Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Families of dead Gaza terrorists protest lack of payment by foreign "charities"

Palestine Today, an Islamic Jihad media outlet, reports that the families of dozens of "martyrs" tried to break into branches of the Bank of Palestine in Gaza today, saying that their payments from charities abroad have been stopped for several months.

Bank employees and police tried to calm them down.

Bank staff said that the bank has nothing to do with the issue, saying that the issue comes from the countries of origin of the payments, not the bank.

Some of the families who are complaining about not receiving funds to rebuild houses from Gaza, even though well over 80,000 homeowners have received cash and/or construction materials.

At the very end, the article mentions that some charities have resorted to opening up accounts directly at the Gaza banks rather than transferring the funds from foreign banks, because many of their accounts were shut down.

This indicates that these aren't real charities. The organizations paying these funds are specifically paying a twisted form of life insurance for the families of terrorists.

The article implies that there has been some effort to close down "charities" in the EU, USA and perhaps even Arab countries that pay the families of terrorists as well as more direct funding of terror groups, and that these efforts have been having an effect.

While Arab countries have been slow to pay their pledges for rebuilding Gaza - the only bottleneck in its reconstruction, not Israeli restrictions - it seems that they or other countries have also been making a serious dent in funding from pro-terror "charities."

Usually a story featuring wailing women is not cause for celebration, but reading between the lines of this story make it look like there is some actual good news behind their cries.

However, the PA still pays the families of their terrorists 100% of their stipends, even when they had been paying only 60% to their actual workers.

Iran cheated under the interim agreement, and multilateral "snapback" is dead

Going back again to Joe Biden's speech at the Washington Institute, where he defended the Obama administration's negotiations, he stated:

The second argument I hear is that no deal is worth the paper it’s written on, because Iran will simply cheat. And it’s true that Iran could try to cheat, whether there’s a deal or not. Now they didn’t cheat under the interim deal -— the Joint Plan of Action -— as many were certain they would. But they certainly have in the past and it would not surprise anyone if they tried again.

Sorry, Joe:

The Czech Republic blocked an attempted purchase by Iran this year of a large shipment of sensitive technology useable for nuclear enrichment after false documentation raised suspicions, U.N. experts and Western sources said.

Some details of the attempted purchase were described in the latest annual report of an expert panel for the United Nations Security Council's Iran sanctions committee, which has been seen by Reuters.

The panel said that in January Iran attempted to buy compressors - which have nuclear and non-nuclear applications - made by the U.S.-owned company Howden CKD Compressors.

A Czech state official and a Western diplomat familiar with the case confirmed to Reuters that Iran had attempted to buy the shipment from Howden CKD in the Czech Republic, and that Czech authorities had acted to block the deal.

The U.N. panel, which monitors compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime, said there had been a "false end user" stated for the order.

"The procurer and transport company involved in the deal had provided false documentation in order to hide the origins, movement and destination of the consignment with the intention of bypassing export controls and sanctions," it added.

The report offered no further details about the attempted transaction. Iran's U.N. mission did not respond to a query about the report.

How many cheats weren't noticed?

And how come the UN itself - the specific committee that is charged with enforcing the sanctions - didn't publicize this report, and it had to be leaked to the media?

That is in many ways more troubling than the cheating attempt itself.

Also, the "snapback sanctions" idea is pretty much dead.

Biden said:

And there will be a clear procedure in the final deal that allows both the U.N. and unilateral sanctions to snap back without needing to cajole lots of other countries -– including Russia or China –- to support it. That will be written in the final deal.

Uh, not really:

The Obama administration is trying to sell a nuclear deal with Iran to skeptical Arabs, Israelis and U.S. lawmakers by saying that United Nations sanctions will be restored automatically if the Iranians are caught cheating.

Not so, say the Russians, who have one of five vetoes in the 15-member UN Security Council.

“There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever” in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate.

While the Obama administration maintains that Russia agreed “in principle” to the need for a sanctions “snapback” mechanism if Iran fails to comply with the agreement now being negotiated in final form, the Russian government has offered no corroboration.

Instead, President Vladimir Putin on April 13 lifted a ban on exporting missile defense systems to Tehran, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said lifting all the sanctions against Iran is good business for Russia.

Now there is very little incentive to stop Iran from cheating, which is the entire point of the nuclear agreement.

And don't assume even American sanctions would "snap back" immediately upon evidence of Iranian cheating. For example, the Czech discovery of the illicit compressor deal isn't 100% clear-cut for those who prefer blindness. The compressors have non-military use, after all. Just because they were imported using dummy companies and false paperwork isn't proof that they were meant for nuclear purposes, it is just a string indicator of cheating. How would the Obama administration react to cheating like that which can be rationalized away?

Iran knows the answer, and deep down, so does everyone else.

