Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 07, 2018

06/07 Links Pt1: Palestine- failing the test of history; Hamas wants Gaza border protesters to die; Sohrab Ahmari: Anything for the Ayatollah; America’s Cash-for-Genocide Program in Syria

From Ian:

Merit is no qualification for freedom…. Freedom is enjoyed when you are so well armed, or so turbulent, or inhabit a country so thorny that the expense of your neighbour's occupying you is greater than the profit. -From a letter by T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a.”Lawrence of Arabia”) published July 22, 1920, in The Times of London setting out a case for the political independence for the Arabs in the Middle East.

Despite being written almost a century ago Lawrence’s diagnosis is still extremely pertinent in assessing the validity of the frequently aired view that "the Palestinians deserve a state of their own."

Indeed, such views have been explicitly expounded by US Administrations for well over a decade from George W. Bush to Barack Obama ,who both incorporated the idea into their "visions" for the Middle East.

Cannot condition national sovereignty on regime type
In the past, several pro-Israeli pundits have tried to dispute the widely accepted contention that "the Palestinians do indeed deserve a state" Some, like author Naomi Ragen, have warned of the unsavory nature that such a state would take – devoid of any semblance of law and order and due process, tolerance of religious diversity, right of political dissidence, freedom of expression, or regard for the status of women. Others, like former Israeli government minister Natan Sharansky, have argued that Palestinian statehood should be conditioned on the emergence of Palestinian democratization.

Regrettably, despite factual accuracy and moral validity, objections of this ilk cannot serve as a binding political criterion for national independence.

Sohrab Ahmari: Anything for the Ayatollah

The full history of the Obama administration’s nuclear dealings with Iran has yet to be written, not least because many of the details remain shrouded in secrecy. The bits of the story that do seep out into the public sphere invariably reinforce a single theme: that of Barack Obama’s utter abjection and pusillanimity before Tehran, and his corresponding contempt for the American people and their elected representatives.

Wednesday’s bombshell Associated Press scoop detailing the Obama administration’s secret effort to help Tehran gain access to the American financial system was a case study. In the months after Iran and the great powers led by the U.S. agreed on the nuclear deal, the Obama Treasury Department issued a special license that would have permitted the Tehran regime to convert some $6 billion in assets held in Omani rials into U.S. dollars before eventually trading them for euros. That middle step—the conversion from Omani to American currency—would have violated sanctions that remained in place even after the nuclear accord.

That’s according to the AP’s Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee, citing a newly released report from the GOP-led Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Lederman and Lee write: “The effort was unsuccessful because American banks—themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions—declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion . . . but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.”

Put another way: The Obama administration pressed American banks to sidestep rules barring Iran from the U.S. financial system, and the only reason the transaction didn’t take place was because the banks had better legal and moral sense than the Obama Treasury.

America’s Cash-for-Genocide Program in Syria

Agents of Influence: Obama and his advisers, now seeking to shape his legacy, say they are proud they ditched the ‘Washington playbook’ and decided to stay out of the Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East. Only they didn’t. They intervened on behalf of Iran.

Like the president he served, Ben Rhodes wanted to stop Bashar al-Assad from gassing little children. But it was complicated.

In an excerpt from his new book, The World As It Is, published in The Atlantic, Barack Obama’s former deputy national security adviser explains the decision-making that led Obama to choose against bombing Assad targets in late summer 2013. Among other issues, writes Rhodes, the White House didn’t know if it could trust the assessment coming from the American intelligence community claiming that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people. U.S. spies got Iraq wrong. Obama was elected because he got Iraq right.

With that in mind, Obama told Rhodes that “it is too easy for a president to go to war.” Also, the White House could find no legal basis to strike Syria. The Europeans backed off at the last minute, and Senate Republicans like Marco Rubio, who talked a tough game, refused to vote for the authorization of military force.

Endowed with a tragic sense of life, Obama knew that in the end there was little he or anyone could do to stop the slaughter in Syria. As Rhodes writes: “I was also wrestling with my own creeping suspicion that Obama was right in his reluctance to intervene militarily in Syria. Maybe we couldn’t do much to direct events inside the Middle East; maybe U.S. military intervention in Syria would only make things worse.”

Obama himself has said that his decision not to bomb Assad was the moment that he broke with what he derisively called the “Washington playbook.”

