Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Fatwa: don't drive Christians to church

From Translating Jihad, quoting a fatwa published Wednesday in Islamweb.net:

Fatwa No.: 147,523

Title: Ruling on transporting Christians to their churches

Date: 19-1-2011

Question: A bus driver occasionally drives Christians to their churches to perform religious rites. He then goes to the mosque and performs his prayers. When they finish their rites, he drives them back home. Of course he doesn't always do this, but he does do it sometimes. At times he also drives Christian dance teams, who are performing some rites associated with Christian holidays. What is the ruling on all of this?

Fatwa: Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon the prophet of Allah, and on his family and companions, etc.

It is not permissible for this man to drive Christians to their churches, nor to drive those who dance on their holidays. For if the Christians are confessing their religion, it is not permissible to support them in their vain and perverted rites and religion. This is according to the saying of the Most High: "Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour" [Qur'an 5:2]. This is the general view, which is contrary to the view of the Hanafis, who hold that it is permissible to do such things for employment.

Did Abu Rahma get sick from a pesticide?

The IDF is releasing a report on the death of Jawaher Abu Rahma, and FreznoZionism has a very interesting take:

The IDF has completed its investigation of the death of Jawaher Abu Rahma, the woman that was alleged to have been killed by IDF tear gas used against demonstrators at Bili’in on December 31, 2010. The Jerusalem Post report almost makes sense:

Jawaher Abu Rahma, the woman who Palestinians claimed was killed in late December from IDF-fired tear gas during an anti-security barrier demonstration near Bilin, died as a result of the medical treatment she received at a Ramallah hospital, the IDF probe into the incident has concluded.

Abu Rahma, IDF sources said on Saturday, did not actively participate in the demonstration but was inside a house about 500 meters away from the site of the demonstration. She was however evacuated to a hospital in Ramallah sometime later in the day and after the demonstration where she was treated for an unclear ailment.

“According to our findings Abu Rahma died as a result of the medical treatment,” an source in the Central Command said on Wednesday.

Medical documents obtained by the IDF show that Abu Rahma received unusually high doses of Atropine, a medicine that is commonly used as an antidote to nerve agents such as nerve gas. Israeli gas mask kits used to be distributed to the public with shots of atropine inside.

According to the IDF’s findings Abu Rahma died of medical complications due to the medical treatment she received that was not connected to tear gas. The IDF has also uncovered documentation which hints to the possibility that Abu Rahma was sick with cancer and had been hospitalized several weeks before her death. — Jerusalem Post

This is strange indeed. Atropine? Nerve gas? Why would they treat her for exposure to nerve gas? Israel does not even use nerve gas against enemy troops, not to mention demonstrators. And Atropine isn’t a treatment for cancer.

I think there is a better explanation.

Atropine is an antidote for aldicarb pesticides, such as temik. Aldicarb is highly toxic. When I lived in Israel in the 1980′s it was commonly used, although there were very strict rules about how it is applied, protective gear, etc. It would not surprise me in the least if Arab farmers also use it, and perhaps are somewhat less careful.

Atropine also might be given as an antidote to organophosphate pesticides like malathion, also highly toxic. This would explain ridiculous initial statements that Israeli soldiers or police had used ‘phosphorous’ on the demonstrators, and the mentions of nerve gas. Most military nerve agents are based on organophosphates.

The Palestinian doctors probably were quite familiar with pesticide poisoning. My guess is that Abu Rahma was somehow exposed to a pesticide like temik or malathion. Unlike tear gas, they are deadly, so relatives rushed her to the hospital — where someone accidentally gave her more than a safe dose of atropine.

I think he might be onto something.

While I don't know if Jawaher or members of her family were farmers, Palestinian Arabs definitely use a variety of organophosphate insecticides. I found a few papers about insecticide poisoning in the territories. It happens relatively often and Palestinian Arab doctors are no doubt familiar with it.

This study is most relevant, as it talks about the extensive use of organophosphates in the West Bank. It even lists the banned organophosphates used there: Azinphosmethyl (Cotnion), Dichlorvos (Divipan), Parathion (Folidol) and Dimethoate (Rogor).

These pesticides, when misused, act as nerve agents.

A great majority of Palestinian Arab farmers were reported as keeping these pesticides stored in their houses, often under dangerous conditions. 72% mixed the pesticides in their own homes, and 84% stored them at home.

Symptoms of organophosphate poisoning mirror the symptoms that Abu Rahma was reported to have had: shortness of breath, vomiting, excessive sweating, excessive tearing, confusion, and tremors.

I do not know how quickly these symptoms appear.

