Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

UN approves Israel chairmanship - by secret ballot

Last week EoZ was the only English-language outlet to report about how the "Western European and Others" group had unanimously nominated Israel to be the head of the UN's Legal -Sixth Committee, and how the Arab states were freaking out over it.

Things got even more interesting since then:

The chairmanships of the GA main committees are allocated on a rotational basis and are usually confirmed without a vote. In this case, however, Yemen, on behalf of the Arab Group, challenged Israel’s nomination and asked for a vote.

Syria and Kuwait, those paradigms of human rights, also demanded the vote.

This is apparently the first time in UN history that such a vote was requested for a committee chair.

The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Western European and other States Group, expressed regret that the Arab Group had requested a vote, she said, noting that never before had any Committee Chair been elected by a vote. Today’s proceedings would set an unfortunate precedent, she said.

Turkey was the only state in the Western European group that did not agree to Norway's statement of regret.

The secret ballot supporting Israel passed:

In Monday's secret ballot election in the 193-member world body, Israel received 109 "yes" votes. Nobody voted against Israel but there were 23 abstentions, 14 invalid ballots, and 43 votes for other countries in the Western European and Others group which nominated Israel to chair the assembly committee dealing with legal issues.

Other states known for their human rights records whined about the vote afterwards:

The representative of Yemen, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said Israel violated the United Nations Charter, international laws and United Nations resolutions. Israel had considered itself to be “above the law”. He regretted to say that there had been no alternative candidate and reaffirmed the Group’s rejection of Israel’s nomination. The representative of Iran said the secret ballot would go down in history. Israel had violated international law, humanitarian law and many United Nations resolutions and had denied those actions, rejecting calls made by the international community. The decision to elect Mr. Danon undermined the credibility of the United Nations

It is interesting that a secret ballot supported Israel's chairing the committee. Presumably, if the ballot had been open, many countries would have voted against Israel simply because of their fear of backlash or consequences from Arab nations.

The entire episode shows that despite the rare welcome outcome, the UN remains a joke populated by clowns.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/13 Links: Orlando: Terror is terror is terror; Kontorovich: Boycotting Israel isn’t free speech

From Ian:

Nawi-Gate: the self-immolation of the Israeli far-left

Israeli TV broadcast extraordinary claims by a far-left Israeli activist: that he had delivered to the Palestinian Authority the names of Arabs who wished to sell land to Jews and that he anticipated they would be tortured and killed. What happened next poses profound questions for a much broader segment of the Left.
When the human rights community is confronted with inconvenient facts, there develops cognitive dissonance between these facts and the desire to end the Occupation. When the dissonance is resolved in favour of the latter, this discomfort is suppressed through resort to the coping mechanisms so embarrassingly displayed here: deflection, apologism and denial.
Whistleblowers and watchdog groups play an irreplaceable role in free societies. They test the openness of an open society, exposing to sunlight what some may wish to sweep under the rug. Liberal democracies need them. And so when they give an easy ride to perpetrators of human rights abuses for reasons of political expediency, they do not just shoot themselves in the foot – they injure the polity to which they belong.
As the Israeli left digests the consequences of these revelations, there are flares of clarity through the moral smoke. If the Left is to meet Shavit’s demands of becoming ‘realistic, moral, democratic, liberal and decent,’ it will have to examine where it went wrong as the start of a conversation of where it can go right. Its prophets will have to devise credible solutions for engaging with the Israeli public that exists – not the one that they would prefer exist. As ‘Nawi-gate’ suggests, however, that is going to require picking up the broken pieces and rebuilding atop the ashes.

Eugene Kontorovich: Boycotting Israel isn’t free speech

Gov. Cuomo’s recent executive order requiring state agencies to divest from companies that boycott Israel has led boycott proponents to claim he’s violating the First Amendment, which safeguards free expression, and particularly political speech.
Cuomo’s order comes as numerous states have passed anti-boycott legislation in the past year. As these legislators understand, there is no free speech problem here. States have a right to refuse to spend their money on what they view as bigoted or improper conduct.
The First Amendment protects speech, not conduct. The Supreme Court unanimously held, in a case called Rumsfeld vs. FAIR, that the government can deny federal funding to universities that boycott military recruiters. Even though that boycott was based on political considerations, that did not make it protected speech.
Similarly, the act of boycotting Israel does not in and of itself express any political viewpoint. Companies may boycott Israel to prevent further harassment from the BDS movement, to curry favor with Arab states or out of mere anti-Semitism. Unless the company or institution explains its actions , those actions have no message. That is why refusals to do business are not speech.
Indeed, federal law already bans participation in certain kinds of boycotts of Israel — those sponsored by foreign countries — and no one has ever doubted the constitutionality of these measures.

