As long as the Judicial System continues to duck an investigation of some of the more blatant information submitted/gathered the issue of whether the election was fair will prevail.
The Judicial System has an obligation, I believe, to at least be willing to examine some of the allegations.
Opinion:
Most Illegitimate “President”
in the U.S.
By: Brit Speares
The Northwest Connection
1
On the evening of November 3rd, 2020, most of us went to bed, concluding that, for better or worse, President Trump had been re-elected. Florida and Ohio not only had Trump leading but amazingly he was leading by double-digits in both States. During the past 70+ years, whichever political party had this level of popularity in Florida and Ohio always ended up winning the Electoral College (EC).
Then, for anyone who stayed up long after midnight, something unprecedented happened in the wee hours of the 4th. The voting machines and tallying of ballots — in the States of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — simultaneously shut down for several hours. When ballot-counting resumed in these six States, the numbers for Biden leaped upwards by tens or hundreds of thousands each minute, unmatched by few or no votes for Trump. In fact, Trump's ballot totals sometimes even decreased. Some voting districts had more Biden votes than registered voters. None of this was seen in the other 44 States.
The alleged EC final count was “Biden 306, Trump 232”; the purported popular vote was Biden 80 million, Trump 78 million. [Biden 80 million? Are you serious? In 2012 and 2016, Obama and Hillary each received less than 66 million.] Allegations of the 2020 popular vote were Trump 79 million, and Biden 68 million, i.e., curiously, comparing “before the voting-machine shutdown” to “the final tally,” Trump had lost about 1 million votes while Biden had gained ~12 million.
The computer programs were believed to have been “set” to add sufficient numbers of Biden ballots to ensure victories of at least one, or several, thousand in each of these six States; the alleged reason as to why the voting machines had shut down for several hours — was that the quantity of Trump ballots had been strikingly underestimated, requiring the programs to be “readjusted” to take care of this unexpected surge.
Within a few weeks after the election, teams of nonpartisan mathematical statisticians had reported that, given what was known by the time of the mysterious shutdown, “the chances that Biden won the 2020 election were extraordinarily unlikely.” [This mathematical FACT is unequivocally true — despite dozens of left-wing articles in Mainstream Media and on the web and in social media, spinning fake news.]
More recently:
[1], in-depth nonpartisan analyses of Pennsylvania
[2] and Michigan
[3] have been reported; they conclude that Trump should have won those States by 370,000 and 150,000 votes, respectively. In time, in-depth forensic voter audits will be completed in Arizona and New Hampshire — with Trump expected to win both those States.
Democrats have sued to block audits in Arizona and other States, but why would they do this, if they were so confident of Biden’s victory?
Pennsylvania has 20 EC votes and Michigan 16. Those two States going for Trump would change the EC vote to Biden 270, Trump 268. Georgia has 16 EC votes, Wisconsin 10, and New Hampshire 4. These three States going for Trump would provide a 298-240 EC victory for Trump. Including EC votes for Arizona = 11 and Nevada = 6 would result in an even greater victory for Trump, 315 to 223.
Senator McConnell, Vice President Pence, and U.S. Attorney General William Barr all concluded that there was insufficient evidence of fraud to change the results that Biden had won the election (although no one looked for any evidence of fraud). Any of these three could have demanded a bipartisan election analysis, before declaring a winner — even if this meant delaying the Inauguration by several months. The Supreme Court refused to consider many lawsuits on this topic, citing spurious excuses such as “the election is over” and “there is insufficient time to investigate corruption.”
Perhaps the powerful Deep State within the federal government is too intimidating to anyone who is not a member? Does this mean we’ll have an illegitimate Executive Branch at least until January 2024?
Will these voting machines continue to help the Democratic Party to win all future elections? Just this week, FBI agents raided Giuliani’s apartment to confiscate all documents related to the Trump presidency; this is unconstitutional.
Even more recently, there are suggestions of tampering in the 2020 census to provide some Blue States with more representatives in the House of Representatives than factually determined.
Has integrity in the U.S. political system been forever lost? Will we ever again see a two-party equity-in-Justice system again?
