Sunday, October 03, 2021
Elder of Ziyon
Sunday, October 03, 2021Elder of Ziyon
Sunday, October 03, 2021Elder of ZiyonTensions have increased recently between Tehran and Baku over three issues: a joint military drill that Azerbaijani troops conducted alongside their Turkish and Pakistani counterparts some 500 kilometers from the Iranian border; Azerbaijani restrictions on Iranian truck drivers' access to Armenia and the detention of two drivers; and Azerbaijani ties to Iran’s archenemy Israel.On October 1, Tehran added to those tensions by launching its own military drills near its northwestern border, days after the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) deployed military equipment to the region.The move was met with expressions of concern from Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who earlier this week said he was surprised by the planned drill."Every country can carry out any military drill on its own territory. It’s their sovereign right. But why now, and why on our border?” Aliyev said. He noted that it was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union 20 years ago that Iran had planned such a show of force so close to its border.
Iran and Azerbaijan have enjoyed good relations in the past, but Tehran has increasingly expressed concern about alleged Israeli influence there.Speaking on September 24, Ameli was quoted by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying the drills sent a message to Israel.“Israel has come to Azerbaijan to plot against Iran," Ameli said, without offering details.
Saturday, October 02, 2021Elder of Ziyon
Let’s break down the bill into its individual pieces.
First, the two-state solution has been dead from the moment Israel was founded. The 1947 United Nations partition plan would have created a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it. This led to Israel’s founding following war in 1948. Since then, Israel has made numerous offers of statehood to the Palestinians. They have been rejected, and terrorism has, in most cases, followed. Put simply, the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated their refusal to co-exist with the Jewish state. A state, we should remember, that was founded only in the aftermath of 6 million Jews being killed in the Nazi-led Holocaust.
Second, there is no Israeli "occupation of the Palestinian territories." The West Bank has never belonged to the Palestinians. It used to belong to Jordan. Israel seized that land, including East Jerusalem, during the 1967 six day war. Jordan eventually ceded the land to Israel. The bill would condition U.S. assistance to Israel on the Jewish state not "[undermining] the prospects of a negotiated two-state solution."
This would be dangerous, especially as Israel faces numerous threats, the biggest from Iran.
The bill would also mark products made in the "Palestinian territories" as either "West Bank/Gaza," "West Bank/Gaza Strip," or "West Bank and Gaza." This is labeling designed to be loved by supporters of the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel.
Finally, the bill would end the designation of the Palestine Liberation Organization as a terrorist group. At least, that is, once the Palestinians are found to be in compliance with the Taylor Force Act (which prohibits U.S. taxpayer funds from going to the Palestinian Authority as long as it rewards terrorists and their families). The bill would allow, once that condition is met, for the PLO office in Washington to reopen.
But the bill forgets that the PLO has shown little interest in peace. President Donald Trump was right to shutter the PLO office in 2018. The Biden administration resumed funding for Palestinians earlier this year. So what’s to stop the secretary of state from certifying that the Palestinians are in compliance with the Taylor Force Act when they’re actually not?
Recall that the administration revoked the terrorist designation of the Houthis in Yemen even though they are a terrorist group backed by Iran.
Ultimately, any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to be worked out between the two sides without the U.S. dictating what it thinks is best. One thing is for certain. To quote the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir: "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."
The question that requires analysis and exploration is why nine duly elected members of the House of Representatives saw it as a good thing to leave millions of civilians defenseless to a terrorist onslaught. As Congressman Fleischmann said the other day, these are just plain anti-Semites. There is really no other way to explain it.UKLFI Charitable Trust: The Accusation of Israel as an Apartheid State
The other day, Vice President Kamala Harris visited a university classroom in Virginia. The question posed to the vice president by a student was about funding for Israel, a country that commits “ethnic genocide,” which is actually the furthest thing from reality.
Vice President Harris stood there as the student spoke about how Israel kills people based on who they are, and instead of disagreeing and correcting the student she just nodded her head in agreement.
