Thursday, April 18, 2013
Tears Don't Protect Against Terrorists
After serving a few years in prison for his role in the Munich Massacre in 1972, the German terrorist Willi Pohl moved to
They went back to
A decade after the attack, Willi Pohl had begun making a name for himself as a crime novelist. His first novel was Tränen Schützen Nicht vor Mord or Tears Do Not Protect Against Murder.
While Pohl was penning crime novels, Israeli operatives had already absorbed the lessons of his first title. Tears, whether in 1939 or 1972, had not done anything to prevent the murder of Jews. Bullets were another matter.
The head of Black September in
European law enforcement had failed to hold even the actual perpetrators of the Munich Massacre responsible, never mind the representatives of the PLO who openly mingled with red radicals in its capitals. Israeli operatives did what the German judicial system had failed to do, putting down Safady and one of the Al-Gasheys, while the other one hid out with Colonel Gaddafi in
The Israeli raid on the PLO terrorists in
By 1993, the year of the infamous Rose Garden handshake, 45 Israelis had been killed and 34 injured in Muslim terrorist attacks. A year after the handshake, the toll stood at 109 Israelis dead and 456 wounded. By 2002, the year that
Today, some 40 years after that September in
PLO officials these days are more likely to die of morbid obesity or, like Arafat, of AIDS, than of Israeli raids. They are nearly as likely to kill each other, like Arafat's cousin, Moussa Arafat, the former head of the Palestinian Authority's terrorist forces, who was dragged out of his home and shot by his own people. The murder of Mohammed Abu Shaaban, killed a week after the handshake, by his own people, was the first of a long string of Fatah on Fatah violence that is a far more likely cause of death for top terrorists than the jet planes and tanks of the hated Zionist regime.
The rivers of tears keep flowing, but tears don't protect against murder. Neither do peace treaties. No amount of tears from the tens of thousands mutilated, tortured, crippled, wounded, orphaned and widowed by the PLO in all its front groups, splinter groups and incarnations, including its current incarnation as a phony government, has been enough to stop Western governments from supporting, arming and funding the terrorists.
Tears don't protect against murder. They don't stop killers from killing. They don't prevent the authorities from looking the other way when the killings happen because there is something in it for them. They don't bring the terrorists to justice. They don't even ensure that the truth will be told, rather than the lie that rationalizes the terror.
Tears did not stop the operation of a single gas chamber. They did not save the life of a single Jewish refugee. They did not stop a single dollar from going to the PLO or Fatah or Black September or the Palestinian Authority or any of the other masks that the gang of Soviet-trained killers wore. They will not stop
In 1988, Willi Pohl published another book, Das Gesetz des Dschungels or The Law of the Jungle. That same year, PLO terrorists carried out the "Mother's Bus Attack" taking the passengers of a bus, filled with women on board, hostage and demanding the release of all imprisoned terrorists. The terrorists killed two hostages and Israeli Special Forces moved in, killing the terrorists and saving the lives of all but one hostage.
In response, Israeli commandos stormed
Not one single resolution was passed that year or the year afterward or the year after that condemning a terrorist attack against
In 1972, the year of the Munich Massacre, there were three Security Council resolutions condemning
This was the law of the jungle disguised as international law. Against the law of the jungle, tears are futile. Jungle law cannot be debated away or subdued with the speechifying of an Abba Eban or a Benjamin Netanyahu. It cannot be moralized into decency or signed away with peace treaties. It can only be met with resistance.
Tears don't protect against murder. Bullets do.
Daniel Greenfield is a
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
How to handle this situation:
1. Try to keep your children away from the
TV, especially. They do not need to see
dozens of hours of details of bleeding
people. Also, keep newspapers and radio
broadcasts away and don't forget that the
internet will be full of videos and gory
accounts of the mayhem.
2. Explain to your loved ones that this is an
isolated incident that that they do not have
to worry. You are keeping them safe. Explain
that the police have the situation under
control. Reassure your loved one that their
routine will remain the same.
3. Control your reactions when around your
children. Ideally, do NOT discuss this
situation in front of young children. Your
children do not need to see their parents
stressed, angry or fearful. Even teenagers
will get extremely anxious if they see their
parents very concerned, angry and fearful.
Remember, they are relying on YOU to keep
them safe. Do not let them see you worried,
anxious and angry. While I realize this may
be upsetting, consciously try to keep your
emotions in check around your autistic loved
4. Ask your children how they are feeling. It
is important for them to be able to express
their fears and emotions. Be reassuring. Be
loving. They need you to provide the safety,
security and routine in order to feel safe.
Evil exists in the world. But it is isolated. Do
not let your children see killings, bombings
and terrible events endlessly on the TV. They
will begin to think this is all around them.
Remember, folks on the autism spectrum
often lack the emotional maturity of others
their age. When in doubt shield your children
as much as possible from any negative news.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
- l’article 49 de la IVème Convention de Genève du 12 août 1949 qui dit que « la puissance occupante ne pourra procéder à la déportation ou transfert d’une partie de sa propre population civile dans le territoire occupé par elle ».
- l’article 53, qui précise « qu’il est interdit à la puissance occupante de détruire les biens mobiliers ou immobiliers appartenant individuellement ou collectivement à des personnes privées, à l’Etat ou à des collectivités publiques et des organisations sociales ou coopératives sauf dans les cas où ces destructions seraient rendues absolument nécessaires par les opérations militaires ».
- l’article 23(g) qui interdit de « détruire ou saisir les propriétés ennemies sauf les cas où ces destructions ou ces saisies seraient impérieusement commandées par les nécessités de la guerre »
- l’article 27 selon lequel « dans les sièges et bombardements, toutes les mesures nécessaires doivent être prises pour épargner autant que possible les édifices consacrés aux cultes, aux arts , aux sciences et à la bienfaisance, les monuments historiques, les hôpitaux … »
- et l’article 46 qui précise que « la propriété privée ne peut pas être confisquée ».
- les articles 49-6 et 53 de la Convention de Genève,
- les articles 23, 27 et 46 du Règlement annexé à la IVème Convention de La Haye de 1907,
- l’article 4 de la Convention de La Haye du 14 mai 1954,
- l’article 27 du règlement de La Haye de 1907,
- l’article 5 de la Convention IX de la Haye de 1907,
- et l’article 53 du protocole additionnel n° 1 aux Conventions de Genève.
- Premièrement, l’ensemble de ces textes internationaux sont des actes signés entre Etats, et que les obligations ou interdictions qu’ils contiennent s’adressent aux Etats. Ni l’Autorité palestinienne, ni l’OLP n’étant des Etats, aucun de ces textes ne s’appliquent à eux.
- Deuxièmement, rappelle encore la Cour, ces textes s’adressent « aux parties contractantes », c’est à dire aux deux parties qui les ont signés – et là encore, ni l’OLP ni l’AP n’ont jamais signé ces documents.
Friday, April 12, 2013