Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, August 11, 2014

08/11 Links Pt1: The U.N. Handmaiden of Hamas; Hamas executed dozens of tunnel diggers

From Ian:

Claudia Rosett: The U.N. Handmaiden of Hamas

Yet the U.N. representatives in Gaza helped cater the conflict and are already setting the table for the next round. Officially, Unrwa is a strictly humanitarian agency, providing Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and the West Bank, as well as Gaza, with "assistance and protection" in the form of schools, hospitals, construction, loans, jobs and other help. By the agency's own account, in its 2014-15 budget "the core services UNRWA provides are comparable in nature and scope to those provided by a local or national government."
But Gaza under Hamas is a place with only two basic industries: aid and terrorism. These are much entwined, and not solely because Hamas controls Unrwa's staff unions in Gaza, where in 2012 a Hamas-affiliated slate swept 25 of 27 seats. In effect the U.N. group subsidizes Hamas. Among U.N. agencies in the Middle East, Unrwa is the largest employer, with a regular budget for 2014 of $731 million, and a total budget that, with emergency appeals, tops $1 billion.
The agency has roughly 30,000 staff on its payroll, almost all Palestinian. Some 12,500 work in Gaza, home to 1.2 million Unrwa-registered refugees, who account for about two-thirds of Gaza's population. The U.N. agency's welfare programs relieve Hamas of many of the costs of servicing the enclave it controls as its launchpad for terror.
With the agency handling household chores, Hamas—especially since its bloody takeover of Gaza in 2007, ousting the Palestinian Authority's Fatah—has found the time and resources to amass rocket arsenals (Unrwa last month reported finding rockets stashed in three of its vacant schools), to bombard Israel (sometimes in close proximity to Unrwa premises), and to build miles of concrete-reinforced tunnels extending into Israel for terrorist attacks. Israel, in its counteroffensive, has been accused by the U.N. of deadly strikes on Unrwa schools serving as shelters.

The Gaza DEC appeal: a case study in support for Hamas terrorism in the UK

Since Thursday it has been impossible to watch TV, listen to the radio or even look at your computer without being bombarded with impassioned pleas to donate to the "Gaza crisis" DEC (Disasters Emergencies Committee) appeal. The appeal is a case study in hysteria, propaganda, and support for Islamic terrorists while ignoring all the genuine tragedies and crises being inflicted by Islamic terrorists all over the world.
DEC has boasted that in the first 24 hours of the Appeal they raised nearly £5 million which is apparently a record. Well, whatever is raised this DEC Appeal already wins the record for the most deceitful and least deserving charity appeal of all time (maybe their next one can be for the families of Al Qaeda and ISIS members, because it is hard to see the difference).
And who are the 13 charities who form DEC? They include all the big charities with the most notorious record of using money (which members of the public assume is going to feed the starving) to fund anti-Israel and anti-semitic political propaganda and even terrorist related organisations: Oxfam, Christian Aid and Save the Children. But what is really incredible is that the list includes the charity Islamic Relief which is well known as a front for Hamas and other Islamic terrorists organisations worldwide, not to mention support for Islamic hate preachers. At the end of the day ALL of the money sent to Gaza will be overseen by Hamas because they control everything there including of course UNWRA. People who 'want to help the children suffering in Gaza' must realise that every penny they send to this appeal will bolster Hamas and prolong the suffering of the children.

“Palestine Solidarity” spokesman blames synagogue vandalism on Jews

It may not be flat-out antisemitism, but it’s the closest thing to it: When Jews in the diaspora are called upon to denounce Israel.
Now, responding to “Free Gaza” graffiti sprayed on a synagogue in the English city of Hove:

A spokesman for the Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity campaign said: “The real issue here is that there needs to be a political solution to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
“We would like the members of the Brighton Jewish community who do not agree with Israel’s policies to stand up – as 150 in Brooklyn did the other day, and many others have done – to show that there is not a divide between Jews and non-Jews.”
Since the PSC believes that the unlimited “right of return” (meaning the end of Israel) is non-negotiable, it’s hard to imagine what sort of “political solution” they have in mind.
But blaming an egregious act of vandalism targeting the Jewish community on the failure of enough Jews to condemn Israel shows where they really stand.

In part 1, we looked at the Principle of Distinction and determined that - unlike the claims of "human rights" organizations - the IDF was not violating international law when its commanders make their determinations of whether a target is a valid military target or a civilian target. They have wide latitude to make that decision in the field of battle with the best information they have at the time.

