Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, August 05, 2017

08/05 Links: The War Against H.R. McMaster State Department Is Broken

From Ian:

Among the many stories of internecine battles within the Trump administration is the supposed discord between the White House and the State Department. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is reportedly frustrated with White House vetoes of his staff picks, the encroachment of Trump aides and family in the traditional business of diplomacy, and resents Trump’s unprofessional attacks on colleagues. Critics both inside and outside the State Department have questioned his leadership style and judgment, and some foreign policy watchers have speculated that Tillerson may be “the weakest secretary of state ever.” Others have written about growing State Department dysfunction, as well as Tillerson’s brusqueness and incompetence.
The State Department may be broken but, even if Tillerson’s tenure has highlighted its problems, the dysfunction in the State Department is deep-seated and extends well before Trump’s antics and Tillerson’s questionable management style.
Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief-of-staff Lawrence Wilkerson, for example, was a conspiracy theorist who has peddled in anti-Semitic dog whistles and has since found himself on the Academic Board of the Ron Paul Institute. In hindsight, while Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage proved himself a serial leaker in efforts to win bureaucratic battles against the Pentagon, the sustenance for many of the more outlandish conspiracies appears to have come from Wilkerson.
A whiff of corruption surrounds Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department because of the Clinton Foundation and the diplomatic favors which foreign states apparently believed they could receive if they made a donation. But, beyond that, Clinton appeared to base her decisions about when and where to travel on personal vanity rather than strategic necessity.

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Everything The President Wants To Do, McMaster Opposes,’ Former NSC Officials Say

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is thwarting President Donald Trump’s foreign policy prescriptions, two former senior NSC officials told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Everything the president wants to do, McMaster opposes,” a former senior official said in a wide-ranging interview. “Trump wants to get us out of Afghanistan — McMaster wants to go in. Trump wants to get us out of Syria — McMaster wants to go in. Trump wants to deal with the China issue — McMaster doesn’t. Trump wants to deal with the Islam issue — McMaster doesn’t. You know, across the board, we want to get rid of the Iran deal — McMaster doesn’t. It is incredible to watch it happening right in front of your face. Absolutely stunning.”
One former official characterized McMaster as a “sycophant” of retired Army Gen. David Petraeus.
“I know that the president isn’t a big fan of what McMaster’s doing,” the former official declared. “I don’t understand why he’s allowing a guy who is subverting his foreign policy at every turn to remain in place.” he added.
The official continued that he expects a purge of “campaign Trump” loyalists to continue with particular intensity within the next two weeks.

The War Against H.R. McMaster

Long-simmering tensions within the White House burst into public view this week after the firings of three National Security Council officials, resulting in National-Security Adviser H.R. McMaster becoming Public Enemy No. 1 of the pro-Trump online brigades.
McMaster has cleaned house at the NSC over the past few weeks. Via his deputy Ricky Waddell, he fired director of strategic planning Rich Higgins last month over a memo Higgins wrote alleging a deep-state conspiracy against President Trump. McMaster then dismissed two top officials brought on by the previous national-security adviser, Michael Flynn: the NSC’s senior director for the Middle East, Derek Harvey, who was fired last week; and the senior director for intelligence programs, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who was let go on Wednesday.
“I’m watching the elephants trample the grass as they fight each other,” said one senior White House official. “There is some collateral damage when the elephants fight.”
The dismissals have shaken up the NSC during a period of tumult in the White House. Press secretary Sean Spicer recently quit in protest of Anthony Scaramucci’s installation as communications director. Scaramucci was himself fired because of a profane rant he delivered to a reporter about White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and chief of staff Reince Priebus, who was also let go. Priebus’s replacement, former Department of Homeland Security chief John Kelly, has begun to formalize the chaotic Trump White House, limiting staff members’ direct access to the president. His entrance also gives McMaster—who has been at odds with Trump and has battled in particular with Bannon—a powerful new ally.

08/04 Links Pt2: As on the Temple Mount, so in Australia; Indoctrinating America's youth against Israel

From Ian:

The Left and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The path to righteous hatred

