Monday, October 13, 2014

  • Monday, October 13, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas newspaper Felesteen has an article by Professor Saleh Alrqub, a senior Hamas figure as well as a Muslim Brotherhood leader, where he explains exactly why Jews are so evil.

Some highlights:

The destruction in Gaza was the worst the world has seen since World War II.

Any researcher of Jewish psychology will easily realize that the culture and education of the Biblical racism created the aggressiveness of the Jewish character of Israel towards others, including Palestinians and Arabs, it is religious heritage (Jewish Torah and Talmud) that inspires the aggressive spirit that leads them to commit massacres.

The Jewish Bible in Samuel I says that God commanded Jews to kill Amalek, and all Palestinians.

To Jews, war means the brutal extermination and murder of children and infants, women and men, and killing animals and burning crops and vineyards.

Well, he didn't say that Jews drink children's blood, so he must be one of those moderates we've been hearing about.
I found this document, titled "The historical development of human rights throughout history," at an UNRWA Arabic website dedicated to human rights.

It goes through the human rights postures of a number of civilizations, from ancient times to today. It is dated June 2014.

Here is what it says about human rights in Judaism:

Judaism is a heavenly religion revealed to the Prophet of Allah Musa [Moses], peace be upon him, included human rights through its focus on the goal of liberating the individual and the community. The right to freedom from oppression is a supreme value highlighted in Jewish holy books (Rashidi: 2005: 60). The commandments of Moses, peace be upon him, include prohibiting murder, adultery and theft.

But if we look around us at communities supposedly protecting human rights and at well-known oases of democracy we do not see [human rights] but instead charges that the victim was a terrorist or supporter of terrorism, and also pornography justified freely as rights. We see monopoly and fraud justified by the right of ownership and earnings in any form (Mokbel: 2005: 5) All of this happened as a result of distortion and misinformation by the Jewish clergy. The Jews in the sixth and seventh centuries promoted social corruption (1981: 39), and the claim that they are God's chosen people demonstrates that the Jews did not know anything about human rights.
Of course, it has nothing bad to say about human rights in Islam.

I cannot tell if this is an official UNRWA curriculum or if it is merely considered good enough to be posted on the UNRWA human rights website as reference material. The author appears to be an UNRWA human rights instructor, so it seem likely that this is being taught, today, in UNRWA schools.

The last time I pointed out that UNRWA Arabic websites included things that were clearly against UN principles, the sites were quietly removed without UNRWA admitting anything. On the contrary; UNRWA still insists that it is a liberal organization that supports human rights and does not teach hate.

Let's see what happens this time.


From Ian:

Rebuilding Gaza is rebuilding terrorism
If someone could promise us that the money would help the citizens of Gaza, I might even have sent over my own modest donation. After all, "Far better a neighbor that is near than a brother far off" (Proverbs 27:10). But with Hamas still in the picture, and Abbas competing with Haniyeh over who is more extreme in his policies on Israel in order to win the hearts of Gazan voters, it is clear that the donor conference is not going to build a new Middle East, or even a new Gaza.
It is difficult for the world to grasp that Israel has its own sizeable interest in Gazans having good lives, because we are close by, and when a Gazan sneezes, we have to blow our noses, and vice versa. This is not the case with the British, the Russians, the French or the Koreans.
$4 billion for the residents of Gaza? Yes. $4 billion for Hamas terrorists? No. If only naivete could be bought with money. What will we do when we run out of that commodity?
Ben-Dror Yemini: The defender of the beheaders
To get to the crux of the matter in just a few words: Rimon-Or bases her support for the Islamic State murderers on the claim that they are only responding to the misdeeds of the Americans, who are killing a lot more people with their tools of destruction – and "the more primitive and vulgar means" of the Jihad are nothing compared to that.
Before any of her students adopt this pseudo-sophisticated nonsense, one should remind them that the thousands who are being murdered in the name of Jihad in general, and the Islamic States' victims in particular, are in fact Muslims and Arabs. Only a handful are Westerners. But that's enough for her. Because the postcolonial school of thought is essentially racist.
It absolves "the others" of any responsibility. It rants and raves about the fact that two or three Westerners have been murdered. It turns the Jihad into an entity concerned with protest or the righting of social wrongs. It disregards the mass-murder festival. It ignores the fact that girls and women are being turned into sex slaves.
Whether any of that is of interest to her is doubtful. Rimon-Or, like many of her fellow followers of the same school of thought, is stuck like a scratched record in an anti-colonial model that has long since lost touch with reality. And the truth of the matter is that all the Jihad offshoots, from Boko Haram and through to the Taliban, operate with the same degree of barbarity, with or without Americans or Zionists in the vicinity. The Jihad groups perpetrate massacres against blacks and Muslims after all.
Palestinian Al-Aksa Mosque preacher to NATO’s Arab partners: Kill the Jews instead.
It is sentiments like these that persist not just throughout Hamas but throughout the more respected Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.
Here is a clip that was broadcast on Palestinian Authority television in which the PA Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Hussein urges his followers to kill Jews.
So are our own Parliamentarians really going to vote to recognise “a state of Palestine” that has religious leaders and an official television network that propagates the message that Jews should be murdered?
If that is today’s outcome then Britain’s Parliament should hang its head in shame.
Palestinian Preacher Criticizes Int'l Coalition against ISIS in Impromptu Al-Aqsa Mosque Address



  • Monday, October 13, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
Here's the sequence of events on any random day:
  • Jews want to peacefully visit their holiest site.
  • Muslims start riots to stop Jews from visiting their holiest site.
  • Israeli police stop the Muslim rioters and protect the Jews.
  • The Muslims attack the police.
  • The police ban Muslims of fighting age from going to the site.
  • Muslims complain to the international community that they are being banned from their holy sites.
  • The media reports that there are "clashes" at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Never, and I mean never, does anyone suggest that if Muslims simply allow Jews to visit the site - and even to say some quiet prayers - that there would be no police, no disruptions, no riots, no reactions and no limits on who can go there.

Instead, the Muslim world rushes to defend their supreme intolerance for the Jewish religion, and there isn't the slightest amount of shame for them doing so publicly. even worse, not a single "human rights" organization defends the Jews' right to their holy spots.

Today's example from Jordanian English-language media:

Jordan affirmed on Monday that it will take prompt action against any Israeli escalation against the holy place in occupied Jerusalem, Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications Mohammed Al Momani said.

Momani, who is also the government spokesman, affirmed that the "Jordan will take the needed political and legal measures to end the seizure against Al Aqsa Mosque and push Israel to commit to the peace agreement." The alternative, Momani warned, "will be more extremism and seditions that could trigger a religious war in the region." Further, the minister condemned the ongoing Israeli aggressions against Arab Jeruselmites and the Al Aqsa Mosque. "These aggressions constitute a flagrant violation against Jordan and a breach of heavenly religions and international norms," the minister affirmed.

The spokesman deplored the Israeli occupation forces' attacks against worshippers, mostly elderly people, at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and their action of arresting some of them. Momani also denounced the storming of the Al Aqsa Mosque's yards earlier today and use of force to vacate the mosque of the worshippers to allow settlers to break into the holy place.

The minister, meanwhile, condemned the Israeli forces' use of stun grenades and tearbombs against worshippers as well as they action of smashing the windows of the mosque in order to ensure that the shrine is vacated.


Here are the "elderly" people shooting small rockets at Israelis from inside the mosque today.


  • Monday, October 13, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon

NPR's "On the Media" hosted a discussion of media coverage of Israel:

 On the heels of this summer's war in Gaza, Jerusalem-based journalist Matti Friedman published an essay in Tablet magazine titled  “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth.” Drawing from his experience as a reporter and editor for the AP’s Jerusalem bureau from 2006 to 2011, Matti argues that the western press is far too focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that its framing distorts our perceptions of Israel. New York Timesdeputy national editor Ethan Bronner, who covered Israel-Palestine in the eighties for Reuters, in the nineties for theBoston Globe, and for the Times as Jerusalem bureau chief from 2008 to 2012, sees the coverage of the conflict in notably different ways. Brooke moderates a debate between Ethan and Matti.

You can hear it here.



Some highlights:

MATTI FRIEDMAN: As for the America's friendship with Israel, it's undeniable of course. But, for example, America has 30,000 servicemen in South Korea, and those are American citizens who are supposed to die to protect a foreign country from attack and I would argue that is a commitment exponentially more significant than the US commitment to Israel, and yet if there has been obsessive South Korea coverage, I've missed it. I think the friendship argument is true in part but it's not enough to explain the phenomenon. There's certainly a huge amount of interest in this place because of its historical connotations, but the kind of coverage we're seeing here is not massive coverage of Biblical archeology or religion. What we're seeing is extremely critical of the actions of the Israeli government and I would argue that this interest in the Holy Land I think that there's a very thin line between that and the development of a hostile obsession with the moral failings of Jews which as we know is a very deep thought pattern in the West.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You have both made a distinction between the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the European press and the American press. Ethan, how would you describe the difference? And then Matty.

