Israeli officials say a UN fact-finding mission “will not be allowed to enter” the country and its occupied territories. On Friday, the Geneva-based Human Rights Council appointed three officers to probe Israel’s West Bank settlement activity.

­The UN's top human rights body has commissioned three jurists to find out how Israel's West Bank settlements affect “the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people.” The body called on Tel Aviv “not to obstruct the process of cooperation.”

This resonated harshly with Israel, who took no time to dub the mission “biased and flawed,” vowing not to support the officials.

"The fact-finding mission will find no cooperation in Israel, and its members will not be allowed to enter Israel and the territories,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. “Its existence embodies the inherent distortion that typifies the UN Human Rights Council's treatment of Israel and the hijacking of the important human rights agenda by non-democratic countries.”

Israel cut all ties with the council in March after the 47-nation body passed a resolution establishing the settlement probe. Israel accuses the commission of a “disproportionate focus” on Israel.

"The establishment of this mission is another blatant expression of the singling out of Israel in the UNHRC," a Foreign Ministry statement said on Friday.

Now that the team is to be prohibited from Israel, it will have to gain evidence from second-hand sources, like local media.

But even if the mission finds that the settlements violate human rights, any attempts to punish Israel will most probably be defused by the US, Israel’s key ally.

The UN considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law. The Human Rights Council says Israel's plans to build more houses in the West Bank and East Jerusalem undermine the peace process and pose a threat to the two-state solution.

The West Bank settlements are at the core of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Some 500,000 Israelis and 2.5 million Palestinians live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a territory that Israel expropriated from Jordan in 1967. Palestinians claim the West Bank is part of their future state, and object to any settlements there.

Israel cites historical and biblical links to the West Bank, saying the status of the settlements should be decided in peace negotiations.
http://www.rt.com/news/israel-settlements-ban-un-614/

Sick just sick......

So, looks like Barry and the UN want to invade Israel?

The UN needs to be disbanded cause they have no right sticking their noses in every bodies business.

Just say No to Witch Hunt.

The UN Human Wrongs Council? UN home of the annual antisemitic
Durban conferences on ignore egregious human rights violations
all over the world and bash Israel instead..



The UN Human Rights Council is a joke.

Read about it:

The Durban Review Conference is the official name of the 2009 United Nations World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban II. The conference ran from Monday 20 April to Friday 24 April 2009, and took place at the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland.[1] The conference was called under the mandate of United Nations General Assembly resolution 61/149 (passed in 2006) with a mandate to review the implementation of the The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action from the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which took place in Durban, South Africa.

The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States. The Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day, and twenty-three other European Union countries sent low-level delegations. The western countries had expressed concerns that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws against blasphemy perceived as contrary to the principles of free speech,[2][3][4][5][6] and that the conference would not deal with discrimination against homosexuals.[7] European countries also criticized the meeting for focusing on the West and ignoring problems of racism and intolerance in the developing world.

Controversy surrounded the attendance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the conference due to his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust. On the first day of the conference, Ahmadinejad, the only head of state to attend, made a speech condemning Israel as "totally racist"[8] and accusing the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians.[9] The distributed English version of the speech referred to the Holocaust as an "ambiguous and dubious question". When Ahmadinejad began to speak about Israel, all the European Union delegates left the conference room, while a number of the remaining delegates applauded the Iranian President.[10] UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed dismay at both the boycotts and the speech.[11]

Durban III, a follow-up conference that took place on 22 September 2011 in New York, was boycotted by the ten aforementioned countries (including the Czech Republic), along with Austria, Bulgaria, France and the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference

In order to gain some balance apart from the tabloid hyperbole of Russia Today, let's examine another viewpoint:

Israel’s break with Human Rights Council understandable but misguided, says expert

Israel’s decision to cut ties with the United Nations Human Rights Council over a planned fact-finding mission into the West Bank settlement enterprise was understandable but may prove unconstructive, according to a UK-based expert in humanitarian law.

“It’s misguided to withdraw all cooperation with all bits of the UN human rights machinery,” said Françoise Hampson, a law professor at the University of Essex and former participant of fact-finding and human rights missions. “For example, some individuals, special rapporteurs, are worth cooperating with because they got very subject-specific mandates and you can make your claim, you can explain the situation as you see it.”

