report was buried by the UN itself to "avoid political fallout". - BBC

UN Peacekeepers from Morocco - 'widespread sexual abuse'

The United Nations is investigating allegations of widespread sexual abuse by hundreds of Moroccan peacekeepers serving in Ivory Coast and has summoned Rabat's diplomats to respond, UN officials said on Friday.

UN officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the investigation involved Moroccan soldiers having sex with a large number of underage girls. The world body took the highly unusual step of confining the entire battalion of 800 troops to barracks.

"An internal investigation by the United Nations Mission in Cote D'Ivoire has revealed serious allegations of widespread sexual exploitation and abuse by a UN military contingent serving in Bouake," a UN statement said. - TV NZ

UN targets wrong peacekeepers over sexual allegations.

UNITED NATIONS, July 25 -- When the UN announced on July 20 that it was confining over 700 Moroccan peacekeepers to their base in Bouake in Cote d'Ivoire, due to allegations of sexual exploitation, it was portrayed as the UN finally getting tough on abuse by peacekeepers.

Wednesday it emerged that the 700 confined peacekeepers had only been in Cote d'Ivoire for less than two months. The wrongdoers were already transferred out of the country. If the past is any guide, they will not face meaningful discipline back in Morocco. The rotated-in 706 soldiers are fall guys, essentially, for those who came before them. It is the UN getting tough -- but on the wrong individuals. The UN, which condemns both hostage-taking and collective punishment, appears to be engaged in a little bit of both. - Inner City Press

There is nothing to suggest that the new peacekeepers will behave any differently from their fellow soldiers that they replaced, so maybe they should remain 'confined' to their barracks.

UN Human Rights Council - Declares consensus, Ignoring Canada's Declaration it Never Gave it.

Consensus Declared - Whether Canada Consented Or Not - For possibly the first time in the history of the United Nations, one of its major bodies has ruled that a consensus vote was achieved even though one of its members—one with a particular reputation for honesty—insists it never gave consent, much less even saw the text that was voted upon.

In its most aggressive Orwellian move to date, the UN Human Rights Council declared that this week’s package of new procedures was adopted by consensus, on the night of June 18. (In fact, the rushed declaration of council president Luis Alfonso de Alba was made past the legal midnight deadline, already in the early moments of June 19, but that’s another story.) Canada’s challenge to this interpretation was then overruled by the Council, 46 members to 1, the lone vote being Canada’s. Sure enough, speeches by Council members today and yesterday are crowing about the fact that the newly formed body was born in the purity of consensus. And so the official record will reflect. - UN Watch

UN Mideast Envoy - Misdirected efforts

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Mideast envoy warned Wednesday of impending economic collapse in the Gaza Strip unless Israel reopens the Hamas-led territory’s main commercial crossing to the outside world to ease international isolation. - LGF

This is kind of amusing. HAMAS violently takes control of the Gaza Strip. They refuse to recognize Israel. They kidnap Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit, killing two other soldiers in the process and have held him hostage for over a year. Yet none of this is a problem for the UN. There is no reason why Israel should reopen the border crossings without some sort of outreach emanating from HAMAS. Maybe the Israelis are waiting to get their soldier back. Maybe they are waiting for a statement confirming their recognition of Israel. The UN's Envoy should perhaps be spending his time talking to HAMAS, pointing out that Israel is prepared to starve them all out. After all, HAMAS thinks that they are capable of doing this. Might as well take advantage of it. One problem, since when has HAMAS been concerned with economic collapse in the Gaza Strip? Not that they have to. They have the UN to be concerned for them.

UN Audit on UNDP Program in North Korea - Audit still incomplete

UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- When Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon went to Washington last week, he was asked about his call, made six months ago, for a detailed external audit of the operations of the UN Development Program, to be conducted first in North Korea than elsewhere. The UN Board of Auditors still has not been allowed in to North, and it appears that no action has been taken on the Secretariat's second call, in late June, to begin a second phase of audit. - Inner City Press

Malloch Brown, Former UNDP Administrator - Ignored Critical reports of North Korea Program Violations

On at least three occasions, in 1999, 2001 and 2004, the KPMG auditors filed reports that brought troubling aspects of the situation to the attention of UNDP headquarters, recommending “timely corrective action.” There is no evidence that any such action took place. - Fox News

UNDP - Illegal Transfer of Dual-Use Technology to North Korea

Since January, when the U.S. concerns were made public, the UNDP has pulled out of North Korea and the U.N. audit has confirmed extensive violations of U.N. rules regarding hiring practices, the use of foreign currency and site inspections. The latest U.S. revelations raise far more serious questions about the UNDP's oversight. Under the most generous interpretation, the agency was negligent of its legal responsibilities to keep dual-use technology out of a country that is on the U.S. list of terror-sponsoring states. At worst, it deliberately transferred the technology, knowing it was breaking U.S. law and helping to strengthen Kim Jong Il's military dictatorship. - Opinion Journal

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Nominee to Head the International Monetary Fund - "'insistent' womaniser "

The French media and political world has been thrown into ferment by an allegation that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the European candidate to be the next head of the IMF, is an "insistent" womaniser.

The allegation was made in a blog written by the Brussels correspondent of the newspaper Libération, Jean Quatremer. He said there was a risk that the former French finance minister's behaviour towards women might cause a scandal at the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington.

"The only real problem with Strauss-Kahn is his attitude to women." He is "too insistent," M. Quatremer wrote. "The IMF is an international institution with Anglo-Saxon morals. One inappropriate gesture, one unfortunate comment, and there will be a media hue and cry." - Independent, UK

- My problem with his is that he is a Socialist.

UN Member States - Demanding the Closure of Gitmo
- These same states refuse to accept former detainees that the US would like to release from there. One problem is that some detainees approved for release cannot be returned to their own countries as they would certainly face a fate much worse than Gitmo. They cannot be released into the US either. So a third-country is required.

“We suffered very much at Guantánamo, but we continue to suffer here,” Mr. Basit said. “The other prisoners had their countries, but we are like orphans: we have no place to go.”

Mr. Basit and four other men here, who spent time at a hamlet in Afghanistan run by Uighur separatists, are still considered terrorist suspects by China’s Communist government. Only Albania’s pro-American government would give them asylum, but Albanian officials have since told the men they cannot afford to give them much else.

Things could be worse, the former prisoners note. At least 15 of the 17 Uighurs who remain at Guantánamo have also been cleared for release, but not even Albania will accept them — and neither will the United States. Instead, American diplomats say they have asked nearly 100 countries to provide asylum to the detainees, only to find that Chinese officials have warned some of the same countries not to accept them. - NY Times

The US should not have to accept them. They were either terrorists or chose to associate with terrorists. (Over 30 that have been released have since gone back to being terrorists.) Maybe they should be sent back to China and then the world can protest the abuse of their rights after they are executed.

-- Don't worry. There is more coming in future updates. --

*** READ EDITION I HERE ***

-- --

BBC: "Now that Hamas Controls the Gaza Strip" "There is now a much more Secure Environment there"

So there I was listening to the BBC's Newshour program on the way home Tuesday and a BBC reporter nearly berating US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, David Welch about the US's policy of not dealing with HAMAS, even though they currently control the Gaza Strip.

Progess 'possible': US envoy (Audio) - The split between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories has galvanised Israel, which refuses to deal with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. The United States has made it clear it wants to relaunch talks on a future Palestinian state. Hear our interview with the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, David Welch. - BBC Newshour

The BBC reporter use the following reasoning why the US should deal with HAMAS: "Now that Hamas Controls the Gaza Strip" "There is now a much more Secure Environment there".

There is just one flaw in this whole line of thought in that BBC gave no consideration to the simple fact that it was HAMAS making Gaza less secure prior to their taking control. Now that they have control, they don't need to fight any more. Funny how that happens.

Of course a secure environment is hardly an indicator of an improvement in the governing of an area. The last time I checked Syria was a pretty 'secure' country. Of course they are very active in destabilizing all the countries around them. Then you have Hezbollah, which has kept southern Lebanon very secure, in order to better use the area for attacking Israel. Really, if HAMAS is so great in making the area so secure, when why not give them the whole Middle East including Iraq? Hey, maybe they can fix Africa as well.

The interviewer was also pushing the popular with the media myth that the US should deal with HAMAS because they were elected by the Palestinian People. (Forget that they were elected as only part of a Government and then went about violently overthrowing it in Gaza.) HAMAS's status was well known prior to the election that they are designated as a terrorist group by the US. They were elected anyway which in itself is fine. It was their election and they chose for themselves. However, it was then up to the elected HAMAS Government to solve the problems created by their party being designated as a terrorist organization.