Ms. Harris is not a here-today-gone-tomorrow fringe member of Congress. She’s the vice president of the United States and should not be nodding her head in agreement when a woke college student uses “ethnic cleaning” and “Israel” in the same sentence. Harris told the student, “Your truth must be heard.” Does that mean that VP Harris believes Israel is perpetrating ethnic genocide?
I’m reluctant to use the best word to describe her actions, but here it is: stupid.
Even AOC knew better.
Recording of a UKLFI Charitable Trust Webinar: The Accusation of Israel as an Apartheid State With Professor Orde Kittrie, Chair: Natasha Hausdorff
A new UN Commission of Inquiry of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is poised to accuse Israel of apartheid. Professor Kittrie discusses this Inquiry and its mandate, and the potential relationship with prosecutions by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The mandate’s reference to apartheid was apparently inspired by a lengthy report, accusing Israel of committing the crime of apartheid, published by Human Rights Watch (HRW). However this report is based on a definition of “apartheid” which is not found in the ICC’s Statute or the International Convention on Apartheid.
Professor Kittrie discusses the different definitions of apartheid, reasons why the apartheid charge is wrong even under HRW’s definition, and options for responding.
In a speech to the United Nations last week, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas not only stated that “Israel is an occupying power, practising apartheid and ethnic cleansing,” but also made no fewer than five further references to Israeli “apartheid”.FDR's secret plea to Hitler
Two years ago, a report by Dan Diker and Adam Shay for the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs revealed that the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel was not, as was widely believed, a network of local grassroots human-rights groups advocating BDS to establish a peaceful Palestinian state next to Israel.
It was instead run by the PA in Ramallah to direct, mobilise and co-ordinate global political warfare campaigns with the goal of isolating, delegitimising and ultimately dismantling the State of Israel. The current “Israel apartheid” chorus is almost certainly the product of the latest such campaign.
The “apartheid” libel is a potent weapon because it is unlike claims that Israel is practising genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians that are demonstrably fatuous (the number of Palestinian Arabs has at least tripled since Israel’s creation).
By contrast, the “Israel apartheid” smear triggers emotions of deep anger and disgust among the shallow and ignorant, whose knowledge of Israel is entirely drawn from malicious propaganda that misrepresents the defensive measures of the Jewish state as racist aggression but which they believe as unchallengeable truth.
South African apartheid was a system as unique as it was evil. The “Israel apartheid” libel is an evil that once again singles out the Jews for a unique level of persecution.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent a secret plea to Adolf Hitler in the summer of 1936, according to newly-uncovered documents.New Carter Bio Repeats Carter’s Old anti-Israel Lies
It wasn’t a plea to curtail Germany’s military buildup.
It wasn’t a plea to Hitler to stop intervening on behalf of the fascists in the Spanish civil war.
And it certainly wasn’t a protest against the brutal Nazi persecution of German Jews.
No, the issue that was so urgent to FDR that he sent a secret communication to Hitler was his request that the Führer meet with three American oil industry executives—two of them Roosevelt’s personal friends—who were on their way to Germany.
The documents about Roosevelt’s request came to light when they were recently put up for sale by a Maryland auction house. They begin with a “very urgent” message to Berlin from the German ambassador in Washington, Hans Luther, on August 21, 1936.
The ambassador reported that President Roosevelt had requested, through his senior aide Stephen Early, that Hitler grant an audience to Kenneth R. Kingsbury, president of Standard Oil of California; James A. Moffett, former head of FDR’s Federal Housing Administration and now vice president of Standard Oil of New Jersey; and Torkild Rieber, chairman of Texaco.
“In view of Roosevelt’s personal interest,” Ambassador Luther wrote, “I very strongly recommend that his request should be granted.” In a second message a few days later, Luther reported that Early had again emphasized “the great importance Roosevelt attaches to Moffett being introduced to the Führer.”
Ultimately, FDR’s request ran aground because of a scheduling conflict—the oil executives were going to be in Germany during one of the busiest periods in Hitler’s schedule, the preparations for the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. But that didn’t stop the three oil executives from engaging in significant commerce with the Third Reich.
Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold testified to a Senate committee in 1942 that at Hitler’s request, Standard Oil had obstructed the development of synthetic rubber in the United States, and instead provided the rubber technology to the Nazis. The revelations were so damning that then-senator Harry Truman accused the oil company of “treason.”
In fact, Bird gets this exactly wrong because he ignores or is unaware of the key evidence regarding Begin, Carter and settlements.
To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Camp David Accords, the Carter Center on Sept.17, 2003 held a symposium in Washington, DC. Participants included Mr. Carter, Samuel Lewis, who had been the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, William Quandt, who had been a staffer on the National Security Council, and Aharon Barak, who had been Israel’s Attorney General. Ambassador Lewis brought up the question of the settlement freeze, and Barak stated that he was in the relevant meeting, had been the only one taking notes, and that his notes showed that Begin had agreed only to a three month freeze. Off camera Carter is heard to state, “I don’t dispute that.” William Quandt then added that while he had not been in the meeting, Cyrus Vance, who had been, told him immediately afterwards that Begin had agreed to a three month freeze, but they hoped to get it lengthened the next day. Neither Carter, nor Barak, nor Quandt indicated that Begin had ever agreed to extend the freeze. Here’s the sequence from the symposium:
So, confronted with the evidence in 2003 Jimmy Carter admitted that Begin had agreed to only a three month settlement freeze – “I don’t dispute that” – but numerous times before and after, and now for Kai Bird’s book, Carter revives his false charge that Begin violated a promise to impose an open-ended settlement freeze.
Why would Carter keep lying about this? While there can be no question about Carter’s anti-Israel animus, his hostility towards Begin borders on the pathological. As Bird recounts, this included telling a senior aide that he had “coldness in my heart towards” the Israeli leader (p 326), telling his wife Roslyn that Begin was a “psycho,” (p 343) and accusing Begin of “trying to welsh on the deal.” (p 355).
Friday, October 01, 2021Elder of ZiyonThis is the sort of everyday antisemitism that simply gets no coverage in the media."كونوا يدًا واحدة يا عائلات بيت المقدس لنصرة الأقصى" .. عائلة الطويل أدت صلاة الفجر بالمسجد الأقصى وهذه كانت رسالتها للعائلات المقدسية pic.twitter.com/ZwUSAj5JCb
— AlQastal القسطل (@AlQastalps) October 1, 2021
A few hours before the House voted on the supplemental Iron Dome funding, Rep. Andy Levin, a progressive Jewish lawmaker from Michigan who voted in favor of the supplemental Iron Dome funding, submitted his own bill that related to the Palestinians and Israel. And Levin's bill is far more dangerous to Israel and to US-Israel relations than his fellow progressive lawmakers' nay vote on the Iron Dome.Israeli Foreign Minister Visits Bahrain, US Navy Base in Signal to Iran
The main purpose of Levin's bill, which is co-sponsored by 24 other members, (seven of whom are also Jewish), is to support the Palestinian terror against Israel, while adopting a laundry list of anti-Israel policies along the way.
Levin's bill includes an amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 that defines the PLO as a terrorist organization and bars the US from permitting the PLO to open offices in the US or from receiving assistance from the US so long as the PLO and its member organizations remain engaged in terrorism. Levin's bill would amend the law to provide the administration with the authority to permit the opening of a PLO office in Washington and to transfer funds to the PLO/Palestinian Authority even while the PLO and its member groups remain engaged in terrorism. Levin's bill enables the administration to sidestep the law simply by proclaiming that opening a PLO office in Washington and funding the PLO/PA is necessary to advance "diplomacy."
Whereas the 2018 Taylor Force Act bars the US from funding the PA so long as it pays salaries to terrorists and their families, Levin's bill would enable the administration to transfer funds directly to the PA even if it continues to pay salaries to terrorists and their families. Levin's bill empowers the secretary of state to authorize such funding simply by proclaiming that the PA is "reforming" its payment apparatus. As Palestinian Media Watch reported this week, the PA already believes that US funding will be restored despite the fact that nearly 10% of the PA budget goes towards paying salaries to terrorists and their families. A senior PA official said that reinstating US funding "is merely a problem of semantics." Levin's bill provides the semantic trick to restore funding.
