German news outlets blatantly lying about NSA / USA / the Amash amendment

Germany currently is doing what it does best: Demonizing the USA in order to prepair her as the 'Great Satan' who is supressing the world.

The german debate about the alleged NSA surveillence in the world and especially in Germany has been lunatic from the start, almost entirely based on unproven claims made by DER SPIEGEL. But the impertinence by which the entire german news media is lying about the Amash amendment (http://amash.house.gov/speech/amash-nsa-amendment-fact-sheet) is astonishing. US representative Justin Amash had initiated an amendment targeting the bulk storage of phone connection records in advance of any potential investigation ("Vorratsdatenspeicherung"). In the EU this is established practice and even in Germany although the german high court has ruled that the german legislation regarding this had been unconstitutional due to a lack of data protection rules it is still legislation to be implemented due to EU rulings.

But german news media is portraying the US as if the NSA is allowed to eavesdrop on literally every single US citizen without the slightest connection to an investigation let alone a court order.

The publicly financed broadcasting service ARD:

http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/nsa164.html

"Die NSA darf weiter mithören
Der US-Geheimdienst NSA darf auch weiterhin in großem Umfang Kommunikationsdaten von Amerikanern sammeln. Das US-Repräsentantenhaus stimmte mit 217 zu 205 Stimmen gegen einen Antrag des Republikaners Justin Amash, die Sammlung elektronischer Daten zu beschränken. Dazu gehört die Aufzeichnung von Telefonaten. Amash hatte angeregt, die Überwachung von Telefongesprächen und Metadaten nur noch bei verdächtigen Personen zu gestatten "

 "The NSA is still allowed to eavesdrop
The US intelligence service NSA will still be allowed in the future to collect bulk communication data from americans. The US house of representatives ruled with 217 against 205 against an amendment initiative by the republican Justin Amash, intended to limit the collection of electronic data. This includes the recording of phone calls. Amash had suggested to limit the surveillence of phone calls and metadata to persons under suspicion."

The publicly financed ZDF:

http://www.heute.de/Ex-BND-Chef-fordert-Ehrenkodex-f%C3%BCr-Spione-28977930.html

"In einem Antrag unter Leitung des Republikaners Justin Amash soll die Überwachung in den USA künftig nur dann genehmigt werden, wenn bereits verdächtige Personen betroffen sind. Auf diese Weise soll die breit angelegte Überwachung von Telefongesprächen und die Sammlung von Metadaten verringert werden. Bei Verstößen sollen der NSA die Mittel gekürzt werden."

"An initiative sponsored by the republican Justin Amash  aims limit the surveillenc in the USA to cases in which persons already under suspicion are involved. In this way the broad surveillence of phone calls and metadata sould be reduced. In the case of infringement the budget of the NSA should be reduced."

The more conservative WELT:

http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article118368264/NSA-darf-US-Buerger-weiter-ueberwachen.html

"NSA darf US-Bürger weiter überwachen

Im US-Repräsentantenhaus scheitern NSA-Kritiker mit nur zwölf Stimmen Abstand daran, die Spionage innerhalb der USA zu begrenzen. Damit darf der Geheimdienst Amerikaner weiterhin umfassend belauschen."

"NSA can go on with monitoring US citizens

In the US house of representatives NSA critics are missing 12 votes in their effort of limiting the spying inside the USA. The intelligence service can go on with the widespread listening to Americans."

The HANDELSBLATT:

http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/kongress-abstimmung-nsa-darf-us-buerger-weiter-im-grossen-stil-ueberwachen/8544544.html

"Amash hatte angeregt, die Überwachung von Telefongesprächen und Metadaten nur noch bei verdächtigen Personen zu gestatten. Bei Verstößen sollte das Budget der NSA zusammengestrichen werden. [...] 'Die Regierung sammelt verdachtsunabhängig Telefonaufzeichnungen von jedem einzelnen Amerikaner in den Vereinigten Staaten', prangerte der republikanische Abgeordnete Justin Amash, einer der Initiatoren des Vorhabens, in der Debatte an"

Amash had suggested to limit the surveillence of phone calls and metadata to persons under suspicion. On infringements the NSA budget should be reduced.  [...]
'The gouvernment collects regardless of any suspicion phone recordings of every single American in the united states' the republican representative Justin Amish, one of the initiators of the initiative, says"

 The yellow press tabloid BILD:

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/nsa/darf-weiterschnueffeln-us-repraesentantenhaus-entscheidet-31529808.bild.html

"NSA darf weitermachen [...]
Der amerikanische Geheimdienst NSA darf die Telefongespräche von US-Bürgern auch künftig im großen Stil überwachen!"

NSA can carry on[...]
The american intelligence service NSA will be still allowed to monitor phone calls of US citizens on a large scale."

The conservative FAZ:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/vereinigte-staaten-freie-fahrt-fuer-die-nsa-12304050.html

"Der amerikanische Geheimdienst NSA darf auch künftig Hunderte Millionen Telefongespräche von Staatsbürgern der Vereinigten Staaten uneingeschränkt überwachen und aufzeichnen."

"The american intelligence service will still be allowed to monitor and record hundreds of millions of phone calls in the United States without any limitations."

The notoriously anti-american Süddeutsche Zeitung SZ:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/entscheidung-im-repraesentantenhaus-nsa-darf-telefongespraeche-von-us-buergern-weiter-ueberwachen-1.1730191

"NSA darf Telefongespräche von US-Bürgern weiter überwachen" "NSA is stilled allowed to monitor phone calls of US citizens."

Obamas Rede vor Studenten in Jerusalem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZdkuSxL0jw

Das ist eine Rede vor isralischen Studenten - von ihm ausgewählt - , d.h. strukturell besseren Kindern, jedenfalls keine Rede an das israelische Volk, wie er in den ersten Minuten behauptet. Eine Enladung in die Knesset, d.h. die politische Repräsentanz des israelischen Volkes hat er ausgeschlagen. Gleichzeitig suggeriert die Bühnengestaltung, insb. das israelische Wappen einen Kontakt zum Staat Israel und nicht zu einem Kindergarten.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/20/obamas-already-angering-some-in-israel-over-these-two-speech-decisions/

Das Video - frei von Kontextwissen, etwa um die Zusammensetzung des Publikums - suggeriert kontrafaktisch vollste Zustimmung eben des israelischen Volkes, was man wohl als beabsichtigt unterstellen darf.

Dieser Besuch ist schon formal eine Verabwürdigung Israels. Und Israel hat bereitwillig Männchen gemacht. Obama ist ein Psycho - vieles deutet auf extremen Narzissmus hin. Man denke nur an seinen Gesichtsausdruck, als Netanyahu ihm eine kleine Geschichtsvorlesung hielt.

Morsi in 2010: No to Negotiations with the Blood-Sucking, Warmongering "Descendants of Apes and Pigs"

Recommended Link: Barry Shaw / "Why a two-state solution will never work"

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=297597

Claudia Roth im ARD-Morgenmagazin über den "pragmatischen Teil der Hamas"

"Wir wollen die Ausrottung der ökonomischen, politischen, millitärischen und kulturellen Existenz des polnischen Regimes"

Ein Vorschlag für ein neues Logo für die SPD in Anlehnung an das der  Schwesterorganisation der SPD in der sozialistischen Internationalen und ihres 'strategischen Partners' Fatah, um die 'gemeinsamen Werte'  (Andrea Nahles) noch ein wenig mehr zu betonen.

Der Titel ist eine leichte Abwandlung eines Auszugs aus der Charta der Fatah.

Martin Schulz und die Islamfaschisten III

http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/martin_schulz-901-22789--f359851.html#q359851

Martin Schulz und die Islamfaschisten II

http://achildcansee.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/lost-in-translation/

"On 09.19.2012 Germany’s Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, met with the Parliamentary Delegation from the Gulf States led by Abdulla Bin Mohammad Al Sheikh, Speaker of Saudi Shura Council."

Beschneidung und Antisemitismus I

Wenn in der Debatte über die religiös begründete Genitalverstümmelung von kleinen Jungen Gefahr für Juden und Antisemitismus zu vermuten ist, dann von und bei Leuten, die so etwas wie das Folgende denken:

"Die körperliche Unversehrtheit des einzelnen Kindes muss hinter der Unantastbarkeit der deutsch-jüdischen Symbiose zurückstehen."

aus:

"Gesetz zur Beschneidung Nicht von dieser Welt

Trotz des mit großer Mehrheit beschlossenen Gesetzes wird eine Beschneidung in Deutschland nicht wieder normal sein, auch wenn sie erlaubt ist. Womöglich wird sich das Bundesverfassungsgericht damit beschäftigen."