Just because the US would not deal with them does not mean that they were isolated. They had the whole Middle East to go and collect aid from. They did try this, however, that aid has fell short. Plently of money is available to further their terror operations, but their other 'partners' are not very interested in paying for things the people need like food and salaries. After all, it is better not to give money. Giving money relieves the suffering Palestinian people. Not suffering does not further the anti-Israel agenda. Whatever the reason, this lack of aid donors is HAMAS's problem. Not ours.

Venezuela has an elected dictator and Iran has an elected president but that does not mean that the US has to deal with them. In fact, the US has no official relations with Iran. There is nothing saying that the US has to do anything to help Hamas. Again, this is their problem. Not ours.

Here is the relevant except from the interview:

(55 Seconds into the interview)

BBC: Are there any circumstances in under which you would reconsider your approach to Hamas. Many observers are now pointing out that now that Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, although you did describe them as ‘gangsters’ there is now a much more secure environment there.

David Welch: Well, that’s because I am not sure who controls the Gaza Strip.

BBC: But Hamas leadership does control it and there is a greater, a better security environment than when Fatah was there. This is the observation of people who live in Gaza. Would there be any conditions under which you would say, well actually, perhaps Hamas is an organization that we can deal with?

David Welch: Yes, if they were to accept the Quartet principles. Let me say though that Gaza is part of the Palestinian Territories. It is Palestinians who live there and they deserve better and they need attention and support themselves. We would hope to provide that.

BBC: Do you forsee that it’s possible to make any progress on Israeli-Palestinian talks, movement towards a two-state solution without Hamas which just a year ago had been elected by the Palestinian people?

David Welch: Yes. It is possible to do so and it should be possible now with this new (Abbas Emergency) Government as well. We would hope that Hamas would eventually do what everybody else has seen fit to do which is understand that there is an Israel, it isn’t going to go away and this is not rocket science. If your going to have a two-state solution, the other state is going to be Israel. Second. We would hope that they see fit to agree that negotiations should be pursued in an atmosphere free of violence and terror. And finally, you know there is a body of work that comprises the peace process. Previous agreements, resolutions, decisions and we would hope that the Hamas political party could subscribe to those agreements. But I don’t see them doing it. - BBC direct link to audio interview*

Of course HAMAS is the same group that currently holds an Israeli soldier hostage and has attempted to kill and kidnap others. Just one of many HAMAS issues which make them unsuitable in their current form for any sort of solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. If anything, their being in control makes their situation worse. After all, if they are not interested in dealing with Israel other than seeing their defeat, Israel can take the same extreme position and push them all into the sea. These tactics work both ways.

Lets not forget either that HAMS has recently called for attacks on the US:

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people (Note: Muslims) and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement sent to The Associated Press. - Hamas Declares War on US

Don't take this post as any indication that I have no problems with Israel. Both sides are at fault. My issue here is with the BBC for it's biased reporting.

Other posts on HAMAS:
Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS - 28 Jan 2006
Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS UPDATE - 11 July 2006
Hamas Declares War on US - 9 Nov 2006

* Transcribed by me. Any errors are unintentional.

Is Darfur SO BAD that President Bush is their only hope?

The Eurocrats and Democrat Elites have long criticized President Bush for being too much of a cowboy and a blunt straight-talker, which is not compatible with working through the 'Diplomatic' UN and those who walk its halls, needing to be stroked and made to feel important just to get them to act on anything. This 'friction' existed well-before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ambassador John Bolton is the latest casualty of the snubbing of the President's foreign policy both at home and abroad. So it is pretty damn odd that the Save Darfur Coalition has been running an ad campaign pleading for Americans to ask President Bush to act on Darfur. From the website's faqs:

Why is the Coalition calling upon President Bush to help make sure UN peacekeepers are sent immediately to Darfur? Shouldn’t that be the UN’s responsibility?

The recent television ads sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition asking President Bush to take the lead in pushing for the deployment of a UN force in Darfur are not meant in any way to “bash” the President, but rather to urge him to follow through on the good work he and his Administration have already begun. We are both cognizant and appreciative of the fact that the President has done more for the people of Darfur than any other world leader. In fact, it is because of his leadership thus far that we direct our pleas to President Bush now. The hard truth is that the United Nations does not have a standing army it can choose to deploy, it must instead rely on its member states to do the hard work necessary to actually deploy a peacekeeping force once that force has been authorized. As the strongest of member states, we believe that the United States, under the President’s leadership, must lead the international effort to raise and deploy that UN peacekeeping force. While we are not calling for U.S. troops in Darfur, we are calling for the strong U.S. leadership necessary to ensure that a capable UN force is raised and sent to Darfur as soon as possible.