ETHAN BRONNER: Broadly speaking, I would say that in the United States, coverage of Israel takes as a given that it is a legitimate country, that it has problems, that it has issues, that relations with its neighbors and Palestinians need to be written about, but the core question of whether Israel is a legitimate country is not asked over and over. I would say that much of European coverage gets to the question of the legitimacy of Israel as a project from the beginning and questions it. I also would say that American media coverage of Israel tends to explore Israeli society not necessarily all in a bad way, and take it seriously as a culture and as a society and that's much less true in Europe.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think Ethan's right. I think there's more poisonous press coverage in Europe. But I think that the difference between American and European coverage has eroded, that's been my experience. I think that you have a press corps here and it's a social group, people know each other, people move between the organizations. If we look at the Gaza coverage from the last summer, I don't think you'll see a lot of difference between coverage in the States, in the mainstream media organization and in Europe.

ETHAN BRONNER: The truth is that the coverage I've seen most closely is that of the New York Times, I haven't examined that of others, but I would say, that the New York Times coverage of whether the victims were civilians or fighters quite seriously. The notion that Hamas operates from among civilian buildings and organizations was repeated frequently in the coverage so it may be true that the locals who move between Reuters and AP are not very different, but I do think that the outlook of the organization is different. A colleague of mine from Britain who came through who wanted to write a story of the evolution of the Hebrew language told me that his newspaper said, we have no interest in this at all, you're there to cover the conflict. And that is never something that an editor would tell a reporter in Israel.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think the New York Times's coverage of Gaza this summer was one-sided. We saw photographs of Israeli soldiers and Israeli tanks and dead Palestinian civilians. The story that Hamas wants to be told out of Gaza is that there are no Hamas fighters. That there is no Hamas strategy and that all the dead are civilians and that is the story that media organizations including the New York Times told this summer.

ETHAN BRONNER: With regard to pictures of fighters in Gaza, first of all I don't think it's true that Hamas would like the world to think that it doesn't have fighters. I'm certain that that's not the message that they want to get out. What did happen in this war, as happened in '08-'09 and in '12 is that when the war begins, Hamas goes underground, and they're actually impossible to find. When the journalists were crossing the border from Israel, there weren't even Hamas guys to stamp their passports as there typically are. The idea that journalists in Gaza were not taking pictures because they either didn't want to send the message that there were fighters or they were afraid of the fighters I think is a misunderstanding of what happens when you operate underground in Gaza in a conflict.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think that would be true if we didn't have examples of reporters who did.

ETHAN BRONNER: We have very few Matty we have like four, four moments because they're rare to find, it's not because everybody else is turning away from it.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think one of the most striking images that came out of Gaza this summer was shot by a Indian TV crew and you can find it on YouTube. They saw in the middle of the day, Hamas crew setting up a rocket outside of their hotel. So how did these intrepid Indian journalists get this great footage?

ETHAN BRONNER: They weren't intrepid they were lucky.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: If some of the 700 reporters I think who arrived in Gaza to cover the conflict had their eyes perhaps a bit more open we would've seen more images like that. But of course the reporters in Gaza are there to report a very simple story, they're reporting a story of Israeli aggression against civilians. So they won't show things that contradict the story and they will accept the Hamas death toll and pass it on to their readers as fact, which the New York Times did too.
Friedman is, of course, correct - and the Indian reporter who broke that story says it explicitly:The reporters in the area witnessed a rocket being shot from that exact same spot, in the middle of the hotels that they were staying in, a few days earlier. They knew quite well that it was going to happen again. But they self-censored out of fear of Hamas. (Even the NDTV reporter waited until he was out of Gaza to release the video.)

Bronner is engaging in CYA journalism, not in objectively looking at how his fellow reporters do their jobs.

To see the devastating truth about how skewed the NYT coverage was of Gaza, just re-read this scathing piece by Richard Behar. Friedman's great but he didn't analyze the NYT coverage the way Behar did, and no one can refute what Behar wrote.

(h/t EBoZ)

  • Monday, October 13, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ma'an reports:

Hundreds of Israeli police raided the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on Monday, leading to clashes with Palestinian worshipers, witnesses said.

Israeli forces fired stun grenades, tear gas canisters and rubber-coated steel bullets at Palestinians in the holy site during the clashes.

Israeli media reported that Palestinian youths threw rocks and fireworks at police officers.
Here is a short video showing the "worshipers" literally shooting small rockets from within the "third holiest place in Islam" showing no Israeli soldiers inside. They cover their faces and use the mosque's pillars for cover after shooting.



Interestingly, the similar video I found last week has been removed from YouTube. But here is another version:



Can't you feel how much they respect their holy site?

Sunday, October 12, 2014

  • Sunday, October 12, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
From AP:

Donors at an international conference Sunday promised $2.7 billion to rebuild the war-ravaged Gaza Strip, but all of the key participants said their efforts would be futile without a permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

U.S.-mediated talks broke down this summer before the 50-day war between Hamas and Israel began — the third since 2008 — and it remains unclear how peace can come about.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende, who co-chaired the one-day meeting with Egypt, said pledges of $5.4 billion have been made, but that only half of that money would be "dedicated" to the reconstruction of the coastal strip.