 

Reinhard Müller

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/gesetz-zur-beschneidung-nicht-von-dieser-welt-11991531.html

Brokering Cease Fire between Israel and Hamas

Every apparently well meaning politican who demands a ‘cease fire’ or ‘restraint from all parties’ who wants to ‘broker a cease fire’ legitimizes Hamas terror. A cease fire – as reasoned from the outside – is desirable if both parties are somehow morally equal, if they were torn into the struggle ‘by accident’. You don’t even try to broker a cease fire between the Allies and the Wehrmacht, not between the police and hostage takers and not between the IDF and the Hamas. You either demand unconditional surrender from the right side or you shut up. Everyone who does that is suggesting that Israel and Hamas are somehow morally comparable and is culpable of legitimizing Hamas’ tactics. Secretary of State Clinton and German Foreign Minister Westerwelle for example are not just stupid, they have Israeli blood on their hands.

"Terres des Femmes und die Beschneidung einwilligungsfähiger Frauen "

Wie schief die Diskussion um die Genitalverstümmelung läuft zeigt eine Stellungnahme von Franziska Gruber, Terre des Femmes:

"Erwachsene Männer sollen aber weiterhin das Recht haben, eine Beschneidung durchführen zu lassen. Die weibliche Genitalverstümmelung stellt allerdings eine Verletzung der Menschenrechte da. So sollen nicht nur Mädchen, sondern auch einwilligungsfähige Frauen weiterhin nicht das Recht besitzen, sich beschneiden zu lassen" (http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article111030661/Mediziner-will-Vaginal-Beschneidung-legalisieren.html)

Mehr dazu hier:K. & K. Momentaufnahmen: Terres des Femmes und die Beschneidung einwilligungsfähiger Frauen

 

Die Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen sei eine Menschenrechtsverletzung, während die von Männern ("allerdings") keine sei.

Frau Gruber muss wissen, dass unter Genitalverstümmelung Praktiken gefasst werden, die unter physiologischen und vielleicht auch unter psychologischen Gesichtspunkten geradezu läppisch sind im Vergleich zur Amputation der Penisvorhaut: Einritzungen, Einstechungen, (Teil-)Entfernungen der Klitorisvorhaut. Letztere - aber auch Schamlippenveränderungen -  werden regelmäßig und auch in Deutschland als kosmetische Operationen vollzogen - weil die jeweiligen Frauen das so wollen. Handelt es sich um Eingriffe gegen den Willen der Frau, müssen sie selbstverständlich als Straftat gewertet werden.
Was Frau Gruber hier betreibt, ist die negative Idealisierung der Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen in Form der Eingriffshandlung als solche als absolut böse Tat. Auch volljährige Fraun sollen solchen Eingriffen nicht zustimmen dürfen. Dieses Freiheitsverständnis muss alarmieren.

 

Unnötige Schmerzen vermeiden II

"Jetzt erst Recht: Wir träumen nicht – Wir trauen uns -

Rede des Präsidenten des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland, Dr. Dieter Graumann, anlässlich der Gedenkveranstaltung zur Reichspogromnacht in der Frankfurter Paulskirche, 08. November 2012"


http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/de/article/3879.html

"Unvermutete Einschläge sind oft ganz besonders schmerzhafte Schläge. Das gilt gewiss für das urplötzlich aus dem Nichts aufgekommene Thema „Beschneidung" und die mitunter ausgesprochen hässlichen Nebengeräusche, die schroffen Belehrungen, die geradezu besessenen Bevormundungen und die rüden Respektlosigkeiten in dieser Debatte."

Die negative Idealisierung der Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen

Hier schreibt in der ZEIT ein Michel Chaouli sich was zusammen, das man grenz-debiles Gebrabbel nennen kann, wenn man sich klarmacht, wie der selbe Autor vermutlich das Phänomen der Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen behandelte:

http://www.zeit.de/2012/44/Beschneidungsurteil

"Die Argumente für ein Verbot der Beschneidung führten zwar stets universelle Prinzipien ins Feld, die würdig aller Unterstützung sind. Doch bei näherem Hinsehen wurde mir deutlich, dass diese allgemeinen Gedanken von einer höchst besonderen Unterscheidung angetrieben wurden, nämlich der zwischen dem Eigenen und dem Fremden"

Nichts ist zur Zeit so sehr die Entgegensetzung des Eigenen gegen das Fremde, wie der Versuch, das vermeintlich absolut Böse der Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen gegen das vermeintlich Harmlose der Jungenbeschneidung auszuspielen.

Und leider kann man sagen, dass die Kämpfer gegen die FGM ein gutes Stück dazu beigetragen haben, diese negativ zu idealisieren und damit der positiven Idealisierung der Jungenbeschneidung Vorschub geleistet haben.

Eine schöne Auflistung der "Vorteile" der Genitalverstümmelung von Frauen:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=131285&sid=5353e2755f54941eb8a2dd9c082f3459

"#1. It helps prevent HIV/AIDS

Stallings et al. reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was half that of women who had not. The association remained significant after adjusting for region, household, wealth, age, lifetime partners, and sexuality.

Kanki et al. reported that the HIV-2 infection rate among circumcised Sengalese prostitutes was half that of non-circumcised women.

#2. It improves hygiene

After a female is circumcized, there are less places to hold moisture, less places for bacteria to cultivate, and less surfaces for STDs to be transmitted. There is less surface to wash, making it easier to maintain hygiene and saving time doing so.

#3. It improves smell, by reducing bacteria levels

By removing the clitoral hood and clitoris, along with the labia, vaginal bacterial levels decrease. Urinal tract infections and yeast infection levels lower significantly, or become almost non-existent, as there is less space for bacteria to culture. Men appreciate women who go through the effort to remove the smell from their crotch. Your daughter will thank you!

#4. It looks better, by removing unsightly flaps of skin

As porn stars can attest too, men prefer the look of smooth vagina, without unsightly flaps of skin.

#5. To allow male circumcision, but not female circumcision is sexist.

Why should only boys be allowed to enjoy the many benefits circumcision offers both sexes?"

Micha Brumlik: Ein Erziehungswissenschaftler kämpft für das Recht, kleinen Jungen einen Teil ihres Genitals amputieren zu dürfen, um Gott zu gefallen

http://www.taz.de/Kolumne-Gott-und-die-Welt/!102730/

"Gott und die Welt
Ein würdiger Namensgeber

Kolumne von Micha Brumlik

In deutschen Großstädten kurven derzeit Autos mit einem großen Plakat herum, auf dem ein kindlicher Unterleib zu sehen ist, dessen Schritt von mitleidheischenden Patschhändchen bedeckt wird; ein Gesicht des Kindes ist nicht zu sehen. In großen Lettern steht auf dem Plakat: „Mein Körper gehört mir – Zwangsbeschneidung ist Unrecht – auch bei Jungen.“ [...]"

Leo Latasch und der Beschneidungs-Jihad

Leo Latasch, jüdischer Arzt, Mitglied des Deutschen Ethikrats, Mitglied des Zentralsrats der Juden, Leiter des Rettungsdienstes der Stadt Frankfurt findet, dass die Gegnerschaft zur Zangsamputation der männlichen Vorhaut, um Gott zu gefallen ein Religionskrieg ist, in dem das Christentum anderen Religionen zu sagen versuche, wo es lang geht (http://nachrichten.rp-online.de/politik/juedischer-arzt-vergleicht-beschneidungs-debatte-mit-religionskrieg-1.3015489).

Jetzt ist es ja so, dass Anhänger der religiösen Genitalverstümmelung nur einen christlichen Theologen auf ein Verantstaltungspodium platzieren müssen, wenn sie jemanden wünschen, von dem garantiert kein Widerspruch zu erwarten ist. Die drei großen Religionen bilden zur Zeit eine veritable Querfront zur Etablierung Islam- und Tora-konformer Gesetzgebung - sie wollen ziemlich beste Freunde sein, die man nicht zu kritisieren hat - auch wenn es um die Verstümmelung des Sexualorgans kleiner Jungen geht. Und die Speerspitze im Bundestag hierfür wird von den christlichen Volksparteien gebildet.