References:
[1] https://www.scribd.com/
—Brit Speares, your Washington DC Inside-the Beltway Correspondent
Meanwhile:
All evidence of voting records has disappeared in Mariposa County, Arizona which seems to be in defiance of a court ordered affidavit so once investigations of alleged voting fraud begins evidence flies out the window. Why? Should that cause suspicions to rise and hair on the back of one's neck to bristle?
And
:
What Liz Cheney Said Last Night Is Why She's No Longer in GOP Leadership
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Until we assert ourselves, projecting actual power and deterrence, we will be picked apart
We live with a functional absurdity, in which the most powerful army in the world hamstrings itself irrationally. Op-ed.
As Winston Churchill famously encountered in the 1930’s, there is an inherent reluctance of peace and freedom loving peoples to respond pro-actively to aggression. There are issues of disbelief, often predicated upon the inability of the peace lover to understand the mind set and intentions of the aggressor.
This leads to rationalizations of how the other side might feel and could be dealt with. From this point, it is just a hop, skip and a jump to wishful thinking about how to deal, or not deal, with an aggressor.
Finally, there is the reluctance that is born out of not wanting to disrupt one’s serenity, individually and collectively, in order to take the necessary and potentially costly steps to deal with aggression. Costly steps of course focus on risking the lives of soldiers, but also include risks to civilians, their lives, businesses, assets and lifestyle.
We look at other people as if they were extensions of ourselves. It is both unrealistic, and completely untrue.
We live with a functional absurdity. We have invested men, materiel, treasure and brainpower in creating the most advanced - in training, technique and equipment - armed forces in the Middle East, and one of the strongest in the entire world.
Yet, for reasons cited above, as well as the ever present fear of international opprobrium, we hamstring ourselves constantly.
This hamstringing takes at least two major forms: the unwillingness to react, not in equal measure, and not to mention more intensively, in the hope that the aggression can be managed; and second, allowing ourselves to be dictated to by legal advisers and arbiters who are not focused on deterrence, let alone victory, but rather, the sensibilities of our enemies, and most certainly the judgments of the international community.
The “just keep a lid on things” strategy defines much of what passes for geo-political policy vis-à-vis Judea and the Shomron, the Temple Mount, and all things related to Palestinian Arab and Israeli Bedouins. The thought is that, left to their own natural devices, conflicts will subside, as the aggressor will understand that its not in his interest to continue down this destructive, but also self-destructive path.
But this is solipsism, meaning that we look at other people as if they were extensions of ourselves. It is both unrealistic, and completely untrue.
When Hamas leaders announced that they had found the crucial weakness to the Israelis in our love of life (which they unfavorably contrasted to their embrace of death), they were speaking from the heart.
Nevertheless, we deem it advisable to just let things play out a bit longer, because after all they will just peter out and go away.
Maybe that’s ultimately true, but think about the damage that can and will be done before the realization of letting things go takes hold.
This intrinsic reactiveness means that our enemies are always the ones setting the agenda, determining the timetable and controlling the pace and intensity of action. It is Hamas who has just issued multiple “ultimatums” and rest assured that they view them as such.
Why isn’t the response to an ultimatum the bombing of the seaside villas of the Hamas leadership? Does anyone doubt that this will get their immediate attention?
Which brings us to our cowering to legal advisers who are itching to find reasons why Israel cannot employ its might in the name of deterrence. While we have no statistical proof of this, anecdotally it seems that these advisers are possibly embarrassed by Israel’s military dominance, that we have an unseemly advantage and should therefore be willing to let the other side level the playing field a bit.
There is also very likely a rampant fear of what their European and American counterparts might think, and a desire to stay in their good graces. After all, no one wants to be indicted by the International Criminal Court and thereby forego shopping trips to Harrods or Galeries Lafayette.
If all of this sounds farfetched, it is only because of the absurdity of the actual state of affairs, which in effect invites bizarre rationales to explain an even more bizarre reality.
One of the bracing lessons of the Trump presidency was to see how diplomatic neophytes such as Jared Kushner, David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt, bright amateurs not steeped in the arcana of the State Department, could produce more successes and achievements than the striped pants set were ever able to accomplish.
