Doc's Talk: ZOA CRITICIZES ISRAELI POLICE FOR DETAINING ISRAEL’S ZOA DIRECTOR AND OTHERS FOR DISTRIBUTING BOOKLET ABOUT ABBAS’ FATAH

Friday, January 11, 2008

ZOA CRITICIZES ISRAELI POLICE FOR DETAINING ISRAEL’S ZOA DIRECTOR AND OTHERS FOR DISTRIBUTING BOOKLET ABOUT ABBAS’ FATAH

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is stunned by and strongly criticizes the detention by Israeli police of the ZOA Director in Israel, Jeff Daube, and two activists, Susie Dym and Yehudit Dassberg (who lost a daughter and son-in-law to Arab terrorists), on the evening of January 9th in front of the Dan Panorama Hotel in Jerusalem. Mr. Daube was standing, along with a number of other pro-Israel activists, on a public street in front of the Dan Hotel where the foreign press corps covering President Bush's visit was based and were attempting to engage the correspondents in polite conversation about the immoderate nature of Fatah and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, whose Fatah constitution still calls for Israel’s destruction and terrorism while its members have murdered and maimed hundreds of Israelis. In order to buttress their case, they distributed a fact-based report about Fatah. It is important to note that this well-documented, rigorous report deals exclusively with the Fatah/Abbas tolerance and promotion of terrorism and at no point does it make any reference whatsoever to Israel response or lack thereof. It is the very antithesis of a seditious document. Nevertheless, a police officer confiscated one of the reports and after a perfunctory perusal deemed it seditious and inciteful.

The group was told to not stand on the public street in front of the main entrance to the hotel and to go to the corners of the street. Mr. Daube immediately did so while a couple of other activists continued to engage the police in conversation regarding their civil rights and freedom of speech in the public domain. When asked why the group was being asked to move, the police officer responded, "Because I feel like it." One activist engaged a cameraman from Fox News in conversation, handed him the report and was told that he was going to show it to his producer when Police Superintendant Chaim Moshe came over and summarily confiscated it from the cameraman and told the activists they were not allowed to stand there and talk with the Journalists.

Mr. Daube was standing at the corner for about twenty minutes, as previously instructed, when another police officer approached him, abruptly told him to come with him and took his Israeli ID card. He was then told to get into a police car with two other activists without any explanation as to why he was being detained by any of the officers. Susie Dym said Police Superintendent Chaim Moshe told her if she didn’t “come along quietly” that they would use “considerable force” against her. In the police car one of the activists informed the others the policeman told her that the material was found to be seditious and the police thought that they were a public nuisance. Nothing could be further from the truth. A close reading of the report finds not one iota of sedition and the individuals conducted themselves in an extremely civil and professional manner.

When one of the activists in the car tried to question the officers about the nature of the detention, the officers refused to respond and refused to provide their names and ID. Upon arrival at the Russian Compound police headquarters, Mr. Daube and the other detainees were told to stay in a waiting area but no further action was taken. This was an extremely stressful environment and the lack of communication from the police only exacerbated an already tense situation. Finally, after approximately one hour and a number of phone calls the police handed back the ID cards and the detainees were told not to go anywhere near the Dan Panorama Hotel during the Bush visit, with or without the so-called offensive material. The detainees were not questioned, nor were they asked to present their side of the events. They were not asked to sign anything, nor were they given any further explanation regarding the reason for their detainment other than a brief statement to one of the activists who was arrested as opposed to only being detained for the other two.

A member of the Israeli Knesset Dr. Aryel Eldad spoke out saying, “The arrests and detention clearly violated the activists’ freedom to speech and expression, any police officer who violated the law by harassing activists should face criminal charges.” Eldad called for the police to “allow the distribution of material to journalists and not to act like the police in a totalitarian state.”

After his release, ZOA’s Jeff Daube stated, "I am struck by the police's total arbitrary and capricious behavior in this incident. After having read and heard about these types of police actions, and now having experienced it first-hand, I can only say that I am saddened by the fact that the police force of the Jewish State employs tactics which would be expected in some other countries – not Israel."

“There has been an unprecedented outpouring of support for me and my fellow activists from Israelis who are appalled by this type of harassment and utter disregard for basic civil rights. The ZOA is encouraged by this response which evinces a better understanding by the people of the right to exercise free speech than was demonstrated by law enforcement officials.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “The ZOA is deeply concerned about the status of basic civil liberties in Israel. The right to assemble, petition, and speak out in opposition, whether from the left or right, are rights that should be a sine qua non in any democratic country. We all remember too well the arrest and imprisonment of protesters, including teenagers, against the Gaza withdrawal and the harsh tactics used by Israeli police against the protestors at Amona, causing even two members of the Israeli Knesset to seek treatment at a hospital, one suffering a concussion and the other a broken thumb.

“We are requesting an apology to the Israelis, including Jeff Daube, Susie Dym, and Jehudit Dassberg, whose freedom of speech and assembly rights were violated and who were improperly detained, and to the ZOA from the Israeli Police Superintendent Chaim Moshe.

“The ZOA also calls upon the government of Israel, especially Avi Dichter, Minister of Internal Security, to conduct a thorough reassessment of the Israeli Police Department's training regarding respect for the rights of the citizen. A police officer is mandated with the responsibility to enforce the rule of law. Indeed, it is only when a police officer's behavior, as well, is guided by the rule of law that we will perhaps reach a point where these types of incidents will no longer occur.”

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk