Sept 27, 2013 23 Tishri 5774
NBC News posted a story bylined by Kyle Eppler, Pete Williams, and Erin McClam, titled "Navy Yard gunman's mother says she is heartbroken and sorry for families." The following appears in the 21st paragraph:
Law enforcement officials told NBC News that Alexis created a webpage with the name "Mohammed Salem," but they said he never did anything with it. They said they had found nothing else that might indicate any interest in violent jihad or even in Islam.
Are we allowed to ask why this mass-murderer would've created a site called "Mohammed Salem"? Was he a fan of Emirati soccer player Mohammed Salem Saleh Al Saadi? Did he appreciate the work of Palestinian photojournalist Mohammed Salem, or the Dubai news anchorwith the same name? Or perhaps one of the other Mohammed Salems out there in the world? [Excuse the sarcasm.]
SURPRISE!!! STARTLING REVELATIONS FROM AN IRANIAN SMUGGLING CASE IN HAMBURG GERMANY I rarely attend trials, but this one is special. On July 24, 2013, the main hearing in the case of German businessman Rudolf M. and Iranian-Germans Gholamali K., Kianzad K., and Hamid Kh. opened at Hamburg's Higher Regional Court. The defendants are charged with exporting 92 German-produced specialized valves for use in Iran's Arak plutonium reactor and arranging the shipment of 856 nuclear-usable valves from India to Iran in 2010 and 2011.The reasons why the UN Security Council has ordered Iran to halt the construction of the Arak reactor are compelling. If this nuclear plant comes online in 2014, as the Iranians anticipate, it could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for two bombs a year. The smuggling of nuclear valves from Germany is therefore of exceptional significance and tops the latest UN list of reported alleged violations of the sanction regime against Iran.
Recently, an important detail of this smuggling operation was revealed on the German public television current affairs program, Fakt: "German officials clearly (knew) about this illegal trade since 2009 and did nothing about it for years." How so? Did such an explosive shipment really take place before the very eyes of the German security services? (read detailed report Algemeiner)
"I will remain coalition chairman so long as we go down the right path of construction and settling throughout all of Israel," Levin said, according to Israel Hayom.
Meanwhile, Energy and Water Resources Minister Silvan Shalom (Likud-Beiteinu) said Sunday that "no one believes a permanent agreement can be reached in nine months," the timetable the U.S. has set for the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiations. (JNS.org) (Algemeiner)
ARE YOU EATING HEZBOLLAH'S POTATOES? Forget about the European Union's designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The EU has. Europe will now finance Hezbollah, by buying its agricultural products from Lebanon, and spreading them all over Europe. If you live in Europe and eat potatoes, you are probably helping finance Hezbollah. And the United States encouraged this enterprise (because, apparently, American potato farmers need more competition financed by their own taxes . . . and from terrorists, to make matters worse).
WHAT WAS YOUR ROSH HASHANA-YOM KIPPUR MESSAGE. Did your Rabbi focus on Love-Love Thy Neighbor? In the Jewish Center of East Hampton we were told that though Torah is referred to as The Law, our (JCEH) message is one of Love. Was this the Reformed Movement MESSAGE OF THE YEAR?
Excuse my misbegotten notion that we are a Nation of Laws - a notion that in the year 2013 CE, to some has become de classe. I bring to your attention Jerold S Auerbach's The Journey From Torah to Constitution. Professor Auerbach is Professor Emeritus of History at Wellesley College and a Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School. We have to make special effort to attend the courses of academics who support the State of Israel. Steve Plaut IsraCampus.org To subscribe to sites that protect pro-Israel academics and expose those working against Israel: Email: Steve Plaut firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com
Tags: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Bank of China, International Law, Terrorist support, Hamas, Israeli Rocket Attack Victims, Jihad
(New York) The families of twenty Israeli terror victims have won a monumental decision in the New York State Appellate Division (1st Dept.) in their case against the Bank of China (BOC). The Appellate Court affirmed that the civil action brought in 2008 by the Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks and suicide bombings can proceed against the BOC in the United States.
Importantly, the Appellate Division also held that the trial court will apply Israeli law in hearing the case. The defendant had argued that Chinese law should apply as the BOC is headquartered in Beijing. This ruling will allow the non-American plaintiffs in the case to maintain their claims that the BOC was liable for providing financial services to Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terror organizations. Applying Israeli law, which differs from the Chinese law, would make it easier for the plaintiffs to prove that BOC officials had illegally violated banking regulations and US criminal statutes by carrying out money transfers for the terror organizations.
As the Court held: "We find that there is nothing repugnant to New York public policy in holding that Israeli law applies to this action. We also find that the complaint has sufficiently alleged negligence under Israeli law . . . Although a straightforward reading of the Israeli enactments would lead to the conclusion that they concern conduct that is broader in scope than most of what BOC is alleged to have done, the record contains opinions written by experts in Israeli law; plaintiffs' expert explains that BOC's
alleged transmission of funds is sufficient to bring it under the enactment forbidding the "giving" or "payment" of funds to terrorist groups."
The plaintiffs, are represented by New York attorney Robert Tolchin and Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.
The civil action brought on behalf of the victims and family members of victims of terror attacks perpetrated between 2004 and 2007 in Israel alleges that starting in 2003, the BOC executed dozens of wire transfers for the Hamas and PIJ totaling several million dollars. These dollar transfers were initiated by the PIJ and Hamas leadership in Iran and Syria, were processed through BOC's branches in the United States and were sent on to a BOC account in Beijing administered by a senior operative of the Hamas and PIJ. From there, the funds were transferred to Hamas and PIJ leaders in the Gaza Strip and West Bank and used to carry out terrorist attacks. The families are seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.
According to the plaintiffs' complaint, in April 2005, Israeli counter terrorism officers met with officials from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and China's Central Bank regarding these Hamas and PIJ wire transfers. The Israelis demanded that the Chinese officials take action to prevent BOC from making any further such transfers. Despite the Israeli warnings, the BOC - with the Chinese government's approval - continued to wire terrorist funds for the Hamas and PIJ. The suit was brought against the BOC on behalf of the Israeli victims, alleging that the BOC had knowingly transferred funds for the Palestinian terror organizations.
Plaintiffs include the families of Emi Elmaliah, Israel Zamalloa and Michael Saadon, who were murdered on January 27, 2007 in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat. The attack was carried out by a PIJ bomber from Gaza.
The Court's ruling means that the families of the victims of the Hamas and PIJ rocket attacks can now proceed to the discovery and trial stages.
According to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This is another obstacle we overcame in our journey to get justice for the terror victims. The court decision to apply Israeli law allows the terror victims to receive their day in court and to prove their allegations against the Bank of China. This decision joins previous decisions of the New York courts that ruled, that banks around the world will not be able to get away without pay in cases they were involved with terror financing That in the end of the day they will have to
pay for their wrong doing and compensate the terror victims."
FOR A COPY OF THE COURT'S DECISION:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_05858.htm
Contact: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Esq . / 10 Hata'as St., Ramat Gan 52512 Israel
Tel. 516-684-9983 / 972-3-7514175 / f. 972-3-7514174
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
3<BRITISH COLLEGE "UNBANS" BURQA
18, 2013 at 5:00 am
Birmingham Metropolitan College backed away from its ban on September 12, just hours before a mass demonstration by hundreds of Muslim students threatened to disrupt the normal functioning of the college.
The controversy began on September 9, the first day of the autumn term, when the college announced that students and employees would be ordered to remove any face coverings so that individuals are "easily identifiable at all times."
The college's ban on face-covering niqabs or the body-covering burqas -- as well as caps, hoodies and other types of head covering -- was billed as a security measure.
Christine Braddock, the college's principal, said the policy had been developed to keep students safe. In an interview with the Birmingham Mail, she said:
We have a very robust equality, diversity and inclusion policy at Birmingham Metropolitan College but we are committed to ensuring that students are provided with a safe and welcoming learning environment whilst studying with us.
To ensure that safeguarding is a priority, we have developed our policy alongside student views to ensure we keep them safe," Braddock added. "This needs individuals to be easily identifiable at all times when they are on college premises and this includes the removal of hoodies, hats, caps and veils so that faces are visible. All prospective and progressing students, as well as staff, have been advised of the policy, which will mean everyone allowed on the premises can understand and know each other in a safe environment.
Muslims were livid. One prospective Muslim student said she was so upset about the policy that she decided to look for another college in the city. The angry 17-year-old girl, who did not want to be named, told the Mail: "It's disgusting. It is a personal choice and I find it absolutely shocking that this has been brought in at a college in Birmingham city center when the city is so multicultural and so many of the students are Muslim. It upsets me that we are being discriminated against."
Another student at the college, Imaani Ali, also 17, told the Mail that her "freedom has been breached" by the rule. "Me and another friend who wears the veil were only told we wouldn't be allowed inside the college after we had enrolled," she said. "They haven't provided us with another alternative. We said we would happily show the men at security our faces so they could check them against our IDs, but they won't let us. It's a breach of my freedom and I feel discriminated against. This is my religion, it is what I believe in. I don't really want to go to a place that doesn't accept me but I have no choice now."
Muslim politicians were quick to chime in. Birmingham MP Shabana Mahmood said she was "shocked" and "deeply concerned" at the policy, and demanded an urgent meeting with college leaders about the decision. "For those that chose to wear the full veil, it is an important article of faith," she said. "I would like to know how many students are affected and a full explanation as to why the compromise suggested by students at the College, that the veil is removed for security staff to check and verify identity before being put back on, was not accepted by the College."
"I am deeply concerned that other colleges may follow suit, as a result of which increasing numbers of women will be locked out of education and skills training," Mahmood added. "We must not allow this to happen."
A member of the Birmingham city council, Waseem Zaffar, called the move "baffling" and said: "How they dress in their lessons should be entirely up to the students as there is no uniform policy at the college. I hope the college comes to its senses and does a U-turn."
The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), an umbrella organization of student groups that represents the interests of more than 100,000 Muslim college students in Britain and Ireland, issued a statement saying: "This senseless decision is massively divisive and will only lead to an environment in which the rights of many will be disproportionately suppressed. The fundamental rights to freedom of religious expression are at stake here and this sets out an extremely dangerous precedent not only for the Muslim community but for members of all faith backgrounds."
The college was ultimately forced into a climb-down after nearly 600 angry students threatened to participate in a campus demonstration on September 14 with the stated aim to "protest against this Islamophobic and illogical decision to ban the face veil...to take a stand against such hysterical and discriminatory decisions."
Fearing that the protest could potentially turn violent, the college issued a statement saying, "We are concerned that recent media attention is detracting from our core mission of providing high quality learning. As a consequence, we will modify our policies to allow individuals to wear specific items of personal clothing to reflect their cultural values."
Muslims reacted with jubilation. Protest organizer Sabiha Mahmood, 27, a former student at the college, said, "We are very happy that the ban has been overturned but there is still the wider issue of why it was ever allowed to happen in the first place. This is a victory for now but we have to make sure it does not happen again in Birmingham or in any other college in the UK. Our primary concern is that this student is part of British society and in this country we allow women to express themselves how they want to. We believe it is a fundamental right for Muslim women to be allowed to wear the face veil and to ban it was a violation of our human rights."
Waseem Zaffar, the city counsellor, said it had been a "sad few days" for Birmingham but was glad "common sense" had prevailed after the U-turn. "I think democracy has won here," he said. "The college has heard 8,000 people signed a petition in 48 hours and they have been brave enough to admit they were wrong. The reputation of the city and the college has been damaged but I hope we can move on now."
A spokeswoman for the Muslim Council of Britain, a Muslim umbrella group that is pressing the British government to implement Islamic Sharia law, described the ban as "shocking," "draconian" and "unBritish," and welcomed its reversal.
"This was a clear case of religious discrimination masquerading as a security measure," she said. "In Britain, we pride ourselves in the freedom of religion. While there may well be many views on whether this aspect of clothing is a religious obligation, we nevertheless respect a woman's right to wear the niqab if she freely wishes to do so."
But others say the college's reversal represents a capitulation for the British way of life.
Tory MP for Kettering Philip Hollobone told the British newspaper The Independent that the college's change of heart was a shameful disgrace and argued for the urgent need for legislation to ban the niqab in all public spaces.
"People are frightened of standing up and speaking out in this discussion because of political correctness and the intolerant reaction from Muslim groups who jump up and down with fury whenever anyone says that it makes sense for people to go around with their faces perfectly visible to everyone else, which is the way human beings were created in the first place," Hollobone said.
Hollobone presented a bill in the British Parliament on September 6 that would make it illegal to wear clothing obscuring the face in public; the bill will be considered on February 28, 2014.
In a live debate entitled, "Should Britain Ban the Veil?" and aired on BBC Radio 5 on September 6, Hollobone said, "Society can't function if people go around with facial coverings. If we all covered our faces the world would be a very different place. Imagine Parliament where everyone had their face covered. It makes it very difficult for the police to identify troublemakers. I am sad that legislation may be necessary to address this problem. It's basic common sense to most people. It would ultimately lead to the breakdown of our society."
Hollobone denied that his proposal amounted to an attack on Islam: "We have to be quite clear -- the burka isn't religious clothing. It's a choice."