(h/t Yenta, Omri)

The great sell-out (poster)

This quote, which I mentioned tangentially a couple of days ago, deserves a lot more prominence:

Or, in the words of a Yiddish proverb I heard in relation to this issue yesterday, if one person says you are drunk, you can ignore him. If two people say you are drunk, you should go to sleep.

When the Arabs and Israelis agree on something, the world should listen.

Talking to senators and aides about Iran

On my trip to Washington on Wednesday for the NORPAC Mission I ended up going to two senators' offices.

We had a handout for all the members of Congress we met - which was probably about 90% of them in total. It was a scorecard that went through a number of issues about the Iranian nuclear agreement, saying that unless every single question is answered adequately, they should vote against it.

The questions (along with lots of supporting documentation for each one) were:

a. ‘ANYTIME, ANYWHERE’ inspections regime: The final agreement calls for inspectors to determine whether Iran is complying with the agreement. Will those inspectors have the right, with minimal/no notice and no veto right to visit any site they suspect may be involved in any aspect of nuclear weapons research or production?

b. Phased lifting of sanctions: Will economic sanctions previously imposed on Iran be lifted upon signing of a final agreement or, instead, only over a period of months and years, conditioned on Iran’s compliance with the agreement, and in a way that gives Iran a continued and strong economic incentive to comply?

c. Lifting of sanctions conditioned on fully disclosing PMD (possible military dimensions of past nuclear related work) Will Iran be required to disclose all research and substantive work that it has previously done on nuclear weapons before sanctions relief?

d. Severe limits on nuclear related research & development and on use of advanced centrifuges - Will the final agreement strictly limit Iran’s ability to research, develop and acquire (a) faster and more efficient centrifuges (the machines needed to enrich uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon) and (b) any other components of a nuclear weapon?

e. Shipping of enriched uranium out of Iran - Will the final agreement definitively cut off Iran’s ability to access its stock of enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon, by requiring Iran to ship that uranium out of the country?

f. Effective ‘snapback’ mechanisms - Will the final agreement ensure that any Iranian violation will be (a) swiftly identified and (b) met with rapid reimposition of sanctions so that (c) Iran is deterred from violating the agreement in the first place?

g. Sunset provisions tied to changes in Iranian behavior - The final agreement will likely provide that many of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will lapse after 10 years, while others will lapse after 15. Will that lapse be automatic or will it be conditioned on Iran’s behavior – such as its support for terrorists and murderous regimes – having changed by the end of the given period?

h. Disposal of “extra” centrifuges - The April 2 framework agreement says that Iran will reduce its installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104, with 5,060 enriching uranium for the first ten years. Will the 12,000+ centrifuges that will not be needed during the first ten years be dismantled (and, ideally, shipped out the country) or, alternatively, disabled in some other way?

i. Trade-off of permanent sanctions relief for temporary restraints - The fundamental premise of the April 2 framework, and almost certainly of any final agreement, is that Iran will get (what is very likely to be) permanent relief from the most crippling sanctions in exchange for temporary restraints in its nuclear behavior, while leaving all major elements of its nuclear infrastructure intact. Is that a sound trade-off?

My group's first meeting was with a Democrat who was very pro-Israel but also very pro-Obama. He had strongly supported Pillar of Defense, for example.

We spoke mostly to his aide (which is normally how these things go; actually speaking to the politicians does not happen as often) but he did come in and gave a monologue. He said that as long as the Iran deal will push off their nuclear weapons capability for ten years, he would sign on. He also said that he met with Bibi in 2012 and told him that he felt that he was injecting partisan politics in the US-Israel relationship; saying that he felt that Netanyahu was campaigning for Romney.

Whether it is true or not, the fact that this was his perception is something that the Israeli leadership must pay attention to.

It is easy to get people like this to support Iron Dome, for example. But to get them ti understand the problem with Iran is much harder.

The other meeting I had (our bus came late so there was only time for two meetings) was with another Southern senator's office, but he was a Republican freshman senator. The Iran issues were preaching to the choir.

In that meeting I spoke to points G, H and I to the aide, making particular note that there was only a 12 year window between President Clinton's announcement of a "good" deal with North Korea and their first atom bomb test. I said that if Iran doesn't change its behavior of supporting terror, increasing its ICBM capability and generally taking over the region, there should be no way that things should be considered perfectly OK after ten years.

I don't know how much of a difference this mission made for the Iran agreement, but it certainly didn't hurt. And when members of Congress see so many Jews coming to visit them they know that this is an issue that many people care passionately about - enough to take a day off of work to help advocate for what we feel is so important not only for Israel but for the US and the world as well.