However, military commanders are not allowed to attack even a valid military target if the expected number of civilian casualties are disproportionate to the value of the target. This is summarized by the ICRC this way:

Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

This brings up the question - how does one define "excessive"?

Just as with the principle of distinction, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia determined who can make that decision:

The answers to these questions are not simple. It may be necessary to resolve them on a case by case basis, and the answers may differ depending on the background and values of the decision maker. It is unlikely that a human rights lawyer and an experienced combat commander would assign the same relative values to military advantage and to injury to non-combatants. … It is suggested that the determination of relative values must be that of the “reasonable military commander”. [Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee established to review NATO bombings in Yugoslavia para. 50-1]

It turns out that there has been a specific ruling on a specific case being a proportional action that can shed a lot of light about whether Israel's practices fit that definition.

Wikipedia summarizes the event:

The NATO bombing of the Radio Television of Serbia headquarters occurred on 23 April 1999, during the Kosovo War. It formed part of NATO's aerial campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and severely damaged the Belgrade headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). Other radio and electrical installations throughout the country were also attacked. Sixteen employees of RTS died when a single NATO missile hit the building. The television station went to air 24 hours later from a secret location.

What was NATO's justification for the attack on a TV station?

NATO Headquarters justified the bombing with two arguments; firstly, that it was necessary "to disrupt and degrade the command, control and communications network" of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, and secondly, that the RTS headquarters was a dual-use object which "was making an important contribution to the propaganda war which orchestrated the campaign against the population of Kosovo". The BBC reported that the station was targeted because of its role in Belgrade's propaganda campaign; RTS had been broadcasting Serb nationalist propaganda, which demonised ethnic minorities and legitimised Serb atrocities against them.

16 were killed to bomb what was an enemy communications hub and possibly mainly a propaganda outlet. The TV station was only out of commission for a day.

Was this proportionate?

The same International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ruled on that question. It first questioned whether the station was a legitimate military target, and it decided that if it was used for command and control then it was, if it was only used for propaganda it wasn't. It then goes on:

77. Assuming the station was a legitimate objective, the civilian casualties were unfortunately high but do not appear to be clearly disproportionate.

Although NATO alleged that it made "every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage" (Amnesty International Report, ibid, June 2000, p. 42), some doubts have been expressed as to the specificity of the warning given to civilians by NATO of its intended strike, and whether the notice would have constituted "effective warning … of attacks which may affect the civililan population, unless circumstances do not permit" as required by Article 57(2) of Additional Protocol I.

...As Western journalists were reportedly warned by their employers to stay away from the television station before the attack, it would also appear that some Yugoslav officials may have expected that the building was about to be struck. Consequently, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair blamed Yugoslav officials for not evacuating the building, claiming that "[t]hey could have moved those people out of the building. They knew it was a target and they didn’t … [I]t was probably for … very clear propaganda reasons." (ibid, citing Moral combat – NATO at war, broadcast on BBC2 on 12 March 2000).

78. Assuming the RTS building to be a legitimate military target, it appeared that NATO realised that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period. Indeed, broadcasting allegedly recommenced within hours of the strike, thus raising the issue of the importance of the military advantage gained by the attack vis-à-vis the civilian casualties incurred. The FRY command and control network was alleged by NATO to comprise a complex web and that could thus not be disabled in one strike. As noted by General Wesley Clark, NATO "knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There’s no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us" (ibid, citing "Moral combat, NATO at War," broadcast on BBC2 on 12 March 2000). At a press conference on 27 April 1999, another NATO spokesperson similarly described the dual-use Yugoslav command and control network as "incapable of being dealt with in "a single knock-out blow (ibid)." The proportionality or otherwise of an attack should not necessarily focus exclusively on a specific incident. ...With regard to these goals, the strategic target of these attacks was the Yugoslav command and control network. The attack on the RTS building must therefore be seen as forming part of an integrated attack against numerous objects, including transmission towers and control buildings of the Yugoslav radio relay network which were "essential to Milosevic’s ability to direct and control the repressive activities of his army and special police forces in Kosovo" (NATO press release, 1 May 1999) and which comprised "a key element in theYugoslav air-defence network" (ibid, 1 May1999). Attacks were also aimed at electricity grids that fed the command and control structures of the Yugoslav Army (ibid, 3 May 1999).

79. On the basis of the above analysis and on the information currently available to it, the committee recommends that the OTP not commence an investigation related to the bombing of the Serbian TV and Radio Station.

