Member of the Executive Committee of the PLO and Head of the PLO's Department of Refugee Affairs Ahmed Abu Houli accused Israel of being behind the recent leak of an expose showing corruption in the highest levels on UNRWA.
Next month, the UN is going to vote to extend UNRWA's mandate for three more years, and Abu Houli sees a conspiracy.
"The leaking of the UN investigation report before reaching the final decision is an open attempt to weaken UNRWA and keep donors from supporting and influencing the voting process for renewal," Abu Houli said in a radio interview.
Abu Houli added, "The US and Israeli campaign targeting UNRWA and the leaking of the report facilitates the efforts of the United States and Israel to end UNRWA, and the United States is pressing countries to withdraw funding."
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine warned of attempts to use the United States and "the Zionist entity" to liquidate UNRWA and "eliminate a historical and legal witness to the plight of the Palestinian people."
Dr. Bassem Naim of Hamas said that no Palestinian can accept corruption in UNRWA but agreed that the timing was suspicious.
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.
“True peace is not the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”
Thankful for the wide, intergenerational coalition of communities coming together - Israeli & Palestinian, Jewish & Muslim, American & around the world - seeking to advance that peace and justice. https://t.co/xs9hPp0Jv3
Her quote, from Martin Luther King Jr., is just another example of how the word "justice" has been weaponized as a dogwhistle to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.
I've noted the false use of the word "justice" before. When anti-Israel activists use the word, they don't mean real justice. They mean that Palestinians get to be the judge and jury, and only they can decide when justice is served - meaning that things won't be solved until Israel is replaced with another Arab state.
In any dispute, there are two sides, each of which has its own ideas of what justice would mean. When the Left uses the word against Israel, they aren't interested in what Israelis feel is just. They don't want to allow Jews to freely live in and visit their holy cities of Hebron and Bethlehem and Shechem (Nablus) and Jericho. They don't want Jewish claims against Arab countries that ethnically cleansed them to be part of the conversation. They don't want Jews to have their own state equal to other states of the world. Although all of those things are just, they do not fall under the false definition of "justice" used by anti-Israel activists.
By misusing the word, they are brainwashing casual observers. Who doesn't support justice? Who could be against it? No one - unless the "justice" being mentioned is inherently unjust.
Judaism has long noted the tension between peace and justice. Justice is unforgiving. One side wins, the other side loses. If God ruled the world with justice untempered with mercy, there would be no world.
Real peace means that both sides compromise. Both sides recognize the humanity of their opponents and are willing to give things up in the greater interests of peace.
Compromise is not compatible with justice in the strict sense of the word. Neither side believes that true justice has been served. Israel has always held that peace is more important than strict justice, which is why it has given up so much for peace.
But peace is not more important than "justice" to the anti-Israel crowd and to most Palestinians.
The anti-Israel activists no longer even pretend they want a two state solution any more- to them, Israel is inherently unjust and therefore illegitimate. That's what many of them mean when they say "justice." (J-Street has a different definition of justice, but, again, who is the judge? The UN? The ICJ? Or the Palestinians who greet every concession as a reason to demand more?)
The Palestinian leaders have bragged on many occasions about how they have not changed their positions since 1988 - no budging throughout Oslo, through Camp David, through Taba, through the peace plans of the 2000s and early 2010s. Their intransigence is all based on their warped idea of "justice", which fits in nicely with the anti-Israel crowd's misuse of the word.
Israel has proven time and time again that it yearns for peace, but not a peace that compromises Israel's security. The anti-Israel crowd is not willing to compromise to keep Israelis secure and at peace. The separation barrier, checkpoints, Iron Dome - literally everything Israel does to keep its citizens safe are denounced by the people who claim to want "peace."
But if you ask them how Israel can get justice for the thousands killed in terror attacks, they will change the subject. Their "justice" is not justice at all, but a dogwhistle.
At least they haven't hijacked the word "peace" yet. But they are trying.
_______________
While we are on the subject of justice, many of the Jewish anti-Israel activists love to quote the Torah, Deuteronomy 16:20, where it says, "Justice, justice you shall pursue."
Actually, the word "tzedek" is probably more properly translated as "righteousness." The proper Hebrew words for strict justice would be "mishpat" and "din." Rabbi Jonathan Sacks says:
Tzedek/tzedakah is almost impossible to translate, because of its many shadings of meaning: justice, charity, righteousness, integrity, equity, fairness and innocence. It certainly means more than strictly legal justice, for which the Bible uses words like mishpat and din.
The anti-Israel crowd ignores the real meaning of "tzedek," and they ignore that it is used in this verse in the context of appointing judges of high moral character.