05/13 Links Pt2: NGOs and the return of antisemitism; The Hijacking of the ICC

From Ian:

NGO Monitor: NGOs and the return of antisemitism

This week in Jerusalem, politicians, journalists, diplomats, educators, and civil society will gather at the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism (GFCA), a biannual meeting to assess the state of antisemitism globally. For the hundreds of participants, including many non-Jews, it is essential to expose those responsible for fueling antisemitism and those that enable it in order to formulate effective responses.
In this form of racism, powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that claim to promote human rights and humanitarian agendas, as well as the European governments that fund them, play a central role. The NGOs lead the demonization campaigns that target Israel, and despite the extensive evidence of the moral damage caused by these NGOs, European governments irresponsibly continue to fund them with hundreds of millions of pounds, euros, and kroner.
In advance of the Global Forum, NGO Monitor published a detailed report addressing these issues. The report addresses different types of antisemitism that are manifest in some medical aid organizations, church groups, and major human rights organizations.

Father Gabriel Naddaf: Supporting Middle Eastern Christians is Zionism

This clearly Zionist value is expressed today in Nepal, but not only there. For example, the non-governmental organization Rescuers without Borders, headed by Rabbi Aryeh Levi from Beitar Illit (a hareid rabbi living in a settlement), is operating in Kathmandu right now. At the same time, he is working with me (an Aramaic Greek-Orthodox priest and the head of the Christian Empowerment Council) to collect basic supplies for Christian refugees who escaped the clutches of the murderous terrorist organization ISIL, eventually escaping to refugee camps in Jordan and northern Iraq. Surprisingly (or not), the main source of our manpower for this blessed activity is volunteers from the Zionist non-governmental organization Im Tirtzu,
The combination of a hareidi rabbi, a priest who encourages Christian Israelis to enlist in the Israeli Defense Forces, and a secular pro-Israeli organization all working together is the aim of the Zionist story. Members of all ethnicities and sectors joining together to help those being unjustly persecuted.
This is true, honest, and real mutual responsibility. Israeli mutual responsibility, capable of bringing light even to those populations who are not Israel’s first priority every day.
It upsets me that even on these topics the vast majority of organizations who claim the title of “human rights” organizations, who in reality focus only on the vilification of the State of Israel and Israeli soldiers, are not heard.
Not Adalah, not Physicians for Human Rights, not Rabbis for Human Rights, not B’Tselem, not Breaking the Silence nor any of the other organizations supported by the New Israel Fund (NIF) have found in themselves at least the honesty to praise the amazing and inspiring Zionist activity being done here. Because why should they praise Israel or its Zionist organizations working for Nepalese refugees or downtrodden Christian refugees living in Jordan and in Syria?
After all, this doesn’t serve the international propaganda against Israel that they are primarily and completely committed to.

The Hijacking of the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court’s acceptance of Palestine as a state party is the latest example of a noble institution hijacked into serving political ends.
Headlines published on April Fools’ Day are often reserved for pranks, hoaxes, and fake news stories. Yet the many headlines that stated something like, “The State of Palestine formally joins the International Criminal Court, launching investigations into Israel’s War Crimes,” were no laughing matter. The State of Palestine is now officially listed as a state party to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court. So hold the laughter, this is no joke.
Beyond being an accomplished reality, Palestine’s accession to the ICC is being hailed by some as a triumphal step on the path to the universalization of human rights norms and the Rome Statute, which established the court itself. Yet this latest bid by the Palestinian Authority to circumvent negotiations with Israel should give champions of human rights no cause for celebration, for it places more than the Jewish state’s international standing in jeopardy. As all of the Palestinians’ political bids have done in the past, this move only serves to weaken the legitimacy of the ICC and the international legal system.

From Avihai Shorshan, translated on Facebook by Tomer Elias:

I'm also breaking the silence.

Here is my report, nothing special, just the tip of the iceberg.

During our operation in the Kasbah of Schem, while we were stationed inside a house for an ambush, an old man, one of the residents of the home started feeling pains in his chest. Because the Red Sahar are a group of useless golems, against orders we evacuated the old man in the middle of the night on a stretcher while seriously risking the troops in the area, and risking exposing the our ambush location.
**
During our duty in Gaza, the battalion commander decided that all the food supply crates that were sent to the unit for lone soldiers would be distributed to the Palestinian families during our next operation. (We received many more food crates as compared to the amount of lone soldiers in the unit). During one of our operations before Rosh Ha'ashana, we entered the Jabalia area by foot, and the armored vehicle that came in after us brought the crates with all the food supplies. Every home we entered during the operation received a gift for the holiday.
**
During one of our operations in the outskirts of Sajaia (city in Gaza), our location was discovered. Hamas didn't wait long and sent towards us a 10 year old boy with an explosive belt on him.

