Staying Real in Israel
Home of
"The Marty Roberts Show"

Another step designed to make Europe Judenrein (again)…this time, a bit more subtle, but no less effective in terms of the end result…
The ban may have been directed against Muslims, but the Jews will suffer…

Our Creator’s goal, as expressed in the Torah, is for the Jews to live in the Land of Israel.
Once, inheriting Israel was considered a gift…It was a PUNISHMENT for he Jews to have to live in foreign lands, outside of Israel.
Today, the punishment is over…time for the Jews to come home…If we do not get the message on our own, the Master of the Universe sometimes nudges us in the right direction…

Spoiler for my friends, the Dutch Jews: It’s REAL easy to get kosher meat in your REAL home, Israel…Hint, Hint…

Dutch approve ban on animal slaughter

Holland’s parliament votes in favor of move strongly opposed by Muslim and Jewish minorities, but leaves loophole that may let religious butchering continue

Reprinted from ynetnews.com

The Dutch parliament voted on Tuesday to ban ritual slaughter of animals, a move strongly opposed by the country’s Muslim and Jewish minorities, but left a loophole that might let religious butchering continue.

The bill by the small Animal Rights Party, the first such group in Europe to win seats in a national parliament, passed the lower house of parliament by 116 votes to 30. It must be approved by the upper house before becoming law.

It stipulates that livestock must be stunned before being slaughtered, contrary to the Muslim halal and Jewish kosher laws that require animals to be fully conscious.

“This way of killing causes unnecessary pain to animals. Religious freedom cannot be unlimited,” said Marianne Thieme, head of the Animal Rights Party, said before the vote. “For us religious freedom stops where human or animal suffering begins.”

In a rare show of unity, the Netherlands’ Muslim and Jewish communities – numbering about 1 million and 40,000 respectively in a total population of 16 million – have condemned the proposed ban as a violation of their religious freedom.

“The very fact that there is a discussion about this is very painful for the Jewish community,” Netherlands Chief Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs told Reuters.

“Those who survived the (second world) war remember the very first law made by the Germans in Holland was the banning of schechita or the Jewish way of slaughtering animals.”

Uca Octay of Rotterdam’s Islamic University said: “We will have to import halal meat from neighboring countries or find another way to meet the needs of the Muslim population.”

Pain impossible to prove

The law said religious groups could continue ritual slaughter if they proved it was no more painful than stunning, but it was not clear how to do this. The Jewish community has challenged a study on animal pain used to support the ban.

“This is absolutely impossible to prove,” Jacobs said. “You can’t ask the animal how it feels afterwards.”

Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks visited the Netherlands last week to lobby against the law, arguing that pre-stunning failed in up to 10 percent of cases and that caused more pain than the swift cutting of the throat by a razor-sharp knife.

Philip Carmel, International Relations Director for the Conference of European Rabbis in Brussels, stressed the upper house of parliament could still reject the law. “We believe the Dutch parliament and people, who have a history of tolerance, will see sense and make the right decision,” he said.

Dutch Muslims, mostly of Turkish and Moroccan origin, have complained they felt stigmatized by the planned ban, debated amid growing support for anti-Islam populist Geert Wilders.

A court cleared Wilders last week of charges of hate speech against Muslims. His Freedom Party has supported the ban.

“There was no reason for passing this law,” said Imam Mahmut of the El Tawheed mosque in Amsterdam. “This is a political decision. Who has the authority to determine whether the way of killing animals is good or not?”

European restrictions

European Union regulations require animals to be stunned before killing but allow exceptions for ritual slaughter, which the European Court of Human Rights has ruled is a religious right. Animal rights activists insist this is inhuman.

Carmel said the European Parliament last week rejected a bid by animal rights advocates to have kosher and halal meat specially labeled as coming from unstunned animals.

Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland ban ritual slaughter. Swiss animal rights groups and far-right politicians have called for a ban on imported halal and kosher meat.

Of the 500 million animals slaughtered annually for food in the Netherlands, only 1.2 million animals are slaughtered according to Muslim or Jewish traditions, Dutch statistics show.

