text:
Nikki Haley to UN on North Korea Jan 18, 2018 UN Security Council meeting on non proliferation of Mass Destruction via YouTube, January 18, 2018
The West's shameful response to the Iran protests | Anne's Opinions, January 8th 2018
In my earlier post about the Iran protests I mentioned the limp response from both Western governments and Western media. Melanie Phillips picks up on the weak institutional response from the West, saying:
… utterly risible the gloss initially put on these protests by the western media – those outlets, that is, that even bothered to report the demonstrations when they first erupted – that the issue which has brought Iranians onto the streets is merely economic privation.
They said this because the media reflects the European/Obama view that the Iranian regime is not an enemy but an ally. How then can they acknowledge that the Iranian people are rising up against oppression?
The Obama/EU axis and its media supporters have consistently dismissed or denied Iran's role as the world's principal sponsor of terrorism. They have ignored or downplayed its march to regional hegemony. They procured or applauded the shocking nuclear deal which enables this fanatical Islamist regime –– which has been at war with the west since 1979 and which openly declares its genocidal intent to wipe out out Israel – to become a nuclear armed power in ten or fifteen years' time: a deal which, though sanctions relief, has also funnelled money to the regime to enable it to step up its terrorism and embed itself further in the region.
The result has not been merely that the free world has been placed in hugely increased danger. The European/Obama axis also abandoned and betrayed the Iranian people who have been suffering under the cruel tyranny of a regime which oppresses women, jails dissidents and hangs gay men from cranes.
If people are to rouse their courage to pit themselves against the might of a regime that can kill and crush them, the support of the rest of the world is absolutely crucial. So far, though, Trump is alone in offering such support. Apart from Britain's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson feebly and pointlessly tweeting his "concern", Britain and the EU have been silent. They are not supporting the people of Iran against the regime. They are not trying to weaken it. How can they? They have helped empower it. As have their cheerleaders and Obama sycophants in the media.
Melanie Phillips continues on this theme in a further post on Europe's shameful silence on the Iran protests, in which she also excoriates Barack Obama and his administration for empowering the Ayatollahs through the nuclear deal:
The people have been calling for "Death to Khamenei," Iran's supreme leader, "Death to Rouhani," Iran's supposedly moderate president, and to "End the clerical regime!" Revolutions against tyrannical oppressors require extraordinary levels of courage and determination. We know from Soviet Union dissidents how desperately such people need to know the world is with them and to hear their oppressors put on notice that their behavior is being watched.
The very worst thing for those pitting their lives against tyranny is silence from the rest of the world. That's what tyrants depend upon to stamp out the sparks of freedom.
President Trump stepped up to the plate by repeatedly tweeting support and encouragement to the protesters and issuing warnings designed to undermine and weaken the regime.
But from all those progressive folk in the West who never stop parading their anti-fascist credentials and signaling their support for the persecuted and for human rights there has been… silence.
The media tried to dismiss the uprising as merely an economic protest. Instead of condemning the regime for killing and jailing protesters, the media condemned Trump for supporting them.
The British and EU governments, with their vast and sordid financial ties to the regime, have given zero support to the revolt, offering merely bromides about the need to avoid loss of life. In the US, former Obama administration staffers have been desperately playing down the uprising.
Obama's Middle East coordinator Philip Gordon called on Trump "to keep quiet and do nothing" in response to the protests.
The Iranians, he claimed, wouldn't want Trump's support. His threat to end the nuclear deal, his unconditional support for "Iran's biggest adversaries, Saudi Arabia and Israel" and his recent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital would give the Iranians reasons to unite against him.
Gordon thus stupidly conflated the Iranian people with the Iranian regime.
It's the regime that is against America on all these issues. The Iranian people, by contrast, have no intrinsic prejudice against Israel, have no reason to reject the recognition of Jerusalem and are unlikely to lose sleep over the ending of the nuclear deal, nor America's alliance with the regime's foes in Saudi Arabia.
For the protesters were also shouting: "No to Gaza, no to Lebanon! Our life only for Iran!" They don't support the regime's aim of regional and global domination. They want Iran to be run for the benefit of Iranians.
For this, they desperately need Trump's support. They want to know that the US won't support the regime. Obama did that, and it hurt the Iranian people.
Obama thus bent over backward to give Iran a free pass. According to Politico, his administration stymied an FBI-led operation to shut down Hezbollah's drug-running, terrorism- financing racket.
In the 2016 prisoner swap deal with Iran, he released several men who his own law enforcement agencies believed posed a danger to national security.
And in the 2009 Green Revolution, Obama abandoned the Iranian people by refusing to give the protesters support.
All of this was to secure the nuclear deal – which has merely empowered Iran to use the money released by sanctions relief to strengthen its terrorist infrastructure and step up its malign and aggressive meddling in the rest of the region.
If the Iranian uprising is stamped out, it will be because of the absence of support from Britain and Europe. Their silence makes them complicit with a genocidal regime at war with the West and has caused them shamefully to betray a brave people fighting for its freedom.
Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, himself a former Prisoner of Zion at the hands of the brutal Soviet regime, agrees with the Melanie Phillips' position, writing in the Washington Post that the West should stop dithering and support the Iranian protestors:
As an opinion piece in the New York Times recently put it, the best way for the U.S. government to help the Iranian protesters is to "Keep quiet and do nothing."
Fortunately, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have already shown themselves unwilling to follow this advice. Even so, it is vital to understand why failing to support the protesters at this critical juncture would constitute a moral and strategic mistake — one of potentially historic proportions.
Consider what happened in 2009, when Iranians came out in large numbers to denounce their country's rigged presidential election. The response they received from the American government was decidedly tepid. The priority of then-President Barack Obama was to reach an agreement with Tehran over its nuclear program, and he and his advisers feared that they would alienate the regime by vocally supporting its detractors.
Yet subsequent events have proved these views completely wrong. This policy of non-interference discouraged protesters and reinforced the regime at the very moment when the opposite could have led to genuine change.
My experiences as a political prisoner and my decades of involvement with democratic dissidents around the world have shown me that all democratic revolutions have some elements in common. It is the drive of ordinary citizens to free themselves from government control over their thought, speech and livelihoods — to shed the burden of having to conform in public despite their private misgivings and grievances against the regime — that has propelled dissidents and revolutionary movements around the world, from Communist Russia to the Arab Spring to today's Islamic Republic of Iran.
Any regime that refuses to respect its citizens' most basic rights, and especially the right to think and speak freely, can maintain its power only by intimidation and force.
Dissidents know the penalties of speaking out but are compelled more by the desire for freedom than by fear. They are willing to brave the consequences, including the loss of their livelihoods, physical freedom and even their lives, to gain the liberty to speak their minds. Revolutions take place when enough people simultaneously cross that fateful line between silent questioning and open dissent, between cowering in fear and standing up for freedom. Once they do so, the regime can no longer contain the upsurge of opposition and must either begin to liberalize or collapse.
This is why a policy of silence on the part of world leaders is so misguided. What matters to Iranians debating whether to cross this decisive threshold is how much they dislike their own government, as well as their knowledge that the free world — those who share the basic principles for which they are fighting — stands behind them in their moment of truth.
… Our leaders must not be misled by the argument that publicly siding with Iran's dissidents will give the regime an excuse to blame the protests on foreign meddling or crack down even harder on dissidents. The government in Tehran will do these things no matter what, since a regime as threatened as Iran's is right now will take any steps in its power to deflect and suppress opposition.
Yet, world powers should go even further than this. They should warn Tehran — and thereby reassure protesters — that it must respect its citizens' rights if it wishes to continue receiving benefits from their countries. Articulating a clear policy of linkage would put pressure on the regime to make genuine changes and give hope to protesters that their sacrifices will not be in vain.
These sterling words from Natan Sharansky stand in stark contrast to the utterly pathetic reaction from Britain's establishment, particularly the Labour Party whose leader has never met a terrorist he couldn't like.