It is all about Israel

As I was looking at articles in Argentina about the soccer controversy, I came across a pithy anecdote mentioned by a writer for La Nacion, Andrés Malamud:

"The problem in the Middle East is that Israel is a racist state." With the theater full, the phrase is received without ovations or whistles. After all, Portugal is "a country of gentle customs". Here they never shout much, neither in favor nor against. Ilan Pappé, an Israeli historian who is self-exiled in England for being a critic of his country, finishes the speech and begins the round of questions. I raise my hand before anyone else and inquire if there is any state in the Middle East that is not racist. His response deafened an audience that was already silent: "that's not the problem".

The problem is not racism. The problem is Israel. It is understood.

There you have the entire arena of double standards, delegitimization and demonization against Israel in a single sentence.

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.

Argentina pretty much admits that death threats against players prompted quitting Israel match

The Argentina newspaper La Nacion has covered the story about their team planning to play in Israel and how they changed their minds - and it is pretty clear that the death threats against the players, primarily Messi, is what caused the country to cave.

A noisy but small protest outside where the players were practicing was the subject ofa story on Tuesday, before the decision. Bloody team jerseys and loud horns dominated the protest that the players could hear. The paper pointed out that some of the protesters were Muslim.

The bloody shirts were an obvious threat.

The foreign ministry came out with a statement after the Argentina Football Association made its decision, distancing itself from the decision, but mentioning the threats:

"It is always the fact that it is not good when a sporting event awakens a situation of animosity....the players of the selection faced a series of threats that came by way of Internet giving them a negative image by the fact that they were to play in Israel, they have felt restless and therefore they preferred not to do this match... It is not good whenever a decision arises from threats or a situation of discomfort".

An op-ed writer, Gabriel Chocron, was more explicit:

A political leader thirsty for publicity managed to turn this sports party into a victory for fear, threats and terrorism. Jibril Rajoub, current president of the Palestinian Football Federation, unscrupulously threatened Argentine players - and Lionel Messi in particular - that they would become enemies of Muslims around the world for participating in the friendly against Israel. Rajoub drove a sad campaign of intimidation and threats to the players and their families, to the point that they felt fear for their physical integrity.

Chocron ends off with:

Beyond the opinion that each one may have in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the cancellation of this party is a victory for hatred, fear and terrorism. The World Cup has not started yet, but the Argentine national team has already lost its first points.

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.

For the second day in a row, Palestinian workers at the Kerem Shalom crossing have gone on a partial strike, closing down the only major route for goods to enter Gaza for half a day.

The strike is over not being paid their full wages by the Palestinian Authority and over benefits.

On Wednesday, they stopped work from 8 AM to 1 PM, and only worked for four hours. It looks like the same thing is happening today.

There are no negotiations going on with the PA so the strike looks like it is open-ended.

I could not find a single story in English about this.

When Israel closes the crossing for security reasons or even for holidays, there are inevitably stories about how Israel is punishing Gazans.

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.

Review: Ten From The Nations (Judean Rose)

Hat-tipping my source for a story about the appointment of Christian missionary Hananya Naftali as Netanyahu’s new media advisor landed me in hot water with some of my readers back in April. Dr. Rivkah Lambert Adler, they said, was part of the problem. By acknowledging her as the source of my story regarding one Christian missionary, they felt I sanctioned others.

That’s because Dr. Adler works closely with non-Jews who seek their personal truths in the Torah, or so they say. Adler shares their stories in her book Ten From The Nations: Torah Awakening Among Non-Jews. She also has a blog that continues where her book left off.

Besides offering a platform for these non-Jews, both book and blog offer a voice to the Jews involved in working with them. These are Jews helping non-Jews who express an interest in Torah find their way, whatever that way may be.

To be clear, Dr. Adler places Hananya Naftali squarely in the box of Christian missionary, as do I. But in many respects, this is where we part ways. We talked about this, and she asked if she could send me her book. Unhappily, I said yes.

I wasn’t thrilled to read the stories of non-Jews I believed to be missionaries infiltrating my country and stealing Jewish souls. But I respect Dr. Adler as a colleague and as a person. She is a wonderful writer and a good person. I know this from my dealings with her over the years and from watching the way she uses her writing to help organizations and individuals.

I decided I would at least try to keep an open mind regarding her book.