Leo Latasch hat diesen hanebüchenen Unsinn vermutlich auf der Verantstaltung  “Lifestyle und Judentum” am 29. und 30. September getätigt, die vom "Bundesverband jüdischer Mediziner e.V." in Düsseldorf verantstaltet wurde (http://www.juedische-aerzte.de/index.php/veranstaltungen-2012.html). Dort saß er auf dem Panel "Brith Mila - das Kölner Gerichtsurteil" zusammen mit 

Louis Lewitan, Diplompsychologe
Prof. Dr. Bernhardt Roth, Pädiater Universitätsklinik Köln
Prof. Leo Latasch, Frankfurter Rettungsdienst und einziger jüdischer Vertreter im
Deutschen Ethikrat
Prof. Dr. Stefan Muckel, Institut für Kirchenrecht der Universität Köln
Ulrich Langenberg, Stellvertretender Geschäftsführer der Ärztekammer Nordrhein
Cora Rimoczi, Vorsitzende des Bundesverbandes Jüdischer Mediziner

Auf der Verantstaltungsseite 2012 des Bundesverbandes jüdischer Ärzte e.V. findet man auch folgende vielversprechende Veratnstaltungsankündigung:

12. Februar - Vortrag und Brunch, Düsseldorf

Einladung

Liebe Mitglieder und Freunde,

der Bundesverband Jüdischer Mediziner lädt ein zum

Vortrag und Brunch am 12.2.2012

das Thema lautet:

Religion und Sexualität - ein Spannungsverhältnis ?
Die Ordnungsfunktion von Religion gegenüber den anarchistischen Tendenzen der Sexualität?

mit

Priv. - Doz. Dr. med. habil. Walter Dmoch,
Psychoanalytiker (DGPT),
Arzt für Psychotherapeutische Medizin,
Arzt für Psychiatrie und Neurologie

Die Ordnungsfunktion der Religion gegenüber den anarchistischen Tendenzen der Sexualität - was das wohl mit der Amputation von Penisteilen bei kleinen Jungs zu tun haben mag?

HDP: "Die Erosion des religiösen Diskurses"

http://hpd.de/node/14066

"Die Erosion des religiösen Diskurses

ERLANGEN. (hpd) Die Hugenottenkirche in Erlangen hat zur Podiumsdiskussion geladen. Thema: Das Kölner Beschneidungsurteil und seine Folgen. Für den Gastgeber, Pfarrer Johannes Mann, ist es ganz klar: Die Juden und Muslime haben ein Recht darauf, ihre Kinder aus religiösen Gründen zu beschneiden. Der Pfarrer versteht diese Parteinahme wohl als gelebte Ökumene: Christen, Juden und Muslime Hand in Hand gegen die Bedrohung durch einen aggressiven Säkularismus [...]"

 

"Zuerst kommt der Mensch und dann erst Religion"

Leo Latasch, jüdischer Arzt, Mitglied des Ethikrats und Beschneidungsverfechter beim Deutschlandfunk:

http://www.dradio.de/dkultur/sendungen/ausderjuedischenwelt/1746706/

"Zuerst kommt der Mensch und dann erst Religion"

"Die jüdische Religion hat zwar Gesetze niedergelegt vor über 5700 Jahren, aber die alle diskussionsfähig sind, weil man verschiedene Auslegungen zulassen kann."

  

Unnötige Schmerzen vermeiden

http://www.badische-zeitung.de/nachrichten/deutschland/highlight-oder-quaelerei--64085358.html

Ohnehin stehen die Juden bei der Debatte viel mehr im Fokus. "Für mich war das ein emotionaler Schock", sagt der Freiburger Rabbiner Avraham Radbil (28). "Wir stehen auf einmal so da, als ob wir unsere Kinder quälen. Das tut weh", ergänzt seine Frau Mascha (26), die erst vor wenigen Tagen ein Mädchen zur Welt gebracht hat

Nichtidentisches: "Der Reflexionsausfall der Antisemitismuskritik am Beispiel Dershowitz"

 

http://nichtidentisches.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/der-reflexionsausfall-der-antisemitismuskritik-am-beispiel-dershowitz/

"Der Reflexionsausfall der Antisemitismuskritik am Beispiel Dershowitz

September 11, 2012 von Felix Riedel

Alan Dershowitz ist kein kleines Kaliber, das die Jüdische Allgemeine auffahren lässt. Er ist routiniert im Nahkampf mit linksintellektuellem, relativistischem und mitunter auch jüdischem Antisemitismus in den USA, er argumentiert liberalistisch, verteidigte nicht nur Mike Tyson und O.J. Simpson, sondern auch den Underdog der Underdogs, Israel.

Man kennt bisweilen exotische Positionen von ihm zur Folter oder zur Counterinsurgency im Westjordanland. Was er allerdings nun zur Beschneidungsdebatte abliefert, ist ein Reflexionsausfall, der aktuell bei einer ganzen Reihe von liberalen, proisraelischen Intellektuellen und Antisemitismuskritikern stattfindet. Dershowitz beginnt mit der rethorischen Frage:

Warum machen sich Länder, die auf eine lange Geschichte des Antisemitismus und anderer Formen religiöser Intoleranz zurückblicken, anscheinend mehr Gedanken über das sogenannte Recht von Kindern, nicht beschnitten zu werden, als andere Länder mit einer besseren Geschichte, was Menschenrechte betrifft?[...]"

EP Präsident Martin Schulz mit Saudis zu "Innocence of Muslims" Video

Full joint press point by - Martin Schulz, EP President, Abdulla Bin Mohammed Al Sheikh, Speaker of Saudi Shura Council,
- H.E. Khalid bin Hilal Al Mawali Chairman of the Majles, Oman - leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council in the European Parliament 19.09.2012, Brussels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSd2JK78C48

Martin Schulz (14:00): "[w]e must convince our society to take distance from such people" 

Gemeint sind nicht die beiden Barbaren neben ihm, die in ihren Ländern furchtbarste Taten im Namen des Islams gegen Ungläubige, Frauen und Homosexuelle zu verantworten haben, sondern die Macher des Videos "Innocence of Muslims".

Schönheitsoperationen und Beschneidung

Aus dem Entschließungsantrag der Bundestagsfraktionen CDU/CSU und SPD vom 24.10.2007 (http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/16/067/1606779.pdf) zu Schönheitsoperationen bei Minderjährigen mit dem Titel "Missbräuche im Bereich der Schönheitsoperationen gezielt verhindern – Verbraucher umfassend schützen":

"Der Bundestag wolle beschließen:
I. Der Deutsche Bundestag stellt fest:
[...]
Die Folgebehandlungen missglückter Eingriffe oder bei Komplikationen stellen nicht nur eine große Belastung für die Geschädigten dar, sondern belasten auch die Versichertengemeinschaft mit zunehmenden Kosten. Deshalb gibt es zukünftig eine stärkere Eigenverantwortung für die Behandlung von Folgeerkrankungen aufgrund nicht notwendiger medizinischer Eingriffe – zum Beispiel bei Komplikationen infolge von Schönheitsoperationen oder Piercing. Denn es handelt sich um freiwillige Eingriffe ohne medizinische Indikation, mit deren Folgen die Solidargemeinschaft nicht belastet werden darf.
[...]
Die Zahl der schönheitschirurgischen Eingriffe an Jugendlichen unter 18 Jahren nimmt zu. Einzige Voraussetzung dafür ist zurzeit nur das Vorliegen einer Einwilligungserklärung der gesetzlichen Vertreter. Eine vorherige medizinische Begutachtung muss nicht erfolgen. Selbst bei einer ordnungsgemäßen Aufklärung ist nicht sichergestellt, dass sich der Jugendliche der Reichweite seines Entschlusses bewusst ist. Es besteht die Gefahr, dass der jugendliche Charakter die Folgen nur schwer oder überhaupt nicht verarbeitet. Somit stehen fehlende Einsichtsfähigkeit und die möglichen körperlichen Folgen nicht im Verhältnis zum Nutzen. Der Jugendliche befindet sich noch im Wachstum. Ebenfalls verändern sich in der Reflexionsphase das Weltbild und die eigenen Werte in einem fließenden Prozess. Das eigene Aussehen kann später nur noch nachrangige Bedeutung besitzen. Vielmehr ist gerade das Aussehen eines Menschen sein natürliches Gut, über das er bei bestehender geistiger Reife selbst entscheiden muss. Schönheitsoperationen an Kindern und Jugendlichen sollten also deshalb nur dann vorgenommen werden, wenn ein erheblicher Leidensdruck vorliegt oder ein Krankheitswert der Deformierung eingeschätzt werden kann.
[...]
II. Der Deutsche Bundestag
[...]
● fordert die Bundesregierung und die Länder in ihrem jeweiligen Zuständigkeitsbereich auf,
1. berufsrechtliche und sonstige rechtliche Regelungen für Verbote von nicht medizinisch indizierten Schönheitsoperationen an Minderjährigen zu prüfen;
[...]