It is also worth noting that while these ads running in the U.S. call for stronger leadership from President Bush, similar ads being run internationally call upon various international leaders to provide strong leadership as well. Advocacy directed at President Bush is not the sum total of our advocacy efforts, but is in fact only the U.S. directed portion of a larger international advocacy campaign directed at the top echelon of world leaders. - SaveDarfur.org

From the Commercial:


From one of the print ads: (View pdf)

It is nice to see that people still put faith in the President. This is both a credit to the President as a leader as well as a clear damnation of the UN and the UN Human Rights Council, which theoretically should be the global Human Rights watchdog. Instead it spends it's time condemning Israel while ignoring else in the world including even those who Israel is fighting against, like Hezbollah. Even the UN Secretary General has complained about their blind eye when it comes to crimes against humanity.

Some groups contend the new UN Council might be even worse than the discredited Commission on Human Rights that it replaced.

They say the Council has become obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the near exclusion of the vast majority of the world's human-rights violators.

Since the Council was inaugurated in June, it has held two special sessions dealing with the situation in the Gaza Strip and one special session on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon in August.

Even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who pushed strongly for the creation of the Council, says it should broaden its focus and look at as many situations as possible.

"Whether their meetings coincided with the Lebanese war, or not, they have tended to focus on the Palestinian issue, and of course, when you focus on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, without even discussing Darfur and other issues, some wonder what is this Council doing? Do they not have a sense of fair play? Why should they ignore other situations and focus on one area?"

Some countries have severely criticized the 47-member Council for condemning Israel four times, while not taking up human-rights violations in countries such as Myanmar, North Korea, and Sudan.

The President of the Council, Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, rates the work of the Council as fair.

"I would not say good. I wish it could have been much better." - Voice of America

How bad is that when even the President of the Human Rights Council rates it's work as poor. (Would you call a self-rating of 'fair' as good?) Of course, the other main UN body, the UN Security Council, is not able to act because any relevant actions against Sudan will reliably be stopped by China, whose veto was basically bought in exchange for Sudanese oil. The Russians can also be expected to prevent any action using their we will not do anything that may lead down a path to war excuse, made popular in attempts to act against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc... (their obstructionist actions most likely bought as well.) Which brings us back to Darfur.

So what are the people suffering genocide to do? They can't go to the Europeans. They have a history of failing to act, combined with a failure to even be taken seriously. (Like during the EU3 negotiations with Iran.) They surely must be desperate to ask President Bush for help. When the US helps, it often results in lots of bombing and targeting of the subject country's leadership, with an 'accidental' embassy bombing thrown in for added effect. Yes, those fighting to save the people in Darfur must be very desperate. Take this from the coalition's print ad:

Auschwitz. Armenia. Rwanda. Bosnia. Now Darfur.

We have seen the haunting pictures, heard the cries of grieving mothers.

Mr. President, you can end it tomorrow when you speak to the United Nations and the world. You need only stand up and say that the United States and its allies will take decisive action now to protect lives in Darfur. That the United States, and the rest of the world, will move now to deploy the UN force they've already approved. In America the support for action crosses partisan lines. John McCain and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole support taking action now.

Please, Mr. President. Beyond politics, beyond borders, beyond religion, there is the moral imperative to save lives. Mr. President, the world is waiting. The lives of two million people hang on your every word tomorrow.

Please don't let them down.

I wish it were that easy. If the US were to act, it would be acting mostly alone, other than a few other honorable countries that would participate. The UN would not be part of the process for change other than to quickly point any and all embarrassing aspects of the operations. Europe might provide peace keepers, but they would come with so many limiting caveats as to render them useless. Those against the President at home and abroad would then deride whatever 'coalition' the President did manage to put together. Then once American peace keepers start taking casualties there would be a huge uproar for US troops to pull out regardless of the mess that would be left behind. And finally, we can expect a reprise of 'No Blood for oil' and as a bonus, American action in Darfur would provide further evidence that the US is at war with islam as it is the muslims that are doing the killing in Darfur.

So why don't we all get comfortable with the fact that those in Darfur are screwed.

Sad, isn't it. Even sadder will the the usual finger-pointing after the fact as to why nothing was done and the standard 'we can never permit another Darfur' empty proclamation from world leaders.

Save Darfur.Org

Note: I am in favor of the UN in Sudan doing what it takes to stop the killing in Darfur and action to charge the leaders of the Sudanese Government with Crimes Against Humanity.