Brende did not say what the other half of the funds would be spent on. Other delegates have spoken of budgetary support, boosting economic activity, emergency relief and other projects.
From the WSJ:
The Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, also agreed to take control of Gaza, which has been run independently for the past 7 years by Hamas after the Islamists ousted the authority in 2007.

“Gaza remains a tinderbox,” said United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking to donors. “Yet we must not lose sight of the root causes of the recent hostilities,” which he blamed on blockades on Gaza by neighboring Israel and Egypt as they try to isolate Hamas.

Israel has faulted Hamas militant activity for the hostilities, including cross-border tunnels and rocket fire.

Qatar, long a supporter of Islamists throughout the region, including Hamas in Gaza, led the contributors with a $1 billion pledge. Other big Arab contributors included Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, with each pledging $200 million, and Saudi Arabia, which had promised $500 million before the conference began. The U.S. agreed to donate $212 million to Gaza.

The total exceeded the $4 billion estimate the Palestinians had said was needed to recover from a 50-day summer conflict between Hamas and Israel which left many neighborhoods in Gaza destroyed, along with much of the territory’s infrastructure.

Ahead of the conference, hosted in Cairo with Norway’s help, other Gulf states and the U.S. had seen donations as a chance to “remove Qatar and the political factions within Hamas that are tied to Doha,” from control of postwar Gaza, said Theodore Karasik, head of research at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai.

But the large Qatari contribution, larger than that of the three largest other donors combined, reduces that possibility. Before the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas began on July 8, Qatar was already Gaza’s largest foreign benefactor.

...Ziad Abu Amr, the Palestinian Authority’s deputy prime minister, said Qatar “wants to be there” in Gaza. But he acknowledged that the reconstruction would have to take place under a modified political setup that excludes Hamas because Western donors including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union can’t legally give money directly to Hamas, which they deem a terrorist group.

Qatar’s close ties to Hamas and other Islamists—including the main al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Nusra Front—has caused friction with its Gulf neighbors since the onset of the Arab Spring three years ago. Qatar’s regional profile has grown through its backing of Islamist movements during this period.
If only half the $5.4 billion is earmarked for reconstruction, and the PA is the main recipient of the funds, that means that there is plenty of cash for the PA to use for its own purposes - its budget has been in very bad shape for years, and it seems likely that it will use much of the funds for its own purposes.

But Qatar's $1 billion is going straight to Hamas, to pay salaries, build housing, pay terrorist families - and to buy weapons and build terror tunnels.

It is important to remember that Arab Gulf countries have traditionally been very bad at paying their pledged to the Palestinians. Qatar has been steadfast in funding Hamas and other Sunni terror groups, though.

It seems very doubtful that Hamas will give up on day to day power in Gaza. It is likely that the PA will take over the administration of the Erez and Kerem Shalom crossings, which doesn't hurt Hamas much. There is already infighting over who will control the Rafah crossing to Egypt; Hamas knows that its insistence on controlling it  is what prompts Egypt to keep it mostly closed but Hamas will suffer a great loss of honor if it gives up its only international border with an Arab state.

The chances that the PA will dismantle Gaza terror groups, or that it will replace Hamas control over the police and interior ministry in Gaza, are quite low indeed.

Qatar has given Hamas a lifeline. The other donor countries have given the PA more excuses for their own questionable budgetary practices, such as prioritizing payments to terrorists.

The infighting is inevitable.
  • Sunday, October 12, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
Remember the "Sderot Cinema" story from the summer? Sderot residents who had been under constant rocket fire were made to look like monsters for watching Israeli warplanes fight back against those who who had been making their lives hell. The reporters got the story exactly wrong.

To get an idea of how much of a double standard there is in how Israel is treated in the media, check out this Daily Mail story that describes "war tourists" in Turkey and in the Golan, both looking at the civil war in Syria.

Dressed in casual T-shirts with their arms around each other, the men posing for photographs could be documenting a visit to any tourist attraction in the world.

But these Turkish daytrippers aren't admiring a famous painting or well-known monument - they are taking pictures of U.S. airstrikes against brutal Islamic State terrorists in the Syrian city of Kobane.

With explosions taking place behind them in a city where ISIS have butchered hundreds of Kurds over the last few weeks, the carefree men seem more interested in documenting the moment on digital cameras and mobile phones than coming to terms with the horrific reality of the situation.

...This morning, almost as if they were watching a fireworks display, the spectators took photographs of explosion after explosion as warplanes from the U.S. Air Force hammered terrorist targets in the east and south west of the city.

They are not alone in their fascination with watching a conflict unfold; just weeks ago a fierce three-way battle between Syrian government forces, Al Qaeda-linked rebels and fighters from the Islamic State drew large crowds in neighbouring Israel.

Residents in Golan Heights took took to the mountains in T-shirts, shorts and sunglasses to watch a bloody battle unfold in the town of Quneitra, across the Syrian border beneath them.

War tourism has a long history, dating back millennia when accounts of great battles would be written and told by individuals who claim to have witnessed them first hand.

By the 1600s Dutch painter Willem van de Velde was travelling on war ships in order to sketch fighting with English vessels - while the battles of Waterloo and Gettysburg in the 1800s both had spectators who had journeyed deliberately to the conflict zone in order to watch events unfold.

In the 1860s Thomas Cook organised holidays for British tourists on American Civil War battlefields, and similar guided tours were organised available for those interested in locations associated with the Crimean War.

In fact during the Battle of Alma in 1854 - considered the first battle of the Crimean War - Prince Alexander Sergeyevich Menshikov is said to have invited women from the nearby town of Sevastopol to take up positions on a nearby mountainside to watch his men fight.
When the main story is about Turkish war tourists who are directly photographing atrocities against civilians, then the media puts it in context of a long history of war tourism. The Sderot residents got no such slack.

But even within this story, look at the captions of the photos showing the Turks versus the Israelis:




The Israelis are "ghoulish," while the Turks are merely photographers.

The Sderot story was widely circulated as an example of how heartless Israelis are. This story? No one cares, because, hey, they are only Turks and cannot possibly be expected to have the expected and exceptional moral standards of Israelis.

(h/t Bob Knot)

  • Sunday, October 12, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
A PA official has announced that negotiations are ongoing for  Israel to allow some 5000 Gazans to work in areas of Israel adjacent to the Gaza Strip.

The Director General of the PA General Administration of border crossings Nazmi Muhanna said that the Ministry of Civil Affairs will provide names to the Israeli side from which to choose the five thousand workers to work in Israel, adding that the number will be increased after the success of the first phase.

Mehanna said that they would work adjacent to the Gaza Strip and will be in the areas of agriculture, construction and similar jobs.

If true, this sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.


From Ian:

JCPA: The Significance of the First Hizbullah Attack against Israeli Forces since 2006
For the first time since the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Hizbullah claimed responsibility for an attack against Israeli forces in the Shabaa Farms region of the Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese border on October 7 in which two IDF soldiers were wounded.
Hizbullah’s announcement stated that the action was carried out by the military unit named for the Shaheed Hassan Ali Haydar, a Hizbullah demolition expert killed on September 5 when he tried to defuse several explosive devices attached to the Hizbullah telecommunications network near Adloun in southern Lebanon.
With the attack, Hizbullah sought to transmit the message that it placed its improvised explosive devices (IED) in retaliation for the killing of its demolition expert in Adloun, and it would not permit Israel to act freely in Lebanon in the mistaken belief that Hizbullah was preoccupied in Syria and wouldn’t react. Hizbullah wanted to clarify for Israel and, no less important, for its supporters in Lebanon that it could act on two fronts simultaneously and that Jihad against Israel remains its reason d’être.
JPost Editorial: The Kobani slaughter
Although the US, France and UK did begin limited air strikes on Islamic State, the illusion that they would be effective has been burst with the siege of Kobani. Pentagon spokesman R.-Adm. John Kirby told Fox News on September 8 that Kobani was not a priority for air strikes. “ISIS wants this town, they want territory, you need willing partners on the ground,” he said. “We are in discussions the Turks about what they can or may do, we can’t make the decision for them.”
Kirby added: “There is a limit to air power.... IS wants to hold ground.... Everyone is focused on Kobani and we understand, but we are taking away revenue [from Islamic State] and removing command and control nodes.”
This statement illustrates that protecting civilian life is not a real goal of the US administration or its allies. The technical references to preventing revenue from reaching Islamic State shows that stopping ethnic-cleansing and mass murder is not on the international community’s agenda.
The tragedy unfolding in Kobani is unacceptable.
Nations intone “Never again,” but we are watching a human catastrophe happen as Western powers fail to employ their massive resources.
It is time for the world to wake up and do something to aid the Kurds in their battle with Islamic State before it is too late.
Eugene Kontorovich: Sweden's unprincipled stance on recognition
Sweden’s position on Western Sahara also stressed the need that recognition neither proceed nor preempt a process between SADR and Morocco – a process that is not happening, not on the horizon, and has no chance of success given Morocco’s adamant opposition to anything other than a one-state solution.
Thus in recognizing “Palestine,” Sweden violates its own, entirely normal view of international law – that there cannot be recognition before actual independence. On the other hand, perhaps the new government has changed its view on international law, and thinks that recognition as a state no longer requires territorial control by the recognized entity. But in that case, recognizing “Palestine” but not SADR is obviously insincere and hypocritical. Unless the changed policy results in recognizing SADR, it represents nothing but a purely political attack on Israel, rather than an implementation of a coherent policy.
Sweden has framed its recognition move as part of its broader policy of standing up for the underdog, an excuse recently parroted by former MK Rabbi Michael Melchior. But given that the new ruling party has long had a policy of recognizing SADR – and not “Palestine” – the sudden jumping the gun on the other, can only seem to be pandering to faddish European sensibilities, rather than an implementation of their government’s own previously declared sense of justice.
Indeed, the lack of principle gives support to claims that Sweden is primarily motivated by the large number of Arab immigrants rather than high principle. (Presumably, like the Arab League, they would support the Arab regime in Rabat over the self-determination claims of the black African Sawahari.) That is not something that Israel can influence, and thus this would only serve to limit the seriousness with which Swedish positions are taken in Jerusalem.
Of course, if Stockholm were to recognize SADR – or ultimately not recognize “Palestine” – its foreign policy would then satisfy the high pretensions of fairness and integrity to which it strives.
Richard Millett: The blood of Israelis and Palestinians will be on the hands of our politicians.
With the British Parliament due to take up six hours of precious debating time on Monday over whether to recognise a “state of Palestine” Vincent Fean’s article in The Guardian sums of the ignorance of those who will vote for such recognition.
Perhaps the most risible part of Fean’s article is this:
“The United States should guarantee the safety of both peoples with US or Nato troops during the full, phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestine, endorsed in a unanimous security council resolution.”
Really? Fean must have not been near a radio or television for the last three years and so not seen what Assad and Islamic State have been doing to their own people while the US, UN and NATO all watched on. Never again? Don’t believe it.
If Monday’s debate ends with a vote in favour of recognising the “state of Palestine” there will be no change on the ground. Israel won’t suddenly give up its security requirements because of our Parliament. That would be suicide.
The recognition will only ratchet up the expectation of the Palestinians and lead to more bloodshed and violence on both sides. This blood will be on the hands of the likes of Fean and our politicians who vote in favour on Monday.
Our politicians should get back to representing their own constituents instead of desperately trying to buy votes by fleeing to foreign fields.