Berlin, den 24. Oktober 2007
Volker Kauder, Dr. Peter Ramsauer und Fraktion Dr. Peter Struck und Fraktion"

Wohlgemerkt, bei Minderjährigen, die mit vielleicht 16 Jahren durchaus einsichts- und vetofähig sind und etwa ihren "boob job" vermutlich wollen.All dies gilt für 8 Tage, 4 Jahre oder 7 Jahre alte Jungen im Bezug auf ihre Beschneidung nicht.

Kleine Juden haben Nazivorhäute, die weg müssen

"Vorhaut, nein danke!" auf der Demonstration in Berlin September 2012 für das Recht, kleinen Jungen einen Teil ihres Penis amputieren zu dürfen, um Gott zu gefallen: Die deutsche Vorhaut am jüdischen Penis, Vorhaut in altdeutscher Schrift.

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article109113576/Juden-und-Muslime-gehen-gemeinsam-auf-die-Strasse.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/mediacenter/fotostrecken/politik/demonstr_10_dpa/7114560.html

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/demo_dapd/7113262.html

Zum Kommentar von Walter Otte beim Humanistischen Pressedienst

"Verunglimpfungen statt Argumente?"

"In seinem Kommentar setzt sich Walter Otte mit religiös motivierter Knabenbeschneidung und dem vorwiegend von orthodoxen Rabbinern und Funktionären erhobenen Vorwurf des Antisemitismus von Beschneidungsgegnern auseinander. Dabei verwahrt er sich gegen unsägliche Vergleiche." 

http://hpd.de/node/14033?page=0,0


Ein Video von der Kundgebung in Berlin, mit der für das Recht demonstriert wurde, einen Teil des Genitals kleiner Jungen amputieren zu dürfen, um Gott zu gefallen und von der Ottes Kommentar unter anderem handelt:

Vorab mussten erst die islamistischen Anhänger von Hamas und Milli Görüs aus der Aufruferliste gesiebt werden. Man hatte mit den ebenfalls betroffenen Muslimen "Ziemlich beste Freunde" sein wollen und dabei nicht ganz so genau hingeguckt, mit wem man sich dabei einläßt. Der Free-Gaza-Aktivist Wolfgang Thierse, der für die Befreiung des judenmordenden Hamas-Gaza vom Joch der Israelischen Besatzung kämpft (http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2009/13/33568.html) durfte dann doch teilnehmen.

Ein Punkt, den Otte aufgreift, sei kommentiert: 

"Vor allem der Berliner Rabbiner Ehrenberg, der in den Diskussionen der letzten Wochen  gezeigt hat, dass ihn keinerlei Sachargumente interessieren und der die Totalverweigerung gegenüber dem Rechtsstaat predigt. tat sich hierbei hervor: er erwähnte unter Bezugnahme auf seinen kürzlichen Besuch im KZ Auschwitz das Leiden der etwa eineinhalb Millionen Babys und Kinder, die in den Mordfabriken der Nazis ihren Müttern entrissen, gequält und ermordet wurden – dies sei die physische Vernichtung, so Ehrenberg"

Die obszöne Vergleichung einer Opposition gegen das Beschneidungsritual mit dem Entreißen kleiner jüdischer Kinder aus den Händen ihrer Mütter, um sie zu töten, nimmt er natürlich nicht zufällig vor. Sie muss wohl als Projektion gesehen werden:

Die Zwangsamputation der Vorhaut am 8. Tag nach der Geburt ist ein  äußerst aggressiver Akt - nicht alleine gegen den neugeborenen Jungen und sein Genital gerichtet - sondern auch gegen die Mutter und die Mutter-Kind-Beziehung, die in dieser Phase normalerweise von Geborgenheit, Körperkontakt, Schlafen, Gestilltwerden und erstem Blickkontakt mit der Mutter geprägt ist. Diese über die Entbindung hinaus verlängerte Symbiose wird rabiat gestört. Der Kontrast des dabei erfahrenen Schmerzes zum normalen Alltag eines acht Tage alten Kindes könnte kaum größer sein. Der Sohn soll zu allererst der Religionsgemeinschaft gehören. Er ist es, der in dieser Szene aus dieser Beziehung mit der Mutter gerissen und der patriachalen Gemeinschaft überantwortet wird. Die Mutter muss dies erdulden. Dass Beschneidungsrituale in der Regel Männerverantstaltungen sind, ist Index dieser Orientierung.

Anläßlich des Textes "Dhimmis a la carte" von Henryk M. Broder

(http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/dhimmis_a_la_carte/)

Es war eigentlich schon abzusehen, wie wenig Herr Broder Dinge durchdenkt, als er Beschneidung und den Massenmord an den Juden parallelisierte (http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/volk_im_wahn/). Er hat in seinem Text "Dhimmis a la Carte" so ziemlich alles falsch. Dhimmis zur Zeit sind die Bürger in den westlichen Ländern, die vor den mit Drohungen unterlegten Forderungen von Muslimen kuschen und die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaates zwecks Beschwichtigung verraten. Barack Obama ist ein Dhimmi. Der deutsche Bundestag besteht zum Großteil aus Dhimmis, unter anderem weil er im Juni 2012 ohne Sinn und Verstand ein Gesetz angekündigt hat, das der mit der Drohung, das Land zu verlassen, unterlegten Forderung des Zentralrats der Juden und anderer nachkommen soll und das Recht etablieren soll, kleinen Jungen einen Teil ihres Penis amputieren zu dürfen, um dem vorgestellten Willen Gottes zu entsprechen. Herr Wolffsohn ist kein Dhimmi. Er hat vielmehr erkannt, dass die Zwangsamputation von Penisteilen eine Sache der Vorzeit ist und nicht ins 21. Jahrhundert gehört - so wenig wie die Steinigung von ehebrecherischen Frauen oder das Abschlachten von Menschen, die Aspekte von Religionen verächtlich machen. Er verteidigt die Errungenschaften des Rechtsstaates, in dem kein Platz für Sonderrechte für religiöse Gemeinschaften ist. Er könnte nicht weiter vom Dhimmi-Sein entfernt sein.

"Nun gibt es im Bürgerlichen Recht der Bundesrepublik keinen Dhimmi-Status. Vor dem Gesetz sind alle gleich" schreibt Broder. Das stimmt. Ein Gesetz, das das Recht auf Zwangsamputation von Penisteilen legalisiert, damit Muslime und Juden diesen Ritus weiterhin ausüben können etablierte aber Sonderrechte, die das unterlaufen.

Herr Broder will nicht wahr haben, dass ein schwachsinniger, blutiger archaischer Ritus, wie der, kleinen Jungen einen Teil ihres Penis zu amputieren, um Gottes Willen zu entsprechen, mit dem Landgerichtsurteil mit der Realität der westlichen Gesellschaften kollidiert ist, wo es in weiten Teilen seit 10 Jahren verboten ist, Kinder zu Erziehungszwecken zu schlagen und wo das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit richtigerweise einen sehr hohen Stellenwert einnimmt. Dieser Ritus ist mit der Realität kollidiert, so wie die narzisstische Ansicht des Islams, über den Islam dürfte man keine Witze machen, beim Video "Unschuld der Muslime" mit der Realität kollidiert.

Die kognitive Dissonanz, auf der gleichen und falschen Seite der Geschichte zu stehen, wie die islamischen Fanatiker, die Botschaften anzünden und Amerikaner ermorden, bringt Broder dazu (http://www.welt.de/debatte/henryk-m-broder/article109355168/Fanatischer-Islamismus-weckt-Global-Angst.html), krampfhaft zu verschweigen, dass Charlie Hebdo mit der Ausgabe im Semptember 2012 mitnichten einfach Mohammed-Karrikaturen veröffentlicht hat, sondern, wie das Cover zeigt, Karrikaturen von religiösen Figuren, wie von einem Muslim im Rollstuhl und einem orthodoxen Juden unter dem Titel "INTOUCHABLES 2", eine Anspielung auf den Film mit dem deutschen Titel "Ziemlich beste Freunde". Diese Figuren läßt Charlie Hebdo sagen : "Faut pas se moquer!" - "Kein Grund, sich lustig zu machen!". Dies ist eine Anspielung auf die Haltung religiöser Gruppen, deren "Würde" nicht ausreichend respektiert werde, sei es durch komische Mohammed-Videos, sei es, dass man den brutalen Ritus, kleinen Jungen einen Teil ihres Penis zu amputieren, um Gott zu gefallen, beim Namen nennt.

Goldstone and the Flour Mill Case

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »D. The destruction of el-Bader flour mill«.