Against protocol and orders to kill the terrorist, a friend from the crew that was guarding the door at the time, decided not to open fire. He took cover and ordered the boy to strip and take off the explosive belt. We arrested the boy and after an interrogation in Israel he was released safe and sound. (By the way, during the interrogation it turned out that his brother, a senior Hamas member, paid him 10 shekels to go and blow up on us).
**
After preparing for two weeks for an operation that was a little crazy, we left to arrest the Hamas leadership in Janin. We had intelligence that they were all going to meet in the same coffee shop.

After a long walk, and two weeks of combat readiness, the force reached its destination and we were all locked on the target location. But only then the intelligence realized that the coffee shop and the surrounding area were packed with uninvolved people, and the order was given to cancel the operation, and return empty handed in order to avoid harming innocent people.
**
What I wrote here is not rare, and not an outlier, I can write an entire book just from the cases that we personally experienced in our crew.

Every soldier that served in these areas can share many more similar experiences.

I'm not closing my eyes, during combat, especially in an urban environment, innocent Palestinians are hurt. However, I know, with a full heart, that the commanders on the ground, and the higher ups, will go beyond what is necessary in order to minimize the number of casualties. Even when it does happen, it is a mistake and an error, things that unfortunately happen in every way, all around the world.

"Breaking the Silence" is trying to defame and make a controversy, and nothing else. The organization is not willing to work together with the IDF or to share its investigation material, despite the IDF constant pleas that they share the information. Besides all the testimonies are anonymous...

Every person with a head on their shoulders will come to their own conclusion...

Everyone that fought in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza knows what really happens on the ground, and what the orders are.

BDS Claims Credit For Keeping Mozart From Appearing In Israel (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Vienna, May 13 - Leaders of the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel are boasting that their publicity efforts have succeeded in preventing one of the world's most famous composers and performers of classical music from making an appearance in the Jewish State.
Wolfgang Mozart, an Austrian composer of chamber, orchestral, and operatic works, has never performed in Israel, and appears unlikely ever to do so. While no official statement from Mozart addresses the issue specifically, BDS activists assert that their campaign served as the decisive factor.

"The facts are simple: we have been campaigning among artists for quite some time, and since we began more than a decade ago, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has not once announced plans to travel to Israel," said prominent BDS activist Mustafa Barghouti. "Clearly, this kind of pressure works, and we intend to maintain our course of action until all artists finally come around."

Other figures in the music world who are active in BDS circles applauded the news. "This is a growing movement whose success is magnified through momentum, so we celebrate this coup," said former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters, a high-profile proponent of the cultural isolation of Israel. "At the same time, we must keep up the pressure for genuine success to happen. Real political change - the elimination of the only Jewish state in he world - is not something that will occur all by itself."

Waters added that all indications seem to point to other musical giants joining the boycott: of Johannes Brahms, Felix Mendelssohn, Franz Schubert, the entire Bach family, Josef Haydn, Claude Debussy, Antonio Vivaldi, Georg Frederic Handel, and many other influential composers, not a single one has announced a planned trip to Israel since the current round of BDS activity began to gain momentum in 2002.

Cultural institutions in Israel have yet to respond formally to the BDS announcement, but experts say they are unlikely to dignify it. "Reacting publicly to this would be playing into the hands of the BDS people, whose main weapon is publicity," explained Mozart biographer Maynard Solomon. "I personally find this all an unconvincing publicity stunt, since what they're really after would be an actual statement by, say, Ludwig Beethoven that he refuses to play in Israel because of the way they treat the Palestinians. And they're never going to get that, not from everything we know about Mozart."

Solomon explained that it would be completely unlike Mozart to involve himself in anything political, considering the composer's experience of dependence on political figures. "Alienating an entire society, especially one disproportionately appreciative of and involved in classical music, is not something I can see Mozart ever doing, and that's only one myriad other good reasons not to believe the BDS crowing," he added.

Activists intend to continue focusing on major figures in classical music. "Our next best bet is probably a major composer already predisposed to our point of view," said Barghouti. "Richard Wagner comes to mind."

05/13 Links Pt1: ‘#MyTruth’ Movement Grows as IDF Soldiers Protest ‘Breaking the Silence’ Report

From Ian:

