Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Under heavy mortar fire in Gaza, IDF waited 50 minutes to respond (MAG report part 3)

On July 30, 2014, artillery shells hit a marketplace in Shujaiyya, Gaza, killing at least 17 people. Reports said as many as 35 were killed.

Israel was accused of violating a humanitarian ceasefire:

Despite a four-hour humanitarian ceasefire that began at 3:00 p.m., Israeli forces on Wednesday afternoon shelled a market in Shujaiyya as well as number of homes across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 35.

Gaza Ministry of Health spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra said around 6 p.m. that an Israeli airstrike had hit Shujaiyya market, killing at least 17, including a journalist, and injuring 200, including many seriously.

Gruesome (but edited) video shows one of the attacks:

What really happened?

The Military Advocate General report shows that the IDF did not violate any ceasefire and if anything, it put its soldiers in serious danger for 50 minutes before responding to heavy mortar fire:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the events associated with the incident started at approximately 16:10, when an anti-tank (AT) missile was fired at IDF forces operating in an open area on the outskirts of the Shuja'iyya neighborhood. Immediately after the anti-tank missile was fired, there commenced an intense and ongoing burst of mortar fire, emanating from a built-up area in the neighborhood, targeting the forces. As a result of this fire an IDF soldier was injured and the rest of the soldiers at the scene were placed in real danger. Further, in light of this use of fire, and the situation in which the forces found themselves (including a tank that could not move due to malfunction), the conclusion drawn by the commanders in the field was that this fire could provide cover for an attempt to abduct a soldier. During this episode of mortar fire, five sites in a built-up area were identified as points from which shells had been fired at IDF forces. Nevertheless, IDF forces did not return fire towards the sources of this fire, because of their proximity to "sensitive sites" (in the IDF, "sensitive sites" are civilian sites that receive special protection from attack under the law of armed conflict (such as medical facilities), as well as other civilian sites that warrant special consideration for policy reasons, even when there is no legal obligation (such as schools); such sites are identified in advance by the IDF and integrated into IDF's operational systems).

In other words, IDF forces were sitting ducks and in real danger because they go beyond the letter of the Laws of armed Conflict in order to reduce the possibility of hitting schools or hospitals that are nearby where terrorists are firing.

At approximately 16:40, when the mortar fire had not yet ceased, IDF forces fired a number of rounds of smoke-screening shells, in order to screen the troops, and frustrate the enemy fire. At approximately 17:00, as the mortar fire upon the troops from the built-up area continued, and in light of the ongoing threat to the lives of the troops, the forces were able to identify two additional sources of fire, from which most of the fire towards them was originating at that time. After it was concluded that one of these points was sufficiently distant from sensitive sites, it was decided to return a limited amount of fire, of five mortar shells, with the aim of suppressing the fire targeted at IDF forces. The IDF fire was carried out using mortars, since there was no available alternative for carrying out the strike, including aerial alternatives, which would allow the necessary operational effect to be achieved. In this context, the possibility of using 155 mm high-explosive artillery shells was also considered, in order to address the danger faced by the forces. This possibility was dismissed for the reason that the collateral damage expected from mortar shells was more limited.

Approximately 18 minutes after the initial mortar fire was carried out by the forces, towards the source of the fire, and after the fire emanating from that site had not ceased, it was decided to fire an additional ten mortars towards it. After this round of fire, the mortar fire on IDF forces ceased. Only around 40 minutes after the execution of the above-mentioned fire were reports received by the IDF regarding the hit on civilians in this area.

The FFA Mechanism's findings further revealed that at the time of the incident, the forces had believed that the likelihood of civilians being harmed as a result of the fire was low. Before the start of the ground incursion in Shuja'iyya, a widespread warning to evacuate had been provided, which, according to the information in the force's possession, had resulted in the evacuation of the vast majority of the civilian population in the neighborhood? An additional warning to evacuate was made two days prior to the incident, on 28 July, in order to keep the civilian population at a distance from the area of hostilities. Moreover, during the ongoing aerial surveillance carried out in the area in the period leading up to the incident, no civilian presence was identified on the roads and in the open areas of the neighborhood – which are the areas in which the danger posed by mortar shells is generally greater than the danger to those inside a building. In real time, no aerial surveillance capabilities were available to the forces. Thus, even if the possibility of civilian presence in the area had not been entirely ruled out, in consideration of the assessment that most of the population had evacuated and that no civilian presence was identified in the area prior to the incident, the understanding was that the risk of harm as a result of the limited fire was low.

After the event, by comparing the actions taken by IDF forces with the allegations contained in the complaint received by the MAG Corps, it can be concluded that one of the shells from the first round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the roof of the Al-Salak family, at a time when the family was on the roof, and killed seven family members; and that two shells from the second round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the crowd which had gathered next to the Al-Salak house in the wake of the first strike. At the same time, the possibility that the harm to civilians during this incident resulted from a misfire by a Palestinian terror organization has not been ruled out, in light of the extensive enemy mortar fire emanating from the area at the time.

But what about the return fire? Did it hit its intended target? The answer seems to be yes.

In addition to the above, intelligence information indicated that six of the deceased in this incident appear to have been militants, and thus the total civilian fatalities is lower than that alleged in the complaint.

This means that the video above was edited to as not to show/play the sounds of the outgoing mortars from the area of the market that continued after the first Israeli response.

What about that cease-fire?

The FFA Mechanism's findings further concluded that the incident in question did not take place during a ceasefire in Shuja'iyya. The IDF announced a unilateral humanitarian ceasefire between the hours of 15:00 and 19:00 on that day, but clarified that this would not apply in a number of specific areas in which IDF forces were operating at that time, including Shuja'iyya (along with a number of other areas). This was transmitted in the media and in messages that were passed to the Palestinian side.

This is corroborated by The Independent:

The Israeli military has declared a limited four-hour humanitarian ceasefire in some parts of Gaza ...

However, the four-hour ceasefire will not take place in areas where operations are already underway and residents are being warned not to return to evacuated areas.