Might it not be equally exciting and very likely as productive to have bright, aware, and victory focused non-professionals directing our responses to aggression? Let’s revisit the widespread but targeted bombing of the villas of Hamas leaders. Hit ‘em where it hurts is classic schoolyard wisdom, but in the case of Hamas, who licks its chops at the prospect of dead children, it might very well carry the day.
Of course, there would be the inevitable international recriminations, to which the victory-focused amateurs would reply, “you’re right, and we’re about to do it again.”
Israel needs to learn one difficult but crucial lesson: no one respects our humanity, our decency and our exquisite care for the rights of our enemies. We are still castigated, vilified and convicted.
It is time to prioritize our own safety and welfare over those of our enemies. While we might not win international accolades, we will win something far more important: enduring peace and quiet.
Douglas Altabef is the Chairman of the Board of Im Tirtzu and a Director of the Israel Independence Fund.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps our "by the science" driven "woke" President fell asleep at the switch on this one.
Is the American
Work Ethic Dying?
Covid laid off much of the country. Now the Biden Democrats
are paying people to stay home.
WSJ Opinion: Is the American Work Ethic Dying?
Joe Biden likes to say, “It’s simple ” Sometimes, it isn’t.
This week, surveying the gulf between the millions of jobs available in the U.S. and the
startlingly smaller number of people taking them, President Biden said, “People will come
back to work if
they’re paid a decent wage.”
But what if he’s wrong? What if his $300 unemployment insurance bonus on top of the
checks sent directly to millions of people (which began during the Trump presidency) turns
out to be a big, long-term mistake?
It’s now clear that Mr. Biden and the left expect these outlays effectively to raise the
minimum wage by forcing employers to compete with Uncle Sam’s money. Still, it is
impossible not to be struck by how many employers say that former and prospective
employees—after a year of forced
unemployment—simply will not work.
Greg Brown, president of W.W. Cannon in Dallas, told the Journal that despite offering
wages up to $30 an hour, “you just can’t find people; people aren’t willing to come to
work.”
Refusal to work is something new in the U.S.
Ideas have consequences. By making unemployment insurance competitive with market
wage rates in a pandemic, the Biden Democrats may have done long-term damage to the
American work ethic.
We will spend years discovering the altered patterns of behavior caused by politicians on the
advice of epidemiologists ordering the nation to go home and stay home. Some are
identifiable, such as large migrations out of big Northern cities. Less clear is the pandemic’s
long-term effect on where people are willing to work—or whether they are willing to work
at all.
Though many people worked remotely, millions lost functioning jobs. There is no precedent
for this, not even the Great Depression.
The canaries in the U.S.’s crumbling employment mine shaft are the state governors who
want to restore the work-search requirement to receive
unemployment insurance.
It was assumed that once most people were vaccinated, they would want to revive pre-
habits. But the U.S. Labor Department’s Jolts report on jobs and an avalanche of anecdotes
suggest that one of the things
many people want most to get away from is work itself.
The authorities built Covid into a 12-month monster, so people naturally sought respite in
distractions from the monster. I believe the pandemic accelerated a transition evident for
years—away from the basic concept of daily work and toward an emerging idea that life is
less about work and more
about play. Life as a nonstop game.
Employers have grappled for years with the phenomenon of remote working. They allowed
it for some, but rarely considered letting everyone do it for fear it would diminish valuable
workplace habits.
This has never been an option for the blue-collar workforce, which was obligated simply to
show up at work. It appears now that many of them want the same thing as their salaried
“remote” counterparts—staying home so
they can do . . . whatever.
Web-based tech companies have seen for years that the line between work and play is
fading. Guys sitting at home used Reddit and Robinhood to play the stock market
over GameStop, first as a diversion, then as a substitute for work. On “Saturday Night Live”
last weekend, Elon Musk said dogecoin, originally conceived as a joke, was a “hustle.”
Investors are playing with it anyway.
Many of last summer’s protesters—in an estimated 10,600 demonstrations—were
unemployed. People who were once workers became full-time protesters. They’re replacing
the dutiful Protestant work ethic with the
self-liberating progressive virtue ethic.
Constant political anger has become a subset of a larger game-playing ethos. Before the
pandemic, Donald Trump and the media transformed politics into something more like a
game. People got up each day to see what fun the Trump Twitter account might have put in
motion. The New York Times, now that its playdate partner is gone, is marketing itself
during the staycation pandemic as an online game site, accessible with a Games
subscription.
As if caught in a time warp, real employers with real companies are looking for workers to
do real jobs. Keep in mind, though, that many graduates attend universities that decided
years ago that to compete they had
to transform their campuses into playpens.
The welfare reforms of the 1990s were based on the realization that transfer payments
undermined the work ethic. The Biden-Sanders Democrats are dropping that work
requirement for recipients of cash payments.
It’s comforting to believe that natural economic forces will drive people back to work. But
the scale of effects from the yearlong pandemic shutdowns, combined with the
government’s trillions in direct payments, has pushed the work ethic in the U.S. to a tipping
point. Describing what we do now as “remote” and “virtual” means we know our
attachments to the pre-pandemic
world have become tenuous.
Joe Biden talks about things his father told him, such as: “ ‘A job is a lot more than a
paycheck’ he’d say. ‘Joey, it’s about your respect, your dignity, your place in the
community.’ ” Or it was until now.
++++++++++++++++++
If Israel wanted to kill Palestinians it could easily do so unlike the blood thirsty Hamas
which does want to kill Israelis. Even their rockets are loaded with material that maims as
well as kills. They are sick people consumed by neurotic, psychotic hate. Sort of
reminds me of some Democrats.
PMW Exclusive: PA TV admits Israel warned civilians to leave building before attackItamar Marcus | May 14, 2021 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If these ads are factual then a military that fights to restore love will die quickly. I have always maintained Kissinger is brilliant but he also introduced Americans in the concept of accepting defeat and since then we never win wars because politicians and diplomats take over and losing is acceptable America could learn from Israel. And: |
How the Biden administration set the stage for a new war with Hamas
A policy shift away from closeness to Israel created the opening. Along with Palestinian politics, the hope for a reward from the new president helped ignite riots and sent missiles flying into Israel.
(May 13, 2021 / JNS) America’s European allies don’t get it. On Monday, the Biden administration decided to hold up a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have effectively condemned Israel, along with Hamas, for the current round of violence. The text of the proposed resolution called for Israel to prevent Jews from prevailing in a controversial Jerusalem property dispute and to “respect” the status quo at holy sites in the city while also opposing Hamas’s shooting rockets and missiles at Israeli cities, towns and villages.
That the administration backed away at the last minute from a measure that treated terrorist attacks on civilians as morally equivalent to an attempt to enforce Jewish property rights in Israel’s capital and attempts by Israeli security to prevent Palestinians from using the Temple Mount to store projectiles and fireworks to use against Jewish worshippers and authorities was a step in the right direction.
But the Europeans had a right to feel aggrieved. The resolution reflected positions taken by the Biden administration just a couple of days earlier. After having spent the previous months making it clear that the era of special closeness between Israel and the United States that had characterized the policies of the Trump administration was over, the president’s foreign-policy team wasn’t quite prepared to double down on that position in the middle of a full-blown crisis.
That incident is representative of an administration that has been at odds with itself throughout its brief tenure with respect to the Middle East. On the one hand, President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan have attempted to reassure the pro-Israel community that they are committed to the alliance with the Jewish state, and that given the grim prospects for talks with the Palestinians, they were not seeking to invest the same time and energy that the Obama administration wasted on the peace process. But most of the Biden team is made of people who, like Iran envoy Robert Malley and current envoy to the Middle East Hady Amr, have a history of hostility to Israel.
Biden’s foreign-policy priority has been an attempt to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal—something that is being put in motion by a new round of appeasement of Tehran being carried out by Malley. But that effort, and the chill between Washington and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left no one in any doubt that Israel was out of favor in an administration staffed by those who saw it, at best, as run by Trump allies who needed to be put in their place.
Did that contribute to the outbreak of the worst regional violence since 2014?
The question of who is responsible for the events of the last week is not a simple one. It first began with a property case involving a failure of Arab tenants to pay rent to Jewish landlords, coupled with the long-running Palestinian effort to make the Temple Mount a “no go” zone for both Jews and Israeli security, metastasized into riots in Jerusalem, civil strife between Jews and Arabs in Israeli cities, and now, a full-blown military confrontation with the terrorist government of Gaza.
One can second-guess the government of Netanyahu for its failure to anticipate Hamas’s willingness to turn the country into a war zone. Israeli legislators can also share some blame for being perceived as weak because of four elections in the past two years that have failed to produce a stable government.
Still, the lion’s share of the blame belongs to the Palestinians, who chose violence time and again rather than seeking peace. Still, that shouldn’t blind us to the way the Biden administration’s policy shifts have given both major Palestinian factions an incentive to blow things up. At some point, an inevitable cease-fire with Hamas and the end of violence in the streets of Jerusalem and other Israeli cities will come. Whether that will happen sooner or later, or if Israel is able to accomplish military objectives in its offensive into Gaza that will do more than restore the dangerous status quo that existed before this week, remains uncertain. But the aftermath of the fighting is now likely to bring a renewed interest on the part of Washington in reviving the dead-in-the-water peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. That makes it clear that the signals that Biden sent out before all this started created a scenario in which the carnage of recent days was almost inevitable.
The factor that led directly to the worst violence since the 2014 summer war with Hamas was primarily a matter of Palestinian politics. Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas’s decision to cancel elections scheduled for this month forced him to come up with some sort of distraction from his appalling misrule of the West Bank. Faced with the likelihood of a defeat at the hands of either dissident members of his Fatah Party or its Islamist rivals in Hamas, Abbas did what Palestinian leaders always do: divert attention from their own failures by inciting nationalist and religious-based hatred against Jews.
That involved the usual lies and heated rhetoric about protecting the Temple Mount from the depredations of Jews—something that Palestinian Arab leaders have been doing for the last century. But it also played off the successful Palestinian effort to turn a property dispute in the Sheik Jarrah section of Jerusalem into a cause célèbre to generate both international opprobrium against Israel, as well as gin up anger among Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Unfortunately, the Biden administration and the rest of the international community bought the false narrative that denying Jewish property rights in Jerusalem is a human-rights issue.
Hamas’s decision to escalate the conflict by firing more than 1,600 projectiles into Israel was not about “protecting Jerusalem.” It was just another example of how violence and murder is the currency by which one gains credibility in Palestinian political culture. Killing several Israelis and sending much of the country scurrying into bomb shelters was its way of competing with Abbas and other Fatah factions for popularity.
That still raises the question of why both Abbas, and especially Hamas, chose to ramp up the violence now after years of relative quiet.
One can argue that tension in Jerusalem has been simmering for years and was bound to explode at some point. But the problem with that is from 2017 to 2021, both Abbas and Hamas understood that they had no chance to detach the United States from Israel. By abandoning former President Barack Obama’s policy of increasing “daylight” between the United States and Israel—making it clear to the Palestinians that they must abandon hope of American pressure on the Jewish state—former President Donald Trump had de-incentivized Palestinian violence.
By contrast, Biden had set the stage for a new round of violence precisely because he had shifted away from Trump’s policies, while also demonstrating indifference to the Palestinians. Abbas needed a way to get Biden’s attention. That would presumably force him to listen to those on the left-wing of his Democratic Party who were disappointed that pressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians was not being pursued at the same time as the renewed rapprochement with Iran.
It remains to be seen whether Biden and Blinken can resist their party’s anti-Israel faction and their inherent belief in pushing for a two-state solution (in which Palestinians have little interest) in order to avoid getting sucked into the same fool’s errand every American administration that preceded Trump was eventually pulled.
With many in the media and the Democratic Party having already accepted the false narrative about Israel being in the wrong about the Sheikh Jarrah buildings or the Temple Mount, the role that Biden’s fumbling played in the events that have just unfolded will be obscured. But the blood being shed in Israel and Gaza is a disaster he could have avoided had he stuck to Trump’s policies on Israel. By not realizing that his return to more “daylight” would encourage Palestinian violence, the president has taken a stable though unsolvable problem and turned it into a catastrophe. That serves the purposes of Abbas, Hamas and the growing anti-Israel faction among Democrats, though not the interests of the United States or peace.
+++++++++++++++++++
Good for him:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.
