A Chart Of Islamist Terrorist Attacks on American Soil

I've been following TheReligionOfPeace.com for a number of years, but always concentrated on its list of Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide. Now someone has drawn my attention to the list they keep of Islamist terrorist attacks against the US:

Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil

We recently got taken to the mat by a polite, young Muslim living in the U.K. who took issue with our oft-repeated statement that no Muslim-American lost their life to vigilante violence following 9/11. She provided us a list of six or seven candidates and, after whittling out the ones where the killer was unknown or in cases with mitigating circumstances such as “victim was sleeping with killer’s ex-girlfriend” (and we’re not making that up), we reached a shocking conclusion: We were wrong. There is one seemingly unambiguous case that occurred in Dallas, Texas where Waqar Hasan, a Muslim convenience storeowner, was gunned down by Mark Anthony Stroman four days after the 9/11 attacks. Stroman claimed to have been motivated by anger from watching the towers fall. He is not exactly your average American, however, even apart from the shooting. For one thing, he is a white supremacist who carried a felony criminal record at the time of the attack. He also went on to shoot two more people in the weeks that followed. Thankfully, an American jury sentenced Mark Stroman to death. The same cannot be said of many Muslim terrorists such as Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who not only have sanctuary in Muslim countries, but are often treated as heroes by devout followers of Muhammad. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that our friend is correct and that there was at least one Muslim killed in an anti-Arab hate crime in the U.S. following the anti-American hate crime on 9/11. For anyone keeping score: People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996 Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1 Of course, 9/11 was neither the first nor the last time that Muslims have killed Americans on U.S. soil in terror attacks. In fact, since that day, Muslims have killed at least 52 people in 31 separate acts of terrorism in the United States (by the standards that Muslim-American groups set for hate crimes). Perhaps more importantly, there have been quite a few planned mass murders of Americans by Islamic terrorists that were thwarted by the FBI, law enforcement and overseas intelligence operations both before and after 9/11. By contrast, Muslim-Americans do not appear to be in any special danger from murderous (non-Muslim) religious fanatics, even in a nation awash in firearms. Identity groups, such as CAIR, whine incessantly about relatively trivial incidents while turning a blind eye to the horrible violence that is meted out daily in the name of their religion. This distasteful petulance offers insight not only into the character of Islam, but also the impressive religious tolerance that Americans manage to maintain. For anyone wondering about the history of deadly Islamic terror on American soil in the last 35 years, here’s what we could find:

Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil in the Last 35 Years

Date	Country	City/State	Killed	Injured	Description
4/14/1972	USA	New York, NY	1	3	Ten members of a local mosque phone in a false alarm and then ambush responding officers, killing one.
1/19/1973	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	1	Muslim extremists rob a sporting goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the alarm.
7/18/1973	USA	Washington, DC	8	2	Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.
10/19/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.
10/29/1973	USA	Berkeley, CA	1	0	A woman is shot repeatedly in the face by Nation of Islam terrorists.
11/25/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A grocer is killed in his store by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/11/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is killed by Nation of Islam terrorists while using a phone booth.
12/13/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A woman is shot to deah on the sidewalk by Nation of Islam terrorists.
12/20/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	Nation of Islam terrorists gun down an 81-year-old janitor.
12/22/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	2	0	Nation of Islam terrorist kills two people in separate attacks on the same day.
12/24/1973	USA	Oakland, CA	1	0	A man is kidnapped, tortured and decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.
1/24/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	4	1	Five vicious shooting attacks by Nation of Islam terrorists leave three people dead and one paralyzed for life. Three of the victims were women.
4/1/1974	USA	Oakland, CA	1	1	A Nation of Islam terrorist shoots at two Salvation Army members, killing a man and injuring a woman.
4/16/1974	USA	Ingleside, CA	1	0	A man is killed while helping a friend move by Nation of Islam terrorists.
3/9/1977	USA	Washington, DC	1	1	Hanifi Muslims storm three buildings including a B'nai B'rith to hold 134 people hostage. At least two innocents were shot and one died.
7/22/1980	USA	Bethesda, MD	1	0	A political dissident is shot and killed in front of his home by an Iranian agent who was an American convert to Islam.
8/31/1980	USA	Savou, IL	2	0	An Iranian student guns down his next-door neighbors, a husband and wife.
1/31/1990	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A Sunni cleric is assassinated in front of a Tuscon mosque after declaring that two verses of the Qur'an were invalid.
11/5/1990	USA	New York City, NY	1	0	An Israeli rabbi is shot to death by a Muslim attacker at a hotel.
1/25/1993	USA	Langley, VA	2	3	A Pakistani with Mujahideen ties guns down two CIA agents outside of the headquarters.
2/26/1993	USA	New York, NY	6	1040	Islamic terrorists detonate a massive truck bomb under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring over 1,000 in an effort to collapse the towers.
3/1/1994	USA	Brooklyn, NY	1	0	A Muslim fires on a vanload of Jewish boys, killing one.
3/23/1997	USA	New York, NY	1	6	A Palestinian leaves an anti-Jewish suicide note behind and travels to the top of the Empire State building where he shoot seven people in a Fedayeen attack.
4/3/1997	USA	Lompoc, CA	1	0	A prison guard is stabbed to death by a radical Muslim.
10/31/1999	USA	Near Nantucket	217	0	An Egyptian airline pilot runs a planeload of 217 passengers into the water after uttering a Qur'anic prayer.
3/17/2000	USA	Atlanta, GA	1	1	A local imam and Muslim spiritual leader guns down a deputy sheriff and injures his partner.
9/11/2001	USA	Washington, DC	184	53	Nearly 200 people are killed when Islamic hijackers steer a plane full of people into the Pentagon.
9/11/2001	USA	Shanksville, PA	40	0	Forty passengers are killed after Islamic radicals hijack the plane in an attempt to steer it into the U.S. Capitol building.
9/11/2001	USA	New York, NY	2772	251	Islamic hijackers steer two planes packed with fuel and passengers into the World Trade Center, killing hundreds on impact and eventually killing thousands when the towers collapsed. At least 200 are seriously injured.
3/19/2002	USA	Tuscon, AZ	1	0	A 60-year-old man is gunned down by Muslim snipers on a golf course.
5/27/2002	USA	Denton, TX	1	0	Muslim snipers kill a man as he works in his yard.
7/4/2002	USA	Los Angeles, CA	2	0	Muslim man pulls out a gun at the counter of an Israeli airline and kills two people.
9/5/2002	USA	Clinton, MD	1	0	A 55-year-old pizzaria owner is shot six times in the back by Muslims at close range.
9/21/2002	USA	Montgomery, AL	1	1	Muslim snipers shoot two women, killing one.
9/23/2002	USA	Baton Rouge, LA	1	0	A Korean mother is shot in the back by Muslim snipers.
10/2/2002	USA	Wheaton, MD	1	0	Muslim snipers gun down a program analyst in a store parking lot.
10/3/2002	USA	Montgomery County, MD	5	0	Muslim snipers kill three men and two women in separate attacks over a 15-hour period.
10/9/2002	USA	Manassas, VA	1	1	A man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas two days after a 13-year-old is wounded by the same team.
10/11/2002	USA	Fredericksburg, VA	1	0	Another man is killed by Muslim snipers while pumping gas.
10/14/2002	USA	Arlington, VA	1	0	A woman is killed by Muslim snipers in a Home Depot parking lot.
10/22/2002	USA	Aspen Hill, MD	1	0	A bus driver is killed by Muslim snipers.
8/6/2003	USA	Houston, TX	1	0	After undergoing a religious revival, a Saudi college student slashes the throat of a Jewish student with a 4" butterfly knife, nearly decapitating the young man.
12/2/2003	USA	Chicago, IL	1	0	A Muslim doctor deliberately allows a Jewish patient to die from an easily treatable condition.
4/13/2004	USA	Raleigh, NC	1	4	A Muslim man runs down five strangers with a car.
4/15/2004	USA	Scottsville, NY	1	2	In an honor killing, a Muslim father kills his wife and attacks his two daughters with a knife and hammer because he feared that they had been sexually molested.
6/16/2006	USA	Baltimore, MD	1	0	A 62-year-old Jewish moviegoer is shot to death by a Muslim gunman in an unprovoked terror attack.
6/25/2006	USA	Denver, CO	1	5	Saying that it was 'Allah's choice', a Muslim shoots four of his co-workers and a police officer.
7/28/2006	USA	Seattle, WA	1	5	An 'angry' Muslim-American uses a young girl as hostage to enter a local Jewish center, where he shoots six women, one of whom dies.
10/6/2006	USA	Louisville, KY	4	1	In an 'honor' attack, a Muslim man rapes and beats his estranged wife, leaving her for dead, then savagely murders their four children.
2/13/2007	USA	Salt Lake City, UT	5	4	A Muslim immigrant goes on a shooting rampage at a mall, targeting people buying Valentine's Day cards at a gift shop and killing five.
1/1/2008	USA	Irving, TX	2	0	A Muslim immigrant shoots his two daughters to death on concerns about their 'Western' lifestyle.
7/6/2008	USA	Jonesboro, GA	1	0	A devout Muslim strangles his 25-year-old daughter in an honor killing.
2/12/2009	USA	Buffalo, NY	1	0	The founder of a Muslim TV station beheads his wife in the hallway for seeking a divorce.
6/1/2009	USA	Little Rock, AR	1	1	A Muslim with 'religious motives' shoots a local soldier to death inside a recruiting center.
11/2/2009	USA	Glendale, AZ	1	1	A woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too 'Westernized.' (10-20-09)
11/5/2009	USA	Ft. Hood, TX	13	31	A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.