In this timely and eloquent essay, Jamie Palmer explores the impact on the politics of the Left of desperately simplistic narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that have been designed to protect the Palestinian’s preordained status as wholly blameless victims, lacking either political agency or moral responsibility. Over the years, he argues, as the explanatory limitations of these narratives have encountered unfolding complexities on the ground – Arab terrorism, Palestinian maximalism and rejectionism, the suicide bombers of the Second Intifada, the rise of Islamist violence, popular eliminationist antisemitism – they have only produced new crises of understanding, and a requirement for ever more conspiratorial explanations of Israeli behaviour. Tendentious and conspiratorial anti-Zionist analyses have rushed into the vacuum of understanding, and have been absorbed by ever-larger sections of the Left. The wilful selectivity of an analysis that allows for no credit in the Israeli column, nor any debit in the Palestinian column, has produced a distorted view of the conflict, as tragic as it is unnecessary.
At the start of last year I wrote a column for Quillette about accusations of ‘pinkwashing’ made against the State of Israel and her supporters. This charge holds that (a) Israel uses a progressive record on gay rights as a means of distracting world attention from its treatment of Palestinians and (b) any attempt to universalise Western LGBT norms is a form of cultural imperialism intended to stigmatise Arab countries as backward and barbaric. It struck me as particularly odd that arguments like these were being made by left-wing activists and academics, many of whom self-identify as ‘queer’. Why would people ostensibly devoted to gay rights advocacy defend a lamentable record on LGBT issues and denounce a laudable one?
Among Palestine’s progressive supporters, I theorised, we are seeing a manifestation of the same perverse phenomenon George Orwell had observed among Western Stalinists at the end of the Second World War. Communism was believed by its adherents to be a more ethical and just system than capitalism and nothing Communist states actually did would be allowed to capsize this foundational moral judgement – not the gulags, not the famines, not the purges, not the pitiless persecution of free-thinkers and dissidents, and not the imperial subjugation of satellite states and their wretched populations. The failings and imperfections of the West’s liberal democracies, meanwhile, would be pored over at length, paradoxically aided by a free press and culture of self-criticism, the absence of which stymied open discussion in the Communist bloc.

Petra Marquardt-Bigman: As on the Temple Mount, so in Australia

Disbelief, disappointment and even fury erupted on social media in response to the news that a local council in Sydney, Australia, “has blocked plans for a new synagogue, saying it may become a terrorist target and poses an unacceptable security risk.” But perhaps all the people fuming about Australian cowardice and the failure to uphold freedom of worship should keep in mind that the “status quo” at Judaism’s holiest place, i.e. the Temple Mount, reflects the same eagerness to prevent “security risks:” while Israel’s Supreme Court has theoretically upheld Jewish prayer rights at the Temple Mount, Jews are effectively barred from exercising these rights whenever there is reason to fear that this might result in a “disturbance to the public order.”
And there has never been a day when there was no reason to fear that Jews praying at their holiest site wouldn’t result in a truly apocalyptic “disturbance to the public order.”
What is regarded all around the world as the sacrosanct “status quo” at Jerusalem’s holiest site means in practice that by threatening violence, Muslims can deny Jews the right to worship at the Temple Mount.
As I noted in a related post years ago, it is supposedly “Islamophobic” to assume “that Muslims are inclined to violence,” and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Australian authorities were to find themselves accused of such “Islamophobia.” But when it comes to the Temple Mount, which Muslims nowadays often call the “Al Aqsa compound,” or even simply Al Aqsa, Muslims like nothing better than to threaten massive violence in response to any perceived Jewish infringement. As we have recently seen, even “Jewish” metal detectors or security cameras at the entrances to the site can cause riots and violence.

The American Press Is Afraid to Report on Anti-Semitism When It Comes from Muslims

Responding to Israel’s installation of metal detectors on the Temple Mount, the California imam Ammar Shahin gave a sermon in which he explained the duty of Muslims everywhere—“not only in Palestine”—to exterminate the Jews, and then prayed for Allah to make this possible. While reports of the sermon soon appeared in Jewish and Israeli publications, as well as in right-leaning American ones, the imam’s words were first ignored, and then downplayed, by the mainstream media. Clifford May writes:
Imagine if a priest, minister, or rabbi were to call for Muslims to be annihilated. It would be a scandal [that] would spark a nation-wide controversy over Islamophobia, hate speech, and incitement to violence. So why is that not the case when an imam calls for the annihilation of Jews? . . .
On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times did run a piece. Its reluctance to do so was apparent from the first line: “A Northern California mosque that was targeted in a vandalism hate crime found itself at the center of controversy this week after an imam delivered a sermon with inflammatory remarks about Jews.” The vandalism—two bicycles destroyed and bacon draped over a door handle—occurred in January. The woman responsible was sentenced to five years’ probation. What this has to do with the imam calling for the killing of Jews was not explained. . . .
At a press event, the imam said he was “deeply sorry for the pain that I have caused. The last thing I would do is intentionally hurt anyone, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise. It is not in my heart, nor does my religion allow it.”

Gaza celebrates diversity

There was a military parade in Gaza recently, and all the terror groups got together to show how much they love Al Aqsa.

Look how diverse they are: two different kinds of black bandannas, dark blue, green and red!