Chag Sameach!

The holiday of Shavuot starts on Saturday night and (outside of Israel) it lasts two days. So I will not be posting anything until Monday night or Tuesday morning.

Have a great holiday!

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/10 Links Pt2: Who Is Threatening Israeli Journalists and Why?; When a truth-teller confronts Diaspora Jews

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Israel rises in the East

Unlike Britain, which was seamlessly replaced by the US as the leader of the free world in the aftermath of World War II, the US has no clear successor. Moreover, despite its self-destructive tendencies, the US remains the world’s biggest economy and most powerful nation. The significance of America’s loss of the will to lead the world is not that the US will disappear. Rather, it will share the stage with other, rising, powers.
For Israel, this means that while maintaining the US as its primary strategic partner, Israel cannot continue to place all of its eggs in America’s basket. As Netanyahu is doing with Putin as well as with China and India, recognizing America’s new limitations, Israel must diminish its dependence on Washington, while developing noncompeting alliances with other powers, based on shared interests.
What Israel’s attractiveness to other world powers makes clear is that as America’s power wanes, Israel needn’t and oughtn’t seek to replace it with another superpower patron. Israel today is fully capable of fending for itself.
Putin courts Netanyahu because Israel is strong. And the stronger it is, the more leaders will beat a path to our door.
The failure of France’s “peace” conference, on the one hand, and the success of Netanyahu’s fourth visit to Moscow on the other hand, were poetic bookends of the week because they were a vivid exposition of Israel’s true diplomatic and strategic position today. Israel is neither weak nor isolated.
It is embraced by the rising powers. And the waning ones that scapegoat the Jewish state are leading their countries into economic and cultural decline and security chaos.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Who Is Threatening Israeli Journalists and Why?

Palestinian journalists are spearheading a campaign against Israeli reporters. They have been taught that any journalist daring to criticize the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Hamas is a "traitor." They expect Israeli and Western journalists to report bad things only about Israel.
"It is very sad when you see that your colleagues on the other side are inciting against you and doing their best to prevent you from carrying out your work. This is harmful to the Palestinians themselves because they will no longer be able to relay their opinions to the Israeli public." — Israeli reporter who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly a decade.
For Palestinian journalists, to be seen in public with an Israeli colleague is treasonous.
Many Western journalists turn a blind eye to assaults on freedom of the media under the PA and Hamas. They know they will be unwelcome in these places if they write any story that reflects negatively on Palestinians. Besides, the campaign against Israeli journalists is being waged by Palestinians, and not Israelis. To them, this fact alone makes it a story not worth reporting.

VIDEO: The Death of Free Speech in Europe

Across Europe, cartoonists, artists and writers are forced to live under police protection, and also often face criminal prosecution -- all for the "crime" of offending Islam. "'Respect' means, for them, submission." It starts with censoring cartoons... Here is Gatestone Institute's Giulio Meotti in our latest video:

Benjamin Balthaser is associate professor of English at Indiana University - and a member of Jewish Voice for Peace/Chicago.

He wrote an op-ed for Crain's Chicago Business:

Of all the strange, self-defeating crusades undertaken by Gov. Bruce Rauner in recent months, banning 11 businesses from operating in a state already hemorrhaging jobs and people has to be one of the strangest.

The Illinois legislature, at Rauner's insistence, passed a 2015 bill that forbids the state's pension fund from investing in foreign companies that boycott Israel over its human-rights record. This ban passed by the state legislature also includes companies that boycott "territories controlled by the state of Israel”—a euphemism for illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Until now, the legislation was vaguely understood. What does it mean for a company to comply with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement? Do the shareholders have to take a vote to support international law, back the right of return or demand an end to illegal settlements? What if they decide a company doing business in the occupied West Bank is a poor trading partner?

It's clear now that if a company breaks relations with Israel, it'll end up on the state's blacklist. In the twilight zone that is our state government, our very laissez-faire governor will force companies to continue business with Israel—even in West Bank settlements—whether profitable or not.