In many ways this theory relies on a few too many variables for me to be comfortable with. But it would neatly explain why she was treated with atropine and with her symptoms. And organophosphate pesticides are many orders of magnitude more deadly than tear gas. If, as the IDF is now saying, Abu Rahma was in her home at the time she fell sick, this theory makes far more sense than tear gas poisoning.

Certainly, many residents of Bil'in are farmers - their main complaint about the separation barrier is that it keeps them from their farmland. So one would expect a fair amount of pesticides stored in people's homes.

The bigger question is: was any banned pesticide stored in Abu Rahma's house?

My comment to Macy Gray (UPDATED)

On Monday, performing artist Macy Gray posted this on her Facebook page:

I'm booked for 2 shows in TelAviv. I'm getting alot of letters from activists urging/begging me to boycott by NOT performing in protest of Apartheid against the Palestinians. What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians is disgusting, but I wana go. I gotta lotta fans there I dont want to cancel on and I dont know how my NOT going changes anything. What do you think? Stay or go?

There have been 2000 comments since then, and counting. Her Twitter account has likewise been swamped with comments, pro and con.

At this point I doubt that she will read all of them, but I added my voice to the cacophony.

The people of Israel love you. Not only that, but they love music, they love the arts, they love culture, they love science, they love people - and they love life.

Those who are demanding that you not perform, hate. They hate Israel, and their hate is so deep that it extends to Israeli people, to those who support Israel, and to countries that are allied with Israel. The comments here show only a tiny part of the hate they have.

It is usually a good bet to side with the lovers.

See also Balfour Street's post.

UPDATE: She seems to have decided to go to Israel after all. (h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

UPDATE 2: After the BDSers started attacking her for her decision, she wrote a classic tweet that says what I was saying, in a somewhat blunter manner (h/t CHA again):

Wikileaks: German think tank advised US to sabotage Iranian nukes

From a Wikileaks cable, January 2010:

XXXXXXXXXXXX argued that the only effective sanctions which could positively impact the regime's security calculations on the nuclear dossier would be a ban on sales of conventional arms. Only such a move could shift the security calculation for the regime from the longer term goal of achieving nuclear capability to the shorter term goal of maintaining a conventional capability. He warned that ineffective sanctions could be worse than no sanctions, especially if they send more money to the IRGC's pockets (through increasing necessity of procurement on the black market which is dominated by the IRGC.) In the interim XXXXXXXXXXXX recommended that a policy of covert sabotage (unexplained explosions, accidents, computer hacking etc) would be more effective than a military strike whose effects in the region could be devastating.

Stuxnet was already on deployed at that point.

More from The Guardian.

Jews bribing PA police to access Joseph's Tomb?

From Arutz-7:

As the IDF restricts Jewish access to Joseph's Tomb (Kever Yosef), a small group of determined Jews are finding creative ways to reach the holy site anyway, according to the IDF magazine B'Machaneh.

Members of the Breslov chassidic sect told the magazine that they have taken to bribing Palestinian Authority officers in an attempt to gain access.

“Once we saw that the Palestinians now have control over the tomb, we understood that we would need to act differently than before,” a chassid who went by “M” said.

“There was a certain period where nobody tried to sneak in, because we had an arrangement with the IDF,” he continued. However, he said, “Recently our cooperation with them has dwindled, and we started to feel like we were being shut out.”

“We did everything we could... but there's been a change in our relation with the army and until things change, we're going to keep working with the PA police,” he concluded.

Another Breslov man said of the PA officers, “They are still our enemies, this is cooperation solely for an important purpose. We aren't afraid of them, and we know Shechem [Nablus] better than we know our own houses.”

Leaders in the Breslov community said they believe the illegal entry to Joseph's Tomb will stop once relations between the community and the IDF are restored.

An IDF captain in the region said the Breslov chassidim in particular enter the area despite the general prohibition on Jewish access because the community “seeks out challenges” and has “a strong desire to get into Joseph's Tomb privately.” The captain said IDF officers had asked their PA counterparts to look into the issue.

For some reason no one is asking the question of why access to a Jewish holy site is restricted to begin with, in violation of the 1995 Oslo interim accords which called for "free, unimpeded and secure access to the relevant Jewish holy site[s]."