The book arrived. I started to read. It wasn’t pleasant. There is a lot of Jesus talk in this book. As a religious Jew, it makes me nervous to read this stuff. You surround yourself with this invisible shield of “NO” as you read, so that none of it enters your heart. And still, you worry it will have an effect.

I felt that I had a grimace pasted on my face the entire time I read. It made me that uncomfortable, this book. It made me feel dirty.

Though she writes her own preface and a chapter relating her own story, Dr. Adler mainly serves as editor here. Her book gives voice to the various people in this world she has encountered in which non-Jews have rejected the established norms of Christology. Some of the people in her book embrace Judaism and convert. Others reject Jesus but adopt the 7 Noachide laws as Bnei Noach, rather than convert. Finally, there are the Ephraimites who believe in Jesus but use the framework of the Jewish bible for their religious context.

There is no doubt that all of these people bucked the worlds they came from. They risked their relationships with family, friends, and community for their unusual beliefs. Some of them lost their jobs because they worked as clerics and once they rejected mainstream Christianity, they lost their careers and their churches.

And of course you might say that all of the people featured in this book are strange ducks. They don’t fit into normative society. So you’re suspicious. You wonder how much you can credit them, knowing they’re all odd men (and women) out: iconoclasts. Are they the kind of people that must always buck trends? Or are their journeys a sincere awakening?

You don’t mind and are even inspired by the stories of those who convert or become Bnei Noach, but wonder why Ephraimites are lumped together with those who renounce Jesus and embrace the Torah as if the three groups are monolithic. This, to my mind, is a major fault of this book. If someone is a seeker and finds Torah, bravo. But if someone is a seeker and still sees Jesus as the answer, cherry-picking from the Torah to round things out, then NO. I don’t need to know about you. It’s just another false, manmade ideology. It’s a distortion of the truth.

The Ephraimites are problematic, even dangerous, from my point of view. They seem to see themselves as rivals to the Jews. They think they’re from the biblical Kingdom of Israel as opposed to the Jews, who are traditionally associated with the biblical Kingdom of Judah. Some of the Ephraimites are living in Israel as part of HaYovel, an organization that helps Jews plant and harvest their vineyards. Others are living as close as they can get to Israel, in Aqaba, Jordan.

The Ephraimites still believe in Jesus. They just think the New Testament gets it wrong, having discovered some of the inconsistencies between the bible and that book, as well as the internal inconsistencies of the New Testament.

The grapevine, if you’ll excuse the pun, tells me that the Ephraimites are trying to raise money for a large center in Gush Etzion. This is very disturbing to me as a believing Jew. I don’t think these people belong in my country, which is a Jewish State. I don’t think they should be able to preach Jesus and missionize in the heart of my neighborhood.

I didn’t move to Israel for more of that.

I don’t understand why some rabbis and religious Jews support their endeavor.

I don’t understand why any Jew wants to help these people, instead of their own people, as a calling. I think that’s bizarre.

I don’t understand why Jews want to help non-Jews learn Torah. I have always learned that it is forbidden to teach non-Jews Torah (except in regard to the 7 Noachide commandments, which non-Jews have to know and follow). The fact that it is forbidden to teach non-Jews Torah outside of the Noachide laws isn’t even touched on by any of the Jews cited in Ten From The Nations.

And if it isn’t as much of a problem as I think it is, teaching Torah to non-Jews, then why doesn’t the book contain a letter of approbation as is common practice in a book meant to be read by Torah Jews? Why don’t some of the Jews in the book write about this and explain why they think that teaching Torah beyond the Noachide laws to non-Jews is permissible?

Dr. Adler sees the process of non-Jews seeking the truth through the vehicle of the Jewish Torah as a fulfillment of the prophecy, the coming of the Redemption and Messianic times. She sees this work as holy work.

I do not. I see it as a misdirection. This is not what Jews are supposed to do. Being a “light unto the nations” doesn’t mean preaching Torah to them. It means being a good and moral example. No more, no less.

I couldn't care less if these people find their way to the truth as I see it. That isn’t and shouldn’t be a focus of the Jewish people. Our goal should be to do the commandments and strengthen our own people. This makes the world in general a better place. What non-Jews do, on the other hand, is up to them.

We aren’t supposed to teach, persuade, or work with non-Jews in a Torah context.