Lt Col Peter Lerner of the Israel Defence Forces told the BBC he hoped Hamas hold their fire during the brief lull in fighting as well, "because otherwise things are going to get messier".

This incident is maddening, because it shows that the IDF ia more concerned about civilians whose collateral deaths would be perfectly legal under international law than they are about their own troops, the exact opposite of how an army should act. It also shows that Hamas is eagerly taking advantage of that weakness, apparently firing mortars from nearby or within a crowded marketplace as well as schools and medical facilities, literally shielding themselves with children and injured.

Moreover, it proves, yet again, how far out of their depth NGOs that criticize Israel are. Without knowing what goes into military decisions, they cannot begin to come to any conclusion about the legality of any specific incident; yet they sprinkle around "war crimes" accusations like candy. They know literally nothing about military matters yet they self-righteously proclaim that the IDF is violating international law - laws that were written deliberately to allow military leaders to make exactly these kinds of decisions based on the best information they have at the time without fearing to be labeled war criminals.

Don't take my word for it - read the actual sources. There is a lot of protection for military decisions that are aimed at a valid target even if there would be civilian deaths, based on the value of the target. NGO's don't know the targets, don't know their value, don't know what the commanders know at the time, and yet pretend that they know all three.

Jizya tax receipt for Christians published

Arab media have published a photo of a receipt given by ISIS to a Christian for paying the jizya tax.

The receipt, from December, was given to a Syrian Armenian Christian in the city of Raqqa.

ISIS is enforcing Islamic law by requiring Christians (and, theoretically, Jews) to pay a poll tax to their Muslim masters. If they refuse then they are branded as enemies and given a "choice" of exile or death.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their homes when ISIS took over.

The Islamic law states that the second-class dhimmis must pay on a graded scale: wealthy ones pay the value of 13 grams of gold, average people half that amount and poor people a quarter of the amount. This Armenian, Sargis Araklian, was poor so he only paid the equivalent of $136.

While there is no love of ISIS in much of the Arab world, the articles seem to be written with a sense of pride, as if this was a historic occasion. The articles are proudly showing the first photographic proof in recent history of a Christian paying the jizya tax that most Muslims believe is their due for "protecting" them.

03/22 Links: Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders; The Guardian's new anti-Israel Editor

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders

In the most educated and progressive circles, who is considered to be the archfiend of the Middle East, the person who most imperils life and freedom and the safety of the world?
Bashar Assad, perhaps, the butcher of Syria? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the psychotic Islamic State terrorist group? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who threatens a second genocide against the Jewish people? None of the above. Among progressives, the accolade from hell is bestowed instead on the prime minister of the only democracy in the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Shocked and appalled by their failure to finish him off politically – only to see him reelected stronger than ever – the Left immediately intensified its campaign of distortion and demonization against him. Its “aha” moment was that he was said to have reversed himself and come out against a two-state solution.
The Obama administration pounced and started hurling threats. It let it be known that, now that Netanyahu had opposed the creation of a separate Palestinian state, it would need to “reevaluate” the best way of bringing that about. It suggested the US might now fail to oppose the Palestinian initiative to get the UN Security Council to declare the establishment of such a state.

The Guardian appoints anti-Israel propagandist Katharine Viner as new editor-in-chief

The decision was not a surprise to those following the media group’s search for a new chief editor.
In December, I was asked by Josh Jackman of the The Jewish Chronicle to share my thoughts on the announcement that Alan Rusbridger was stepping down as the newspaper’s editor-in-chief after more than 20 years at the helm, and how the appointment of a new editor may affect their Middle East coverage. I told Jackman that the Guardian was institutionally biased against Israel and I wasn’t optimistic that a new editor will have a positive effect.
Specifically, I noted that Viner, one of the top early contenders for the job, could possibly even push the media group to adopt an even more pronounced pro-Palestinian stance.
My concerns were largely based on the fact that Viner was the co-creator of an anti-Israel play called ‘My Name is Rachel Corrie’, a piece of theatrical agitprop about the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist killed in March 2003 while attempting to stop an IDF anti-terror operation in Gaza.
In a review in 2005, Times of London culture critic Clive Davis characterized the play as “an element of unvarnished propaganda…with no attempt to set the violence in context”. “We are left”, he complained, “with the impression of unarmed civilians being crushed by faceless militarists.” At one point in the play, Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis noted, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.”

Jews are behind all bad in the world, says preacher on PA TV

The Jews are behind all that is wrong in the world, according to the host of a weekly Palestinian Authority TV program on Islam. Even when fish fight in the sea, "the Jews are behind it," said the Muslim preacher and professor of Quranic Studies, Imad Hamato. To back up this Antisemitic hate speech, Hamato went on to say that the Quran teaches that humanity will never "live in comfort... peace or fortune or tranquility" as long as "the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land." The solution for Muslims, according to the professor, is to fight Jews: "Our real Jihad is to take revenge."
"Humanity will never live in comfort as long as the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land. Humanity will never live in peace or fortune or tranquility as long as they are corrupting the land. An old man told me: If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are behind it. As Allah says: ''Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. They strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters'' (Sura 5:64)." [Official PA TV, Feb. 27, 2015]
Only a month prior to Hamato's statement, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a cleric on official PA TV who taught that Jews are "apes and pigs" whose "hearts were sealed by Allah."

"Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land" - Muslim preacher on PA TV

Israel should be commended.

In the election last Tuesday Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, won re-election after many dire warnings of his imminent demise.

The night before the elections we were practically assured that the evil, racist Netanyahu regime was about to get a big spanking for daring to speak openly to the American public and above the head of Barack Obama.

So much so that upon his re-election I was immediately put to mind of the famous image above.

"Dewey Defeats Truman"

I just love the look of joy on the old boy's face.

Herzog, however, is going to have to wait because Netanyahu has no intention, yet, of giving up the crown.

What I find sad, though, is the degree of contempt spit at Israel by western progressives due to this election. Until the Obama administration's final push to rid itself of Netanyahu, it was generally assumed that he would be re-elected. It was really only after The Speech that his numbers began to tank and, according to FOX News, there is a US Senate investigation taking place concerning possible Obama administration electoral interference. I assume that the Israeli government is looking into such allegations, as well.

It should be noted, though - and is not - that this was a significant victory for Israel's Arab voters.

The Joint Arab List came in third place among Knesset factions with 13 seats, well behind Likud, of course, with its 30 seats, but also well ahead of both Naftali Bennet's Jewish Home party and Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitunu. This victory for the Arab List should not be underestimated because if they consolidate their gains, then the Arab presence could end up more powerful within the Knesset then at any previous time in the past.

Whether such a development is welcomed or opposed is entirely up to the behavior and rhetoric of the Joint Arab List going forward.

Furthermore, the citizenry of Israel should be proud of the fact that it is, unquestionably, the least racist country in that part of the world and among the least racist countries anywhere in the world.

Does any of this get acknowledged within progressive-left venues? Of course, not. In fact, this is what some Daily Kos people had to say about Israel within the comments of a David Harris-Gershon "diary" entitled, Netanyahu's racist incitement against Arabs & rejection of two states lead to a comeback victory.

Here we learn that "Racism and Prejudice carry the day in another election for a Conservative ideologue!"

We learn that Netanyahu is a "racist Israeli war criminal" and that Israeli policies are "racist and militaristic."

We are told that:

There is no room for the Palestinians within Zionism. Zionism means: democracy is for Israeli Jews alone. Everyone else goes to the back of the bus.

The "back of the bus" imagery is both intellectually entertaining and dangerous because on a politically sub-atomic level it resonates with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, thereby turning Palestinian-Arabs into poor black people in the American South while simultaneously transforming the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors into brutal Alabama cops circa 1963.

From a propaganda perspective it is brilliant and all it takes is four small words: "back of the bus."

Also - and I hesitate - one nice young woman believes that Netanyahu has a "putrid, racist ass." Although just how she became so familiar with the Prime Minister's shapely hindquarters remains unclear.

Another friend naturally suggests that Israel is, or will be, a "racist, apartheid state."

And on and on and on. They also love to call Netanyahu both a liar and a warmonger.

Arab citizens of Israel represent 20 percent of the country and they have not always shown particular interest in participating in Israeli civic life or felt that they were welcome to do so. In fact, a sizable proportion of those Arabs honestly believe that, for reasons having to do with social justice - no less - that they have every right to try to kill Jews and that doing so is righteous in the eyes of Allah.

It is a double-whammy!

Not only does the western-left, essentially, affirm the rights of Arabs to kill Jews - due to the "Occupation of the Palestinian Territories" - but there are significant elements within the religion of Islam that consider Jewicide to be a mitzvah.

So, can you imagine how heinously "racist" the Left would tell one another that Israel is if the Arab List had come in - G-d forbid - fourth?

Whatever else this election may say about Israel, it clearly demonstrates its liberal commitment to plurality. Whatever else this election may say about Israel's enemies, it demonstrates their fundamental indifference toward the democratic and liberal nature of the Jewish State.

The Arabs now represent the third largest political bloc in the Knesset, despite the fact that it is largely an anti-Zionist bloc that has often sided with genocidal enemies of the Jewish people in that part of the world, such as Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad.

What could possibly be more democratic and less "racist," it must be asked, than for a country to willingly allow the empowerment of a hostile minority within its own chambers of governance?

In the mean time, by all accounts, Obama is preparing to punish the Jews of the Middle East for daring to disobey. When Jewish Israelis voted for Netanyahu this was a terrible insult to President of the United States, Barack Obama, and he is not going to allow you people to soon forget it.

If Obama was intent on befriending Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, before, he is now equally as intent on giving Israel the cold shoulder, if not significantly worse. So, we've got two years to ride this guy out and it would be helpful to anticipate the areas in which Obama might cause considerable grief.

That, however, is a project that I will leave for another day, with the exception of to say, obviously, watch the United Nations. If the UN was unfriendly when we had pro-Israel presidents in the White House, just imagine what it is going to be like with an openly hostile president crouching in the Oval Office.

Thus, already, we get this:

Top violator of women's rights around the world? It's Israel says UN

Guess who is the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today? Israel. Violating the rights of Palestinian women.

At least that is the view of the UN’s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women’s rights – Israel.

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.

Obama is going to open the flood-gates to an extent that we have not yet seen. Not that he is directly responsible for this kind of mierda coming out of the UN, but there is no question but that the international community looks to the president for cues vis-à-vis Israel.

If we have a hostile president, which we most certainly do, then we can expect a more unfriendly international reception toward Israel, and toward Jews, on every level.

People who think that Jimmy Carter was no friend to Israel ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say.

So, yes, my heartiest congratulations to both Prime Minister Netanyahu (peace be unto him) and to the Arab List which did so well in this last round.

Good luck, fellahs.

You are going to need it.

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.

This is his 50th post for EoZ.

"Death to America! Curse the Jews!" BOOM

As we've mentioned before, the Houthi slogan translates to "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam."

Shiites in Yemen repeat this slogan during sermons in mosques.

And that is exactly what one congregation was saying at the moment a Sunni extremist decided to blow it (and himself) up:

This is not to say that this horrific bombing was justified in any way, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit a little bit of schadenfreude at the timing.

(h/t Yenta)

#WordsMatter: Obama's 2008 AIPAC speech sounded a lot like Bibi's 2015 Congress speech

From the NYT:

For the second consecutive day on Friday, the White House publicly questioned Mr. Netanyahu’s sincerity about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, suggesting that Mr. Obama did not trust him to back Palestinian statehood, a central element of United States policy in the Middle East.

Asked why the president did not take the prime minister at his word about his support for a two-state solution, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, quickly shot back: “Well, I guess the question is, which one?”

“The divergent comments of the prime minister legitimately call into question his commitment to this policy principle and his lack of commitment to what has been the foundation of our policy-making in the region,” Mr. Earnest said.

He said Mr. Netanyahu had raised questions about his “true view” on a two-state solution. “Words matter,” Mr. Earnest said.

In fact, Netanyahu didn't contradict himself, as Legal Insurrection notes. He didn't say he was against a two-state solution, he said that it wouldn't happen while he is prime minister because of the instability in the Arab world:

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state today, and evacuate areas, is giving radical Islam an area from which to attack the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “This is the true reality that has been created in past years. Those that ignore it are burying their heads in the sand. The left does this, buries its head in the sand, time and again."

Asked directly whether no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership, the prime minister answered: “Indeed.”

Yes, words do matter. And Netanyahu's words after the election did not contradict his words beforehand.

Which is better than we can say about Josh Earnest's boss, Barack Obama.

Obama's reaction to Netanyahu's speech to Congress was that it contained "nothing new." To an extent, he is right, because the "new" part of Netanyahu's speech was very close to what Obama himself said seven years ago.

Netanyahu's speech laid out three conditions for lifting sanctions on Iran in addition to dismantling its nuclear program - to stop aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, stop supporting terrorism around the globe, and stop threatening to destroy Israel.

Obama, speaking at AIPAC in 2008, also laid out three conditions to Iran that sound very similar:

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

This is the same speech where Obama promised "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." - although he walked that statement back almost immediately.

If "words matter," then how come Obama is not being held to his words as a candidate? How come Iran's daily threats against Israel and its continued support for terror - support that the White House is now trying to erase - are no longer conditions for keeping sanctions in place or reasons to "ratchet up the pressure"?

Yes, Josh Earnest, words matter. Too bad your boss tramples on that principle.

Too bad none of Obama's fans who claim to be pro-Israel are willing to hold the president to his own standards.

(h/t EBoZ, see also Joe Settler)

PalArabs claim Israeli prison conditions cause cancer

From Ma'an:

Fifteen Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons are suffering from cancer and are at risk of dying, the Hossam Association of Palestinian Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners has said.

The organization said in a statement that they believed the number was in fact higher, as the 15 include only those who have been diagnosed with cancer, but many others have tumors whose malignancy is not known because Israeli prison authorities have limited their access to tests.

The organization blamed Israeli authorities for contributing to an environment in which Palestinian prisoners faced a heightened risk of cancer due to high levels of radiation inside prison cells.

The group said that Israeli authorities set up devices to jam satellite and telephone signals near rooms where Palestinians are being held. They also pointed to the use of radiation in security scanners that prisoners are forced to go through during frequent searches and examinations.

The statement also said that a number of prisons are located near the Dimona nuclear reactor as well as toxic waste dumps in the Negev Desert, another factor which it said contributed to the high incidence of cancer.

15 people with cancer out of 5,500 prisoners?

In the US, about 1 in 30 males under the ages of 49 are expected to get cancer. That would translate to over 180 male inmates developing some sort of cancer out of 5,500. 15 seems to be awfully low, statistically.

The accusation of radiation from metal detectors is equally silly. Metal detectors give out a fraction of the background radiation that everyone is exposed to every day.

And if Dimona was sending out tons of radiation, then why do people live there?

As usual, Palestinian Arabs throw accusations at Israel, hoping that something will stick. This might not be as absurd as the charge (repeated by the UN) that 800,000 Palestinian Arabs have been in prison, but it is pretty close.

03/21 Links: Guess Who's Not Speaking at the J Street Conference?; Why Islam Needs a Reformation

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: Guess Who's Not Speaking at the J Street Conference?

J Street -- the lobby group that claims to be "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace" -- is anything but "open" to centrist views that are critical of its policies. It has invited several prominent anti-Israel speakers to address its national conference, including Saeb Erekat, one of the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiators, who has repeatedly accused Israel of war crimes, and committing massacres in the West Bank. It has also invited speakers who are generally pro-Israel but who strongly oppose the current Israeli government. The one group of pro-Israel advocates who never get invited to J Street conferences are those of us who are somewhat critical of J Street, particularly with regard to its policies toward Iran and other issues involving Israel's security. I know this because I have repeatedly sought an opportunity to address the J Street conference. I have personally implored Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, either to allow me to address the conference, or to sit down with me for a public conversation in front of the group's members. He has adamantly refused. We have publicly debated and discussed our differences in front of non-J Street audiences, but he has never allowed me to engage him in the marketplace of ideas in front of his own followers.
This is more than ironic. It is hypocritical, especially in light of J Street's demands that other organizations, such as Hillel and AIPAC, be open to speakers who are critical of Israel. What's good for Hillel and AIPAC, is apparently not good for J Street -- at least by J Street's own standards.
Why then is J Street so determined to deny its members the opportunity to hear divergent views from center-leftists like me? Because its leaders are afraid that if I were allowed to address its conference, I would tell its members the truth about J Street -- a truth they try hard to conceal, particularly from college students who are lured into the J Street fold under false pretenses. The key to J Street's success in increasing its membership rolls is its ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth. To those on the hard left, it offers anti-Israel and pro-BDS speakers, support for the mendacious Goldstone Report, and opposition to keeping the military option on the table as a last resort in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Why Islam Needs a Reformation

“Islam’s borders are bloody,” wrote the late political scientist Samuel Huntington in 1996, “and so are its innards.” Nearly 20 years later, Huntington looks more right than ever before. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims. In 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims. By far the most numerous victims of Muslim violence—including executions and lynchings not captured in these statistics—are Muslims themselves.
Not all of this violence is explicitly motivated by religion, but a great deal of it is. I believe that it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.
When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

Cuba calls to “eliminate” UN Watch speech on Israeli elections as lesson for dictatorships

Statement by UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer to the UN Human Rights Council, 17 March 2015, Agenda Item 4, “Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention”
Mr. President,
Today the whole world is watching as millions of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, go to the polls to elect 120 members of parliament and a prime minister. Twenty-four parties are running, including left and right, secular and religious, and a joint Arab list that is predicted this time to win more than ten percent of the seats.
The whole world is watching, to see the results.
But my question today, Mr. President, is whether members of this United Nations Human Rights Council is watching — not the results, but the process.
Now, in this session the Council is planning to condemn Israel for violating human rights in at least four resolutions, which is four times more condemnation than is being directed against Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

Cuba calls to "eliminate" UN Watch speech on Israeli elections as lesson for dictatorships

03/20 Links Pt2: UN Claims Israel is 'Worst' Violator of Women’s Rights; B’Tselem Has Lost Its Mind

From Ian:

Anne Bayefsky: UN Claims Israel is World’s Worst Violator of Women’s Rights

Guess who is the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today? Israel. Violating the rights of Palestinian women.
At least that is the view of the UN’s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women’s rights – Israel.
Not Syria. Where government forces routinely employ rape and other sexual violence and torture against women as a tactic of war. Where in 2014 the Assad regime starved, tortured and killed at least 24,000 civilians, and three million people – mostly women and children – are refugees.
Not Saudi Arabia. Where women are physically punished if not wearing compulsory clothing, are almost entirely excluded from political life, cannot drive, cannot travel without a male relative, receive half the inheritance of their brothers, and where their testimony counts for half that of a man’s.

Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal Vindicates Netanyahu’s Claims on U.S. Concessions

The United States originally insisted that Iran maintain no more than 1,500 centrifuges, and last year raised the limit to 4,000. 6,000 centrifuges would be sufficient if Iran plans to build a nuclear bomb, but not enough for a civilian nuclear power generation program.
The AP also reported that the remaining issues of contention in negotiations are Iran’s underground Fordow enrichment facility and its heavy water reactor at Arak. Iran insists on keeping hundreds of centrifuges working at Fordow and will re-engineer the Arak facility to produce less plutonium than originally projected. Arak will not be converted to a light water reactor capable of providing Iran with any of the radioactive isotopes it needs for research without producing plutonium, which would give it a second path to a nuclear bomb, in addition to enriched uranium.
According to the AP, among the United Nations sanctions that could be removed “within weeks” of an accord would be the weapons embargo. When Iran sends weapons to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to Shiite militias in Iraq, or to Hezbollah in Lebanon, it violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which states that “Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel.”
There is no mention in the AP report that the draft limits Iran’s ballistic missile development. Iran has refused to discuss its illicit weapons program and the West has not pursued any limits to the program throughout the negotiations. Ballistic missile technology is an essential part of a nuclear weapons program as ballistic missiles are necessary as delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Matti Friedman: B’Tselem Has Lost Its Way If Not Its Mind

Matti Friedman is a self-proclaimed liberal. That is what made his piece, An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth, so groundbreaking—or at least taboo breaking. Friedman exposed the bias of the journalists, their handlers (AP, Reuters), and the people of Gaza in their reportage of all things Israel. He also outlined for us how the story of Israel trumps everything, no matter what else is going on in the world at any point in time.
And now again, Friedman’s conscience has been called to the fore over the behavior of B’Tselem, a left-wing “human rights” group that focuses specifically on Israeli human rights violations (imagined or real), in the aftermath of Israel’s most recent election.
I have respected B’Tselem בצלם for many years, and have relied on them often in my reporting. We need groups that do what B’Tselem does. I will also add that I did not vote for the right this week. The letter below from B’Tselem director Hagai El-Ad, which just reached my inbox (and many others), is disgusting. I have no idea what making Israelis aware of human rights violations in the occupied territories has to do with presenting hateful caricatures of Israelis in English to a foreign audience. El-Ad thinks this election — which yielded results identical to the last election — shows that Israelis are savages who oppress Palestinians because it’s “convenient.” “The mask is off,” he informs the international audience to whom the newsletter is addressed.
Why should Israelis listen to people who have nothing but disdain for them, can’t understand their fears, and are happy to slander them abroad and pander to the hostile international fixation with their country? B’Tselem once had an important job to do. It has lost its way, if not its mind.

EU recommends boycotting Jewish-owned stores in Jerusalem. Really.

The Guardian reports:

A hard-hitting EU report on Jerusalem warns that the city has reached a dangerous boiling point of “polarisation and violence” not seen since the end of the second intifada in 2005.

Calling for tougher European sanctions against Israel over its continued settlement construction in the city – which it blames for exacerbating recent conflict – the leaked document paints a devastating picture of a city more divided than at any time since 1967, when Israeli forces occupied the east of the city.

The leaked report describes the emergence of a “vicious cycle of violence … increasingly threatening the viability of the two-state solution”, which it says has been stoked by the continuation of “systematic” settlement building by Israel in “sensitive areas” of Jerusalem.

The paper isn't yet public, so I can't judge, but if this is an indication of its contents then its bias is clear.

Hamas and the PA celebrate the knife and car attacks against Jews in Jerusalem over the past year. They made posters urging all Arabs to do the same. They celebrated the murders of rabbis in a synagogue in Jerusalem.

And this report says that the violence is a result of Israeli policies, and not Arab incitement?

But check out this part of the report that The Guardian took a photo of:

All of these are offensive, but let's concentrate only on the last item. What does that mean?

It means that when tour guides walk through parts of Jerusalem, they should make sure that they don't buy anything at Jewish-owned stores.

Shops in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City

It cannot mean to boycott Israeli-owned stores, because no one will ask Arab store owners if they are Israeli citizens.No one cares if Israeli Arabs own stores across the Green Line and no one is going to boycott them.

No, 76 years after Kristallnacht, the EU is recommending a boycott of Jewish owned stores.

(h/t Ronald)

Report claims Israel times its attacks when news media is distracted by other stories

Here's almost certainly another example of using statistics to come up with a predetermined conclusion. From CBS Marketwatch:

One of the Israeli government’s secrets to manipulating the American media has been revealed for the first time by new research.

Israel habitually launches its most unpopular and, sometimes, deadly attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to coincide with big news events here in the U.S., so that they don’t get too much public attention, according to the study.

The news management is so sophisticated that the Israeli government is especially good about avoiding damaging “follow-up” or “day two” stories about its attacks — stories most likely to include awkward human interest details about the casualties and their families.

So finds a study conducted by Ruben Durante, professor at Sciences Po in Paris, and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, professor at the Paris School of Economics.

The researchers looked at Israel’s military interventions in Palestine over an 11-year period, from 2000 to 2011, and then compared them to what was going on in the news at the time. That included looking at whether there was big other news, and whether that other news was scheduled — such as, say, the Super Bowl — or unscheduled, such as an earthquake or tsunami or plane crash somewhere in the world.

“We find that Israeli attacks are more likely to occur prior to days with very high news pressure driven by clearly predictable events,” they found. There were statistically significant upticks in Israeli military action in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before big holidays or sporting events, but not before things that the Israeli military could not anticipate.

The study is here.

While the statistical analysis is beyond me, if I am understanding this correctly they are basing the definition of whether something is a predictable event after the fact, based on keywords they found on news stories the day after Israeli attacks compared to keywords found on other "high news pressure" days.

They are claiming that news days that the difference between the two charts shows that Israeli attacks coincide with predictable new events. Israeli leaders cannot predict hurricanes or earthquakes, but they can anticipate elections.

I think that this analysis is flawed.

Firstly, keywords like "campaign" and "war" and "Bush" do not necessarily correlate with known predictable news events. While the paper mentions things like the Super Bowl as a predictable high-pressure news event, it isn't mentioned on this list.

Secondly, it seems like their definition of "high news pressure" is very narrow. If words like "Katrina" and "tsunami" are showing up on the second list, that indicates that over the eleven year period of the study there were relatively few high-news pressure days, perhaps only a few every year. This would indicate that the sample size is very, very small to come up with these conclusions. Notice that "Obama" doesn't even show up as a keyword on high pressure news days.

It also indicates that high-pressure news days cannot be predicted. Elections can be but the Florida story of 2000 clearly could not be. (The study dates started in 2001, so perhaps the stories were about publication of the recount. I don't recall that news being as wall-to-wall as hurricanes.)

Which means that the basic assumptions of the analysis are wrong. One cannot look at the keywords after the fact to determine what the Israelis would have been able to predict beforehand would become a hot news story. To say that the keywords in the first list imply predictability seems not at all scientific.

It seems to me that a proper methodology for a study like this would be to first generate an impartial list of predictably important US news events - Super Bowl, Oscars, major primaries, national elections, New Year's Eve - and then try to correlate Israel's actions against those, not to ex post facto determine that the word "Florida"is coming from a predictable news event.

You cannot claim that things are predictable by looking at their keywords afterwards. And if the number of high-pressure news days is as small as I think it is, then there is no way that Israel's leaders could ever predict what would be a major news story and what won't - see again how the Super Bowl does not appear on this list.

These is some slight evidence in the report that Israeli strikes might have been more likely to have occurred during holidays, but I think that someone with some real statistical expertise look at the report altogether and see if its methodology is rigorous or, as I suspect, sloppy.

(h/t Nephew of Ziyon)

03/20 Links Pt1: Abbas Paving the Way to Turn West Bank into an Islamist State; America, wake up!

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The urgent business of the next government

On Tuesday, the people of Israel spoke. They gave a clear mandate to the nationalist camp, led by the Likud and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to lead the country.
Now that the people have spoken, our leaders must consider the steps they must take, immediately upon entering office, that will enable them to advance their agenda and so meet the public’s expectations.
To understand why this is necessary, we need to recall why Netanyahu decided to dismantle his last coalition government and opt for an early election. What made Netanyahu decide that he would be better off going to an election and risk losing power rather than maintaining his existing government intact? There were two developments that caused Netanyahu to break up his coalition government by firing then-justice minister Tzipi Livni and then-finance minister Yair Lapid. First, they voted in favor of the so-called “Israel Hayom” bill, legislation that would have forced the closure of the mass circulation free daily “Israel Hayom.”
Second, they opposed draft legislation for a basic law that would give a new quasi-constitutional anchor to Israel’s Jewish identity – the so-called Nation-State bill.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Abbas Paving the Way to Turn West Bank into an Islamist State

Abbas has chosen to align himself with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, thus facilitating these two organizations' dreams of taking over the West Bank. These two radical groups seek to destroy Israel and are opposed to any peace process in the Middle East.
These threats are primarily aimed at getting the international community into providing the Palestinian Authority with more financial and political support.
This alliance could also result in renewed terrorist attacks against Israel, because Hamas and Islamic Jihad will interpret Abbas's anti-Israel moves and rhetoric as a green light for such actions.
Abbas's rapprochement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad will only confirm the fears of many Israelis that the West Bank will fall onto the hands of Islamists once Israel withdraws from that area.
The two-state solution started the day Hamas kicked Abbas out of the Gaza Strip and turned it into an Islamist emirate. In the end, the Palestinians got two states that are even at war with each other.

JPost Editorial: America, wake up!

This year, Passover should be a wake-up call for America. A sour note has been injected into our celebration as we look forward to Seder night and the four cups of wine that commemorate the four expressions of the freedom bestowed upon the Jewish people at this time in history.
Unless Jonathan Pollard is home in Jerusalem to celebrate as well, it will be virtually impossible to sustain the illusion that Israel has a fair and reliable relationship with our foremost ally, the United States of America.
Too much time has gone by; the Pollard travesty of justice remains unresolved. It is no longer possible for any Israeli, or any honest person for that matter, to remain aloof and to imagine that what is happening to Pollard, concerns only Pollard.
Pollard has become a symbol – a powerful icon of Israeli weakness and of American disregard for Israel as a valued ally.

What do Jewish settlers have in common with left-wing members of kibbutzim and moshavim; as well as IDF soldiers?

They all voted disproportionately for Israel's "Green Leaf" party whose only issue is to legalize marijuana.

According to the Knesset Election Committee’s breakdown of votes by location, another ticket that did quite well in the settlements – relatively speaking, of course – was Green Leaf (“Ale Yarok”), a single-issue party fighting for the legalization of marijuana.

Not only was the percentage of voters casting ballots for Green Leaf higher than the national average at many settlements, including those where the majority of the population is Orthodox, but in quite a few instances, the pro-cannabis party did a lot better than many mainstream parties. That it came ahead of parties associated with the center and left, like Zionist Union and Yesh Atid, may not come as a surprise. But in numerous cases, it also fared better than parties on the right, among them Yisrael Beiteinu and the new Kulanu party.

Oren Lebovich, the chairman of Green Leaf, notes that before the election, the party held a parlor meeting with potential supporters in Efrata, a settlement in the Gush Etzion bloc. “That was the first time we’ve ever done any outreach like that in the settlements,” he said.

The following are some of the larger settlements where Green Leaf performed better than it did nationwide: In Givat Ze’ev, just north of Jerusalem, it captured 3.2 percent of the vote; in Ma’aleh Efraim, 2.5 percent; in both Ariel and Barkan, 2.3 percent of the vote; in Sha’arey Tikvah, 2.1 percent; in Alfei Menashe, 1.8 percent; in both Karnei Shomron and Tekoa, 1.5 percent; and in Ma’aleh Adumim, 1.2 percent.

At some smaller and largely secular settlements, the percentages were even higher in some cases. For example, at Migdalim, 8.6 percent of the voters cast their ballot for Green Leaf; at Reichan, 8.1 percent; at Beit Ha’arava, 7.8 percent; at Bekaot, 4.4 percent; at Vered Yericho, 3.7 percent; at Rimonim, 3.5 percent; at Kedar, 3.2 percent; at Kalia, 3.1 percent, and at Mitzpeh Shalem, 2.7 percent.

At both Beit El and Ofra, two major Orthodox settlements, Green Leaf took slightly less than 1 percent of the vote, but it came out ahead of other parties like Yisrael Beiteinu, Zionist Union and Yesh Atid.

It wasn’t only in the settlements that the party attracted a disproportionate share of votes, notes Lebovich. “Even though these are completely different populations, we also did well in the kibbutzim and moshavim,” he said. “It just goes to show that ours is a cause that cuts across many other divides.”

Another segment of society where Green Leaf has traditionally done well is the military. This morning, the Knesset Elections Committee published the final tally of what are known as “double envelope” votes – those ballots cast by soldiers, diplomats stationed abroad, hospital patients and prisoners, which typically come in late. Although the committee does not publish the breakdown among these different groups, the overwhelming majority of the “double envelope” votes are known to come from soldiers.

According to these figures, 8,472 “double envelope” votes went to Green Leaf, about 3.6 percent of the total. Hypothetically, then, had the party been vying for votes among soldiers alone, it would have crossed the threshold to get into the Knesset. Last year, it captured a similar number of votes in the military.

Why is the pro-cannabis party so popular in the Israeli military? Here’s how one young combat soldier tried to explain the phenomenon: “When we’re at our bases, we’re very cut off from what’s happening in the rest of the country. We don’t have TVs, and we don’t get newspapers. All we really think about is completing our service and getting high.”

Imagine that - pot brings the left and right together!

Now if we could just get the Arabs to start smoking weed, then peace might not be so elusive...

On August 1, the UN's OCHA reported in its daily Gaza situation report:

Also of concern are continuing incidents where humanitarian relief personnel and objects have come under attack. At 06:15 this morning, IDF troops fired five shells at Omar Bin Al Khatab mosque, northeast of Jabalia, spraying a nearby UNRWA school with shrapnel, and injuring ten IDPs who were taking shelter there, including two in serious condition.

It turns out that the mosque was hit by Gaza terror rockets, not Israeli munitions:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, no such strikes were identified as having been carried out by IDF forces. However, the path of a rocket fired from inside the Gaza Strip, apparently by Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was identified by the IDF in real time, and which struck in the immediate vicinity of the mosque at the exact time in question. In light of the fact that the injury to the individuals in the school resulted from rocket fire by Palestinian terror organizations, the MAG ordered the case to be closed.

Is Chris Gunness going to express outrage that a Hamas or Islamic Jihad rocket injured 10 people sheltering at a UNRWA school?

We know that there were hundreds of Gaza rockets that fell in Gaza. Every case of death and injury during the war has a non-trivial chance of being the result of Hamas or Islamic Jihad rockets. We know of one case of nine children killed by a Hamas rocket. In the months before the war there were at least three Gaza civilians, and a number of terrorists, who were killed by terror rockets.

Once incident in Beit Hanoun seems likely to have been from a Hamas rocket as well:

Correspondence from an NGO alleged that in the morning hours of 22 July 2014, the IDF "struck three ambulances that were involved in the evacuation of wounded persons east of the industrial area of Bet Hanoun. One of the wounded persons in an ambulance was killed and the three vehicles were seriously damaged". As a result, and in accordance with the MAG's investigation policy, the incident was referred to the FFAM.

Following a thorough review conducted by the FFAM with all the forces identified as operating in the relevant area, such a strike by IDF forces operating in that area could not be identified. Likewise, and in contrast to other complaints concerning similar incidents, no report could be located from the time of the incident indicating that harm had been caused to a rescue crew. In turn, the FFAM did not dismiss the possibility that damage, insofar as such occurred, was the result of activity other than that of the IDF.

No NGO or news media are investigating these incidents of apparent rocket attacks within Gaza itself. Because they don't care about the truth and they don't care about dead Gazans- they only care about blaming Israel.

The truth starts to come out about Gaza incidents. Part 1: Al Bakri family home

Yesterday, Israel's Military Advocate General came out with a new report (part 3) describing the circumstances of several incidents from Operation Protective Edge that had been described as "war crimes" by the media and NGOs.