A German journalist describes Ha'aretz' Gideon Levy

Ingo Way, who wrote that great article on camps in the PA, has a German-language article in Cicero magazine on Israeli leftist self-loathing. He describes Ha'aretz' Gideon Levy wonderfully:

To the extreme in this attitude is Gideon Levy. The star columnist of the daily newspaper Haaretz has for years been posing as a lonely prophet, who is in his own world - this despite the fact he is among the highest paid journalists in the country. Levy has gone so far as to claim that the Palestinians will end up in concentration camps. He apparently did not count on the resentment that this forecast would create,and he answered back that he would not compare Israel with Nazi Germany, but rather ... "At best, with the Germany of 1933, as the disenfranchisement and marginalization of the Jews started off slowly."

This is precisely what Levy had written eight years ago in Haaretz. And if 1933 was 2003 for Israel, if Levy's analogy is any good, now it's 1941. And still there is no National Socialism in Israel and no concentration camps, and he, Levy, can cheerfully publish his articles.

(h/t Silke)

EoZ competing in Round One of Pro-Israel Blog-Off

The contestants in the 2011 Pro-Israel Blog-Off, being run at Israellycool and co-sponsored by Honest Reporting, are now set.

In the first match-up of the first round, my entry will go up against posts by Life Through My Eyes and Liberty's Spirit.

The ultimate winner in the 24-player competition will get an Apple iPad.

You will be able to vote next week, as reader votes will combine with the opinions of the four esteemed judges.

Britain encouraged a Greater Syria that it could dominate

From JPost:

[D]ocuments, uncovered in French archives...shed new light on the covert activities of the British in the Middle East. They reveal that British intelligence agencies played a key role in shaping Britain’s policy by securing the tacit collaboration of prominent Arab nationalist leaders in Syria and Lebanon after helping them attain power.

They also disclose that British agents were behind the schemes to integrate Syria in an Iraqi-led Hashemite confederation, or with Transjordan in a Greater Syria federation that was to include Palestine. The documents include a secret agreement from May 29, 1945 revealing that Syrian president Shukri al-Quwatli was coerced into tacitly granting Britain a dominant strategic and economic position in Syria in return for its help against the French army attack on Damascus (provoked by British agents themselves).

The Syrians’ claim that their country was the first Arab state to secure complete independence from colonial rule is therefore debatable. In this regard, it is worth quoting a telegram of November 5, 1945 from the Syrian minister in Washington to his foreign minister in Damascus referring to statements made by American diplomats: “As far as British influence is concerned, the American government asks, ‘Did we recognize your independence just for you to put yourselves in the hands of Great Britain?’ Having reminded them that Great Britain delivered us from French oppression, they said to me, ‘Is that deliverance? They freed you in order to use you themselves. Great Britain, under the pretext of delivering you from the French, wants to annex you. We will not allow feudal Syrians to sell their country to Great Britain.’”

YET-TO-BE-PUBLISHED documents from 1945-1947 indicate that after their success against France in Syria, British intelligence agents, who enjoyed even greater freedom of action in the Middle East under the Labor government, employed similar tactics against the Zionist movement.

In fact, the “Zionist card” became a vital instrument used by British agents in securing their country’s influence in the Arab world by playing on the Arabs’ fears of the Zionists’ aspirations for a Jewish state.

It was also exploited to deflect the Arab nationalists’ hostility from Britain and justify Britain’s continued influence in the Arab world.

Constantine Zurieq, a diplomat in the Syrian legation in Washington who later became a leading Arab nationalist intellectual and the first to apply the term “nakba” to the 1948 Arab defeat, quoted in a telegram to Damascus on November 7, 1945, the warnings of an American official in the State Department: “Great Britain wishes to exploit the Arab-Jewish conflict because it is the only way for it to remain in Palestine, to dominate all the Arab countries. The American government strongly desires to find a friendly settlement between the Arabs and the Jews. But it is convinced that the British colonial authorities will do everything to prevent that, as Great Britain wishes for incidents to worsen in Palestine and for disorder, where blood is spilled, to take place.”

The entire paper can be seen here. It includes some new source materials. For example, here are some of the arguments against Greater Syria given by a Syrian diplomat in London to Syrian Foreign Minister Mardam:

On several occasions I noted the little respect that we enjoy here, because the English, as I already knew and as you know also, do not respect those who are smaller than them, especially those whom they consider to be their servants. I regret to tell you that I feel strong emotion taking hold of me when I think of the situation I am in and how people regard us behind their smiles of diplomatic courtesy.

I return to the plan for Greater Syria. In a few days I hope to obtain a copy of the plan which I will send to Your Excellency. For my part, I strongly rejected the possibility of the Syrian Government's agreement to such a plan or to any other plan that ushers the Zionists into our country - as if we don't have enough disasters visited upon us by God, France and the misfortunes it has brought us, in the end to see the Jews coming into Syria after having taken Palestine.

I hope I have conveyed the point of view of the Syrian Government with regard to this grave matter.

(h/t Elder of Lobby)

Arabs tell West to shut up about persecution of Christians

From al Masry al-Youm:

Leaders participating in the Arab Economic Summit issued a statement rejecting foreign interference on the issue of minority rights in the Arab World.

The summit opened Wednesday in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort.

Earlier this week, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said Egypt planned to demand that the summit denounce external meddling in its domestic affairs.

The call was triggered by an appeal made by Pope Benedict XVI along with a number of Western states urging the protection of Christians in the Arab world following deadly attacks on churches in Iraq and Egypt.

The statement said that Arab leaders reject attempts by foreign powers to intervene in Arab domestic affairs.

It added that such attempts demonstrate an ignorance of the history of the region, and reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of terrorist attacks, which have not neglected any area of the world.

The disappearing Christian minority in every Arab nation is testimony to how well the Arabs are handling this issue on their own.

And it gives me reason to quote another section from the Martha Gellhorn article on Palestinian Arabs in 1961:

I directed myself toward the nearest church steeple, rang a doorbell beneath, and was admitted by an enormous, rotund priest in a brown cassock. He looked like an Arab but was an Italian. He had lived in this country for nearly thirty years and had learned how to survive: by laughter. He laughed at everything, and it was an awesome sight, as if a hippopotamus broke into silent mirth....

With another mute roar, he told me that the Arabs said, First we will finish with the Shabbaths, and then with the Sundays. They never changed their ideas. They went around looking at the women and the houses they would take when they managed to get rid of the Jews and the Christians. He laughed himself into a good shake over this one.

Unfortunately, the Arab Christians who are the targets of the Muslims are no more tolerant themselves towards Jews:

I asked about the Eichmann trial and the reaction of his Roman Catholic parishioners. Well, his Christian Arabs thought Eichmann was right, because the Jews were the enemy of the German state. They were always the enemy of the state; the Pharaohs had to drive them out of Egypt, the Persian King tried to clear them out, Ferdinand and Isabella kicked them out of Spain. No one could live on good terms with them, so Eichmann was right. (Horrified, really horrified, I said, "Surely. that is not a Christian attitude to the most appalling murders we know about?" He found it terribly funny that I should expect a Christian attitude from Arabs.)

(h/t Just Journalism)

CNN reporters joke about tear gas - in Tunisia

Backspin reports on a CNN story where their reporters talk about covering the Tunisian riots, as they downplay any dangers from tear gas (start around the 2:30 mark):

As Backspin notes,

Can you imagine Western journos covering Bilin security fence protests breathlessly gushing for the IDF? Why is the world only uptight about tear gas when Israel is involved?

But it is even worse. While there have been rare deaths during the weekly Bil'in and Nilin riots, for the most part they are set up as circuses, with activists dressed as Avatar characters or Santa Claus. In Tunisia, they were very deadly, with 78 people killed in a couple of weeks - including one journalist from a tear gas canister!

So why do reporters cover Bil'in as if it is incendiary and Tunisia as if it is a joke?

Erekat lies yet again

From YNet:

Hours after Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared his country recognizes an independent Palestinian state, Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat described the statement as "an historic move to make the Palestinians proud for a very long time to come."

Medvedev said Tuesday during a visit to Jericho that Moscow had effectively recognized Palestine back in 1988 and has no intention of changing its position now. He noted that all would benefit from the establishment of a Palestinian state, including the Israelis.

Talking to Ynet Erekat noted, "We appreciate the Russian recognition of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders whose capital is east Jerusalem."

Medvedev didn't say a word about "1967 borders." He simply said that Russia continues to recognize "Palestine" in the way that the Soviet Union did in 1988, which didn't mention borders at all and which was pretty much ignored by the world community at the time. But it is hardly the first time Erekat has been caught lying.

The YNet article does mention that Israel's Foreign Ministry strike is severely hampering Israel's efforts to fight this latest wave of PLO diplomatic victories. One result is that Medvedev didn't even visit Israel. This strike is really hurting Israel and it needs to be resolved quickly.

Israel responds to Time's latest smear

Ron Dermer, advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, writes a nice letter to Time magazine in response to their latest ridiculous anti-Israel article:

Dear Mr. Stengel,

I wanted to bring to your attention a recent article in Time entitled "Israel's Rightward Lurch Scares Some Conservatives." I hope that you will agree that the article's obvious bias and numerous distortions are not worthy of the standards of your prestigious magazine.

