The Duma Skunk

bs"d

The DUMA SKUNK 

by ROBIN TICKER 

I smell a skunk..... 

The plea bargain forced upon minor E. Odess is a form of forced confession and should not be considered any different from the other confessions he made as a 15 year old child during weeks of relentless torture.

If the plea bargain confession in any way falsely incriminates E. and others, such as Amiram ben Uliel, this does not serve justice.. . neither for E., nor for the Arab Duma arson victims. 

The family knows their son is innocent. They only signed the plea bargain in the hopes of relief from the unrelenting mental and physical anguish to which they are subjected. They want to be free of  the relentless scrutiny of every move they make. 

Furthermore, it is even questionable whether the Government of Israel will keep their end of the plea bargain. The system's focus is concern about protecting themselves and saving face. Too much freedom for E. means he might possibly conduct media interviews such as were conducted with Ahed Temimi following her release. Surely the government won't risk the embarrassment of the truth being revealed.

Elisha has been in prison for over 3 years, tortured emotionally and physically for a crime he never committed. .

No one can blame him or his family for this plea bargain.

No one blames him for confessing to an arson he never committed. It sure beats suicide which he apparently attempted as a child  following torture and interrogation and a judge who fell asleep when Elisha showed him his slit wrists.

His forced confession of the Duma arson was thrown out for good reason. Under torture, physical or emotional, he is not a credible witness against himself. (Who among us would not confess under the circumstances?)

The plea bargain is just another forced confession by a fake judicial process that continues to put Elisha and his family under tremendous emotional duress through emotional blackmail.

The reality is that there is no lawyer in Israel who will dare represent a kid who can legitimately justify bringing charges against the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Israel, the Defense Minister of Israel, the Justice Minister of Israel, the Supreme Court of Israel, the Jewish Division of Shabak, MKs, and the Media and prestigious Rabbanim all complicit for prematurely and falsely condemning "Jewish Terror" in the Duma case within 24 hours of it occurring. All the above guilty parties have successfully kept this false narrative going weeks and months and years with no apologies. 

 The public condemnation against the myth of "Jewish Terror" in August 2015 went viral, across the globe, within a week, with no genuine real investigation to speak of. It was based solely on very questionable, non-convincing Hebrew graffiti found at the scene of the crime and the "professional expertise" of a biased Jewish Division of Terror of the Shabak (which many say should be dismantled).  

This so called "Jewish Division" within the Shabak has a long history of seeking to manufacture Jewish terrorists for political motivations.

Based on the false myth that "Hilltop Youth" are ticking time bombs, tens of innocent, idealistic youths who love the Land of Israel  were denied due process, interrogated, denied counsel and habeas corpus, tortured emotionally and physically, and internationally slandered.  Their good name was publicly smeared by reputable, trusted, powerful and influential leaders of Israel.  

I am not only talking about E. Odess or Amiram ben Uliel. Tens, if not hundreds of settler youth were treated as if they were ticking time bombs, and this has not ceased to this day. They continue to be at the mercy of the draconian punishment of Administrative Detention (imprisonment without legal representation), a politically biased court, biased prosecution, and biased investigation. 

President Trump would accurately call it a "Witch Hunt"!

Hoaxes based on graffiti have been used way before the Duma arson as a successful tool to incriminate innocent people for political motives.

The Jewish Division of Terror of Shabak has a history of planting agents and moles among settlers for the purpose of creative a false narrative of fabricated "Jewish terror".

If this plea bargain will continue to perpetuate a false narrative, slandering settlers as "Jewish terrorists", it will only to protect all the VIPs who were too quick to condemn the arson on Jews, quick to slander and destroy the lives of beautiful and patriotic settler kids and their families for political reasons.

We as a people can choose to persist in this false narrative for the benefit of protecting all those in leadership roles who rushed to falsely condemn Hilltop Settler Youth prematurely for political gain,  or we can insist on due process. The courts must free Elisha O. for lack of evidence and focus on truth to find the real perpetrators of the Duma arson. They can start by investigating the feuding Arabs in the town of Duma who have a long history of arson against the Dawabshe family.

 The Odess family stated that signing the plea bargain was not based on truth!

I believe them.

There needs to be some solid evidence other than Elisha's own confessions to incriminate him.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Following is a statement by Helen Freedman, Executive Director of AFSI (Americans for a Safe Israel)

"The situation with E. Odess is so totally disgraceful and shameful. PM Netanyahu needs to examine the facts and totally exonerate Elisha. He and the family have suffered enough. The plea bargain is a sham. It should be scrapped and total innocence should be declared."

Helen Freedman, Executive Dir., AFSI

Statement by MK Betzalel Smotrich: 

"What the State did to this minor and his family is among the most severe injustices in Israel's history. I call upon the Attorney General to intervene at last in this case and stop the witch hung that is mortally damaging the very little trust remaining in the law enforcement system..."  (12-07-18) ....

Statement by Ruth Gavison, renowned Israeli Law Professor at the Hebrew University:

"We presently find ourselves at a critical juncture in the Duma blood libel. Not only is the issue of torture under examination, but also the question of the proposed plea deal.  

This proposed plea deal is a form of criminal extortion. The State Attorney's Office is pressuring the family of Elisha O. to accept this plea deal with the unrelenting coercive pressure of the court. While accepting a plea deal will save time in the courtroom, it is inherently dishonest and is a distortion of the legal process. The prosecution has all the time and all means to pressure the defendant indefinitely to confess to the most serious charges. The defendant, on the other hand, does not have the financial or emotional means to wage a costly and lengthy legal battle to prove his innocence."

Fwd: CLEAR CHANNEL REFUSES TO ALLOW TIMES SQUARE BILLBOARD DEMANDING REMOVAL OF OMAR FROM CONGRESS

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laurie Cardoza-Moore - Proclaiming Justice to The Nations <info@pjtn.org>
Date: Mon, May 20, 2019, 4:24 PM
Subject: CLEAR CHANNEL REFUSES TO ALLOW TIMES SQUARE BILLBOARD DEMANDING REMOVAL OF OMAR FROM CONGRESS
To: Robin Ticker <faigerayzel@gmail.com>

PRESS RELEASE CLEAR CHANNEL REFUSES TO ALLOW TIMES SQUARE BILLBOARD DEMANDING REMOVAL OF OMAR FROM CONGRESS AMERICAN VOICES ARE SILENCED IN CONDEMNING AN ANTISEMITIC CONGRESSWOMAN (NEW YORK, NEW YORK) –May 20, 2019 –Today's scheduled multi-organizational rally in New York's Time Square to demand the removal of Ilhan Omar from Congress was denied the display of a commercial billboard. The Omar Times Square billboard demanding her removal due to her anti-Semitic comments and ties to Islamic terror front groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief USA was denied ad space at the eleventh hour by Clear Channel.    This denial of advertising space comes on the heels of national headlines made by Clear Channel for their refusal earlier this month to display a billboard by Focus On The Family, an evangelical Christian ministry. The planned 4-D ultra-sound image of an unborn baby, in support of their pro-life  "Alive From New York," was denied for the event staged on May 4. Laurie Cardoza-Moore, Founder and President of the evangelical Christian advocacy organization, Proclaiming Justice to The Nations (PJTN), and an Advisory Board member of the more than one dozen organizations staging the Omar protest rally, noted:  "Today's event was overshadowed by a definite attempt by Clear Channel to silence the free expression of Judeo/Christian and American values—an agenda carried out by both Clear Channel and by Facebook.  Facebook removed, without notice, the fundraising page established and actively receiving donations to help fund the event. The removal came on the vague grounds of 'violation of community standards' despite the fact that the page was originally set-up through proper channels in the Facebook system." Cardoza Moore's PJTN organization has been responsible for amassing tens of thousands of signatures in an online petition calling from the removal of Ilhan Omar. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, one of the organizers hosting the rally stated, "US Corporate culture is now completely in the province of political correctness and will be part of the further decline of US society. Those very rare entities who are not in line, like Chick-fil-A, will need to tread water to survive, irrespective of their product quality." Cardoza-Moore concludes that "a double standard exists when our attempts to wake up America to the dangers to our national security and our Judeo/Christian/American values that Omar stands against through her anti-Semitic messaging and support of terrorist groups. This is evident as we are denied the right to display a viable and truthful viewpoint for Americans to consider in an open forum like Times Square. Most sobering of all, and at the heart of this entire reprehensible scenario, is the stark realization that voices that don't espouse the values and views of the left wing liberal media are subject to being totally turned off by organizations such as Clear Channel and Facebook. Unless these corporate biases on free speech are challenged, it will set the stage for the continued decline of freedom in America as we know it." While today's rally to demand Omar's removal will be staged as planned in Times Square, it is now a prelude to a larger event already in the planning.  More speakers, a higher profile national call to action, and a larger billboard are all to be featured.   For additional information resource online: www.pjtn.org    Click here to share this message on Facebook   PJTN - US Office: Jackie Monaghan Sr. Media Advisor (615) 646-5990—Direct morningstarpr@comcast.net   PJTN - Jerusalem Press Office Avi Hyman avihyman@avihyman.com Proclaiming Justice to The Nations · 1858 Wilson Pike, Franklin, TN 37067, United States This email was sent to faigerayzel@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Proclaiming Justice to The Nations on Twitter or Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.

Fwd: Daniel Greenfield's article: Americans Paid for the Internet, We Deserve Free Speech On It

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sultan Knish <noreply+feedproxy@google.com>
Date: Fri, May 17, 2019, 7:55 AM
Subject: Daniel Greenfield's article: Americans Paid for the Internet, We Deserve Free Speech On It
To: <faigerayzel@gmail.com>

Daniel Greenfield's article: Americans Paid for the Internet, We Deserve Free Speech On It 

Link to Sultan Knish     

Americans Paid for the Internet, We Deserve Free Speech On It Posted: 16 May 2019 05:58 PM PDT "But, it's a private company." It's a familiar argument. Bring up the problem of Google, Facebook and Twitter suppressing conservative speech and many conservatives will retort that it's a free market. The big dot com monopolies created their own companies, didn't they? And we wouldn't want government regulation of business. In a FOX Business editorial, Iain Murray writes that breaking up dot coms like Google would be "a repudiation of conservative principles". He argues that "Twitter is a private company" and that "there is no positive right to free speech on Twitter or any other private venue." "The same goes for the president's attacks on Google and the complaints of conservative censorship," Diane Katz writes at the Heritage Institute. "These private enterprises are not obligated to abide any sort of partisan fairness doctrine." The talking point that Google, Facebook and Twitter are private companies that can discriminate as they please on their private platforms, and that the First Amendment doesn't apply, is in the air everywhere. But it overlooks two very simple facts. The driving force behind the censorship of conservatives isn't a handful of tech tycoons. It's elected officials. Senator Kamala Harris offered an example of that in a recent speech where she declared that she would "hold social media platforms accountable" if they contained "hate" or "misinformation". "Misinformation" is a well-known euphemism among Democrats and the media for conservative political content. It was originally known as "fake news" before President Trump hijacked the term to refer to the media. The recent Poynter list of "unreliable" sites was stacked with conservative sites. Lists like these aren't hypothetical. Poynter runs the International Fact Checking Network which had been empowered by Facebook and other sites to deplatform conservative content through its 'fact checks'. All of this got underway in response to claims by Hillary Clinton and her allies that "fake news" had cost her the election and represented a grave attack on our democracy. The call was quickly taken up by Democrats in the House and the Senate. It's been commented on supportively by powerful Clinton allies in the tech industry, like Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Google. Dot coms like Facebook are cracking down on conservatives as an explicit response to pressure from elected government officials. That's not the voluntary behavior of private companies. When Facebook deletes conservatives in response to threats of regulatory action from Senate Democrats, its censors are acting as government agents while engaging in viewpoint discrimination. Free market conservatives can argue that Facebook should have the right to discriminate against conservatives. But do they really want to argue that Senate Democrats should have the right to compel private companies to censor conservatives? What's the difference between that and a totalitarian state? It might, arguably, be legal for your landlord to kick you out of your house because he doesn't like the fact that you're a Republican. But is it legal for him to do so on orders from Senator Kamala Harris? Defending abusive behavior like that is a desecration of the free market. The second fact is that the internet is not the work of a handful of aspiring entrepreneurs who built it out of thin air using nothing but their talent, brains and nimble fingers. The internet was the work of DARPA. That stands for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. DARPA is part of the Department of Defense. DARPA had funded the creation of the core technologies that made the internet possible. The origins of the internet go back to DARPA's Arpanet. Nor did the story end once the internet had entered every home. Where did Google come from? "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine," the original paper by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the co-founders of Google, reveals support from the National Science Foundation, DARPA, and even NASA. Harvard's computer science department, where Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg learned to play with the toys that turned him into a billionaire, has also wallowed in DARPA cash. Not to mention funds from a variety of other DOD and Federal science agencies. Taxpayer sank a fortune into developing a public marketplace where ideas are exchanged, and political advocacy and economic activity takes place. That marketplace doesn't belong to Google, Amazon or Facebook. And when those monopolies take a stranglehold on the marketplace, squeezing out conservatives from being able to participate, they're undermining our rights and freedoms. "A right of free correspondence between citizen and citizen on their joint interests, whether public or private and under whatsoever laws these interests arise (to wit: of the State, of Congress, of France, Spain, or Turkey), is a natural right," Thomas Jefferson argued. There should be a high barrier for any company seeking to interfere with the marketplace of ideas in which the right of free correspondence is practiced. Critics of regulating dot com monopolies have made valid points. Regulating Google or Facebook as a public utility is dangerous. And their argument that giving government the power to control content on these platforms would backfire is sensible. Any solution to the problem should not be based on expanding government control. But there are two answers. First, companies that engage in viewpoint discrimination in response to government pressure are acting as government agents. When a pattern of viewpoint discrimination manifests itself on the platform controlled by a monopoly, a civil rights investigation should examine what role government officials played in instigating the suppression of a particular point of view. Liberals have abandoned the Public Forum Doctrine, once a popular ACLU theme, while embracing censorship. But if the Doctrine could apply to a shopping mall, it certainly applies to the internet. In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court's decision found that, "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen." The Packingham case dealt with government interference, but when monopolies silence conservatives on behalf of government actors, they are fulfilling the same role as an ISP that suspends a customer in response to a law. When dot com monopolies get so big that being banned from their platforms effectively neutralizes political activity, press activity and political speech, then they're public forums. Second, rights are threatened by any sufficiently large organization or entity, not just government. Government has traditionally been the most powerful such organization, but the natural rights that our country was founded on are equally immune to every organization. Governments, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, exist as part of a social contract to secure these rights for its citizens. Government secures these rights, first and foremost, against itself. (Our system effectively exists to answer the question of who watches the watchers.) But it also secures them against foreign powers, a crisis that the Declaration of Independence was written to meet, and against domestic organizations, criminal or political, whether it's the Communist Party or ISIS, that seek to rob Americans of their rights. A country in which freedom of speech effectively did not exist, even though it remained a technical right, would not be America. A government that allowed such a thing would have no right to exist. Only a government whose citizens enjoy the rights of free men legally justifies is existence. If a private company took control of all the roads and closed them to conservatives every Election Day, elections would become a mockery and the resulting government would be an illegitimate tyranny. That's the crisis that conservatives face with the internet. Protecting freedom of speech does not abandon conservative principles, it secures them. There are no conservative principles without freedom of speech. A free market nation without freedom of speech isn't a conservative country. It's an oligarchy. That's the state of affairs on the internet. Conservatives should beware of blindly enlisting in leftist efforts to take regulatory control of companies like Facebook. The result would be a deeper and more pervasive form of censorship than exists today. But neither should they imagine that the 'free market side of history' will automatically fix the problem. As the internet has devolved from its origins in academia to a set of handheld devices controlled by one of two companies, and then to a set of smart assistants controlled by one of two companies, it has become far less open. Even if Google were to lose its monopoly, Silicon Valley hosts a politicized workforce which allies with the media to compel any rising new company to toe the same line. And if that fails, there are always House and Senate hearings and harder laws coming out of Europe. We have an existing useful toolset to draw on, from anti-trust laws to civil rights investigations to the Public Forum Doctrine. This will be a challenging process, but we must remember through it all, that we have a right to freedom of speech on the internet. Our tax dollars, invested over generations, built this system. It does not belong to the Left. Or, for that matter, the Right. It belongs to all of us. Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And thank you for reading.

You are subscribed to email updates from Sultan Knish . To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

Framing Jewish Settlers and their Youth. Who is Not Guilty?

Bsd

Framing followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane Hy"d as Terrorists is a pattern that has to stop once and for all! 

Was there Collusion and a Witch Hunt from the Prime Ministers Office down?  

Local Arab denies Jews responsible for deadly Duma arson - Israel National News

Were the Arabs even interrogated as part of the Duma Investigation? Apparently not.  

Settler kid vindicated in charges of stoning an Arab woman's car on Shabbat.

https://hamodia.com/2019/05/14/court-releases-youth-allegedly-killed-arab-woman-stoning-incident/

 How many other innocent Settlers Youth were falsely accused of being Ticking Time Bombs?

Pursue Justice!!!

If an honest and truthful investigation reveals that Arabs perpetrated the Duma arson and not Jewish Hilltop Youth, coupled with the recent findings that the Arab woman couldn't have been stoned by Settler Yeshiva kid Tzvi Nerya coupled with too many baseless interrogations of Settler Youth coming up empty handed, we must demand Dayenu!

Local Arab denies Jews responsible for deadly Duma arson

Arab resident of Duma tells private investigator that Jews weren't responsible for deadly 2015 arson that killed three Palestinian Arabs.

Ido Ben Porat, 16/05/19 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/263258

Plea Bargain Deal for Elisha Odess worthless because not based on Truth or Justice

https://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2019/05/re-message-re-elisha-odess.html?m=1

Trump Witch Hunt parallels Duma Witch Hunt with collusion pervasive in the top echelons of government. Fake News Graffiti scrawling allegations on teens seem to predate Duma as an effective weapon instigating divisiveness and a war... Daniel Greenfield

https://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2019/05/fwdtrump-witch-hunt-parallels-duma.html?m=1

Bringing Libel Lawsuit for Jewish Settler Youth Judged and Smeared as Jewish Terrorists Prematurely. Kahana Org's Were Designated as Jewish Terrorist Organization's in the Israel Ministry Foreign Affairs Cabinet Communique on March 13, 1994

https://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2019/01/re-revised-bringing-libel-lawsuit-for.html?m=1

J'Accuse Duma 2 in Arutz Sheva. Fool Me Once Shame On You Fool Me Twice Shame on Me. On 'Jewish Terror'

ttps://shemittahrediscovered.blogspot.com/2019/01/jaccuse-duma-2-in-arutz-sheva-fool-me.html

Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing reveal Brennan was the mastermind of the Russia hoax

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/joe_digenova_and_victoria_toensing_reveal_brennan_was_the_mastermind_of_the_russia_hoax.html