Clearly, if it was a military target, the warnings for the workers to leave was considered enough due care to minimize civilian casualties and the attack was completely proportional.

We see that the bar for proportionality is far lower than what Israel routinely practices. A series of tunnels or weapons caches under houses are obviously valid military targets, and as long as care is taken to minimize the loss of life, they are allowed to be targeted even if the military gain for each individual attack is relatively low and temporary.

In somewhat stark terms, the lives of 15 civilians are not considered a disproportionate price to pay for taking out a communications system for a couple of hours under international law.

Tunnels that are destroyed take weeks or months to rebuild, Rockets and weapons that are destroyed are gone forever. Yet a disruption of a few hours of a single point of a redundant communications system is considered worth the lives of 16 civilians!

By this measure, assuming that Israel's targets are valid military targets (which we already proved last time,) Israel cannot possibly be accused of violating the principle of proportionality.

(There's lots in the ICTY document that also help define how far an army can go in attacking dual-use objects, such as power plants that are used by the militants. Any flat statement that an attack on a power plant is against international law is wrong.

(Similarly, it says that while broadcasting propaganda may not be enough to consider TV station a target by itself, incitement to murder or genocide would be. Israel did not attack the Al Aqsa TV station this time but based on its genocidal nature, it appears that such an attack would be legal as well.)

There is no doubt that there are may innocent victims in Gaza of Hamas' human shield tactics.

There is also no doubt that Gazans will reflexively lie to reporters - and reporters will believe the lies.

From Sky News, with a video on heavy rotation on their newscasts:

Maha is seven years old and paralysed from the neck down.

Her mother and sister were killed in the airstrike on their house. She remembers everything about it.

She told Sky News: "We were sitting at home when we heard the noise. So we went down under the stairs.

"This is where we were injured. Some of us stayed alive, some of us died."

Her family tells her that she will get better, but any real hope of that depends on urgent treatment abroad.

Mahasen Sheikh Khalil, her aunt, explained: "She doesn't know that she could stay paralysed like this.

"She's waiting to go for treatment abroad so she might get well.

"She says to me, 'Aunt, if I can move my hand then I can eat by myself. I just want to stand up, move and play.'"

The family has been told there are three hospitals willing to treat Maha - in Germany, Turkey, and the US - and a sponsor has agreed to cover the cost.

But they need to get her our of Gaza first, and they are still waiting for permission from Israel.

After this story came out, IDF spokesperson Peter Lerner tweeted the author of the article:

Hey @skystallard my preliminary inquiry found that out of some 1300 patients, no request for Maha has been submitted for to leave Gaza.
— Peter Lerner (@LTCPeterLerner) August 11, 2014

Yes, the Sky News reporter didn't even bother to ask the Israelis why they were cruelly barring little cute paralyzed Maha from being treated. It turns out - they weren't.

The truth is worse. Someone in Gaza - whether it is Hamas, or Maha's family - purposefully kept Maha in the hospital in Gaza for over three weeks rather than request to have her treated in Israel or moved abroad. (The article doesn't say whether they tried to go through Egypt.)

In the end, this isn't a story about Israeli cruelty. This is a story about how Gazans will happily endanger their own people in order to score propaganda points.

Too bad the writer is so biased that she couldn't bother to even do the most basic confirmation of a story told by people who are indoctrinated to lie to reporters.

Even Arab media like Ma'an will call and ask the IDF to confirm stories. One would think that Sky News had at least the bare minimum of journalistic standards. Apparently, when Israel gets blamed for something, all pretense of objectivity goes out the window.

(h/t Margie)

Facebook has taken down the Facebook page of humor site and EoZ columnist PreOccupied Territory due to "controversial humor."

For those who don't know, PreOccupied Territory is essentially The Onion of the Middle East - all written by one person.

Given that Facebook allows the most extreme terror groups to preach their hate on its pages, this is an irony that deserves to be mocked by PreOccupied Territory itself.

The prolific author of the site asks that EoZ readers visit his main webpage and "share the hell out of it" in response, especially on Facebook.

Thanks!

EBay UK offered "F*** Jews" as a related search for "Star of David T Shirts"

From E-Commerce Bytes:

eBay UK is suggesting shoppers searching for Star of David t shirts might be interested in items featuring an anti-Semitic term. A reader alerted me to the fact that when you search eBay UK for Star of David T shirt, it comes back with the related term "fuck jews." I was able to replicate the search myself - and not just once. Each time I tried the search on Sunday evening, it came back with the same hateful suggestion.

eBay rolled out its next-generation search engine Cassini in the U.S. in 2013 and has since rolled it out internationally. I emailed eBay PR in the U.S. and UK asking for an explanation of how the anti-Semitic term came to appear in that particular search.

I tried many other searches and couldn't come up with anything similar. Many searches resulted in numerous related terms to try, and only a tiny percentage came back with a single suggestion under the "related" prompt.

The term could be considered an attempt to send a message to Jewish shoppers on eBay UK - it's not clear whether an eBay employee might have manipulated the "related" search feature, whether eBay might have been hacked, or if there is some other explanation for how eBay's search engine would link a search for a Star of David t shirt with the offensive, anti-Semitic term.

It looks like eBay fixed this problem quite quickly, as I could not reproduce it on the eBay UK site or any other. But it seems highly unlikely that this was an accident. The Cassini search engine that is mentioned is highly optimized to ensure that search results are relevant, using a large amount of data at the many eBay sellers' sites.

Unlike Google searches, where antisemitic articles can come up high when searching for "Jews," Cassini is meant to fight against keyword stuffing and other techniques that eBay sellers used to use to game the system and increase their search rank. There are no eBay products with the title or phrase "fuck Jews" that would ever be a result of a legitimate search.

The only explanation I can see is that whoever programmed the Cassini search engine, which seems to be an internal eBay product, purposefully hard-coded an antisemitic insult to be a response for specific terms that only Jews were likely to use when searching.

EBay really needs to explain how this happened and to apologize. This was no accident.

UPDATE: A couple of hours before this article, someone posted that question on an EBay UK bulletin board. That question is no longer visible.

(h/t B)

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party threatens the world

Dr. Fayez Abu Eita, a Fatah spokesman, said in a TV interview that "the world will not enjoy security and stability unless it is enjoyed by the children of Palestine."

That was the synopsis given for this video on his Facebook page, as well as on the Fatah Facebook page (sorry, no subtitles, hopefully MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch will excerpt this soon.)

Is he threatening worldwide terror attacks? Airplane explosions? Train station bombs? Sarin in the subways?

Well, the media will never ask him that, because he is from Fatah, and they are supposed to be the Good Guys.

Reporters just don't ask such awkward questions in today's cowardly news environment.

Qatar pays CNN to display propaganda content

The Qatar Foundation has cut a deal with CNN so that their propaganda pieces, although labeled as advertising, are visible under a CNN logo in the CNN web domain and CNN airs their videos on their network:

Content from The Foundation magazine, Qatar Foundation’s (QF’s) monthly magazine can now be found by clicking here on CNN’s website.

The Foundation features full-length reports on the most high-profile recent events in the QF calendar, a round-up of the latest news, and in-depth profiles of some of the organization’s many centers, research projects, and initiatives.

Inside the Middle East is a 30 minute monthly feature program on CNN that seeks to capture the dynamism and broad range of cultural diversity in countries across the Middle East. Together with exclusive online articles and galleries it gives a fresh perspective on life in the region that goes beyond the news headlines. It is broadcast in association with Qatar Foundation.

Does anyone at CNN have a problem taking money from the country that bankrolls Hamas?

Is there any question that this will affect CNN's already poor objectivity?

(h/t TIP)

Before tractor attack, Hamas leader demanded Arab Israelis kill Jews by all means possible

From MEMRI:

In a July 30, 2014 interview with the Lebanese Al-Quds TV channel, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum called upon Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank to wage attacks "to avenge the blood of Gaza" and said: "The Palestinian people has no choice but to wage this battle in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of occupied Palestine."
Following are excerpts:

Fawzi Barhoum: Let me say, loud and clear, to our people in the West Bank: Don't you have cars? Don't you have motorcycles? Don't you have knives? Don't you have clubs? Don't you have bulldozers? Don't you have trucks? Anyone who has a knife, a club, a weapon, or a car, yet does not use it to run over a Jew or a settler, and does not use it to kill dozens of Zionists, does not belong to Palestine.

Palestine says loud and clear: Real men are those who avenge the blood of Gaza. Real men are those who avenge the blood of the Gaza Strip. Real men will not sleep until they have avenged the blood of Gaza.

To our people within the Green Line, we say: It is time for you to declare a new phase in this struggle. Political and social considerations are worthless. Blood and martyrdom are the only considerations that matter. The Palestinian people has no choice but to wage this battle in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, and in all the cities of occupied Palestine.

This speech was given only a few days before the tractor attack in Jerusalem that killed one.

This is no coincidence.

Islamic Jihad made a similar call today for renewed terror attacks by Arabs in the West Bank against Jews.

08/10 Links: Hamas could have chosen peace. Instead, it made Gaza suffer; Doctors for terrorism

From Ian:

Dennis Ross: Hamas could have chosen peace. Instead, it made Gaza suffer.

The Israelis will certainly resist an outcome that offers Hamas any gains. Having destroyed the tunnels that could penetrate Israel, the Israelis have pulled out of Gaza and were willing to extend the 72-hour truce that ended Friday. Hamas was not willing to do so. If Israel hopes to build broader international pressure on the group to stop firing, the Israel Defense Forces will need to avoid targets such as U.N. schools and hospitals. Of course, that is easier said than done, given that Hamas often fires rockets from or near such sites.
At some point, Hamas will stop firing rockets — if for no other reason than its arsenal is depleted. For the people of Gaza, however, the price has been staggering. But Hamas’s leaders have never been concerned about that. For them, Palestinians’ pain and suffering are tools to exploit, not conditions to end.
When relative calm returns, there will understandably be a push for a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas now even less able politically to tackle the core issues , a permanent agreement between the two sides is not in the cards. U.S. diplomacy, therefore, needs to be guided by several considerations and achievable aims. (h/t Alexi)

Exclusive: New Details Surface in Hamas Murder of IDF Soldier Hadar Goldin (update)

The officer explained how, after the suicide bombing that killed Lt. Goldin, a second kidnapping team of Hamas terrorists grabbed parts of his body and ran back into the tunnel from which the terrorists emerged. The tunnel led back into a mosque. From the mosque, they escaped in a clearly marked UNRWA ambulance. The terrorists then made contact with high-ranking Hamas officials hiding in the Islamic University.
As a result Abu Marzook, a senior member of Hamas, announced in Cairo that Hamas had kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Israeli intelligence intercepted a conversation between the kidnappers and the Hamas officials at the Islamic University and thus got all the particulars regarding the hiding place of the kidnappers. Within minutes, the IAF attacked both the kidnappers' location and the Islamic University.
In the midst of this attack, a second force of IDF soldiers--which had gone into a mosque looking for weapons, explosives, and rockets-- encountered a female suicide bomber who was about to detonate the belt she wore, which would have resulted in the deaths of the soldiers. One of the soldiers instinctively recited the opening words of the holiest Jewish prayer “Shema Yisrael”. The female suicide bomber hesitated and began trembling, giving the soldiers a chance to grab her and disable the device.
The soldiers then took her prisoner and turned her over to a counter-intelligence unit. Their investigation uncovered that the female suicide bomber’s mother was a Jew who had married a Palestinian in Israel and, after the wedding, was smuggled against her will into Gaza. There she lived a life filled with abuse and humiliation, and was basically a captive. In addition to the female suicide bomber, there were two smaller children as well. An armored force went in and rescued the two small children.

UPDATE: People I trust are telling me that this story does not add up to the known facts about the attack. There have been a lot of rumors going around as fact to try to make up for Israeli censorship and this story very well may be an example of that.

Hillary Clinton Criticizes Obama Foreign Policy, Slams ‘Unfair’ World Response to Gaza War

Much of my conversation with Clinton focused on the Gaza war. She offered a vociferous defense of Israel, and of its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well. This is noteworthy because, as secretary of state, she spent a lot of time yelling at Netanyahu on the administration's behalf over Israel’s West Bank settlement policy. Now, she is leaving no daylight at all between the Israelis and herself.
“I think Israel did what it had to do to respond to the rockets,” she told me. “Israel has a right to defend itself. The steps Hamas has taken to embed rockets and command-and-control facilities and tunnel entrances in civilian areas, this makes a response by Israel difficult.”
I asked her if she believed that Israel had done enough to prevent the deaths of children and other innocent people.
“[J]ust as we try to do in the United States and be as careful as possible in going after targets to avoid civilians,” mistakes are made, she said. “We’ve made them. I don’t know a nation, no matter what its values are—and I think that democratic nations have demonstrably better values in a conflict position—that hasn’t made errors, but ultimately the responsibility rests with Hamas.”(h/t Bob Knot)

Doctors for terrorism

The one-sided campaign waged by Physicians for Human Rights Israel is also supported by several European governments as well as the New Israel Fund.
It is possible to diminish the influence of these bodies by exposing their misuse of medical ethics and holding the Norwegian, British and other bodies who fund them to account. This is not a simple process, but it has been proven effective in the long-term.
The Lancet medical journal is a financial body, therefore, the most effective (and certainly the most complicated) strategy would be to cancel subscriptions and to pull advertising in protest of the misuse of medical ethics. Those who use their professional status and prestige to promote anti-Semitism and support terrorism are dishonoring the Hippocratic oath they took, vowing to "never do harm."

Last week I discussed how the blood-libel has adapted to the current political moment and is growing within progressive-left discourse around the Arab-Israel conflict.

The function of the blood-libel is to create hatred toward Jews for political reasons. Just as the Nazis used hatred toward Jews as a uniting rallying-cry in the early-middle part of the twentieth-century, so vast numbers of Arabs surrounding the Jews of Israel do so today.

Thus when "liberals" or leftists screech to the heavens that Zionists or Israelis are intentionally murdering innocent cherubs in their beds, what they are really saying is that the Jews are evil and need to be dealt with as an evil force.

{And, needless to say, there is only one thing to be done with evil and we all know what that is.}

Another aspect of western-left discourse around the Arab-Israel conflict is the use of the Holocaust as a political club against Jews. When leftists or Democrats claim that Israel is committing a "genocide" in Gaza they are intentionally evoking the Holocaust in order to suggest that the Jewish people are "the new Nazis."

Were this not the case we would hear cries of "genocide" ring out across the land over the Syrian civil war, but we do not. Let us compare the two conflicts in terms of death toll, interest among progressives toward each catastrophe, and the use of the term "genocide" as a descriptor of these conflicts.

Death Toll

Death toll in Syria as of August 1, 2014 : approximately 150,000.

Death toll in Gaza as of August 1, 2014 : approximately 1,500.

A mere one hundred to one differential.

This means that the Syrian civil war has, in just over the last few years, created three times the number of dead than in the entire Arab-Israel conflict since 1950, both Arabs and Jews combined.

Relative Interest Among Democratic Daily Kos Participants

Everything else being equal, one would, therefore, expect to find one-hundred times more interest among progressives who claim to care about social justice and universal human rights.

One would, of course, be entirely wrong.

I have been revisiting Daily Kos because it offers a glimpse into the mindset of the progressive-left and the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party in the United States. These are people who claim to hold the moral high ground in American politics, so let us take a gander at how they have responded to the two conflicts.

From the first of this year until August 1 Daily Kos published 385 "diaries" concerned, at least in part, with the Arab-Israel conflict.

From the first of this year until August 1 Daily Kos published 143 "diaries" concerned, at least in part, with the Syrian civil war.

This means that among "Kossacks" there was 2.7 times more interest in the Arab-Israel conflict than in the Syrian civil war despite the fact that the Syrian civil war is one-hundred times more devastating than anything that Israel is doing in Gaza.

This means - in a crude, but nonetheless ethically significant calculus - that "Kossacks" demonstrate 270 times more interest for every Gazan life than they do for every Syrian life.

That is a rather large disparity, don't you think? If it had worked out to, say, 3 or 4 times more interest in Gazan lives than Syrian lives it might have made some sense, given the media play that the Arab-Israel conflict generates.

But 270 to 1?

That seems rather... disproportionate.

One begins to wonder if the progressives really care about social justice and universal human rights. If they did honestly have such gentle yearnings one would think that the much larger, much more devastating conflict, would capture more of their attention than the much smaller conflict next door, but it does not and this very definitely tells us a thing or two about the priorities of the progressive-left.

The "Genocide" Slander

As for "genocide" there is one taking place in Syria, but there is not one taking place in Gaza. If by "genocide" we mean a significant decrease in a particular population due to war and malice then Syria qualifies, but Gaza does not. The Armenian genocide was a genocide. The Holocaust of the Jews and the Sinti and Roma (Gypsy) were genocides. Syria, with its 150,000 dead, is a genocide. But, I'm sorry, while the Gaza operation is terrible for the Gazans and has resulted in around 1,500 deaths as of August 1, it does not come close to any meaningful definition of genocide.

Let us therefore take a look at claims of genocide on Daily Kos between the two conflicts. Given the fact that Syria does represent an actual genocide and Gaza does not, one would hope that this would be reflected in the sentiments among progressives. Once again, sadly, one's hopes would be dashed.