Israel is depicted in the article as essentially sliding towards fascism. Your correspondent refers to Israel's Shin Bet (the equivalent of the FBI) as a "secret police," claims that the Israeli government "increasingly equates dissent with disloyalty," and accuses the Prime Minister of "taking a page from neighboring authoritarian states."

The evidence offered for these outrageous allegations includes a preliminary vote in our parliament that would require naturalized citizens to make a pledge of allegiance, a proposal to strip citizenship from Israelis convicted of espionage and terrorism, a motion to investigate foreign government funding of local NGOs, calls on Jews to not rent property to Arabs, and demonstrations demanding prohibitions of Arab boys from dating Jewish girls.

But your correspondent did not find it necessary to inform your readers of a few facts.

Oaths of allegiance are commonplace in most democratic countries, including the United States. Naturalized citizens in America swear an oath to its Constitution and to defend the country against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Israel's proposed pledge would require naturalized citizens to swear an oath to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, words taken directly from our Declaration of Independence.

Moreover, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy are just some of the many countries where citizenship can be stripped for various infractions that are defined as undermining "national interests." Are these European countries not democratic?

In the United States, Senator Joe Leiberman proposed a bill last year to "add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality." Is American democracy threatened by such a bill?

As for questioning the legitimacy of foreign government funding of Israeli NGOs, mentioning America's Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) may have presented a more balanced picture.

FARA requires that any organization engaged in lobbying in the U.S. that receives money from foreign individuals, let alone foreign governments, must among other things register as a foreign agent with the Department of Justice and permit the Attorney General to inspect all of its activities.

It is hard to imagine any democratic country accepting foreign governments intervening in its domestic affairs by funding domestic groups engaged not merely in criticism of a particular government's policy but also attacking the very foundations of the State.

What would Britain do if the French government was actively funding a British NGO that sought to eliminate the monarchy? What would the United States do if the Iranian government was funding American NGOs pressing for a withdrawal of US forces from the Middle East?

There is a vigorous public debate in Israel, including within the Likud party, over the best means to address the problem of foreign government funding of local NGOs. Proposals range from launching a parliamentary investigation to laws banning or restricting such funding to measures to ensure full transparency. Far from being a sign of Israel's slide toward fascism, the current debate in Israel is a testament to how vibrant our democracy truly is.

Finally, contrary to the implication of your correspondent, Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly and forcefully condemned the racist sentiments that were mentioned in the article. For example, this is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of Israel's annual Bible Quiz to an audience of mostly observant Jews a few hours after he learned of the letter calling on Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs:

There are non-Jews among the citizens of this country. How would we feel if someone said not to sell apartments to Jews? We would have been outraged, and indeed we are outraged when we hear such things in neighboring countries or anywhere else. Such statements should not be made, neither about Jews nor about Arabs. They must not be made in any democratic country, let alone a Jewish-democratic country that respects the moral values of the Jewish heritage and the Bible. Therefore, the State of Israel categorically rejects these things.

Contrast this unequivocal condemnation by the leader of Israel to the Palestinian Authority law that mandates the death penalty for any one who sells land to Jews. Such laws are all too common in a Middle East in which Christians are persecuted, gays are hanged in public squares and women are stoned for adultery.

In Israel, things are different. Here, we protect the rights of women, gays and minorities, including the 20% of Israelis who are Arabs, who enjoy freedom of speech and religion and the protections afforded by independent courts and the rule of law.

Every decision in Israel is put under the microscope by one of world's largest foreign press contingents, the hundreds of human rights organizations and NGOs that operate freely here, a famously adversarial local press and most critically, by a vociferous parliamentary opposition.

Israel has upheld its democratic values despite being threatened like no country on earth. In defending itself against wars of aggression, unparalleled terror campaigns and continuous promises to annihilate it, Israel has a track record on the protection of rights that would compare favorably to the record of any democracy, much less democracies under threat.

Even in peacetime, other democracies enact laws that would be inconceivable in Israel. The Swiss ban on minarets and the French restrictions on headscarves passed in Europe, not Israel.

One final point regarding media coverage in the Middle East. In 2000, after an Italian television station (RAI) was threatened by the Palestinian Authority for broadcasting the film of a Palestinian mob lynching two Israeli soldiers, RAI issued a shameful apology. Similarly, in 2003, CNN admitted to burying negative coverage about Sadaam's regime so that its personnel could continue working safely in Baghdad.

I can assure you that no matter how biased and unbalanced your correspondents' coverage of Israel, they will always be free here to write whatever they want. Of course, Time is also free not to print it.