(3,308 killed by Muslims in America in 65 terror attacks)

Technorati Tag: Terrorism and Islamists.

Is This Latest Honor Killing Different?

Mark Steyn writes about the latest honor killing:

Noor Almaleki, whom I wrote about over the weekend, has died, the latest western victim of a Muslim honor killing. If there were a Matthew Shepard murder every few months, Frank Rich et al would be going bananas about the "climate of hate" in our society, but you can run over your daughter, decapitate your wife, drown three teenage girls and a polygamous spouse, and progressive opinion and the press couldn't give a hoot. Indeed, as The Atlantic notes, it's merely an obsession of us right-wing kooks.

During the IRA's long campaign against Her Majesty's Government, British officials had a cynical phrase about containing Northern Ireland to "an acceptable level of violence". I wonder what the silent US media will settle on as the "acceptable level of violence" against Muslim women. Ten honor killings a year? A couple dozen? A hundred?

In this case though the silence that is most noticeable is not the silence of the media so much as the silence of the usual defenders of honor killings. According to Phyllis Chesler:

What’s missing from the coverage (at least so far) is the usual Islamist spin. No hard-line representative of the Islamic community is insisting that this was not an “honor killing” or that if it was, it has nothing to do with Islam or with Muslims. That’s it’s a typical ‘teenage” thing or a typical case of domestic violence.

Maybe it is just the circumstances. Chesler writes about another honor killing--a Muslim woman's attempt to kill her husband.

Let's see what the response of the Muslim world is to that.

Technorati Tag: Honor Killings and Islam.

Great News:"Happily, Human Rights Groups Are At Least Partly True To Their Mission"

"The truth is," [Thomas] Friedman wrote, "the Western press coddled the PLO. . . For any Beirut-based correspondent, the name of the game was keeping on good terms with the PLO, because without it would you not get the interview with Arafat you wanted when your foreign editor came to town."
Jeff Jacoby, "Trading Truth For Access?"

Fear of terrorists is a potent dissuader--something that we occasionally hear of in connection to reporters, but not in connection to the human rights groups. Maybe that's because they have a different motivator.

In their response to Robert Bernsteins criticisms of Human Rights Watch, the group that he founded, James Ron and Howard Ramos respond with Statistics tell the real story of rights watchdogs and Israel. What they write, however, belies that claim. Actually, its not about the statistics at all:

Finally, a country's policy relevance also seemed critical, since Amnesty wrote more about abuses in countries that were already heavily covered by the western media.

What does all this mean?

Happily, human rights groups are at least partly true to their mission, since they report more frequently on countries with more abuse. Both Bernstein and the watchdogs should be relieved.

Yet human rights groups also seek visibility, relevance and impact, and this pushes them to report more on the most pressing abuses of the day. Like most any advocacy group, watchdogs respond to media demand, and the more journalists ask about a country such as Israel, the more Human Rights Watch and Amnesty will respond.

Let's see if we have this right: the media of course covers countries that they think are the most interesting and will garner the most viewers. Period. Israel therefore appears in the news more often than, say Egypt--or Darfur. Therefore, these human rights watchdogs will follow Egypt and Darfur less than Israel?

Are the motives that drive human rights groups and the media really that similar?

Let's hope not.

Technorati Tag: NGOs and Human Rights Groups.

Kristallnacht--“Crystal Night” and Beyond

"In a sinister and sometimes devious manner, the widespread defamation and demonization of Israel has in effect revived fantasies of completing the murderous work of the Third Reich."

“Crystal Night” and Beyond

by Prof. Robert S. Wistrich

On November 9, 1938, a massive nation-wide anti-Jewish pogrom took place during peacetime across the entire territory of the Third Reich. The pretext for this orgy of violence against German Jews was the shooting in Paris two days earlier of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year-old Polish-Jewish refugee. The state-organized pogrom, instigated by Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, resulted in the burning or damaging of more than a thousand synagogues; the ransacking of about 7,500 businesses, the murder of at least 91 Jews, and the deportation of another 30,000 Jewish males to concentration camps in Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen. This murderous onslaught against German Jewry, cynically described by the Nazis as the “Night of Broken Glass” (Kristallnacht), was a major turning point on the road to the “Final Solution” of the so-called “Jewish Question.” It signified that the Nazi regime had crossed a Rubicon and would no longer be deterred by Western public opinion in its “war against the Jews.” The economic expropriation of German Jewry, its complete social ostracism and public humiliation swiftly followed. Jews were banned from public transport, from frequenting concerts, theaters, cinemas, commercial centers, beaches, or using public benches. Only a fortnight after “Crystal Night,” the SS journal, Das Schwarze Korps, chillingly prophesied the final end of German Jewry through “fire and sword” and its imminent complete annihilation.

