Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The Orwellian Obama Presidency (Bret Stephens)

The humiliating denouement to America’s involvement in Yemen came over the weekend, when U.S. Special Forces were forced to evacuate a base from which they had operated against the local branch of al Qaeda. This is the same branch that claimed responsibility for the January attack on Charlie Hebdo and has long been considered to pose the most direct threat to Europe and the United States.

So who should Barack Obama be declaring war on in the Middle East other than the state of Israel?

There is an upside-down quality to this president’s world view. His administration is now on better terms with Iran—whose Houthi proxies, with the slogan “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews, power to Islam,” just deposed Yemen’s legitimate president—than it is with Israel. He claims we are winning the war against Islamic State even as the group continues to extend its reach into Libya, Yemen and Nigeria.

He treats Republicans in the Senate as an enemy when it comes to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, while treating the Russian foreign ministry as a diplomatic partner. He favors the moral legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council to that of the U.S. Congress. He is facilitating Bashar Assad’s war on his own people by targeting ISIS so the Syrian dictator can train his fire on our ostensible allies in the Free Syrian Army.

He was prepared to embrace a Muslim Brother as president of Egypt but maintains an arm’s-length relationship with his popular pro-American successor. He has no problem keeping company with Al Sharpton and tagging an American police department as comprehensively racist but is nothing if not adamant that the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” must on no account ever be conjoined. The deeper that Russian forces advance into Ukraine, the more they violate cease-fires, the weaker the Kiev government becomes, the more insistent he is that his response to Russia is working.

To adapt George Orwell’s motto for Oceania: Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory.

The current victim of Mr. Obama’s moral inversions is the recently re-elected Israeli prime minister. Normally a sweeping democratic mandate reflects legitimacy, but not for Mr. Obama. Now we are treated to the astonishing spectacle in which Benjamin Netanyahu has become persona non grata for his comments doubting the current feasibility of a two-state solution. This, while his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term, without a murmur of protest from the White House.

It is true that Mr. Netanyahu made an ugly election-day remark about Israeli-Arab voters “coming out in droves to the polls,” thereby putting “the right-wing government in danger.” For this he has apologized, in person, to leaders of the Israeli-Arab community.

That’s more than can be said for Mr. Abbas, who last year threatened Israel with a global religious war if Jews were allowed to pray in the Temple Mount’s Al Aqsa mosque. “We will not allow our holy places to be contaminated,” the Palestinian Authority president said. The Obama administration insists that Mr. Abbas is “the best interlocutor Israel is ever going to have.”

Maybe that’s true, but if so it only underscores the point Mr. Netanyahu was making in the first place—and for which Mr. Obama now threatens a fundamental reassessment of U.S. relations with Israel. In 2014 Mr. Abbas agreed to a power-sharing agreement with Hamas, a deal breaker for any Israeli interested in peace. In 2010 he used the expiration of a 10-month Israeli settlement freeze as an excuse to abandon bilateral peace efforts. In 2008 he walked away from a statehood offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In 2000 he was with Yasser Arafat at Camp David when the Palestinians turned down a deal from Israel’s Ehud Barak.

And so on. For continuously rejecting good-faith Israeli offers, Mr. Abbas may be about to get his wish: a U.S. vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. For tiring of constant Palestinian bad faith—and noting the fact—Israel will now be treated to pariah-nation status by Mr. Obama.
***

Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with every other country being treated disdainfully by this crass administration: Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit back.

The Saudis figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed to honor his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on the Security Council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan and tanked the price of oil, mainly as a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not solicitous of the Saudi highnesses.

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue: Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Jew-hating Arabs freak out over hasidim dancing in Jordan's airport (video)

This video, taken at Jordan's Queen Alia Airport, is causing an uproar in the Arab world:

Al Jazeera (Arabic) reports that this video has raised the ire of Arabs on social media. Some are saying that they are performing "Talmudic rituals."

Many Arabs attacked the airport management and the Jordanian government on Twitter for not taking punitive action against what they call a "settler group" which had been waiting for their plane to take-off.

Others asked if Israel would allow "Palestinian resistance activists" to dance in Ben Gurion airport.

Yet others expressed their general disgust at this video of celebrating Jews. One said "Jordanians support Hamas, and the Zionists are dancing on our dignity."

Another wrote, "They did not carry knives and a weapon, they are only carrying the blood of the Palestinian people." Another said, "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is desecrated every day, the while the Arabs are asleep." One more said "they killed our beloved and then danced on our land."