Alongside its direct support for Palestinian terrorism, Levin's bill also includes multiple provisions whose purpose is to undermine and weaken Israel while subverting the US-Israel alliance. The Levin bill bars Israel from using weapons it receives from the US to defend itself in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and unified Jerusalem. It also discriminates against Israel in a manner that legitimizes the anti-Semitic Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) campaign against the Jewish state. The Levin bill bars Israel from marking goods from Judea, Samaria and Gaza, "Made in Israel," instead, Israel is required to mark all such goods as made in the "West Bank/Gaza." Israel's scientific, agricultural and other cooperative agreements with the US will only apply to areas that Israel controlled in 1949. Israeli institutions and citizens beyond those areas will be boycotted.
Levin's bill requires the administration to cancel former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 2019 determination that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are not illegal and delineate all Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria as illegal. Israeli neighborhoods built in Jerusalem since 1967 are also deemed illegal, as are Israeli actions to enforce building laws on illegal Palestinian construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
Arguably, the most significant aspect of Levin's pro-Palestinian terror bill is the name he gave it. Levin named his would-be federal law, "The Two-State Solution Act."
Bahrain hosted the Israeli foreign minister on Thursday for the highest-level visit since the countries established ties last year and which included a tour of a US naval headquarters to signal common cause against Iran.
Landing in Manama on a plane daubed with an olive branch painting, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid met King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and Crown Prince and Prime Minister Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
“His Majesty’s leadership and inspiration have led to true cooperation and our meeting outlined the path forward for our relationship,” Lapid said on Twitter.
Bahrain and Gulf neighbour United Arab Emirates normalized relations with Israel last year in a US-brokered deal known as the Abraham Accords that built on common commercial interests and worries about Iran. Sudan and Morocco followed suit.
“Our opportunities are shared. Our threats are also shared, and they aren’t far from here,” Lapid said in remarks to reporters, apparently alluding to Gulf power Iran.
Touring the Bahrain headquarters of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which has faced off Iranian vessels amid tensions over Tehran’s regional aims, Lapid said: “Our three countries work together because we have similar interests in the region.”
“When we speak about peace, we need to remember that peace must be protected from those who would harm it,” he added, according to his office.
Iran said Friday that the visit by Foreign Minister Yair Lapid to Bahrain this week left a stain on the reputation of the Gulf state’s rulers that “will not be erased.”
Lapid on Thursday officially opened Israel’s embassy in Manama and met with top-ranking officials, a year after the two countries agreed to normalize diplomatic relations and in the first public visit by an Israeli minister since the agreement.
“We condemn any scheme that bolsters Israel’s destructive presence in the region,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said in a statement reported by the official IRNA news agency and cited by the Reuters news agency.
“It is unfortunate that Bahrain’s rulers ignore the Zionist regime’s daily crimes against the oppressed but resilient people of Palestine,” Khatibzadeh said.
“This stain will not be erased from the reputation of Bahrain’s rulers. The people of the region will continue to oppose the process of normalization of ties with the Zionist regime,” he said.
Friday, October 01, 2021Elder of Ziyon
Friday, October 01, 2021Elder of Ziyon
[We must] keep the Jews, scholars and experts in the fields of medicine, engineering, technology, civil and military industry, for a while and not let them leave with the knowledge, science and experience they acquired while they reside on our land and eat our good, and we pay the price for all of that from our humiliation, poverty, disease, deprivation, killing and imprisonment.
From the first moments of the collapse of "Israel", the security services of the transitional government must seize the data of the occupation agents in Palestine, the region and the world, and the names of Jewish and non-Jewish recruits locally and internationally, which is considered a great information treasure that must not be lost; With this treasure, we can purify Palestine and the Arab and Islamic world from the hypocritical scum who have wreaked havoc on the land. It provides important information for the pursuit of fugitives from criminals who have hurt our people.