Today, shocking to relate, the specter of such apocalyptic anti-Semitism has returned to haunt Europe and other continents, while often assuming radically new forms. In the Middle East, it has taken on a particularly dangerous, toxic and potentially genocidal aura of hatred, closely linked to the “mission” of holy war or jihad against the West and the Jews.

Islamist anti-Semitism is thoroughly soaked in many of the most inflammatory themes that initially made possible the atrocities of “Crystal Night” and its horrific aftermath during the Holocaust. For example, the pervasive use of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with its perennial theme of the “Jewish conspiracy for world domination;” or the medieval blood-libel imported to the Muslim world from Christian Europe; or the vile stereotypical image of the Jews as a treacherous, rapacious, and bloodthirsty people engaged in a ceaseless plotting to undermine the world of Islam. To these grotesque inventions one must add such more up-to-date libels like Holocaust denial which has become a state-sponsored project in Ahmadinejad’s Iran and is increasingly pervasive in the Arab world.

Equally fashionable (and increasingly popular in Europe) is the slanderous identification of Israel with Nazism or the “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians. This modernized version of inverted anti-Semitism which sails under the mask of “anti-Zionism” and anti-Americanism, is today a global phenomenon, but it has special resonance in the Middle East as a result of the unresolved “Palestinian question.”

The scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist websites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst. Yet the Western world largely turns a blind eye to the likely genocidal consequences of such a culture of hatred, much as it did seventy years ago. My own extensive research into this phenomenon has, unfortunately, convinced me that the Holocaust did not truly succeed in neutralizing the scourge of anti-Semitism. In a sinister and sometimes devious manner, the widespread defamation and demonization of Israel has in effect revived fantasies of completing the murderous work of the Third Reich. This is especially palpable in the case of Iran. Hence, the anniversary of “Crystal Night” raises two fundamental moral questions for the future of human civilization. Are we at all capable of learning from history, and will the Jewish people once again have to stand alone in the face of concrete threats to annihilate it? On the answer to these questions much may depend.

Prof. Robert S. Wistrich is the director of The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/) and the author of A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (Random House, January 2010).

Technorati Tag: Kristallnacht.

Myths and Facts: “Amnesty's Water Report Fairly Portrays Israel.”

The following is from Prof. Mitchell Bard's Myths and Facts and is reposted here with permission:

MYTH

“Amnesty's water report fairly portrays Israel.”

FACT

Amnesty International released a report in October 2009 condemning Israel’s water-usage policy in the West Bank. Before the report’s release, the Israeli Water Authority offered to issue a report or presentation to Amnesty, but was refused.³³⁴ Given the unwillingness to hear Israel’s side, as well as it’s now long history of anti-Israel animus, it was not surprising the report was an error-filled, one-sided critique that accused Israel of using a disproportionately large amount of the region’s water resources while leaving little for the Palestinians.

Over the years, Israelis have drastically decreased the amount of water they use while Palestinian consumption has increased. Before1967, Israel’s water usage was approximately 500 cubic meters per person per year. Today, it is 70% less at 149 cubic meters per person per year. In that time, Palestinian water consumption has increased from 86 to 105 cubic meters per person per year.³³⁵ The report is laden with errors as well. For example, it claims Palestinian villages in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such as Beit Ula, are not connected to a water system. In fact, Beit Ula has been connected to the Palestinian water network of the Palestinian Water Authority since 1974.³³⁶

Palestinians accuse Israel of stealing their water, despite the fact that the majority of Israel's water comes from within the pre-1967 armistice lines. Also forgotten is that Palestinian agriculture flourished after 1967 because Israelis introduced drip irrigation and other modern agricultural techniques. Prior to 1967, of the 430 Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, 50 had access to running water. By 1992, an influx of capital and infrastructure from Israel had increased the number to 260.³³⁷

Year after year, the Israeli Water Authority has delivered more water per year to the Palestinians than the amounts agreed upon in theOslo Accords. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has threatened the water security of both themselves and the Israelis by digging 250 illegal wells and refusing to purify sewage water in violation of the Oslo Accords, instead dumping sewage into West Bank streams, causing massive pollution and threatening the lives of everyone.³³⁸ Palestinian mismanagement has already destroyed the aquifer in Gaza, making the water undrinkable. The Palestinian Authority has received billions of dollars in international aid and large sums of money were earmarked for the Palestinians to build sewage treatment plants, but not a single facility has been constructed. This violates the commitment made in the Oslo Declaration of Principles for Cooperation on Water-Related Matters that states that water projects be environmentally sound. There are currently five sewage treatment plants located in the West Bank. Of these, the Palestinian Authority has only managed to keep one functioning. The Palestinian population in the West Bank exceeds 2 million. The one plant the Palestinian Authority has managed to keep functioning has the capacity to service 50,000 people - a huge disparity. In light of the Palestinian Authority's inability to serve its own people's water needs, one can understand Israel's reluctance to share more precious water resources.³³⁹ Still, Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water but, due to political posturing, Palestinian leaders have refused.³⁴⁰