Who says they aren't liberal?

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.

I noticed some op-eds in Ad-Dustour, a Jordanian newspaper partially owned by the Jordanian government (according to Wikipedia,) by Sufian Shawa, a lawyer.

One from May starts off with the myth that the two lines on the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, as the ambitions of Israel to fulfill the Biblical promise of the future borders of the Jewish nation. (The blue lines really symbolize the stripes on a tallit.)

But, Shawa says, Israel is going beyond these Biblical borders, and now it is stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.

In 1999, Israel established relations with Mauritania, which borders the Atlantic Ocean. Mautiania was the third Arab state to recognize Israel after Egypt and Jordan. Israel opened up a cancer research and treatment center there. (Shawa doesn't mention that those relations ended in 2009 after the first Gaza war.)

Of course the visit to Israel from India's prime minister is what caused Shawa to rail on about Israeli expansionist ambitions.

The article goes on from there:

In fact, Israel is not a state like the rest of the world, but an army ... looking for a state! All the citizens of Israel are an army, either from the regular army or from the ready reserve on demand if Israeli forces think of launching an attack on any country... Israel has no international borders. In 1950, David Ben-Gurion, Israel replied: - The borders of Israel are at the place where an IDF soldier stands.
Israel, controls Europe and the United States without any doubt.

Israel is one of the goals of global Freemasonry as a goal and not a dream .. Note that Zionism was born from the womb of Freemasonry, especially the Masonry Jews and not Masonic goyim or non-Jews. The three Jewish Masonic objectives are:
1 - The establishment of the State of Israel to collect the Jews of the world in which has been achieved.
2. Rebuilding Solomon's temple in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount on the ruins of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. God forbid. This goal has not yet been achieved.
3. The establishment of the "Government of Judah" and its capital Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people. This government rules the entire world for Jewish authority and applies Jewish law throughout the world.

Clear enough?

More recently, Shawa wrote that about the Temple Mount:

The rabbis are the only stakeholders in controlling the children of Israel and keeping their community with the influence and control and the yellow gold that the Jews adore. ...They confirm that this Temple exists only in the imagination of rabbis (David Ben Gurion), the first Prime Minister of the State of Israel. The sword and the Torah descended on the Israelites from heaven. .( Believe it or not ) ..!
The legends in the lives of Jews, which became myths; astrology and magic are one of the pillars of Jewish culture from time immemorial. Rabbis differ from the rest of the world's clergy and they can weave legends and portray them as a reality The rabbis say that the temple of Solomon was luxurious...
We do not know the source of the gold and the great money through which our master Solomon built this strange structure. Especially since the Jews were bandits .. The tribes only know looting .. They are a people of crooks as described by the same (Torah), their holy book .. It was reported that the Jews stole the Egyptians when they left Egypt through fraud and deception And they invented a false argument and fled from Egypt under the cover of darkness and with stolen gold.
.. Their prophet orders them to steal and that their Lord helps them so and their holy book tells it ... As if theft and fraud of ideals and great values Hallelujah ..? This explains to us the situation of Israel in this time is an extension of the ethics of the Jews and their customs since ancient times .. They stole the land and trees and stone ..
But why do the Jews insist on the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? "The Jews firmly believe that the Temple of Solomon is located under the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and that this temple was destroyed by the Babylonians. They are determined that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was erected on the ruins of the Temple of Solomon without mentioning one proof of the validity of this claim. They are Jews who love life in the dark tunnels and live in the unknown.
But the slander of the Jews calls for wonder, all that they say is baseless, but they are looking for something other than the structure of Solomon. The religion of the Jews must remain secret. This is what is stated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Protocol XIV....

He goes on to spin a wild theory about a holy fire that the Jews have kept with themselves throughout the millennia in order to kindle the altars of sacrifices in the Third Temple.

If this explicit antisemitism is what is being published in semi-official Jordanian media, then why would anyone be surprised that Jordanians are holding demonstrations to sever relations with Israel?

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.

08/04 Links Pt1: Glick: Losing and winning the Temple Mount; Sex, lies and terrorism

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Losing and winning the Temple Mount