If they, on the other hand, manage to push past this very traditional Torah attitude and actually convert, well, that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame.

If they become Jewish, they ARE Jewish. They were with me at Mount Sinai when we received the Torah. It takes a fight and a lot of difficulty, a lot of pushing away, to get to the point of conversion. If they make it, they’ve passed the test and I fully embrace them.

I also very much respect the Bnei Noach, those who have rejected Jesus and embrace the 7 Noachide laws as a lifestyle. I have to say I never understood why they don’t convert to Judaism. That is until I read Ten From The Nations, which is the main value for me in reading this book. I now understand that the Bnei Noach see the Jews something like the way we see Cohanim, as a priestly caste. Or as my husband put it: why would they want to convert—they get to eat bacon!

And it’s not even a sin for them!

Prior to writing this review, I wrote to Dr. Adler, outlining my objections to her book, while praising the understanding it gave me of the Bnei Noach movement. She said there are many rabbis that approve this work, pointing me to this "ask the rabbi"article: https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Ask-the-rabbi-May-a-Jew-teach-Torah-to-a-gentile and citing Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, whose views have sometimes been regarded as controversial. I personally would need approbation to come from more mainstream rabbis in order to come on board with this sort of focused work.

Dr. Adler also tells me her views have altered in some ways since the book was published. She says that her understanding of Jews being a “light unto the nations” has, for instance, changed. She also tells me that some of the holy-rolling Ephraimites in her book have since renounced Jesus.

But again, I really don’t care what they do (and don’t trust it, either). From my perspective, this has no bearing on my life or on my people. In fact, if I were looking for signs that the end times are near, I’d look at Iran inching ever closer to the bomb before looking at this very small number of people feeling their pulse about the gospel.

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: Sirhan Sirhan, Forgotten Terrorist; Argentina soccer match canceled over terrorism, not a boycott; Rockefeller Fund gives to groups funding Palestinian terrorism

From Ian:

Sirhan Sirhan, Forgotten Terrorist

Because the assassination came just over four years after his brother President John F. Kennedy was murdered in Dallas, and just two months after Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down in Memphis, the nation focused on gun violence and hatred of the Kennedy family in its aftermath. Many blamed right-wing racists, since the Kennedys had supported the civil-rights movement. I was in school back then, and I remember the most common phrase: “They killed another Kennedy.” The “they” was generic. It wasn’t an individual; it referred to a supposed violent streak that ran through American culture and mythology all the way back to our frontier days.

But a single individual killed Kennedy for very specific reasons. Sirhan was obsessed with both Israel and Jews. He was born in British Mandatory Palestine in 1944 and emigrated to the United States in 1956, attending school in Los Angeles. Yet even though the California economy of the 1950s and 1960s was one of the strongest in the world, Sirhan never took advantage of what surrounded him: He worked as a stable boy and never became a U.S. citizen.

The shooting took place on the one-year anniversary of Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War. This was no coincidence. When Kennedy was 22 years old, he traveled to Palestine, writing articles for the Boston Post about his admiration for the country’s Jewish inhabitants. As a senator from New York, Kennedy continued his strong support of Israel. Shortly before the assassination, in a televised debate with his chief Democratic rival, Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy, Kennedy said he supported the sale of fighter jets to Israel.

Indeed, Kennedy was a consistent and staunch supporter of Israel — which infuriated Sirhan. In a 1989 interview with David Frost, Sirhan said: “My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Indifferent to Muslim Antisemitism

Muslim antisemitism receives scant mention from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that is supposed to be dedicated to “fighting hate and extremism.” Its website has 1,327 articles on non-Muslim antisemitic actions, statements, or hate crimes. But less than 10 articles out of thousands mention Muslim antisemitism.

Instead, the SPLC aligns with Islamist groups and leaders — including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) — while giving their antisemitism a pass.

The SPLC’s credibility has already been questioned. It took down its media guide this year after Quilliam Foundation co-founder Maajid Nawaz pointed out that it contained fabrications about him.

While the report may be gone, SPLC Intelligence Project Director Heidi Beirich has yet to correct a false accusation she made against Nawaz, claiming that he was placed on a list of anti-Muslim extremists in part because he supported vast surveillance of Muslims.

Beirich has produced no evidence to support the claim, which Nawaz insists is a lie.