The issue of water in the Middle East is a serious issue for both the Palestinians and Israelis – one not easily resolved, and was therefore reserved for negotiation among the other final-status issues. The Amnesty Report does little to explain the complexities of the problem, but rather opportunistically and unproductively shovels mud on Israel. It is perhaps no coincidence that the release of the report coincides with the start of a speaking tour on U.S. university campuses entitled “Israel’s Control of Water as a Tool of Apartheid and a Means of Ethnic Cleansing,” organized by the Palestinian Cultural Academic Boycott of Israel movement.³⁴¹

It is ironic that Amnesty would choose to focus on the issue of water, as it is an issue on which Palestinians and Israelis have demonstrated a tremendous amount of cooperation. In 2001, for example, Israel and the Palestinian Authority issued a joint statement declaring their shared intention to “keep the water infrastructure out of the cycle of violence.” When Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, Israel left the Palestinians all of the water treatment utilities they had built for Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.³⁴² As recently as 2007, Israeli and Palestinian municipalities released a joint memorandum declaring their shared interest in protecting water resources.

-------------------------
³³⁴ Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

³³⁵ Ibid.

³³⁶ “Snapshots: A Camera Blog,” Camera.org, (October 28, 2009).

³³⁷ Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

³³⁸ Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

³³⁹ Bard, Mitchell, Will Israel Survive?, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2007, p. 95.

³⁴⁰ “Response to Amnesty International's Report on Israeli-Palestinian Water Issues,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (October 27, 2009).

³⁴¹ Ehud Zion Waldoks, “Water Authority Blasts Amnesty Report,” Jerusalem Post, (October 27,2009).

³⁴² “Israel Turns Over Gaza Water Processing Facility to Palestinians,” IMRA, (November 21, 2005).

Technorati Tag: Amnesty International.

Hillary Does The Moon Walk On Israeli Settlements

Hillary Clinton is keeping Laura Rozen of Politico busy.

November 1

Clinton's Middle East message seems to misfire

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's message on Israeli-Palestinian peace talks this weekend was not notably different from what President Barack Obama himself said in New York in September at a meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. But the prevailing perception and coverage in the wake of Clinton's meetings in Israel and Abu Dhabi Saturday are that the U.S. has once again returned to its traditional default position of tolerating Israeli unwillingness to abide by demands for a total settlement freeze and once again decided that the way forward is to pressure the Palestinians to cave.

While U.S. officials on Sunday pushed back forcefully on the veracity of that impression, news headlines have been uniformly grim in the region since Clinton appeared at a news conference in Jerusalem with a confident-looking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the late-night news conference, Clinton said that Netanyahu's offer to agree to a partial settlement moratorium in advance of actually entering negotiations with the Palestinians would be an "unprecedented" step.

November 2

Clinton walks back Israel settlements remarks

Marrakesh, Morocco_ After facing a barrage of press coverage that the U.S. has effectively sided with Israel in downplaying the issue of Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank in an effort to get Israel-Palestinian peace talks relaunched, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today walked back comments she made in Jerusalem at a late night news conference Saturday next to a beaming and self-confident Israeli Prime Minister.

Speaking at a luncheon meeting with Morocco's foreign minister in Marrakesh today, where Clinton is attending a conference of Arab foreign ministers, Clinton tried to clarify her previous remarks on the Obama administration's position on Israeli settlments.

"Israel has done a few things but needs to do much more," Clinton said, adding that the Obama administration's position is that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlment activity. But she also said Israel has put some limitations on itself, which if acted upon would be "unprecedented."

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas "has shown leadership and determination" regarding concerns over security, Clinton said, "and Israel should reciprocate."

Leadership: Abbas's middle name. Hillary must be desperate.

Speaking of Abbas, apparently he is not in the mood to reciprocate--
From Palestinian Media Watch:

The official Palestinian Authority daily has accused US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of taking bribes from Israel and wallowing in “a swamp of lies.”

“Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists pay you as a bribe?” taunted an article in today’s edition of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, which is controlled by the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Another article in the paper accused Clinton of lying:

"Words that treat truth with cruelty and wallow in the swamp of lies, especially coming from a person of senior position, are improper… [such are] the words of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 2, 2009]

Al-Hayat Al-Jadida also ran a cartoon reiterating a longstanding Palestinian claim that the US is controlled by Jews. It shows an Uncle Sam figure looking into a mirror held by a caricature of a hook-nosed religious Jew, wearing a hat with a Star of David. Instead of seeing his own reflection, the American sees the Jew in the mirror.

The articles and cartoon come after Clinton praised Israel for making concessions on the issue of settlements, and blamed the Palestinians for not resuming peace talks without prior conditions.

In any case, today is a brand new day--no telling what it may bring.

JustOneMinute--my source for the 2 Rozen posts--has more.

More at Memeorandum.

Technorati Tag: Hillary Clinton.

Iran Apologizes To The US!

Well, not exactly all of Iran--just a piece of it:

Iran opposition to apologise to US for embassy siege

Leaders of Iran's opposition movement are to make an unprecedented apology to the US on the 30th anniversary of the storming of the American embassy in Tehran.

In a gesture likely to provoke fury among hardliners in the Tehran regime, they will apologise on Wednesday for the hostage crisis that gripped the world for 444 days and led to a decisive break between Iran and the US, which is now routinely denounced as "the Great Satan".

Organisers of the Green Movement, the umbrella group that seeks to overturn the official result of the June presidential election, plan to use the official commemoration of the take over to make a fresh assault on the revolutionary credentials of Iran's leadership.

Michael Ledeen, commenting on this report writes, "There will be monster rallies all over Iran, mostly to challenge the regime."

This, at a time when most people probably think the protests are over.

Technorati Tag: Iran Elections.

NJ Dems Admit Campaigning For Independent Daggett To Undercut Christie

Jennifer Rubin writes about a scandal that might enrage even New Jersey voters enough to replace Corzine:

The suspicion among conservatives is that independent Chris Daggett has been helped along by Jon Corzine, who was looking to go down by a big margin in a two-man race. Now comes evidence of real foul play — even if we are talking New Jersey. This report tells us:

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett. A Democratic spokeswoman says the party’s chairman, Joe Cryan, was not aware of the robocalls when he denied that the state committee had anything to do with them yesterday afternoon. … The call angered Republicans and further fueled conspiracy theories that Daggett is in cahoots with the Corzine camp. A disclaimer at the end says it was paid for by Victory ’09, “a project of the NJDSC” (Democratic State Committee), and gave the committee’s Trenton address.

And it seems the Daggett team tried to cover it up: “Before the Democrats owned up to it, Daggett media advisor Bill Hillsman said the call might be a Republican trick to generate a sympathetic newspaper story.”

If New Jersey voters are capable of outrage, this is a good target for their outrage. After all, fronting an independent to take votes away from a better-situated opponent should be beyond the pale, even in the Garden State.

"If" being the operative word.

Technorati Tag: Corzine and Daggett and Chris Christie.

Rebutting Judge Goldstone's Ghostwriter

On October 23rd a non-binding resolution--House Resolution 867--was proposed, condemning the Goldstone Report

Calling on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict' in multilateral fora.

Shortly thereafter, a rebuttal of the resolution was received:

J Street Adviser Morton Halperin Goes to Work for Goldstone

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a document authored by Judge Richard Goldstone that is now being circulated on Capitol Hill. The document was written in response to HR 867 -- the resolution sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman condemning Goldstone's report on Israeli war crimes in Operation Cast Lead. Goldstone explains in the document that he sends his "comments on this resolution in an effort to correct factual errors."

...Upon further inspection of the Goldstone letter, the actual author seems to be Morton H. Halperin, who serves on the J Street advisory council and is a senior adviser at George Soros's Open Society Institute. The original document can be downloaded here. (A check of the file's "properties" reveals the author as Morton H. Halperin.)

Sure enough, even though the top of this document reads:

MEMORANDUM

FROM: RICHARD GOLDSTONE
TO: INTERESTED PERSONS
RE: HR 867

When you look at the properties of the Word document, the author is given as Morton H. Halperin. It is not clear whether he authored the memorandum himself or wrote it out for Judge Goldstone.

To make matters more confusing, the text of the memorandum do not match the text of the letter appearing on JTA in an article by Ron Kampeas--an article in which Kampeas conveniently matches up the "Goldstone critique" with the paragraphs of the resolution being questioned.

In either case, this letter itself is full of the kinds of misleading comments it claims RH 867 is guilty of.

Utilizing Kampeas' format, let's take a look at the relevant resolution paragraphs, with the Goldstone rebuttal and its refutation. The resolution is in italics, Goldstone's rebuttal is in plain text, and my response is in bold:

The Honorable Howard Berman
Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs

October 29, 2009

Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen,

It has come to my attention that a resolution has been introduced in the Unites States House of Representatives regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which I led earlier this year.

