Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

06/07 Links Pt2: Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism; When will the Six-Day War finally end?

From Ian:

Alan M. Dershowitz: A New Tolerance for Anti-Semitism

In the United States, although there has been hard-right anti-Semitism for decades, the bigotry of the hard-left is far more prevalent and influential on many university campuses. Those on the left who support left-wing anti-Semites try to downplay, ignore or deny that those they support are really anti-Semites. "They are anti-Zionist" is the excuse du jour. Those on the right do essentially the same: "they are nationalists." Neither side would accept such transparent and hollow justifications if the shoe were on the other foot. I believe that when analyzing and exposing these dangerous trends, a single standard of criticism must be directed at each.
Generally speaking, extreme right-wing anti-Semitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe and among a relatively small group of "alt-right" Americans. But it also exists among those who self-identify as run-of-the-mill conservatives. Consider, for example, former presidential candidate and Reagan staffer, Pat Buchanan.
The list of Buchanan's anti-Jewish bigotry is exhaustive. Over the years, he has consistently blamed Jews for wide-ranging societal and political problems. In his criticism of the Iraq War, for example, Buchanan infamously quipped: "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." He then singled out for rebuke only Jewish political figures and commentators such as Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer and A.M. Rosenthal. Buchanan did not mention any of the vocal non-Jewish supporters of the war. Furthermore, Buchanan also said that "the Israeli lobby" would be responsible if President Obama decided to strike Iran, threatening that if it were to happen, "Netanyahu and his amen corner in Congress" would face "backlash worldwide." Buchanan's sordid flirtation with Nazi revisionism is also well documented.
Meanwhile, on university campuses, the absurd concept of "intersectionality" -- which has become a code word for anti-Semitism -- is dominating discussions and actions by the hard-left. The warm embrace of Palestinian-American activist, Linda Sarsour -- who recently delivered the commencement address at a City University of New York graduation -- is a case in point. A co-organizer of the Women's March on Washington in January, she has said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible, stating: "You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There's just no way around it." And when speaking about two leading female anti-Islamists, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who is a victim of female genital mutilation) the feminist du jour, Linda Sarsour, said: "I wish I could take away their vaginas."
The irony is breathtaking. Under her own all-or-nothing criteria, Sarsour -- who is also a staunch supporter of trying to destroy Israel economically -- cannot be pro-Palestinian and a feminist because the Palestinian Authority and Hamas subjugate women and treat gays far worse than Israel does.

Richard Landes: Caliphate Cogwar, Lethal, Own-Goal Journalism, and BDS

BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is part and parcel of a wider cognitive war (cogwar) offensive against both Israel and the West. Cogwar is the main resort of the weak side in an asymmetrical conflict, whose task is to convince the enemy not to use its superior forces to resist attacks from the weaker side. While most asymmetric cogwar conflicts are defensive (chase out the imperialists), the Caliphate cogwar (see below), is an imperialist effort to invade and subject the far more powerful enemy, the modern, democratic West.
BDS pursues two major goals: stigmatizing Israel in the world community, and undermining the workings of a free academy in the West. This two goals strike at both major targets of Caliphate cogwar, Israel and Western democracies. It is based on weaponized false information (Pallywood), and its surprising success in enrolling Western “progressives,” illustrates the degree of disorientation current among Western thought leaders.
How disoriented must one be to look at the ME, where “human rights” don’t even exist in the Muslim-majority world, and blame Israel for the region’s woes because they have failed to provide more protection and human rights to a sworn enemy of both Israel and human rights. Without the disturbing receptivity of liberals and progressives in the West to the absurd portrayal of Israel as a particularly nasty case of human rights violations, BDS would rapidly fade.
This essay is less concerned with understanding BDS – a secondary phenomenon – than understanding from where BDS draws its strength by placing it within the larger context of a cogwar conducted against the West by Muslims who believe that Islam should replace the US/West as global hegemon. It describes the Caliphaters, and the invasive cogwar they wage against the West, and their strategy of using of anti-Zionism, assisted by Western lethal, own-goal journalism, to hit the West in its “soft underbelly.”

Matti Friedman: What the AP’s Collaboration With the Nazis Should Teach Us About Reporting the News

The report on WWII is an opportunity to look again at the automatic bias in favor of “access,” and to ask if things might not be done differently. In the case of Gaza, for example, is the right choice really to have staffers inside, when their reporting can be controlled by Hamas? Or would it be more productive for the AP and others news organizations to report from outside Gaza while working sources on the inside and making use of external players (Egyptian intelligence, Israeli intelligence, Palestinian reporters in the West Bank) to give a more accurate picture of events?
Or instead of paying for an illusory “bureau” in Pyongyang and getting in bed with Kim Jong-un, why not devote that money to hiring the most knowledgeable people in South Korea and developing information from dissidents, refugees, and spies, which, in expert hands—and there are plenty at the AP’s disposal—might actually be able to yield an approximation of the truth? While these solutions are far from perfect, they’re preferable from the standpoint of news-gathering. Credible information that is explicitly presented as incomplete is far better than a distorted picture presented as reality.
In 2017, consumers of news are beset as never before with a blizzard of disinformation. There is no alternative to mainstream news sources. No Twitter feed is going to replace The New York Times or the AP. And yet much information published in established sources is unreliable, sometimes for the reasons discussed here. Many flaws and misunderstandings have crept into journalistic practice over time, like the idea that it’s permissible to collaborate with dictatorships and obfuscate about it, or that telling half the story is better than leveling with readers and admitting that your hands are tied. This renders journalism vulnerable to the claim that there is no “fake news” because it’s all fake, anyway.
The people in charge at the AP were wrong in 1935. It matters today because they and their competitors are wrong now in similar ways. It’s a good time for journalists to think deeply about the ways the profession has failed—80 years ago, two years ago, last week—and about ways to better serve a world that badly needs us to do our job

"You're a liar," just doesn't have the same punch as the Hebrew "Atah shakran." The latter is like a dare, a pointing finger, as opposed to the former, which is simply a statement of fact.