As a liberal democracy, Israel has an interest, indeed a duty, to ensure that the holy site is open to all religions and that everyone has the right to freely worship on the Temple Mount. Given the fact that the Temple Mount is the holiest place in the world for Jews, Israel has a vital interest in securing its sovereign control over the area.
To secure its sovereignty and advance its clear interest in facilitating religious freedom for all, Israel’s policy goal is straightforward. The government should enable all faiths to worship freely at the site.
To secure this end, the government should announce its goal and make a good-faith effort to involve all relevant groups and governments, including the Palestinian Authority, Christian authorities, Jewish authorities, the Jordanian regime and others in achieving it. The government should also state outright that if the Palestinians opt instead to incite and commit acts of violence and terrorism from the Temple Mount, Israel will secure its goal and enable Jews and Christians to worship at the holy site unilaterally.
To date, the Temple Mount has been the Palestinians’ ace in the hole. They recycle the blood libel that Jews are endangering al-Aksa every time they feel they are losing ground in their never-ending war against Israel. And Israel inevitably capitulates.
But if Israel announces its policy is to secure religious freedom for all on the Temple Mount and makes a good-faith effort to advance it in conjunction with the Palestinians and all other relevant groups, it will set the conditions for taking that ace away.
If after it begins good-faith efforts to collectively advance the liberal, democratic goal of ensuring religious freedom for all at the holy site, the Palestinians again turn to violence, then the Islamic world, or parts of it, will be in a position to blame them when Israel unilaterally enables Jews and Christians to pray on the Temple Mount parallel to Muslim worshipers.
If Netanyahu and his ministers make this their goal then the IDF and the Shin Bet won’t be able to intimidate them into capitulation next time around. Instead, the leaders of the IDF, the Shin Bet and the Foreign Ministry will all know their jobs and know that if they fail to perform they will be replaced.
Israel ceded the Temple Mount to terrorists last week. But with a clear goal, we can get it back in short order and keep it perpetually for the good of all humanity.

Admin officials McMaster is fiercely anti-Israel, calls it 'illegitimate,' 'occupying power'

On Wednesday, American-born Israeli journalist Caroline Glick detailed explosive allegations concerning McMaster’s views on Israel. Glick is a well-known pro-Israel columnist and has established connections with the Trump administration. Many of the details in this story emerged from questions asked about Glick’s allegations.
The list of pro-Israel voices in the administration that were removed from McMaster’s National Security Council now includes: Steve Bannon, K.T. McFarland, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Derek Harvey, Rich Higgins, Adam Lovinger, and Tera Dahl.
McMaster not only shuns Israel, he is also historically challenged on Arab-Israeli affairs, according to the sources.
“McMaster constantly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947,” a senior West Wing official tells CR (there was never an independent Palestinian state), adding that McMaster describes Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power.”
The NSC chief expressed great reluctance to work with Israel on counterterror efforts, as he shut down a joint U.S.-Israel project to counter the terrorist group Hezbollah’s efforts to expand Iran’s worldwide influence. The project was led by the now-former NSC Middle East director Derek Harvey.
In July, Palestinian terrorists armed with rifles left the al-Aqsa mosque compound and assassinated two Israeli police officers. Afterward, Israeli security forces installed metal detectors outside the Jerusalem mosque for protection. McMaster, however, didn’t see it that way. He viewed the security measures as “just another excuse by the Israelis to repress the Arabs,” a senior defense official tells CR.

Senior West Wing Official Says McMaster Called Israel 'Illegitimate' 'Occupying Power'

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has taken it upon himself to eliminate the pro-Israel voices at the National Security Council, according to three West Wing and defense officials who spoke to Conservative Review (CR).
On Wednesday, Israeli journalist Caroline Glick, a staunch defender of Israel, born in America, detailed explosive allegations vis-à-vis McMaster and Israel:
Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump's visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall. What hasn't been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn't. It was McMaster.
And even that, it works out, wasn't sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — a la the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.
Since McMaster took over the NSC, seven members who were staunchly pro-Israel have been purged: Steve Bannon, K.T. McFarland, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Derek Harvey, Rich Higgins, Adam Lovinger, and Tera Dahl.
One senior West Wing official told CR, “McMaster constantly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947,” and that McMaster describes Israel as an “illegitimate,” “occupying power.”
There was never a Palestinian state; the name “Palestine” comes from the Hebrew word “peleshet” that was used to refer to the ancient enemies of the Jews, the Philistines, an Aegean people closely related to the Greeks and with no connection ethnically, linguistically or historically with Arabia. In the second century A.D., the Romans defeated the Jews, and named the land Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. Until 1948, when people used the term “Palestinian,” it referred to Jews in the land.

Haaretz, Gideon Levy accidentally prove IDF policies aren't meant to punish Palestinians

Gideon Levy and Alex Levac write in Haaretz about a young, apolitical Palestinian man who apparently committed "suicide by IDF" - he tried to ram his car into soldiers and then exited the car attempting to stab them. He was shot and killed.

The article makes clear that the young man, Mohammed Jabrin, was the "least politically minded young man in the Palestinian village of Tuqu."

"Whenever disturbances broke out in the village, he would close his store and closet himself in the house. He was never arrested and never got into trouble," the article says.

The only explanation for his actions is that he got into an argument with his father about being allowed to drive the Mazda he used for the attack - apparently it was a stolen car that he purchased and his father forbade him from driving it. The shame of the argument seems to have pushed him over the edge.

Even the family didn't mention "occupation" once as Levy interviewed them for hours. They were all puzzled as to why this young man decided to end his life that way.

Levy and Levac gloss over the fact that Mohammed Jabrin is now being used for very political purposes, his face on a poster alongside Yasir Arafat and the Dome of the Rock as if he is a heroic martyr, and his family displays these posters in their home as if his death is something to be proud of.

But even more revealing is this small section of the article:

Even the local Shin Bet security agent, “Captain Imad,” who knows everyone in town, was taken aback. The fact is that the security forces did not demolish the family’s home, the Israel Defense Forces did not conduct a serious search of the house, and the body was returned to the family the day after his death.

If the IDF intended to collectively punish Palestinian families by demolishing their homes after attacks, then why didn't the IDF do it in this case? Why did they return the body immediately, instead of waiting to avoid a huge political funeral that could cascade into violence? Why didn't they ransack the house looking for weapons and evidence of family members colluding?

Levy, the hater of Israel, has just shown that the IDF has good reasons for when it does demolish a house. It is intended as a disincentive for terror - but Mohammed Jabrin was not a classic terrorist, he simply wanted to die. The thought of his family home being destroyed wouldn't have changed that. The family wasn't a threat.

This story also reveals that the lie that the IDF not destroying the homes of the Jewish terrorists was proof of Israeli racism, as Levy himself has argued. House demolition is not meant as punishment but as disincentive, and in cases where no one would change their habits as a result, it makes no sense.

Levy, the hater of Israel, has just proven that his own assertions about the capriciousness of the IDF are figments of his own fevered imagination.

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.

You know about the Golden Rule.

You know about human rights.

You know about natural law.

But there is one little known moral principle that overrides all of these things. It is rarely spoken about, but over the past 50 years (and even earlier) it has been the overriding rule, far more important than any of the others.

And that rule is "don't piss off the Muslims."

People are up in arms over the story of the local council in Sydney, Australia, which blocked plans for a new synagogue because it may become a terrorist target and therefore is a security risk.

You might say that Australian Jews have the freedom of worship and freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Sure they do. But those freedoms are nothing compared to the overriding moral principle of our time, Don't Piss Off the Muslims.

The decision is not surprising. The UN, the arbiter of how states are supposed to act, has adopted this rule enthusiastically, pretending it is about human rights. Western nations stung by the Arab oil boycott in the 1970s have embraced this rule, pretending that it is about international law.

The entire history of Middle East peace attempts are based on this rule. Not international law, not justified claims, nothing like that. it is all a smokescreen to cover what the real imperative is: Don't Piss Off the Muslims.

Newspapers, TV news and Hollywood have all enthusiastically adopted this rule above all others, using the excuse of "preventing Islamophobia."

Editorial cartoonists and newspaper editors censor themselves because they embrace the rule of Don't Piss Off the Muslims. Depictions of Mohammed, only forbidden under Sharia law, are now effectively illegal anywhere because of the rule, Don't Piss Off the Muslims.

President George Bush made sure that he fulfilled this rule by specifically going to a mosque while the World Trade Center was still burning and Muslims around the world cheering over the death of thousands of Americans, saying that "Islam is peace."

Even the Prime Minister of Israel embraces this rule, removing non-obtrusive detection technology at the entrance to a holy site and severely limiting the freedom of worship of Jews and Christians there, claiming - exactly like the Australians - that undefined, nebulous security concerns are more important than basic human rights.

But the real reason is the rule: Don't Piss Off the Muslims.

The Sydney town council did not do anything surprising. It is all a natural, logical application of the overriding moral imperative of today. All the other concepts of rights and morality are subservient to this rule.

To say otherwise would be Islamophobic.

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.

UNSC passes resolution to ban selling weapons to terrorists. If only they knew who the terrorists are!

From the UN:

The Security Council today urged Member States to act cooperatively to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons and called upon them to counter threats posed by improvised explosive devices and to become party to related international and regional instruments.

Unanimously adopting resolution 2370 (2017), the Council reaffirmed its previous decision in resolution 1373 (2001) that all States should refrain from providing any form of support to those involved in terrorist acts, including by eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists. The Council also encouraged Member States to take appropriate steps to prevent and disrupt activity that would violate Council-mandated arms embargos and reaffirmed its intention to strengthen relevant arms embargoes’ monitoring mechanisms.

Sounds great! Except...The UN has not, to this day defined "terrorism." And as such, it cannot define who these terrorist groups are that should not be getting weapons.

To be sure, the resolution mentions ISIL and Al Qaeda explicitly. In the preamble, for example, it says “Strongly condemning the continued flow of weapons, including small arms and light weapons, military equipment, unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) and their components, and improvised explosive device (IED) components to and between ISIL (also known as Da’esh), Al-Qaida, their affiliates, and associated groups, illegal armed groups and criminals, and encouraging Member States to prevent and disrupt procurement networks for such weapons, systems and components between ISIL (also known as Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities."

But Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups that target civilians are not covered by this resolution. UN members say this explicitly, as this video I produced last year with Human Rights Voices shows:

The UN has not, to this day, defined terrorism. And members openly promote some kinds of terrorism. So forgive me for being skeptical that a group that doesn't know what terrorism is claims that they are fighting terror.

In the discussions before passing this resolution, the only moral clarity came from Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN:

NIKKI HALEY (United States) noted that the resolution called attention to the obligation of all States to enforce United Nations arms embargoes. Despite the Council’s efforts, weapons continued to flow into Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. That was an unacceptable stain on the Council’s authority that must be removed. Although great progress had been made against Da’esh and Al-Qaida, weapons continued to find their way into the hands of terrorists. One country, Iran, stood out for its deliberate actions to support terrorist groups. She recalled that, in 1984, the United States had designated Iran as a State sponsor of terrorism. Now, terrorist proxies were carrying out the Iranian regime’s will in Iraq and Syria, while with Iran’s support, Hizbullah was preparing for war in Lebanon through the build-up of a stockpile of weapons and battle-hardened troops. She encouraged the Council to be aware that weapons don’t just “fall” into the hands of terrorists; too often they were pushed. As long as Iran was allowed to violate the Council’s resolutions, it would be a source of weapons for terrorists.

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.

08/03 Links Pt2: The myth of Balad al-Shaykh. A massacre that never happened; Britain: A Summer of Anti-Semitism

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council

The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.
McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.
Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump's visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall.
What hasn't been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn't. It was McMaster.
And even that, it works out wasn't sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial -- ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.
In May, Adam Lovinger, a pro-Trump national security strategist on loan from the Pentagon's office of net assessment was summarily informed that his security clearance was revoked. He was fired and escorted from the White House like a spy and put on file duty at the Pentagon.
Lovinger is a seasoned strategic analyst who McMaster hated because he supported India over Pakistan, among other things.
Lovinger has not been told the grounds for his sudden loss of clearance but Mike Cernovich reported that the grounds were that he traveled to Israel for a family bar mitzvah. In other words, there were no grounds for dismissal. His boss at the Pentagon -- unbelievably named James Baker, is an Obama hire who hates Trump and supports Obama's agenda.

David Collier: The myth of Balad al-Shaykh. A massacre that never happened

Using historical Haganah records and the research of Uri Milstein, Benny Morris put together an account that was unable to accurately specify casualty numbers from the attack. Needing to rely on separate accounts that didn’t agree with each other, Morris was left to conclude in Birth Revisited (see page 101 of book, page 124 in PDF) that anywhere between twenty-one and seventy died.
When anti-Zionists are given a choice between two conflicting numbers, they will always choose the higher number. Ilan Pappe, who quotes Morris & Milstein as the source, simply says ‘over 60 died’ (Pappe, Ethnic Cleansing, pp59. 2006. One World). As Pappe has no other source listed, his use of ’60+’ highlights perfectly, the sort of shoddy, agenda driven, propaganda, that he produces and calls ‘history’. Thus a massacre of 60-70 people, is etched in our history books. Propaganda sites such as ‘Palestineremembered’, call it “a new years eve Massacre”. It is now firmly part of the bubble called ‘Nakba’.
Although this is the way history has recorded the Balad al-Shaykh ‘massacre’. The idea of the Palmach units going from house to house and executing dozens of people is a complete fabrication. Here is what really occurred:
....
This means that probably, nine Arabs died at Balad al-Shaykh. Seven adult males (assuming Mohammed Hasal is an adult male) and two children.
There were thirty people injured. The vast majority (about 25) male. Five of the injured were children. The male majority providing an indication of what actually happened. A mix of the two accounts. With a casualty figure stripped of the exaggeration of both sides. The Jews attempted a revenge attack for the events of the refinery, they were met with stiffer than expected resistance, they were forced to withdraw. Final fatality count. Nine Arabs, Three Jews.
This is how the Nakba myth is developed and propagated by sloppy historian activists who do not seem to care about the truth at all. An overestimate of twenty-one, became a massacre of sixty plus. In reality the death toll was probably nine. And all the while a file containing the truth was waiting to be uncovered in Kew.
As usual, this website conducts intensive research and fights to expose the truth. It is time to put the lie about Balad al-Shaykh to bed.

DISGUSTING: Australian Council Bans Building Of Synagogue Because It Could Be Targeted By Islamic Terrorists

A local council in Australia has banned the construction of a Jewish synagogue in Bondi out of fear that it could become a target of Islamic terrorism.
“The decision, which has rocked the longstanding Jewish community in the iconic suburb, was upheld in court this week as the nation reeled from the alleged airline terror threat and debate raged over increased security measures at airports and other public places,” reports news.com.au. “The Land and Environment Court backed the decision by Waverley Council to prohibit the construction of the synagogue in Wellington St, Bondi — just a few hundred metres from Australia’s most famous beach — because it was too much of a security risk for users and local residents.”
Adding insult to injury, the council is preventing the synagogue from submitting a plan with aggressive security measures. Their rationale? The measures would risk the “safety and security of future users of the Synagogue, nearby residents, motorists and pedestrians in Wellington Street and the physical measures proposed to deal with the identified threats will have an unacceptable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties.”
Put another way, a strong security presence wouldn’t look all that great on the street corner.
The council’s campaign to shut down the synagogue has the already besieged Jewish community distraught. Community leaders are livid over what they see as a blatant infringement on freedom of religion. (h/t Yenta Press)

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Tisha b’Av was weird for me this year. I sat in shul and listened to the eicha reading, and it spoke to me about current events, not about what happened thousands of years ago. Last week the Jewish people suffered a terrible defeat, but unlike the sack of Jerusalem life went on though the wall was already breached. Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed and we didn’t eat our children, and everything is continuing as it was before – perhaps there is an upsurge in Arab terrorism, but as yet it’s still small (give it time) – but notice or not, we have just passed over a crack in history, one of those currently invisible seams that historians a hundred years from now will describe as chasms.

The Arabs noticed. What most Jewish Israelis saw as yet another incident in Jerusalem (and most diaspora Jews had no idea even occurred) was marked by the Arabs with celebrations, giving out sweets and firing in the air. The Arabs who breathe the air of symbolism and national honor understood the significance of their victory over the yahood.

All your enemies have opened their mouths wide against you; they hissed and gnashed their teeth and said, "We have engulfed her! Indeed, this is the day we longed for; we have found it; we have seen it!" – Eicha, II-16

At first it seemed the opposite. It seemed as though we might have started to turn around what has been an inexorable process of retreat and submission that began almost immediately after our great victory in 1967, when the entirety of the holy city of Jerusalem and its Temple Mount came into our possession for the first time since the days of King David. “What do we need this whole Vatican for?” said Moshe Dayan, when he relinquished control of the Mount to the Muslim waqf and planted the seed for the conflict over the heart of our land that has been simmering and sometimes boiling ever since.

Dayan and the de facto alliance of Haredim and leftists that would be happy without “this whole Vatican” ignored the symbolic importance of this spot, the center of the world for Judaism. But the Arabs did not ignore it. Every chance they got, they pushed and chipped and nibbled away at the “status quo,” which actually hasn’t been static at all but has moved steadily in the direction of the Muslims for the past 50 years.

So our government installed metal detectors and cameras in response to the bloody murder of our policemen, a step that any rational being can understand, and the Arabs answered by inciting their street to rage and murdering three members of a Jewish family. But then the unexpected happened. The waqf called for a boycott of the site, and for the first time in years Jews could walk about on the Temple Mount unmolested!

Some of us thought that this time the Arabs had overreached themselves. This time all we have to do is stand firm to assert our sovereignty over the place that, after all, is in the center of our capital. Maybe this can be the start of a process that could bring about a change in the demeaning policy that Jews aren’t allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, or do anything (even to cry) that looks to our Muslim overlords like praying. Maybe more hours could be allocated to Jewish visits, and maybe the banshees that shriek allahu akbar into Jewish ears could finally be banished.

But as everyone knows, we did not stand firm. None of the above will happen. There were riots all over the country and even in Europe and the US, and our leaders, our Prime Minister, blinked. We removed the metal detectors, took down the security cameras, and when that didn’t calm the ravening mob we even removed the scaffolding that had been installed to hold the cameras. At the same time announcements were made about new super-high tech security devices that someday would replace them.

As if. The Arabs weren’t fooled. They understood that we had submitted to their demands, submitted, actually, to the power of Islam, because the Jewish people are weak, because we are cowards, because we aren’t prepared to fight for what belongs to us. All of the explanations, the excuse of the crisis with Jordan – we had to bring the hostages home, didn’t we? – the need to calm things down, the argument that the metal detectors would be difficult to use and wouldn’t provide adequate security (so no security is better?), it’s all a bunch of crap and the Arabs know it.

