Omar Barghouti's lies in HuffPo

In the Huffington Post, Omar Barghouti argues against an earlier article by Bernard-Henri Levy in order to justify the anti-Israel BDS movement.

It doesn't take very long before one sees that the truth is not exactly Barghouti's strong suit.

The fact is the BDS Call was launched by a great majority in Palestinian civil society on July 9, 2005, as a qualitatively new phase in the global struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice, and self-determination. More than 170 leading Palestinian political parties, trade union federations, women's unions, refugee rights groups, NGOs, and grassroots organizations called for a boycott against Israel until it fully complies with its obligations under international law.

Do the organizations behind the boycott really represent the majority of Palestinian society?

I found the list of organizations that signed on to BDS on the website he cited, and a good number of them are not based in "Palestine" but rather in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Europe and North America. As far as I can see, there is not a single political party on that list. And if all the 170 organizations signed on in 2005, as the website says, then that means that not too many have signed on since then!

The Palestinian Arab organizations that signed onto BDS are a motley crew of trade unions, highly anti-Israel organizations like "Al-Awda" which agitates to destroy Israel completely, and some pseudo-"human rights" organizations like Addameer which inflates the number of Arabs arrested by Israel by at least a factor of a hundred.

Apparently, lying comes naturally to all BDS supporters!

However, the Palestinian Authority does not support BDS. Most Palestinian Arabs consume Israeli goods. I daresay that one will be able to find plenty of Israeli products in the offices of most of the West Bank and Gaza organizations listed.

Not only that, but most Palestinian Arab trade unions don't support BDS! In fact, the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) is explicitly against BDS. (h/t Zach N)

The BDS movement tries to represent itself as being far larger than it is, but if you want a laugh, look at the "Achievements Calendar" on the BDS Movement website.

It is, as far as I can tell, completely empty!

He goes on:

"Rooted in a century-old history of civil, nonviolent resistance ..."

I always laugh when I see this claim made. The liars who say that the Palestinian Arab "resistance" movement was nonviolent usually point to the beginning of the 1936-9 riots, which started with a strike. Of course, that didn't last long, and by the time it was over there were thousands of casualties - most of them Arab, and many of them injured and killed by other Arabs - for not adhering to the strike!

Palestinian Arab terrorism has evolved since then, to airplane hijackings, suicide bombings and shooting rockets at women and children. All of which are supported, implicitly or explicitly, by many of these same "civil society" organizations listed.

Even today, when Palestinian Arabs talk about "non-violent resistance," they include throwing large rocks through the windshields of cars belonging to civilians who happen to pass by the wrong neighborhood.

[T]he BDS National Committee (BNC) [is] anchored in deep respect for international law and universal human rights...

The entire point of the BDS initiative is to deny and destroy the right of the Jewish nation to self-determination. That is its entire raison d'être. To say that is based on human rights is a very bad joke - yet this lie is one that is used repeatedly.

The BDS movement, being strictly rights-based, has consistently avoided taking any position regarding the one-state/two-states debate, emphasizing instead the three basic rights that need to be realized in any political solution. Ending the Israeli occupation that started in 1967 of all Arab territories, ending Israel's system of legalized and institutionalized discrimination against its own Palestinian citizens, and recognizing the UN-sanctioned rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes of origin are the three basic principles of the movement.

There is no UN-sanctioned right for the Palestinian Arabs to "return.' The 1949 UNGA Resolution 194 that they love to use has phraseology that limits this "right," it does not extend to the descendants, it was a General Assembly resolution with no legal weight, and it was roundly rejected by the Arab world anyway. It is simply a BDS and Palestinian Arab lie to take portions of one of its fifteen paragraphs as the holiest of holies while utterly disregarding the rest of the resolution.

Mr. Levy completely misrepresents my position on the matter. Citing a 2003 article of mine, he outlandishly claims that I endorse a "two-Palestines" solution....For more than 27 years, I've consistently and openly advocated a secular, democratic state in the entire area of historic Palestine.

Either way, the point of the BDS movement is to destroy the Jewish state. No two ways about that.