That's one reason the film by Reservists on Duty countering the recorded testimony of Dean Issacharoff, spokesman of Breaking the Silence, was a breakaway hit. It was just so punchy. One reservist after the other calling Issacharoff a big fat liar to his face.

Nay! To the world.

Finally, someone was confronting those horrid Breaking the Silence lies about the IDF. And these were people who knew the truth. Take THAT, Breaking the Silence. Take THAT, Dean Issacharoff.

Yes. There was glee in watching that clip and even more so in watching it go viral.

Breaking the Silence, you see, pretends to care about injustice. But what it really aims to do is take down the State of Israel by rendering its army powerless. They do that by getting people to lie about the things they did while in the army. Most of those who "testify" do so "anonymously," so there's no way to check the record to see if these misdeeds actually occurred and since the details are spotty or the stories old, there's no way for the army to investigate.

When Issacharoff went public, on the other hand, he must have thought he could get away with it: that no one would challenge his bogus tale of woe. Issacharoff ~~came out~~ testified at a protest rally. He said his commanding officer made him tie up and beat an Arab prisoner while his fellow soldiers looked on. “I grabbed him by the neck and started to knee him in the face and chest until he was bleeding and unconscious,” said Issacharoff.

Happily for us, Issacharoff grossly underestimated the patriotism of his peers and just how far they would be willing to go to expose his lies. He probably thought he could just get away with making stuff up about his army service.

And he's probably none too bright.

And a vile human being who hates his own people.

Imagine: his entire platoon, now all reservists, bothered themselves to make a film in which every last one of them publicly decry him a liar.

So good. So rich.

Now, one month later, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has approached Justice Avichai Mandelblit to request an investigation into Issacharoff's claims. After all, we have his recorded testimony that the guy beat up an Arab during his military service and that's a crime. "Breaking the Silence spokesman stands up and says that he himself committed a crime against a Palestinian and beat him up. If it really happened, he should be investigated and punished. If the incident did not happen, then the state should say officially that it did not happen," said Shaked in an interview with Galei Tzahal.

It's a wonderful thing that we now have a name and a face to investigate and it's amazing that Shaked had the gumption to do the right thing. Now we have a way to show up Breaking the Silence for what it is: an instrument for harming the State of Israel and its people. It's an incredible development that cannot be undervalued in its ability to shore up the reputation of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Democratic State of Israel. We have nothing to apologize for in our treatment of the Arab people in our midst. And now we can prove it.

Other voices, such as that of this author's husband, disagree. He says that Shaked is making a mistake. That these liberal agitators are dying to have a case go to court, because, as he says, "it sets a precedent and legitimizes them," so they can keep on bringing cases to court and making Israel look bad. He says this sort of lawfare will spread to other countries that will then try to prosecute Israeli civilians who have formerly served in the IDF, for instance.

It could be as he says, I suppose. But it seems like we have this public admission and we absolutely MUST pursue the truth and do justice. As the Torah says, "Tzedek, tzedek tirdof," Justice, justice, you shall pursue.

It can only be good.

It should be said that it wasn't easy for Ayelet Shaked to snag the role of Minister of Justice. But once she got it, many Israelis had high hopes she'd make a difference in reforming the justice system. The Supreme Court has too much power in Israel. Not only does it overreach, but the bench is filled with liberal justices in a country that voted for a right-wing government.

So clear is it that the court does not represent the will of the Israeli people that Shaked's appointment was like a tall drink on a long, hot day. It gave people hope. That's in spite of the knowledge that she's got an uphill climb. The courts system is entrenched and it is powerful. It isn't going to change quickly or with ease.

Just now, for instance, Shaked lost a battle. Justice Miriam Naor, President of the Supreme Court, is retiring and wanted Esther Hayut to be appointed in her stead. Shaked would have liked to find a candidate who would balance the overwhelmingly liberal demographic of the court, but no qualified judge dared to challenge Hayut's candidacy. There simply wasn't anyone else.

In spite of this failure, Shaked continues to inspire, just now with her initiation of this investigation into Dean Issacharoff's claims of brutality. Will there be a happy ending here? Or will this current feeling of hope be as good as it gets?

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.

Moderate Cannibals Feeling Pressure To Disavow Extremists (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Beirut, June 7 - Community leaders among those who consume human flesh in a moderate fashion complain that they are being unfairly targeted by critics of the practice who lump them together with more radical perpetrators.

Moderate cannibals face unjust pressure from politicians, the media, and advocacy groups, the leaders contend, even though the ideology of the moderate cannibals in no way supports the activities of extreme cannibals. At a joint press conference of several cannibal community organizations, the spokespeople for the groups called on the public to distinguish between them and extreme cannibals, or risk alienating the moderates and driving them into the arms of the extreme followers of the practice.

A coalition of grassroots cannibal groups called the Federation of Levantine Eaters of Succulent Humans (FLESH) assembled the press conference this afternoon and called on the news media, especially in the West, not to paint all cannibals with the same broad brush.

"It is irresponsible at best, and outright destructive at worst, to group all cannibals together," insisted Waleed Aniwan, head of the Khaneh-Ümraniye "Recycling" Union (KURU), which brings together moderate cannibals from Iran and Turkey, where the cities of Khaneh and Ümraniye, respectively, are located. "Our doctrines and practices have nothing to do with the barbaric crimes committed by extremist cannibals. In fact we deny that what those monsters are doing is cannibalism at all."