An examination of the 143 "diaries" with the tag "Syria" reveals no mention of the word "genocide." I combed through many of the more widely commented pieces and found no reference to "genocide" whatsoever.

I, of course, did not read every single comment under those 143 "diaries," but I did keyword search and found nothing.

By contrast, there were thirty comments accusing Israel of genocide in just one day alone, the day of August 1.

Here is a sampling:

You don't get to "own" land based on some vague religious claim

(historically it definitely aint), and then ethnically cleanse that land from its current inhabitants.

That's genocidal Nazi Blut und Boden talk.

Enzo Valenzetti on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 08:16:47 PM PDT

Vague religious claim? I don't think that our friend, Enzo, here has much of a clue to the history of Zionism. In any case, you can plainly see the hatred in his Nazi analogy.

"compassionate genocide" (13+ / 0-)

by Pilsner on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 01:06:34 PM PDT

I like this one by Pilsner very much because not only is it pithy, but it combines the "genocide" slander with mockery of Jewish attempts to spare civilian lives in a mere two words.

This shows a definite talent in writing.

He is no friend to the Jewish people, but the man potentially can write.

genocide is popular (0+ / 0-)

Calls for genocide are common in Israel:

by BradMajors on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 06:03:55 PM PDT

What do you guys think of Brad Majors? If this is what he thinks of Israel, just what does he feel about Jews?

Israelis have slaughtered more than 100 times... (17+ / 0-)

...the number of innocent people in order to enforce their illegitimate territorial claims.

That makes them more than 100 times more murderous than Hamas...

If you support the murder of children sleeping next to their mothers in a UN shelter, there is no need to continue. Go support Israel if you want, just admit to yourself you are backing genocide.

by expatjourno on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 01:18:50 PM PDT

According to expatjourno, Israelis are 100 times more murderous than is Hamas.

Of course, he does not actually mean Israelis. He means specifically Jewish Israelis.

So, what this particular Democrat is saying to other Democrats is that the Jews of the Middle East are one-hundred times more vile than is Hamas.

This comment received seventeen uprates, which means that this opinion is shared among others on Daily Kos.

The above is just a small sampling of the thirty comments that I either copied or noted on just one day at the beginning of this month.

In my years of observing the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party I can tell you that any measures of Jewish self-defense via the State of Israel are always condemned as a form of irrational aggression by the loudest voices in the Democratic Party and progressive-left circles.

I do not know that Jews need to go running to the political right, but I certainly think that American Jews need to get out of the Democratic Party and need to seriously reconsider our support for the progressive-left.

In your consideration of that proposition, I give you ExpatGirl:

Sorry. Threats to level a prison camp (2+ / 0-)

with 1.8 million trapped people crosses the Rubicon for me.

Although, truth be told, that line was crossed for me well before today.

Genocide is genocide. The word 'holocaust' predates the Shoah and WWII. Israel have no right to own it. Particularly if 'owning' it is a means to justify acting like a monster.

If Israel wants to be a nationalistic mass murderer, it needs to accept being compared to historical nationalistic mass murderers. Regardless of whether its citizens were once victims.

Time marches on. The oppressed are now oppressors. The persecuted are now the persecutors.

by ExpatGirl on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 12:15:38 PM PDT

Marching On

Time does, indeed, march on and it is now time for the Jewish people to march the hell out of the Democratic Party and the progressive-left.

My dear old mom, were she still with us, would have said something like, "Good riddance to bad rubbish."

I could not agree with myself more.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

The "siege" is the biggest Gaza myth of all (repost)

Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch yet again proves his gross ignorance on Twitter:

If Israel really wants just to keep weapons from Hamas, not punish all Gazans, it should propose a narrow blockade. http://t.co/xe8s3tyiPD
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) August 8, 2014

Guess what? That is exactly what Israel does!

Here's a slightly updated repost of an article I wrote last December, after my visit to the Kerem Shalom crossing- a visit that most reporters are too lazy to do themselves:

On Wednesday, I visited both the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings and spoke to Israeli officials there.

I spend a lot of time reading about Gaza from Arabic and English news sources, but I learned a great deal from my meetings that I was unaware of. I hope to blog much more about it as I find time.

But there is one crucial fact about Gaza that has never been reported anywhere, as far as I can tell.

There is no reason whatsoever to "reopen the crossings" because Kerem Shalom can handle all of Gaza's import and export needs.

In fact, Kerem Shalom can handle more goods than all of the closed crossings ever could - combined.