I fully respect the right of the US Congress to examine and judge my mission and the resulting report, as well as to make its recommendations to the US Executive branch of government.

However, I have strong reservations about the text of the resolution in question – text that includes serious factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context.

I undertook this fact-finding mission in good faith, just as I undertook my responsibilities vis à vis the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, the International War Crimes Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, The International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, and the Volker Committee investigation into the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food program in 2004/5.

I hope that you, in similar good faith, will take the time to consider my comments about the resolution and, as a result of that consideration, make the necessary corrections.

Whereas clause #2: “Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission' regarding Israel's conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;”

This whereas clause ignores the fact that I and others refused this original mandate, precisely because it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows:

". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of themilitary operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after".

According to Goldstone, a newly revised mandate was created. If so:
o Where is it written
o Was this renewed mandate put to a vote as was the original resolution
o If not, what force does it actually have.
o In that case, the question returns: why did Goldstone take the position?

Whereas clause #2: “Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by onesidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission' to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression'”

This whereas clause ignores the fact that the expanded mandate that I demanded and received clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report carried out under this broadened mandate – not the original, rejected mandate – that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups.

Not true.

According to the alleged updated resolution, the mandate was merely made more vague, ie "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after".

There is still no mention of Hamas or Gaza in this 'updated mandate'. The fact that this mission was still interpreted as directed solely at Israel is supported by the fact that when the UNHRC endorsed the report, only Israel was mentioned.


Whereas clause #3: “Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission' makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel's defensive measures;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. As noted above, the expanded mandate clearly included the rocket and mortar attacks. Moreover, Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror they caused to the people living within their range. The resulting finding made in the report is that these attacks constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The reference is clearly to the original mandate, and the same criticism as in the previous note applies here too.

Chapter XXIV--being part of the report and not the mandate in the original resolution--is irrelevant, although it is interesting to note that it is brought down in the Report not in the context of Hamas but rather in the section of the Report dedicated to Israel, oddly enough.

Also, the issue of years of bombardment by Hamas is put together with the charge of Israeli repression of dissent among its citizens--an odd way of addressing the cause of the entire war itself and indicative of where the Commissions emphasis lies.

Whereas clause #4: “Whereas the 'fact-finding mission' included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel's actions `war crimes';”

This whereas clause is misleading. It overlooks, or neglects to mention, that the member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel.

Thankfully, Judge Goldstone does not fall back on his earlier excuse, ie that the mission was not a 'judicial inquiry' and that he thinks Chinkin is open-minded. But instead, he writes that she condemned Hamas rocket attacks also as war crimes. So now we are supposed to think that bias against both sides makes her objective?

More to the point, in the Times article the mention of Hamas is relegated to the very last paragraph of the article, again with a swipe at Israel--while in the second paragraph it states: The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence.

Furthermore, the references to Israel are clearly the focus of the article: calling the operation in Gaza "an act of aggression" and that the "invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza’s 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law." and that "the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes".

Obviously the bias of the Times letter and of Chinkin herself--which Goldstone here acknowledges--is clearly focused more strongly on Israel.


Whereas clause 5: “Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The mandate that was given to theMission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. I am happy to provide further details if necessary.

True, but the clause said 'many', not 'all' nor a 'majority'.

Whereas clause #6: “Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The initial mandate that was rejected by others who were invited to head the mission was the same one that I rejected. The mandate I accepted was expanded by the President of the Human Rights Council as a result of conditions I made.

This was touched upon above. Again the question remains whether the fact that the president of the HRC expands the mandate independent of the actual resolution has any binding authority.

Whereas clause #8: “Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;”

This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The findings included in the report are neither "sweeping” nor “unsubstantiated” and in effect reflect 188 individual interviews, review of more than 300 reports, 30 videos and 1200 photographs. Additionally, the body of the report contains a plethora of references to the information upon which the Commission relied for our findings.

The issue of 'sweeping' is subjective and open to interpretation. The charge of being unsubstantiated, whether accurate or not, is certainly not rebutted by blindly reciting the numbers of interviews etc.

More to the point, CAMERA has 2 separate articles on the issue of contradictory Palestinian testimony in the Rabbo case--one focusing on the inconsistencies in Abed Rabbo's story as reported in media outlets and another on the inconsistencies between the Goldstone findings on the Abed Rabbo story versus earlier NGO investigations.


Whereas clause #9: “Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers `in the fog of war.';”

This whereas clause is misleading. The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor of, and not against, the interests of Israel.

The fact is that the Goldstone Report did not hesitate to "make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle"

In its critique of the content of the Goldstone Report--one of those critiques that Judge Goldstone continually denies exists--CAMERA points out that the Goldstone Report does not hesitate to double-guess what was going through the mind of the IDF:

Motive was freely and falsely attributed to Israel in order to charge them with war crimes. Paragraph 74 (74) of the Report asserts:

The conditions of life in Gaza, resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government of Israel – as they were presented by its authorized and legitimate representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.