“The SPLC says it fights hate. Yet it criticizes groups that call out Jew-hating Islamists and ignores groups packed with Jew-hating Islamists,” Center for Security Policy Executive Vice President Christopher Hull told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

U.N. Accused of Doctoring Video to Erase Leading Pro-Israel Speaker’s Credentials

The United Nations is facing accusations it doctored an official video to remove all mention of a leading pro-Israel speaker's credentials ahead of a scathing speech accusing the international organization of promoting anti-Semitism and hatred against Israel, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Professor Anne Bayefsky, the director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, was recently invited by the Israeli government to speak at an event at the U.N. on anti-Semitism about the harmful impact of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, a global campaign to economically isolate the Jewish state that has widely been discredited as anti-Semitic in nature. Bayefsky specifically addressed anti-Semitism at the U.N. itself.

In an official video of the May 30 event posted on the U.N.'s website, all mention of Bayefsky's credentials and longstanding status as a leading expert on anti-Semitism was initially erased, leaving a confusing gap that she claims diminished the speech's impact.

Bayefsky, a vocal critic of the U.N.'s anti-Israel bias, alleged in a subsequent video highlighting the U.N.'s deletion that the international body was engaged in an attempt to revise history and weaken a speech that called out in stark terms the entire U.N. for its promotion of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic policies.

U.N. officials who spoke to the Free Beacon admitted the original video deleted all mention of Bayefsky's credentials, but explained this was due to a technical issue that was rectified soon after the Free Beacon began its initial inquiries in the matter.

Tens of thousands of Muslims on Temple Mount upset over a few dozen Jews

Literally every day, Palestinian media continues to demonize Jews who want to worship at their holiest spot.

Here's today's example from FPNP:

Settler gangs continue to storm Al-Aqsa Mosque

On Wednesday morning, dozens of extremist settlers stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied city of Jerusalem from the Mughrabi Gate, under heavy guard from the Israeli Special Police.

According to sources, 120 extremists accompanied by intelligence officers and special forces stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque in several groups during the morning, and roamed in his courtyard provocatively, with tight security.

They explained that during the incursion the settlers carried out rituals in the Al Aqsa Square, specifically in the area of Bab al-Rahma, but worshipers and guards responded to them, where the voices of worshipers raised in protest to the continued incursions in the last ten days of the holy month of Ramadan.

Tens of thousands of Palestinian worshipers performed Taraweeh and Ta'i prayers in the Al-Aqsa Mosque amidst a distinctive atmosphere of faith. The mosque is witnessing a remarkable increase in the numbers of worshipers who are leading it to revive the last ten days of Ramadan, despite the restrictions of the occupation.

Here are the "settler gangs:"

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: Gaza border clashes financed by Iran; Poverty Isn’t What Causes Gaza’s Endemic Violence; Obama Skirted U.S. Sanctions to Grant Iran Billions in Cash

From Ian:

PA warned Paris that Gaza border clashes financed by Iran — report

The Palestinian Authority informed the French government last month that Iran was financing and encouraging the weeks of violent protests along the Gaza border, Channel 10 reported Tuesday.

“Iran is fully financing and pushing the Hamas demonstrations,” Salman al-Harfi, the Palestinian ambassador to France, reportedly told a government official. “The PA has no choice but to support the demonstrations because so may of the participants are demonstrating against the economic situation.”

While the Ramallah-based PA does not support the Hamas-led protests, the Palestinian ambassador said it “does condemn Israel’s response, because most of the protesters are non-violent.”

Last week Iran agreed in principle to renew its funding for the Hamas terror group, according to a report published in a London-based Arabic daily.

The move reportedly sparked anger in Iran, which is experiencing an economic crisis and in recent days Iranian protesters have been throwing away charity boxes for the Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation after a film showed it gave millions of dollars to Palestinians rather than direct the money to needy Iranians.

Poverty Isn’t What Causes Gaza’s Endemic Violence. It’s the Other Way Around

No cliché has dominated the discourse on the Gaza situation more than the perception of Palestinian violence as a corollary of the Strip’s dire economic condition. No sooner had Hamas and Israel been locked in yet another armed confrontation over the past weeks than the media, foreign policy experts, and politicians throughout the world urged the immediate rehabilitation of Gaza as panacea to its endemic propensity for violence. Even senior members of the Israel Defense Forces opined that a “nonmilitary process” of humanitarian aid could produce a major change in the Gaza situation.

