Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2017



As terror attack follows terror attack, the body count rises.
How many bodies are enough? 1? 20? 200? 6 million?
When will enough be enough?

The body count rises.
But who counts the bodies of those left behind?
Parents murdered, orphans left behind… Who considers the children who have to grow up without parents?
The boys with no father to teach them how to be a man. The girls with no mother to guide them in to their womanhood.
Children with no parents to comfort them after a nightmare.
Children who saw their parents murdered in front of them… their nightmare is real.

Children murdered. Parents who have to bury their son or daughter.
The child they loved, held in their arms, watching every step they took as they grew.
Does the baby eat enough? Is he growing fast enough? Don’t let her fall, she’s learning to walk, she might get hurt.
Worrying over skinned knees, grades in school. Is he hanging out with the right kind of friends?
Worry cut short by the blade, bullet or bomb of a terrorist.
Their baby will never be cold, tired or hungry again. Never laugh. Never smile. Never grow up.

Who counts the tears of parents?
The sleepless nights?
The days full of effort to be normal, trying not to burden others with their sorrow. Trying to not fill guilty for being happy.
The thoughts flit through the mind a thousand times a thousand: “Oh how lovely! My daughter would have loved that!” or “That would have made my son laugh so hard his drink would spurt out of his nose like it did that time when…”
It only takes a split second for the thought to rise up, for realization to beat it down.
There will be no more shared moments with the beloved one, torn away.
Who notices the stabbing heartache in the eyes of the parent as it suddenly comes and then is shoved back down in the effort to be normal?

Who counts the brothers deprived of their sisters? The sisters deprived of their brothers?
Who counts the children who held their siblings in their arms as they died?
Who counts the children who protected their siblings while terrorists murdered their parents?
Who counts the children who became parents to their younger brothers and sisters? Or those who took in and raised the children of their murdered siblings?
The grandparents who raised their grandchildren because the parents, their children had been murdered?
Who counts the friends who lost their best friends?
Who can fill the hole left behind?
Who counts the pain of losing a friend, a neighbor, a classmate?
A stranger who was there, murdered instead of you?
Who counts the bodies of the grieving? The bodies of the traumatized?
Who counts their percentage in the population? What it means to a tiny nation to lose even one person?

If no one counts the bodies
No bodies count.
Not Jewish bodies. Certainly not Israeli bodies.
Those are excusable murders.
And the triumph of spirit of those who continued living despite the grief and the horror is taken for granted.
And the loss to the world does not matter.
Who counts the books that would have been written?
The music that would have been composed?
The scientific discoveries, the medical innovations, the lives that would have been bettered or even saved had that one person lived to fulfill their potential?

No body counts …

The problem is that if the world doesn’t learn from the experiences of the Jewish Nation,
They will have to learn for themselves.
Maybe when it is the bodies of their friends, their loved ones,
When the horror knocks on their door,
Maybe then they will begin to count.





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, January 09, 2017

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

As every Jew-hater knows, there’s no limit to Jewish cunning. It’s not just that “the Jews are our misfortune,” as the Nazis put it so pithily; it’s also that even if there is something that would seem to be very bad for the Jews themselves, any decent Jew-hater will know that the Jews could still be behind it. Take it from the Hamas Charter (Art.22):

“They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”

Veteran anti-Israel activist (and Hamas fan) Ali Abunimah usually tries to avoid such crude echoes of the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” but his efforts to appear a bit more sophisticated can’t quite conceal how much his obsessive demonization of the world’s only Jewish state is indebted to the oldest hatred.

As reflected in Abunimah’s Orwellian definition of antisemitism, he is an ardent admirer of the Stormfront-style rants of Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad, who has repeatedly peddled preposterous claims about a meeting of minds and happy collaborations between Zionist Jews and the Nazis. A more recent version of the same theme is the idea that Israel somehow controls or collaborates with jihadi terror groups like the savage Islamic State (ISIS) and various Al Qaida-type groups. But as every good Jew-hater knows, you can’t expose Jewish evil-doing without suffering a backlash – orchestrated by the Jews, naturally!!! – and so Abunimah recently concluded that he was facing an “uptick in attacks” that had to be “related” to an article in which he was supposedly “detailing Israel’s alliance with al-Qaida’s Syria branch.”



However, as Abunimah knows full well, the “attacks” he complains about have nothing to do with Israel; instead, he is facing well-deserved criticism from erstwhile fans who largely share his views on Israel but are appalled by his failure to condemn Assad’s pivotal role in the carnage in Syria. It is of course understandable that Abunimah is frustrated to see cracks in the unified anti-Israel front, but as I have described in two previous posts (here &here), this controversy has been going on for a while and it seems to continue unabated. In his frustration, Abunimah is now resorting to his usual cheap tactics, and he is trying to discredit his critics by falsely claiming they are somehow collaborating with “extreme hasbarists” like yours truly… The terrifying result is a “Troll equivalent of Israel-Jabhat al-Nusra alliance.”




So what about these alliances between Israel and Islamist terror groups that Ali Abunimah sees everywhere?

The article in which Abunimah is supposedly “detailing Israel’s  alliance with al-Qaida’s Syria branch” is a downright ridiculous attempt to reduce a publication of roughly 260 pages – the latest issue of the annual “Strategic Survey for Israel” published by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) – to a few cherry-picked points.

Abunimah devotes one section of his article to the topic “Israel and al-Qaida in Syria” – a title that already indicates his agenda. He starts out by noting – doubtless with great satisfaction – that Israel continues to regard what he fondly calls “the Lebanese resistance movement Hizballah” as a serious threat. Abunimah then quotes comments on the situation in Syria from page 248 of the report:

“From Israel’s perspective, the best scenario is the disappearance of the Assad regime, along with the removal of Iran and Hezbollah from Syria on the one hand, and the defeat of the Islamic State and the establishment of a moderate Sunni regime in Syria on the other.”

It’s safe to assume that if this is Israel’s preferred scenario, Abunimah is ardently hoping for the opposite: that Assad will remain in power, backed by Iran and Hezbollah; perhaps he’s even hoping that the terror group Islamic State will be able to avoid defeat and will eventually get around to attacking Israel.

What bothered Abunimah enormously is that the report also argued that Israel’s best-case scenario had “materialized in limited form in the Golan Heights, where moderate Sunni rebels are successfully combating both the Assad regime and the Islamic State.”

Abunimah proceeded to claim that “Israel has long provided aid and support in the Golan Heights to Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida’s franchise in Syria” and he misleadingly asserts that “Moshe Yaalon, one of the report’s authors, publicly acknowledged the Israeli assistance to Jabhat al-Nusra fighters in 2015, when he was Israel’s defense minister.” But Abunimah’s own link undermines his claim, because the relevant Times of Israel article emphasized that Israel’s “general policy” was not to get involved in the war in Syria, and that Israel only “provided humanitarian assistance to wounded Syrian fighters located near the shared border … under two conditions – that the fighters don’t let Islamic extremists … get close to the border, and that they don’t hurt the local [i.e. Syrian] Druze population.”

Since Abunimah obviously favors Assad and would surely be pleased to see al-Nusra attack Israel, it is not surprising that he is upset about Israel’s conditional humanitarian assistance, designed to keep the border quiet and to keep the relatives of Israel’s Druze population safe. The fact that he spins this as “Israel’s alliance with al-Qaida’s Syria branch” just goes to show what a manipulative liar he is.

But Abunimah’s attempt to vilify Israel as having an “alliance with al-Qaida’s Syria branch” is also particularly pathetic in view of the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah – the Islamist terror groups Abunimah likes to glorify as noble “resistance” movements – are really not picky about their alliances: plenty of reports reveal the collaboration between Hamas and the Islamic State group’s Sinai branch, and it is well documented that Hezbollah has been very busy helping Assad butcher Syrians. Of course, these are alliances that Abunimah would warmly endorse – not least because when it comes to individuals and groups that want to destroy Israel, it’s quite obvious that as far as Abunimah is concerned, no alliance is too sordid. And as long as Abunimah hopes the “resistance” he champions will eventually turn on Israel, he couldn’t care less how many Arabs were killed by these groups before they get down to the eagerly anticipated business of killing Jews.







We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Sunday, January 08, 2017



The Jewish political community is divided and distressed.

As I write, Israel is reeling over the Azaria case, the United Nations is pushing all-in on Jew HatredJihadism is on the rise in Europe, white nationalism and anti-white racism are both on the rise in the United States, Obama is hitting the road (or, at least, crossing the street), the Russians are unhappy and shaking their fists, and Donald Trump is eagerly chomping at the bit.

Anything can happen and nobody knows what will.

For example, will Trump move the US embassy to Jerusalem? 

I hope that he does. In fact, I will be damn pissed-off if he doesn't. But if he does so in a timely manner it will demonstrate a clear change in direction concerning US policy on the Long War. Oslo was a disaster and the two-state solution is dead dead dead. Perhaps Trump will recognize this and, if he does, it means pretty much everything is up for grabs. Will Israel seize the day and annex? And if so, annex what exactly? And how will "the world" respond?

Or will Israel, as is my bet, simply react to circumstances as they develop while wobbling back-and-forth on what to do with Judea and Samaria? No matter what it does, however, interested parties throughout the world are gearing up to give Israel a good ass-kicking if they can. Prior to the recent American election all the elements lined up with the EU, the UN, the Obama administration, the progressive-left - not to mention almost the entire Arab and Muslim worlds - in agreement that Jews have no rights to sovereignty on ancestral Jewish land.

While the ascendancy of Trump represents a giant question mark, Israel definitely dodged a bullet with Hillary. Unless, of course, you think that another four to eight years of degrading Israel in order to pressure it into complying with the demands of its enemies would have been a good thing. Now, at least, there is the possibility that the United States will go back to a more sensible foreign policy which honors allies while confronting enemies. We shall see.

But what happens if the Democrats install Keith Ellison as Chair of the Democratic National Committee?

We're waiting with bated breath on that one, aren't we? Speaking for myself, I am very much looking forward to the Democrats handing the DNC Chair to Keith Ellison. I hope that they do it because Ellison is a fair representation of the party as it stands now. He covers enough of the bases, from issues of diversity to those of progressive economics, to make most Democrats happy.

Of course, there is that niggling little problem with his anti-Semitic anti-Zionism which the rest of them studiously ignore - and make no mistake, all anti-Zionism is by definition anti-Semitic - but if you don't like it you can lump it. That's the attitude of the party, but I consider this a good thing because this way everyone knows where everyone stands.

It's Naked Lunch.

Everyone sees what's on the end of every fork.

And will Alan Dershowitz actually leave the Democratic Party???

Yes, the earth will tremble and Balrogs will arise from the Deep.

It's my bet that Dershowitz will leave the Democratic Party in his life no sooner than did Ed Koch in his.

Nonetheless, for the first time we are seeing significant numbers of Jewish Democrats acknowledging something that has been clear to many of us for a very long time. The Democratic Party is shaking off support for Israel because it tends to view Israel through an anti-imperialist lens and because Muslims are a more important constituency in the long run for the party. In terms both broad and crude, this is what it comes down to.

We can acknowledge this truth or pretend otherwise, but truth it remains.

Meanwhile the American Jewish community, if not the diaspora Jewish community, more generally, is cracking along various ideological fault-lines. Tensions are mounting between "progressive" and Democratic Party Jews versus conservative and Republican Party Jews over U.S.-Israeli policy. Fault lines are continuing to crack between Israeli Jews and American Jews over the same question. And even within Democratic Party ranks, Jews are squabbling among themselves over the direction of the party and whether or not to split from the Democrats, as I did maybe 5 years ago.

This is not new, it is just getting more and more vital and intense.

Political sands have been shifting for many years but this moment is a true transitional moment. For Jewish people the election of Trump, whatever else it may mean, staggered the Oslo-Clinton-Obama anti-Israel status quo. Thus I find myself among those who sense opportunity in the moment.

While diaspora Jews are in no position to tell our brothers and sisters in Israel what to do, there is no reason why we should shy away from making suggestions. My suggestion, modest or not, is that Israel take the opportunity to declare its final borders. What those borders will be should entirely be up to Israel. A few years ago I would have suggested that they be determined through negotiations with Palestinian-Arab representatives. However, since at this point it could not be more clear that there is no Arab intention of creating a Palestinian-Arab state in peace next to Israel they forfeit any consideration.

The so-called "Palestinians" are all-or-nothing kind of folk for whom compromise represents a kick in the head.  And you know what they say about all-or-nothing kind of people, don't you?

If they can't get it all...

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.









We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, January 05, 2017


 Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column


At 10 AM on Wednesday, a military court handed down the verdict in the manslaughter trial of Sgt. Elor Azaria, called by the media “the soldier who shot in Hevron.”

10 months ago, Azaria shot and killed an Arab terrorist who was lying on the pavement, several minutes after the terrorist was shot and wounded while stabbing another soldier, who was lightly injured.

The IDFs rules of engagement stipulate that deadly force should not be used in such circumstances (considered “law enforcement” rather than war) unless there is an “immediate threat to life.” Azaria said that he thought there was such a threat, that the terrorist could have been wearing an explosive vest under his jacket. 

He was initially charged with murder, but the prosecution decided that it would be difficult to prove premeditation. The manslaughter charge only requires a deliberate, wrongful killing. He could be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison; but probably he will get much less than that.

In Israeli military court there are three judges, one of whom is the head judge, a professional who is appointed by the President of the state, on recommendation of the Judicial Selection Committee, like civilian judges. The other two can be officers who may not have a legal background. In this case there were two professionals and a field commander. Cases are decided by a majority vote. There are no juries.

The verdict and the penalty turn on whether the judges believe Azaria’s testimony. They could have decided that he lied, or that he was telling the truth but should have acted differently, based on the information available to him. Or they could decide that he told the truth and that his action was justified. 

The trial has been the  biggest thing in the media for the past months, bigger than all the countless sexual harassment scandals put together. The country is strongly divided about the appropriate response to Azaria’s act, ranging from jail time to a medal. Before the verdict was announced, there were rowdy demonstrations in his favor outside the courtroom (which had been moved to a more secure location and closed to the public). 

It’s important in this connection to note why the incident became a media circus. The shooting was videotaped by an activist for the left-wing NGO B’tselem and the tape shown over and over by the media. What would probably have been a simple matter – one way or the other – became a national affair.

I’m not going to discuss all the evidence that has been presented, such as whether he heard a paramedic at the scene call out “watch out, he has a suicide vest,” whether shooting might detonate the vest, whether the terrorist had already been checked, and more. The trial went on for 6 months, and a great deal of testimony was presented. The court’s opinion will cite the facts that the judges found important in reaching their decision.

My guess before the announcement was that he would be convicted – that the judges would decide that a reasonable soldier would not have fired, given the facts and the rules of engagement. I also thought that the sentence will be relatively light, in consideration of the pressures on the soldier.

***

At exactly 10 AM, I turned on the radio. Israel Radio’s reporters repeated the words of the head judge, Maya Heller, as she read the verdict (the court did not permit the proceedings to be broadcast, so a reporter inside transmitted her words by WhatsApp to the broadcasters outside). Because there is a requirement that an innocent defendant must be informed immediately, the fact that there was no such announcement at the beginning – the whole judgment took 2-1/2 hours to read – told the story. 

Elor Azaria was found guilty of manslaughter and conduct unbecoming of an IDF soldier.

The judges did not believe him, and the judgment was unrelievedly harsh. They rejected every one of his points of defense. They did not accept his explanation that he was afraid the terrorist had an explosive vest or that he was reaching for a knife. They found contradictions between various versions of Azaria’s story, and said that he appeared to be changing his story as he went along in order to improve his case. They gave significant weight to testimony that Azaria said “he stabbed my friend, he deserves to die” to another soldier immediately before the shooting. They did not accept arguments from a psychiatric panel that he suffered from PTSD or that he was significantly impaired by lack of sleep or other factors. They accepted the autopsy data that it was Azaria’s bullet that caused the terrorist’s death (and rejected the opposing view of former chief pathologist Yehuda Hiss, who did not examine the body). They did not credit the statements of several reserve generals who testified on Azaria’s behalf. Finally, they decided that the shooting was not merely an error,  but demonstrated “criminal intent.” Criminal intent!

I didn’t hear a word of excuse or understanding. The judges agreed with Chief of Staff Eisenkot and former Minister of Defense Ya’alon that the shooting was entirely unjustified. Had he been accused of murder, I believe that Azaria would have been convicted of that as well.

The punishment will be determined by the court and announced in about ten days. From what I heard from the judge, I suspect that I was mistaken in thinking that he will get a light sentence.

***

Something here is wrong. 

Of course, the IDF’s judges had no alternative. An army has rules, and Azaria broke an important one. His explanation that he felt endangered didn’t hold water, no matter how much one wants to support him. He knew what he was doing: killing a terrorist. The court was right about that and the best explanation for his motive was provided by his comment that the terrorist deserved to die. But it didn’t have to come to this.

Explaining his tough stance last April, Moshe Ya’alon said “Part of the power [of the IDF], as many have described it — Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and others — is our ethical strength. We aren’t Daesh.”

We aren’t. But we also aren’t a people who would send a soldier to prison for killing a terrorist. There is a feeling in Israel that has become sort of a slogan in this case, that our soldiers are everyone’s children. How can we abandon our children? Chief of Staff Eisenkot disagrees. Yesterday he said this:

An 18-year-old man serving in the army is not “everyone’s child.” He is a fighter, a soldier, who must dedicate his life to carry out the tasks we give him. We cannot be confused about this.

He’s both right and wrong. A young man who is a soldier does have to dedicate his life to – and sometimes lose it for – his country and his people, at least for the 32 months of his service. But he is still “everyone’s child.” Ya’alon said that part of our power comes from our “ethical strength,” but it also comes from the way we love our soldiers – and our army. There are many who would like Israel to have a professional army, but this hasn’t happened yet (and I think it would be a disaster). 

Among the most troubling aspects of this case were the statements condemning Azaria’s act made by Eisenkot, Ya’alon, other officers, and even PM Netanyahu (who later changed his tune) immediately after the B’tselem video was made public. Eisenkot and Ya’alon later said that it wasn’t the video that convinced them, that they already had received evidence from the chain of command – but surely it had something to do with their making public statements of this sort (in the US, this would be grounds for appeal).

Indeed, this is where everything went off the rails. Elor Azaria should have had a hearing with his commanding officer, and maybe gotten a weekend of guard duty and an explanation of the rules. Instead, thanks to a video camera probably bought with European money, another kind of soldier, one fighting the cognitive war against Israel, threw the nation into chaos. As usual, we walked right into this.

The distinction between law enforcement and war becomes blurred when terrorists are stalking us – and especially our soldiers and police – in the streets, with every day bringing reports of stabbings and vehicular attacks, as was the case when Azaria killed his terrorist. No, Azaria’s wasn’t a split-second decision where hesitation could be fatal, as the court noted, but our soldiers and police do face such decisions on a daily basis. Could not this verdict deter them from taking action in a situation that isn’t so clear-cut?

Soldiers don’t make good policemen anyway. They are trained to kill the enemy, not to detain suspects who have rights. Enemy soldiers in a firefight don’t have rights. 

And we mustn't forget that in the eyes of our enemies in today's asymmetric war, no Jew in the Land of Israel, from a baby to an 80-year old grandmother, has a right to live. Possibly if the nation had an official death penalty for terrorism, soldiers wouldn't feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

In this kind of war, is the principle that a terrorist deserves to die a bad one?





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Wednesday, January 04, 2017


John Kerry's post-abstention speech of one week ago has been the subject of derisive analysis from many quarters. Like James Taylor singing You've Got a Friend in France, it just didn't sit right. It was like audibly breaking wind at dinner with the Queen. Or your phone going off at a funeral when your ring tone is I've Got Friends in Low Places.



It was a racist speech pretending to be noble. It was a speech about booting the Jews from Jerusalem again as if it were inevitable and right. In short, there was much in that speech to denigrate, but a girl only has so much time. With no further ado then, here are ten quotes chosen at random for their über-high annoyance level:

1) "We have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy."

Oh? Is that why you blocked that missile shipment during Operation Protective Edge? At a time Israel was fighting for its life against terrorist tunnel infiltrations and constant rocket attacks? So you're saying you blocked that missile shipment because you wanted us to defend ourselves by ourselves, meaning without your/Obama's help? You were just fostering our independence "during actions that sparked great controversy," such as Israeli Jews trying to stay alive?

It's true. Some people (Obama *cough cough*) really don't like that.

2) "No American Administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s."

Is that why you, John Kerry, in all your adorable shuttle-diplomacy ways never held substantive talks with the other side? From an article in Haaretz: "There were no intensive discussions with the Palestinians of the sort that were held with the Israelis. One reason for this was technical: the difficulty of holding secure video talks with the Muqata – the Ramallah-based headquarters of the Palestinian Authority."

Really? Go and Google "secure videochat" and see how many results come up. How hard could it be to set things up in this technologically savvy world? It has to be easier than hiding Hillary's emails.  
But it wasn't about security. It was about the one-sided antisemitic approach of the Obama administration. It was about pressing only one side, the Jews, to make concessions, while giving the Arabs and their terrorism a pass. “At one point we discovered that throughout the entire period, the Americans didn’t actually talk to the Palestinians, only to us,” a senior Israeli official said to Haaretz.

3) "Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives."

You know what Iron Dome is? It's an umbrella you use when it's raining. When it's not raining, you don't need an umbrella. Missiles are the rain. Stop the rain? No need for the umbrella.

You know how to stop the rockets from raining on Israel? You stop the flow of funds to the terrorists. Far more effective than Iron Dome, and saves a whole lot of moolah, too.

(By the way, little known factoid here: people get hurt from Iron Dome fallout. A friend's son was badly injured by Iron Dome and spent several days in the hospital. He was driving home when the sirens went off. He stopped the car, got out on the highway and crouched, shielding his head with his hands, when Iron Dome took the rocket out right over his head. Imagine getting hit by numerous pieces of jagged, broken, molten rocket.)

4) "In fact, just recently the government approved a significant new settlement well east of the barrier – closer to Jordan than Israel. What does that say to Palestinians in particular – but also to the U.S and the world –about Israel’s intentions?"

It says that Israel has a severe housing shortage. It says that Jews need to have homes to live in. It says Jews have a right to build homes in their indigenous territory in the small speck of land that is Israel in a Middle East comprised of 22 humongous Arab Muslim states.

More properly, John—you don't mind if I call you, John, do you—it says something about you, about Arabs in particular, about the U.S. and the world, that all of you would deny Jews the right to build homes in Israel.

It says y'all are RACIST.

See, we don't see any problem with Jews building homes in Israel. We don't see why we should pander to your exclusionary, RACIST, and divisive vision of a Judenrein Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. So that is why we will build as many homes as we possibly can in the shortest time frame possible.

5) "But if more and more settlers are moving into the middle of the Palestinian areas, it’s going to be that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty – and that is exactly the outcome that some are accelerating."

What is a "Palestinian area?" Who decided MY land is "Palestinian?" And whatever happened to negotiating without preconditions?

I don't think, John, that God will be very happy that you usurped his gift to the Jews and gave it to a fantasy people who are really just generally Arabs from ARABIA who were riding what they hoped would be the coattails of the Jews' prosperity when the Jews started coming back to their native land (after being occupied and exiled by 12 or so different entities).

By the way, if Israel had no problem expelling 11,000 of its own people from Samaria and Gaza in order to cede Gaza as a unilateral gesture of peace, it would also have no problem expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria to create yet another failed Arab terror state, God forbid.

It is important to note here that settlements are built on land Arabs reject. Arabs like the valleys. Easier to farm or graze animals there. They like arable land.

Jews, on the other hand, build their homes on rocky barren hilltops (that Arabs reject) so no one can call us thieves. And still. They call us thieves. Which is a huge chutzpa.

6) "Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws. They are often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed to make two states impossible."

Not often, John. Your nose just grew about ten feet. In fact, Jews build on private land rarely, if at all, by accident. (That's what might have happened with Amona. Except the deeds are sealed and the public can't view them so no one actually knows if there is or ever was a living owner. Or whether that owner wasn't some Turk who died before the Ottomans left and made way for the Brits.)

"As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave."

and:

"The provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding forced population transfer to occupied sovereign territory cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted. Nor does it prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land."

We don't build on private land. Not often. Not ever. Not illegal.

7) "But that misses a critical point: the Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel’s laws. Does anyone really believe the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?"

Why? Because Israeli Arabs are so utterly trustworthy, loyal, and obedient, whereas Jews are sneaky and can't be trusted??  Or do you say that we won't submit because you think Jews won't like going back to living as dhimmis under Muslim rule who must pay the jizya tax until the day it is decided the Muslims prefer us dead to stealing our money and treating us as inferior people who must wear two different shoes, walk in the gutter, and wear bells to mark us for discrimination and worse?  
As for those oh-so-trustworthy/loyal/obedient Israeli Arabs? According to the Israeli Security Agency (ISA), from 2001-2004, 104 terror attacks responsible for the murder of 136 Israelis were carried out by Israeli Arabs. From 2005-2006, another 38 terror attacks were carried out by 46 Israeli Arabs. The ISA states that 40% of Arab terrorists were once "Palestinians" (hate that made-up term, a total fiction) who applied for and received Israeli citizenship. Almost half, John. Almost half.

8) "The reason building there or anywhere else in the West Bank now results in such pushback is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc is being made unilaterally by the Israeli government, without consultation, without the consent of the Palestinians – and without granting the Palestinians a reciprocal right to build in what will by most accounts be part of Palestine."

Wait. So by "most accounts" the Jews will at some point concede the Western Wall to the Arabs? Can you prove that, John? Because I really do not think so. And your nose just grew fifty feet. (Which begs the question—can a nose grow feet?)

9) "We also strongly reject the notion that somehow the United States was the driving force behind this resolution."

Um. Hate to break it to you, John, but the transcript? It got leaked. Yes. That transcript. From MEMRI:

U.S. Representative To The Security Council Coordinated With Palestinian UN Representative On The Issue Of The Resolution Condemning The Settlements
According to the Al-Youm Al-Sabi' report, "the minutes of the meeting – which was attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, and on the Palestinian side by PLO Executive Committee Secretary and negotiations team leader Saeb Erekat, and head of Palestinian general intelligence Maj,-Gen. Majid Faraj – reveals that the sides agreed to collaborate regarding a resolution on the settlements." According to the report, "during the meeting, the American side focused on coordination of positions between Washington and Ramallah regarding the resolution on the settlements, which was brought to a vote in the Security Council and adopted several days ago..."
The report stated that "the minutes of the meeting reveal American-Palestinian coordination regarding the resolution on the settlements" and that Kerry and Rice stressed that "they were willing to cooperate with a balanced resolution, and that Washington's UN mission was authorized to discuss this matter with the Palestinian representative to the UN, Ambassador Riyad Mansour." It continued: "The U.S.'s representative to the Security Council coordinated with the Palestinian ambassador on the issue of the resolution condemning the settlements."

Oopsie!

10) "Nearly seventy years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The concept was simple: create two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians."

 Yup. Simple concept. The Jewish state was Israel. The "Palestinian" state was JORDAN, created on 77% of the British Mandate for Palestine that had originally been promised to the Jews, in toto, by the League of Nations. The United Nations Charter, by the way, obligates the UN to uphold the commitments of the League of Nations, its predecessor.

But all that is ancient history. The modern history is, they already had Jordan but the Arabs cried some more so Israel gave them autonomy in parts of Judea and Samaria. Then the Arabs cried some more and the Jews gave them Gaza.

It's called "salami tactics," John. And the thing is, this salami is getting awful small, your boss' days are numbered, and when he's out, you're out.


At that point? No one will want you back again. But you knew that.

They didn't want you for president back then and now no one will
want you for anything much at all except as fodder for Lurch jokes and maybe ketchup—something we can anyway get from your wife's people if we wanted it, which we don't.

Because we've finally figured it out: the more you douse that salami with ketchup, the worse it tastes.

















We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Tuesday, January 03, 2017



Tel Aviv, British Mandate Palestine:

Heart pounding, a 12 year old girl Jewish girl runs down the street. Her legs pumping as fast as they can go. She looks behind her. Fear gripping her stomach, she sees that the gang of Arab men is gaining on her, their knives flashing in the sunlight.

If they catch her they will kill her.

To them it is a game. Sport. She knows that what’s at stake is her life.

She hears laughter from above. Looking up, she sees British soldiers on the rooftops.

For a fleeting moment, she thinks they will help her. They could stop the men. They could save her!

To her horror, she realizes that the British soldiers are laughing at HER. They were taking wagers, betting on the chances of the Jewish girl escaping death.

Hope fades as quickly as it had been ignited.

She runs till she feels her heart is about to burst, her little legs collapse beneath her. Then, suddenly, a door opens. A hand stretches out and grabs her, pulling her inside.

An Arab woman was bending over her, gesturing for the Jewish girl to be quiet. Urgently she pulled the girl to the back of her house.

What did this woman want from her? It took the girl a moment to understand that the woman was ushering her out the back door of the house. The Arab woman was providing an escape route, offering the girl life.

I am alive today because that Arab woman saved my grandmother’s life.

The 12 year old girl grew up to be my grandmother. My Jewish Palestinian grandmother had an Israeli daughter. The Arab woman was also a Palestinian. At the time the term referred to Jews and Arabs who lived in the land of Zion. The land was renamed by the foreign occupying power to diminish its legacy as the home of the Jewish people but at the same time the Jews of Europe were being told to “go home to Palestine.” Everyone knew that Palestine was Zion, the land of Israel, home of the Jewish people.

The Arab woman who saved my grandmother was a hero. She, not the British soldiers, rescued my grandmother from the lynch mob of Arab men. She saw the danger, understood how terrible the consequences would be and acted morally – at her own personal risk. The soldiers also saw the danger, they also understood the consequences. Their reaction was to laugh.

Oh, so civilized…

Fast forward to 2016, the UN Security Council. The representatives of the world vote, declaring biblical Israel, Judea and Samaria, the Golan and Jewish Jerusalem occupied Palestinian land. Jewish presence is, they declare, illegal. Israeli towns, holy sites including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in the heart of Jerusalem are “illegal settlements.” Suddenly, everything that tied Jews to Zion for thousands of years, the places that served as inspiration for the world, have nothing to do with Jews and Israelis have no right to be there.

One after another the representatives of the world vote to wipe Israel’s legacy off the books of history, knowing what this will mean for Israel’s present and future.

Israel’s eyes lifted to the American representative. America has a history of standing for right when the rest of the world is wrong. America, the land whose founders declared it the New Zion wouldn’t let the rest of the world declare that Zion never existed… would she?

The wars against Israel, fought and lost could not disconnect the Jews from Zion.

The terror tactics meant to push Jews off the land only made the Jewish people cling harder to their only homeland.

Now, in the comfort of a room half way around the world, the nations of the world declared victory for those who wish to remove Israel from Zion.

And they laughed. The crowd of spectators applauding, gleefully. History doesn’t matter, scientific proof doesn’t matter, international law doesn’t matter. “Getting the Jews” is fun. Sport. A reason to cheer.

How civilized.

And then there are the Egyptians. At first, they were convinced that submitting the UN resolution was a good idea. Realizing the damage it would do to Israel, they pulled the resolution.

Then the Americans found a different way to make sure the resolution was submitted and passed. The Egyptians were privy to the American betrayal of Israel and wanted to no part in it.

Even though Israel decided to hold back the details of the American plot, the Egyptians rushed to release the information, signaling to Israel: “We want peace, not your destruction. We want to help, not create damage.”

Watching these events unfold I am left to wonder, who is civilized and who is the savage?

We may have advanced but the world hasn’t changed. Sometimes the most “civilized” people or nations are the most vicious and to this day, many consider “getting the Jew” good sport.

The Jewish people must never be beholden to the mercy of the “civilized.” There is no one we can count on for security – but ourselves.


It is actions that count, not words. Content of character is all that matters – moral clarity, not titles or declarations of friendship. Sometimes true friends are found in unexpected places. Sometimes they are the ones that pull us out of the jaws of death. Or at least they try.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Categories

#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent coexistence Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion Opinon oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Sovereignty Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Blog Archive