Friday, October 01, 2021Elder of Ziyon
Palestinian resistance group Hamas denounced Bahrain’s reception of the Israeli foreign minister as an extension of the sin of signing normalization deals with the Israeli regime and a “national crime” against the interests of Arabs and Muslims.
Hizam al-Assad, a member of the political bureau of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, said the “dissonant voices” striving for normalization with the Israeli regime are “abnormal” and should not be trusted.
The Ansarullah official added that the Zionist regime is seeking to foment ethnic conflicts in Arab countries in order to reach its goal.
According to a senior leader in the Islamic Jihad, another Gaza-based resistance group, Lapid’s trip to Bahrain is part of a conspiracy to change the identity of the region.In a statement on Thursday, Khader Habib also denounced the opening of an Israeli embassy in Bahrain, describing it as an “intelligence and security outpost” of the enemy in Manama under the name of an embassy.
Conference resolutions aren’t binding on the party leadership but are nevertheless a powerful statement of Labour party feeling.
So now we know that the Labour faithful view Israel’s rebirth as a catastrophe. The Labour faithful promote the legally and historical illiterate falsehood that there is such a thing as “Palestinian land”. The Labour faithful misrepresent international law which, contrary to the persistent mis-statement of the relevant treaties by deeply anti-Israel international bodies and the British Foreign Office, the Israelis uphold.
The Labour faithful appear to believe that Israelis are not entitled to the protection of the rule of law, misrepresenting as “forced displacements” legal proceedings taken against Arab tenants in a district of Jerusalem, Shimon HaTzadik as it’s known to Jews or Sheikh Jarrah as it’s known to Arabs, because they were refusing to pay their rents.
The Labour faithful appear to believe that Israelis are not entitled to defend themselves against mass murder. Thus the motion demonised as Israel’s “militarised violence” against the al Aqsa mosque the defence of Israelis against jihadi attacks launched from the al Aqsa mosque.
The Labour faithful similarly misrepresented the deadly bombardments with thousands of missiles and rockets from Gaza as a deadly assault by Israel on Gaza — because Israel defended its citizens by taking military action against Gaza’s terrorists, an offensive that went to lengths unparalleled in the world to protect Gaza’s civilians from harm.
The Labour faithful further want to make it easier for Israelis to be murdered. Thus they demanded the destruction of the security barrier which has stopped the mass attacks committed by Arabs from the disputed territories that slaughtered more than 1000 Israelis between 2000 and 2005.
And most vicious of all, the Labour faithful smeared Israel with the libel of “apartheid” — a claim as fatuous as it is pernicious. Apartheid was the appalling system of separate development by which white South Africans not only excluded black South Africans from public life and denied them their civic and human rights but prohibited them from sharing buses, public amenities or even park benches.
By contrast, Israel is a democracy committed to the human rights of all its citizens. Arab Israelis have full equal rights, as can be seen immediately from their numbers studying in Israel’s universities, enjoying Israel’s beaches and parks, receiving treatment in Israel’s hospitals or working there as doctors and other medical staff, serving in the armed forces and as judges and members of Knesset in Israel’s governing coalition.
Interview with Tom Gross, British journalist and political commentator.
Labour’s response on this should have been led by Starmer and his shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy when the summer skirmishes started. Instead, they appeared hamstrung and for several days both only attacked Israel. Hamas weren’t mentioned.Corbyn still haunts Labour
This obsession impacted on many of us during those dark days of the conflict. Our children were bullied in schools and universities, work was made uncomfortable for many of us if our colleagues were left-wingers, and there were physical attacks in the street. This demonisation of Jews because of their connection with Israel is the next obvious step; words lead to action.
The second is the uncomfortable truth that Starmer was next to Corbyn when he caused all that pain to our community. While he can insist that they rowed about it furiously in shadow cabinet meetings, we can only take his word for it; what we do know is that he barely criticised it in public, preferring to parrot the line that all this stuff about Corbyn was down to those awful creatures in the media.