“The lesson to learn seems to me that from some people you will get a fair hearing, they will indicate your views – and other people won’t,” she added. “The solution to that isn’t not to cooperate — it is trying to get your view out there. In my experience, where you’re showing that you’re taking on board the information you’re receiving from them, they will take on board your specific concerns about particular operations.”

In March, the Human Rights Council (HRC), which even senior UN officials accuse of being unfairly critical of Israel, announced it would launch an ad hoc investigation into the settlements. Israel said it would not cooperate with the mission and later cut all ties with the council, instructing Geneva-based diplomats to cease all cooperation with HRC officials.

According to Hampson, a specialist on human rights and the International Law of Armed Conflicts, the Foreign Ministry’s decision was too radical in scope. “I can understand why Israel wouldn’t want to cooperate with some investigations,” she told The Times of Israel this week in Jerusalem. “If the reason for picking Israel looks as if it’s Israel-bashing, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to cooperate.”

Since the investigation is being launched by the HRC, there can be little doubt that the aim is to single out Israel for criticism, she said. “Whether they got a reason for bashing Israel is a separate question. But if there is a reason for bashing Israel, there are very good reasons for bashing other places.”

Just this week, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the West Bank and Gaza, Richard Falk, compared Israel’s “discriminatory” legal system to apartheid and said the peace process was “a trick” the international community plays in order not to have to find a solution to the conflict. Falk is scheduled to present a report to the current session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva next Monday.

“There is a difference between ad hoc missions that you may suspect the Human Rights Council has proposed almost as a punitive measure, and a routine operation within the [regular] scope of ‘Special Procedures,’” Hampson said. “It is not a good idea not to cooperate with routine human rights mechanism that do the same thing with regards to all states globally, rather than specific ad hoc missions.”

Not all HRC special sessions have dealt with Israel, but in light of its preoccupation with the Jewish State, Israel’s unwillingness to cooperate with its fact-finding mission is understandable, Hampson said. “Whether it’s sensible, or whether you should in fact say it’s a waste of time dealing with them but at least if we show we’re cooperating maybe others will see what we’re saying, is a different issue,” she said.

Israel used to go to great lengths to respond to allegations of human rights violations, so much so that Amnesty International workers wouldn’t know what to do after they submitted a query to Israel, because officials would provide comprehensive legal answers, Hampson said. This rigorous behavior improved the culture of local NGOs, she added. “They have the discipline of a government and an army that take the law seriously, and a population that takes human rights seriously.”

But this has changed gradually: “The Israelis thought that they would get a fair hearing so they didn’t come out all defensive. More recently, Israel has got fed up with the way they’re treated in the Human Rights Council and God knows, I’d be fed up too if I’d been treated like that. But in some quarters there is the assumption that any criticism of Israel is illegitimate and from people who are hostile to Israel. There is also, in some quarters, not routinely, the assumption that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. That is extremely unhelpful.”

Hampson served for seven years as an independent expert on the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and participated on fact-finding missions to former Yugoslavia and Lebanon. She is currently in Israel as a guest of NGO Monitor, a group critical of nonprofits dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Monday, she spoke at the launch of a new book by NGO Monitor, entitled “Best Practices for Human Rights and Humanitarian NGO Fact-Finding,” saying that “we need to try and improve the quality of NGO reports by critiquing them when they are wrong.”

‘I don’t think Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are hostile to Israel’

“Show where an NGO misinterpreted international law or misreported facts on the ground so they can work to try and correct it,” Hampson urged at the event. In an interview with The Times of Israel, however, she defended some NGOs that often seem to treat Israel unfairly.

For instance, she heaped praised on Ramallah-based Alhaq and the Israeli NGO B’Tselem, saying the latter one has “one of the most consistently excellent fact-finders.”

NGO Monitor is critical of both of these groups, claiming Alhaq is “a leader in anti-Israel demonization campaigns through lawsuits (“Lawfare”), and in the boycott (BDS) activities, which are counterproductive to peace efforts and policies.” B’Tselem — which this week made headlines with a published video showing an Israeli Border Police officer kicking a Palestinian child in Hebron — has faced “serious criticism for its misrepresentations of international law, inaccurate research, and skewed statistics,” according to NGO-Monitor.

Hampson also rejected the idea that international NGOs writing reports about the Mideast conflict pick on the Jewish state for no reason. “I don’t think they are hostile to Israel,” she said, specifically referring to Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

“It’s more complicated,” she said, noting, though, that she does not claim their reports are always perfect. But fact-finders do not start out trying to prove their preconceived anti-Israel notions, she insisted. However, if certain human rights activists are involved in a certain conflict for too long, it might negatively affect their judgment, she said. “It’s not so much bias as more a matter of habit, because you’re not looking at it afresh,” she said.

Hampson acknowledges that for Israeli officials it must be frustrating to give interviews to human rights groups only to learn later that the subsequent reports clearly reject the Israeli viewpoint. “But I think the only way to defend yourself is with hard information,” she said. “Those who are anti-Israel with closed minds and those who are anti-Semitic are not going to be convinced whatever you do. In that sense I don’t see that Israel can change things in the Human Rights Council, because of who’s on it and where the majority lies. But there are open-minded states that don’t think that everything Israel does is wrong, that do think Israel has a right to self-defense but that don’t think Israel has never violated the rules.”

That Israel has violated — and continues to violate — international law needs to be “absolutely clear,” Hampson said. “Even if the wording of the Geneva Convention was accidental, it is nevertheless the case that you can’t ship population into occupied territory. And that includes individuals and not just mass populations,” she said with regards to the settlements. “That’s unarguable. There is no point in wasting energy defending yourself on that score.”

‘Goldstone could have expressed concern and demand more information. If he didn’t have enough information, why did he reach conclusions?’

On the Goldstone saga, on the other hand, she shares Israel’s criticism. Commissioned by the HRC, Judge Richard Goldstone sought to investigate the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead during the winter of 2008-09, but Israel refused to cooperate, citing the council’s known anti-Israel bias. In his much-quoted report, Goldstone subsequently suspects both Hamas and Israel of having committed war crimes and “crimes against humanity.” Last year, Goldstone partially retracted his condemnation of Israel, writing that if he had known then what he knows now, “the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

“I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes,” Goldstone wrote in The Washington Post. “Israel’s lack of cooperation with our investigation meant that we were not able to corroborate how many Gazans killed were civilians and how many were combatants.”

Hampson sees several problems with Goldstone’s approach. For once, she disagrees with some of his legal interpretations. “It was unrealistically rigid in a human rights kind of way,” she said. But more importantly, she charges, in the absence of all the facts, Goldstone should have refrained from bandying around loaded terms such as “war crime.” He should have rather stated that he fails to see any military objective to certain actions that took place, Hampson said.

“What he can’t do is say it was a war crime, because he doesn’t know what [the army] was targeting. He could have expressed concern and say I want more information about it. If he didn’t have enough information, why did he reach conclusions?”

“If there would be no military objective here, then it would be a war crime,” she said. “You can’t assume a war crime. You can say, I can’t reach a conclusion but I’ve got concerns. It’s not an excuse to say I didn’t know these things. He knew he didn’t know them. And if he didn’t know that he didn’t know them, he’s a crap lawyer.”

However, after the fact it is impossible to know whether the Goldstone report would have really looked different had Israel cooperated, Hampson said, as a report’s outcome depends on various factors: “One variable is the people sitting on the commission of inquiry, not just the chair, but all of them. Other variables are the degree of cooperation, the time frame, and the sensitivity of the situation.”

So, it is clear that the issue is not as simple as the RT story would lead us to believe.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-break-with-human-rights-council-understandable-but-misguided-says-expert/

So finally we see the applicable part of this analysis...

It is a complete waste of time.

If the UN wants the world to take them seriously with regard
to human rights concerns then they should not have antisemitic
bigots disproportionately bashing Israel and instead have a
fair process. Think about it. The following sentence from the
report illustrates exactly why Israel is not cooperating with the
UNHRC. There cannot be a more clear condemnation of the UNHRC than
when Hampson says:

Hampson said. “Those who are anti-Israel with closed minds and
those who are anti-Semitic are not going to be convinced whatever
you do. In that sense I don’t see that Israel can change things in
the Human Rights Council, because of who’s on it and where the
majority lies.