Other speakers stressed the responsibility of the media to convey to the world at large the great diversity among cannibals. "Journalists and commentators in particular must take care not to portray the heinous acts of the extremists as reflecting on the vast majority of peaceful cannibals," explained Soylent Green, a volunteer with FLESH. "And of course it could not hurt objectivity and balance to provide some attention to the grievances the extreme cannibals may have that lead to this sort of behavior."

Critics noted that the press conference and similar events represent an effort to absolve moderate cannibals of responsibility for the extremist behavior inherent to the lifestyle. "It is disingenuous to claim the heinous acts of extreme cannibals have nothing to do with cannibalism," argued Donner Parti, a vocal opponent of cannibalism. "The same groups that produce the so-called moderates end up producing the extremists as well, and there has to be a much more prominent, sincere, and sustained campaign by these so-called 'moderate' cannibals to dissociate from the extremists. The whole denial and abrogation of responsibility is a little too much to swallow."

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.

06/07 Links Pt1: Amnesty International calls for boycott of settlement goods; Ambassador Haley, the modern Moynihan

From Ian:

Amnesty International calls for boycott of settlement goods

Amnesty International launched a campaign Wednesday to press the international community to boycott goods produced in Israeli West Bank settlements.
Timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six Day War, the campaign also calls on states to stop their companies from operating in settlements.
“For decades, the world has stood by as Israel has destroyed Palestinians’ homes and plundered their land and natural resources for profit. While the Palestinian economy has been stunted by 50 years of abusive policies, a thriving multi-million dollar settlement enterprise has been built out of the systematic oppression of the Palestinian population,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s secretary-general.
Jewish settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines are viewed by most international leaders as illegal. Israel disputes this, as there was no legal sovereign there prior to its taking control, and claims a historical tie to the biblical Judea and Samaria.
“Fifty years on, merely condemning Israel’s settlement expansion is not enough. It’s time for states to take concrete international action to stop the financing of settlements which themselves flagrantly violate international law and constitute war crimes,” Shetty said.

2016: UN approves blacklist of companies profiting from settlements

32 nations vote in favor; 15 abstain; none oppose
The United Nations Human Rights Council on Thursday voted in favor of creating a “blacklist” of companies operating in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a motion that passed with no countries voting against.
The resolution required UN human rights officials to produce a database of “all business enterprises” that have enabled or profited from the growth of Israeli settlements, Haaretz reported.
The proposal, put forward by the Palestinian Authority and Arab states, included a condemnation of settlements and called on companies not to do business with Israeli settlements.
Its most contested clause was that calling for the formation of the database. While European Union nations opposed the creation of the list, they did not vote against the resolution, electing merely to abstain. It passed with 32 nations voting in favor and 15 abstentions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted the outcome of the vote Thursday evening, saying the international body “has turned into an anti-Israel circus, which attacks the only democracy in the Middle East and ignores the blatant violations of Iran, Syria and North Korea.”
The prime minister accused the council of ignoring more urgent issues such as terrorism in order to rebuke the Jewish state.

Douglas Murray: The great Sunni-Shia conflict is getting ever closer to the surface

Several people have been killed in a terrorist attack in Iran today, with Isis claiming responsibility. This has potentially huge consequences for the wider Shia-Sunni conflict. In 2014, Douglas Murray wrote for the Spectator on Islam’s 30-year war. His piece seems particularly prescient in light of today’s events:
Syria has fallen apart. Major cities in Iraq have fallen to al-Qa’eda. Egypt may have stabilised slightly after a counter-coup. But Lebanon is starting once again to fragment. Beneath all these facts — beneath all the explosions, exhortations and blood — certain themes are emerging.
Some years ago, before the Arab ‘Spring’ ever sprung, I remember asking one top security official about the region. What, I wondered, was their single biggest fear? The answer was striking and precise: ‘That the region will clarify.’ That is a fear which now appears to be coming true.
The Middle East is not simply falling apart. It is taking a different shape, along very clear lines — far older ones than those the western powers rudely imposed on the region nearly a century ago. Across the whole continent those borders are in the process of cracking and breaking. But while that happens the region’s two most ambitious centres of power — the house of Saud and the Ayatollahs in Iran — find themselves fighting each other not just for influence but even, perhaps, for survival.

Kiss them, each and every one.(Forest Rain)

“We went to pay our respects,” I told my friend.

“Kiss them, each and every one” he said. “And tell Ram he shouldn’t be so serious all the time.”

I was standing on a beach named after a miracle, looking at the memory of a disaster.

“Returnees to Zion”. How many people do you know who live in a place, named after a miracle? How many people do you know that are living elements of a miracle? Can you imagine being amongst those who chose the name, knowing that they are the embodiment of a miracle unlike any that has ever been seen before in the history of the world?

This modest, sleepy little community has a beautiful beach. It’s quiet and peaceful. From a distance, the shapes on the beach are unclear.

Pillars of strong stone, leaning on each other, toppled over. Together they lie on the beach, silent and alone.

“Kiss them, each and every one” he told me.

But how could I? His friends aren’t there, only the stones on the beach.

Twelve stones, large and strong for men that had been amongst Israel’s finest. Stones that should be standing but were not, for men who should be with us and are not. Leaning on each other, they would not move from the direction in which they had fallen – north, Lebanon.

Standing next to the twelve is a stone that declares their names and marks the disastrous mission from which they did not return. It also provides instructions for those who are left behind, in the form of a poem by Natan Alterman (this is my poor translation):

“From the northern border, they were carried from the battle they waged alone.

Accept them amongst the fierce warriors who know love. Israel, remember their names.”

The memorial on the beach is a silent agony. That disastrous mission happened twenty years ago - twenty years of memory frozen in stone where there should have been twenty years of families growing, with new children running and laughing on the beach, playing in the waves their fathers loved.

The loss is both personal and collective.

Twelve children of Zion had grown to be pillars of strength. Men, strong and capable, men you could lean on, who would hold you up. They were an example of Israel’s best, the type of men we need to build a strong and safe society, forever lost to us all.

The stones on the beach are there to teach those who did not know them.

My friend sees people, dear friends, not stones. His too serious friend. The others, each with their own special qualities. He sees those that should have come back from their mission but did not. Those he wished he could have saved but could not.

“Kiss them all.”

If only I could.

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 week there has been no shortage of articles from leftists decrying 50 years of "occupation."

I found "Rabbi" Michael Lerner's promotional email introducing his current issue of Tikkun Magazine to be especially repugnant.

I was one of those many young American Jews who went to the nearest Israeli consulate 50 years ago today to volunteer to serve in Israel as it appeared to be facing a threat to its existence. Fifty years later, I'm mourning what happened AFTER Israel won the 6 Days War [sic], believing the subsequent Occupation not only as an ethical outrage but a course of behavior that will live in infamy in Jewish history not only because it has been destructive to Israel's security but also because it has been a "chillul haShem"--a desecration of God's name and an undermining of the spirtual [sic] legitimacy of Judaism itself to the extent that it has become a major cheerleader for a nation state with lots of Jews but less of Judaism's powerful and beautiful prophetic, ethical and spiritual foundations.

While I don't agree with those who criticize the "occupation," I can understand how moral people would be bothered by various aspects of the situation.

However, I have no patience for people who cannot find anything positive to say about Israel's victory in 1967.

This goes double for those who pretend to base their criticisms on Jewish values.

For the first time in millennia, Jews have relatively free access to the most holy sites in Judaism - the Temple Mount (with restrictions,) the Kotel, the Tomb of the Patriarchs (with restrictions,) Rachel's Tomb and many others.

Jews can now access their holy places, overriding the bigoted Muslim history of co-opting the sacred sites of other religions.

No matter what you think of the "occupation," any true Jew must rejoice at this fact. And any honest observer would know that the Muslims never allow Jews to have free access to their holy sites when they are under Arab control.

If it wasn't for the Six Day War and the "occupation" those areas would remain forbidden to Jews to visit and worship and live.

The ability of Jews to be in their historic and ancient lands is cause for celebration, even for those who have reservations about the circumstances around it and the political and security consequences. Anyone who looks at the Six Day War and only sees Israel's supposed immorality does not have any real Jewish sensitivities.

"Chilul Hashem" is about as bad an insult as one can make in Jewish tradition. To call Israel's presence on the ancient Jewish homeland a "chilul Hashem" is outrageous and perverted.

The Holocaust was the ultimate chilul Hashem - because it made the world believe that the Jewish people had reached the end of their history and the God had abandoned His people. There is no greater chilul Hashem than that.

The rebirth of Israel, on the other hand, was a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification of God's name - because it showed the world that Jews are strong and resilient and creative and tenacious, and that miracles can still occur.

The Six Day War was by any measure a kiddush Hashem as well, because it showed that even when Israel had not a single ally willing to help it, Jews could not only survive but win. Gaining back the territories of Judea and Samaria where all of Jewish history occurred was an incredible display of sanctifying God's name. (It was a "chilul Allah", if you will.) The Six Day War catapulted tiny Israel from being regarded as little more than a banana republic to becoming a major player on the world stage.

Michael Lerner's inability to find a single positive thing about 1967 shows that his "morality" is itself immoral. It shows that the Jewish people, its history and its survival mean nothing to him. To Lerner, Jewish holy places are liabilities, not assets, which must be relinquished.

And he is willing to loudly proclaim that to the world.

There is nothing Jewish about Lerner's positions. There is plenty that is anti-Jewish. Lerner, in considering the redemption of historic Jewish lands as an unmitigated disaster, has more in common with Muslim terrorists than with real Jews.

Lerner does not have one ounce of Jewish pride. He prefers that Jews maintain a shtetl mentality and meekly do what the rest of the world tells them to do, even if that means marching to the latest version of the gas chambers. He wants to replace the respect that the world gave to the Jewish nation in the wake of the 1967 war with the derision that he feels towards the state of Israel. He does not represent "tikkun Olam" by any definition - he is trying to turn back time to make Jews defenseless victims instead of a strong, proud people.

Michael Lerner is the very definition of a chilul Hashem.

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.

Al Jazeera reports:

Qatar must end its support for the Palestinian group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood before ties with other Arab Gulf states could be restored, said Saudi Arabia's foreign minister.

Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates severed diplomatic ties and transport links with Qatar on Monday, accusing it of supporting "extremism".

"We want to see Qatar implement the promises it made a few years back with regard to its support of extremist groups, to its hostile media and interference in affairs of other countries," Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told reporters in Paris.

"Nobody wants to hurt Qatar. It has to choose whether it must move in one direction or another direction. We took this step with great pain so that it understands that these policies are not sustainable and must change."

Jubeir added that Qatar was undermining the Palestinian Authority and Egypt in its support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

These are the strongest statements ever made against Hamas by a major Arab country, and the terror group is reeling.

Hamas, reeling, issued a statement saying that Jubeir's statement violated international law:

The Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas expressed its deep regret and disapproval of the statement issued by the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir inciting against Hamas, arguing that it is alien to the positions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has always been characterized by the support of the cause of our people and the right to struggle.