When Ellman quit the party in October 2019 saying, “the Labour Party is no longer a safe place for Jews and Jeremy Corbyn must bear the responsibility for this,” Starmer was asked about what she had said by Andrew Marr. He replied: “I don’t accept that. I don’t accept that. I am 100 per cent behind Jeremy Corbyn.”
On winning the leadership, he called Corbyn his “friend” and even now he said that to win the whip back all the former leader has to do is apologise for saying the antisemitism crisis in Labour had been “dramatically overstated”.
Why has no one guilty of the antisemitism crisis – which hurt so many of us, made us feel like strangers in our home, led to many of us contemplating leaving the country – properly apologised and acknowledged what they did? Why hasn’t Corbyn, in particular, been thrust completely out of the party instead of headlining fringe events where they are still wailing ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn’ like cultists? Why are Labour MPs, including deputy leader Angela Rayner, still attending events with Corbyn and people thrown out of the party for antisemitism? Why hasn’t Starmer acknowledged and apologised for his own part in it?
This week I’ve been interviewing some of the brave men of the 62 Group who fought anti-fascists in the 1960s, and whose story will be told in new BBC series Ridley Road, which starts on Sunday night. They knew how you dealt with antisemites. While I’m not advocating starting fights at Labour meetings, I do think we need to put our heads up a bit higher, find a bit of Jewish pride, and only forgive the Labour party when they actually and completely solve their problem with antisemitism.
At the Young Labour rally, in bright lipstick and with shiny hair, they thrill to protest. I think it is Oedipal, and more an emotional than a political imperative, but I am a Social Democrat. The room — called The Empress but no matter — is alive with protest; protest for its own sake. Beyond it there is nothing: certainly not power. Here, at the Empress, they would rather lead the party than have the party lead the country. That is clear. They speak to the voters, but they do not listen to them. Their voters are theoretical. Their analysis of the 2019 defeat is: not enough Corbynism, plus sabotage. The reason for their problems now is: purge.Labour MP apologises to members ‘purged or set up with false allegation’
They fete themselves, and attack the Labour leadership, which they treat like a pantomime villain, with boos and hisses. Starmer is obviously Sylvia Plath’s Daddy: “Daddy, I have had to kill you”. The leadership named this event “Cancelled” on the conference app, but changed their minds, and this is their revenge. I can hear their narcissism in their cadences, and their applause. It is their Conference. They are Labour. When a trade union leader says her union is not affiliated to the Labour Party, they cheer. The obvious question: so why are they?
We hear Richard Burgon MP, and John McDonnell MP, then Corbyn comes, still denied the Labour whip. I marvel at the vanity of this supposedly humble man, but I never believed in his humility, any more than I believed in his anti-racism. Anti-racism is only meaningful when you extend it to your political enemies, and he never did. He ignored the abuse of live female Jewish MPs but stands in solidarity with dead Jews, who need nothing from him, can’t attack him, and are as theoretical to him as voters. The humble change their minds, and he never does: his humility is performative, in a shy glance at the youthful supporters, in a tender bowing of the head. He looks sorrowful — he lost — then happy: I still have you. To be fair, he does sound like the most sensible man in the room. But that is his job: to sound sane and vexed — Magic Grandpa — while his supporters bully and scream. “In the last leadership election, our members and unions were promised unity, but instead we are given division,” he mourns. He will spend the whole of Conference inciting division, and haunting Conference with his vanity.
Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle has issued a grovelling apology to party members who he claims are being “purged or set up with false allegations.”
In a clear reference to members who had fallen foul of new rules proscribing groups that had downplayed or denied antisemitism, the Brighton Kempton MP told a rally held by Socialist Campaign Group MPs at a festival coinciding with Labour’s party conference: “I want to apologise.
“I was struck by members who feel alone in our party at the moment. I want to apologise, from me in particular, because if we have made you feel like you are alone, if we have not reached out our arms enough in these tough times when you are being purged or set up with false allegations , Ii not only apologise, I will endeavour to do better because we have to support each other. ”
One of Russell-Moyle’s colleagues, who heard his speech at Tuesday’s event at The World Transformed said they found his remarks “sickening” in a week in which leader Keir Starmer said the party was on the right path to rooting out antisemitism.