How To Assure Repetition of Hamas Rocket Attacks
by Alan M. Dershowitz
- There is one sure-fire way of guaranteeing that Hamas will continue to employ terrorism against Israel.... That sure-fire way is to reward the terrorists who employ this tactic and to punish their intended victims who try to fight back.
- The real root cause of terrorism is that it is successful -- terrorists have consistently benefited from their terrorist acts. Terrorism will persist as long as... the international community rewards it, as it has been doing for the past [many] years.
- Hamas has been greatly rewarded by the international community, by human rights groups, by the media, by many academics and by millions of decent people for its indecent double war crime tactic of firing rockets at Israeli civilians from behind Palestinian human shields. Israel has been significantly punished for trying to protect its citizens from these rockets.
- So here... is the twelve-step program that Hamas and the international community should follow if it truly wants to see terrorism become the primary tactic used against democracies by those with perceived grievances.
- Step 9: Accuse the democracy of war crimes and bring cases against its leaders and soldiers in courts sympathetic to Hamas around the world. Bringing the lawsuits will create a presumption of guilt, even if the charges are dismissed months or years later.
- Step 10: Schedule various United Nations "debates" at which tyrannical dictatorships from around the world line up... to condemn Israel for crimes routinely committed by these dictatorships but not by Israel.
- Step 11: Trot out the usual stable of reliable anti-Israel academics to flood newspapers and television shows with some of the worst drivel about international law, human rights and the laws of war -- drivel that would earn students failing grades in any objective law school course on these subjects.
- Now here are six steps for those democracies that would actually like to put an end to terrorist attacks against its civilians.
- Step 4: Never allow human rights, international organizations or war crime tribunals to be hijacked by the supporters or terrorism and the enemies of democracy to punish only those who seek to protect their civilians against terrorism.
- Not only must terrorism never be rewarded, the cause of those who employ it must be made... worse off as a result of the terrorism than it would have been without it.
- No wonder Hamas, and other terrorist groups, regard their war crimes tactic as a win-win for terrorism and a lose-lose for democracy.
There is one sure-fire way of guaranteeing that Hamas will continue to employ terrorism against Israel and that other terrorist groups will increase the use of terrorism against civilians around the world. That sure-fire way is to reward the terrorists who employ this tactic and to punish their intended victims who try to fight back. This is one of the most important lessons to be learned from the recent events in Gaza, but it is not a new lesson. In 2002, in a book entitled Why Terrorism Works, I made a point that is even more relevant today than it was then:
"The real root cause of terrorism is that it is successful -- terrorists have consistently benefited from their terrorist acts. Terrorism will persist as long as it continues to work for those who use it, as long as the international community rewards it, as it has been doing for the past thirty-five years."
Hamas has been greatly rewarded by the international community, by human rights groups, by the media, by many academics and by millions of decent people for its indecent double war crime tactic of firing rockets at Israeli civilians from behind Palestinian human shields. Israel has been significantly punished for trying to protect its citizens from these rockets. Although Hamas suffered a significant military defeat at the hands of the IDF, it has gained a public relations bonanza. Its status in Europe has been enhanced, as it has at the United Nations and throughout the Arab street. It lost the battle on the ground in Gaza, but may have won the war in the hearts and minds of many decent, and many more indecent, people throughout the world. And it won this war with very little cost. Whether the death toll was 500-600, as Corriere della Sera suggested, or 1300 as Hamas has reported, dead civilians serve the interest of Hamas, which considers them martyrs. They do not belong on the cost side of the ledger, according to the bizarre death culture that Hamas perpetuates, but rather of the benefit side of the ledger.
So here, in simple terms, is the twelve-step program that Hamas and the international community should follow if it truly wants to see terrorism become the primary tactic used against democracies by those with perceived grievances.
Step 1: Use terrorism-rockets aimed at civilians, suicide bombings in pizza parlors and discothèques, bombs planted in school buses, shootings in classrooms... as widely as possible against your enemies, to the point where they have no option but respond militarily.
Step 2: Make sure that the terrorists and their weapons, rockets, explosives... are hidden among civilians in densely populated areas.
Step 3: When the inevitable attacks occur, employ human shields, the younger the better. Recruit them voluntarily, if possible, but commandeer them if necessary, even if they are babies or toddlers.