No, the bill says no such thing. Only companies that submit to BDS pressure or that admit to following BDS would be ineligible from being invested in by the pension fund.

The governor is not "banning 11 businesses from operating" in Illinois. The bill says nothing like that.

One would think that a professor of English would understand English.

The Middle East may be complex, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and international law, are not: Ethnically cleansing territory under military occupation is illegal, and boycotts are protected speech.

Correct. But this academic fraud thinks that a state divesting from companies whose positions it doesn't agree with violates the First Amendment. It doesn't.

He thinks that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians from the territories. It isn't, unless you employ a definition of "ethnic cleansing" that ensures that the population grows unhindered.

The D of BDS stands for "divest." Yet Balthaser is now claiming that divesting from companies for their political positions is a violation of the First Amendment!

Oh, I forgot. The rules that apply to Israel don't apply to anyone else.

I shudder to think of what the future will hold for the Holy Land should all routes for peaceful protest be banned.

Well, perhaps Dr. Balthaser can think about what happens in the territories when real peaceful protests - you know, the type where people go into the street with signs - are violently broken up by both Fatah and Hamas. He is more bothered by his fake concern of the First Amendment than the real oppression being faced by the people he pretends to care about.

Which is just more evidence that Balthaser has no academic integrity whatsoever.

What can explain an English teacher who doesn't understand English and who resorts to half-truths and lies to demonize Israel?

Perhaps because he also teaches creative writing.

(h/t YMedad)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/10 Links Pt1: Explaining Palestinian “Heroes”; Tel Aviv Terror Attack Shatters Five Myths; #Stupid_CNN

From Ian:

Explaining Palestinian “Heroes”

The status quo has continued not because more houses or apartments are being built in existing Jewish communities in the West Bank or Jerusalem (almost all of which are in places that peace processers conceded would remain in Israeli hands even if there were an agreement with the Palestinians). Nor does it continue because hard-hearted men who don’t want peace lead Israel. If Palestinians wanted a two-state solution, they could have had one many years ago. They refuse because the price of Israeli acceptance of a Palestinian state is Palestinian acceptance of the legitimacy of a Jewish state alongside it no matter where its borders might be drawn. And that price remains too high for any Palestinian leader or the Palestinian public to accept.
Terrorism against Jews didn’t begin in June 1967. The Palestinians have been waging a century-long war on Zionism and that struggle has become inextricably linked with their sense of national identity. That’s why they cheer people who commit indiscriminate murder against Jews and call them heroes. They were doing that long before the Six Day War, let alone the two intifadas, and it is not illogical to suppose they would continue to do so even if Israel were so foolish as to withdraw its forces from the West Bank as it did in Gaza.
While some Israelis search their souls in vain for enough guilt about winning wars launched against them that would have ended the “occupation” of Tel Aviv, this is a futile quest. The status quo will change when the Palestinians stop thinking of people who kill random Jews as heroes and when they are ready to accept peace with the Jewish state.
That is why it is important that the world react to crimes such as yesterday’s murders by avoiding statements calling on both sides to show restraint or use it as an excuse for more pressure on Israel to make concessions. For too long, Palestinians have been led to believe that they could prevail against Israel if they had enough patience or were willing to shed more blood. When a sea change in the political culture of the Palestinians makes a change in their thinking possible, they will find Israelis willing to accept a deal. Until then, they will continue cheering terrorists and doom themselves to pursuing a hopeless effort to eliminate Israel that keeps a status quo neither side wants in place.

Tel Aviv Terror Attack Shatters Five Myths

The June 8 terrorist massacre in Tel Aviv exposed all five of the major myths that cloud discussions of Israel and the Palestinians.
Myth #1: “The problem is the settlements”
Myth #2: “It was a reaction to the occupation”
Myth #3: “The Palestinian Authority condemned the attack”
Myth #4: “Ordinary Palestinians are against terrorism”
Myth #5: “The major American news outlets are staffed by objective, professionally trained journalists; if their coverage of Israel is unflattering, that’s because of Israel’s own policies, not because of media bias”

Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Calls for Solidarity With Israel Following Deadly Tel Aviv Terrorist Attack (VIDEO)

The host of Fox News‘ “On the Record” called for the international community to show support for Israel in response to Wednesday’s terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, which claimed the lives of four people and wounded several others.
“Israelis stand always with us. It’s time to make sure they know we do the same,” Greta Van Susteren wrote on Facebook, shortly after it was revealed that two Palestinian terrorists went on a deadly shooting rampage at the restaurant-laden Sarona compound before being neutralized by security guards.
Van Susteren also posted online an “off the record” video, in which she called the terrorists “evil, evil people full of hate.” She also expressed sorrow for the “innocent Israeli victims” who were at the Sarona Market “just out on a nice summer eve in Tel Aviv.”
Van Susteren reminded viewers of Israel’s immediate response to help in international crises, and said she hopes nations around the world will “stand with the Israelis, because they stand always with us.”