Can't change it - no point in trying. Their mission is a smear
campaign. The UNHRC reeks of hypocrisy, dishonesty and unfairness.
It's a Kangaroo court of anti-Semites and bigots!! No one should
ever be associated with that.

a territory that Israel expropriated from Jordan in 1967.


You mean the Territory that Jordan stole in '49,and annexed later against the will of the Arab League??

yep,you're right UNHRC is sick,just sick!
At last even the Russians getting it right!

UNHRC is the biggest Joke in History!
Human Rights?
UNHRC?


some of the biggest Violators of Human Rights are sitting on that "AUGUST" Body!

The trouble is the UN would be fair and equal and Israel would rather have things settled at the peace table, after of course they have won and killed just about everyone with the support of the US taxpayers.

Yeah,know more Jokes about the "Fairness of the UN toward Israel?
Especially the Gangsters on the UNHRC!

Please provide an example.

Its fair to say the biggest violators of human rights at the moment are the US and Israel.

can you say Cuba?
Or at one time Libya and other Pariahs!

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm


Enjoy the Rogues Gallery,while you listen to some Spinners Music!!

And the US is any better?

Who has invaded another country without just cause? What country is engaged in two wars and blindly supports another country while it commits genocide? Please as an american I am disgusted.

Your country is far more innocent than mine, how many troops do they have over in Iraq or Afghanistan?

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and former High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson criticized the council for acting according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. Specifically, Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon, the council's president Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada and the United States have accused the council of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[3][4][5] The United States boycotted the Council during the George W. Bush administration.

That is not a fair appraisal, rather it sounds more like gross exaggeration.

Oh yes. The US and Israel are far worse than say...
Afghanistan and North Korea!



Ok Ok Afghanistan and N Korea are extreme examples. Compare
the US and Israel instead to .....let's see

China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Morroco, Algeria, Somalia, Iran,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Serbia.

Man,you're not even in the Ballpark!
You ought to get disgusted at the Taliban's indiscriminate cowardly killing!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afghan-womans-public-execution-slammed-163155172.html
You kept awfully quiet about this!

The public execution of a young woman accused of adultery in Afghanistan has been condemned by the country's government and human rights campaigners as a video of the killing emerged.

The footage shows her being shot several times in the back in Qol village in Parwan province just north of the capital Kabul - in front of a crowd of men.

The 22-year-old woman, named as Najiba, was married to a member of a hardline Taliban militant group and was accused of adultery with a Taliban commander, Parwan provincial spokeswoman Roshna Khalid said.

She said: "Within one hour they decided that she was guilty and sentenced her to death. They shot her in front of villagers in her village, Qol."

After the shooting, a villager handed the video over to the provincial government and "the security forces are preparing a big operation to find the culprits", she said, adding the execution happened late last month.

Public executions of alleged adulterers were common when the Taliban regime was in power from 1996 until 2001, when they were ousted by a US-led invasion for sheltering al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban have since waged an insurgency against the government of President Hamid Karzai, which is supported by 130,000 Nato troops.

The video begins with the woman, wrapped in a grey shawl, sitting at the edge of a ditch in a village surrounded by dozens of men, some perched on rooftops.

With her back to the crowd, a bearded man is seen reading verses from the Koran condemning adultery, before saying: "We cannot forgive her, God tells us to finish her. Juma Khan, her husband, has the right to kill her."

The video then shows a man in white being handed an AK-47 rifle.

He walks up to within a couple of metres of her, says 'Allahu akhbar' (God is great), aims and fires twice, missing each time. The third shot hits her in the back, she flings her arms wide and collapses.

He then fires another six shots into her body as the crowd cheers wildly, shouting "Long live Islam", "Long live mujahideen (holy warriors)". The gunman then fires four more shots into her body.

The Afghan government has said it "strongly condemns this un-Islamic and inhuman action!


The Coward couldn't even look the woman in the Face!
He had to Backshoot her like the Dry-Gulcher he is!