In this chapter it has been shown that the Goldstone mission members have surpressed their own witnesses' testemony regarding the nature of that incident. The witness told them in the public hearing that the flour mill was approached and shelled by IDF tanks. But the mission members ignored this and apparently made up the story of an evil helicopter attack unrelated to any ground operations.

The Elder of Ziyon has more amazing findings regarding this case:

Goldstone ignored his own UN-supplied evidence

They apparently also ignored findings of the UNITAR, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. which found that there were ground operations going on in that area and that the complex was shelled by tanks.

They made it up!

On the credible testimonies regarding the mosque incident II

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Time Index 6:16 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"On the upper floor there were over 300 men. In the basement were plenty of women. My father was on the ground floor and my mother was in the basement. As usual we started the prayer. We prayed a combined prayer."

His mother was "in the basement".

Time Index 16:55 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sabah Al-Silawi:
"I demand and demand and demand the vengance for the lost souls of my sons. Five of them are martyrs and six are wounded. The first of them is [Ibrahim] Mousa Eissa al-Salawi fourtyfive. He has left behind seven daughters and two sons. Second Omar Abdul Hafez al-Salawi. He has left behind three daughters and one who was born after he had gone a martyr. And then we have Ahmed Eissa Ismael al-Salawi. He has left behind two children. He was twenty two. Then we have Mohammed Mousa al-Salawi. He was twelve. After that Hani Mohamed Mousa al-Salawi. He was eight. Then come the wounded. Mutia Mousa al-Salawi. He has one shrapnel in his head. Then Tamir [not audible] al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel in his back till today. Then we have Maher Mohammed al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel near his lever. And then we have Abdel Kareem Mohammed al-Salawi. He has a shrapnel in his shoulder and it is there still now. Then Mohammed Chaleel al-Salawi. He has two shrapnels. One in his head and one in his leg.
Then and I was on the first floor. After I heard the hammering of the rocket I rocket I found people carrying bodies [not audible] wounded people in the ambulances . Then I rushed to the morgue and I saw the drawers of the morgue I saw them I [not audible] them farewell then I just rejoiced
in our local way. And I said Al God is great. God is great. God is great. Eh ten of my people have gone martyrs or wounded. So what what how could you image my condition?"

She "was on the first floor". This is a contradiction to the statement of Mr. al-Salawi who claimed that she was "in the basement".

She names "five" "martyrs" and "six" "wounded" from her family.

She claims that her son [Ibrahim] "Mousa Eissa al-Salawi [...] has left behind seven daughters and two sons"

She claims that her son "Ahmed Eissa Ismael al-Salawi [...] has left behind two children"

She claims that her son "Omar Abdul Hafez al-Salawi [...] has left behind three daughters
and one who was born after he had gone a martyr

She claims that "ten of" her "people have gone martyrs or wounded". Here she contradicts herself.

Time Index 26:22 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"As we said we have five martyrs. Ibrahim [Mousa Eissa Al Silawi] fourtyfive years. He has left behind 9 school going girls and two sons who are are also school going. Eh then we have Ahmed. He left behind three children. And my nephew Omar was married. And he left behind
five children. And eh he was a salery[?] person. Now these orphans are just waiting for charity from people and institutions."

He claims that Ibrahim [Mousa Eissa Al Silawi] "has left behind 9 school going girls and two sons". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Ibrahim has left behind 7 girls and 2 boys.

He claims that "Ahmed [...] has left behind three children". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Ahmed has left behind 2 children.

He claims that "Omar [...] left behind five children". This contradicts the testemony of his mother who claims that Omar has left behind 3 daughters and another daughter.

Looking closely at the testemonies not few contradictions can be observed. How has the Goldstone commission handled these? They apparently haven't noticed or they didn't care.

On the credible testimonies regarding the mosque incident I

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Time Index 34:18 of the public hearing video regarding the mosque case made in the written
Goldstone report for the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.

Goldstone:
"On what date did you start the compressed the the system of the compressed prayer?"

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"Combining prayers started when the incursion started the land incursion because before that there was some air bombardment there was no real fear but when land incursion started and the tanks were approaching and that's why we started combining sunset and [not audible ]"

Goldstone:
"Sir sir the days of the incident, the 3rd of January was ww was that the first day you had compressed prayers or were there previous days also the same procedure?"

Sheikh al-Salawi:
"We started combining before that date eh that has started several days. But it was intermittant. It was intermittant contigent on the degree of fear. Whenever we expected another assault we started combining for noon and late afternoon and for unset and evening. And on that day combined sunset and evening prayers."

The Israeli ground incursion started on the 3rd of January 2009. So the witness on the one hand implicitly claims that there had not been any combined prayers before that day because before the ground incursion "there was no real fear". On the other hand he explicitly claims that the prayers had been combined "for several days" before that incident.

How do the mission members handle this obvious contradiction?

"824. On the evening of 3 January 2009, between 5 and 6 p.m., a large number of people had gathered in the mosque for evening prayers. Witnesses indicate that between 200 and 300 men had gathered on the first floor.459 A number of women had also congregated in the basement at that time. Witnesses explained that in time of fear or emergency it was the tradition to combine sunset and evening prayers.460 In addition, the Mission heard that, while some time normally elapses between the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer and the prayers beginning, at this time it was the practice to begin prayers almost immediately."

"459 Sheikh al-Salawi, interviewed on 3 June 2009 and 4 July 2009."

They don't care and resolve it.

Spinning the Story - Justice Goldstone and the Mosque Case

This is a follow-up post to the "The Goldstone Report Forgery" post on this blog regarding the written report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict and in it the chapter »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«.

Revisiting the facts according to the written mission report (PDF):

"822. The al-Maqadmah mosque is situated near the north-west outskirts of Jabaliyah camp, close to Beit Lahia. It is located less than 100 metres from the Kamal Idwan hospital, in the al- Alami housing project. At least 15 people were killed and around 40 injured – many seriously – when the Israeli armed forces struck the entrance of the mosque with a missile."

The mosque was struck "with a missile" fired by the Israelis.

"829. The Mission observed that the interior walls of the mosque and part of the exterior wall around the doorway appeared to have suffered significant damage as a result of a spray of small metal cubes. A good number of these were lodged in the wall even at the time of the Mission’s visit to the site in June 2009. Several of these were retrieved and the Mission could see how deeply embedded they were in the concrete walls."

"834. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The penetration pattern witnessed on the concrete ramp and stairs underneath is consistent with that which would be expected of a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve
fitte onto an air-to-ground missile. Shrapnel cubes that the Mission retrieved from the rear inside wall of the mosque are consistent with what would be expected to be discharged by a missile of this nature.463"

footnote "463 The Mission considers it possible in analysing the information available that the missile in question may have been a modified high-explosive anti-tank missile, sometimes referred to as either augmented high-explosive antitank (AHEAT) or high-explosive dual-purpose (HEDP)."

The mission assumes that it was an anti-tank-missile fitted with something which seemed to be a "shrapnel fragmentation sleeve" that can be "fitted onto an air-to-ground missile". Here the mission suggests that it could have been an air-to ground missile and therefore the alleged attack an air strike.

"836. The Mission is not in a position to say from which kind of aircraft or air-launch platform the missile was fired. It believes the testimony of the witnesses regarding the circumstances of the attack, finding it plausible and consistent not only with the other witnesses, but also with the physical evidence at the scene. The Mission also notes that a number of local organizations sent representatives to the site of the attack very shortly after it occurred and they witnessed the scene for themselves. The Mission has also spoken with them and notes that their accounts are consistent with the testimony provided by the witnesses it heard."

Although the mission says that it is not able to determine the TYPE of aircraft which the projectile was fired from, it clearly makes the claim that it had in fact been an air-launched missile and therefore an air-strike on that mosque.

"837. There has been no suggestion that the al-Maqadmah mosque was being used at that time to launch rockets, store weapons or shelter combatants.464 Since it does not appear from the testimonies of the incident or the inspection of the site that any other damage was done in the area at that time, the Mission concludes that what occurred was an isolated strike and not in connection with an ongoing battle or exchange of fire."

Here the mission is claiming that no other damage had been done in that area at that time and that it had been an isolated strike on that mosque with no other IDF units especially no ground units involved or operating in that area. This is in accordance with the oral testemonies in the public hearing regarding this incident (RealMovie-video at the UN site) . None of the witnesses is suggesting that ground troops were operating in that area.

In the previous post "The Goldstone Report Forgery" it has been shown how justice Goldstone on several occasions has modified this story of a missile air strike on that mosque towards the story of a mortar shell flying through the main door of the mosque on a presumably unusual flat trajectory.