The Huffington Post has an article by an ACLU official:

Gov. Cuomo’s BDS Blacklist Is An Affront To Free Expression

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order this week requiring state agencies and authorities to divest from any company or institution that supports the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The order not only threatens to punish constitutionally protected political speech but also requires the state of New York to create a blacklist of allies of the movement, which BDS supporters describe as an effort to ensure human rights for Palestinians.

“It’s very simple: If you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you,” Cuomo said when he announced the order.

The directive requires all agencies and departments over which the governor has executive authority as well as certain public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards, and commissions to divest funds from any company or institution supporting BDS. The entities are also banned from investing in those companies in the future.

The order itself makes clear that the activity the governor wants to punish is political in nature. But, as the Supreme Court made clear, government can’t penalize people or entities on the basis of their free expression, and political boycotts are a form of free expression.

What is the Supreme Court ruling that the ACLU is citing?

In 1966, the NAACP called for a boycott of some white-owned businesses in Claiborne County, Mississippi. The businesses sued the NAACP in 1969 for their lost revenue over the boycott. The Mississippi High Court rejected two of the three arguments for the lawsuit but upheld a third, that black citizens were intimidated into boycotting the stores with threats of violence. Some NAACP members actually engaged in violence and others stood outside the stores to record the names of any black customers.

The Supreme Court said that non-violent free speech cannot be penalized on First Amendment grounds, and that the NAACP cannot be held responsible for the violent or threatening acts by some of its members, so the lawsuit against the boycotters was dismissed.

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot penalize people for engaging in nonviolent free speech.

But choosing not to give government contracts with, or invest in, a business that boycotts Israel is not in any way, shape or form a violation of people's right to free speech. There is a huge difference between forcing people to pay a financial penalty for their non-violent speech and saying that you won't financially support their speech. States have the right to decide how to spend and invest their money, and that does not violate the right to free speech. Not until they prosecute someone for what they write on a blog or say on a street corner.

Freedom of speech does not mean the right to be paid for your opinions. It is not the right to have your opinions be respected as much as all other opinions. It is not the right not to feel uncomfortable when others disagree with your ideas.

The BDSers are not being stopped in any way, shape or form from expressing their opinions. Being exposed as idiots and liars is not a violation of their right to be idiots and liars.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Here are the number of retweets for recent Amnesty International tweets from their @AmnestyOnline account:

-Ireland’s ban on abortion violates human rights – ground-breaking UN ruling - 174
-I fled war in Syria, was attacked in #Germany: Report on failure to tackle hate crime rise - 127
-GOOD NEWS! Torture survivor Yecenia Armenta now free in Mexico - ends 4 years of injustice - 113
-Bahrain shatters façade of reform with persecution of opposition leader @ariel_plotkin oped - 109
-UN: Shameful pandering to Saudi Arabia over children killed in Yemen conflict - 154
-Nowhere safe: Refugee women on the Greek islands live in constant fear - 60
-Malawi: Killing spree of people with albinism fuelled by ritual practices/police failures - 260
-Two Syrian refugees are first at risk of forced return to Turkey under #EUTurkeyDeal: Tell @imouzalas to STOP this! - 124
-Evidence counters UK claims that no British-made cluster munitions used in recent Yemen war - 219

It is very clear that AmnestyOnline can count over a hundred of its followers to pretty consistently retweet nearly every tweet of theirs, no matter how obscure the topic.

With one exception.

Amnesty released a fairly strong statement about the Tel Aviv bombing (although it also couldn't stop itself from warning against Israel engaging in "collective punishment." How many people retweeted that statement from this account since yesterday?

Israel/OPT: Tel Aviv attack displays total disdain for human life - 37 retweets

Amnesty International's Twitter followers apparently care far less about Jews being murdered than any other human rights issue on Earth.