Back on topic........

Rowland Alexander says:
July 6, 2012 at 11:39 pm


What AIPAC wants, it gets in Washington.
AIPAC is an unregistered foreign agent representing Israel. Edward Said once called it “the most powerful and feared lobby in Washington.”
Calling itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” it’s represented Israeli interests since founded in 1953. In 1963, it was incorporated as a division of the American Zionist Council (AZC), its precursor.
For decades, it’s been very successful subverting opposition to Israel’s agenda. Virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so would be a career-ender.

Notably, it’s had virtual veto power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms sales, enormous handouts to Israel, and all Middle East policies affecting the Jewish state under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.
Deferentially, politicians, presidents, their hangers-on, media scoundrels and others pay it due homage and the government it represents. As a result, everyone pays dearly.
On September 15, AIPAC published an anti-Palestinian broadside headlined, “PA’s UN Statehood Bid Threatens Peace Efforts, Israel,” saying:

”The Palestinian effort to secure recognition of statehood at the United Nations is a direct challenge to US interests and could have severe implications for the peace process.
“

Fact check

America represents Israeli interests. Israel wants Palestinians deprived of all rights under permanent occupation. There’s no legitimate peace process because Israel and Washington won’t tolerate it.
Yet AIPAC claims upgrading Palestine’s status “could have serious implications for” Israel.


Fact check
 Indeed so. Independent Palestine could ratify and have access to international conventions. As a result, it could sue Israeli war criminals in the International Criminal Court. AIPAC calls it “politicizing the court.”
In addition, Israel’s occupation would be threatened though not easily ended. The fate of settlers would be up for grabs. Notably, half are fed up and want to leave but can’t for financial reasons.
Others would have a choice. Either become ex-pats in a foreign country under its laws, or leave. Moreover, settlement communities no longer could exclude non-Jews, besides other beneficial changes.
Israelis would have to learn to love or at least tolerate their new neighbors. Many, in fact, do now and would welcome them.
A century ago, Jews and Palestinians got along fine. Why not now. The problem isn’t Judaism and Islam. It’s repressive Israel and its Washington paymaster partner.
AIPAC rails against full Palestinian participation in UN agencies, including UNESCO, ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), UNICEF (International Children’s Emergency Fund), and others.
”The Palestinians would use these committees to isolate and delegitimize Israel for ‘occupying’ a recognized state.
“

Fact check

Israel illegally occupies Palestine. Moreover, Israel, not UN agencies, is very adept at isolating and delegitimizing itself. Balking at Palestinian statehood is its latest affront.
As a result and for other reasons, anti-Israeli sentiment is visceral in Cairo, Amman and elsewhere. Moreover, growing numbers of Jews are fed up and no longer support its repressive agenda with good reason.
Unilateral “Palestinian actions at the United Nations could increase the potential for violence by raising unrealistic expectations.


Fact check

Israel alone threatens violence. Palestinians demand the same rightful “expectations” Israeli Jews enjoy – no less.
”Successful efforts by the Palestinians at the United Nations also would embolden Israel’s detractors and legitimize those who seek to isolate and question the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Boycotts of Israel could increase and be adopted more widely.
“

Fact check

Anti-Israeli sentiment is fueled by its contempt for non-Jews, its repressive occupation, its aggressive wars, its territorial ambitions, its desire to be the region’s sole hegemon, and willingness to go to any extremes for it.
Israeli policies do more to “embolden” detractors than they alone or collectively could do on their own without ammunition Israel provides.
Abbas’ “statehood….plan….and refusal to talk to Israel are severely undermining US peace efforts.
“

Fact check

It bears repeating. Neither Israel or Washington want peace. They need conflict to further their regional agenda and to claim Palestinians aren’t ready for independence.
How many more than 63 years of trying are enough to be ready for it. AIPAC didn’t say. Instead it claims Abbas won’t meet with Netanhayu.

In fact, they do often. Moreover, Abbas said resuming peace talks depends on Israel halting settlement expansions, stealing Palestinian land, and dispossessing lawful residents in the process.
In addition, all Palestinian leaders will negotiate with a legitimate peace partner on an equal status basis – not master/slave.
Israel was never willing and isn’t now – especially under a Netanyahu/Lieberman government, Israel’s most extremist ever.
AIPAC accuses Abbas of “setting unrealistic conditions” and failing to follow Oslo mandates. Seeking statehood also “serves to undermine Israel’s confidence in the PA as a legitimate partner for peace and could cause a breakdown in relations between the parties, making” future negotiation harder
.

Fact check

AIPAC’s extremist, racist agenda comes out in comments like these.
You can’t make this stuff up. But there it is in direct quotes.
Only those ignorant of basic facts buy it. Others aware of what Palestinians endure condemn Israel and its supporters.
A previous article said Oslo promised final status talks in five years. It didn’t happen and won’t in 50 or 500 if left up to Israel. As a result, Palestinians and their supporters long ago lost confidence in Israel because of its contempt for doing the right thing.
AIPAC claims upgrading Palestine above its present status “may set back talks for years.” It will also make it harder for Israel “to enter talks when unacceptable results are the baseline.
“

Fact check

The “baseline” is justice!
”The United States must continue to oppose Palestinian efforts at the United Nations and urge the Palestinians to return to the negotiation table.
“

Fact check

That’s a direct order. Congress and Obama officials salute and obey, knowing what unacceptable alternative awaits objectors.
”The Palestinians should face consequences if they continue to defy the United States and press forward with their UN statehood bid.
“

Fact check

AIPAC calls asking for legitimate rights “Palestinian incitement.”
No matter. If Palestinians pursue theirs, AIPAC wants them to “face consequences,” including all aid cut off, their PLO Washington office closed, and maybe perhaps Cast Lead II against all Palestine, claiming self-defense against dangerous Palestinians only wanting trouble.
In fact, AIPAC will say anything, fabricate any threat, pressure and lie to get what it wants at the expense of peace-loving people wanting and deserving the same rights as Jews.
That’s a real extremist agenda! 

A Final Comment

On September 16, The New York Times published Anti-Defamation League (ADL) national director Abraham Foxman’s anti-Palestinian broadside headlined, “The UN Vote on a Palestinian State,” regurgitating a litany of racist lies about Palestine.

Calling its statehood pursuit a “mistake,” he accused it of “refus(ing) to negotiate with Israel….sign(ing) a coalition agreement with terrorist Hamas and now….bring(ing) this counterproductive initiative to the United Nations once again….rais(ing) serious questions about Palestinian intentions.”
As Foxman knows, they’re crystal clear. Palestinians want and deserve the same rights as Jews. He wants them denied.

So does Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) president Morton Klein in a disgraceful September 14 press release , thanking Obama for saying he’ll veto a Palestinian statehood bid in New York.
Calling it “wrong and strategically dangerous if (Abbas) obtain(s) statehood by circumventing negotiations and peace-making with Israel,” he concluded with hateful, reprehensible comments, saying:

”We dare not establish a racist, anti-Semitic terrorist beggar state that this would surely be. This is especially so at a time when the PA continues to engage in incitement to hatred and murder in its media, mosques, schools and youth camps and has signed a unity government agreement with the ‘kill the Jews’ Hamas terrorist organization.”

Established in 1897, ZOA is America’s oldest Zionist organization. Whatever its early agenda, it’s now an embarrassment and national disgrace, given hatemongers like Klein as leaders.
Hopefully growing numbers of Jews and others will repudiate his abhorrent ideology, opting instead for peace, reconciliation and justice for all.
AIPAC is the cancer of America. Similar groups are being created around the globe and their infuence is growing.
AIPAC is destroying Israel and doing a disservice to America and jews around the globe. These quotations will explain better.
“Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . .. I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on
Kol Yisrael radio.
“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel.” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache 2009
http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/israel-slams-door-on-un-human-rights-council-over-settlement-row/17291/

Wow this guy is good....

Why? Because he supports anti-semitism? It's quite an emotional opinion piece short on facts. The 'Fact Checks' are just opinion and NOT 'facts'.

Personally,I think this person is just another anti-semite ranting. Just look at the vitriol in the comments on that redneck site you quoted from.