And in paragraph 1331 (1325):

The facts ascertained by the Mission, the conditions resulting from the deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Israeli Government – as they were presented by its authorized representatives – with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation, cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Israel's analysis of the Goldstone Report--the existence of which Goldstone also denies--also notes among the faults of the Report:

o Second-guessing choice of weapons and tactics without knowledge of available resources. The Report concludes that with respect to one particular incident, Israeli forces should have used different weapons to further limit the risk to civilians in the area, and is untroubled by the fact that it has no information regarding the available troops, weapons or intelligence. The Report observes that forces had 50 minutes in which to respond to a significant threat (the time used by the force to accurately identify the source of fire), and opines that given this time, “it is difficult to believe that mortars were the most accurate weapons available” (¶ 696). Displaying a troubling disconnect from the reality of urban fighting on many simultaneous fronts, it suggests that the forces in the field should used "helicopters and fighter jets", assuming that these are readily available to commanders in the field.[14]

o Second-guessing what commanders should have anticipated. The Report concludes with respect to another incident that Israeli forces should not have been surprised that they were faced with anti-tank missile fire in the vicinity of a UNRWA installation, and therefore should have taken different steps to respond to this hostile fire, other than applying the commonly used technique of smoke screening (¶ 588). Again, the Report seeks to substitute its judgment for that of the commanders in the field, without any of the information necessary to conduct a proper analysis under the applicable law.

One would almost think that Judge Goldstone did not read his own report--something he readily ascribes to his critics.


Whereas clause #10: ‘Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict', is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission's evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.'”

The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context. What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law. It is my view, as jurist, that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations.

The complete quote is: “We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” If what Goldstone says is true, they why are recommendations included in the report?

Whereas clause #11: “Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;”

It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel’s right to use military force was not questioned.

Actually, the clause says "in effect" and is not referring to any statement in the report but rather the overall effect of it. And don't forget, Christine Chinkin signed on to a letter which said that "the rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence."

Whereas clause #12: “Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;”

This whereas clause is misleading. Nowhere that I know of has it ever been suggested that the Mission should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. Such an investigation was never on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so.

No, the clause is not misleading--you just don't agree that Iran needed to be mentioned. There's a difference.

Whereas clause #14: “Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;”

This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution.

I note that the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate.

This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is theresult of Israel’s decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence.

If the reference was solely to evidence that Israel alone had, Judge Goldstone may have a point. However, there is evidence on YouTube that support the charge. Yet the report says that no such evidence exists.

Whereas clause #15: “Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [theIsraeli military]' specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.';”

This whereas clause is misleading, since the quotation is taken out of context. The quotation is part of a section of the report dealing with the very narrow allegation that Hamas compelled civilians, against their will, to act as human shields. The statement by the Hamas official is repugnant and demonstrates an apparent disregard for the safety of civilians, but it is not evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party.

And yet the report states that "the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack". Odd that the damaging quote from the Palestinian leader is quoted in the report in the context of homes where it is not applicable--and rejected as a proof--and not in the context of mixing with the civilian population, where the quote is both relevant and damaging.

Whereas clause #16: “Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission's report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals';”

The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it.

Does Judge Goldstone honestly believe that the Palestinian Arabs he interviewed did not have reason to fear the Hamas government? Would he deny that such fear would indeed shape the findings?

Take a look at the full text of the Goldstone Report being discussed:

440. In its efforts to gather more direct information on the subject, during its investigations in Gaza and in interviews with victims and witnesses of incidents and other informed individuals, the Mission raised questions regarding the conduct of Palestinian armed groups during the hostilities in Gaza. The Mission notes that those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups. Whatever the reasons for their reluctance, the Mission does not discount that the interviewees’ reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals.

Take a look also at Der Spiegel:

One of his neighbors weighs in: "Many people are now against Hamas but that won't change anything," he says. "Because anyone who stands up to them is killed." Since they took power Hamas has used brutal force against any dissenters in the Gaza Strip. There were news agency reports that during the war they allegedly executed suspected collaborators with Israel. The reign of terror will go on for some time, says the neighbor who doesn't want to give his name. "There will never be a rebellion against Hamas. It would be suicide."

Is Judge Goldstone seriously suggesting that fear of being killed by Hamas did not "shape the findings" of his report?



Sincerely,
Justice Richard J. Goldstone

The arguments made by Goldstone's ghostwriter as well as the selection of Christine Chinkin on his commission prove the truth of the old saying: good help is hard to find.

Technorati Tag: Goldstone Commission Report.