Step 4: Be certain that your terrorist fighters are wearing civilian clothing. Recruit as many women and teenage youngsters as possible to become terrorists.
Step 5: Be ready with video cameras and sympathetic journalists to videotape every single death and transmit the images as widely as possible to media outlets around the world.
Step 6: Recycle images of dead civilians, especially children, and move them from media to media, thus multiplying the number of apparently dead civilians.
Step 7: Be certain that sympathetic doctors and United Nations personnel overstate the number of civilians killed, counting every person under the age of 18 and every woman as a civilian, even if they are terrorists.
Step 8: Circulate totally false reports about civilian casualties and their location by, for example, claiming that numerous civilians were killed at a United Nations school when you know none of the dead were actually inside the school. You can be confident that the media will put your exaggerated reports on Page 1 and when the truth eventually comes out, after careful investigation days or weeks later, it will be buried in the back pages.
Step 9: Accuse the democracy of war crimes and bring cases against its leaders and soldiers in courts sympathetic to Hamas around the world. Bringing the lawsuits will create a presumption of guilt, even if the charges are dismissed months or years later.
Step 10: Schedule various United Nations "debates" at which tyrannical dictatorships from around the world line up at the podium to condemn Israel for crimes routinely committed by these dictatorships but not by Israel.
Step 11: Trot out the usual stable of reliable anti-Israel academics to flood newspapers and television shows with some of the worst drivel about international law, human rights and the laws of war -- drivel that would earn students failing grades in any objective law school course on these subjects.
Step 12: Make sure that Hamas understands that if it repeats its double war crime strategy, it will once again be rewarded, and if Israel fights back, it will once again be punished.
These twelve steps are for use by terrorist groups, nations, and organizations, such as the United Nations, that seem determined to encourage terrorism.
Now here are six steps for those democracies that would actually like to put an end to terrorist attacks against its civilians.
Step 1: Never, under any circumstances, reward an act of terrorism or a group that employs terrorism to achieve its goals.
Step 2: Always punish terrorists and terrorists' groups that employ terrorism against civilians.
Step 3: Never punish democracies that seek to prevent acts of terrorism against their civilians especially when the terrorists hide among their own civilians in order to provoke democracies into killing civilians.
Step 4: Never allow human rights, international organizations or war crime tribunals to be hijacked by the supporters or terrorism and the enemies of democracy to punish only those who seek to protect their civilians against terrorism. This is especially true when the democracies have been patient in responding and have no reasonable alternative course other than military self-defense.
Step 5: Never manipulate the emotions of decent people by showing only the human shields who have been killed by military self-defense actions of the democracies, without explaining that it was the terrorists who caused these deaths.
Step 6: Make certain that the cause espoused by the terrorists is set back by every act of terrorism.
As I wrote in 2002:
"Not only must terrorism never be rewarded, the cause of those who employ it must be made -- and must be seen to be made -- worse off as a result of the terrorism than it would have been without it. The manner by which calculating terrorists define and calibrate the cost and benefits may be different from the way common criminals decide whether to rob, cheat, or bully, but society's response must be based on similar considerations. Those who employ terrorism have their own criteria for evaluating success and failure, and in implementing the immutable principle that those who employ terrorism must be worse off for having resorted to this tactic, we must make them worse off by their own criteria."
The international community, by and large, has been doing the opposite. The message it has been sending has been: keep it up. It will only help your terrorist cause and hurt your democratic enemy. No wonder Hamas, and other terrorist groups, regard their war crimes tactic as a win-win for terrorism and a lose-lose for democracy.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the book, The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives and Universities, Hot Books, April 20, 2021. His new podcast, "The Dershow," can be seen on Spotify, Apple and YouTube. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
+++++++++++++++++++
For those interested in The Middle East War here are some links:
https://www.
===
https://www.
+++
+++
2 Fronts? Rockets from Lebanon Fired at Israel; ‘It was Anti-Semitism,’ Says Family of Israeli Shot Dead in Baltimore; Biden and Iran: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory; Germans Hold Suspects for Anti-Semitic Attacks; Analysis: Hamas Undermining Israel’s Sovereignty in Jerusalem
No comments:
Post a Comment