While there is no denying the argument’s widespread appeal, there is also no way around the fact that it is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. For it is not Gaza’s economic malaise that has precipitated Palestinian violence; rather, it is the endemic violence that has caused the Strip’s humanitarian crisis.

For one thing, countless nations and groups in today’s world endure far harsher socioeconomic or political conditions than the Palestinians, yet none has embraced violence and terrorism against their neighbors with such alacrity and on such a massive scale.

For another thing, there is no causal relationship between economic hardship and mass violence. On the contrary: in the modern world it is not the poor and oppressed who have carried out the worst acts of terrorism and violence, but rather the militant vanguards from among the better educated and more moneyed circles of society – be they homegrown terrorist groups in the West or their Middle Eastern counterparts.

Yasser Arafat, for instance, was an engineer, and his fellow arch terrorist George Habash – the pioneer of aircraft hijacking – a physician. Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a schoolteacher, while his successor, Sayyid Qutb, whose zealous brand of Islam fired generations of terrorists, including the group behind the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, was a literary critic and essayist. The 9/11 terrorists and certainly their multimillionaire paymaster, Osama bin Laden, as well as the terrorists who massacred their British compatriots in July 2005 and those slaughtering their coreligionists in Algeria and Iraq, were not impoverished peasants or workers driven by hopelessness and desperation but educated fanatics motivated by hatred and extreme religious and political ideals.

Forest Jihad: Palestinian Arabs have been setting terror fires since the 1920s

There is nothing new about using fires for terror. Palestinians in fact innovated the practice.

Here is some background on Palestinian use of fires as a weapon of terror written in 2009:

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, arson comprised about one-third of all forest fires in Israel, which is a very large proportion. Some of the sources of this arson were identified as the work of criminals, whose sole aim was to collect the insurance money. However, many instances of arson in the late 1980s were directly related to the Palestinian uprising (the first Intifada). Palestinians have used arson in the past as an insurgency method, as early as the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, but in the 1980s it was adopted as a highly visible action against Israel. Arson was found to be easy to execute: all one had to do was cross the old border between the West Bank and Israel, which was unguarded and open to all, start a fire in one of the many forests in the hilly areas near the border, and then disappear. According to the International Forest Fire News (IFFN), between 1988 and 1991 the number of fires attributed to arson rose to over 30%, which was explained by an increase in politically motivated arson associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[7]

There were frequent occurrences of forest fires in areas adjacent to the old "Green Line" border between Israel and the West Bank, during the years 1988-1990. Between 288 and 388 forest fires were caused by arson, which occurred in areas near the old pre-1967 border.[8] In some of the fires, which occurred in northern Israel, Israeli Arab Palestinians were found to be responsible. These fires were extraordinary, given the fact that in 1988, there was a great deal of rain and, as a result, the vegetation was highly combustible.

The Intifada militants also began to systematically burn Israeli fields, orchards and forests, and whilst no lives were lost, considerable damage was caused.[9] Interviews conducted in 1988 with local Fatah leaders from the Tulkarem region, revealed that forests were regarded as the Israel government's property and were therefore a symbol deserving of arson.[10] Setting fires was employed as a tactic, politically motivated, aimed at damaging Israel's economy and exhausting its resources. The Palestinian propaganda increased the perception that forests were used intensively by the State of Israel as a “political tool”, to mark its presence on the ground along the “Green Line”, in order to underline its existing borders after the 1948 war and the creation of the State of Israel, which the Palestinians totally rejected (until the Oslo Accords in 1993).

During the initial Intifada period, Palestinians started dozens of Israeli forest fires, some quite extensive, intentionally as acts of arson for political reasons.[11] The evidence is overwhelming that these were deliberate acts of political sabotage and Palestinian arsonists have been apprehended as a result.[12] The Israeli police have apprehended Palestinians and Israeli Arabs in the act of setting fires, while others confessed to arson after their arrest.[13]

Some fires followed specific calls by underground Palestinian terror organizations to torch forests, and cause economic damage to Israel and its symbols. Incidents of arson proliferated during the period of the first Intifada, the inciting rhetoric was often disseminated in the leaflets, praising arson and call upon Palestinians to burn the land from underneath the Jews.