The movement said in a press statement that these statements represent a shock to our Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic nation, of which is the Palestinian issue is central, and which sees Hamas as a legitimate resistance against the Zionist occupation, which represents the central enemy of Arab and Islamic movements. Hamas and the forces of the Palestinian resistance are the major defenders of the land of Palestine and the first qiblah (Jerusalem) and the third holiest shrine.

The Movement stressed that the Zionist enemy exploits such statements to commit further violations and crimes against our people and our land and our holy places and the right of Jerusalem and Al Aqsa Mosque.

Jubeir's remarks are in violation of international laws and attitudes of Arab and Islamic people, which emphasizes the right of our people to resistance and the struggle to liberate their land and holy places.

The Hamas brothers call on Saudi Arabia to stop these statements that offend the kingdom and their positions towards the cause of our people and their legitimate rights.

This is fear.

I noted in passing recently that a major pan-Arab newspaper referred to Hamas, flatly, as a terror group. Hamas notices all of this - and none of it looks good for its future.

Turning to Iran for support is not such a clear move because that would cement Hamas' reputation as being an enemy of Sunni Islam, which it claims to represent. Any shred of popular support that Hamas has in the Arab world would disappear if it openly aligns with Iran.

It must be said that a lot of this anti-Hamas rhetoric is a direct result of President Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia last month where he compared Hamas to ISIS, and no one in the Arab world objected.

This is a huge change from only a couple of years ago.

Mahmoud Abbas is taking advantage of this anti-Hamas feeling to collectively punish Gazans for supporting Hamas. He has cut off electricity, medicine, anesthetic and other essentials, to only muted criticism as Gazans suffer - something that would create world headlines if Israel did it. "Human rights organizations" suddenly don't care about Gazans.

Abbas defended his collective punishment policies, saying that they are meant to "end the division."

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.

06/06 Links Pt2: Glick: Palestinian suffering and Israel; Murray: Voting for Corbyn would be 'Madness'

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Palestinian suffering and Israel

How can we explain the international community’s indifference to Palestinian suffering? Every day, angry bands of protesters burn the flag of Israel, call for the destruction of the Jewish state and insist that Israel and its Jewish citizens be shunned from polite society and thrown out of the global economy all in the name of opposing “the Occupation.”
Although the breathless protesters insist that all their efforts are directed toward the Palestinians, as it works out, none of their assaults on Israel have improved the Palestinians’ lot. To the contrary, their protests have given a free pass to those that do the most to harm Palestinians.
The angry, hateful protests against Israel tell us nothing about either the history of the Palestinians’ relations with the Jewish state or their present circumstances.
And what are those circumstances? Consider the stories of two different groups of Palestinian prisoners.

PMW: Desiring 70 virgins made youth seek Martyrdom-death

The official Palestinian Authority daily has reported that a 23-year-old Palestinian man wished to die as a Martyr because he would then marry the 70 Virgins of Paradise.
Saba Abu Obeid, who was shot during violent clashes with Israeli soldiers and later died of his wounds, had told his grandmother he was hoping to die, because "70 beauties are waiting for me." According to Islam, one of the Martyr's rewards is to marry 72 Dark-Eyed Maidens, and the PA in fact describes Martyrs' funerals as weddings.
Obeid's grandmother recounted: "He asked me to sound cries of joy if he died as a Martyr. I told him: 'Everyone who seeks Martyrdom-death (Shahada) is entitled to achieve it, but I want to marry you off and rejoice in your happiness.' He told me: 'Grandmother, 70 beauties are waiting for me in Paradise, why should I replace them with the women of this world?'" [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 25, 2017]
This story reflects years of PA indoctrination to its people that Shahada - Martyrdom - is "sweet." During the PA's terror campaign 2000-2005 (the second Intifada), PA TV targeted kids with this message, telling them that Martyrdom was an ideal to strive for.
In 2002, today's young man of 23 was 8 years old, and possibly watched the following program for youth on PA TV, which Palestinian Media Watch exposed at the time. Two 11-year-old girls explained that "Shahada is beautiful" and that "everyone yearns for Shahada." They stated that "going to Paradise" is "sweet" and that what really matters is "the Afterlife."

MEMRI: Palestinian Authority, Fatah Lead Campaign Of Solidarity With And Glorification Of Hunger-Striking Palestinian Prisoners, Including Murderers Of Israeli Civilians After Oslo Accords

On April 17, 2017, some 1,500 Palestinian security prisoners incarcerated in Israel launched a hunger strike, under the leadership of Fatah Central Committee member Marwan Al-Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences for murder. The timing of the strike, which ended 41 days later, on May 27, was inconvenient for the Palestinian Authority (PA), which feared that it would lead to violent riots just as U.S. President Donald Trump was hosting PA President Mahmoud 'Abbas at the White House, and during Trump's subsequent visit to Bethlehem as part of his efforts to restart Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Another difficulty faced by the PA was the fear that Al-Barghouti – who initiated the strike and led it – would take sole credit for it, rather than the PA and 'Abbas himself.[1]
Nevertheless, the PA and Fatah could not be indifferent to the strike lest they spark public outrage, and thus launched a campaign of support for the prisoners. The campaign included: establishing solidarity encampments throughout the West Bank, which were also used as a platform for Fatah and PA representatives to deliver speeches and as a meeting place for families of the prisoners; holding protest activities such as a general strike, conducting parades, declaring days of rage, blocking roads, and marching to the border with Israel and other points of friction. Likewise, the PA government, headed by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah, announced an open-ended government session for the duration of the prisoners' strike, and Fatah's Revolutionary Council called for escalating the popular resistance. Also, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry instructed its representations abroad to hold activities for solidarity with the prisoners, and Fatah and PA representatives called on international delegations to pressure Israel to comply with the prisoners' demands.
The reaction of the PA, headed by 'Abbas, to the prisoners' hunger strike reveals the duplicity of its stand vis-à-vis terrorism: While it takes care to announce its opposition to violence and terrorism, and to condemn terror attacks and their perpetrators in the world, when it comes to the Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli facilities – the vast majority of whom were convicted on terror charges, including the murder of Israeli civilians, after the Oslo Accords – the PA glorifies their deeds, presents them as freedom fighters, and places their cause at the top of the Palestinian agenda. This is manifested by 'Abbas's meetings with families of the prisoners,[2] including of terrorists with blood on their hands who carried out horrific terror operations; by presenting the prisoners' cause to President Trump during his visit to the region; by asking the U.S. envoy to the Middle East Jason Greenblatt, during 'Abbas's May 25 meeting with him, to pressure Israel to comply with the prisoners' demands; and by effusively praising the prisoners' heroism and sacrifice.[3]

Douglas Murray - Voting for Corbyn would be 'Madness'

Gaza hospitals are out of anesthetic and have been forced to cancel thousands of operations as a result.

Gaza's Ministry of Health warned on Tuesday that supplies of anesthesia drugs had stopped. About 1,000 surgeries per month are performed in Gaza.

The main drug that is running out is fentanyl.

This is all because the PA refuses to pay for medicines and other critical equipment in Gaza in an effort to exert control - at the expense of ordinary Gazans.

It is just another outrage that dwarfs the worst that anyone can credibly accuse Israel of doing, but one that won't make any headlines since Israel isn't the one that can be blamed.

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.

Lebanese whining about 1967 war that they weren't involved in

Nadya Sbaiti writes a poetic piece in Jadaliyya about how the Six Day War affected Lebanon:

The legacies of 1967 envelop us and permeate everyday life in Lebanon. Daily we elbow our way through their viscosity, wondering why movement and breath and vision are limited. We take comfort in the invisibility of these legacies, convince ourselves that we have escaped, even as we have spent fifty years wiping the gelatinous tendrils from our very selves.

These tendrils are cartographic, linguistic, and epistemological.

The web of 1967 has spread its tendrils on the land itself. Those five days rent a gash in Lebanon’s southern boundary. The realities of defeat emboldened Israel, known simply as the kayan, or entity, to strafe ever larger swaths of territory, interrupting lives, devastating livestock, and eradicating fish. This relentless military practice, in addition to separating families, has reshaped village life and transformed topographies. And the wounds on the land are not confined to the south. They run along a north-south axis like a C-section scar left unhealed. The wounds shape the grounds of those permanently temporary fixtures: the refugee camps, which greeted a second generation of displaced and expelled.

Lebanon didn't fight in 1967. There was no change to the borders between Lebanon and Israel, not one centimeter. I would be very surprised if any "refugees" from 1967 made it to Lebanon to go to their UNRWA camps rather than remaining in the West Bank, Gaza or going to Jordan.

I'm sure I could find some NGO that came up with a figure of how many fish Israel "eradicated" in 1967, though.

The author goes on to say that, essentally, he is tasked with inventing propaganda about 1967 to his Lebanese students since there is no actual history there and Lebanon feels left out:

And the thick tendrils breed silences, as the penchant for feigning ignorance feeds an actually existing ignorance, an epistemological insistence on being immersed in but denying the existence of a web of 1967’s legacies. I ask undergraduates who grew up in Lebanon what they know about 1967. I am greeted with a resounding silence. They know nothing, it seems. But, knowledge is a fluid process. As the history lesson unfolds, the same students suddenly comprehend an uncle’s suicide, a mother’s defiance, a neighborhood’s layout, a name unspoken; they ponder the tyranny of citizenship, the buoyant torment of resilience, and the laughter of survival that formidable historical amnesia tries to render invisible. As realization dawns, they sit in the viscous climate, stuck between solid and liquid, and the web of 1967 crystalizes anew.

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.

06/06 Links Pt1: The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration; Six-Day War Myths that Just Won't Die

From Ian:

Martin Kramer The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration

Time to Fix the Distortions
The centennial of the Balfour Declaration is the perfect opportunity to chip away at the distorted accretions of a century. The largest of these is the notion that the Balfour Declaration arose outside any legitimate framework, as the initiative of a self-dealing imperial power. This is utterly false. The Balfour Declaration wasn’t the isolated act of one nation. It was approved in advance by the Allied powers whose consensus then constituted the only source of international legitimacy. Before Balfour signed his declaration, leaders and statesmen of other democratic nations signed their names on similar letters and assurances. The Balfour Declaration anticipated a world regulated by a consortium of principal powers—the same world that, 30 years later, would pass a UN resolution legitimating the establishment of a Jewish state.
This centennial is thus the time to remind governments of their shared responsibility for Britain’s pledge to establish a Jewish “national home” in Palestine. In Washington, Paris, Rome, and Vatican City, it is important for Israel’s ambassadors and friends to speak openly of the historic and essential role of each government in the gestation of the declaration. The same should be done in all of the capitals that endorsed the Balfour Declaration after its issuance, but before it was enshrined in the mandate. That would include Beijing and Tokyo.
The American role deserves particular emphasis. Few Americans know that Wilson approved the Balfour Declaration in advance, or that this approval had a decisive effect in the British cabinet. The United States never entered the League of Nations, and so never ratified the mandate. But in June 1922 the United States Congress passed a joint resolution (the so-called Lodge-Fish resolution) that reproduced the exact text of the Balfour Declaration (“the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine,” etc.). President Warren G. Harding signed the resolution the following September. The centennial is a unique opportunity to remind the American public of these facts, all of which point to America’s shared responsibility for the Balfour Declaration.

Aaron David Miller: These Myths About 1967's Six-Day War Just Won't Die

The 1967 war generated opportunities and a new, more pragmatic dynamic among the Arab states and Palestinians, which at least partially reversed the results of the war itself and transformed much of the Arab-Israeli arena. With this in mind, here are some myths about the war's centrality and impact that need to be reexamined.
1. "The 1967 war was the most consequential and impactful of the conflicts between Israel and the Arabs."
The 1948 conflict was more foundational, creating as it did the state of Israel, the Palestinian refugee problem, and a political revolution in Arab politics that would see various coups and revolutions.
2. "There were very real and missed opportunities for Arab-Israeli agreements in the wake of the war."
Not really. There was a flurry of initiatives, statements, and U.S. and Russian maneuvering during the postwar period. And in November 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 established the guiding principles for Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. From my personal experience, I can attest that diplomats and would-be peacemakers often imagined openings and opportunities where there were none.
3. "The 1967 war was an unmitigated disaster for the Palestinians."
The war would carry an unintended set of consequences that would redefine the Palestinian national movement. The discrediting of the Arab states, particularly the bankruptcy of Arab nationalism, would force Palestinians to strike out on their own. The Arab defeat reenergized Palestinian identity and put Palestinians on the political map.
4. "The 1967 war was a catastrophe for peacemaking."
Not really. In strategic terms, the 1967 war created one new reality that could not be denied: Arab state weakness and the rapidly fading prospect of destroying Israel by force, even in phases. The growing alignment between Israel and the Sunni states, particularly in the Gulf, attests to a new pragmatism born of a common threat perception of a rising Iran and Sunni jihadis, and sheer Arab state fatigue with the Palestinian issue.
5. "Fifty years later, Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians are ready to solve the conflict."
Don't bet on it. The core of the impasse is a reality that shows no signs of changing: the gaps on the core issues-1967 borders, the status of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state-are Grand Canyon-like. Without their narrowing, no matter how the new peace process starts, it is hard to imagine it ending well.

Palestinians pass up chance to debate Israelis at ICC moot court

While Palestinian officials continue to threaten Israel with prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, a leading Palestinian university recently chose not to debate Israelis there.
Last month, during the annual ICC Moot Court Competition, Birzeit University advanced to the quarterfinals, where it was to meet Hebrew University of Jerusalem. But the team from the Palestinian university, near Ramallah in the West Bank, decided to shun the Israeli competitors.
In a May 27 press release, Birzeit said its Faculty of Law and Public Administration withdrew from the competition after having debated 12 other groups from various other countries. “This was in line with the university’s commitment toward the Boycott and Divestment Sanctions Campaign (BDS),” Birzeit said in the press release, which was posted on the university’s website but later made unavailable.
“Birzeit Team is the first Arabian team to make it to the quarterfinals, and to win the oral pleading competition,” the statement continued.
The Hebrew University expressed disappointment over the Palestinian boycott, pointing to the academic nature of the competition.

On November 4, 2016, 3 US soldiers - Staff Sgt. Matthew Lewellen, Staff Sgt. Kevin McEnroe and Staff Sgt. James Moriarty died after coming under fire from a Jordanian soldier as they were entering a Jordanian military base.

On November 17, Eric Barbee, spokesman for US Embassy in Jordan, issued a short statement, reflecting the possibility of a terrorist motive on the one hand, and the rumors being spread that the soldiers themselves had accidentally brought the incident upon themselves.

A segment from the CBS morning news revealed more about what happened, and a taste of the various stories that were to come from the Jordanian government.

As early as November 19, two days later, it was already known that there was video footage of what had happened. Even then, the strong possibility was raised that this was a deliberate attack by a Jordanian soldier on US soldiers, Green Berets. The security footage showed a lone Jordanian gunman at a checkpoint shooting at the convoy of Green Berets who were there to conduct training at the King Faisal Air Base in al-Jafr.

It was reported at the time that a US official had, on condition of anonymity, confirmed the video showed the Jordanian soldier waived the first vehicle through the checkpoint and then opened fire on the second vehicle, killing two of the Americans inside. When US troops in the third vehicle returned fire, a third American was killed.

The video itself was not made public at the time

As for the Jordanian soldier, M'aarek Abu Tayeh, he was wounded and placed in a medically induced coma at a Jordanian hospital.

Both an FBI and a military investigation were begun.

By March, a summary of the key findings of the military investigation was revealed in a United States Special Operations Command Press Release. It provided the following outline of what actually happened:

o On the afternoon of Nov. 4, 2016, a Jordanian Air Force guard shot and killed three Special Forces Soldiers at the entry gate to King Faisal Air Base, Jordan.

o The three Soldiers were returning to the base in a four-vehicle convoy after conducting weapons familiarization training on a nearby military range.

o The Jordanian Air Force guard opened fire on the second vehicle of the convoy with his M-16 rifle, killing Staff Sgt. McEnroe and mortally wounding Staff Sgt.(P) Lewellen.

o Within seconds of coming under fire, Staff Sgt. Moriarty and another Soldier exited the third and fourth vehicles in the convoy in order to seek cover as the shooter closed in on their location. After unsuccessfully trying to communicate to the shooter that they posed no threat, the Soldiers returned fire. While the other Soldier maneuvered to gain a better position, Staff Sgt. Moriarty stood and fired his pistol directly at the shooter, who was wearing body armor. After closing in on their position, the shooter hit Staff Sgt. Moriarty with two rounds, mortally wounding him. Staff Sgt. Moriarty’s actions enabled the remaining Soldier to maneuver and engage the shooter, seriously wounding him.

o Staff Sgt. McEnroe died at the scene. Staff Sgt. (P) Lewellen and Staff Sgt. Moriarty were medically evacuated after receiving initial treatment at the local medical treatment facility but died en route to King Hussein Hospital in Amman. Autopsy results show that no amount of medical care could have saved the three Soldiers due to the nature of their wounds.

o All three Soldiers died in honorable service to their country. All three Soldiers were properly trained, equipped, and armed, and were acting in compliance with all procedures and accepted practices. In maintaining their position and engaging the shooter, the Soldiers acted with great valor.

Along with the summary, a redacted version of the results of the military investigation, which had been concluded on February 16, was released as well. It included 2 photos illustrating the scene of the shooting.

A March 6 letter from Dina Kawar, ambassador of the Kingdom of Jordan, to Representative Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas claimed that a joint US-Jordanian investigation concluded that there was an "absence of premeditated intentions by M'aarek Abu Tayeh," the shooter. Instead, the Jordanians accused the American soldiers not only of failing to stop at the gate but also of having negligently discharged their weapons, causing the security guards to panic and open fire.

The parents of the soldiers responded that the video, which they had been shown, refuted the Jordanian version of events. The video shows that none of the Jordanians showed any reaction, as would be expected if there had been a loud noise, until the Jordanian guard himself opened fire. The video also showed that the Jordanian guard had deliberately murdered their sons at close range.

The parents turned to the Trump Administration, demanding that action be taken against Jordan and that if the Jordanians refused to take action, that US aid to the country be cut off.

One of the parents, Mr. McEnroe expressed their feelings about Jordan:

"Over four months have passed since our boys were murdered. None of our families has heard any apology, condolences or explanation from the Jordanians other than these false narratives," McEnroe said.

"In my mind, Jordan is at the very least guilty of complicity in the murder of three American brave servicemen," he said.

"We are told that Jordan is an important ally in the war on terror -- a war which I support -- but I encourage our president and our administration to take a hard look at our relationship with an ally who would so callously disrespect the sacrifice made by our boys," McEnroe said.

Congressman Poe, who serves as the chairman House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, spoke about Jordan’s changing story about what had happened:

"I wrote the Jordanian king after I talked to Jim Moriarty about his son," the lawmaker said. "The response seem to say that this entire incident was a mistake and that the Americans were at fault for this whole incident."

Last night, Poe said he received a second letter from the embassy of Jordan.

"They now say 'it was not a mistake but that the shooter was following the rules of engagement," Poe said.

In addition, there were indications that Abu Tayeh did not act alone.

o A second guard who manned the post with Abu Tayeh had left to use the restroom
o A third soldier left to open the gate, leaving Abu Tayeh along
o Other Jordanian soldiers in the area, as many as 11, did not nothing to help the American soldiers
o Those same Jordanian soldiers fired warning shots at a US truck entering behind the Green Berets’ vehicles, preventing the truck from assisting the US Green Berets.

It was suggested that the reason for the lack of an immediate apology from the Jordanian government was the implications behind such an apology. An apology would be an admission that the elite Hashemite force that guards Jordan’s King Abdullah II had made a mistake -- or worse, that the guard had been turned by ISIS.

The FBI told the families that when Abu Tayeh came out of his coma, they had interviewed him. He admitted that he had used excessive force and was away from his assigned guard position. However, he claimed that he had heard a loud noise and that was what set him off.

The FBI also told the families that the shooter had previously been convicted of sexual on a woman with a knife. He also had anger management issues.

For their part, the military investigation was unable to find any indication for the reason behind the attack. No group ever took responsibility and there was no evidence that Abu Tayeh had actual terrorist sympathies. What they did find was that sloppiness by the Jordanian army was par for the course and it was usual for them to wave US soldiers in without coming out and personally confirm the identities as required and that gate guards “often displayed negligence for basic weapons handling and safety which could be improved.”

What was left was the series of lie after lie offered by the Jordanian government:

o First the Jordanian government claimed that the US soldiers had failed to stop at the gate
o When the video disproved that, the Jordanians claimed that there had been an “accidental discharge” by one of the soldiers.
o When that was disproven, the Jordanians claimed there had been a loud noise

The video, though it had no audio, disproved all three claims.

Finally, in mid-April, the Jordanian government admitted that Abu Tayeh had not followed proper military protocol and said they would prosecute him over the death of the US soldiers. However, it was not immediately made clear what exactly the charges would be nor when the trial would take place.

Dana Daoud, a spokeswoman for the Jordanian Embassy indicated that an apology was finally going to be issued by the Jordanian king to the families and added that “the Jordanian government will do everything to ensure that justice is enacted fully.”

Mr. Moriarty was doubtful in his response:

“Any statement that doesn’t include an admission of total guilt and plans for prosecution for the murderer who killed my son and the Jordanians who have failed to do anything about it, will not be enough.”

Finally, last week, on June 1, it was reported that the Jordanian government had formally charged Abu Tayeh with murder:

o The official charge is murder with intent to kill more than one person
o A second charge included “insulting the dignity and reputation of the military”
o Another charge is “violating orders and instructions of the military”

If convicted by the military court, Abu Tayeh could face the rest of his life in prison -- but a spokeswoman at Jordan's embassy in Washington was unable to confirm whether Abu Tayeh had actually been charged with murder.

There are 3 basic things the parents of the US soldiers are looking for:

o Prosecution of Abu Tayeh
o Prosecution of the Jordanians who did nothing to help their sons
o Serious sentences for both Abu Tayeh and the other Jordanian soldiers involved

And that is why -- based on everything the families of these soldiers have had to put up with till now -- the road ahead may still be a long one.

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.