This is not the first time that Amnesty's followers showed a marked indifference to dead Jews. Last November Amnesty tweeted a similar message against killing Israelis, and it received only 46 retweets. Yet a general anti-Israel tweet in the midst of the knife attacks weeks earlier received nearly triple that amount.

During the Gaza war, an Amnesty tweet against the US providing Israel with fuel gathered over 1500 retweets. The daily tweets that Amnesty did last summer on events that happened in Gaza a year earlier routinely gathered 100-200 retweets.

The pattern is consistent: Not only does Amnesty tweet far more against Israel than against people trying to kill Israelis, but its fans don't give a damn about dead Israelis the few times that Amnesty decides to pretend to be "even handed" and condemn the terrorists.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that most of Amnesty International's active online fans either don't care about dead Jews or that they feel that slaughtering Israeli civilians is justified and should not be condemned as much as, say, Bahrain persecuting an opposition leader.

(AmnestyUSA's fans does not show the same overt bias as its international Twitter account followers do, the AmnestyUSA tweet about the attacks garnered 148 retweets, which is about average for that account.)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

This Arab dramatization of the Tel Aviv attack, based on false early reports that the shooters were disguised as religious Jews, was produced and released less than 24 hours after the murders.

It uses the hashtag "Ramadan operation."

Unlike apologists for Palestinian terror speaking to gullible Westerners, this video for Muslim audiences doesn't try to justify murdering Jews in a restaurant as being because of "occupation" or "oppression." The video juxtaposes the murderous rampage with the Ramadan iftar meal and a visual of the Dome of the Rock. it shows that it is religion, not politics, that animates these terror attacks.

Hamas openly associates Ramadan with religious war against Israel. But no analyst at the New York Times or CNN would dare say that.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A BDS lexicon (Poster)

After reading the ridiculous reactions of the Israel-hate crowd over Governor Cuomo boycotting the boycotters, I created this.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

06/09 Links Pt2: Why Even-Handed Isn’t Pro-Israel; Anthropology and Anti-Semitism;

From Ian:

Anthropology and Anti-Semitism

One of the core principles of modern anthropology is cultural relativism, the idea that researchers must not make value judgements about the societies they study. Anthropologists think of themselves as setting aside their biases and preferences in order to see a society and culture "from the native's point of view." Whether studying the raiding activity of Bedouin tribal nomads, witchcraft by African villagers, or head-hunting by grieving Philippine tribesmen, anthropologists embrace the sentiment that "nothing human is alien to me."
Except when it comes to Jews. Once again, Jews and the Jewish state have been uniquely selected for official opprobrium by the American Anthropological Association (AAA). A motion to boycott Israeli academic institutions, an initiative reminiscent of anti-Jewish boycotts of the 1930s, was presented this spring to the membership, which voted online. The resolution, which claims that "the Israeli state has denied Palestinians – including scholars and students – their fundamental rights of freedom, equality, and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonization, discrimination, and military occupation," was defeated, according to the official tally released on June 6, by a vote of 2,423 against and 2,384 in favor.
By the narrowest of margins, AAA will not formally join the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. This was surely a great disappointment to its Middle East Section, which has long been obsessed with defaming Israel. While the U.S.S.R. was invading Afghanistan and slaughtering its people in 1979, the Middle East Section discussed only Palestine, and condemned only Israel.

Why Even-Handed Isn’t Pro-Israel

Most Israelis would be overjoyed to accept a peace settlement that ended the conflict for all time even if it meant painful territorial compromises that would result in the eviction of many Jews from their homes in the heart of their ancient homeland. But as the Palestinians have indicated repeatedly, even their supposedly moderate leader Mahmoud Abbas is not willing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. Despite occasional lip service paid to the two-state solution idea for the Western press, neither Palestinian leaders nor Palestinian public opinion is ready to accept Israel. They see all of Israel — not just the West Bank and Jerusalem — as occupied territory. They applaud terror attacks on all Jews. Those dining in Tel Aviv cafes, like the victims in today’s atrocity, are seen by them as extremists as deserving of death as those Jews living in the most remote West Bank hilltop settlement.
The problem with even-handed policies, such as President Obama’s obsession with creating more “daylight” between Israel and the United States, is that they only encourage the Palestinians to continue rejecting peace rather than putting pressure on them to accept the compromises including statehood they’ve repeatedly rejected. That stand seems irrational, but it makes sense when you realize that Palestinians have come to view their struggle against Israel’s existence as intrinsic to their national identity.
Events like today’s attack in Tel Aviv ought to remind all Americans that so long as Palestinians are killing Jews, talk of even-handed policies will not help anyone, least of all Israel. Those who will praise today’s murderers as “heroes” — as both Palestinian moderates and extremists alike will do — don’t deserve support from either Democrats or Republicans. By fetishizing Palestinian statehood and trying to redefine support for that concept as essential to being pro-Israel, J Street and the left are actually harming the cause of peace and strengthening the forces inciting terrorism. If Democrats choose that path, they may claim, like J Street, to be pro-Israel, but that will be a deception. Until the Palestinians show themselves willing to end their century-long war on Zionism, even-handed means putting daylight between their party and the effort to defend the Jewish state.

Reporter Wonders if Israel Suspending Palestinian Entry Permits Akin to Trump’s Muslim Ban

ABC reporter Lana Zak asked the White House Thursday if it likened Israel’s suspension of entry permits to Palestinians in the wake of another terrorist attack to Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the United States.
Two Palestinian gunmen opened fire Wednesday at a popular Tel Aviv shopping complex located near Israel’s defense ministry, killing four. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the terrorists’ “savage crime,” and Israel announced it had suspended 83,000 entry permits for Palestinians on Thursday.
Zak wondered at Thursday’s press briefing whether this was akin to Trump’s controversial proposal that the U.S. temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. in the name of security. Both Palestinian terrorists were in Israel on entry permits.
“What does the White House make of Israel’s decision to suspend entry permits to Palestinians?” she asked. “Does the White House find that an appropriate response? Is it too similar in some ways to the presumptive Republican nominee’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States because of terrorism?”

From Ha'aretz Hebrew, translated by Yoel:

Lets face it: we Arabs are a violent people by Abed L. Azab*

Why organize conferences against violence in Arab society, Taleb el-Sana and Samah Salaime Agbaria? Our violence has positive sides: it provides work for the Israeli police; research grants for those who want to study the phenomenon; and something to talk about when you're interviewed by the media.

You claim it does harm and that many human lives are lost? But what's a human's life worth for Arabs? Nothing. In Iraq life is more peaceful than in Denmark according to UN reports. Syria is nothing less than heaven on earth. Egypt? Not even one civilian was killed and not one plane blown up since Mubarak the traitor was ousted and replaced by a Saudi puppet. Saudi Arabia and its neighbours in the Gulf? Even the Swedes have much to learn from them on human rights, especially women and minority rights.

Enough with the hypocrisy. In order to solve the problem let us first admit that we're a violent people. That's our mentality. And don't start with your mantras about Islam being a religion of tolerance, kindness and compassion. Have you noticed that today violence among our Christian brothers is much lower than in Muslim society? Second, if Islam is indeed a tolerant religion - which I doubt - it seems that most Muslims aren't practicing their religion.

Lets be frank and admit that when someone is murdered, the family, clan and tribe rally behind the murderer and start raising money for him so he can pay the murdered person's family legal and ransom money, if they are willing to accept it.

Lets admit it is still considered "honorable" to carry arms. And the more so if those arms are illegal. Lets admit Jews carry licensed arms but they still don't shoot at weddings and villages as is the case by us. When we sit in our coffee shops and see "the unknown" shooters all we do is smile and carry on with our business. When a woman is murdered because of so called "family honor" in most cases her murder is justified. We said we'll talk frankly right?

Don't you know the youths who ride around the village on ATVs, endangering peoples' lives and sometimes running them over? Are they from a Jewish village? And when you recognize them what do you do? You wink at them and tell them what men they are. And you say it in Hebrew because it sounds so much cooler. But if they are from a rival family you curse their father, mother and sister, since rivalries are what keeps us going and our sole raison d'etre.

[...]

This is the essence of the cursed Arab mentality: me and my brother against my uncle, and me and my uncle against someone else. And don't start blaming the economic situation and the police for this. True, there is discrimination and racism. But that is exactly why we must unite against violence, not rally in support of it. The cancer of violence in our society will only be eradicated when every father will report his son carrying illegal arms, when every daughter will report her father. Excuse me, I must have been dreaming.

*A chemist and a teacher who lives in Ara

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.