Update: 6 December 06
Here is a short summary of current US action by the President:

US – economic sanctions re Sudan - On October 13, the United States enacted the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006 (H.R. 3127) imposing economic sanctions against certain senior officials of the government of the Sudan responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region. Upon signing the legislation, President Bush issued Executive Order 13412 blocking property and prohibiting transactions by United States persons with the government of the Sudan. The statute provides, among other things, that the President should take all necessary steps to deny the Government of Sudan access to oil revenues, including by prohibiting entry at United States ports to cargo ships or oil tankers engaged in business or trade activities in the oil sector of Sudan or involved in the shipment of goods for use by the armed forces of Sudan. The function of denial of entry has been assigned to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Persons subject to US jurisdiction should exercise caution so as to avoid inadvertent violations of this law. (10/13/06). - Holland & Knight

It is a start, but hard to do it alone. Why are not other countries doing something similar?

Hamas Declares War on US

It seems that the mainstream media,MSM, missed this little piece of news while covering the Democrats victory in the recent elections.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Hamas' military wing called Wednesday on Muslims around the world to attack American targets following reports that an Israeli tank strike killed 18 people in the Gaza Strip town of Beit Hanoun. The Hamas-led Palestinian government distanced itself from the call, saying its fight was with Israel. Hamas terrorists have historically directed their suicide bombings and rocket attacks only against Israeli targets.

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

But Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said the group had no intention of attacking American targets. - NY Sun

Notice how they are trying to differentiate between the Hamas Government and the Hamas Military wing. This is like the Pentagon declaring war on North Korea and the White House 'distancing itself' from the statement. It might work that way when you are a terrorist group, but it does not work that way when your also the Government.

But who is really in charge here?

Hamas' political wing, led by Prime Minister Haniyeh, tries to distinguish itself from the military wing. But the two entities both report to the group's exiled leadership, based in Syria, and frequently coordinate with each other. - NY Sun

In other words the call to attack American targets around the world was approved by the Hamas leadership in Syria and both the Hamas Government and the Hamas military wing have the same bosses.

The whole point of having any distinction at all is to provide some sort of plausible deniability to their terrorist actions as well as permit some of the group to operate in the open, in support of the terrorist wing, of course.

At the end of the day, I read the statement by Hamas above as a declaration of war. I am not sure why they would do that as they have things 'relatively good' at the moment with the US limiting action against them to finantial sanctions. I am not sure they want to really get the US's attention. After all, there is available cell space in Gitmo and the US can target them with air strikes as well.

Previouse posts about Hamas:
Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS - 28 January 06
Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS UPDATE - 11 July 06
HAMAS: Child Abuse - 19 July 06
Hamas: Child Abuse - Staged? - 26 July 06
Signs that Allah (God) is not on Your Side: - 28 July 05

Hamas

Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS UPDATE

I had written that at some point Hamas was sure to be sorry that they won the Palestinian Elections. I would not be too surprised if Israel and the US are are not really disappointed that they won, since it now forces Hamas officials to step into the daylight and experience all of the headaches that modern governments face, including dealing with terror promoters as well as disaffected followers.

In any normal country, the kidnapping of a citizen from another country would put the country where the kidnapping happened responsible to resolve the problem.

However in Palestine, the Hamas-Led Government is pushing for negotiations with Israel to resolve the kidnapping. (Lets forget that he was in Israel when he was kidnapped and taken to Gaza.) That simply is the wrong way to run your government and the wrong way to carry out negotiations with Israel or ANY other nation, especially when the kidnappers claim to be from Hamas.

This is the basis of the problem with the current Palestinian leadership. They want to be in control, but they also want to play the same old games as before when they were simply a militant organization. That just won't fly. The actions of Hamas are the actions of the Palestinian Government. Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority, has an editorial in the Washington Post today. (publicized by Little Green Footballs) Here is how he described the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier:

The current Gaza invasion is only the latest effort to destroy the results of fair and free elections held early this year. It is the explosive follow-up to a five-month campaign of economic and diplomatic warfare directed by the United States and Israel. The stated intention of that strategy was to force the average Palestinian to "reconsider" her vote when faced with deepening hardship; its failure was predictable, and the new overt military aggression and collective punishment are its logical fulfillment. The "kidnapped" Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit is only a pretext for a job scheduled months ago.

"kidnapped" what's the deal with the quotes? Is he not really kidnapped? I guess we should ask Corporal Shalit if he thinks he has been kidnapped, but that is not an option at the moment. We can only takes Hamas's word on that.

Lets just say for a minute that Prime Minister Haniyeh is right, that the kidnapping of Cpl. Shalit is just an excuse to flatten parts of Gaza with tanks. So what. It was Hamas that handed the Israelis the excuse to do it. Even better the Israeli Government has already warned Prime Minister Haniyeh that they will use the Cpl.'s death as an excuse to eliminate him. Maybe this will be incentive enough for him to convince his followers not to give Israel another excuse. (Then again, if the Prime Minister's theory is correct, than his elimination has been planned month's ago and nothing he does will stop that.)

The Palestinian Authority called for a truce a couple days back which was promptly rejected by Israel, and rightly so. The simple way to a truce would be to hand over the soldier. Instead, they are using the soldier as a sort of human shield. Not for anything, but the kidnapping seems to be to be such a petty and short-sighted action. Kind of hard to build sympathy when there is no shortage of misbehavior on the part of the "victims."

Now take these other comments:

However, we do not want to live on international welfare and American handouts. We want what Americans enjoy -- democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. America's complacency in the face of these war crimes is, as usual, embedded in the coded rhetorical green light: "Israel has a right to defend itself." Was Israel defending itself when it killed eight family members on a Gaza beach last month or three members of the Hajjaj family on Saturday, among them 6-year-old Rawan? I refuse to believe that such inhumanity sits well with the American public.

Yes, the stop picking on us because we are a Government now. The US has not sabotaged the Palestinian Government, it is Hamas, which knew full well that they were labeled as a terrorist organization. That designation does not go away just because you have been elected. The US congratulated the results of the election and left it to the Hamas-led Government to figure out how to get by without foreign wire payments. Here is a thought, how about use that money you can't wire back home and buy some aid with it. There is no restriction to shipping home food, medicine, and supplies. Why the need to bring only the money back? sure you need money too, but your problem would not be a great if you used the money where it is currently at. That would surely bolster your support at home, while denying anyone an excuse to act militarily.

He also mentions the beach attack on Gaza. Even the UN has backed away from claiming that it was Israel that was the cause of the explosion. Now it might be that Israel was really responsible, but unlikely considering how thorough the Palestinian doctors were at making sure all the shrapnel was removed from the victims. Too bad for Hams that they have to earned a reputation that everyone is willing to believe that they would use victims of their own stupidity for politian gain. The question now is whather or not they can learn how to act responsibly as a Government before their actions get them killed off as terrorists?

Update: 13 July 06

Well this story keeps going downhill all the time doesn't it. So now we have militants in Lebanon kidnapping two more soldiers and the Israeli military taking on Lebanon itself. Kind of serves them right for letting Hezbollah operate in their country as a base for their operations against Israel. It is also kind of sad because Lebanon appears to have been on the path to the first-world, but that is no excuse to let violent people roam around free. It would be like letting al-qaeda operate in Canada.

Then we have the revelation that the Hamas, which is in control of the Palestinian Government is being controlled from Damascus, Syria and that Khaled Meshal in Syria is the "voice" of the Palestinain People:

The first speech yesterday by Khaled Meshal, the Damascus-based head of Hamas' political bureau, since the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit was intended mainly to reinforce his leadership position vis-a-vis both Palestinians and Israel. His statements contained little real news. He reiterated the Hamas promise not to hurt Shalit and the position that he would be released only in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel.

What Meshal did do was to declare that he and not the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in Ramallah, or Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza, is the sole spokesman for the Palestinian people in the territories and beyond.

The message was also intended for the ears of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: Whether you want it or not, I am the only partner you can speak to about the release of prisoners and suspending the Qassam rocket attacks. - Haaretz

This makes it pretty easy to take the charges that Syria is meddling in Palestine's affairs as fact. Khaled Meshal already has a target on him. the question is, will targets now be placed on Syria for their lack of doing anything about the militants running around their country.

It is too easy to tell Israel to back off in order to calm the situation down. Perhaps this should be sorted out now, once and for all. Backing down now will just encourage the terrorists and continue to prolong the conflict.

Aggression Under False Pretenses - Washington Post
Be Careful What You Ask For: HAMAS - FFI - 28 January 2006

Note: I tend to avoid commenting on the Israel/Palestine issue simply because I think both sides are wrong, in many areas. If I had to place the blame on who is more wrong, then that is easy, it is the side that is blowing up busses and civilians and in general acting like terrorists.