But they especially ignore the rest of the verse: "so that you may thrive and occupy the land that the Lord your God has given you."
This verse is as Zionist as any in the Torah, and the anti-Israel crowd hijacking that verse is ironic but expected. To them, the Torah itself must be weaponized against Israel just as the word "justice" must be.
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 had high hopes for The Red Sea Diving Club when I saw the trailer:
I already read some of the negative reviews of Netflix film before watching it last night, and they are on target: A great story was ruined by a screenwriter who evidently felt it would do better as a series of Hollywood cliches.
The often shirtless secret agent played by Chris Evans who goes against the rules. Who recruits his own group of misfit friends for an operation. Who recklessly endangers many lives because of his deep moral convictions. Who decides on the fly to turn the resort into a real hotel without any staff to speak of. Who ends up asking America to help with one last mission (where the US ambassador inexplicably ends up on the final trip to Israel.)
But beyond that, the movie shows a startlingly incompetent Mossad. Ben Kingsley's head of the organization has no control over his agents. Evans's Ari character was already fired twice from the agency, we are told, yet he is given free reign to come up with the unlikely plan of using an abandoned Red Sea resort as a cover for Israeli agents to smuggle Ethiopian refugees out via Sudan - and to present this plan himself to the Defense Minister, the only Israeli character in the movie who even attempts an Israeli accent.
Ari is told by his boss that there is no exfiltration plan to help him and his crew in case things go south. Really?
In his very first attempt to get 179 Beta Israel out of the country, Ari chooses to run through a roadblock - and to stop all communication with his Israeli counterparts and boss waiting on a ship at sea and in Israel, giving no valid excuse but they don't investigate what he does.
He's a rogue agent who knows better than his bosses. Yet he endangers the entire Ethiopian Jewish community with his reckless decisions at every turn.
The real story is actually much better than this contrived attempt to cash in on it. It had plenty of drama, but the Mossad is the real hero, not the roadblock for Chris Evans to play another kind of superhero. Everything was planned meticulously, although there was real danger with each operation. The real life story of how the agents managed to secretly bring planes into Sudan is more impressive than the smuggling of people by boat shown in the movie, a method that was scrapped early on because it was too dangerous.
The worst and best part is the final credits.
The movie does not end with the audience being informed of how many Jews were saved from Ethiopia in this and other operations. It does not end with the William Safire quote, “For the first time in history, thousands of black people are brought into the country not in chains but as citizens.” No, the only takeaway is the generic "There are 65 million refugees in the world."
However, during the actual closing credits, photos of the actual saving of Ethiopian refugees and the real Mossad agents at the Arous on the Red Sea hotel (the real name of the resort) are shown.
There is a great movie in the story of the operation to save Jews from Ethiopia. Unfortunately, it isn't The Red Sea Diving Club.
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.
The long war against Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel has been going on since before the founding of the state. The identity of our enemies varies depending on their ability to fight at any given time and other factors, but – with one important exception that I will discuss later – they are drawn from the Arab and Muslim nations in our region. Our most dangerous enemy in the past may have been Egypt; today it is Iran, and possibly tomorrow it will be Egypt again. But thanks to Islamic doctrine, it will never end.
The struggle for our independence includes physical, or kinetic, warfare, which has taken the form of pogroms, large-scale regional wars, intifadas, and various manifestations of terrorism. But there are also diplomatic, legal, covert, and psychological or cognitive battles going on at the same time.
The best way to picture our position in the cognitive struggle is that of a nation besieged. Our objective is to relieve the pressure so that we can continue with our normal lives. We are not interested in conquering and holding “enemy territory,” but we do want to destroy our enemies’ stock of cognitive weapons and crush their will to fight. Note that although the objective is to defend ourselves, our strategies to do that may call for aggressive offensive tactics. In the cognitive theater of war, our Muslim enemies are joined by some of the post-Christian nations of Western Europe, who are often even more bitterly hostile than the Muslims.
All our enemies have two kinds of objectives: to target us directly in order to create confusion, dissent, and defeatism at home, and to target the rest of the world in order to make it less likely that our allies will support us in time of kinetic war. That can mean making it more difficult for us to obtain supplies and weapons, or to use air space or land bases. It can mean preparing the ground so that other nations will vote against us in the UN Security Council, or so that public opinion in democratic countries will favor our enemies. It can mean damaging us economically by persuading nations, companies, and individuals to avoid doing business with our firms.
The cognitive attacks that target the nations of the world are intended to delegitimize Israel, to present her as a usurper that has no moral or legal right to exist; or to demonize her, to suggest that her behavior is so despicable, so evil, that she has forfeited her right to be treated like a normal nation of normal people, and deserves to be destroyed.
An example of delegitimization is the narrative that describes the birth of the state as the colonization – by “white” European Jews supported by the great powers – of indigenous “Palestinian” people of color, rather than the return of the Jewish people to its aboriginal land against the racist opposition of the entire Arab world to that return.
Demonization includes traditional military atrocity stories, especially the accusation that the IDF deliberately targets children – the reverse of the actual situation – claims of “apartheid,” and even, for less sophisticated audiences, the retelling of traditional anti-Jewish blood libels.
Cognitive warfare supports and functions in tandem with ordinary kinetic warfare and terrorism (which is both kinetic and cognitive). We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the ultimate goal of our enemies is to destroy our state, and kill or disperse the Jewish people. When an Iranian mullah leads a chant of “death to Israel,” he means death to Israel (America, too). When a European government sends money to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem, they are paying for the demonization of Israel in international forums, interference with IDF security activities, and lawfare against the Israeli government and IDF in Israeli and foreign courts. And when an Israeli newspaper columnist with Jewish parents writes an article in which he accuses Israeli Air Force pilots of murder, he too is pulling the trigger of a cognitive weapon aimed at our hearts. If his checks aren’t signed in Teheran, they should be. In all cases, the final objective is the same.
Israel responds to these attacks in a purely defensive way, to try to parry their thrusts. No, we say (after months of research), we did not shoot young Mohammed al-Durah in 2000; either he was shot by Hamas terrorists or he was not shot at all. No, our treatment of our Arab citizens and Arabs living under the Palestinian Authority is nothing at all like apartheid. No, we didn’t cut down those olive trees; Arab farmers pruned them.
As I wrote in my series about fighting BDS (here and here), the reactive approach has two serious defects: first, by restating the accusations, it gives them renewed currency and makes even absurd accusations acceptable subjects of discussion. Second, the mechanism of researching and responding to exaggerated or made-up claims can easily be overwhelmed by their sheer volume (just like Iron Dome can!)
A better strategy would be to go on the offensive and take the war to the enemy. The Palestinian narrative is flimsy and easily refuted. There is a continual flow of academic papers about the “settler-colonial” paradigm attributed to Israel, but where are the papers about the Arab migrations into the land of Israel in the 19th and 20th centuries? Where are the pro-Zionist academic conferences and grants given to scholars who present our side of the story, which has the advantage of being true?
And not only do we rarely attack the Arab historical narrative – indeed, many Israelis are in the forefront of those who promulgate it – we don’t sufficiently stress the moral depravity and culpability of Palestinian leaders, past and present. Imagine if we could obtain wide distribution of the story that Mahmoud Abbas raised the funds for the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972.
There is a reason that the pro-Israel point of view has such a tough time in academia and in free, Western media. And that is that while Israel has been busy fighting wars and defending herself against terrorism, our enemies have been using their petrodollars to subvert Western universities and media. Did you know that in addition to the millions it spends on lobbying American lawmakers, Hamas-supporting Qatar has given literally billions of dollars to universities and other academic projects (like the Brookings Institution) in the US? They specialize in universities like Georgetown and Northwestern, where there are schools for foreign service officers and journalists, but haven’t stinted on their gifts to Harvard, Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and numerous others. And of course, Saudi Arabia has been doing the same for years, even subsidizing public-school textbooks in the US and Europe! Qatar also operates one of the most influential media outlets in the world (especially the Arabic-speaking world), Al-Jazeera.
Israel doesn’t have the billions of petrodollars that Qatar does, but with her technical abilities, she could do a great deal more. Unfortunately, perhaps because of inappropriate feelings of guilt over having won the wars of 1948 and 1967, fear of angering the Palestinian Authority or even Arab Israelis, and the pervasive influence of the Left in our media and academia, Israel is transfixed by the blows she has received on the cognitive battlefield, and is unable to take the initiative.
What will it take to win the cognitive struggle? Probably a wholesale change in our national consciousness. I’m not optimistic.
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.
Advocates of academic boycotts of the Jewish state are fond of claiming that they are motivated by a desire to punish Israel for its restrictions on Palestinian universities—in part, writes Jonathan Marks, as a counterargument to those who would point out that their movement seeks specifically to restrict the free exchange of ideas. But the boycotters have nothing to say about Turkey, where the government has severely restrained the ability of professors to write or teach on sensitive topics:
Turkish President Recep Erdoğan’s government, the Times explains, has engaged in a large scale purge of academics. Thousands have been fired. Some have been jailed. Freedom House reports that “academics and students [in Turkey] continued to be prosecuted for expressing critical views of the government or for peaceful political action in 2018.” Moreover, “government and university administrations now routinely intervene to prevent academics from researching sensitive topics.” In short, academic freedom doesn’t exist in Turkey, and its universities are, insofar as the purge has been successful, vehicles for political indoctrination.
Another thing about Turkey, though: it’s a great place to hold an International Conference on Palestine. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this April’s conference, but the speakers listed on the roster included well-known BDS advocates like Ali Abunimah, editor of the Electronic Intifada, Rabab Abdulhadi of San Francisco State University, Joseph Massad of Columbia University, and Ilan Pappé of the University of Exeter. The roster also included BDS advocates who are not as well known here, such as Farid Esack, Chairperson of BDS-South Africa, and Frank Barat, former coordinator of a self-appointed anti-Israel “tribunal.”
About the only thing the BDS National Committee seems to dislike in Erdogan’s repressive government is its incomplete rejection of Israel. But BDS advocates don’t mind taking advantage of his hospitality, perhaps because he whispers sweet nothings like, “whoever is on the side of Israel, let everyone know that we are against them.”
The indifference of BDS advocates to the academic freedom they pretend to cherish when it suits them is nothing new. But their championship-level hypocrisy continues to impress.
The New York Times has long history of whitewashing the extremism of the BDS movement.
BDS stands for “boycotts, divestment, and sanctions,” and the BDS campaign seeks to leverage those tools to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Arab-majority state.
Although BDS leaders openly admit they seek to disenfranchise Jews by eliminating the country’s Jewish majority — BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti has admitted his goal is “a unitary state where, by definition, Jews will be a minority” — the Times has consistently downplayed the movement’s goals by reporting, for example, that BDS merely “seeks to pressure Israel into ending the occupation of the West Bank,” or that the its activists are simply “critical of Israel’s policies toward the West Bank.”
Language of this type had prompted Tablet’s Yair Rosenberg to charge the paper with having “dramatically misrepresented [BDS’s] stated aims and implicit goals, whitewashing the movement’s radicalism.”
Another Whitewash?
Days after the U.S. House of Representatives delivered an overwhelming, bipartisan rebuke to BDS with a 398-17 vote explicitly opposing “the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement,” the New York Times jumped in with a piece titled “Is B.D.S. Anti-Semitic? A Closer Look at the Boycott Israel Campaign.”
The piece purports to provide “answers to some of the most difficult questions” about BDS. And this time, the paper did manage to acknowledge that the campaign opposes the existence of the Jewish state, an improvement over earlier coverage that falsely cast the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement as merely anti-occupation. In that respect, at least, it is a needed improvement. Still, the article relies on distortions and omissions to make BDS extremism more palatable to readers.
While the competition may be stiff, few mainstream periodicals in the English language distinguish themselves in their contempt for Israel to the extent of the Guardian. But it was not ever thus, explains Robert Philpot. C.P. Scott, who served as the British newspaper’s publisher from 1872 until 1929, was in fact a crucial supporter of Zionism: That role began in November 1914 when Scott met Chaim Weizmann, a leading player in Zionist politics, by chance at a charity tea party to which the latter’s wife had been invited. Thus began the remarkable friendship and partnership between the publisher and Israel’s first president. . . . Weizmann instantly impressed the editor. For Scott, he was “extraordinarily interesting, a rare combination of idealism and the severely practical which are the two essentials of statesmanship.”
After their second meeting, Scott made Weizmann an offer: “I would like to do something for you. I would like to put you in touch with the chancellor of the exchequer, [David] Lloyd George.” He also reminded Weizmann that “you have a Jew in the cabinet, Herbert Samuel.”
Unbeknownst to Weizmann, Samuel was a committed Zionist himself, and, thanks to the favorable impression made by Weizmann, Lloyd George soon became one as well. Scott continued to provide the Zionist leader with advice and assistance, once at a highly fortuitous moment: [I]n April 1917, Scott stumbled across a crucial bit of news. At a meeting with a French journalist he discovered that the French planned to assume control of northern Palestine—areas that the Zionists hoped would become part of a Jewish homeland under British protection—while the rest of the land would fall under international control. . . . Scott immediately tipped off . . . Weizmann and began making inquiries back in London. Weizmann, too, began frantic efforts to uncover more details, pushing at the Whitehall doors Scott had previously unlocked for him.
Critically, Scott’s discovery led the Zionists, in [the words of then-Guardian columnist Harry] Sacher, to realize the urgency of getting from the British government “a written definite promise satisfactory to ourselves with regard to Palestine.” In November 1917, in the form of that famous letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, they finally obtained it. Days later, Scott penned a Guardian editorial welcoming the Balfour Declaration.
Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib,
two U.S. congresswomen with a penchant for making antisemitic comments and
supporting antisemitic measures, are soon to visit Israel. When they arrive, we will have had several weeks' warning. But there will be nothing we can do to stop the two from coming into our country and using the trip to hurt us. This is something we have seen before, as recently as during the Obama administration.
There is no reason to let them in. Israel has a perfectly good law
on the books denying entry to anyone supporting BDS, as these
two congresswomen do. The final decision, however, was to allow the two into Israel, as announced
by Israel Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, "Out of respect for the US
Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny
entry to any member of Congress into Israel."
Friends in America wondered how I
felt about this: did I think something else should have happened, instead? It is a moot point. As a regular person and Israeli, I have no say in this, no voice, no power. I knew from the outset that it would be realpolitik that would
hold sway. Prime Minister Netanyahu would not want to offend. He would want to give proper honor to the United States. So he would look the other way, bypass the
law, and let them in.
In this light, what I wanted didn't matter. I tried to avoid getting embroiled in further conversations on the topic. My friends were missing the point: this visit was going to happen.
Other friends did understand and asked what I
thought about organizing a protest. I said, “We wouldn’t be able to get close
enough to them."
We’d be prevented by security, ours and theirs, and of course, all this would be under the guise of, well, security. As if holding up signs and
showing up and chanting slogans were somehow dangerous activities. (I hope
someone does organize a protest and I turn out to be wrong: that we won't be prevented from taking a stand in view of the two congresswomen.)
Dominating the Jews
I have tried not to think about
it too much, about the women who are to visit: what a chutzpa it is; how there's no way to
bar their entry, these people who are saying my country has no right to exist, and that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination. The dynamic, as set into place by Omar and Tlaib with this forced visit, is to dominate the Jews as Muslims. They are making that happen.
Some have suggested that the trip will open their eyes. Those who suggest this are deluded. The two women are the enemy. The very purpose of the trip is to harm Israel and Israeli Jews. Like President Obama, they will run roughshod over
Jewish and Israeli feelings.
It won't matter how bad it gets. The two will do as they wish, go where they wish to go, because
they, to all intents and purposes, are in charge. They are holding the reins. They reign. The Israeli Jews are infidels.
The public is to understand that the two
representatives are coming to Israel on a fact-finding mission. That is as much as one can glean from media reports. In reality, we know this will not be a fact-finding mission, but a fault-finding mission. The outcome is inevitable.
Keeping Us Off-Guard
It is interesting that no reports have mentioned a firm date on which the two women will arrive. Tlaib's family, according to an anonymous source, say that Tlaib and Omar will arrive on August 22. But the date was not announced or otherwise made public. (There is no doubt a
reason for this. If we don't know the arrival date, the congresswomen can, all the more so, keep us off-guard, simply for the sake of keeping us off guard.)
This is how the visit will go down: The women will assent to see the usual sights, tour Yad Vashem; take
the helicopter ride that shows our slender waistline; and view the threats that surround
us. Instead of being wowed over, when they make their statements to the press, the congresswomen will say something
like: “No one denies the tremendous accomplishments of Israel or the sufferings of the Jewish people, and still, Palestinians have a right to self-determination and a state of their own, in Israel."
"In Israel" is Code
"In Israel," in this context, is code for "all of Israel," and the suggestion is that Israel, in any shape or form is illegitimate, as the only indigenous people of the territory are the "Palestinian" Arabs. This is the latest talking point that progressives will be spouting in America after this trip: the main takeaway.
The talking point is of course, untrue. Jews can trace their heritage in the Land of Israel back to before Mohammed was born, and before there was an Arab people. The Arabs are indigenous to Saudi Arabia, perhaps. But not to Israel.
No matter. This will be the new line to regurgitate, what
everyone will be saying ad infinitum: "No one denies these things, but still, Palestinians, and so forth." Lather, rinse, repeat.
This dishonest narrative will be amplified by the media and accepted by the people, most of all by progressive JINO parrots who cannot think for themselves.
No Recognition for Jews as Indigenous
One thing is certain: during the press conference to be, there will be no recognition by
the congresswomen of the Jewish people as the indigenous people of the
territory. There will be no lip service to the fact that Arabs in Judea and
Samaria have self-rule and freedom of movement within their territory, as so
do the Arabs in Gaza. The two congresswomen will pretend that Arabs have the same rights as the Jews to the territory that is Israel and the same rights to a state. That state, of course, can only be "in Israel."
If we have a voice as citizens of Israel, it is at the voting booth, our medium the ballot. In allowing these women to enter the country, Bibi will be breaking the Entry Law. This law says that anyone who actively supports BDS must be stopped from coming into our country, Israel.
At the highest level, our elected officials are expected to uphold the law. The law expresses the values of our society; realpolitik be damned. This bypassing of the law is something we should all keep in mind come September at
the polls, no matter how it would have looked, had Bibi turned the two women away.
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.
Of course, no one is praising Israel for the move.
The criticism of Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh is more interesting than perhaps he realizes.
He said, "the terms A, B and C no longer exist because Israel has violated the Interim Oslo Agreement , And we do not need permission from the occupying power to build our homes on our territory."
If Israel is the occupier, then legally the residents of the territory do indeed have to get permission to build homes from the military government. By definition, in a belligerent occupation, the military government is the government entrusted with upholding and maintaining the existing laws in the territory, although it can add additional rules for security purposes under the Geneva Conventions.
When Shtayyeh says that Palestinians have the right to build anywhere in the territories, he is saying that the land is not legally occupied - but disputed.
Which has been Israel's legal position since 1967!
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.
17 years ago today a bomb was detonated in the Hebrew University cafeteria in Jerusalem murdering 9 people, including five American citizens, and injuring over 80 others. This attack was one of many terror attacks carried out by the same terrorist cell.
Six Palestinians were convicted of the crime and sentenced to multiple life sentences. Since their arrests, the Palestinian Authority has rewarded the imprisoned terrorists paying them no less than 4,371,100 shekels ($1,257,259).
Among the convicted terrorists for this and other attacks were Adballah Barghouti - serving 67 life sentences, one for each of the victims he murdered - and Ibrahim Hamed - serving 54 life sentences, one for each of the victims he murdered. Through June 2019, the PA cumulatively paid them 1,271,000 shekels ($339,862) and continues to pay them thousands of shekels per month.
The other four terrorists - Wael Qassem, Wassim Abbasi, Alla Aldin Abbasi and Muhammed Odeh - were residents of Jerusalem, entitling them to a salary supplement of 300 shekels/month. Each of them has been paid over 770,000 shekels ($220,733) since their arrest in August 2002. Each of them is currently receiving 7,300 shekels ($1,951) per month.
Despite its (self-inflicted) financial crisis, since the beginning of 2019 alone, the PA has cumulatively paid the terrorists almost 300,000 shekels ($86,000).
The PA obligated itself to pay monthly salaries to imprisoned terrorists when it passed the Law of Prisoners and Released Prisoners in 2004. The exact amount paid is set in regulations passed by the PA government (see chart below). Mahmoud Abbas has twice raised the salaries the PA pays to the imprisoned terrorists.
Today 17 years ago, Palestinian terrorists cynically chose a university cafeteria as the site for their latest bombing. The cafe of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University - which teaches Arabs & Jews equally - was torn apart. 9 people died in the carnage, 100 were injured. We remember.🕯 pic.twitter.com/8fIrQBQFw2
President Trump has been given the clearest notice that his deal of the century will be stillborn if he designates any role for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in its implementation.
In a remarkable outburst that can best be described as his “suicide note”– PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared on 25 July: “I reiterate that we will not surrender, we will not coexist with the occupation and we will not deal with the deal of deal of the century, or the slap of the century or the deal of shame - all names for one title. Palestine and Jerusalem are not for sale and bargain. They are not a real estate deal in a real estate company.”
Yet for the last 25 years the PLO – aided and abetted by Jordan – has refused to yield its claim to sovereignty over every square meter of West Bank real estate – when compromise could possibly have resolved the 100 years-old Arab-Jewish conflict.
Two days prior to Abbas’ suicide note , the US Congress in a rare show of bipartisanship had offered the PLO a lifeline to enable it to negotiate with Israel on Trump’s yet-to-be-released proposals – overwhelmingly passing House Resolution 246 by a vote of 398-17 with 5 voting ‘present’.
Resolution 246: Urged: Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct negotiations as the only way to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
...Reaffirmed: its strong support for a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states – a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state – living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition.
48 hours later Abbas’s suicide note had trashed Congress’s Resolution.
So where to from here?
This was posted to Reddit by one of its moderators, DomitiusOfMassilia
It has come to my attention over the past month that multiple posts and links have been automatically removed without the consent of this sub's moderators or the users themselves. I was able to piece together that Reddit introduced a "Tier" system for removing posts. Due to the significant lack of transparency and guidelines on Reddit's part, I have been forced to construct a series of lists that include sites that fall afoul of Reddit's Tier system.
To the best of my ability the Tier system is supposed to operate as follows:
Tier 1 - Sites whose posts and links are not removed. Tier 2 - Sites whose posts and links are removed randomly, but are approvable by moderators Tier 3 - Sites whose posts and links are always removed, but are approvable by the moderators Tier 4 - Sites whose posts and links are always removed, but are unapprovable by moderators Tier 5 - Sites whose posts and links are always removed, are unapprovable by moderators, and will not even finish the submission process. ... Posts approvable, links approvable (Grey List - Tier 3)
Go Fund Me Pikabu.ru The Post Millennial Anime Right News ElderofZiyon.blogspot.com Mega.nz
The entire list of known banned or partially banned sites is small and bizarre. There does not seem to be any logic to it, but I have been told on other occasions that posts that link to me have been shadowbanned on Reddit.
Reddit is supposedly about free speech and giving voices to those who have no other means, and it even hosts kiddie porn sections. If someone made a decision to ban EoZ, it is purely for political purposes.
Reddit is ranked as the # 5 most visited website in U.S. and #13 in the world, Being banned from Reddit is a big deal.
If you use Reddit and post my stuff, check to see if it is really posted and complain to the appropriate moderator if not. Hopefully after enough complaints this can get fixed.
Thanks!
(h/t C.)
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.
Every month, the official PA news agency Wafa publishes a list of what it calls "incitement and racism in the Israeli media" as a way to counteract the work of organizations like MEMRI, Palestinian Media Watch and this blog which publicize the most hateful and insane things published in Arabic language media about Jews and Israel.
Apparently, they consider anything that accurately describes history as "incitement and racism."
19 years have passed since the Camp David Conference, where former Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to give up Judea and Samaria, Gaza and East Jerusalem, including the division of the Old City. It was supposed to be the culmination of the Oslo process: a promise of a permanent peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and the solemn end of the mask of Arab claims and claims against Israel. Barak was eager to sign an agreement that would save his short and tumultuous career as prime minister, for the price of a swift liquidation sale to Israel's national and security assets.
The unprecedented concession soon led to the second intifada; A war of terror throughout the country that has cost the lives of more than a thousand people. Instead of accepting the generous offer, Palestinian Authority chairman Arafat embarked on the war; just like his predecessors in 1947, following a UN resolution on the establishment of two states, Arab and Jewish, in ridiculous proportions, and without Jerusalem. The leadership of the Yishuv then said "yes", because for them it was progress. The Arabs started the war then as well, to evade, as usual, a positive response.
Is accuracy "incitement?"We know that Arafat was involved in the second intifada - paying the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades for terrorist activity, and being behind the Karine A weapons ship to smuggle in 50 tons of arms including rockets, for example. In an honor/shame culture, indeed it is - because the Palestinians know that they look bad for refusing peace and the reminders make them feel shame.
The strange thing is that Haetzni says far more inflammatory things later on, like a quote I've never heard before from early PLO leader Ahmed Shukairy, who was well known to have said the Arabs would throw the Jews into the sea, but Haetzni also quotes him as saying "The men to the sea, the women for us."
I cannot find any source for that quote. But the fact that the PA considers only the first two paragraphs to be incitement and not the blatantly offensive alleged quote from Shukairy tells you a lot about their own moral system.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
A confidential internal report from the UN's Palestinian refugee agency's ethics office has detailed alleged abuses of authority among the organisation's senior management team.
With input from dozens of current and former staff, the 10-page document cites "credible and corroborated reports" that members of an "inner circle" at the top of UNRWA have engaged in "abuses of authority for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives".
Part of the report says that UNRWA chief Pierre Krahenbuhl took a "particular interest" in Maria Mohammedi, a former actress whom he quickly promoted to the role of his senior adviser and took on lots of paid vacations, in business class, pretending it was necessary for both of them to fly around the world for 28-29 days a month (expenses charged to UNRWA, of course.)
I found the one starring vehicle for Mohammedi, a 2013 "Made in Palestine" film called "Condom Lead." The plot for the 15 minute film is thin: a couple can't get intimate because of bombs outside their apartment. Every time their lovemaking is interrupted, the husband blows up a condom as a balloon.
Here it is:
While there is no dialogue, the "Made in Palestine" and the title which evokes the 2009 Operation Cast Lead makes it clear that this is an anti-Israel movie and not a generalized anti-war movie. The subtext is that Israelis are so evil that attractive Gaza couples can't even enjoy sex because of the Zionist bombs meant to disrupt all aspects of life.
The pacing of the film is excruciatingly slow. You can use the YouTube controls to watch the film at double speed and you will not miss a moment, saving you a precious 7.5 minutes.
It is a great example of how Palestinian filmmakers use film festivals to spread anti-Israel propaganda in a subtle but unmistakable way.
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.
It’s not European. And it doesn’t divide into right and left, religious and secular. Matti Friedman, author of a new book about Mizrahi spies, on why Israel baffles and infuriates
Israel is in the Middle East.
That may sound like one of the more banal opening sentences to an article, but it’s a fact, argues Matti Friedman, that seems to continually elude many commentators and critics of Israel, many Diaspora Jews who pronounce themselves baffled by some of Israel’s actions and policies, and, indeed, many Israelis themselves.
Friedman, 41, is an acclaimed Canadian-born Israeli author (“The Aleppo Codex,” “Pumpkinflowers”) who recently published a most unusual book, “Spies of No Country,” about Israeli espionage at the time of the state’s founding — unusual in that its protagonists are Israelis born in the Arab world who ventured back there, into what was at once familiar and highly dangerous territory, in the service of the nascent state. Friedman chose to focus on the heroes of what was sometimes known as “the Black Section” of Israel’s bare-bones initial intelligence apparatus because, he told The Times of Israel in an interview last week, “I thought we needed stories that better reflect the real Israel — not just stories of secular Ashkenazi pioneers and survivors of Warsaw.”
That “real” Israel, Friedman argues, is the Middle Eastern Israel, Israel as “part of the continuum of Judaism in the Muslim world.” The more you understand and internalize that, he says, the better you understand this country — everything from its cuisine and its music to its behavior and, crucially, its politics.
Which is why it seemed like a good idea to interview Friedman just as Benjamin Netanyahu overtook David Ben-Gurion as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister — chiefly, says Friedman, because Netanyahu so well recognizes the cutthroat, merciless reality of Israel’s Middle East location — and as the combined forces of the center and left try, yet again, to alight on a formula to defeat him in the year’s second general election.
After two hours of brutal, sometimes argumentative, sometimes tear-filled back-and-forth, I felt it was time for some hard truths.
I looked him and the others in the eye and explained why it was important for me, a “settler,” to address this anti-occupation group.
“I hate J Street,” I started. “I’ve followed the organization since its inception and I disagree with its positions and philosophy.”
After letting that sink in, I continued, “But if you put [J-Street CEO] Jeremy Ben-Ami and me in a room together, and ask us to write down all of our thoughts on Israel on a legal pad, after hours of writing, 90 percent of both of our thoughts would be the same. We both want a safe Israel, we both want the best for the Arabs in Israel. My problem with J Street is that they always seem to focus on the 10 percent that divides the people concerned about Israel.”
While I only had two hours with them, the participants on the trip seemed to be caring, sensitive and brave people who genuinely cared about improving the lives of the people they met. As a whole, these were good people who will be great citizens. I finished off my thoughts with them, “I was concerned that on this trip all you’d hear about is the 10 percent that J Street uses to demonize Israel. I wanted to make sure you heard about the 90 percent that we can all be proud of.”
Israel on Tuesday lambasted a Canadian Federal Court ruling that wines produced in Israeli settlements can no longer be labeled as “Made in Israel,” saying the decision will embolden the pro-Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement.
“The Canadian court’s decision concerning labeling of Israeli products encourages and lends support to boycotts and the BDS movement. Israel objects to this,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Israeli embassy in Canada will continue to act against discriminatory treatment and the singling out of Israel in the matter of product labeling in Canada,” it said.
Challenging a previous decision by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Judge Anne L. Mactavish determined on Monday that labels describing wines made in the settlements as Israeli products are “false, misleading and deceptive.”
In her ruling, she did not take a position on how exactly such wines should be labeled, saying that was for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to decide.
Mactavish also noted that settlements are not considered part of the State of Israel, as Canada does not recognize Israeli sovereignty beyond the pre-1967 borders.
While the judge’s decision is legal and not political in nature, it could potentially strain otherwise strong ties between Jerusalem and Ottawa . (h/t IsaacStorm)
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Concertgoers Cheer Muslim Terrorists Killing Them
-
On Nov 13, 2015, Muslim terrorists attacked a concert at the Bataclan
theater in Paris, opening fire on the crowd while shouting, “Allah Akbar.”
The Mu...
July 4th 1976, Happy Entebbe Day!
-
Dry Bones Golden Oldies in the fond memory of Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones)
by Sali, Happy Entebbe Day! July 4th 1976
and Happy Independence Day to Ameri...
The NUJ is hostile to Jewish journalists
-
For several years I had a press card to provide a layer of security while
covering hostile street protests. My recent experience with the National
Union ...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, August 01, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