And when Barghouti says "historic Palestine" he is ignoring history and betraying the fact that the BDS movement is only interested in the portions of "historic Palestine" that happens to be controlled by Jews.After all, portions of Jordan were once considered "eastern Palestine" yet not one BDSer will ever insist that Jordan give up its portion of historic Palestine!

The BDS movement against Israel could not care less whether it is a Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or Hindu state; all that matters is that it is a colonial oppressor that persistently denies the Palestinian people their basic rights. Is this too difficult to understand?

If that was remotely the case, then the BDS movement would boycott every single Arab country - because every one of them has discriminatory laws to disallow Palestinian Arabs from becoming fully naturalized citizens of their states. Where are the boycotts of Lebanon? Saudi Arabia? Even Jordan has been systematically taking away Jordanian citizenship from their citizens of Palestinian origin.

Yet the BDS movement is silent on the matter.

The fact that they only call for sanctions against Israel indicates - actually, it proves - that anti-semitism is the root of the entire movement. Not that all of its members consciously realize it or not, but there can be no other explanation.

Read More

ElderToons: Aliens land in Jerusalem

Because of this story....

Read More

Muslim Brotherhood on El Baradei: "He's only temporary"

From this Russia Today video, starting around 2:15, interviewing a Muslim Brotherhood member:



Mohammed El Baltagy: "We didn't choose El Baradei. We chose him only for a short period of change. He's only temporary."


Notice how el-Baltagy phrases it, as if the Muslim Brotherhood is calling the shots of the current uprising and using players as pawns to gain leadership.

El Baltagy is a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Much of the rest of the video is about Egyptian skepticism over El Baradei, making some would-be analysts look like complete fools.

Read More

Amnesty officially calls Turkel report a "whitewash" - with no proof

As a follow-up to this story I broke this morning, proving Amnesty's bias by condemning the Turkel Commission report before even reading it, Amnesty has written a more comprehensive critique of the Turkel report, this time explicitly calling it a "whitewash."

Of course, since Amnesty had already come to that conclusion before actually examining the report, we can rest assured that their objectivity in their analysis is equally flawed. Can it even enter one's mind that Amnesty would have issued a press release saying, "Sorry, we were wrong"?

And, of course, Amnesty's response falls short of proving anything close to what they are claiming:

Amnesty International has condemned the findings of an Israeli inquiry into last year’s raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla as a “whitewash” which failed to account for the deaths of nine Turkish nationals.

The published  Turkel report indeed did not go into details on every death, and it explained why:

The detailed testimonies of the soldiers as well as their analysis can be found in an annex to the report. The Commission decided, while giving due consideration to article 539 A of the Military Justice Law 5715-1955, to privilege this annex pursuant to its authority under Article 11 to the Government’s decision of June 14, 2010, unless the government decides to lift this privilege. The Commission recommends that the Government will examine the possibility of making this annex public pursuant to its authority under law.

Amnesty seizes on this:

[The report] states that a detailed analysis of each incident, as well as the Israeli soldiers’ written testimonies on which this analysis was based, are contained in an unpublished annex to the report, which it recommends that the Israeli government “examine the possibility of making… public”. Amnesty International calls on the Israeli authorities to do so without delay, so that it can be read by independent parties.

If the Turkel commission itself is recommending that the annex be made public, how can Amnesty accuse it of a whitewash? Clearly the investigators wanted to make their methods and result be as transparent as possible, and the observers did get a chance to see their methods - and approved them.

The fundamental problem that Amnesty has is not with the report itself, though, but the framework:

Significantly, [the commission] chose to base its analysis of the lawfulness of the actions taken against those who resisted the boarding of the ship on international humanitarian law, which governs armed conflict and allows much greater latitude for the use of lethal force. Amnesty International categorically rejects the application of this legal framework to the events concerned.

But Turkel goes into great detail on why they chose to base the report on international humanitarian law rather than human rights law as Amnesty demands:

Although there are schools of thought that largely favor extensive applicability of human rights law, this approach is not universally accepted. For example, neither Israel nor the United States agrees with a broad extra-territorial application of human rights law.796 The issue of
whether, or the degree to which, there is extra-territorial application of human rights law is particularly relevant to the enforcement of the Gaza naval blockade on May 31, 2010, since it took place on the high seas, outside the territory of the Israeli State.

Recently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Case of Medvedyev and Others v. France 797 that the interception of a vessel on the high seas by a French warship in a counter-drug law enforcement operation did engage human rights jurisdiction after "full and exclusive control" over the ship had been established. However, the judgment does not clarify exactly when the French armed forces were considered to have obtained "full and exclusive control" of the ship, especially since the litigation did not center on the boarding and overtaking of the ship,
but rather on the arrest and confinement of the crew to their cabins for a period of 13 days during the transit to France.

In the case at hand, it is difficult to see how Israel could be considered to have had “full and exclusive control” prior to taking control of the bridge of the flotilla vessels and the subsequent cessation of resistance. Further, even if Israeli forces were considered to have had such control over the Mavi Marmara prior to taking control of the bridge, the actions of the Israeli forces would still be governed by the lex specialisof international humanitarian law since the enforcement of a blockade is not a law enforcement mission. Therefore, the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Medvedyev case is of limited assistance in resolving the issue of extra-territorial application of human rights law during the enforcement of the Gaza blockade.

With respect to the enforcement of the blockade, the use of force is to be interpreted under the international humanitarian law framework,798 which permits attacks against combatants and civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. International humanitarian law is guided by the principle of distinction, which is an obligation to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. A civilian is any person who is not defined as a "combatant."799 Civilians enjoy a general protection against the dangers arising from military operations.800 Hence, when attacking a military objective, the attacking party must take all feasible precautions to avoid incidental (collateral) injury and death to civilians.801 Further, the expected incidental harm caused to civilians by an attack must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (the "principle of proportionality").802 Civilians shall not be
the object of an attack unless, and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
803

Regarding the use of force, international humanitarian law treats combatants and civilians who take a direct part in hostilities differently than uninvolved civilians. Under international humanitarian law, the right to life is protected by prohibitions against indiscriminate attacks,
804 targeting individual civilians and the civilian population unless they take a direct part in
hostilities,805 causing superfluous or unnecessary suffering to combatants,806and targeting those who are hors de combat.807

This is only a part of Turkel's justification for the legal framework - arguments that Amnesty dismisses without putting forth any of its own legal arguments, effectively declaring Turkel wrong because they say so. In fact, Amnesty even goes into hyperbole, saying:

Effectively, the Commission argued that these activists could be shot dead lawfully whether or not they were posing a direct threat to the lives of IDF soldiers.

Turkel makes no such claim and his analysis of every bullet and paintball pellet shows that Amnesty's charge is baseless - if Turkel's frame of reference was that every IHH member could be killed legally, why bother investigating?

Amnesty throws in some more tendentious charges, such as that there is no evidence that Turkel had access to ballistics tests [there is no evidence that he didn't, either - must the report mention every activity done over five months?] all of which are designed to divert attention from the fact that the Turkel Commission's methods were transparent and observed by two highly qualified internationals who gave their unqualified stamp of approval on their methods.

Amnesty had a pre-determined idea of what the conclusion should be - that Israel was guilty - and no amount of evidence could ever change its mind. And as we saw, its conclusion really was pre-determined. As such, Amnesty's criticisms ring hollow, as an after-the-fact papering over of their own ignorance of the circumstances. Amnesty has proved its willingness to believe every piece of evidence that damns Israel and to question everything that exonerates her.

Read More

Amnesty proves it cannot be unbiased - Malcolm Smart must be fired

My latest article at NewsReal shows that Amnesty does not even need inconvenient things like "facts" and "proof" before accusing Israel's Turkel Commission of a "whitewash."

One can argue that other accusations of bias have no solid proof. But a press release from Amnesty slamming the report before they even read it shows, beyond any doubt, that Amnesty has an anti-Israel agenda, and it casts doubt on the methods used in every report Amnesty has ever written.

Read the whole thing.

Read More

AFP's bias shines through

My latest article at NewsRealBlog fisks a single paragraph from an AFP story last week to show how biased the media is - even if it is subconscious.

Enjoy!

Read More

ElderToons: How the Guardian thinks

References:

Honest Reporting

Robin Shepherd

Read More

Al Jazeera continues to allege facts that aren't in the PalPapers

Whether or not the "Palestine Papers" truthfully reflect what happened in closed-door negotiations, what is clear is that The Guardian and Al Jazeera are reporting their own spin rather than facts.

"Electronic Intifada" founder and NYT darling Ali Abunimah writes in Al Jazeera:

PA lobbying blocked Shalit swap

The PA blocked potential prisoner swaps that would have freed thousands of Palestinians and Shalit.

Analysis of secret minutes of meetings between top Israeli and Palestinian Authority (PA) officials revealed in The Palestine Papers shows that strenuous PA lobbying likely torpedoed the deal in mid-2008 with the result that far fewer Palestinian prisoners have been released by Israel.

But he brings no proof to this. He points to memos that show that the PA was unhappy with Israel releasing Hamas prisoners for Shalit, saying that Hamas would be strengthened. Israel agrees that a swap would help Hamas politically but Livni continuously pushes back saying that they want Shalit and there is no way to avoid that unfortunate consequence. They go on to find ways to strengthen the PA simultaneously by releasing Fatah members from prison - which they even did.

Abunimah brings no memos that indicate that the PA's efforts stopped any Shalit deal. In fact, the very idea is absurd. Israel would never scuttle a deal to get Shalit back because of PA objections!

If one is to believe the spin given to the Palestine Papers by The Guardian and Al Jazeera, the PA had no power and Israel ran roughshod over every one of their requests. Yet now Al Jazeera is claiming that the PA had veto power over an issue that is hugely important to Israel and only peripherally related to the negotiations.

Abunimah writes his counter-factual screed to blame the PA for blocking the release of thousands of Hamas prisoners. Yet these same memos show that 198 were released just by the PA asking Israel to do so, and giving nothing in return. (Abunimah calls them "symbolic.")

The release of these papers proves what we have seen time and time again. Conspiracy theorists will spin their stories regardless of facts and common sense, and the PalPapers are simply a treasure trove of new data to be twisted to fit already-existing fantasies.

Read More

ElderToons: Ethnic Cleansing

Read More

Latest PalPapers lies: Michael Brull, ABC (Australia)

The number of anti-Israel lies in the left-wing media concerning the Palestine Papers is astounding, and they are likely to continue. Here are a few from Michael Brull of "Independent Australian Jewish Voices" writing in  ABC Online:

The interesting thing about what the Palestine Papers reveal is also in relation to public relations and private diplomacy. The standard theme of Israeli propaganda after negotiations collapsed after the 2000 Camp David negotiations was that Israel had offered the Palestinians everything, but the intransigent and ungrateful Palestinians had rejected it all, proving that the Israelis had no partner for peace. The Palestinian leadership never bothered with public relations, and it was largely left to academics and left wing Israeli negotiators to reveal that this story was far from the truth. For example, after the Camp David proposals, the two parties negotiated at Taba (negotiations ended unilaterally by Israel). Israel’s chief negotiator at Taba, Shlomo Ben Ami, said if he were a Palestinian he would have rejected the Camp David proposal. The Palestine Papers include maps of the Camp David proposal. They show clearly how Ariel and Maale Adumim are used to dissect the West Bank into three non-contiguous cantons, with settlements dotting the landscape, connected by roads, further dividing Palestinian towns and areas from each other. Perhaps this will finally put an end to the favourite Zionist myth of Israeli generosity, met by Palestinian intransigence and rejectionism.

This is only one part of a longer story that the Palestine Papers reveal. 

Here's the map that Brull says that the Palestine Papers reveal:

If you look at the small type on the bottom of the maps, you will see that their source is "Jerusalem Task Force, Orient House". These maps have been public for years, and they were made by a Palestinian Arab organization. They were not "revealed" by the Palestine Papers, and Brull is using Al Jazeera's copying of an old map as a way to bash Israel.

And the maps are a complete lie.

Dennis Ross, who was there, said no map was drawn, but he shows the fake Palestinian Arab version of the map, along with what  the Camp David offer really looked like:

The real offer - which was sweetened significantly at Taba - was already for a quite contiguous state.

Now that we see that Brull is not averse to lying, we can find more gems in his screed.

He goes through his Palestinian Arab version of history:

Israeli historians confirmed that the Palestinians who did not flee were driven out of Palestine through a mixture of measures including Zionist terrorism, psychological warfare and outright expulsions.

He of course does not mention the percentages of Arabs who fled versus those who were forced out. No one knows the actual numbers, but the vast majority were not expelled. Most Arabs never saw an Israeli soldier and fled because of wild Arab rumors of atrocities that never happened or that were vastly exaggerated. The wealthier Arabs left almost immediately after the partition vote, as they did in the 1930s, expecting to return after the fighting ended - and leaving their poorer cousins behind without leaders. And some (but not most) were indeed told to leave by Arab leaders themselves.

There is a third category that Brull ignores, though: those that stayed and became citizens of the state. An option that was simply not available for Jews in the Old City or Gush Etzion. Those people prove his claim that those "who did not flee were driven out" to be, again, a lie.

If there was one side that adopted the concept of "ethnic cleansing" from the start and continued throughout the 30 years of Mandate history, it was the Arabs - at Tel Chai, Petah Tikva (failed attempt), Hebron, Gaza, Jenin, Shchem/Nablus, Jerusalem's Old City (beginning in 1936), Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet HaAravah and the 4 Gush Etzion Bloc kibbutzim. [h/t YM]

Israel proceeded to conquer the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine in 1967.

Whenever you see the words "historic Palestine" you know that you are dealing with a liar. Historic Palestine includes part of Jordan and Lebanon, parts that today's "Palestinians" have no desire for. For the same reasons they had no desire for a state in the West Bank while Jordan controlled it.

It goes on from there. The article is filled with half-truths and lies. Brull is rabidly anti-Israel and he uses the release of the papers as a reason to get op-ed space that simply uses the papers as a peg to bash Israel.

And Australia's ABC is more than happy to host the lies.

Read More

The difference between the "peace process" and peace

To me, the biggest surprise in the "Palestine Papers" released so far is that, unless they are a massive hoax (and I don't believe that,) the Palestinian Arab negotiators were much more flexible and forthcoming in the talks than they are in public.

This is not to mean that even their more flexible demands can be accommodated by even the most dovish Israeli government.

The most important memo, so far, is this June 2008 meeting between the two sides and Condoleeza Rice. It is really fascinating. Here are some parts over which Jewish areas east of the Green Line the PA wants :

Livni: I want to understand one thing, since you have come back to 1967 borders. At that time there was no Palestinian state. Today we want part of this land and we think that you deserve to be compensated for what we want. My question is: Do you have a problem because of the area of Ma’ale Adumim or its location?

Abu Ala’: Our problem is not in the kilometers, but the settlement block Jerusalem from the East, and from the south there are Kidar and Jabal Abu Ghneim settlements that block Jerusalem. There is a settlement belt around Jerusalem.

Livni: I think I mentioned in the last meeting on borders that there is a misunderstanding and the idea we have is not to block Jerusalem completely.

Abu Ala’: - We do not want to live in enclaves. We want people to live in peace and to fight against terrorism.

Perhaps Ma’ale Adumim will remain under Palestinian sovereignty and it could be a model for cooperation and coexistence. We may also have international forces and make security arrangements for some time. It is the location of Ma’ale Adumim not its size.
There is also Ariel settlement which was set up on the largest water basin. It was not set up simply to provide Israeli with housing units but rather to control the water basin.

Livni: - The idea behind our desire to annex Ariel settlement was not to get more water but because thousands of people live there. We want to have an answer for those who have lived there for forty years.

Future borders will be complicated but clear. I have seen in Yugoslavia how areas can be connected. The matter is not simply giving a passport to settlers.

Abu Ala’: Having Ariel under our control means also that the water basin will be under our control.

Livni: We have said that even if we agreed to have Ariel under Israeli control, we have to find a solution to the water issue.

Abu Ala’: We find this hard to swallow.

Rice: - Let us put Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel aside. I am not trying to solve them here.
...

Livni: - When we decided on the annexation, we made it clear to the Palestinians that we will not compensate them with land that is part of Israel now.

The issue now is that the Palestinians will not accept that some locations become part of Israel.

Rice: This is exactly what I am saying.

Livni: Are you talking about two locations only?

Abu Ala’: There are more than two locations. There are Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Ephrat, Giv’at Ze’ev, Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa).

Abu Ala’: Ariel goes for 19 kilometers into the West Bank, and this impedes geographical contiguity and enables Israel to control water resources.

Saeb: Our proposition will allow for the inclusion of 70% of settlers, that is about 310,000 settlers.

Rice: Did you see their proposition?

Livni: We looked at it. There are no Ma’ale Adumim, Ephrat, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev or Hara Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim).

Saeb: Why do I not say the opposite, that there are Zakhron Ya’cov, the French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, Ramot Alon, Ramat Shlomo, Gilo, Tal Piot, and the Jewish Quarter in the old city of Jerusalem.

These show that Livni was pretty much ready to give up on all Jewish towns that were not near the Green Line, except for Ariel. The PA wanted a number of Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, especially Maale Adumim, which no Israeli leader could possibly consider giving up.

The sections that "everyone knows" would be a part of Israel is represented as a major concession by the PA. Meanwhile, no one is even discussing the dismantling of dozens upon dozens of Jewish communities - with schools, shops, recreation centers, parks, playgrounds, cemeteries - that Livni is so easily giving up.

Even so, the PLO is appearing to be cognizant of Israeli requirements and needs, and to be willing to work with them. This is a far cry from how the PLO acts in public.

And therein lies the problem.

No Israeli is going to be surprised by what Livni is giving up (in fact, her insistence on some security issues is fairly strong even as she is willing to give in on other areas.) But the violent reaction to these leaks in the PA underscores the major issue, the latest elephant in the room to be added to the long list:

The Palestinian Arab leadership has never prepared their people for peace.

While I admit to being initially impressed with what Erekat and Abu Ala have to say in these memos, a little further reflection shows that all of these moves are cosmetic. Even if an agreement would have been reached, the people are not part of the process.

At the exact same time that these two sides were joking and trying to narrow the gaps between them, the official PA media continued to incite its people with TV shows extolling jihad, with schoolbooks that eliminated Israel, and with talk about the "return" of millions to Israel.

Israelis are acclimated to the idea of compromising for peace. Hell, they've done it numerous times, often very painfully.

The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, haven't even been taught the basic concept of compromise. Their leaders have never said a word about the necessity of a middle ground where Jewish parts of Jerusalem and major settlement blocs will remain in Israeli hands, where millions of people will not be moving to Israel, and where - inevitably - Arab nations will need to finally step up and offer to naturalize their Palestinian Arab "guests."

There has been no groundwork to change the process from a theoretical exercise into a concrete reality. There has been no reduction in incitement and no attempt to acclimate people to peace with Israel.

Why not?

Is the "peace process" is a farce, meant solely to appease the US? Is it simple fear on the part of the PalArab leadership not to tell inconvenient truths to their people? Is it fear of Hamas taking advantage of the tumult that would follow?

I can't say for sure. But what is certain is that no peace is viable if the people do not buy in to it.

The official PA incitement and glorification of terror is far more important than what Erekat says behind closed doors with Rice and Livni.

In an open society like Israel's, the leaks are more or less what everyone expected. But to the PA they are a bombshell. And that dissonance between reality and the fantasy that the PalArabs have been fed for decades is the entire problem.

The leaders' reactions to this problem are telling. Rather than stepping up and explaining the context, they have into full blown denial-and-blame mode.

I have yet to see an Arabic op-ed saying, "Duh, what do you think they talk about in the negotiations?" Instead we are seeing full-scale attacks - on the PA if you are aligned with Hamas, on Al Jazeera if you are aligned with Fatah.

All of this proves that real peace is not, and never was, a priority for the Palestinian Arab leaders. If it was, then these leaks would not be a big deal - everyone would have known it already.

If a Palestinian Arab leader starts telling people the truth, that would be impressive. (Ironically, it would also make Israel much more flexible in her demands as well. ) Until then, however, the entire negotiations track is divorced from reality, and doomed.

Read More