And the victory has made them hunger for more. Maybe it will become harder for Jews to visit the Mount. Or maybe they will press their claim for what they call the “al-Buraq wall” (our Kotel). Maybe they will find a new issue that nobody has thought of yet. Or maybe they will just try harder to murder Jews wherever and whenever they can.

What starts in Jerusalem spreads throughout the country. Just a few hours ago in a town next to mine, an Arab walked into a supermarket, pulled out a knife and stabbed one of the workers. The victim is currently fighting for his life. Expect more like this.

Our government made a serious mistake. But not because nobody predicted what would happen. Many voices in and out of politics told them to be strong. And not because they didn’t know what to expect. Simply, they couldn’t take the pressure, so they gave in.

Personally, I have lost confidence in PM Netanyahu. Not because I think he didn’t understand the situation or our enemies, but because he did. He understood, but he didn’t act with strength as he should have. It’s not the first time.

Today the Jewish state and Jewish people are threatened from multiple directions. There is very little room left for mistakes or weakness.

Where (and who) are our leaders?

And gone from the daughter of Zion is all her splendor; her princes were like harts who did not find pasture, and they departed without strength before their pursuer. – Eicha, I-6

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.

I saw this in Al Moslim in an article called "Do Jews Control the World?"

It doesn't matter what the final judgment on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is, whether they are true or false. What is happening on the ground has bypassed the Protocols and shown their validity implicitly; it does not matter if the document is true or fabricated.

There ya go.

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.

08/03 Links Pt1: Abbas' Guard: "Water freedom with blood of Palestine`s sons"; Gaza-Turkey-Hebron terror money trail uncovered

From Ian:

PMW: Abbas' Presidential Guard: "Water freedom with blood of Palestine`s sons"

Palestinian leaders have portrayed the last few weeks of Palestinian riots and protests against Israel's enhanced security measures at the Temple Mount as a "battle for the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem." When Israel ultimately removed its metal detectors and cameras, it was portrayed by Palestinians as a "victory," yet the PA warned it was only one of more "rounds of battle."
Celebrating this "victory," and possibly expecting future "wins" for Palestinians, the PA's Presidential Guards posted this comment, glorifying the sacrifice of "the blood of Palestine's sons" for "freedom":
"A people like the people of Palestine that has watered the freedom with the blood of its sons can only win #Yasser_Arafat" [Facebook page of the PA Presidential Guard, July 31, 2017]
Palestinian Media Watch has shown that PA and Fatah leaders are fond of the imagery of "watering Palestine with blood," and at times almost worship the "blood of Martyrs" who have "died for Palestine," as was the case during the wave of Palestinian terror attacks in 2015-2016.
The image posted with the PA Presidential Guards' endorsement of "watering with blood" shows a picture of Yasser Arafat overlaid with the colors of the Palestinian flag together with the PA map of "Palestine" that presents all of Israel as "Palestine" together with the PA areas, painted in the colors of the Palestinian flag. This designates Palestinian sovereignty over the entire area. As PMW has documented, the denial of Israel's right to exist is a consistent message of the PA.

UNRWA Jordan staff page celebrates Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. "You became Gaza. Allahu Akbar." https://t.co/6qAaeOl8r3 pic.twitter.com/eGzwG0IMc4
— UN Watch (@UNWatch) August 2, 2017

US video against PLO state a huge hit in Israel

A 5.5-minute video in which Middle East strategy analyst Mark Langfan explains the dangers on the "two state solution" has become a viral hit in Israel, more than three years after it originally aired on CBN.
After being featured in November on a Facebook page created by grassroots Zionist activists called Kol Ha'am ("The People's Voice"), the Hebrew-subtitled clip has garnered 367,000 views to date, which – combined with its views elsewhere on social media, puts it at a total of about 500,000 total views, most of them from Israelis.
In terms of views per population, this would be the equivalent of 33 million views for a video targeting the US audience. It is currently shooting up at over 20,000 views per day.
In the video, Langfan, a New York-based attorney, pro-Israel activist and media analyst appears on Erick Stakelbeck's show, "The Watchman", to clarify what could – and probably would – happen, if Israel were ever to allow Palestinian statehood in Judea and Samaria.
Using a three dimensional map of Israel, a few pieces of colored Plexiglas and a lot of old-fashioned common sense – Langfan demonstrates the ease with which Arab control of the mountainous Biblical heartland would place 70% of Israel's Jewish populace and 80% of its industrial base within the range of truck-based chemical weapons of mass destruction.