Israeli Soldiers Angered by ‘Breaking the Silence’ Claims Against IDF

A group of former IDF soldiers, incensed by an Israeli NGO’s claims that they abused Palestinians during last summer’s fighting in Gaza, have taken to social media to fight the allegations.
Under the hashtag #my_truth in Hebrew, the soldiers, many of whom faced heavy fire from Hamas and other terrorist groups during the 50-day Operation Protective Edge, have begun posting stories of cases showing how they went to great lengths to avoid harming Palestinians. They also mention cases in which civilians took part in terrorist activity.
After reading the Breaking the Silence pamphlet, former IDF soldier Matan Katzman wrote on his Facebook page last Thursday that “during Operation Summer Rains in Beit Hanoun [in the northern Gaza Strip in 2006], we entered a house with a couple living in it. We asked them if they’re involved with Hamas, they said ‘no, not at all.’ We asked them if they have weapons in the house, they said ‘no, not at all.’ We stayed in the house for a couple of hours. When we left, we moved the couch and discovered an IED.”
The informal pro-IDF campaign by former Israeli soldiers also cited examples of humane and respectful behavior towards non-combatants during operations in Judea and Samaria.
Avishai Shorsham recalled in a testimony that he wrote of his service on his Facebook page on Wednesday, that “During an operation in the Nablus Kasbah, while we are in the middle of a stakeout, an old man who lived in the house felt sharp pain in his chest. Without accordance with our orders, we evacuated him in the middle of the night while endangering ourselves.”
According to the organization’s website, the recent Breaking the Silence pamphlet was produced with the “generous support” of such foreign organizations as Christian Aid, Dan Church Aid, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, as well as Open Society Foundations funded by George Soros.

‘#MyTruth’ Movement Grows Among IDF Soldiers Protesting ‘Breaking the Silence’ Report

One story, posted by Avihai Shoshan and Dror Dagan, tells of a risky 2004 mission to kill the head of Hamas’ Beit Lechem military operations, who was responsible for a deadly bus bombing in January that year which killed 11 people.
“The Duvdevan Unit was chosen for the task, and after just a day-long briefing, set out to settle the score. The maneuvers themselves were complex and dangerous. For the purposes of security, we won’t elaborate. As we broke into the house and quickly checked the rooms, somebody fell and fainted who was later identified as the wife of that very senior Hamas operative.
“Dror, the company medic, didn’t hesitate and started treating the woman. Not two minutes passed when it turned out that the story of the fainting woman was really a trap. Everything was a show, a stalling trick to allow the wanted man to get organized. Inside a hollow wall, the wanted man is hiding and starts shooting indiscriminately. Several soldiers are immediately wounded, among them Dror the medic, who is mortally wounded.
“After a long rehabilitation, Dror is paralyzed from the chest down and is registered 100% disabled. Dror is wounded because he was educated on IDF ethical procedure of treating any wounded casualty, even if the casualty is the wife of a senior terrorist who faints during an arrest.”
The authors posted a picture apparently showing Dror in a wheelchair below the story.
Shorshan, one of the movement’s promoters, posted a call to fellow soldiers to “publish truth against the lies that Breaking the Silence has spread in Israel and around the world.”

Yarmouk and the Failure of Palestine Solidarity

If the story of Yarmouk tells us anything, it is that the Palestinian national movement and its supporters profoundly lack both intellectual imagination and moral integrity. Yarmouk might have been an opportunity for the Palestinian solidarity movement to re-examine its entire world view, now that an Arab regime is turning the descendants of the original Palestinian refugees into refugees themselves. Such a process would not necessarily lead to a meaningful transformation of the Palestinian view of Israel. But it could trigger a more honest appraisal of the role of Arab regimes in delaying a final resolution of the Palestinian issue, as well as recognition that the successive generations of Syrian-born Palestinians genuinely belonged to a country now ravaged by the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War.
To think in this way, though, would put the interpretation of the Nakba as an ongoing Israeli sin at risk, by introducing additional layers of unwelcome complexity. If Netanyahu can be called a war criminal, then why not Assad? If Palestinians in Yarmouk need solidarity and assistance now, how does talk of 1948 and the “right of return” help them? These and similar questions remain unasked by those who paraded through our streets with Palestinian flags last summer. Until they start asking them, more Palestinians will die in Syria and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Today I am joining 1500 people - mostly religious Jews - for the annual NORPAC mission to Washington DC where we will be meeting with most members of Congress to push for a stronger relationship between the US and Israel.

The top agenda item, of course, is Iran.

It makes no sense to speak to members of Congress against the framework agreement, since that is already in place. So the goal is to ensure that the goals of the agreement, as stated by administration officials, to ensure that there is no way that Iran could get nuclear weapons, are strictly adhered to.

So, for example, Vice President Biden gave a speech a couple of weeks ago defending the deal. He said:

First, some have worried that the President and administration are willing -- even eager -— to settle for a deal so badly that we’ll sign a bad deal. The right deal is far better than no deal. But if what’s on the table doesn’t meet the President’s requirements, there will be no deal.

And a final deal must effectively cut off Iran’s uranium, plutonium, and covert pathways to the bomb. If it doesn’t, there will be no deal.

The final deal must ensure a breakout timeline of at least one year for at least decade or more. If it doesn’t, no deal.

And a final deal must include phased sanction relief, calibrated against Iran taking meaningful steps to constrain their program. If they do not, no deal.