One case was the Israeli strike of the al-Bakri family on August 4. This case had been covered by Amnesty International, B'Tselem and media outlets.

This report from ABC Australia from November is typical:

Almost four months on, I have been drawn back to Gaza by the face of a seven-year-old girl.

Her name is Aseel Al-Bakri.

The last time I saw her was on August 4. She was lying in a morgue at Gaza's Shifa Hospital, a few hours after an Israeli air strike had killed her.

That day, the ABC crew in Gaza had arrived at her house, just minutes after it had been crushed from above.

The concrete structure was a crumpled mess of twisted metal and the destroyed remnants of a family's life.

We watched and filmed as the girl's tiny body was rushed out on a stretcher, and thousands of Palestinians swarmed around the rubble in the summer heat.

Ever since, I have wondered why Aseel Al-Bakri's home was targeted by an Israeli bomb. So I have come back to Gaza to find out.

On the morning of August 4 Haneen and her little sister Aseel had just returned from buying falafel.

Their mother Ibtisam was baking bread and the family was preparing to eat breakfast.

That is the last thing the children remember. Their next recollection is waking up in a Gaza hospital and being told that their mother and two sisters were dead.

Mr Al-Bakri is a religious man. He stoically insists that his wife and two children are now in a better place.

"It was very sad for me to discover what happened," he said.

"But we believe in God and we wish that they are all now in heaven."

When pressed, he opens up a little more about the family's trauma.

"I can't explain what I'm feeling right now. I can't hide my sadness. I feel stressed and depressed," he said.

I ask him why he thinks it was bombed, and whether he has any links with any of the militant factions operating in Gaza.

"I don't believe the stories about them [Israel] only hitting wanted people or militants," he said.

"Myself, I work as a dustman. I do my work and go home. I'm a simple guy, not involved with any activists or organisations."

The correspondent, Hayden Cooper, didn't bother to check out that B'Tselem reported that one of those killed in the house was not named al-Bakri, but Ibrahim al-Misharawi. Why was he there?

As I had already documented last August, Misharawi was a member of Islamic Jihad - a small fact that Cooper didn't bother to investigate months later, even though he claims to have gone back to Gaza specifically to find out the circumstances. No, he went back to Gaza to try to win an award for tear-jerking reporting.

Soon after, Amnesty International released its own report, and they did a slightly better job while still concluding that Israel had no business hitting the home. After 12 paragraphs of describing how horrible the bombing was, including two interviews of victims, Amnesty reluctantly admits:

Although family members denied it, both Ramadan Kamal al-Bakri and Ibrahim alMashharawi were members of Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades, as was confirmed when, after some weeks, their names appeared on their list of “martyrs.”

But their investigation ended there, with this conclusion:

If Ramadan Ahmad al-Bakri and Ibrahim Mohammad al-Mashharawi were the intended targets, in view of the fact that there were 21 people in the house at the time, the Israeli forces should have taken necessary precautions to minimize the risk to civilians in the house, either by giving a warning or by choosing a time and means of targeting him that was less likely to kill civilians.

They didn't bother to find out if there were any other targets in the house besides "only" two Islamic Jihad members.

Ramadan al-Bakri's martyr poster

The MAG report from Israel fills in the blanks:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the strike in question was aimed at Omar Al-Rahim, a senior commander, at a rank equivalent to that of a deputy brigade commander, in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization. Al-Rahim was staying in the house of Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant. During the target planning process, it was assessed that there might be a number of civilians present in the building, but that the extent of the harm expected to these civilians would not be excessive in relation to the significant military advantage anticipated to result from the strike. It was planned that the strike on the building would be carried out using a precise munition, and in a way in which would allow achieving the aim of the strike whilst minimizing harm to the surrounding buildings.

After the event, as a result of the strike, the target, Omar Al-Rahim, was severely injured, and Ibrahim Al-Masharawi, who was a senior commander at a rank equivalent to a battalion commander in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was killed, along with Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant, and four civilians.

After reviewing the factual findings and the material collated by the FFA Mechanism, the MAG found that the targeting process in question accorded with Israeli domestic law and international law requirements. The decision to strike was taken by the competent authorities and aimed at a lawful target – a senior commander in Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The strike complied with the principle of proportionality, as at the time the decision was taken, it was considered that the collateral damage expected from the strike would not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from it. Moreover, the strike was carried out while undertaking precautionary measures which aimed to mitigate the risk of civilian harm, with an emphasis on those who were present in the surrounding buildings. Such measures included, inter alia, the choice of munition to be used, as well as the deployment of real-time visual coverage. Additionally, it was found that the provision of a specific warning prior to the attack, to the people present in the structure in which the target was located, or to those in adjacent buildings, was not required by law and was expected to result in the frustration of the strike's objective.

In light of these findings, the MAG did not find that the actions of IDF forces raised grounds for a reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct. As a result, the MAG ordered the case to be closed, without opening a criminal investigation or ordering further action against those involved in the incident.

The MAG explains why it didn't give a warning, and that Omar al-Rahim was a significant enough target to put civilians at risk. A decision like this is the right of a reasonable military commander to make.

Despite Amnesty's finding that two of the dead were Islamic Jihad members, one of them from the family itself, it didn't think to investigate further to find out if perhaps there was a bigger target that they were protecting. That target was Omar al Rahim.

The facts show that not only did the IDF act proportionately under the laws of armed conflict, but Islamic Jihad was using the al-Bakri family as human shields - a war crime that Amnesty and B'Tselem don't bother to investigate.

Islamic Jihad's tribute to Ramadan doesn't even mention the family members killed in the attack. To them, he is the only victim worth memorializing. They are the ones who don't care about human lives, not Israel.

Even more depraved was that Ramadan al-Bakri happily chose to sacrifice his own family in order to shield al-Rahim and al-Misharawi.

Such is the sick culture of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Good luck waiting for HRW and Amnesty (and Hayden Cooper) to mention it.