Here's a tweet from a spoof Jeremy Corbyn account, but the link is no spoof:
And more:
Even the leftist Independent calls on Britain to support the protestors and condemns the equivocation of the Labour Party:
Anyone with a conscience, meanwhile, knows that the Iranian government hangs gay people, tramples on women's rights, has a poor human rights record and sponsors terrorism. It is not difficult, in a contest between such a regime and the right to free expression, to know which side is wearing the whiter hat.
Ms Thornberry's warning that Westerners should not "simply impose our views" on other countries is the most appalling moral cowardice. There is nothing "Western" about universal human rights, and all representatives of the British people should stand up for them.
But let's not just concentrate on the Labour Party who, after all, are not in power. What about the British government itself?
Allister Heath in the Telegraph laments Britain's non-response:
What's wrong with us? Why isn't there loud, universal support from all shades of political opinion, in Britain and across the West, for the anti-regime protesters in Iran? Why such reluctance to encourage these brave young men and women who are risking their lives by taking on the theocrats?
Have we forgotten the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, or is it that our elites are now so embarrassed by Western values that they can no longer relate to those in other countries who also yearn for freedom and democracy?
Scandalously, but unsurprisingly, Mr Corbyn has yet to speak out about the protests: he was quick to condemn Donald Trump's commonsensical recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but has nothing to say about the murder of dozens of Iranians.
So much for the hard-Left. Why are the Tories and the (clearly hopeless) Foreign Office almost as silent, in effect aligning themselves with the worst of European foreign policy, despite the liberating potential of Brexit?
Why has Boris Johnson been so uncharacteristically mealy-mouthed? Why is the British government still clinging to the absurd notion that the Iranian nuclear deal was a good idea, rather than a shameful exercise in appeasement which ended up propping up an illegitimate regime while lining the pockets of a few European companies?
I understand that Boris feels he must tread carefully after the disastrous Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe affair, but it is deeply disappointing that Mr Trump's foreign policy towards Iran is far more ethical than Britain's. We need a Kennedy-esque oration, a "we are all Tehranis" moment from our Foreign Secretary to give the rebels the kind of moral support they desperately need.
The Americans get this: Mr Trump – yes, Trump, the president despised by so-called liberals the world over – has adopted exactly the right tone in recent days, and Nikki Haley, his ambassador to the UN, has been superb and now looks like a future Republican presidential contender.
The reality is that there is no moral ambiguity when it comes to the Iranian protests, no shades of grey, no trade-off to be had for reasons of realpolitik. There are the good guys – the young, brave counter-revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the brutes who have ruled their country for so long – and then there is the regime, a barbaric and corrupt mob that has brought a once great society to its knees.
The protests were precipitated by economic chaos, as is often the case, but quickly mutated into open attacks on the regime. … In social terms, there has been an explosion in drug abuse, mental illness, depression and atomisation.
Most encouragingly, the protesters are furious that the regime is spending so much on financing terrorism and on its wars in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, rather than on its own people. They have been saying so, clearly, in demonstrations around the country.
This remarkable message – a powerful counter-blast to the pernicious idea that the Middle East is somehow different, that none of its people want democracy, individual liberty or toleration – is far more radical than the demands made during the 2009 uprising. If any country is ready for a real dose of modernisation, it's Iran.
True, the protesters are disorganised and they disagree about much, but they deserve our support, and that of all of the global bodies supposedly concerned with human rights which have been pretending not to notice what has been going on (they are only interested in the "right" kinds of rights violation, that is those by Western countries).
We cannot be sure that a new, successful counter-revolution would not lead to chaos, but Iran doesn't need an authoritarian regime to prevent tribal warfare and the Islamists are totally discredited, so the omens are better than they were in Afghanistan or Libya.
What is certain is that we've failed the Middle East appallingly in recent decades. We mustn't also betray Iran again. Its dissidents need a clear signal that the world would be delighted to work, when the time is right, with a new government in Tehran. Foreign Secretary, are you listening?
The only foreign representative who does seem to be listening and is not afraid to express an opinion is the US Ambassador to the UN who overtly threatened the Iranian regime:
Let's just hope that the world does not restrict itself to just "watching".
Russia: US demand for UN meeting on Iran is 'destructive', Israel National News, Chana Roberts, January 5, 2018
(Russia will, of course, veto anything that might otherwise pass and, if passed, Iran would ignore it. — DM)Nikki HaleyReuters
The United Nations Security Council on Friday afternoon will hold an emergency meeting to discuss the recent protests in Iran.
The uprising, the largest since a series of mass protests in 2009, began in the city of Mashhad, when demonstrators denounced Iranian President Rouhani over the failure to reduce the country's high unemployment rates.
Efforts to contain the protests have led to the deaths of at least 21 people.
However, Russia considers the US-initiated meeting to be "harmful and destructive," RIA reported.
"We see no role for the United Nations Security Council in this issue," the news agency quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying Thursday.
"Iran's domestic affairs have nothing to do with the United Nations Security Council's role."
On Thursday, Iran accused the US of "meddling" in its affairs.
Meanwhile, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said that "the international community has a role to play" in the drama in Iran.
"The freedoms that are enshrined in the United Nations' charter are under attack in Iran," she explained. "Dozens have already been killed. Hundreds have been arrested.
"The UN must speak out… We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom. All freedom-loving people must stand with their cause. The international community made the mistake of failing ot do that in 2009. We must not make that mistake again."
The UN has its own day of rage over Trump's Jerusalem declaration | Anne's Opinions, 21st December 2017
The UN continued its shameful tradition vis-à-vis Israel with an emergency session held yesterday in order to denounce Trump's declaration of recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and demanding that the US rescind the President's decree.
Outrageously and absurdly, it was Yemen who called for the debate on the grounds that the declarations "threatens peace". This is Yemen which is embroiled in a civil war with tens of thousands of casualties, not to mention massive human rights violations. I guess they would know what peace looks like?
Ahead of the debate US Ambassador Nikki Haley responded to the UN in kind, issuing threats of "taking names" of those who will vote against the US, in order to reconsider the aid that the US gives them:
She was given full support by Donald Trump:
"I like the message that Nikki sent yesterday at the United Nations, for all those nations that take our money and then they vote against us at the Security Council, or they vote against us potentially at the assembly," Trump said, commenting on US Ambassador Nikki Haley's statement to UN member states in which she warned of possible retaliation should they support a resolution criticizing Washington's decision.
And then the debate and the vote took place – and it was more shameful and outrageous (there's that word again. I just can't help it when it comes to the UN) than I expected. Here is the final tally:
I am disgusted at the United Kingdom, but despite Theresa May's pro-Israel reputation the Foreign Office does not fully represent her views. And maybe her reputation is not as well-deserved as we think. I expected no better from Germany and France, but it was interesting that the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary chose to abstain rather than vote with the EU block, as well as Latvia and Romania.
Australia and Canada, traditionally two of Israel's strongest Western allies, hardly covered themselves in glory when they abstained – which is almost as bad as a vote in favour of the resolution.
As to the action on the floor itself, here are some of the speeches against the resolution.
Here is Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon, and I am pleased that he mentioned the outrageous (again) UN Security council Resolution 2334, which was NOT vetoed at the behest of former President Barack Obama, which denounced all Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria and denied any Jewish connection to those areas and to Jerusalem. Here are some highlights:
Addressing the General Assembly, Ambassador Danny Danon harshly criticized the countries supporting the resolution at the urging of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
"Those who support today's resolution are like puppets pulled by the strings of the Palestinian puppet masters," said Ambassador Danon. "You are like marionettes forced to dance while the Palestinian leadership looks on with glee."
Danon noted the recent rocket attacks from Gaza and went on to say that "violence and terror must never be tolerated." He pointed out that "if this body were really united for peace, it would pass a resolution condemning Palestinian violence."
Earlier in his address, Ambassador Danon displayed a coin from the year 67 CE that was minted during the Jewish revolt against the Romans. Replicas of the coin had been distributed to the UN ambassadors before the vote.
"On this coin is written 'Freedom of Zion,' Danon said. "It proves the ancient connection of Jews to Jerusalem. No UNESCO declaration, no empty speeches, no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem."
But the star of the show was no doubt the US's intrepid Ambassador Nikki Haley. here is the full text of her speech before the vote:
Thank you, Mr. President. In this meeting, I will not use Council's time to address where a sovereign nation might decide to put its embassy, and why we have every right to do so. I will address a more appropriate and urgent concern.
This week marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Resolution 2334. On that day, in this Council, in December 2016, the United States elected to abstain, allowing the measure to pass. Now it's one year and a new administration later. Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote "no." We would exercise our veto power. The reasons why are very relevant to the cause of peace in the Middle East.
On the surface, Resolution 2334 described Israeli settlements as impediments to peace. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and in fact, over the years the United States has expressed criticism of Israeli settlement policies many times.
But in truth, it was Resolution 2334 itself that was an impediment to peace. This Security Council put the negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians further out of reach by injecting itself, yet again, in between the two parties to the conflict.
By misplacing the blame for the failure of peace efforts squarely on the Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another. It also gave them encouragement to avoid negotiations in the future. It refused to acknowledge the legacy of failed negotiations unrelated to settlements. And the Council passed judgment on issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties.
If the United Nations' history in the peace efforts proves anything, it is that talking in New York cannot take the place of face-to-face negotiations between the regional parties. It only sets back the cause of peace, not advance it.
As if to make this very point, Resolution 2334 demanded a halt to all Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem – even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This is something that no responsible person or country would ever expect Israel would do. And in this way, Resolution 2334 did what President Trump's announcement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not do: It prejudged issues that should be left in final status negotiations.
Given the chance today, the United States would veto Resolution 2334 for another reason. It gave new life to an ugly creation of the Human Rights Council: the database of companies operating in Jewish communities. This is an effort to create a blacklist, plain and simple. It is yet another obstacle to a negotiated peace. It is a stain on America's conscience that we gave the so-called BDS movement momentum by allowing the passage of Resolution 2334.
To the United Nations' shame, this has been a disproportionately hostile place for the Middle East's most enduring democracy.
The United States refuses to accept the double standard that says we are not impartial when we stand by the will of the American people by moving our US embassy, but somehow the United Nations is a neutral party when it consistently singles out Israel for condemnation.
For decades, Israel has withstood wave after wave of bias in the UN and its agencies. The United States has often stood beside Israel. We did not on December 23, 2016. We will not make that mistake again.
This week marks the one year anniversary of a significant setback for Middle East peace. But the United States has an undiminished commitment to helping bring about final status negotiations that will lead to lasting peace.
Our hand remains extended to both parties. We call on all countries that share this commitment to learn the hard lessons of the past and work to bring Israel and the Palestinian people in good faith to the peace table.
Thank you, very much.
The United States exercised its veto (which it refused to do with Resolution 2334) in order to defeat the resolution. Ms. Haley explained the reason for the veto (at the same link above, scroll down the page):
Here is the full text of her speech: (scroll down the page to the second half):
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have been the proud Representative of the United States at the United Nations for nearly a year now. This is the first time I have exercised the American right to veto a resolution in the Security Council. The exercise of the veto is not something the United States does often. We have not done it in more than six years. We do it with no joy, but we do it with no reluctance.
The fact that this veto is being done in defense of American sovereignty and in defense of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council.
As I pointed out when we discussed this topic 10 days ago, I will once again note the features of the President's announcement on Jerusalem that are most relevant here. The President took great care not to prejudge final status negotiations in any way, including the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. That remains a subject to be negotiated only by the parties. That position is fully in line with the previous Security Council resolutions.
The President was also careful to state that we support the status quo regarding Jerusalem's holy sites, and we support a two-state solution if that's what the parties agree to. Again, these positions are fully consistent with the previous Security Council resolutions.
It is highly regrettable that some are trying to distort the President's position to serve their own agendas.
What is troublesome to some people is not that the United States has harmed the peace process – we have, in fact, done no such thing. Rather, what is troublesome to some people is that the United States had the courage and honesty to recognize a fundamental reality. Jerusalem has been the political, cultural, and spiritual homeland of the Jewish people for thousands of years. They have had no other capital city. But the United States' recognition of the obvious – that Jerusalem is the capital and seat of the modern Israeli government – is too much for some.
First, some have threatened violence on the street, as if violence would somehow improve the prospects of peace.
Now today, buried in diplomatic jargon, some presume to tell America where to put our embassy. The United States' has a sovereign right to determine where and whether we establish an embassy. I suspect very few Member States would welcome Security Council pronouncements about their sovereign decisions. And I think of some who should fear it.
It's worth noting that this is not a new American position. Back in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was the American President, the Security Council voted on Resolution 478, which called upon diplomatic missions to relocate from Jerusalem. The United States did not support Resolution 478.
In his remarks, then-Secretary of State Ed Muskie said the following: "The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues."
Specifically, regarding the provision on diplomatic missions in Jerusalem, Secretary Muskie said this: "In our judgment, this provision is not binding. It is without force. And we reject it as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations. It does nothing to promote a resolution of the difficult problems facing Israel and its neighbors. It does nothing to advance the cause of peace."
That was in 1980. It is equally true today. The United States will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy.
Buried even deeper in the jargon of this resolution is the accusation that the United States is setting back the prospects of peace in the Middle East. That is a scandalous charge. Those who are making it should consider that it only harms the very Palestinian people they claim to speak for. What does it gain the Palestinian people for their leaders to throw up roadblocks to negotiations?
A "peace process" that is damaged by the simple recognition that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is not a peace process; it is a justification for an endless stalemate. What does it gain the Palestinian people for some of their leaders to accuse the United States of being hostile to the cause of peace? It gains them nothing, but it risks costing them a great deal.
The United States has done more than any other country to assist the Palestinian people. By far. Since 1994, we have given over $5 billion to the Palestinians in bilateral economic assistance, security assistance, and humanitarian assistance.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees operates schools and medical facilities throughout the region. It is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions. Last year, the United States voluntarily funded almost 30 percent of UNRWA's budget. That's more than the next two largest donors combined. And it's vastly more than some of the members of this Council that have considerable financial resources of their own.
I'll be blunt: When the American people see a group of countries whose total contributions to the Palestinian people is less than one percent of UNRWA's budget – when they see these countries accuse the United States of being insufficiently committed to peace – the American people lose their patience.
I have been to the Palestinian refugee camps the United States supports with their contributions. I have met with men, women, and children. I have advocated on their behalf. I can tell you that their leaders do them no favors by being more open to abandoning peace negotiations than to doing the hard work of seeing them to completion.
The United States has never been more committed to peace in the Middle East. We were committed to it before the President announced our recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and we're committed to it today.
What we witnessed here today in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten. It's one more example of the United Nations doing more harm than good in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Today, for the simple act of deciding where to put our embassy, the United States was forced to defend its sovereignty. The record will reflect that we did so proudly. Today, for acknowledging a basic truth about the capital city of Israel, we are accused of harming peace. The record will reflect that we reject that outrageous claim.
For these reasons, and with the best interests of both the Israeli and the Palestinian people firmly in mind, the United States votes no on this resolution.
Thank you.
Israel will remain eternally grateful to the United States, led by President Donald Trump and so excellently represented by Ambassador Nikki Haley.
Here is Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu thanking the US for its support:
And Danny Danon reminded us of another shameful and outrageous resolution 42 years ago: the equating of Zionism with racism. Just as that resolution was rescinded 16 years later, so too will all these other shameful debates and resolutions end up in the trash can.
Haley's Moment: "We Will Remember" Power Line,
(Please see Prof. Turley's rather absurd offering about Ambassador's Haley's remarks here. There are multiple comments, most of which reject Turley's view. — DM)
The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
The Weekly Standard publishes Ambassador's Haley's remarks in the General Assembly yesterday in the editorials of its new issue here. The text is posted by our mission to the United Nations here. The Standard's editorial introduction notes that the resolution before the U.N. chastised the United States for its decision on December 6 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and demanded the rescission of that policy. After Haley's speech, U.N. delegates voted 128 to 9 for the resolution. The New York Times called it a "stinging rebuke to the United States" and a "collective act of defiance toward Washington." The editors of the Standard disagree: "It was, rather, the U.N.'s shameful business-as-usual to which Haley delivered an overdue stinging rebuke." Here are Haley's remarks:
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN's disproportionate focus on Israel. It's a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.
I've often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because it's important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation; but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country – the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies. We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.
But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the "privilege" of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President's decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law dating back to 1995, and it's position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem's boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that. The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President's decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy. There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
UN Security Council Bashes Trump's Jerusalem Decision, FrontPage Magazine, Joseph Klein, December 11, 2017
(Please see also, Defiant Haley chides fuming Security Council members: 'Change is hard. — DM)
Whichever provisions of Resolution 2334 are legally binding on Israel and all other UN member states, President Trump's December 6th decision does not have any bearing on the sensitive issue of Israeli settlements or on Israel's claims to sovereignty over "East Jerusalem." Thus, invoking this infamous anti-Israeli resolution in the context of President Trump's decision is a red herring.
"Over many years," Ambassador Haley said in her remarks to the Security Council, the United Nations has been one of the world's "foremost centers of hostility towards Israel." The Security Council became a kangaroo court on Friday, turning a perverted version of "international law" against the Trump administration for its just defense of the Jewish state of Israel and Israel's right to choose its own capital as every other member state has the right to do.
On December 6th, President Trump announced his decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to instruct the State Department to begin the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Two days later, at a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council, the other 14 members of the Council, including U.S. allies such as France, the United Kingdom and Italy, ganged up on the United States to condemn President Trump's decision. Allies and adversaries of the U.S., one after the other, claimed that President Trump's decision had defied international consensus on how to achieve a viable two-state solution, violated international law and risked destabilizing the region as well as imperiling the peace process. Bolivia's ambassador was the most strident, demanding that the Security Council take action against President Trump's decision if it wanted to avoid becoming "an occupied territory."
To add insult to injury, the UN ambassadors from five member states of the European Union – the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Sweden and Germany – further criticized President Trump's decision in a joint statement they read following the adjournment of the Security Council meeting. They claimed the decision "is not in line with Security Council resolutions and is unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region."
U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, stood her ground in her remarks to the Security Council. She chastised those "countries that lack any credibility when it comes to treating both Israelis and Palestinians fairly." All President Trump had done, she explained, was to formally acknowledge the reality that for nearly 70 years "the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel, despite many attempts by others to deny that reality. Jerusalem is the home of Israel's parliament, president, prime minister, Supreme Court, and many of its ministries. It is simple common sense that foreign embassies be located there."
President Trump's change in American policy to reflect this reality does not mean that the United States has taken a position on the specific boundaries or borders within Jerusalem as a whole. "The specific dimensions of sovereignty over Jerusalem are still to be decided by the Israelis and the Palestinians in negotiations," Ambassador Haley said.
Notably, President Trump's announcement specifically called for maintaining the status quo at the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. There is not even the slightest hint that the U.S. would be moving its embassy to the Old City or to any part of "East Jerusalem." However, the critics of President Trump's decision refuse to allow for the possibility of a U.S. embassy located anywhere at all in the entire city of Jerusalem – even in what is now referred to as "West Jerusalem," which is an undisputed section of Jerusalem.
"Israel, like all nations, has the right to determine its capital city," Ambassador Haley said. "In virtually every country in the world, U.S. embassies are located in the host country's capital city. Israel should be no different."
The principal objections to President Trump's decision are that it sets back the chances for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the two-state solution, it is apt to destabilize and trigger violence in the region and beyond, and it violates international law.
The first two objections can be given short shrift. For seventy years, there has been no peace because the Palestinians have consistently pursued an absolutist policy rejecting the idea of a Jewish state living side by side with an Arab state. The Palestinians and their Arab state neighbors rejected the partition recommended in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in 1947. The Palestinians did not declare an independent state of their own when they had the chance. They embarked instead on a campaign of violence. Hamas, Palestinian President Abbas's coalition partner, still calls for Israel's destruction. Abbas, who has incited sectarian violence and rewards terrorists, spurned a peace offer from Israel in 2008 that would have resulted in Israel's withdrawal from virtually all of the West Bank and the relinquishment of Israeli control of Jerusalem's Old City in favor of placing it under international control. Abbas has refused to this day to agree to direct unconditional negotiations with Israel, a position which long preceded President Trump's decision.
As for the violence that critics of President Trump's decision seek to lay at his feet, violence has indeed erupted, not only in the Middle East but elsewhere including Europe. However, President Trump's decision is being used as a pretext for such behavior that Palestinians and Islamists throughout the world have displayed time and again. We have seen excuses for violence ranging from cartoons and an obscure anti-Muslim video to the installation of metal detectors at the Temple Mount (despite the presence of metal detectors at mosques in other countries). Foreign policy and national security decisions cannot be held hostage to mob rule. Giving in to threats of a violent reaction will only encourage the increased use of such threats to thwart other controversial decisions.
Turning to the objection to President Trump's decision based on "international law," the critics have claimed that his declaration recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem violate a whole host of UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Sovereignty over Jerusalem, they have argued, is a "final status" issue to be negotiated between the parties themselves. They have argued this position while also holding on to the characterization of "East Jerusalem" as part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" in the various UN resolutions they cite. In short, the Israel bashers have no problem exploiting UN resolutions to pre-determine the final status of "East Jerusalem," which contains the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as belonging to the Palestinians.
Moreover, the UN resolutions that the critics of President Trump's decision rely upon to support their objections on "legal" grounds do little to help their case. As a matter of international law, there is nothing in the United Nations Charter that grants the General Assembly any power that would render its resolutions, declarations, or recommendations legally binding or enforceable. In any case, the Palestinians and their Arab state neighbors, including Jordan, which illegally seized and annexed the Old City of Jerusalem in 1948, completely rejected the original UN two-state partition resolution, Resolution 181. Their attempt to invoke that resolution or subsequent General Assembly resolutions now to rationalize their position on international law grounds is specious at best.
President Trump's critics also point for support of their position to UN Security Council resolutions stating that East Jerusalem is part of the "Occupied Palestinian Territories," declaring Israel's settlements in East Jerusalem to be illegal, concluding that Israel's assertion of sovereignty over a unified Jerusalem is null and void, and calling upon member states to withdraw their embassies from the Holy City of Jerusalem. These resolutions were not explicitly adopted in the exercise of the Security Council's Chapter VII enforcement powers, which is significant in determining whether they are legally binding unless they are expressly framed as "decisions" of the Council or, at the very least, use such words as "demand" in the applicable provisions. Words and phrases such as "calls upon," "urges," "reaffirms," "underlines," and "stresses" are deemed insufficient by legal experts in the field to reflect an intention on the part of the Security Council to create a legally binding obligation on any of the member states of the UN.
Many of the ambassadors speaking at Friday's Security Council meeting invoked Security Council Resolution 478 as a principal basis for declaring President Trump's decision to be in violation of international law. However, Resolution 478 used the word "decides" only in the context of refusing to recognize Israel's "Basic Law" declaring Israeli sovereignty over the "Holy City of Jerusalem" and "such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem." Resolution 478 then "calls upon" (not demands) the member states "to accept this decision," which means it is up to each member state to agree or not. Moreover, Resolution 478 only "calls upon" the member states "that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City." Again, this does not constitute a legally binding obligation. Moreover, it would not appear to apply explicitly to the western sector of Jerusalem, outside of the Old City where the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are located.
President Trump's decision in no way is inconsistent with Resolution 478. To the contrary, as discussed above, President Trump specifically called for maintaining the status quo at the holy sites in Jerusalem and left it to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate the final status of the boundary lines within Jerusalem as a whole. President Trump's announcement of the intent to relocate the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, particularly if relocated outside of the boundaries of the Old City as it most certainly will be, would not be enjoined by Resolution 478's express provisions, which are not legally binding in any event. Moreover, it is way too premature to consider the legality of such a move since it is likely to take three years or more to occur.
The critics also have referred to Security Council Resolution 2334, passed at the end of last year after the Obama administration decided to abstain rather than exercise its veto power. Resolution 2334 principally addresses Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, which, as in previous resolutions, are said to include "East Jerusalem." It states that "the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law." Although most of the resolution's operative paragraphs use non-binding words and phrases such as "calls upon," the resolution does once refer to the Security Council's "demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard." (Emphasis added)
Whichever provisions of Resolution 2334 are legally binding on Israel and all other UN member states, President Trump's December 6th decision does not have any bearing on the sensitive issue of Israeli settlements or on Israel's claims to sovereignty over "East Jerusalem." Thus, invoking this infamous anti-Israeli resolution in the context of President Trump's decision is a red herring.
"Over many years," Ambassador Haley said in her remarks to the Security Council, the United Nations has been one of the world's "foremost centers of hostility towards Israel." The Security Council became a kangaroo court on Friday, turning a perverted version of "international law" against the Trump administration for its just defense of the Jewish state of Israel and Israel's right to choose its own capital as every other member state has the right to do.
Trump Pulls United States Out of UN Immigration Deal, Washington Free Beacon, Charles Fain Lehman, December 4, 2017
The GCM would also try to "strengthen the global governance of migration," specifically by adding the International Organization for Migration to the U.N.'s purview.
All of this, Haley contended, is incompatible with preserving the United States's sovereignty, and its ability to set its own immigration policy.
"The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty," Haley said.
The United States will no longer participate in the U.N.-organized Global Compact on Migration (GCM), the U.S. Mission to the U.N. informed the secretary-general on Sunday.
That decision was informed by concerns about threats to the United States's sovereignty, with administration officials citing the need for the country to define its own immigration policy independent of the mandates of the United Nations.
"America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe. No country has done more than the United States, and our generosity will continue," said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.
"But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country," Haley said.
The announcement reverses the Obama administration decision to sign on to the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which aims at setting up the GCM by 2018.
The New York Declaration includes a number of commitments for signatories that create expanded expectations for immigrants. These include education for children with "a few months" of arrival, as well as working towards an end of detention for children to determine their immigration status.
The GCM would also try to "strengthen the global governance of migration," specifically by adding the International Organization for Migration to the U.N.'s purview.
All of this, Haley contended, is incompatible with preserving the United States's sovereignty, and its ability to set its own immigration policy.
"The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty," Haley said.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson concurred with Haley's analysis in a separate statement, writing that the New York Declaration, "contains a number of policy goals that are inconsistent with U.S. law and policy."
"While we will continue to engage on a number of fronts at the United Nations, in this case, we simply cannot in good faith support a process that could undermine the sovereign right of the United States to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders," Tillerson said.
"The United States supports international cooperation on migration issues, but it is the primary responsibility of sovereign states to help ensure that migration is safe, orderly, and legal," he said.
Miroslav Lajčák, the president of the U.N. General Assembly, expressed his regret at the U.S. departure in a statement of his own.
"The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world. As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome," he said.
Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, disagreed, saying U.S. immigration policy should be determined by elected officials, not an unelected group of bureaucrats from the U.N.
"The idea that we had unelected officials negotiating some sort of global migration compact is problematic. With respect to refugees and the movement of peoples, the United States needs to play a strong role, we always have. We accept more refugees for permanent resettlement than any other country on the face of the earth," Arthur said.
"There's plainly a huge role for the United States to play, as relates to migration. But as relates to migration to the United States, the fact remains that that is an issue for Congress and for the American people to decide, not for unaccountable bureaucrats in Turtle Bay," he said.


text:
The Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness - whose members include 20th Century Fox, Universal, HMV and Virgin Megastores - has hired Blue Rubicon following a four-way way pitch.
An unprecedented £2 million will be spent on advertising and PR for the campaign that will move away from previous 'lecturing' strategies. and will instead focus on changing attitudes - encouraging people to think twice before obtaining illegal film and TV content.
'The campaign is rooted in the knowledge that, in isolation, finger-wagging doesn't work,' said Blue Rubicon senior consultant Liz Waller, who will lead the account. 'Traditional campaigns increase awareness but this doesn't easily translate into changes in the way people do things.'
The campaign will also have a strong focus on online copyright theft. As the new media market widens, opportunities for illegal downloading are rapidly increasing and more consumers are discovering free downloads on websites such as YouTube.
Liz Bales, director general at the Trust, said: 'Copyright theft is a problem that continues to damage the industry, the economy and consumers. The advance in digital technology means illegal downloading is growing, so it is essential to urgently devise a strategy that works as effectively both on and offline.'
The 13-month campaign is set to launch in the next month. Its audience will mirror that of film fans, but in particular will aim to target those of all ages already consuming and at risk of consuming illegal or unauthorised material.
PR for the Trust was previously handled for two years by Leeds-based agency JDA.
Copyright theft currently costs the industry in excess of an estimated £700 million per year. The Industry Trust for Intellectual Property Awareness has 22 members and was set up in 2004 by the British Video Association. It works with the police and the Trading Standards to represent the film sector and its employees.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Living A Highly Energized And Stress Free Life
I have been feeling really run down lately. Well, I do eat properly and sleep well and yet I feel tired and I have figured out exactly why I am tired. It is because I think a lot. Yes, I do. I am thinker. I love thinking. If you are thinking a lot too, don't worry, it is something normal. It only means we are looking for some solutions. If someone calls you weird or nuts and try give you their version of good life advice on thinking too much, know that, it is actually they are being weird for not using their mind to the its fullest potential.
On the other hand, maybe I am tired because I just came out of an gallbladder stone operation a few days ago. Anyway, thinking does strain your energy. Have you ever thought about that? Well it does, but I wonder if thinking drains up more energy than any other activities we do. I haven't research on that yet. When I do, I will write a good life advice about it here.
Now back to this tiredness we are experiencing. Do you feel tired often too? For some of you, it might be because of the jobs, household works or the kids you are handling. I know, they surely take away a lot of our emotional and physical energy. When overdone, they can become a definite stressor (stuffs that produces stress) but don't worry, there are things you can do to increase your energy level and get rid of your stress.
When I am tired, mostly I take a short nap. Well, I can do that because I work from home. Yes, that's one of the benefit of being self employed and working from home. (That's a good piece of life advice. Consider working from home, if you want more time for yourself.). Sleeping is the best way to get energized and if you are married, it will be even better if you can get your partner to gently massage you to sleep. It relaxes the muscles and after you wake up from the sleep, you will feel good and highly refreshed.
Talking about feeling refreshed, sometimes tiredness can be caused by lack of water in our body. It does sometimes, specially for those of you who are working under the sun. Dehydration can be life threatening. Drinking plenty of water increases our energy level. So drink plenty of water. You might want to try fresh lemonade. Oh yes, I do drink a lot of fresh lemon juice. It feels good every time I drink it and for some reason, after drinking it, I feel very relaxed. You can try it. By the way, did you know that lemon juice can burn your fat too?
If you can't do that too, well, maybe you can listen to some good soothing music while do your chores or work. What does listening to slow music do to reduce our stress and increase energy level? It lowers your brainwaves into a relaxed state and as such it takes away stress. I usually listen to slow sounds of nature like waterfall and seaside sounds. Maybe you can get these type of sounds of nature and listen to them while doing your work. They are really relaxing and can increase your energy level and reduce your work stress too.
There is one more thing that helps me to feel relaxed and energized at home. I lit up perfumed incenses. I don't know if bad smells can decrease energy level but I do know it can cause stress. Keeping your house or home clean with good ventilation added with good fragrance is very important. If you can't get perfumed incenses, you can get essential oil of plants. It is also known as aromatherapy. It certainly reduces stress and improves mental well being.
These are some of the things helping me to balance my energy level while I am at home. Try to find ways to use them according to your circumstances. Of all the things I have said here, the best I found is sleeping. Yes, sleeping is the best method to get yourself fully relaxed and increasing your energy level. There is a spiritual reason for this. While you are sleeping, you are actually charging your spiritual body which sustains this physical body. So the best life advice to increase your energy level is to get plenty of sleep whenever possible.
Being in control of your life and having realistic expectations about your day-to-day challenges are the keys to stress management, which is perhaps the most important ingredient to living a happy, healthy and rewarding life.
– Marilu Henner


text: St Johns JP Contact Information St. Johns Justice Courts Court Listing Court Information Civil Action Information Schedule of Fines or Civil Penalties for St Johns Justice and St Johns Municipal Courts Court Filing Fees Forcible Detainer and Special Detainer Case Process Landlord Tenant Study Guide Orders of Protection Payment Methods Small Claims Information Sheet Other County Judicial Branches CASA of Apache County Clerk of the Court Probation Services Superior Court State Links Justice of the Peace Butch L. Gunnels is currently serving in the first year, of his third four year term. Judge Gunnels is a prior United States Marine. After honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, his passion for service continued, and he became a Law Enforcement Officer; serving his community for twenty-four years, before retiring.Butch Gunnels is the founder for "Toys for Kids Association." The purpose of this non- profit organization, is to provide toys for children of underprivileged families. "I want to make sure that kids have a happy and memorable Christmas, every year, regardless of income level," says Gunnels. Judge Gunnels is a member of the Arizona Justice of the Peace Association as well as, a member of the National Judges Association. He is currently serving as the Magistrate for the St. Johns Municipal Court in the City of St. Johns. As a Judge in St. Johns Precinct he feels that it is an honor to serve the citizens of the community where he lives, while providing fair and impartial justice to all who come before the St. Johns Justice Court. St. Johns Justice Court PO Box 308 St. Johns, AZ 85936 Phone: (928) 337-7558 Fax: (928) 337-2683 E-Mail Us!


text:
Pinger, Inc.
Call and send SMS messages for free using a virtual number ... Text Free SMS is an app that gives you a virtual telephone number from the United States, letting you make phone calls and send text messages ...
Downloads: 35
FreeTextSMS Studio
Read and respond to SMS messages from any computer ... FreeTextSMS.net Web SMS Solution makes it possible to read and answer texts received by your smartphone from your computer's web browser. And ...
Downloads: 0
Go Dev Team
A way to send text messages ... GO SMS Pro is an application thanks to which you can easily communicate with all your friends: sending traditional text messages with a twist. Beyond sending SMS, GO SMS Pro ...
Downloads: 0
NQ Mobile Security
Increase the privacy of your Android terminal ... Vault-Hide SMS, Pics & Videos, better known as `Vault´, is an application which will allow us to create a small safe in our Android terminal, in which ...
Downloads: 0
The best substitute for your messaging application ... Chomp SMS is an app designed to replace the built-in messaging application that comes with your Android phone. This app has many more possibilities, ...
Downloads: 0
Sweet and simple texting ... Textra SMS is that kind of Android app you come across from time to time, that does exactly what you want it to do in exactly the right way: texting. Designed to blow your ...
Downloads: 4
AffinityClick Inc.
Buy anonymous, disposable phone numbers ... Hushed - Anonymous Calls, SMS is an interesting tool that allows you to 'buy' anonymous telephone numbers to use as facades for your own calls. Why you ...
Downloads: 70
Luke Klinker
Send and receive text messages from any device ... Pulse (SMS/Tablet Messenger) is a messaging app that lets you comfortably manage all your texts from any device. As long as you link your telephone ...
Downloads: 8
Call any telephone for less ... Rebtel: Llamadas y SMS Gratis - We spend all day with our cell phone in hand, calling the entire world and sending an occasional text message here and there. Because of ...
Downloads: 0
MightyText: SMS Texting w/ PC
Send and receive text messages on your computer ... MightyText (also known as 'free PC SMS') is a tool that lets you synch your Android device to your computer so you can send and receive text ...
Downloads: 0


text:
A tzb file extension is related to the TAR.Z.btoa compressed file archive (TAR - Compress - Btoa).
Software that open tzb file
TZB file extension - TAR.Z.btoa compressed file archive (TAR - Compress - Btoa)
What is tzb file? How to open tzb files?
File type specification:
The tzb file extension is associated with the TAR.Z.btoa, a some kind of TAR with compression file format.
Seems to be obsolete file format without support from developer. No further information could be found.
This tzb file type entry was marked as obsolete and no longer supported file format.
This type of file is no longer actively used and is most likely obsolete. This is typically the case for system files in old operating systems, file types from long discontinued software, or previous versions of certain file types (like documents, projects etc.) that were replaced in higher versions of their original programs.
The default software associated to open tzb file:
Company or developer:
Gabriel Valentin Cristescu
A compression utility for Windows, ZipZag offers very large support of compression formats. ZipZag opens standard Windows/DOS archives, Linux/Unix/Mac archives, skins, themes, collections as well as games and applications data files.
List of software applications associated to the .tzb file extension
Recommended software programs are sorted by OS platform (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android etc.)
and possible program actions that can be done with the file: like open tzb file, edit tzb file, convert tzb file, view tzb file, play tzb file etc. (if exist software for corresponding action in File-Extensions.org's database).
Click on the tab below to simply browse between the application actions, to quickly get a list of recommended software, which is able to perform the specified software action, such as opening, editing or converting tzb files.
Software that open tzb file - TAR.Z.btoa compressed file archive (TAR - Compress - Btoa)
Programs supporting the exension tzb on the main platforms Windows, Mac, Linux or mobile. Click on the link to get more information about ZipZag for open tzb file action.


text:
Welcome to VOX-Pol's online Library, a research and teaching resource, which collects in one place a large volume of publications related to various aspects of violent online political extremism.
Our searchable database contains material in a variety of different formats including downloadable PDFs, videos, and audio files comprising e-books, book chapters, journal articles, research reports, policy documents and reports, and theses.
All open access material collected in the Library is easy to download. Where the publications are only accessible through subscription, the Library will take you to the publisher's page from where you can access the material.
We will continue to add more material as it becomes available with the aim of making it the most comprehensive online Library in this field.
If you have any material you think belongs in the Library—whether your own or another authors—please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com and we will consider adding it to the Library. It is also our aim to make the Library a truly inclusive multilingual facility and we thus welcome contributions in all languages.
A War of Keywords: How Extremists are Exploiting the Internet and What to do About It
the keywords, or search terms, people use to
find information on Google; secondly, looking at the data
demonstrating links going into a selection of known extremist
websites in order to understan...
Addressing the New Landscape of Terrorism: Towards Formulating Actionable Response
Anti-Semitic Targeting of Journalists During the 2016 Presidential Campaign
Full Listing
Countering Violent Extremism via Desecuritisation on Twitter
|Warrington, A.
|The case of a civil society actor on Twitter entering a securitized discourse on terrorism illustrates the transformative theoretical potential that emerges from new forms of communication online. Through a qualitative analysis of tweets from the Average Mohamed profile, the potential to change a negative narrative of violent extremism operating within a securitised discourse of Islamic terrorism, is discussed in an online context. The arguments forming from this analysis offers a new approach to studying online counter narratives by linking a theoretical framework of securitisation and de-securitisation to recent political efforts Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) and Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE). Through the inclusion of a civil society Twitter account as an illustrative case, this paper explores how social media can challenge existing assumptions of who can be a de-securitising actor within security theory by blurring the lines between political and societal sectors in a securitised threat from Islamic terrorism. If and how a civil society actor can loosen the dichotomous discursive relationship between Self/Other relations within a contemporary discourse on terrorism becomes relevant for a theoretical discussion by presenting an argument suggesting that online CVE polices are more effective within the sphere of 'normal' politics rather than within the realm of securitization. This theoretical perspective offers an analytical framework including a wide range of actors involved in counter narratives policies which is useful for further CVE research.
From al-Zarqawi to al-Awlaki: The Emergence and Development of an Online Radical Milieu
|Conway, M.
|Radical milieus have been described as specific social environ¬ments whose culture, narratives, and symbols shape both individuals and groups, and the social networks and relationships out of which those individuals and groups develop and emerge. Researcher Peter Waldmann and his co-authors attribute distinct and independent qualities to these environments, portraying them as social entities in their own right, that is, a collective of people sharing certain perspectives and a unitary identity: a "subculture" or a "community." This does not mean that conflict is absent between any given radical milieu and the violent extremist or terrorist group(s) that emerges from within it. Milieus have their own interests that lead them not just to interact with, but oftentimes to criticise and sometimes even confront their violent offshoots. Perhaps most importantly, Waldmann's conception of radical milieus appears not merely to have social relationships as a core characteristic, but necessitates, implicitly or explicitly, face-to-face interaction amongst the members of any given milieu.
NYPD vs. Revolution Muslim: Te Inside Story of the Defeat of a Local Radicalization Hub
|Morton, J. and Silber, M.
|Between 2006 and 2012, two men working on opposite
sides of the struggle between global jihadis and the United
States faced of in New York City. One was the founder of
Revolution Muslim, a group which proselytized—online
and on New York streets—on behalf of al-Qa`ida. The
other led eforts to track the terrorist threat facing the
city. Here, they tell the inside story of the rise of Revolution
Muslim and how the NYPD, by using undercover ofcers
and other methods, put the most dangerous homegrown
jihadi support group to emerge on U.S. soil since 9/11
out of business. As the Islamic State adjusts to its loss of
territory, this case study provides lessons for current and
future counterterrorism investigations.
The Evolution of Online Extremism in Malaysia
|Yasin, N.A.M.
|The apocalyptic narrative of the Syrian civil war promoted by the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in 2014 had galvanised around a hundred radicals in Malaysia who subsequently migrated to Iraq and Syria. At least forty-five of them propagated their jihadist cause online resulting in the mushrooming of online extremism in the country. The growth spans over five years (2013-2017) in two phases, one led by Muhammad Lotfi Arifin's network of online followers and the other by Muhammad Wanndy Muhammad Jedi's online supporters and sympathizers. Lotfi and his network popularised the concept of 'jihad' from the perspective of militant groups, while Wanndy lured vulnerable online followers deeper into the later stages of violent radicalisation. The trajectory of Malaysia's online violent radicalism from Lotfi to Wanndy was coincidental rather than deliberate, signifying the 'funnel' process of radicalisation. This process is synced with the terrorists' switch from online public platforms to encrypted and private ones.
Tracking Online Radicalization Using Investigative Data Mining
|Wadhwa, P. and Bhatia, M.P.S.
|The increasing complexity and emergence of Web 2.0 applications have paved way for threats arising out of the use of social networks by cyber extremists (Radical groups). Radicalization (also called cyber extremism and cyber hate propaganda) is a growing concern to the society and also of great pertinence to governments & law enforcement agencies all across the world. Further, the dynamism of these groups adds another level of complexity in the domain, as with time, one may witness a change in members of the group and hence has motivated many researchers towards this field. This proposal presents an investigative data mining approach for detecting the dynamic behavior of these radical groups in online social networks by textual analysis of the messages posted by the members of these groups along with the application of techniques used in social network analysis. Some of the preliminary results obtained through partial implementation of the approach are also discussed.
"A View from the CT Foxhole: An Interview with Brian Fishman, Counterterrorism Policy Manager, Facebook"
|Cruickshank, P.
|In our interview, Brian Fishman, Facebook's Counterterrorism Policy Manager, provides a detailed
description of how Facebook is using artificial intelligence and a dedicated team of counterterrorism
specialists to remove terrorism content from its platform. Given the emergence of a new
generation of leadership within al-Qa`ida, it is critical to understand the evolving threat from the
group in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.
"Linksextremismus im Internet", Extremismus in Deutschland
|Reinhardt, A. and Reinhardt, B.
|Die Autoren nehmen sich des Problems der Nutzung des Internets durch Linksextremisten an und analysieren die unterschiedlichen "Gesichter" des linksextremismus im Internet.
"Support For Sisters Please": Comparing The Online Roles Of Al-Qaeda Women And Their Islamic State Counterparts
|Peladeau, H.
|MA Thesis
|This study evaluates female roles in pro-jihadist terrorism by examining online content. Data was collected from 36 Twitter accounts of women associated with al-Qaeda (AQ) affiliated groups for a period of six months. The purpose for collecting this data was to: 1) compare how traditional female roles, as constructed within a jihadi-Salafist ideology, are reproduced and challenged on social media; 2) and determine the extent that AQ-affiliated women conform to roles outlined in Huey's classification of females in pro-Islamic State (IS) Twitter networks. The results of this study reveal that women's traditional roles in pro-jihadist activities are reproduced on Twitter. Although the women appear to be empowered by the anonymity that Twitter provides, their roles remain largely constrained to those in supportive positions. AQ women mainly use Twitter to share the ideological beliefs of AQ and provide emotional support for fellow AQ members. In comparison with IS, AQ females subscribe to only a portion of the roles outlined in Huey's classification.
"The Lions Of Tomorrow": A News Value Analysis Of Child Images In Jihadi Magazines
|Watkin, A. and Looney, S.
|This article reports and discusses the results of a study that investigated photographic images of children in five online terrorist magazines to understand the roles of children in these groups. The analysis encompasses issues of Inspire, Dabiq, Jihad Recollections (JR), Azan, and Gaidi Mtanni (GM) from 2009 to 2016. The total number of images was ninety-four. A news value framework was applied that systematically investigated what values the images held that resulted in them being "newsworthy" enough to be published. This article discusses the key findings, which were that Dabiq distinguished different roles for boys and girls, portrayed fierce and prestigious boy child perpetrators, and children flourishing under the caliphate; Inspire and Azan focused on portraying children as victims of Western-backed warfare; GM portrayed children supporting the cause peacefully; and JR contained no re-occurring findings.
#FailedRevolutions: Using Twitter to study the antecedents of ISIS support
|Magdy, W., Darwish, K. and Weber, I.
|Lately, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has managed to control large parts of Syria and Iraq. To better understand the roots of support for ISIS, we present a study using Twitter data. We collected a large number of Arabic tweets referring to ISIS and classified them as pro-ISIS or anti-ISIS. We then analyzed the historical timelines of both user groups and looked at their pre-ISIS period to gain insights into the antecedents of support. Also, we built a classifier to 'predict', in retrospect, who will support or oppose the group. We show that ISIS supporters largely differ from ISIS opposition in that the former referred a lot more to Arab Spring uprisings that failed than the latter.
#FailedRevolutions: Using Twitter to Study the Antecedents of ISIS Support
|Magdy, W., Darwish, K., and Weber, I.
|Within a fairly short amount of time, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has managed to put large swaths of land in Syria and Iraq under their control. To many observers, the sheer speed at which this "state" was established was dumbfounding. To better understand the roots of this organization and its supporters we present a study using data from Twitter. We start by collecting large amounts of Arabic tweets referring to ISIS and classify them into pro-ISIS and anti-ISIS. This classification turns out to be easily done simply using the name variants used to refer to the organization: the full name and the description as "state" is associated with support, whereas abbreviations usually indicate opposition. We then "go back in time" by analyzing the historic timelines of both users supporting and opposing and look at their pre-ISIS period to gain insights into the antecedents of support. To achieve this, we build a classifier using pre-ISIS data to "predict", in retrospect, who will support or oppose the group. The key story that emerges is one of frustration with failed Arab Spring revolutions. ISIS supporters largely differ from ISIS opposition in that they refer a lot more to Arab Spring uprisings that failed. We also find temporal patterns in the support and opposition which seems to be linked to major news, such as reported territorial gains, reports on gruesome acts of violence, and reports on airstrikes and foreign intervention.
#Greenbirds: Measuring Importance and Influence in Syrian Foreign Fighter Networks
|Carter, J.A., Maher, S. and Neumann, P.R.
|This is the first in a series of papers that draws on information from this database. It examines the question of how foreign fighters in Syria receive information about the conflict and who inspires them.
#IslamicState: An Analysis Of Tweets In Support Of ISIS After The November 2015 Attacks In Paris
|Guthrie, A.R.
|MA Thesis
|With the popularity and ease of using social media platforms, users are able to, in varying capacities, connect with others in varying capacities. During 2015, there were approximately 305 million worldwide active monthly Twitter users. While Twitter has maintained implementation of their counter-extremism policies, supporters of ISIS have found ways to navigate around them and continue to use their platform as a means to connect with others. With 140 characters per Tweet, ISIS supporters are able to recruit and promote propaganda quickly with users around the world. By using a data set containing 16,841 Tweets from 104 ISIS supporters following the November 2015 attacks in Paris, content analysis will be conducted on the tweet itself to look for reoccurring themes and keywords. By understanding the keywords and reoccurring themes, military, law enforcement, and private sector counterterrorism units can better understand and implement policies and procedures relating to ISIS and the ways that they continuously navigate around the counter-extremism policies on Twitter.
#IS_Fangirl: Exploring a New Role for Women in Terrorism
|Huey, L. and Witmer, E.
|In this paper we present initial results from an ongoing study of women affiliated with pro-IS networks on Twitter and other social media. Our particular focus is on 20 accounts belonging to individual identified as 'fan girls.' Drawing on an analysis of Twitter posts from these 20 accounts, we identify key characteristics of the fan girl in an attempt to bring conceptual clarity to this role and enhance our understanding of who these girls are and their potential for radicalization.
#jihad: Understanding Social Media as a Weapon
|West, L.J.
|This article will argue that social media in the hands of terrorist groups constitutes a weapon, and has become increasingly capable of contributing to the facilitation of consequential harm against identified targets. In doing so it will first clarify the communicative nature of terrorist action and provide an overview of the various contributions made by jihadist strategists to the evolution of terrorist practice, and in particular the re-emergence of the practice of individual terrorism. It will then identify the intersection of individual terrorism and social media and the development and deployment of a system of social media jihad. 2 The article will explain the mechanisms by which terrorist groups exploit and deploy social media platforms, and inflict various harms, with a specific focus on individual and small cell terrorism in Western jurisdictions. Finally, a brief case study analysis of Anwar al-Awlaki will demonstrate the gravity with which governments have conceived of this problem, in part by highlighting the substantiveness of their responses.
#jihad: Understanding Social Media as a Weapon
|West, L.J.
|This article will argue that social media in the hands of terrorist groups constitutes a weapon, and has become increasingly capable of contributing to the facilitation of consequential harm against identified targets. In doing so it will first clarify the communicative nature of terrorist action and provide an overview of the various contributions made by jihadist strategists to the evolution of terrorist practice, and in particular the re-emergence of the practice of individual terrorism. It will then identify the intersection of individual terrorism and social media and the development and deployment of a system of social media jihad. 2 The article will explain the mechanisms by which terrorist groups exploit and deploy social media platforms, and inflict various harms, with a specific focus on individual and small cell terrorism in Western jurisdictions. Finally, a brief case study analysis of Anwar al-Awlaki will demonstrate the gravity with which governments have conceived of this problem, in part by highlighting the substantiveness of their responses.
#TerroristFinancing: An Examination of Terrorism Financing via the Internet
|Tierney, M.
|This article describes how the internet has come to play a central role in terrorist financing endeavours. Online channels allow terrorist financiers to network with like-minded individuals, in order to increase support, raise funds, and move wealth across the international system. For instance, the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and other groups have become adept at using these channels to finance their activities. Therefore, increased examination is required of the ways in which terrorists use the internet to raise and move funds. This study assesses some of the current trends and risks associated with online terrorist financing. Some policy options are also outlined, in order to reduce the threat of terrorist financing via the internet moving into the future.
'Beyond Anything We Have Ever Seen': Beheading Videos and the Visibility of Violence in the War against ISIS.
|Friis, S.M.
|This article examines the role of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's (ISIS's) beheading videos in the United Kingdom and the United States. These videos are highly illustrative demonstrations of the importance of visual imagery and visual media in contemporary warfare. By functioning as evidence in a political discourse constituting ISIS as an imminent, exceptional threat to the West, the videos have played an important role in the re-framing of the conflict in Iraq and Syria from a humanitarian crisis requiring a humanitarian response to a national security issue requiring a military response and intensified counterterrorism efforts. However, this article seeks to problematize the role and status of ISIS's beheadings in American and British security discourses by highlighting the depoliticizing aspects of reducing a complicated conflict to a fragmented visual icon. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for further attention to how the visibility of war, and the constitution of boundaries between which acts of violence are rendered visible and which are not, shape the political terrain in which decisions about war and peace are produced and legitimized.
'Like Sheep Among Wolves': Characterizing Hateful Users on Twitter
|Ribeiro,M.H., Calais, P.H., Santos, Y.A., Almeida, A.F., and Meira, W. Jr.
|Hateful speech in Online Social Networks (OSNs) is a key challenge
for companies and governments, as it impacts users and advertisers,
and as several countries have strict legislation against the practice.
This has motivated work on detecting and characterizing the phenomenon
in tweets, social media posts and comments. However,
these approaches face several shortcomings due to the noisiness of
OSN data, the sparsity of the phenomenon, and the subjectivity of
the definition of hate speech. This works presents a user-centric
view of hate speech, paving the way for better detection methods
and understanding. We collect a Twitter dataset of 100, 386 users
along with up to 200 tweets from their timelines with a randomwalk-based
crawler on the retweet graph, and select a subsample
of 4, 972 to be manually annotated as hateful or not through crowdsourcing.
We examine the difference between user activity patterns,
the content disseminated between hateful and normal users, and
network centrality measurements in the sampled graph. Our results
show that hateful users have more recent account creation dates,
and more statuses, and followees per day. Additionally, they favorite
more tweets, tweet in shorter intervals and are more central in the
retweet network, contradicting the "lone wolf" stereotype often associated
with such behavior. Hateful users are more negative, more
profane, and use less words associated with topics such as hate,
terrorism, violence and anger. We also identify similarities between
hateful/normal users and their 1-neighborhood, suggesting strong
'Sometimes You Just Have to Try Something' - A Critical Analysis of Danish State-Led Initiatives Countering Online Radicalisation
|Warrington, A.
|This research paper argues that Danish online radicalisation policies are driven by logics of urgency (the threat is imminent) within a limited realm of discursive possibilities (the threat is securitised) which blur the lines between state and civil society as well as state and private sector interactions. Potential political implications bring into play questions about the democratic values that are perceived as safeguarded by these policies. The Danish case shows that we (as citizens, policy makers and researchers) must engage in further discussions on dynamics between the current threat perception of online radicalisation and policies addressing such a threat. My argument is constructed from a discourse analysis of official documents as of 2016-2017 on countering and preventing violent extremism and an analysis of the political logics driving a state-level conceptualisation of online radicalisation through interviews with government officials. The two-part analysis is theoretically based on Securitisation from the Copenhagen School in combination with Critical Terrorism Studies to create a critically inspired approach that remains within existing structures of Danish politics. This is done to engage with the current political landscape characterised by a securitisation of specific forms of online content associated with the Islamic State as an Other. Online radicalisation is herein constructed as a multidimensional threat towards a societal Self referring to the physical safety of citizens and a value based 'way of life'. The decentralised structure of the internet allows communication flows that enable radicalisation to be understood as an inter-sectoral threat where multiple elements of the referent object are threatened simultaneously. This threat perception challenges government officials in developing and implementing policies to address the threat of the Other while safeguarding the democratic values of the Danish Self.


text:
Freelance GPs
There are many benefits for freelance GPs working in Sterling Medical Chambers:
- Our ethos is to provide a gently managed environment which still allows for the individuality and freedom that freelance GPs enjoy.
- We are not working in isolation but are part of a team. Support comes from fellow tenants as well as the Chambers Manager. Regular chambers meetings allow for frank discussion and an opportunity for continuing professional development.
- We ensure that working as a freelance GP within Chambers makes the process of appraisal and revalidation less onerous.
- Tenants remain self-employed and our NHS income remains superannuable.
- Individual tenants have control over their own workload and working patterns.
- The Chambers Manager takes all bookings and does all the negotiation with practices on behalf of our tenants.
- Invoices, payments and pension forms, and any queries are all dealt with by the Chambers Manager.
- Work gravitates to the Chambers because Practices find it's more efficient and easier to use than trying to contact several individual locums.
- Confidential feedback from Practices can be used to help personal development
- We make it easier to keep in the local information loop.
- We give our members an increased standing and voice in the local primary care community.
- There is the possibility of organising cover in the event of a personal crisis.
- We are free to join (subject to assessment).