Rabab AbdulhadiSan Francisco State University is probably not the most Israel-friendly university in the United States.

In truth, I feel quite confident in suggesting that the opposite is true.  Among SFSU faculty most hostile to Israel, however, is professor Rabab Abdulhadi of the ethnic studies department.

Back in the 1960s, the University of California in Berkeley had the reputation for being the most radical school on the west coast of the United States.  SFSU, however, was always more hard-core.  That is part of what I liked about the place when I was there in the late 90s.

A Warning to Parents:

The truth of the matter, unfortunately, is that any Jewish family would be well advised to keep their kids away from San Francisco State; that is unless they wish to expose them to malice, and potential violence, grounded in anti-Semitic anti-Zionism of the type promoted on campus by professor Abdulhadi.

Unless Jewish parents want their kids to be physically confronted over Israel, as were Jewish students when I was there, I very much recommend sending them to universities elsewhere... either that or make sure that they know how to fight.  Get them enrolled in Krav Maga classes, perhaps.  And make damn sure that they know something about the history of the Jews in the Middle East, and just why a Jewish State is necessary, before trundling them off to campus as idealistic freshmen.

This is the only reasonable conclusion that I can come to given the fact that SFSU funds student organizations, such as Abdulhadi's General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS), that calls for violence against us.  The reason that SFSU funds violent hatred toward Jews - which it clearly does when it funds GUPS - is because they believe that Israel may, in fact, be as awful as Abdulhadi claims that it is.

And lest anyone doubt that GUPS does, in fact, call for violence against Jews, this is the image currently at the very top of their Facebook page.


gups


Although the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre was a massacre of Arab Muslims by Lebanese Christians, anti-Semitic anti-Zionists at SFSU always blame the Jews.

The image obviously shows a masked man with a rifle being greeted as something of a hero by a poor Arab woman somewhere either in Gaza or in the disputed territories.  The message is clear.  GUPS favors organizations devoted to driving out Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

From my perspective this would be something akin to funding a student Klan organization because maybe the white majority in the nineteenth-century American south had a point.  This is a criticism, by the way, coming from GUPS left, not its right.  Jewish national liberation is as much a progressive value, or should be, as is Tibetan national liberation or Kurdish national liberation.


SFSU Faculty:

While Professor Fred Astren, the head of the Department of Jewish Studies, is responsible for simply watching too much of this go on during his tenure - although it is unclear to me what he can do to stop it - the main culprit at SFSU is his colleague, professor Abdulhadi of the Department of Ethnic Studies / Race and Resistance Studies and the Senior Scholar of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative, at the College of Ethnic Studies, San Francisco State University.

I kid you not.

fistAbdulhadi is a "post-colonial" Arab left-feminist academic from Yale who believes that Muslims in the Middle East have every right to murder Jews as a matter of "resistance" and, thus, as a matter of "social justice."

Administrators like Astren put up with this horrendous nonsense presumably due to an ethos of collegiality - or perhaps just due to desensitization over the years - but it is unclear to me why that should inhibit the rest of us from strenuously objecting.

In distinction, Abdulhadi is not the least bit interested in compromise.

There is, after all, no compromise with a bloody fist.

That image is a Palestinian-Arab flag and what it clearly represents, much like a Nazi swastika, is violence against Jews.  Ideologues can dress it up in the language of human rights all that they want, but we understand what it means.  It means hatred.  It is a bloody fist and until quite recently it held a prominent place on a web page associated with Abdulhadi, but she seems to have deleted it.  You cannot really blame the woman for removing that image - if she, in fact, did so - because she was also the faculty advisor to GUPS when the student president of that organization, Muhammad Hammad, made a "selfie" with a switch-blade calling for violence against the IDF.

She was also the faculty advisor to GUPS when they held aloft signs in front of SFSU's Malcolm X Plaza reading, "My heroes have always killed colonizers," by whom they meant Jewish people on historically Jewish land.  They may have meant that killing white people is joyous, also, but they certainly meant that killing Jews is so.

Subsequently, Tammi Benjamin's AMCHA Initiative, out of UC Santa Cruz, accused Abdulhadi of misuse of university funds during a recent trip to visit a number of terrorists in Gaza and the disputed territories, including the plane hijacker Leila Khaled, on the university's dime.  Abdulhadi sold this trip as a scholarly endeavor, but there is no question but that the lines between scholarship and political activism are exceedingly porous for this SFSU professor.  She is at least as much an activist as a scholar and, thus, the university essentially purchased the anti-Semitic anti-Zionism that Abdulhadi peddles.

San Francisco State backs Abdulhadi against Benjamin's charges of misuse of funding, having found those charges unwarranted.  What the university seems not to understand, however, is that for most of us the problem here is not one of faculty corruption - the problem is not that Abdulhadi is a crook - but of the spreading of hatred and violence toward Jews under guises of academic freedom and "universal human rights."

It is about the perversion of western liberal values in the service of totalitarian regimes and in opposition to the democratic State of Israel.

That is the point and that is the reason why so many of us object to the kind of malice that we saw last year on the SFSU campus.  You cannot pay student organizations to spit hatred at Jews and then contemptuously dismiss Jewish people who stand up for themselves.

Or I suppose that you can and certainly SFSU Dean of Ethnic Studies, Kenneth P. Monteiro did in an effort to deflect from the bigger picture.  In a rather ugly public letter concerning the AMCHA Initiative's interest in Abdulhadi, Monteiro writes:
The AMCHA Initiative has over many years expressed its support for the policies of the state of Israel and their disagreement with those who do not support those policies. Indeed, I firmly support their right to express their views.
This is false.  AMCHA is not about supporting Israeli policies.  AMCHA is about keeping an eye on the rise of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the academe and making people aware of its corrosive, if not violent, tendencies.  (Gil Troy, by the way, has some some words on the matter over at the Jerusalem Post.)

Monteiro writes:
AMCHA has publicly singled out one of our faculty, Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, for uniquely malicious bullying. Therefore I am compelled to repudiate their claims publicly. Make no mistake, Professor Abdulhadi has been and remains a valued colleague, scholar and teacher. She is a locally, nationally and internationally recognized and respected scholar/activist, who is the recipient of awards for the quality of her work. The claims made by AMCHA against her were investigated, as are all claims no matter the source, and those claims have been found false.
So, am I to understand that Monteiro disagrees that Abdulhadi was the advisor to GUPS when both its president and its regular student members called publicly for murder?  Because I am pretty sure that this is easily verifiable.

Is he claiming that Abdulhadi did not publish a bloody fist, indicating violence against Jews, on a website associated with her name?

Is he claiming that Abdulhadi did not recently visit with terrorists, including a plane hijacker that is considered a hero to many of Abdulhadi's students?

Is he claiming that Abdulhadi does not support BDS?

Is he claiming that she does not, in fact, spread malice toward Jews through spreading malice toward the Jewish State?

Is all of that false, professor Monteiro?


The Bigger Picture:

I feel reasonably certain that those of us who care about Jewish well-being have not made the mistake to think that SFSU would repudiate Abdulhadi.  We do not, you can be sure, expect San Francisco State University to in any way protect its Jewish students from the kinds of scenes of hatred that I was witness to when I was a student there.  We understand very well Abdulhadi's ideology and how it relates to the university and we also understand that it is not a matter of this one particular hate-filled academic.

It is, rather, about the rise of the BDS movement and its corrosive influence not only on Arab-Israel discourse, or Muslim-Jewish relations, but on the well-being of Israeli society and the Jewish people, as a whole.  Ultimately those who favor the international campaign to single out the Jews in the Middle East for boycott, divestment, and sanction, as Abdulhadi does, are championing a racist movement in direct contradiction to their own alleged values.

Abdulhadi, in a recent "End the Occupation" panel discussion even went so far as to suggest that the Gazan terror tunnels represented a humanitarian effort by Hamas on behalf of their people.  She referred to those tunnels into Israel as a "lifeline" for the Gazans.  The fact of the matter is, and she knows this, those tunnels were decked out with weaponry and supplies for the purposes of kidnapping and murder, yet Abdulhadi would have people believe that their purposes were bunny-like and benign.

They were not.

It was this bit of public stupidity which, in fact, inclined me to write this piece.   Abdulhadi believes that those terror tunnels were essentially good things.  She might find it regrettable that they are necessary, but in her unfortunate world-view, necessary they are.

I think that she should tell it to Dana Bar-on who used to live in kibbutz Nir Am in-between S'derot and the Gaza Strip before Abdulhadi's friends came to drag her and her family away.

She was there the night that Hamas fighters leaped out of the ground with rifles, yards from her home and she discusses it toward the end of the video below.  The IDF dispatched the Islamist thugs in short order, but if they had not been there who knows what would have happened to those people?

Here is what Dana has to say and I promise you that you cannot understand what is happening in that part of Israel without listening to her all the way through:



The bottom line is that San Francisco State University, much like other schools - throughout Europe - has made a vehicle of itself for a noxious political movement whose ultimate goal is the dissolution of Israel as the national home for the Jewish people.  If people like Abdulhadi were to get their way the Jews of the Middle East would, yet again, find themselves an abused minority living as dhimmis under Sharia law just as Jews did for thirteen long centuries.

That was when we were forced to ride donkeys, if we were to ride, and were not allowed to repair synagogues.

But I have a message for professor Abdulhadi.

It is this:
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done.

And for that, at least, we can be very grateful.

Please, by the way, support the AMCHA Initiative.  Tammi Benjamin is fighting a lonely fight against hard odds and just as Yale, Abdulhadi's alma mater, killed professor Charles Small's Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of anti-Semitism (YIISA), so many in the University of California and California State University systems would love to shut Tammi up.



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.

  • Sunday, October 12, 2014
  • Elder of Ziyon
Human Rights Watch just can't stop itself from Israel bashing.

Their latest press release, entitled "Donors, UN Should Press Israel on Blockade," starts off this way:
Donor countries at the October 12, 2014 conference on assistance to Palestine should press Israel to lift sweeping, unjustified restrictions on the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said today.

Throughout the inaccurate piece (they use the word "blockade" incorrectly, for example,) HRW calls on donor countries not to pressure Hamas but to pressure only Israel.

Here's what HRW doesn't demand:

  • No rebuilding of terror tunnels to kidnap Israelis
  • Stopping the use of civilian homes and offices as fronts to cover terror activity
  • Dismantling the Hamas terror infrastructure and replacing it with the PA security forces
  • Stopping the manufacture of rockets whose sole purpose is to attack Jewish civilians
  • Unconditional and immediate release of any remains of Israeli soldiers so their families can bury them properly
  • The immediate dismantling of terror groups like the Islamic Jihad Al Quds Brigades and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades
  • Demand that Hamas stop booby-trapping civilian homes
  • Demand that Hamas remove military headquarters from hospitals
  • Demand that Hamas immediately stop recruiting children for fighting


A donor conference is a unique opportunity to pressure those who are receiving aid to ensure that they use the funds and material properly. Yet HRW only sees it as an opportunity for Israel bashing, including some absurd demands like insisting that Israel import Gaza goods.

Naturally, HRW also lies. The article falsely states that Israel restricts Gazans from food, medicine and medical equipment. It falsely states that Kerem Shalom does not have the capacity to provide for Gaza needs, demanding that the crossing be enlarged even though it has never come close to capacity. It accuses Israel of "apparent Israeli attacks" on the Gaza power plant, which makes no sense since if Israel wanted to keep Gazans without power, it can simply turn off the 60% of power that Gaza gets from Israel directly.

Once again a "human rights" organization lies and exposes its clear anti-Israel bias. The question isn't about how donors to Gaza should act - it is how donors to HRW can stomach empowering its lies and impunity.

(To see more of how HRW exposed its anti-Israel bias during the war, see these posts.)

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive