FEW dare argue that the PA/Fatah/Hamas junta are anything but fragmented terror organs. Without any other irrefutable proof required, one only has to review their decades long history of PURPOSEFULLY targeting Israeli civilians – itself a war crime – plus its inculcation of generations of suicide bombers.
Illustrative of the above barbarity, try this one on for size, out of scores of other such heinous examples…be still a motherly heart….
and you will go to your death,”
on Fatah-Lebanon Facebook page
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
“The Facebook page for Fatah in Lebanon has posted this picture of a mother dressing her young son with a suicide belt. Palestinian Media Watch has documented the ongoing glorification of violence and Martyrdom by the PA. This picture was posted on the Fatah Facebook page together with an imaginary conversation between the son who is being sent to his death and the mother encouraging it. “Why me and not you?” the child innocently asks his mother, who answers that she will continue to have more children “for the sake of Palestine”:
She said: ‘I will put it on you and you will go to your death!’
I said to her: ‘Mother, what have I done that you want me to die?’
She shed a tear that hurt my heart and said: ‘The homeland needs you, son. Go and blow up the sons of Zion.’
I said to her: ‘Why me and not you?’
She said: ‘I will stay in order to give birth to more children for the sake of Palestine.’
I kissed her hand and said to her: ‘Keep it up, mother, for you and for Palestine I will kill the impure and the damned.'”
The Facebook page states that it is “the official page of Fatah’s Information and Culture Commission in Lebanon,” and is linked to from the official website of the Fatah Information and Culture Commission (www.fatehmedia.ps).
The PA-funded educational magazine for children, Zayzafuna, published an essay earlier this year written by an 11 year-old lauding death as a Martyr:
by Asil Khaled, 5th grade student – El-Bireh
If your song is the song of Martyrdom (Shahada), and death, for you, is birth – then you’re a Palestinian!
If you love death, and you say the Shahada [declaration] (i.e., the Islamic creed: “There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is Allah’s messenger.”) aloud – then you’re a Palestinian!
If you’ve ever felt that you’re an exploding body and that your soul will long one day to be a knight for the homeland – then you’re a Palestinian!
If the stone is your weapon against oppression, and if those who hate [you] criticize your struggle – then you’re a Palestinian!
If you have saturated the tree of the homeland with your free blood, with love, and have offered the remnants of your bodily parts as a bridge for those who are yet to come – then you’re a Palestinian!
If you have shattered the chains, and carried the key to the house from which [your] grandparents were expelled – then you’re a Palestinian!
If your wedding (i.e., a Martyr’s funeral in Islamic tradition is a wedding to 72 Maidens of Paradise) was amidst a hail of bullets between the shoulders of friends [who carried your body], against the sound of tears mingled with joy (i.e., of achieving Martyrdom) and the searing pain of separation- then you’re a Palestinian, and you’re full of pride at being a Palestinian.”
Click for more information on Zayzafuna.
During the years of the Palestinian Authority terror campaign (the Intifada, 2000 – 2005), Palestinian Media Watch documented that the PA actively promoted Martyrdom(Shahada) as an ideal that children should strive for. Music videos for children indoctrinating them to see Martyrdom as “sweet” were broadcast hundreds of times on PA TV. In recent years, Martyrdom for children continues to be glorified by the PA in contexts for children but with lesser frequency.
The following are two examples of encouraging children to seek death as Martyrs for Allah, and one example of two girls embracing this ideal:
This video, designed to offset a child’s natural fear of death, portrays Martyrdom as both heroic and tranquil. The film’s hero, a teenager, leaves a farewell letter describing the death he is seeking as pleasurable:
With determination and desire, I will keep my promise.
How sweet is Martyrdom (Shahada), when I am embraced by you, my land!
How sweet is Martyrdom (Shahada), when I am embraced by you, my land!
My beloved, my mother, most dear to me,
be joyous over my blood, don’t cry for me.”
Muhammad Al-Dura (a boy who was killed in a televised crossfire) calls other children to follow him to a joyous child-Martyr Paradise. Al-Dura runs on the beach with his kite, and even goes to an amusement park:
Walla, age 11: “Martyrdom (Shahada) is a very, very beautiful thing. Everyone yearns for Shahada. What could be sweeter than going to paradise?”
Host: “What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people, orShahada?”
Walla: “Shahada. I will achieve my rights after becoming a Shahida(Martyr).”
Host: “Ok, Yussra, would you agree with that?”
Yussra, age 11: “Of course; Shahada is sweet. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife.”
Host: “Do you actually love death? “
Yussra: “Death is not Shahada.”
Host: “No, I mean the absence after death. “
Yussra: “No child loves death. The children of Palestine adopted the concept thatShahada is very good. Every Palestinian child, say someone aged 12, says: Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid.”
Host: “We’ve got a call, Sabrine from Ramallah.”
Sabrine (on telephone): “Ayyat Al-Akhras was 17 when she blew herself up -
Host: “Sabrine, are you for it or against it?”
Sabrine (on telephone): “Of course I support blowing up, it is our right.”
Host: “Sabrine, now, is it natural that Ayyat Al-Akhras blows herself up?”
Sabrine (on telephone): “Of course it’s natural.”
Where exactly does U.S. leadership fit in, and why does it matter?
IF one believes that the above is worthy of global ostracizing from a civilized world, surely the U.S. should lead the charge. And if one wants to hear from a world expert, not only in international law, but in the arena of Arab/Islamic terror, Professor Louis Rene Beres is this American-Israeli’s personal address.
The bona fides of my mentor are – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ren%C3%A9_Beres, but this barely scratches the surface.
‘Palestinian Statehood, Terror, and the US Election’
“Whenever an insurgent group resorts to openly unjust means, its actions become incontestably terroristic. Even if the ritualistic Palestinian claim of a hostile Israeli “occupation” were somehow reasonable rather than invented, the corresponding right of entitlement to oppose Israel “by any means necessary” would be false.
Significantly, any openly unjust means would remain an obvious expression of terrorism, even if these means were sponsored by a now accepted sovereign state. Alternatively, in these post-independence circumstances, such means could also become a war crime.
Whatever the particular issue at hand, international law always has determinable form and content. Its principles and practices cannot be fashioned and re-fashioned by individual terror groups or by terror-supporting states in order to satisfy certain presumed geo-political interests. This is especially the case wherever terror violence purposely targets evidently fragile and vulnerable civilian populations.
Whatever their cause, national liberation movements that fail to meet the test of just means can never be protected as lawful or legitimate. Even if we could accept the intrinsically spurious argument that Hamas and/or Fatah are somehow able to fulfill the explicit criteria of “national liberation” movements, it would remain perfectly obvious that they still do not meet the recognizable standards of discrimination, proportionality, and military necessity. These authoritative standards of humanitarian international law are made most prominently applicable to insurgent organizations by the common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and also by the two 1977 Protocols to the Conventions.
These core standards are also binding upon all combatants by virtue of broader customary and conventional international law, including Article 1 of the Preamble to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907. This rule, generally called the “Martens Clause,” makes all persons responsible for upholding the “laws of humanity” and, reciprocally, the “dictates of public conscience.”
Under international law, the ends can never justify the means. As in the case of war between states, every use of force by insurgents must be judged twice, once with regard to the justness of the objective (in this case, a Palestinian state that seeks to be built upon the ruins of a correspondingly dismembered Israel), and once with regard to the justness of the means used toward achieving that annihilatory objective.
In law, murderers of mothers and young children who take an undisguised delight in the blood of their victims can never be “freedom fighters.” Indeed, if ever they should become entitled to such a laudatory designation, we would then have to recalculate the authentic meaning of international law. More precisely, we would have to concede that such law was really nothing more than a quaintly veneered authorization for unhindered evil.
American and European supporters of a Palestinian state continue to presume that Palestine would become an agreeable part of a two-state Solution. For these optimistic believers in “peace,” this 23rd Arab state will gratefully coexist with a still-standing Jewish state. Both U.S. presidential contenders should understand this presumption is plainly contradicted by the undisguised expectations of leading Palestinians, and is regularly dismissed everywhere else in the Arab/Islamic world.
Again, consider cartography. The official Map of Palestine at the PA website continues to include all of Israel. Significantly, there is only one state on this map. As readers may already know, it is not Israel.
The Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “occupied territories.” What, exactly, was the PLO attempting to “liberate” between 1964 and 1967? There is no more important or primary question.
In all law, terrorist crimes mandate universal cooperation in both apprehension and punishment. As required punishers of “grave breaches” under a still-decentralized regime of international law, all states are required to search out and prosecute, or to extradite, individual terrorist perpetrators. In absolutely no circumstances are states permitted to characterize terrorists as “freedom fighters.” Any such characterization would reject the fixed obligations of international criminal law.
In absolutely no circumstances are states permitted to support terror violence or war crimes against other states.
This is most emphatically true for the United States, which incorporates all of international law as the “supreme law of the land” in Article 6 of the Constitution, and also in certain Supreme Court decisions. Though almost no one seems to be familiar with such an “arcane” history, this American nation was formed by its Founding Fathers according to the timeless legal principles of Blackstone’s Commentariesand in conformance with antecedent and universal Natural Law.
As Americans, we have a genuine obligation to avoid expressly specious manipulations of international law. Whether in New York, London, or Tel Aviv, “freedom fighters” do not orchestrate their wars against office workers, nursery schools, buses, flower markets, or mothers and their babes in ice-cream parlors.
Until we can finally reconcile this elementary human understanding with jihadist portions of the Middle East, our so-called international community will run the risk of transforming assorted and feuding Palestinian gangs into a UN-supported government.
If this bestowal of sovereignty is allowed to proceed, we could soon expect, however counterintuitive, a continuation or even an enlargement of Palestinian violence. The uncontested fact that any such excursions into violence would now have the blessings and succor of a newly constituted state would in no way diminish the associated criminality.
President Obama and Governor Romney should both take close heed. Jurisprudentially, these destructive acts of a Palestinian state would remain as fully verifiable instances of terrorism, or they would emerge as egregious new violations of the law of war. Either way, there would still be no Palestinian peace with Israel.”
Most significantly, calling oneself civilized requires one to step up, and identify that which violates said norms. People who cannot/will not condemn barbarism are morally ill, for whatever reason. They need to be ignored and pushed aside.
But normal folks tend to want answers: why would anyone use child sacrifice as a political/religious tool, or become a suicide/homicide bomber, regardless of their age or sex?
So, this blogger offers the following gift, in the expectation that it will be paid forward: ‘Islam & Blood’ is the ‘go to’ address…download embedded pdf – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/13/islam-blood-a-groundbreaking-policy-paper-contained-herein-the-world-stands-on-a-precipice-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-109/
Western civilization hangs in the balance. And those who study the subject understand that NO city will be safe, if the barbarians are not stopped at the gates!
UPDATE: Boston’s jihad is an outgrowth of the U.S.’s immoral position (aversion) against calling jihad what it is – Islamic terror – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/04/16/jihad-comes-to-boston-any-city-u-s-a-in-play-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/ .