But Russell-Moyle was not the only speaker at the event to attack the suspension of members falling foul of the rules.
Thursday, September 30, 2021Elder of Ziyon |
| Sahar Karim Al-Ta'i speaking to the Erbil conference |
Thursday, September 30, 2021Elder of Ziyon
humor, PreoccupiedOur weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.
Check out their Facebook page.
Ramallah, September 30 - Humanitarian activists have failed yet again to penetrate the numerous layers of government oversight, regulation and approval plaguing this already-inefficient governmental system, NGOs lamented today, following what the groups called the fifty-third unsuccessful attempt to gain official go-ahead to open the first shelter for parentless children that will not euthanize or otherwise dispose of its charges if a certain period elapses with no one initiating adoption procedures.
Palestinian activists hoping to launch the autonomous territory's first no-kill orphanage announced Thursday that they will keep trying to gain certification and approval for their initiative, which they claim will avoid the unnecessary cruelty rampant in shelters that set a deadline beyond which any "undesired" children get put to death or sent out to conduct suicide attacks against Jews.
"We regret that our latest application to open the Jannah Rainbow Orphanage has been rejected," announced the initiative's chief proponent, pediatrician Alsaf Qrisaa. "The reason this time appears to be a lack of documentation in support of certain proposed activities and facilities. We know, however, that we submitted that documentation along with the rest of the application, multiple times, at the request of at least three clerks within the relevant government agencies. This is all the more frustrating because we have not sought government funding at all, relying as we do on donations from concerned private individuals and generous grants from overseas governments and NGOs." Qrisaa also implied that the chief factor behind the application's repeated rejection involves his group's principled refusal to bribe various Palestinian officials.
"The existing system, if we can even call it that, for orphaned children, condemns them to the bleak prospect of euthanasia or certain violent death if they cannot find adoptive parents by a certain age or time spent in care," explained child welfare advocate Infan Tissayid. "Most, if not all, of the programs for orphans are private endeavors, the bulk of which fall under the aegis of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or one of several other Iran-funded enterprises aimed at undermining the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty by forcing Israeli security forces to kill children who threaten Jewish lives. While most of Palestinian society applauds the goal, the method in question lacks the same broad support. There's definitely both space and necessity for an orphanage, perhaps a whole network of them, that aims to raise these children to be responsible citizens and not mere tools."
"Our biggest problem," she continued, "is that the Palestinian version of 'responsible citizen' includes a prioritization of hurting Israel over improving things for ourselves."
No one in the U.S., including the president, has the power to settle the conflict with the Palestinians (see the Rogers Plan, Reagan Plan, Camp David Accords, Clinton Parameters, Middle East Road Map, Kerry Plan, and Deal of the Century). There is no magic formula that is yet to be discovered to change the status quo. Peace will only come when the Palestinians decide they are prepared to give up their delusions of having a state from the river to the sea where every Palestinian can return to the homes they lived in before 1949.2 states for 2 peoples? Try 4 states for 1 people
Who cares what professors think about Mideast policy? The Washington Post published a survey of 557 professors where 65% agreed the current situation is akin to Afrikaner South Africa. If they are using the university to indoctrinate students with their personal agendas, they are committing academic malpractice.
Who cares about people who deny Israel's right to exist? Abba Eban said: "Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its 'right to exist.' Israel's right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel's legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement....There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession."
Who cares about anti-Semites telling Jews the definition of anti-Semitism excludes them? Racists don't get to tell non-whites what constitutes racism. We have an internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.
People need to stop telling Jewish students to be scared because it is making them fearful. We never did that in the past when things were no less hostile on campus. We should be creating muscular Jews - proud, knowledgeable and confident - not snowflakes.
