Has Joe Forgotten Joseph?
1 hour ago
Elder of ZiyonFor the moment and against the odds, Kobani stands. Kurdish men and women, abandoned by the United States and watched but not aided by Turkey, hold the line against the sweep of ISIS across Iraq and Syria; one little point of heroism that may be gone by the time you read this. ISIS, on the other hand -- well-financed, armed, vicious, and fighting on toward Baghdad -- will assuredly not be gone.UN and British hypocrisy
So the Cairo meeting of Secretary of State John Kerry with UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon and representatives of the EU, Qatar and Britain this weekend was probably a good thing, right? Just last week, a UN envoy was worried that massacres at Kobani would rival Srebrenica in the Bosnian war. Coordinated with President Obama and NSC, State and DOD meetings in Washington, an international meeting might decide a) how to take immediate steps to protect the tens of thousands of people left in the unfortunate city, b) how to pressure the Turks to provide serious support, and c) how the U.S. "air only" war plan needs to be revised in the absence of "allied" troops on the ground.
Since no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, and this one survived less well than others, there is no shame in moving to Plan B. Except they were not discussing Kobani.
They were trying to raise $4 billion for the Gaza Strip, to remove the evidence of Hamas's rocket war against Israel and its own people. Israel was not represented.
The Cairo meeting, the brainchild of Egyptian President Sisi, appealed to Kerry, who appears still to think Palestinians hold the key to glory if not peace. Qatar pledged $1 billion, the U.S. $213 million, the UK $32 million and the EU 450 million Euros. In the court of international organizational politics, Kobani loses and the Palestinians, including the terrorist group Hamas, win.
When he became U.N. secretary-general in 2007, Ban Ki-moon made clear he intended to restore the trust in the institution that had been lost. Ban has not fulfilled his goal. Hypocrisy and trust have never gone hand in hand. The only narrative that unites most nations represented at the U.N. is hatred of Israel.'Palestinians want to destroy the Jewish state'
The world is in turmoil, thousands of people are dying daily in bloody wars and the U.S. president admits the world is out of control, but Ban's main preoccupation is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nothing is easier or more popular to do than to blame Israel for all of the world's woes.
Ban undoubtedly saw difficult scenes in Gaza when he visited there on Tuesday. War is not a pleasant thing. If not for the Iron Dome, Ban would have seen similar scenes in Israel. With its massive rocket fire, Hamas sought to wreak death and destruction inside Israel. One would expect a decent and honest person to say, loud and clear, who caused the destruction in Gaza. It is not enough to merely say, in a weak voice, that Hamas is partly responsible, as Ban certainly knows that the international media will ignore his comments on Hamas and focus on the blame he placed on Israel.
No one wants to be in Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon's shoes. The man who sits at the top of Israel's defense pyramid, approves all operational plans and has intimate knowledge of all the threats on all the fronts also has to deal with demands for cuts in the defense budget and with painful encounters with families of soldiers who were killed or wounded in battle. Less than two months after the conclusion of Operation Protective Edge, Israel's latest confrontation in Gaza, Ya'alon takes time for his first in-depth post-war media interview.
"I am morally at peace with the decisions we have made," the defense minister says as he explains the moral dilemmas he faced during the fighting. The objective was to target terrorists, but in reality many civilians -- Palestinians who are not fighters -- were hurt. "When I examine whether force needs to be used, I put myself to three tests: the first test is whether I would be able to look at myself in the mirror after the bombing or the operation that I would have approved. Then, I examine the situation from a legal perspective, in terms of our law as well as international law. If everyone were to participate in the discussions surrounding the approval of an operation, they would see for themselves that we deal with very complex dilemmas, like when to shoot, like the principle of 'thou shalt not kill,' or the sanctity of life, versus the notion that 'if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.' And yes, I am at peace with the decisions we made during the course of Operation Protective Edge.
"We examine the proportionality and the morality and the sanctity of life on all sides, but the enemy does not adhere to international law or honor the morality of the value of human life, even toward their own fighters and civilians, who are sent to the front lines. The dilemmas are very difficult. Then the U.N. comes along and wants to investigate us. There is obvious hypocrisy here; they should investigate Hamas, but it is easier to criticize and attack us. There is a combination of hypocrisy, anti-Semitism and maybe other things."
Elder of ZiyonWe have been delivering human rights education in our schools since 2000 to promote non-violence, healthy communication skills, peaceful conflict resolution, human rights, tolerance and good citizenship.
In May 2012, the Agency endorsed its new Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Tolerance (HRCRT) Policy to further stregthen human rights education in UNRWA. This policy builds upon past successes, but also draws from international best practices and paves the way to better integrate human rights education in all our schools.
...In Gaza, we have developed a dedicated human rights curriculum.
Specialists from UNRWA, the Red Cross, human rights NGOs and the wider academic community developed the comprehensive curriculum, anchored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All of our over 200,000 students have a dedicated human rights lesson each week.
All children are taught about:
- Fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration
- Their individual responsibilities, including tolerant behaviour
- The history of the global struggle for human rights
- The historical context that gave rise to the Universal Declaration.
From the beginning the land of Palestine was the core of the conflict with the Zionist movement that founded the State of Israel. One of the decisions of the First Zionist Congress, which was held in the city of Basel in Switzerland in 1897, was that Palestine is a land without a people, and it is the duty of the Zionists to displace the world's Jews to live in Palestine, and since that day the Zionist movement has been working day and night on the theft of Palestinian land and the resettlement of Jews in our country.The Basel program does not resemble how this "history" describes it in the least.
In the catastrophe of 1948, the Jews committed massacres in order to displace the Palestinian people. Most of the Palestinian people migrated from the land of Palestine to become refugees in neighboring countries. Not only that, but the Zionists worked by all means in order to take over the remainder of the land from the hands of the Arabs who remained in their homes through their policy of Judaization of Arab land, and through the development of unjust laws, such as the confiscation of the land of absentee landlords and military reasons for the confiscation and seizure under the pretext of developing the Galilee and other laws.
Elder of Ziyon
Elder of ZiyonIran must withdraw its "occupying" forces from Syria to help resolve that country's conflict, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said Monday after talks with his German counterpart.It seems apparent that Faisal is referring to Hezbollah, although there have been reports of Iranian soldiers in Syria as well.
"Our reservations are about Iran's policy in the region, not about Iran as a country or people," the foreign minister said at a joint press conference in the Red Sea city of Jeddah with Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
"In many conflicts, Iran is part of the problem, not the solution," Prince Saud said, charging that Shiite-dominated Iran had forces in Syria "fighting Syrians."
"In this case, we can say that Iranian forces in Syria are occupying forces," aiding President Bashar al-Assad, whom he described as an "illegitimate" leader.
She spoke English and Malay, not Arabic. She cut her hair short, wore western dresses, and thrived on progressive ideas. Being young and bright, she picked up Arabic quickly, but she was not about to cover her face, shroud her body or stop dancing.Why Would a Peace Activist Fly to Iran With Sept. 11 Truthers and Other Crackpots?
The very traditional Baghdadi family she married into couldn’t accept her, and she didn’t understand what it was to grow up in fear as they did.They didn’t understand how she, a Jew and a woman, dared speak out and talk back.
When men on the streets taunted her children or cursed her for a being a Jew she cursed them, in English.
She met a young non-Jewish Syrian couple, a doctor and his wife, who were enchanted by her. “They loved me so much, they were Muslim and they loved me so much, ‘you are not like the other Jews, we like you,’” they told her.
She felt embraced by this couple and their eclectic group of Muslim and Christian friends.
Granny loved it all and defied the family. She refused to give up her freedom.
“They, (the Jews) were like mice, I didn’t understand,” Granny said; until the dinner party where the guest of honor was none other than Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
She sat in stunned silence as he spun his diatribe against the Jews of Palestine, Jews of Iraq, and the Jews of the world. She sat there quietly “like a mouse,” as a fear she had never felt before drowned out his words.
She never imagined “educated people” sitting around a dinner table listening to his plan to ethnically cleanse Jews out of the Middle East. She felt the hate and heard the silence of her friends.
Dear Medea Benjamin,
I address you because your recent participation in a Tehran conference of anti-Zionist zealots suggests a larger and graver moral and political folly afflicting many others as well—the legions who think that hatred of America and of Israel are decisive criteria, perhaps even qualifications, for membership in “the left.”
You believe in speaking truth to power. You have gone to jail to do so. I admire your courage. But the Islamic Republic of Iran is also a power. It makes war and supplies war criminals, not least in Syria. Amnesty International maintains a formidable roster of the Iranian regime’s crimes against human rights. Human Rights Watch reports about 2013 in Iran: “The judiciary released some political prisoners, but many civil society activists remained in prison on political charges.” You are a longtime activist against corporate globalization, a vigorous Ralph Nader supporter and Green candidate for governor of California in 2000, and co-founder of the nonviolent peace group Code Pink, launched in 2002 to oppose the impending Iraq war. My guess is that, if you were Iranian, you would be one of those civil society activists who are enduring terrible conditions in prison right now for opposing or even merely criticizing the rule of their clerical leaders.
Elder of Ziyon
Egyptian media report that a large factory for manufacturing rockets in the Sinai was discovered and destroyed by security forces.
Elder of Ziyon
Rebuilding or repairing infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is the best thing that could have happened to Hamas. Hamas knows that every dollar invested in the Gaza Strip will serve the interests of the Islamist movement. The promised funds absolve Hamas of all responsibility for the catastrophe it brought upon the Palestinians during the confrontation with Israel.Caroline Glick: Benny Gantz’s troubling assessments
Hamas will now use its own resources to smuggle in additional weapons and prepare for the next war with Israel. Hamas can now go back to digging new tunnels and obtaining new weapons instead of assisting the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed as a result of its actions.
The biggest mistake the donor states made was failing to demand the disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for funneling aid to the Gaza Strip. Hopes that the catastrophic results of the confrontation would increase pressure on Hamas, or perhaps trigger a revolt against it, have faded.
The Left has followed Gantz’s lead and attacked the government for not opening Gaza’s borders and even participating in the Cairo conference.JPost Editorial: The Temple Mount
But again, reality tells a different tale.
Israel has nothing to gain from participating in a Hamas funding drive.
It does however have an interest in influencing the international agenda. To do so, the most basic requirement for the government is to reject the lie that Israel is to blame for Hamas’s aggression. Israel’s leaders – elected and appointed – need to internalize the fact that the war this summer, like all previous acts of Hamas aggression against Israel stemmed not from privation and hopelessness, but from empowerment and hopefulness.
Hamas doesn’t attack Israel because it needs money. It attacks Israel because doing so empowers it and weakens Israel – as we saw in Cairo on Sunday.
Unfortunately, for as long as our unelected professional class is led by men who have internalized our enemies’ narratives, there is no way that Israel can act on these basic strategic truths regardless of whom voters elect. And as a result, we shall continue to witness our soldiers’ hard won victories being squandered by our leaders – in and out of uniform.
Instead of enforcing the law and protecting the rights of Jews and non-Jews to have access to the Temple Mount, the police caved in to the extremists.Melanie Phillips: Recognising Palestine won’t promote peace
The implication is that Jews who demand to exercise their right to visit the Temple Mount are to be held accountable for the violence committed by Muslim rioters. This line of thinking relieves rioters of responsibility for their actions and places the blame for their crimes on others.
But the fact remains that when someone instigates something, he or she intends for it to happen. If it is a riot, that person has fomented it. If it is murder, that person has colluded in it. People with free will orchestrated the rioting on the Temple Mount. No one forced them to behave the way they did.
By accepting the reasoning that Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount cause unrest and riots, police are essentially blaming the victim. It is similar to the argument Muslim extremists sometimes make that when women will not wear the veil, they provoke those who rape or disfigure them.
Backing down to religious fanatics leads to a number of bad, and potentially destructive, outcomes. Perhaps the most insidious is the abandonment of Western values in the face of threats from extremists who, if we let them, will send us all back to a medieval society based not on freedom but on religious fundamentalism.
In a way, religious extremists perform an important function. They challenge our core Western values and force us to stand up for what we too often take for granted.
We forget that much blood was spilled in the fight for these rights.
Palestine has become the progressive cause of causes through an effective, decades-long campaign to twist western minds. It was Yassir Arafat who, in the 1970s, started to reframe the Palestinian Arabs as freedom fighters on the historically illiterate claim that they were the original inhabitants of the land.
Yet the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their national kingdom, centuries before Islam invaded. Contrary to general assumption, the occupation and the settlements are legal, upheld both by the international law of defence against persistent belligerents and the unabrogated treaty obligations of the British Mandate for Palestine.
That will surprise many. For no other conflict has ever been so misreported and misrepresented; no other victims of a century of annihilatory aggression have been so demonised and delegitimised.
Last summer’s media coverage of the Gaza war, which caused a huge outbreak of anti-Jewish hatred, uncritically transmitted the Hamas falsehood that the vast majority of casualties were civilians. Analysis by Israel’s Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre shows that 49 per cent of fatalities were terrorists and 51 per cent civilians, a far lower civilian toll than in other wars.
Israel is the West’s one ally in the Middle East and is essential to British intelligence and military security. Passing today’s motion won’t itself change anything. But as a propaganda stunt, its capacity to do harm is immense. It will turn parliament into a human shield for Palestinian rejectionism, help to weaken and endanger Israel and incentivise yet more Palestinian hatred, mass murder and war.
In security terms, passing this motion would be an act of national self-harm. It would also be a moral stain on parliament and place Britain on the wrong side in the great battle for civilisation.
Elder of ZiyonAndrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America, it falls to this country and to this House to be the good but critical friend that Israel needs, and this motion tonight just might lift that logjam on this very troubled area?On that last point, Great Britain tried very hard in 1947 and 1948 to ensure that Israel would never exist.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I call on right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time. It is not Jewish for the Israelis to do that. They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.
Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab):We have to grapple with the issue of what will happen if there are not two states. What does the one-state solution look like? We are told that the majority of the present Israeli Administration no longer accept a two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu has suddenly become a rather centrist pragmatist, holding together a coalition, many of whom are to the right of him, in wanting a one-state solution. Do they accept the genocide and ethnic cleansing that go along with that?
The situation is far worse than that in apartheid South Africa, which has been mentioned. It has been regularly referred to as a parallel to what is going on in Palestine, but the situation in Palestine is much worse than apartheid. The white junta in South Africa accepted that somewhere in the country—preferably not near them —there would be land for black people. It was the worst possible land and a long way from the ruling white group, but none the less the junta accepted that there would be a place for the blacks. A one-state solution in Israel does not accept such a thing. There is no place in Israel and Palestine for the Palestinians. We have to face squarely what that means and so do the Israelis.
...What Israel is looking at in a one-state solution is a continuation, year after year, of war and violence such as we have seen building in the past 20 years. The Israelis have just finished a third incursion into Gaza in 10 years. Are we suggesting that every two years another 1,500 people should be killed and another 100,000 people rendered homeless as a continuation of the process of driving everybody who is not Jewish out of what is considered to be greater Israel?
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD):I support the motion for many reasons, but I will state three. First, for the Palestinians to turn away from the men of violence, they need hope, and this motion represents a degree of hope for them. Much is made of the failure of Hamas to recognise Israel, and we know about that, but let us imagine the sense of despair that ordinary Palestinians must feel at the failure of the international community to recognise their right to exist. My tweet on the firing of rockets out of Gaza and the previous comments by Baroness Tonge were never, of course, condoning terrorist acts by Palestinians; they were simply our recognition of the despair and sense of hopelessness that leads to terrorism.
Secondly, Israel is in breach of the contract set out in the Balfour declaration stating that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
In the light of the Nakba and everything since, that seems like a sick joke. The failure of the international community to recognise the state of Palestine has helped Israel to ignore this commitment.
Thirdly, on a personal note, this Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans. They will parade at 1 o’clock, but many of them will not be able to walk very far, if at all—they are all over the age of 80. They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force, but lost over 700 members of the armed forces and 200 police. I believe that we owe it to them for tonight’s motion to succeed. Many were not conscripts; many were veterans of Arnhem, Normandy and Bergen-Belsen. Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made. If this vote on recognising the right of Palestinians is won, they will very much welcome it, but it has been so long in coming.
Elder of Ziyon[W]e are ignoring the bigger problem. The crux of bringing the Israeli hawks to heel isn't so much about corporate investments – it's about political money, dripping from the campaign coffers of Western politicians bribed and briefed by Jerusalem cronies.I'm unaware of any antisemitism laws that are used to keep donations to politicians secret when they come from Jews. But let's set aside Sloan's tenuous grasp of the truth for now.
The funding is mysterious, ambiguous and seemingly unimpeachable, protected by anti-Semitism laws which forbid honest discussion of it, or by hasbara attack dogs who discredit any journalist or academic who speaks out.
But imagine the tabloid outcry if hundreds of millions in "Muslim" donations began pouring in to Western politics, Muslims with strong interests in the domestic or foreign policies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
You don't have to imagine – last month Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (and Norway) were caught funding influential foreign policy think tanks in Washington. And there was an outcry.
But many feel uncomfortable taking on the Israeli lobby – because it's scary. It comes with great risk – people have lost their jobs, careers and reputations. Nobody likes to be labelled an anti-Semite, which is their preferred mode of attack.