As General elections are called in Great Britain, is this just one more instance of anti-Israel fervor being stirred up by British parliamentarians presumably looking to win the significant Muslim vote?…or maybe they just really don’t like Israel…
Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to sell weapons to your ally and then specify that these weapons NOT be used in defending your allied country’s citizens…Or maybe Great Britain does not consider stopping eight years of daily rocket, missile and mortar attacks on Israel’s civilian population a valid expression of Israel’s right to self-defense???
I always DID have a bit of a problem with British logic, being American and all…

Gaza War

Ensure Israel arms curbs, say MPs


The UK government must ensure that military equipment sold to Israel is not used in the occupied territories, MPs have said.

Reprinted from BBC News

Ministers must learn “broader lessons” about ensuring the ban on the trade in such products for use in Gaza and the West Bank is enforced, a report adds.

The MPs said it was “regrettable” that UK arms sold to Israel were “almost certainly” used in Gaza in 2008.

However, they said the UK provided less than 1% of arms exported to Israel.

Rocket attacks

The Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls – made up of members of other select committees – questioned ministers on the state of the military equipment trade.

It heard that arms deals with Israel had been looked at on a “case-by-case basis”, rather than the UK government imposing an embargo.

Five licences had been revoked since Operation Cast Lead, launched by Israel in December 2008.

The Israeli armed forces launched a 22-day offensive in the Gaza Strip, bombing Palestinian cities before sending in ground troops – in response, Israel said, to Hamas rocket attacks on southern Israel.

After this, Hamas launched its rockets in increased numbers at Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip, before agreeing to a ceasefire.

Palestinians and rights groups say more than 1,400 Gazans died in the conflict but Israel puts the figure at 1,166. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed.

A report issued in September 2009 by the UN Human Rights Commission found that Israel and Hamas, the militant group that runs Gaza, had committed war crimes during the conflict.

In their report, the MPs said: “We repeat our conclusion that it is regrettable that arms exports to Israel were almost certainly used in Operation Cast Lead.

“This is in direct contravention to the UK government’s policy that UK arms exports to Israel should not be used in the occupied territories.

“We further conclude that the revoking of five UK arms exports licences to Israel since Cast Lead is welcome, but that broader lessons must be learned from the post-conflict review to ensure that UK arms exports to Israel are not used in the occupied territories in future.

“We recommend that the government, in its response to this report, set out clearly the longer term lessons learnt post-Operation Cast Lead and how they will impact in practice on the issuing of future licences for arms exports to Israel.”

‘Take Gaza into account’

In evidence to the MPs in April last year, Bill Rammell, then a Foreign Office minister, said the government had not authorised any exports relating to F-16 jets, helicopters or armoured personnel carriers for Israel since the conflict in Lebanon in 2006.

He also said that “all of these export decisions were in accordance with the criteria on that information that we had available at the time”.

But Foreign Secretary David Miliband made a statement on 21 April last year, in which he said the F-16s and Apache helicopters used by Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead had “almost certainly” contained British-supplied components.

In their report, the MPs said: “The government stated it would take the conflict in Gaza into account in assessing all future licence applications.”

They added: “The government wrote to the committees in July 2009 with an update on the review of 182 extant licences to Israel.

“It decided to revoke five licences for equipment to the Israeli Navy. It stated that there was no evidence that the decision to revoke those licences has had any impact on the UK’s defence relationship with either the USA or Israel.”

The Campaign Against the Arms Trade, which also gave evidence to the MPs, said it was “virtually impossible to guarantee that any military equipment supplied to the Israeli government will not be used in the occupied territories”.

It called for an embargo on arms and components going to Israel, both directly and through use in weapons produced in other countries and then sold on to Israel.

The campaign said the government had licensed arms exports worth between £10m and £30m a year for export directly to Israel over the past few years.

During 2008, licences for goods worth more than £27.5m had been approved, it added, while the UK had sold components used in weapons exported to Israel by US suppliers.

In evidence in January this year, Foreign Office Minister Ivan Lewis said there would “not be any arms embargo against Israel” as the government was “firmly of the view that Israel faces real threats”.

Israeli tanks advanced briefly into the Gaza Strip at the weekend, following clashes in which two Israeli soldiers and two Palestinian militants died.

It is the first time Israeli soldiers have died in Gaza since Operation Cast Lead.

Hard for me to admit this, but I don’t have a clue what the heck is going on here…
An arab-Israeli citizen who happens to be an elected member of the Israeli parliament attacks an Israeli policemen carrying out his duties. He is duly arrested. The attorney general decides that there is adequate evidence to indict the alleged criminal. He now is waiting to stand trial in an official court of his country, Israel. He will be judged as to whether or not he committed the crimes he is charged with. I think that this is the normal way that democracy is supposed to work. OK, so far, so good…
Now comes the part that I DO NOT get…this is where the European Union gets involved. What exactly is the reason they are sending representatives to this trial? Is it because the alleged criminal is arab? Israeli? He “only” attacked an Israeli peace officer? Because he was participating in an illegal demonstration, but the EU supports what they were demonstrating for? Don’t they have anything better to do with their time? Is this any of their business in any way, shape or form? This is too Kafka-esque for me…
Somebody, please, help me out here…

European group may probe Israel decision to indict Arab MK


The Inter-Parliamentary Union is considering sending representatives to oversee the legal proceedings against Hadash chairman Mohammed Barakeh, charged with assaulting a police officer during an anti-separation fence rally in the West Bank.

Reprinted from Haaretz.com Jack Khoury

In November, then Attorney General Menachem Mazuz decided to indict Barakeh for allegedly attacking a policeman during a demonstration at the West Bank separation fence.

Barakeh allegedly assaulted a member of the Israel Prisons Service’s elite Masada unit at a protest in the West Bank village of Bi’ilin in 2005.
Advertisement

The policeman was taking a detainee to a police car at the time of the alleged assault.

Mazuz was also considering including on the charge sheet the crimes of offending a public servant and issuing threats, offenses which Barakeh is alleged to have committed at two other demonstrations.

In one of the incidents, Barakeh allegedly attacked a police officer during a 2006 protest in Tel Aviv, while in another he is accused of assaulting a passerby during a demonstration in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square.

Haaretz had recently learned that Barakeh had appealed to the international body with the aid of the director of the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights, Hassan Jabareen, bemoaning Israel’s decision to indict him.

The IPU, based in Geneva, sets its goal at protecting the rights of parliament members, and represents dozens of European legislative bodies, including the Knesset.

In late February, the IPU called on Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin to address claims brought up by Barakeh’s representatives, who said that the charges brought up by then AG Mazuz were baseless, attempted to disrupt legitimate political activities, and go against Barakeh’s parliamentary immunity.

The IPU wrote in the response given to Barakeh’s representatives, that the organization’s general assembly would decide in a March 27 vote whether or not to send observers to his trial, a move that would force the Knesset to address Barakeh’s appeal.

The organization, however, cannot intervene or force a resolution on either side, although its future recommendations could have a significant political and ethical effect with regards to the alleged discrimination of Arab MKs.

Meanwhile, the European Union, following Barakeh’s appeal, stated that it will be sending a representative to Tel Aviv’s magistrate court, where Barakeh’s trial is planned to take place.

Barakeh told Haaretz that the charges against him were not factually based, saying that he intended to “refute the indictment in court.”

“The ones that are being violent and abusing freedom of demonstration and of speech are the police and the security establishment,” Barakeh added.

“Only last week, the Supreme Court had to intervene in order to ensure freedom of protest in Sheikh Jarrah,” he continued, adding that his indictment “reeks of politics.”

“It’s not a personal trial but an attempt to terrorize and deter anyone wishing to exercise his democratic right to resist government policy,” the Hadash chairman said

In today’s show, I talk about Ehud Olmert’s efforts to put together a new coalition government for Israel.

You can learn just how the Israeli parliamentary system works by listening to the show.

Avigdor Lieberman and his “Israel, Our Home” party will doubtless play a key role in the formation of Olmert’s new government.

I lay out Lieberman’s platform and principles and analyze its implications for the future of Israel as a Jewish state.

In today’s show, I also discuss the threat posed by Israel’s Arab minority, as spelled out in the platform of the “United Arab” party, which received 4 mandates in the current Knesset.

“We’ve got a hot one today!”…Don’t miss the show…

Ehud Olmert is Trying to Put Together Israel’s Next Knesset (Parliament) Government

What role will the “Israel Our Home” party of Avigdor Lieberman play?…

All this and MORE…

CLICK PLAY Button to Listen to “The Marty Roberts Show”

Ehud Olmert will likely be the new Prime Minister of Israel, charged with forming the next government…

Who will be “in”?

Who will be “out”?

What will be his strategy?

This man will almost certainly play a key role in the formation of the next Israeli Knesset…

Will he stay faithful to his principles?