With the return to power of former US President Barack Obama's team, we are once again hearing murmurings of "two states for two peoples." It is being reinforced by political media agencies with the aim of suppressing thought, but above all else – it conceals a lie.Why Iraqis hate Palestine
What is meant by the term "Palestinian people"? What Palestinian people is deserving of a state to be called "Palestine"? They all pretend as if this was a population that lives in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, based on the fiction that Israel "occupied" these territories, which in fact were occupied for generations, by the Jordanian regime, and were never under "Palestinian" rule. Does this refer only to the residents of Area A, in which the Palestinian Authority already enjoys partial autonomy? Should we add to this the Gaza Strip? What about the 5 million pseudo-Palestinian "refugees" (originally numbering 600,000 people), who have been waiting 73 years to enjoy the "right of return"? The return to what territory exactly? If we are to believe the statements from Palestinian leaders, this right of return will pertain to the State of Israel's territory on the 1967 borders.
It is clear, therefore, from the Palestinian statements that they are referring to more than the territory that was "occupied" following the Arab defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War. The territory of the entire State of Israel is on the line, and no Palestinian state will yield its demand for the unification of territories and populations. Let us not forget there is yet another branch of the Palestinian "people" that constitutes 70% of the population in Jordan, in which a Bedouin minority controls the throne. A glance at this landscape raised two geostrategic questions:
How will the West Bank be connected to Gaza? Any land-based connection will cut Israel in two and expose it to the threat of infiltration, and this is in an era in which the Negev Region is already seen as a kind of no man's land. Do we intend to bring back the Polish Corridor? That territory, which provided the Second Republic of Poland with access to the Baltic Sea and divided the bulk of Germany from East Prussia, was the pretext for the Nazi invasion of Poland that marked the beginning of World War II.
As the world watched the US Marines pull down Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad, on April 9, 2003, and as Iraqis defaced every Saddam poster or mural around the country, other Iraqis did one more thing that went uncovered. Hundreds stormed the Palestinian neighborhood in Baghdad and threw rocks on its residents, forcing them to flee. All the Palestinians in Iraq, numbering five thousand, relocated to Treybeel, on the Iraqi border with Jordan, where the UN constructed a makeshift refugee camp. The UN eventually resettled those Palestinians around the world. Today, there is barely any Palestinian who lives anywhere in Iraq. Palestinians are simply not welcome among Iraqis.
When Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to invade Kuwait in 1990, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat stood next to the Iraqi tyrant as both men paraded the army that had just decimated a fellow Arab country. The more Saddam found himself isolated because of invading Kuwait, the more he leaned on the “Palestinian Cause” and Arafat, who had himself become irrelevant and living in Tunisia but was enjoying the largesse of oil-rich Iraq.
Until 1990, Saddam had sponsored Arafat’s rivals, including the most notorious global terrorists such as Abu-Nidal, who ordered the assassination of Israel’s ambassador in London, which precipitated the 1982 Lebanon War. Another Palestinian terrorist Saddam hosted was Abul-Abbas, whose claim to fame included recruiting Samir Kuntar, who killed a family in northern Israel and was serving a life in prison until Hezbollah freed him in a prisoner swap that had ignited the 2006 Lebanon War. But by 1990, Saddam was not seeking mercenaries, only legitimacy that he found in Arafat.
When America launched Operation Desert Storm that ejected Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, the Iraqi dictator calculated that he could lineup the Arabs behind him by throwing 39 Skud missiles on Israel. He threw a dozen on Saudi Arabia too. The Arabs — including radicals like Syria’s Assad and Libya’s Qadhafi — never took Saddam’s side. Only Palestinians took to the streets and cheered for Saddam, shouting “Oh Saddam our love, hit Tel Aviv” (it rhymes in Arabic).
Saddam’s love story with the Palestinians continued throughout the 1990s, but unhappy with Arafat’s peace with Israel, Saddam started sponsoring Hamas, whose campaign of suicide bombings, throughout the 1990s, aborted peace and resulted in the Second Intifada in 2000. To every family of a Palestinian “martyr,” Saddam offered 5,000 Euros.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