Crossings such as Nahal Oz and Karni were closed over the years because they weren't secure. Those crossings were a tempting target for terrorists to attack. They can never re-open.

But Kerem Shalom - a hugely expansive and extraordinarily impressive feat of engineering and logistics - was sized to handle all of Gaza's needs if necessary. And it can do it without risking any Israeli lives (a forthcoming post will go into more detail.)

Here are all the limits of imports and exports to and from Gaza from what I learned today:

Besides a small list of "dual use" materials, Israel imposes no restrictions on Gaza imports. Even some of the "dual use" materials can be imported under certain conditions - for example, international NGOs can import construction materials. Israel allows potentially dual use items, such as CO2, to be imported on a case by case basis as well.

The head of the crossing told me that the idea of limiting cement and other construction material to "international agencies" was a joke. He said UNRWA doesn't send their own trucks to pick up the cement; they rely on contractors who he knows well, and he knows that they redirect some of the materials meant for agencies like UNRWA to the black market and to Hamas. The people ordering the items purposefully overestimate the amount needed so cement can be diverted - and some no doubt go to Hamas terror tunnels.

Workers are the crossing see Jacuzzis and BMWs being imported into Gaza.

Some said that Gaza did not have adequate pumps to handle the flooding (last year) because of Israeli restrictions. Nonsense. I asked specifically if water pumps are a "dual use" item and they are not. This was Gaza's government not being prepared, and nothing to do with the "blockade."

If needed, Kerem Shalom can run on three shifts, 24/7. But today there isn't the demand.

All Gaza imports are arranged between Gaza businessmen and NGOs, and Israeli or other suppliers. If Gazans needs more, they can buy it. There are no practical limits on how much Gaza can import even if its economy grew dramatically. No limits on fuel. No limits on raw materials for factories (again, except dual use materials.)

Kerem Shalom is building new pipelines for fuel, and increasing capacity of existing pipelines, in anticipation of a potential dramatic increase of demand as a result of Egypt's closure of Gaza. Right now, because of Hamas and PA infighting, the demand is not there and Kerem Shalom is not using close to its full capacity for fuel.

There are also no limits imposed by Israel on how much Gaza can export. Really.

After Hamas took over Gaza, Israel decided not to import goods from Gaza anymore - for good reason. Israel also limits exports to PA administered areas before the peace process gets moving again. But if Gazans can find markets in Europe and the US and the Arab world for goods, Israel is not stopping them at all. On the contrary, Israel is helping Gaza farmers export goods.

There have been some limited attempts to export furniture, clothing and other goods from Gaza. Right now Gaza farmers and manufacturers are dependent on Israeli exporters and must follow international rules for exports, so there are some regulatory hurdles that must be overcome, just as with any exporter. But there is no practical limit on how much Gaza can export. (Recently, Gaza exported potatoes to Jordan, but Jordan does not want them to protect its own domestic market.)

Yes, Israel has a naval blockade on Gaza, and the laws of a legal blockade is that there can be no distinction between types of ships allowed. If Israel wants to block Gaza from getting weapons - and there have been attempts to ship large amounts of weapons to Gaza by sea - then Israel must also ban commercial ships. That's the way it is, and it cannot be changed without allowing Francops and Karine-A's filled with weapons to be sent to Gaza.

But Gaza does not need to import goods from the sea - because Kerem Shalom is large enough to handle all of Gaza's needs, even if the current construction material limits are lifted.

Every single time an NGO or government calls for Israel to "lift the blockade," they are ignoring the facts.

Only a couple of weeks ago Human Rights Watch head Ken Roth was telling any media outlet that would listen that Israel was aiming at civilian targets that had no possible military value.

Now that some media are belatedly noticing that a high percentage of those killed in Gaza are young men of military age who are only a small percentage of the general population, Roth floats a new theory:

Young men over-represented among Gaza dead: unclear if Hamas won't acknowledge fighters or Israel targets young men. http://t.co/Vnk1QcsGls
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) August 9, 2014

As if it is needed, this is more proof that doesn't care about those pesky little things called facts.

As this early analysis shows, and there is no doubt that it remains true, even according to the false numbers provided by the UN, the chances that a random Hamas terrorist will be killed is about 30 times the chances that any other civilian would be killed. Which means that even among young Gaza men, even according to the vastly underreported numbers, Hamas terrorists are far more likely to be killed than innocent civilians who are young men.

But that won't stop Ken Roth from finding some other slander to hurl. That's how he rolls.