Some fires followed specific calls by underground Palestinian terror groups. The instances of arson carried out by the Palestinians were in accordance with the instructions issued by the underground leadership,”The Unified National Command of the Uprising ”(Al- Qiyada Al- Wataniyya Al- Muwahada lil-Intifada-Arabic)[14] which published leaflets providing information and instructions to the population. Typewritten leaflets were distributed across the West Bank and Gaza with instructions for action to be taken against Israel.

Leaflet No. 3 of the “Unified National Command of the Uprising” dated to 31 January 1988,” called for a fire to be set underneath the invader’s feet”[15]. Leaflet No. 7, issued on 13 February 1988, contained amongst other directions and instructions to perpetrate violent activities, a call to”..convert the uprising into a continious war of attrition against the occupation and its forces, causing heavy loss of human lives and damage to the political, economic and moral spheres”.[16] A leaflet distributed in the Ramallah region in the West Bank on 10 January 1988, on behalf of “The Women’s Association”(identified with the Fatah, The Palestinian Popular Front, The Palestinian Democratic Front and the Palestinian Communist Party) called to “praise the torching hands”.[17]

Leaflet No. 18, issued on 8 June 1988 by the Palestinian uprising's underground leadership, called for the destruction and burning of the enemy's properties, industry and agriculture. The leaflet presented plans of action, including…"on the 22.6.88 – a general strike - return to the land, sow and improve it - burn the enemy’s (Israel) property, industrial and agricultural facilities”.[18] In 1989, the PLO's Baghdad radio station described methods of arson through which "the orchards and fields of the Zionist enemy can be set ablaze." [19]

During the initial period of the first Palestinian Intifada, Israeli law enforcement and the judiciary system were engaged with countering the arson phenomena. An example demonstrating the Israeli punitive severity in its approach to Palestinian arson of forests is demonstrated in the Israeli Supreme Court verdict in the trial of Muhammad Bin Ali Jaradat (case number 1926/90,8 July 1990).[20] Between October 1988 and July 1989, Jaradat was involved in committing arson, as his Intifada activities. He was found guilty of arson, setting fire to Israeli agricultural property, fields, forests and crops. Jaradat was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which a year and a half were actual imprisonment, two and a half years conditional imprisonment and a monetary fine. In its verdict, the Supreme Court stated, "arson has become in recent years a widespread dangerous phenomenon".[21]

The Palestinian Hamas organization was also active (and still is) in projecting the economic Jihad ideology not only on the local arena of confrontation with Israel, but also on the global scale and against the USA. One of the movement's senior leaders, Dr. Abd al Aziz Rantisi, published a written statement on Hamas's official web site calling on Muslims all over the world to wage an economic Jihad against the United States. "Muslims must recruit their financial resources and capabilities to strike and weaken the U.S economy. American-made products must be boycotted, he said, and urged Muslims to offer any kind of possible financial aid and support to the Mujaheedin (Muslim warriors) fighting for the sake of Allah".[22]

These incidents of setting fires deliberately were reported almost as afterthoughts in Israeli press in the 1920s and 1930s. Here's an example from 1936:

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.

Do all medics throw incendiary devices, or only in Gaza? (video)

This video of a young, female Gaza medic (probably not Razan a-Najjar, at least not her on Friday) with Red Crescent clothes and throwing an incendiary device is going around:

Does the ICRC think that this is an appropriate way for medics to act? Or is there an exception when they are faced with an enemy that represents Jews?

(h/t Yisrael Medad)

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.

Yesterday:

An incendiary kite flown from Gaza sparked a major fire in an open field across from the Sapir College in the Sha’ar HaNegev Regional Council, near the southern city of Sderot on Tuesday afternoon.

Heavy smoke covered the college building as firefighters were dispatched to the area and worked to prevent the fire from spreading to the nearby road and into the college. There were no reports of injuries.

One professor at Sapir was probably thrilled.

Dr. Yeala Ra'anan, a lecturer there, recently participated in a demonstration in support of Hamas in Sakhnin , where she said that "we are all partners in erasing the fascist regime in Israel."

Several Arab MKs participated in the event, including Ahmad Tibi, Jamal Zahalka and Aida Tuma Saliman.

Ra'anan, called on Israeli and Arab citizens to join the Gaza border riots, calling the Gazans there "our brothers on the other side of the fence."

Ra'anan supports BDS and said, "Together we will liberate Palestine."

(h/t Naftali)

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.

06/05 Links Pt2: Standing up to the UN shows America’s greatness; Joy Reid’s Blog Published Posts Blaming Jews For Terrorism; Will the World Finally Turn Off the UNRWA Spigot

From Ian:

Standing up to the UN shows America’s greatness

It happened again last week. When the UN Security Council voted to condemn Israel for what happened along its border with Gaza — without even mentioning Hamas, let alone acknowledging the terror group’s responsibility for the violence — not a single nation joined the United States in opposing the motion. When UN Ambassador Nikki Haley then put forward a separate measure condemning Hamas, the rest of the council either voted no or abstained.

That leaves Americans asking whether fears about having the rest of the world aligned against us are more important than pride in being willing to stand up and do the right thing, even if it means being alone.

This isn’t the only time the US has stood alone recently and it’s got the foreign-policy establishment as well as America’s European allies up in arms. The same thing happened when President Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and when he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. His critics took the refusal of America’s Western European allies to agree as a sign that his administration’s foreign policy is doomed to fail.

By contrast, they point to the Obama administration’s popularity with the international community, which cheered as Barack Obama championed an effort to appease and end the isolation of the Islamist regime. They were pleased as Obama sought to put more “daylight” between the US and Israel and by his allowing the Security Council to condemn Israel. Much of the world also approved of Obama’s decision to punt responsibility for the slaughter in Syria and much else to Russia.

Obama’s love affair with international organizations like the UN was at the heart of his faith in multilateralism. While not every interaction during that time began with an apology for all of America’s alleged sins, there was little question that he wanted the world to know that the era when the US could impose its will or its values on other nations seemed to be over.

Israel Praises Trump Administration’s New Approach to Combat U.N. ‘Hypocrisy’

Israel on Friday praised a new Trump administration strategy that seeks to combat the hostility and hypocrisy of members of the United Nations Security Council.

The strategy was unveiled Friday when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley vetoed a resolution sponsored by Kuwait seeking to condemn Israel for the "excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate" use of force "against Palestinian civilians," according to The Jerusalem Post.

Kuwait introduced the resolution in response to weeks of rioting and violence along the border between Israel and Palestinian-controlled Gaza. The violence erupted towards the end of March when thousands of demonstrators swarmed the border for what organizers call the "March of Return." The demonstrators, demanding that Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed to return to what is now Israel, have attacked Israeli soldiers in an effort to breach the border.

The violence has resulted in approximately 120 Palestinians being killed and hundreds wounded.

The Kuwait resolution made no mention of Hamas, the terrorist group governing the Gaza Strip, and the role it has played in encouraging Palestinian demonstrators to assail Israel Defense Forces with incendiary kites and Molotov cocktails. Instead, the resolution laid the sole blame for the violence at the feet of Israel, ignoring accounts, from both Israel and Hamas, indicating a large portion of the demonstrators killed were affiliated with terrorist organizations.

The resolution, which garnered the support of 10 of the 15 Security Council members, would also have granted "international protection" for Palestinians in Gaza and insisted Israel cease its actions in self-defense.

'JEWISH JIHADISTS': Joy Reid’s Blog Published Posts Blaming Jews For Terrorism

Embattled MSNBC host Joy Reid once promoted the conspiracy theory that "Jewish Jihadists" were responsible for Islamic terrorism, according to newly discovered screenshots obtained by The Daily Wire.

Screenshots from a post dated July 21, 2006, show that "JReid" blamed Jews in Israel for Islamic terrorism and appeared to go as far as justifying terrorism against Israel. The post states:

The bottom line now is the same as it has always been: you cannot kill enough of your enemies to make the people of the Muslim world accept, respect, or permit themselves to be dominated by you. Eventually, the occupied will get even. Eventually, the people you consider terrorists will fight you hard enough, and long enough, that the people they say they are fighting for believe them, far more than they believe you. And then the people you're bombing in the name of fighting terrorism, will hate you so much, they'll take up arms with your "terrorists" -- or look the other way as they move in next door -- in order to see harm done to you.

Reid continued by saying that terrorism is not a simple "black and white equation," but rather a symptom of a disease that is "transmitted by colonialism, resource greed, racism, (and Zionism)..." It is not clear why Reid wrote "and Zionism" in parenthesis.