And a final deal must provide verifiable assurances the international community is demanding to ensure Iran’s program is exclusively peaceful going forward. If it doesn’t, no deal.

The second argument I hear is that no deal is worth the paper it’s written on, because Iran will simply cheat. And it’s true that Iran could try to cheat, whether there’s a deal or not. Now they didn’t cheat under the interim deal -— the Joint Plan of Action -— as many were certain they would. But they certainly have in the past and it would not surprise anyone if they tried again. However, if they did try to cheat, under a deal that we're talking about, they would be far more likely to be caught. Because as this deal goes forward, we’ll also put in place the toughest transparency and verification requirements, which represent the best possible check against a secret path to the bomb.

Iran will be required to implement the Additional Protocols, allowing IAEA inspectors to visit not only declared nuclear facilities, but undeclared sites where suspicious, clandestine work is suspected.

Folks, let me tell you what this deal would do in relation to intrusive inspections: Not only would Iran be required to allow 24/7 eyes on the nuclear sites you’ve heard of -— Fordow and Natantz and Arak -- and the ability to challenge suspect locations, every link in their nuclear supply chain will be under surveillance.

For the next 20 to 25 years, inspectors will have access to Iran’s uranium mines and uranium mills, centrifuge production sites, assembly and storage facilities; all purchases of sensitive equipment will be monitored.

And, as part of the transparency requirements under the final deal, Iran will have to address the IAEA concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear research.

The problem is that Iran interprets the deal much differently, and if Iran's statements are to be taken at face value - then Congress should block the bad deal.

We need to educate the lawmakers, even the ones that signed a letter supporting the President's negotiating stance, that the agreement must adhere to the standards that the administration has claimed to insist on.

We will be providing the members of Congress with scorecards on how to judge the agreement to see whether its points are consistent with the imperative to deny any chance for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

It is an uphill battle.

The last time I went on this mission, in 2009, less than a thousand people attended. But that was enough that the halls of the congressional offices were filled with yarmulka-wearing Jewish men and their wives and daughters.

Real Breaking the Silence 2: Another IDF soldier speaks

(Part 1 here)

Shachar Eilenberg, an IDF soldier who fought in Gaza, wrote down some of his experiences on Facebook in response to the "Breaking the Silence" release of anonymous "testimonies."

Operation Protective Edge - Khirbat Ikhza'a
In the early morning hours we identify two kids walking near a house we were staying in. Four combatants quickly accompany Company Commander Benaya Sarel as they go out to "pick" them, and bring them to us so we can interrogate and ask them what are they doing in an area that has been clear of civilians for the last week and a half, an area where fighting is taking place. After a quick interrogation by the Prisoner Interrogator and Benaya Sarel it becomes clear the kids came here looking for food and have no ties to Hamas. Benaya decides to give them some of our food and release them to their homes.

Operation Protective Edge - Khirbat Ikhza'a, the same house as the incident mentioned above.
We're in it for quite a long time and discover that due to a miscalculation of the amount of food we took, our team of 13 combatants is now left with just one Tuna [can]. In the kitchen of the house there's pasta that can feed the whole team. We explain this to the Company Commander and ask for permission to make the pasta. The reply we got was: "You made a mistake, you didn't take enough food, be strong and survive with what you've got. Eating from the the family's food is looting and we're not an army of looters".
And no, we didn't destroy the house after we left it.

Operation Protective Edge - the outskirts of Rafah.
1.8.14, 08:00, the humanitarian cease fire comes into effect.

Minutes after the the cease fire a biker emerges, we try to stop him, but because of the cease fire we can't - he manages to escape. Afterwards we realize the said biker is a Hamas operative sent to check our force's location and pass intelligence to Hamas.

A short while afterwards Benaya Sarel spots an unarmed "civilian" on the second floor of a nearby building. Again, just like in the first incident, Benaya decides to go "pick" the civilian and find out what's he doing in a combat zone, where for some two weeks and a half there are no civilians in sight.

The Command Squad, comprising of six combatants, goes out to bring the civilian to us for interrogation. When they reach the said civilian a strong explosion is heard and heavy fire is opened up on them. All this of course during the "humanitarian cease fire". From this incident Major Benaya Sarel, Lieutenant Hadar Goldin and First Sergeant Liel Gidoni did not return. Again, I emphasize, this was during a cease fire.

Who ever says our army is immoral and criminal is blind, and if the soldiers of such an army are criminals I'm a proud criminal.

(h/t K., Yoel)

Ken Roth of @HRW reveals his contempt for Israel again

A new tweet from Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch:

Israel should ensure it has no weapons and then let the ship into Gaza with humanitarian aid. http://t.co/elkOMKsQjZ pic.twitter.com/rGcvQM9x06
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) May 13, 2015

The article he links to:

A trawler left Sweden on its way to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip 5,000 nautical miles away.

The Marianne of Gothenburg departed on Sunday evening and is the first ship in the Freedom Flotilla III to leave for Gaza, according to the website of the Ship to Gaza Sweden campaign.

The boat, which was purchased jointly by the Ship to Gaza Sweden and Ship to Gaza Norway, is carrying solar panels and medical equipment, according to Ship to Gaza Sweden, along with five crew members and eight passengers.

The Ship to Gaza organization is calling for an immediate end to the naval blockade of Gaza; opening of the Gaza Port; and secure passage for Palestinians between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Sweden officially recognized the state of Palestine last October.

Among the passengers are Israeli-born Swedish citizen Dror Feiler, a musician and spokesman of Ship to Gaza; Dr. Henry Ascher, a professor of public health and pediatrician; Lennart Berggren, a filmmaker; Maria Svensson, pro tem spokeswoman of the Feministiskt initiative; and Mikael Karlsson, chairman of Ship to Gaza Sweden.

The boat is named after Marianne Skoog, a veteran member of the Swedish Palestine Solidarity movement, who died in May 2014.

Roth is suggesting that Israel allow the ship into Gaza, just to allow the tiny amount of humanitarian aid to get in.

However, what he is really saying is that he wants Hamas to be able to import weapons via the sea.

Because Israel allows medical equipment, and yes, solar panels, into Gaza. In previous attempts to bring pathetic amounts of "aid" into Gaza, Israel offered to have the ships brought into an Israeli port from which the ships could have the goods unloaded and sent to Gaza - and the people on board refused.

Roth knows that the purpose of the ship is not to bring in aid, which is only limited by Israel for items that have a possible military dimension. The purpose of the ship is to end Israel's legal blockade of Gaza.

The people behind the movement say this explicitly, calling it "a peaceful, nonviolent action to break the ... blockade of the Gaza Strip" - not to bring in aid.

If Israel lets the ship through, the legality of the blockade - a legality that even the UN recognizes - becomes weaker, making it easier for Hamas to eventually import weapons via the sea.

Here is a brief list of criteria for a blockade to be legal:

In order to be legal, several conditions have to be fulfilled. The first is the requirement to give widespread notice when a blockade is applied and to make sure that any ship that is stopped knows that there is a blockade. Nowadays the problem of notification is much easier than in the past because of the great improvement in communications.

Another condition for the legality of a sea blockade is effectiveness. It is not enough simply to declare a blockade. It has to be enforced, otherwise it is not valid and legal.

According to a further condition, a blockade should not cut off an unrelated foreign state from access to the sea. In the case of Gaza, the blockade does not prevent Egypt from reaching the sea.

Furthermore, a blockade has to be based on equality: It must apply to everybody. Of course there is always the possibility that the blockading party may give special permission to certain neutral ships to go through, but these are exceptions.

A blockade has to permit the passage of humanitarian assistance if needed. However, the San Remo Manual includes two conditions (in Article 103): first, the blockading party may decide where and when and through which port the assistance should reach the coast. In addition, the state may require that a neutral organization on the coast should control the distribution of the items. For instance, in Gaza, does it reach the civilians or Hamas?

Finally, there is the condition that a state may not starve the civilian population (San Remo, Article 102). This conforms also to the general principles of the laws on armed conflict.

It is obvious that the Marianne of Gothenburg is not a humanitarian aid ship. It is a political statement. If Israel allows ships whose sole purpose is political to enter Gaza, then the blockade crumbles, because it is no longer enforced equally. By forcing the ships to land in Ashkelon and from there bringing the aid in, Israel is maintaining a blockade that is necessary for the safety of Israeli citizens from Hamas weapons.

Ken Roth, by pretending that the Marianne of Gothenburg is an aid ship, reveals yet again his loathing for Israel.

He shows that he wants the legal blockade of Gaza to be destroyed.

He shows that he supports people whose sole purpose is to destroy Israel, not to bring in aid to Gaza.

He shows that he shares the goals of these anti-Israel activists, wanting to use the facade of "humanitarian aid" as a lever to isolate Israel politically.

And he shows his hypocrisy, because this tweet shows that Roth's concern for the human rights of Israelis within range of Hamas weapons is nil.

Roth's tweet shows yet again what a contemptible person he is, under the guise of human rights.

05/12 Links Pt2: Holland To Restore Shoah Survivor's Pension; International Hummus Day!

From Ian:

Holland To Restore Shoah Survivor's Pension, Issue New Rules for Others Living in West Bank

The spokesperson said that the woman shouldn’t be penalized since she didn’t know the consequences of her actions, but said that her government would “soon publish a modified policy regarding pension beneficiaries in the territories occupied by Israel.” She indicated that the policy would only apply to new cases.
The Dutch foreign minister was one of 16 EU foreign ministers who last month signed a letter to Federica Mogherini, the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, “urging her to move swiftly to ensure the labeling of settlement products.”
The report last week of the 90-year-old survivor prompted former Labour MK Colette Avital, who heads an organization that supports Holocaust survivors, to say, “It is hard to accept such harassment of survivors, whose welfare needs to be sacrosanct in the eyes of the Dutch authorities.”

When the ICRC Feels It Must Apologize for Telling the Truth

The ICRC has produced its share of Israel-haters, but De Maio certainly isn’t one of them. Not only does he realize that Israel isn’t the Great Satan it’s generally portrayed as by “human rights” activists, but he’s even willing to say so occasionally – which makes him far braver than many of his colleagues. Yet even this braver-than-average member of the human rights community feels so intimidated that whenever he does say something positive about Israel, he feels the need to apologize. So you get astounding statements like this tweet from last November: “It may seem provocative, but I would contend that humanitarian access in Israel & OT is, comparatively, outstandingly good.”
The mind simply boggles. It’s “provocative” to state the simple fact that Israel, like any Western democracy, allows humanitarian aid groups relatively unfettered access? In his next tweet, De Maio added, “I can think of no other context where we operate worldwide where access for humanitarian organizations is as good as it is here.” Yet if that’s the truth, why should it be “provocative” to say so? Shouldn’t it be as natural for human rights organizations to praise countries for enabling their access as it is to criticize them for not doing so?
But of course, when it comes to Israel, it isn’t. After all, in the “human rights” community to which De Maio belongs, the loudest voices are people like Human Rights Watch director Ken Roth, who famously criticized Israel last month for sending the world’s largest medical team, 30 percent of all foreign medical personnel, to help victims of Nepal’s earthquake. In a world where “human rights activists” slam Israel even for providing humanitarian relief – though Roth has yet to explain how he thinks the world would be a better place had Israel failed to do so – it’s clearly not a given to praise it for enabling humanitarian access. So De Maio apologizes for telling the truth. And untold numbers of his less courageous colleagues choose the easier route of not telling it at all.
Nor is it Israel alone that pays the price for their silence – something else De Maio understands quite well. “Why is there so much more focus on Israel than on Syria [and] other places where many more civilians are dying?” he demanded in December. “In other ongoing wars, more civilians die in one week than in Israeli wars in a full year.” Yet even the braver-than-average De Maio made that statement at a conference in Israel, the one place it’s relatively “safe” to say such things. And untold numbers of his less courageous colleagues will never say it at all.

Ben-Dror Yemini: Using Bedouin issue as an anti-Israel propaganda tool

The discussion of the Bedouin issue is legitimate. Different countries have dealt in different ways with the recognition of native populations' rights. The Scandinavians had the Sami people (the Lapps), the Australians had the Aboriginal people and the Americans had the Indians. Each democratic state adopted its own solution.
One thing is clear: The arrangement offered by Israel is probably the most generous and decent arrangement, compared to other countries. Israel is offering every Bedouin family in one of the unrecognized communities generous solutions, which include both a piece of land and infrastructures.
But the coalition of incitement and deception – which includes Adalah, Balad, rights movements and the Islamic Movement – is unhappy with these solutions. This coalition also has the Haaretz newspaper, which is fanning the flames, at its service.
It should be clarified that there is a huge difference between a critical stance against the state's conduct and major deception, which has one result: Lies and incitement. There is no need to mention that the coalition of incitement and deception chose the second option – not a battle for the Bedouins, but another opportunity for an anti-Israel campaign.

How This Jordanian Arab Became an Ardent Zionist

Abe Haak, an Arab born in Irbid, Jordan and raised to hate Israel, has undergone an incredible transformation over the past 37 years. He has now become an ardent Arab Zionist.
His parents back in Jordan don't know how far he has wandered. But they will soon, as he 'comes out' for Israel and expands his speaking engagements.
An adjunct instructor in Arabic and in Arab journalism, Haak has residences in both Minnesota and New York, where he teaches at NYU. He studied international studies in Vienna, Austria, and is married to a German Lutheran woman, who is raising their child as a Christian.
“I am unaffiliated - I am a seeker, not a believer,” Haak told the Jewish Review during an extensive interview following his appearance at the University at Buffalo last week. It was sponsored by the Paul Dosberg Foundation and Stand With Us, which helps Jewish students deal with anti-Zionism on college campuses.
“I have not arrived at a doctrine that I can announce that I believe in at this point,” he continued. “But I believe I see God's works in the world, and Israel is one of those works. The rebirth of the State of Israel is one of the greatest miracles I have seen. It is not only a spiritual miracle, it is a physical miracle.”
After moving to America as a teenage, Haak had not met an Israeli until attending a Christmas party with friends at the University of Chicago in 1977.