Here the debate between Goldstone and Gold held at the Brandeis University on November the 5th, 2009 with regard to this incident shall be examined. In the Q&A section of that debate Goldstone again laid out the mosque case:

(Index 6:27 of 45:34 The www.goldstonereport.org video edition Q&A):

"But the one attack that certainly affected me was an attack on a mosque in Gaza city. A three year old mosque during a service. Where over three hundred people attending the combined morning and evening service that were combined because of the war. And they were attacked by a missile fired presumably from from eh well not presumably from IDF ground forces. The the missile came through the front door of the mosque killed killed some 21 people and injured and injured many more. There were no questions there was no question at all of any secondary explosions which indicated that there was no question of ammunition being kept there. But even if it was. There is no basis in law that you can eh assuming in favour of the attackers that there were that there was ammunition being stored there. You don't you don't mortar shell it during a service."

There are some notable points here: The number of casulties has risen from 15 (written report, interview, lecture and press conference) to 21. This is not impossible. Or has Goldstone upped the numbers here?

There is this strange "There were no questions..." sequence in this transcription which is not directly understandable. The author regards this sequence to be valuable material for a in-depth analysis which will not be done here and now though.

But most importantly the mortar shell from the interview/lecture/press conference has turned back into a missile "fired presumably from from eh well not presumably from IDF ground forces". Not presumably but with certainty this missile was fired from Israeli ground forces - according to Goldstone in this debate. Anti-tank / anti-building missiles fired by ground forces usually need - at least for launching them - a line of sight to the target and their effective range is limited. This implies that these ground forces were operating in that area in close proximity to the mosque. Depending on the buildings surrounding the mosque it could have been necessary for such ground troops to be positioned directly in front of the mosque. This completely contradicts the written report according to which no ground forces were in that area and to which it was an air strike. And it completely contradicts the oral testemonies from the public hearing in which no ground troops have been mentioned. Presumably from ground troops ? "Well not presumably". Goldstone is very sure about this. Luckily missiles launched by ground forces can indeed travel on a flat trajectory through a front door something he is claiming in the subsequent sentence. One can say that within these two sentences Goldstone has his facts straight. But some sentences later the missile again has turned into a mortar shell.

When confronted by Gold on this issue who claims in this debate that that mosque had not been attacked by the IDF at all (Index 14:00), Goldstone claims that tungsten cubes had been extracted from the mosque walls:

Index 17:35 "We found the reminents of the Israeli ammunition. And tungsten squares that were pulled out the wall in my presence..."

This interestingly has not found its way into the written report although it would have been strong evidence for an Israeli involvement. They forgot to incorporate their best argument into the written report? That seems unlikely.

The written report claims that it had been an isolated air strike unrelated to any ground operations and fire fights and explicitly claims that apparently no ground forces were in that area during that incident. Lateron the air-to-ground missile has turned into a mortar shell which does not contain any tungsten and can not be fired precisely at a mosque door and would not have allowed to make such a case of an Israeli strike because the origin of such a mortar shell would remain unclear. Now this mortar shell has turned back into a missile which is claimed to be - with certainty - a ground-to-ground missile fired by ground troops who - which is implied in it - would had been operating in the closest proximity of that mosque not mentioned by anyone in the testemonies or by the written report. And suddenly - for countering Gold's claims that the mosque had not been attacked by the IDF - Goldstone adds some tungsten shrapnels which are not mentioned in the written report with regard to this incident.

Goldstone is (or along with him the other mission members are) obviously modifying the story when he/they deem(s) it necessary.

Something persons who are genuinely interested in finding facts wouldn't do.

The Goldstone Report Forgery

A. Summary

This article focuses on aspects in the Goldstone Report(i) of hardcore forgery / manipulation / ignoring of the mission´s own evidence and witness testimonies. It is not a final investigation – even of the two examined cases (The mosque case and the flour mill case). See Chapter »Further Observations« for a cursory list of additional observations regarding these two cases.

At least one case (The mosque case) made in the Goldstone report shows that judge Richard Goldstone, the head of the Fact Finding Mission in Gaza, is completely incompetent as a member of a mission which purpose it is to find facts that could lead to war crimes prosecutions, because he either does not deem it necessary or is not able to distinguish between an airborne missile strike on a mosque in the Gaza strip which obviously could only be carried out by the IDF, a ground-based strike with an anti-tank-missile which could as well have been carried out by the Hamas for propaganda purposes and the detonation of a mortar shell, flying through a mosque entrance door and exploding inside the mosque. Or he is blatantly lying either about a mortar shell explosion that in fact according to evidence gathered in the Gaza field missions was an air-to-ground anti-tank missile impact, or – which is more plausible – he along with the other mission members is lying about a deliberate air-to-ground anti-tank missile strike by the IDF on the entrance of a crowded mosque.

In at least one case (The flour mill case) in the Goldstone report the mission members have willfully ignored / manipulated a testimony of presumably their main witness from the public hearings along with making outlandish assumptions about military necessities in Israeli ground operations to build the case of an evil Israeli air strike on a flour mill in the Gaza strip allegedly with the only purpose of disabling food production facilities in the Gaza strip unrelated to any military objectives.

B. About the »Mission«


On September the 29th 2009 the »United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict«(ii) presented their final report to the UN Human Rights Council.
The Mission is headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
The other members are:
Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the High Level Fact Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun (2008);
Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004);
and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).

One result of this mission is the allegation of grave breaches of international law and committed war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) :

»1935. From the facts gathered, the Mission found that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by the Israeli armed forces in Gaza: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The Mission notes that the use of human shields also constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.«(iii)


C. »The attack on the al-Maqadmah mosque, 3 January 2009«(iv)

The events according to the written Report:

»822. The al-Maqadmah mosque is situated near the north-west outskirts of Jabaliyah camp, close to Beit Lahia. It is located less than 100 metres from the Kamal Idwan hospital, in the al- Alami housing project. At least 15 people were killed and around 40 injured – many seriously – when the Israeli armed forces struck the entrance of the mosque with a missile.«

The written report makes it very clear: The mosque was struck by a missile fired by the IDF.

This assumption is elaborated later on:

»834. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The penetration pattern witnessed on the concrete ramp and stairs underneath is consistent with that which would be expected of a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve fitted onto an air-to-ground missile. Shrapnel cubes that the Mission retrieved from the rear inside wall of the mosque are consistent with what would be expected to be discharged by a missile of this nature.463«

and in a footnote:

»463 The Mission considers it possible in analysing the information available that the missile in question may have been a modified high-explosive anti-tank missile, sometimes referred to as either augmented high-explosive antitank (AHEAT) or high-explosive dual-purpose (HEDP).«

And the report clearly states that the projectile exploded at or in front of the door:

»828. The Mission has also viewed a number of photographs taken shortly after the strike and considers them to be reliable. They showed that something had penetrated the concrete (about three inches thick) immediately outside of the mosque doorway and then hit the pavement at the bottom of the stairs below the concrete covering. The ramp and entrance level structure had a wall about one metre high built on its outer side. The part of the wall opposite the mosque door was blown away.«

»829. The Mission observed that the interior walls of the mosque and part of the exterior wall around the doorway appeared to have suffered significant damage as a result of a spray of small metal cubes. A good number of these were lodged in the wall even at the time of the Mission’s visit to the site in June 2009. Several of these were retrieved and the Mission could see how deeply embedded they were in the concrete walls.«

So Goldstone and his colleagues know for sure that this had been a missile impact. This assumption is the most important indication for a responsibility of the Israelis for this incident. But an anti-tank missile is not necessarily an airborne missile. If it were the result of a mortar shell impact or a RPG also used by the Hamas it very well could have been a misguided or intentionally placed mortar shell shot by the Hamas. No witness present at or in the mosque during the incident would have been able to distinguish between a Israeli mortar shell and a Hamas mortar shell. And they know for sure that it had taken place at or in front of the main door of the mosque. Otherwise there would have been no damage to the exterior wall of the mosque.

It seems that Goldstone is developing the case against the Israelis after the publication of the report. In a UN press conference on September the 15th 2009 (the day the report was published) (v) he puts forward an additional argument against claims or suggestions that there might have been weapons caches inside the mosque which would justify a strike against this building. This is interesting because the written report does not mention this. He claims that no secondary explosion had been observed (Time Index 1:17):

»And I might say there was no evidence of any secondary explosions that one would expect if there were weapons being stored there«

Actually one would not expect that, if the projectile had exploded outside the mosque as stated in the report. For Goldstone this mosque has to be prestine: He wants to make clear that it was not used by the Hamas. It seems that this contradiction lead him to another spin of the story at the same day: On September 15th, 2009 (the day the report was published) he gave an interview to the Al Jazeera broadcasting service (vi). In this interview he presented the case of the mosque incident. When asked about it he told the audience the modified story (Time Index 4:30):

»Q: You highlight in your report an attack on a mosque in Gaza City. Tell us a little bit more about
this incident and what it demonstrates about Israeli conduct in this war.«

»A: Well, the incident I refer to was eh took place during the evening service in a large new three year old mosque in the middle of Gaza City. Ehm it was crowded with some hundreds of worshipers who were gathered for what is a combined morning and afternoon service that takes place during times of war. And a Israeli mortar shell was fired at the mosque and in fact went through the main door of the mosque killing fifteen people and seriously injuring many more. And this was the incident and our mission could absolutely not find a military advantage or military justification in what appeared to us very clearly to be an attack against innocent civilians«

The air-to-ground missile from the written report not only has turned into a mortar shell. This mortar shell now also »went through the main door of the mosque« i.e. exploded inside the mosque after traveling a quite unusual trajectory for mortar shells. Mortars fire grenades into very steep trajectories in general. Goldstone is suggesting the quite unlikely case of a flat trajectory which is needed for a grenade traveling »through the main door« of a mosque. But this is actually needed for maintaining the idea of a pristine mosque without any weapons caches inside and therefore no secondary explosions: The projectile must have been exploded inside the building. Otherwise the absence of secondary explosions would not have been a indication for the absence of weapons inside the mosque.

Two days later in a lecture (vii) at the Western Law Ontario as part of the Pensa Lecture in Human Rights on Sept 17, 2009 Goldstone repeated this story (Time Index 19:00)

»And we talk about the incidents that we considered to be unacceptable from an international humanitarian point of view. Let me mention one that related to the shelling by the IDF of a mosque. It was a fairly newly constructed mosque, it was under three years old. And a service the morning and evening services were combined during the war eh because it was decided by the leaders that the people shouldn't be more in the street more than they had to. So they had the morning and evening services combined in the late afternoon. And this mosque was full, over three hundred people. During the ceremony a mortal shell comes through the front the main front door of the mosque kills fifteen worshipping and injures many more. Now there can be no justification at all for shelling a mosque when it's full of civilians.«

The latter may be true. But what are the justifications for spinning a story about an evil Israeli air-strike against civilians in a mosque?

But by spinning this story Goldstone has caught him some problems: If it had indeed been a mortar shell that exploded outside or inside the mosque, then the origin of the projectile would be not so clear after all: The Hamas uses mortars as well. The idea that the IDF had fired a single mortar round deliberately and precisely at the entrance door of a mosque is just silly, because it is impossible. And the mission members know that:

»699. The choice of weapon – mortars – appears to have been a reckless one. Mortars are area weapons. They kill or maim whoever is within the impact zone after detonation and they are incapable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. A decision to deploy them in a location filled with civilians is a decision that a commander knows will result in the death and injuries of some of those civilians.«

But they only know that when it seems possible to use it against the Israelis.

In fact the mission members needed the projectile to be some sort of high precision ammunition such as an air-to-ground missile to build the entire case of a mosque entrance door deliberately targeted and hit by the Israelis. If it had been a mortar shell (Israeli or not) as Goldstone has claimed since the publication of the written report – in the press conference, in the Al Jazeera interview and in the lecture - the claim of such a precision targeting and with it the entire case would have been baseless.

The only group who could have produced a targeted mortar grenade explosion at the entrance door of that mosque is the Hamas. But such a Pallywood-style propaganda coup – and the »Palestinian resistance« has a long documented track record for such propaganda coups (viii) - probably exceeds the mindset of the mission members.

Richard Goldstone is completely incompetent as a member of a mission which purpose is to find facts that could lead to war crimes prosecutions:

He either does not deem it necessary or is not able to distinguish between an airborne missile strike on that mosque which obviously could only be carried out by the IDF, a ground-based strike with an anti-tank-missile which could as well have been carried out by the Hamas for propaganda purposes and the detonation of a mortar shell, flying through the mosque entrance door and exploding inside the mosque which could have been fired by almost anyone.
Or he is blatantly lying either about a mortar shell explosion that in fact was an air-to-ground anti-tank missile impact, or – which is more plausible – he along with the other mission members is lying about a deliberate air-to-ground anti-tank missile strike by the IDF on the entrance of a crowded mosque.

Considering Goldstone´s track record as war crimes prosecutor in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and his former membership of the South African Constitutional Court one must assume that he is able to precisely reproduce witness testimonies and other evidence – if he wants to.



D. »The destruction of el-Bader flour mill«(ix)

The events according to the written Report:

»50. The Mission investigated several incidents involving the destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing (chap. XIII). Already at the beginning of the military operations, el-Bader flour mill was the only flour mill in the Gaza Strip still operating. The flour mill was hit by a series of air strikes on 9 January 2009, after several false warnings had been issued on previous days. The Mission finds that its destruction had no military justification. The nature of the strikes, in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery, suggests that the intention was to disable the factory’s productive capacity.«

They make it clear: The mill was hit by a series of air strikes. And they are suggesting that the »nature of the strike, in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery« indicates that the only purpose was to disable it. Let´s see what the »nature of the strikes« according to Goldstone & Co is and how »precise« they were.

»919. On 9 January, at around 3 or 4 a.m., the flour mill was hit by an air strike, possibly by an F 16. The missile struck the floor that housed one of the machines indispensable to the mill’s functioning, completely destroying it. The guard who was on duty at the time called Mr. Hamada to inform him that the building had been hit and was on fire. He was unhurt. In the next 60 to 90 minutes the mill was hit several times by missiles fired from an Apache helicopter. These missiles hit the upper floors of the factory, destroying key machinery. Adjoining buildings, including the grain store, were not hit. The strikes entirely disabled the factory and it has not been back in operation since. A large amount of grain remains at the site but cannot be processed.«

First of all Mr. Hamada is obviously a hearsay witness with regard to the actual events at the flour mill. The only witness was »the guard«, i.e. the only person present at that compound during the incident since the mill owner and the report explicitly speak of the guard as a singular. Obviously the guard is by far the most important witness regarding the incidents at the site. He in fact was the only witness. But the report does not give any hint that this witness has been heard directly. One has to assume that he was not heard at all. Obviously the mission members considered him to be not that important and therefore the events that actually had happened at that site not that important.

But the mission considers Mr. Hamada to be credible and regard his testimony as corroborated. According to these two persons the building was hit by an air strike, »possibly by a F 16«. One wonders how a single person in the middle of the night could possibly determine that some explosion on the area had been the impact of an air strike. But note how careful the mission members put it: »possibly by a F 16«. That is reasonable since neither they nor the guard would have been able to determine with certainty the origin of some air strike: Helicopter, drone, fixed wing etc.

According to the report the hitting was very precise. In fact it is claimed here that the first missile was aimed at a particular floor housing the indispensable machinery.

Then the building was hit several times and for 60 – 90 minutes »by missiles fired from an Apache helicopter«. In contrast they must be very sure about this: It was one single Apache helicopter. And missiles were fired by this helicopter. How can they be so sure, one wonders? They weren´t there. Mr. Hamada wasn´t there. Apaches can fire their missiles from several kilometers away. Usually no one sees them coming. But that single guard person in the middle of the night was able to determine the type of aircraft and the number of aircrafts involved precisely? That is strictly impossible.

What about the precision of the alleged attack? After the first »missile« had hit, the building was hit several times for more than one hour. That is not a surgical targeting of specific machines on specific floors. That is a barrage. One wonders why anyone would occupy valuable military resources like one or more helicopters for such a barrage if a single large free fall bomb could have reached the allegedly desired outcome of the disablement of that mill in seconds.


»920. The Israeli armed forces occupied the disabled building until around 13 January. Hundreds of shells were found on its roof after the soldiers left. They appeared to be 40-mm grenade machine-gun spent cartridges.«

The IDF used that building as an observation post and weapons platform for an extended period of time. It was obviously a valuable military object. And if it was such a valuable military object for the IDF it was for the Hamas as well because at least denying this position to the IDF would have been advantageous to them.

»921. The Hamada brothers rejected any suggestion that the building was at any time used for any purpose by Palestinian armed groups. They pointed out that all of the buildings and factories were surrounded by a high wall and manned by at least one guard at night. In addition, the Israeli authorities knew them as businessmen and they would not have been given Businessman Cards had there been any reason for the Israeli Government to suspect that they were involved with or supported armed groups. They were both adamant that their interest was and always had been industrial and commercial, and that the last thing they were prepared to do was put their business at risk.«

In that night the wall was manned by just one guard. If someone had tried to sneak onto the compound he would probably have had a hard time detecting that.

»922. The Mission found the Hamada brothers to be credible and reliable witnesses. It has no reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony. The information they provided was corroborated by other representatives of the Gaza business community with whom the Mission discussed the context and consequences of the strike on the flour mill.«

Their testimonies were corroborated by »other representatives of the Gaza business community«. They could have corroborated the economical context but certainly not the testimonies regarding the actual events at that compound. They weren´t there. Note how the mission is focusing on that context and neglecting the facts regarding the incident. But the economical context is completely irrelevant if the IDF had military reasons for attacking that building.

»925. Available information does not suggest that the Israeli authorities have investigated the destruction of the flour mill. The Mission finds the version of the Hamada brothers to be credible and in line with the Israeli practice of leaving telephone warnings of impending attacks.«

»929. The only issue that remains to be examined is whether there was any reason for the flour mill to have been deemed a military objective on 9 January. The building was one of the tallest in the area and would have offered extensive views to the Israeli armed forces. The Mission notes that taking control of the building might be deemed a legitimate objective in the circumstances. However, by 9 January the Israeli armed forces were fully aware that the flour mill could be evacuated at short notice by using the warning message system. If the reason for attacking the mill was to gain control of it for observation and control purposes, it made no sense to bomb the principal machinery and to destroy the upper floors. There is also no suggestion that the Israeli armed forces considered the building to be a source of enemy fire.«

So the building due to its nature was in fact a valuable military object for both the IDF and the Hamas.

By the same logic of reasoning: If the reason for attacking the mill was to disable it, it made no sense to shell it for 60 – 90 minutes with several missiles. One single large free fall would have done the job. That the IDF did not consider the building to be a source of enemy fire is pure second guessing of the IDF commanders in the field. In fact the mission´s own testimonies with regard to an alleged barrage for 60 – 90 minutes indicate that the reason for attacking it was of military nature: Hitting the building without destroying it completely.

»930. The nature of the strikes on the mill and in particular the precise targeting of crucial machinery on one of the mid-level floors suggests that the intention was to disable its productive capacity. There appears to be no plausible justification for the extensive damage to the flour mill if the sole objective was to take control of the building. It thus appears that the only purpose was to put an end to the production of flour in the Gaza Strip.«

As laid out above this is nonsense. The IDF had potentially very good reasons for such a kind of attack. A targeted hitting of any particular floor did not take place in a 60 – 90 minutes barrage.

»937. From the facts ascertained by it, the Mission finds that the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of customary international law as reflected in article 54 (2) of Additional Protocol I and may constitute a war crime.«

The mission members can not possibly know what the reasons for field commanders were for attacking such a building: Ground troops operating in that area could have thought that they were fired upon from this building (Even if they actually weren´t). They in fact could have been fired upon from that building and the guard had no knowledge of that. They could in fact have been fired upon from somewhere close to the compound and falsely regarded the compound as the source of fire. They could have deemed it necessary to eliminate a potentially occupied building of that exceptional nature as the tallest building in that area (Doesn´t matter if it actually was occupied). They could have deemed it necessary to clean the building from potential enemy personal and booby-traps before occupying it themselves in order to protect the lives of their soldiers. But the report doesn´t suggest that any IDF ground troops were operating in that area during that incident. According to the written report the attack was carried out by aircraft, which were the only IDF units there, for the sole purpose of disabling the mill.

The following is an excerpt from the public hearing of Mr. Hamada, the flour mill owner, who the mission members consider to be »credible and reliable« and whose testimony´s veracity they have »no reason to doubt« regarding the events at the compound during the incident:

»On the dawn of the tenth of January, we received a call from the guard telling us that the factory was targeted by air with a missile and that it had caught fire. After 15 minutes, he called us again and told us that there are tanks approaching the area and that the factory was targeted with tank fire. We immediately informed the ICRC and the Civil Defense in order to put out the fire in the mill. At 11:00 a.m., we were told by the Civil Defense that the fire had been put out and that the guard had been evacuated from the surface area of the factory.«(x)

According to the credible Mr. Hamada and according to the only witness present during the alleged attack, the building was shelled by approaching tanks, i.e. ground troops operating in that area. This important information has mysteriously not found its way into the written report. None of the distinguished mission members has provided any explanation for this contradiction.

The approaching tanks in the oral testimony in fact have turned into one single Apache helicopter in the written report.

Suddenly and miraculously the riddle of the upper floors that allegedly have only been hit has disappeared: Tanks can not shoot over a four meters high wall and hit the basement of a building.

Suddenly a completely new scenario unfolds:

Approaching ground troops are hitting a potential high-value military target ( still for 60 – 90 minutes ?) and are occupying it afterwards. It is apparently a fire fight in the middle of a battle and not an evil isolated air strike.

"The nature of the strikes" as laid out in the written report which led the mission to the conclusion that the reason for this strike was to destroy the foundations of life in the Gaza Strip apparently stems from the phantasy of its members but is certainly not in accordance with their main witness Mr. Hamada's testemony.

The mission members have willfully modified / ignored an oral testimony of their presumably most important witness to construct a case of an evil Israeli air attack on a flour mill without any military justification.

E. Further Observations


E.1. Regarding the Mosque Case


*The interview of the three Al-Silawis conducted by the 'fact-finding mission' headed by judge Goldstone and his colleagues (public hearings) is in fact not really a fact-finding interview but propaganda sermon brought forward by the Al-Silawis as well. They combined held statements of not less than 18 minutes (of 40 minutes total) without being asked a single question. The Imam Al-Silawi preaching inside the mosque "saw the rocket coming to the land and it exploded to my understanding before hitting the ground because shrapnels were just showering the area..." (while making a hand movement towards the table).


He saw the 'rocket' from inside the mosque? The Mission member repeats the question whether he saw or heard the missile. He then modifies his statement by saying that he heard the rocket and then saw shower of shrapnels. (31:00..) The Pakistani member of the Mission then asks for the number of 'martyrs' and wounded.

Apparently martyr now is a terminus technicus at the UN.

*Claims that the worshipers who had attended the services in this mosque or the local imams were not affiliated with the Hamas are just pathetic considering the origin of the mosque´s name: The »Martyr Ibrahim al-Maqadmah Mosque« is named after the terrorist Dr. Ibrahim al-Maqadmah, a founder of Hamas who was believed to be the top commander of its military wing, which has waged a bombing campaign against Israel since mainstream Palestinian leaders signed interim peace accords with the Jewish state in 1993. He was killed in an Israeli air strike in 2003 (xi). Making this claim is similar to claiming that worshipers who frequently are attending services in a fictional Adolf-Hitler-Memorial-Temple are not affiliated with Nazism.


E.2. Regarding the flour mill case

*The credible Mr. Hamada

»Colonel Desmond Travers
Mr. Hamada, thank you very much for your very detailed presentation. You mentioned that the
strike by the F-16 was very precise or very deliberate. Can you tell us why, in your opinion, that
this was so?

Mr. Rashad Hamada
Let us be truthful in what we say, war is war. War is war. Be it economic through siege, be it, uh,
through F-16s, it is war. It is a war that took place and, uh, continues. It is a war that was
launched by Israel and these are the results. We see the results. The shelling, the death and the
destruction, but war is war. We have been dying for over two years, dying of siege and the last
war came as a culmination of the siege.

Hina Jilani
Thank you, Mr. Hamada, for your statement. Do you have any opinion on why the Israeli
defense forces targeted this particular establishment, this particular mill?«

The oh so credible Mr. Hamada doesn`t answer this question at all. And the fact finder Colonel Desmond Travers apparently doesn´t feel the need to dig deeper.


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

i
Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf

ii
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

iii
The Goldstone Report – Conclusions:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE2.pdf

iv
The Goldstone Report, paragraphs 822-843

v
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46A_HdDK94w&translated=1

vi
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbi6FnvWwvc&feature=fvw

vii
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6F145Ko6AY&feature=related

viii
See http://www.seconddraft.org/ for examples.

ix
The Goldstone Report, paragraphs 913-941

x
Transscript of the public hearing of Mr. Hamada:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/2009.06.29PM_Session.doc
Video of that hearing:
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/gaza/gaza05-eng.rm?start=00:03:11&end=00:38:28

xi
http://alqassam.multiply.com/journal/item/106/Tokoh_Palestin_Dr._Ibrahim_Al-Maqadmah
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/March%202003%20News/9%20news/Israel%20assassinates%20Al-Maqadma%20and%20three%20other%20Hamas%20activists.htm