Airport officials were more sanguine. Queen Alia airport management downplayed the video, saying, "The video was very short, and no travelers complained.,...the management of the airport has not received a single complaint from any passenger on the Incident that took place." It also denied that the dances mentioned are "an expression of Jewish religious ritual." Because, of course, that would be terrible.

The spokeswoman stressed that the authorities asked them not to dance or create chaos inside the airport.

Many Breslov hasidim travel to Uman, Ukraine through Jordan's airport for pilgrimages to the gravesite of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.

Every single song being sung is a wedding song, indicating that one of the passengers recently became engaged or married. There was nothing remotely Zionist or Israeli in these dances. But the idea of Jews dancing in Jordan is nothing less than horrible to many Arabs.

No black MKs from Meretz or the Zionist Union or Kulanu.

Only Likud.

Who are the racists again?

Spring appeal: Donate to EoZ!

(This post will be pasted on the top of the page for the day, scroll down to see newer articles.)

Throughout the quarter I received appeals for funds from other organizations.

One of them asked for money because they had helped to get people to complain to Amazon and Google to remove a violent anti-Israel videogame from their app stores.

I was the first one to report about that video game.

Similarly, I saw an appeal based on an organization debunking the Hamas lie that an Israeli dam had been opened to flood Gaza.

I was not only the first to debunk that myth this year, but I had debunked similar stories years ago.

When you read EoZ, you get many of these stories first, way before the mainstream media - stories that, in some ways, end up making a real difference.

This quarter was no exception:

EoZ was a major factor in the Jim Clancy meltdown that led to his being let go from CNN.
I prompted a New York Times (silent) correction where they used the nonsensical phrase "Israel's 1967 borders with Palestine."
I exposed some truly idiotic BDSers who thought that Sabra hummus was named after the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, forcing them to remove their accusations.
I embarrassed left-wing NGO Gisha into reluctantly mentioning for the first time that Hamas was stopping people from leaving Gaza - supposedly the raison d'etre of the organization.
I exposed Fatah's poster that showed a pile of skulls with Stars of David, a story that did reach the mainstream media and forced Fatah to distance itself from the image - not very convincingly.

If you can find a paid reporter that has done that much in three months, please let me know.

But that isn't all.

I made posters:

I made cartoons:

I critiqued the media. I wrote original analyses, I pointed out hypocrisy, I exposed NGO bias. I explored history. My articles appeared or were linked to from Algemeiner, Jewish Press, TheBlaze and elsewhere. I was interviewed on Voice of Israel. My twitter follower count went past 14,000.

In three months I posted about 500 articles.

And this was a typical quarter for me.

This is besides the daily linkdumps by Ian, which are, hands down, the best daily round-up of stories about Israel and the Arab world that you can find anywhere.

EoZ is also now blessed with three regular weekly columnists: Mike Lumish, Vic Rosenthal and PreOccupied Territory.

If you think that this work is valuable, please consider donating - or, better yet, becoming a monthly subscriber - , using the PayPal buttons on the top-right column of my main webpage. Or, if you prefer, you can help by sending me an Amazon gift card.

Thanks again for your readership and for your support through the years. I do appreciate it.

03/23 Links Pt2: Red Cross at Hamas Uni; Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian; LATMA Ep7

From Ian:

Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian

We need more people to start using their brains. If there was a Palestinian state declared tomorrow, do you honestly believe the PEOPLE in “Palestine” would gain anything? Has the PA ever done anything that suggest competent governance? Do you think Hamas has? If they were to be GIVEN a State without being held to some accountability, we would be looking at a corrupt inept state for decades, with no chance at representative government, and damn sure no chance of real peace without violence. This is fact not opinion. Fact based on careful analysis of previous situations like this one.
There is hope. There are now Palestinans who are speaking up and while they may not be “Pro-Israel,” they are not ANTI Israel which until now has been the truth behind this pro-Palestinian movement. By speaking up they risk a lot of persecution and even murder. The thing is, without them speaking up, I would assume that Palestinians are OK with Hamas and Fatah speaking for them, OK with the rife corruption that is endemic in the Palestinian government and OK with trying to kill Jews constantly.
I believe that Palestinians will eventually find a leader who doesn’t want to perpetuate the conflict to fatten his own wallet with the skimming of aid money. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean we cannot hope. But my support of the PEOPLE in Palestine is based on what I think is best for them long term and I believe that they will need to be part of Israel eventually, but must show that they belong and they understand they belong before that can even be discussed.
Israel is a singular place, a place where people are allowed to worship God as they see fit, where women are respected and where gay rights are not just words but actions. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East and most importantly the people have demonstrated their moral clarity on several occasions. That alone should be enough for us to be very careful about lecturing Israelis on doing what we want them to do. Most of them understand that what’s best for the Arabs in Judeah and Samaria will also be what’s best for Israel and that’s not just giving it up but building it up, making it into a thriving region that is part of a vibrant and peaceful nation. Most Arabs seem to want that, at least the ones not living outside of those borders who just want to see dead Jews.

Ryan Bellerose discusses the parallels between the indigenous struggles in North America and Israel.
Video: Ryan Bellerose at CIJR full discussion 110min

Ryan Bellerose CIJR Highlights

Red Cross Cooperating with Hamas-Affiliated University

The faculty of Sharia (Islamic law) at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University in Gaza is preparing to hold an international conference in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross on the subject of international humanitarian law in light of Islamic Sharia.
The conference is scheduled to take place on October 13 and 14 this year, according to a joint ad of the Red Cross and the Islamic University, which appeared in the Hamas-affiliated Palestine newspaper on Sunday.
According to the ad, the first session of the conference will deal with humanitarian issues. The second session will discuss the basic principles in the management of armed conflicts, the third session will deal with victims’ rights and measures for their protection during armed conflict, and the fourth session will deal with guarantees for the implementation of the principles of the management of armed conflict and modern challenges.
All the sessions will examine these issues according to Sharia law and international humanitarian law, the ad states.
The cooperation with the Red Cross is puzzling given that the Islamic University is considered a stronghold of Hamas and, according to Israeli intelligence, Hamas uses it to develop its rocket arsenal.

LATMA: We'll be the Judge, Episode 7

The Seven episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, March 19, 2015.

JTA has a very interesting article today about how traditional Christian sculptures, still visible in Europe, show antisemitic motifs.

One of the examples they give is very instructive:

Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is among the most visited sites on the planet and a splendid example of Gothic architecture

Each year, millions flock to admire and photograph its flying buttresses and statuary, yet few take any real notice of two prominent female statues on either side of the main entrance. The one on the left is dressed in fine clothing and bathed in light, while the one on the right is disheveled, with a large snake draped over her eyes like a blindfold.

The statues, known as Ecclesia and Sinagoga, respectively, and generally found in juxtaposition, are a common motif in medieval art and represent the Christian theological concept known as supercessionism, whereby the Church is triumphant and the Synagogue defeated.

Sinagoga is depicted here with head bowed, broken staff, the tablets of the law slipping from her hand and a fallen crown at her feet. Ecclesia stands upright with crowned head and carries a chalice and a staff adorned with the cross.

Wikipedia adds:

The figures reflect the Christian belief, sometimes called Supersessionism, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that Judaism as a religion was therefore made unnecessary, by its own tenets, once Christianity was established, and that all Jews should convert. Today opposed by dual-covenant theology, this belief was universal in the medieval church. Synagoga's blindfold reflected the refusal of medieval Jews to "see" this point, which was regarded as stubborn.

The sculpted portal figures are generally found on the cathedrals of larger cities in northern Europe that had significant Jewish communities, especially in Germany, and apart from their theological significance, were certainly also intended to remind Jews of their place in a Christian society, by projecting "an ideal of Jewish submission within an ideally ordered Christian realm.

The point of Synagoga is not to assert the Church's superiority - its presence in cities with large Jewish populations prove that the intent is to prove Judaism's inferiority, to humiliate Jews.

Humiliating others is certain indicator of low self-esteem.

Supersessionism holds that the continued existence of Jews is an anomaly. Jews were already second class citizens, but that wasn't enough. This artwork indicates not only that Jews should be subjugated, but that they are mentally ill for not embracing the obvious truth that their belief system has no legitimacy.

The very existence of vibrant Jewish communities in Christian Europe disproved the basis of supersessionism, and these elaborate sculptures and paintings and stained glass windows were meant to make Christians feel better by putting down Jews who somehow managed not to disappear as supersessionism would predict.

It is hardly surprising that the most antisemitic and anti-Zionist churches of today are the ones who still cling to supercessionism. Nor is it surprising that supersessionism is a keystone of the Palestinian Christian community, which embraced this philosophy in the Kairos document.

This attitude is more extreme than traditional dhimmitude. Muslims think that Jews have a place in society, but that society is run by Muslims and Jews must mind their second-class status. It isn't that they don't belong in society, they just have to know their place.

The proper analogy isn't between Christian xupersessionist theology and dhimmitude; it is between supersessionist attitudes towards Jews and Muslim attitudes towards Israel.

The existence of a Jewish state is the same challenge to the Muslim worldview that the existence of Jews is to Christian supersessionists. In both cases the very sight of the offending entity - Israel or Jews - is an intense source of shame, because it cuts to the heart of the belief systems. In both cases, they must be defeated in order to restore self-esteem and prove that their beliefs have validity.

One can say the same about how the existence of the Jewish people is a challenge to universalist ideology that cannot abide that different groups of people are really different, and no one symbolizes that better than the Jews.

Greater minds than mine have spent countless years pondering the nature of Jew-hatred. I think that the inability to reconcile one's own belief system with the very existence of Jews, or the existence of a Jewish nation, is a very good first step.to understanding the roots of antisemitism.

Walking down J-Street, part 1 (guest post)

EoZ reader Messy57 is at the J-Street conference in Washington. Here is his report from Saturday night:

I got an email a couple of weeks back informing me that the J Street “Progressive Zionist” organization, sort of like AIPAC’s evil twin (or good, depending on how you view things) was having it’s annual jamboree at the Walter Washington convention center in DC, and would I like to pay a ton of money to go?

I would not.( Pay the ton of money that is.)
.
So, as I do on occasion, I filled out the press form and sent a bunch of digital clippings. They gave me a ticket. Even better, KAYAK was able to get me a $150 round trip flight to DC. Another sixty bucks for two nights at the youth hostel next to the Convention center and off I went….

Day One

“Do you have a card” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “why?”

“If you’re a journalist I need to see your business card in order to talk to you.”

She was a student, you see. She had taken a training course before she came here and was told to be suspicious of skeevy old men with press badges and was told to get the business card and give it to the secret police (or whatever J street calls them). I said there was no reason, because I was only making conversation.

She gave me a very dirty look. I could understand, sort of. Netanyahu had just won the election and everyone was to some extent angry and depressed. However they did try to look cheerful. The opening ceremonies were starting soon and I headed up to take my seat.

The first two rows of seats in the grand ballroom were in fact circular tables. I searched around for a while and got a seat with a decent view. The rest of the people around my table were middle aged, behind us were the kids, allegedly there were about a thousand of them from all around the country, and Toronto, Canada, and tonight, they were the stars of the show. Lights! Music!!!!! Here we go….

Onstage comes J-Street Morton Halperin, who gets a standing ovation. He thanks the crowd, and starts on a short and forgettable speech. He then starts talking about “J Street U”, which is their version of Hillel. There’s a fanfare and football music, a bunch of squeaky clean college students enter stage right looking like something out of the Brady Bunch, and in their peppiest voices they start the roll call of the universities. I’m not sure if it’s more of a high school pep rally or a political convention. Clearly this was the latter and goes on and on and on. . Then they announce the Hillels who decided to attend. Apparently the BDSers have somehow managed to split the movement, and the two organizations are actively feuding.

J Street, no matter what else you may have heard, is currently anti-BDS, they think it makes Bibi and his ilk look like victims and it leads to anti-Semitism., both of which are true.

There’s more football music and cheering as President Jeremy Ben Ami is introduced. He’s a thin and wiry gent, with a crooked smile and glasses, kind of nerdy. He starts thanking people like in an awards show, all the kids in general, and the senior staff in particular before he sheds his kindly persona and starts attacking Bibi before going after the rest of Likud, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a whole bunch of other people and organizations.

The crowd loved it.

Then there was the “Kumbaya” story of two grandmas, one Jewish and one Palestinian, and how they called each other by phone as their governments bombed each other. Very sweet.

Finally there was Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union Reform Judaism. who gave an astoundingly good speech. He hit all the right points, wasn’t radical at all, and was almost thrilling. The crowd loved that too. Then came the cake.

We’d get to the really important stuff the following day.

03/23 Links Pt1: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu; US boycotts UNHRC

From Ian:

Isi Leibler: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu

Prior to the election, US President Barack Obama had already signaled his malicious intent by appointing Robert Malley, known for his hostility to Israel, as White House coordinator for the Middle East, and designated White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as keynote speaker at the anti-Israel J Street Conference. Still smarting over Netanyahu’s address to Congress and having failed to bring about his downfall, Obama was clearly devastated by his spectacular electoral victory.
But in light of the fact that the electorate in the only democratic country in the region extended a clear vote of confidence in Netanyahu, it is anticipated that Israel’s long-standing ally – which purports to support democracy – will accept the will of the people in good faith.
Besides, an analysis of the votes indicates Netanyahu’s victory was anything but a lurch to the far Right. It was a vindication of the center-right, with the most radical party failing to meet the threshold and the other two more conservative parties being reduced from 25 to 13 seats.
Nevertheless, the US administration effectively declared war against Netanyahu. Obama grasped two remarks made by Netanyahu, somewhat out of context at the height of the election fever, to justify a veiled threat that the US would “reassess” relations with Israel, hinting that the US would punish Israel by failing to exercise its veto to protect Israel at the UN Security Council.
Netanyahu was condemned as a racist because, in an effort to jolt his supporters to vote, he drew attention to the massive effort funded from overseas to transport Arab voters to vote for the Joint Arab List, which includes supporters of Hamas and terrorism.

The Religious Dogma of Palestinian Statehood

In an unintentional but significant slip of the tongue, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that “it has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal…”
Actually, the first U.S. president to endorse a Palestinian state was George W. Bush, in 2002 -that is, thirteen years ago. So what does Earnest have in mind when he says “more than 20 years”? Apparently he’s referring to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was 22 years ago.
But wait a minute – the Oslo Accords said nothing about a Palestinian state. In fact, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin went out of his way at the time to emphasize that the accords did not create a Palestinian state, but rather would create an experimental period in which we would see whether or not the Palestinians were genuinely ready to live in peace with Israel.
Now Josh Earnest appears to be confirming what many of us suspected all along: that the White House and the State Department were never really interested in testing the Palestinian Arabs, but wanted to use the Oslo process as a way to bring about a Palestinian state no matter what.
The Oslo process proved to be a complete failure, because the Palestinian Authority violated it with impunity. The PA sponsored mass violence against Israel (anybody remember the Second Intifada?). The PA organized massive arms smuggling operations (anybody remember the tons of weapons aboard the Palestinian ship, the Karine A, that Israel captured in 2002?). The PA sheltered fugitive terrorists, failed to disarm or outlaw terrorist groups, and refused to extradite terrorists to Israel. It educated an entire generation of Palestinian school children to hate Israel and glorify terrorism, and it relentlessly promoted anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement.

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

While at the same time not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Mansour pushed for a two-state solution.
"We are seeking peaceful, legal methods to seek accountability, to address these issues, and to fight for the right for the causes of the Palestinian people," Mansour insisted. He added, "Whether through the security council, which we have been blocked often, or through legitimate International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice."
Mansour believes that Palestine is being "punished" for seeking a resolution and feels the message received is "go and fight." But, he assures, "We don't want to fight."
"We don't want to be like other states around us," Mansour charged.
Todd interjected, "If you don't want to do that, then are you going to renounce your partnership with Hamas?" Here is the rest of the conversation:

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

"The Pharaohs discovered Australia"

Never ending amusement in Muslim media.

During a recent TV debate on the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, Syrian political analyst Yahya Badr said that the Egyptian people was entitled to claim legal rights in Australia, since inscriptions in ancient hieroglyphics had been found near Sydney, indicating that the grandson of a pharoah had landed there. On the show, which aired on the Turkish TRT TV channel on March 6, Badr was introduced as owning the patent to mummy technology.

It sounds like Egyptians discovered America, too.

Australian media describe the hieroglyphics as fake.

ACADEMICS, archaeologists and other authorities believe Dr Hans-Dieter von Senff crosses the line from fact to fantasy in claiming Egyptians lived in the hills overlooking Woy Woy about 5000 years ago.

Despite precious little scholarly or government support from anywhere between Cairo and Sydney, the self-described ‘‘amateur Egyptologist’’ from Swansea is sticking to his theory.

The 72-year-old issued a media release nationally this week announcing the discovery of a mysterious stone chamber in a bushland setting at Kariong.

The site is already notorious due to about 100 hieroglyphic-style carvings on two sandstone walls.

About 15 metres long, the parallel walls feature depictions of owls, chickens, dogs, boats and stick men, among other things.

The NSW government doesn’t subscribe to any walk or talk like Egyptians.

Taking advice from Professor Nageeb Kanawati of Macquarie University and rock art conservation specialist David Lambert, the National Parks and Wildlife Service ‘‘believes that the hieroglyphs are not genuine and were constructed in the early 1980s’’.

Dr von Senff, a bus driver, graduated from the University of Newcastle with a PhD in 2006.

His doctoral thesis dealt with the problems of German reunification from a historical and literary perspective.

#WordsMatter: White House equally skeptical of Bibi's and Khamenei's words

As we've mentioned, the White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed skepticism about Netanyahu's desire for a two-state solution by misunderstanding his remarks during his campaign and then dismissing his statement afterwards in favor of a two-state solution that ensures Israel's security as not being believable. "Words matter," the White House lectured Bibi.

It is often good advice to be skeptical of statements by politicians when they seem to contradict themselves, although in this case Bibi's words did not.

But is it wise to be skeptical when the dictator of a nation building nuclear weapons and ICBM's say "Death to America"?

In an address in Tehran on March 21, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the crowds' chants of "Death to America" by saying: "Death to America, of course, because America is the principal element behind this pressure [i.e., the economic sanctions]." Khamenei said that Obama had said "some dishonest things" in his Nowruz address and that the American goal was "to turn the [Iranian] people against the system." The address was broadcast on the Iranian news channel IRINN.

It is not even worth mentioning when Khamenei's top aide says "We shall not rest until we raise the flag of Islam over the White House.”

The White House is skeptical of a democratic ally's peaceful intentions but equally skeptical of an avowed enemy's vow to destroy America.

In other words, the White House only believes that "words matter" when the skepticism fits their agenda. In this case, their viewpoint is that peaceful statements from Israel must be insulted and warmongering from Iran must be coddled.

(Bibi explained his words, and why they weren't contradictory, on NPR.)

How progressive!

A Sydney theatre has refused to rent its premises to a Jewish group on the grounds that their policy “does not support colonialism/Zionism”.

redrattler400In a brief email response to Shailee Mendelevich who wrote requesting to book the Red Rattler Theatre in Marrickville, ‘Red Rattler Team’ responded: “Our policy does not support colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine.”

Mendelevich wrote to the theatre in her capacity as assistant director of Hillel at Sydney’s Shalom Institute. She told them in her letter that Hillel is not for profit organisation telling them “we have created a live storytelling series that features poetry, musicians and actors on stage, creating meaningful performances to educate the audience on the theme of the evening”.

She explained that Hillel “supports Jewish students and young adults.”

The matter was referred to The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies whose CEO Vic Alhadeff wrote to Red Rattler.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” I wrote a respectful letter to the theatre, saying I would like to discuss the matter in order to resolve misconceptions on the part of their team – about the organisation which had approached them and about the position of the Jewish community in regard to Palestine and about Israel itself. ”

He added in his communication to the theatre: “To categorically reject an approach by a Jewish organisation to hire your premises because of a political position that your team holds in relation to an overseas conflict is at best ill-informed and at worst racist and discriminatory.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” Despite several calls to the theatre with a request to discuss and resolve the matter and explain Hillel’s and the community’s position on these issues, I have received no response either to my letter or to several calls to the theatre.”

He added: “It’s sad to see an artistic group practise outright discrimination and worse, importing divisiveness based on conflicts taking place far from Australia. We ought to be able to get along and work with each respectfully, despite political views or differences of opinion.”

Nowhere in that Hillel's vision or mission statement is Israel even mentioned.

The subject of the performance was to understand what it means to be a third generation Holocaust survivor and how it impacts future generations.

Here is The Red Rattler's performer policy:

The Red Rattler was set up as a space where racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism are not welcome on stage, in the audience, at the door, and at the bar.

We ask you to join us in efforts to make this space welcoming, stimulating, and happiness producing to people regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality or gender.

Sadly, it has become apparent that we need to be more explicit about what it means not to be racist.

Racism includes things such as blackface performance or being derogatory towards people on the basis of their race. Blackface performance is not permitted at The Red Rattler.

Taking a self reflexive approach to our own practices is part of anti-racist strategy. One way of testing our performances can be to ask ourselves - if the room is all persons of that ethnicity, am I confident that my show is not racist?

There you go! Since Palestinians are largely Holocaust-deniers, and Hamas sympathizers are very upset at the very mention of the murder of millions of Jewish people, they would be uncomfortable sitting in the audience of such a performance and therefore it violates the Red Rattler's expansive definition of racism!

It all makes perfect sense if you are a sickening, disgusting Jew-hater pretending to be liberal.

The people behind the theatre are proud to describe themselves as "rats." That moniker is richly deserved.

UPDATE: Of course, after this story hit the world media, the Rats decided that this didn't look good and now say they have no problem with Jews.

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.