Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Presenting - the Islamic Jihad Festival of the Arts!

Palestine Today has a photo essay of the Islamic Jihad Arts Festival, held in the Rashad Shawa Center in Gaza today.

Clearly, this is a much-anticipated event, and the crowd was not disappointed:

The centerpiece of the festival was a dramatic rendition of events that are near and dear to the hearts of all Palestinian Arab terrorists and their rabid fans:

Discerning readers may notice some recurring thematic elements in the different scenes of the play.

No expense was spared on the set design.

Luckily, the props were cheap and easy to procure.

All in all, the Islamic Jihad Arts Festival was an explosive success!

I never get boared with Zionist Pig stories

Sorry, I can't help myself:

Palestinians in the West Bank town of Salfit said that Israeli settlers sent wild boars to attack them on Wednesday afternoon.

Resident Nasser Khader Eshtayeh, of the Wadi An-Najjar neighborhood of the town, told Ma’an, “A flock of wild pigs attacked the neighborhood and searched in the baskets looking for food, adding that little kids in the roads were terrified when they saw the pigs and families were afraid that these animals could break into their houses.”

Eshtayeh said the boars are owned by Israelis living in the nearby settlement of Ariel.

This was not the first time settler-own boars have been reported in Salfit. On 25 May officials from the Palestinian Agricultural Trade Union reported that Boars damaged crops planted in the area.

Yup, religious Zionist Jews domesticating wild boars and training them to attack Palestinian Arabs exclusively. After successful reconaissance and attack, the pigs return to base to report on their progress.

And why do Jews do that? Because they can!

America, the Muslim nation

The blogosphere is abuzz over President Obama's comment to a French interviewer:

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

...“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

Roger Simon notes:According to Wikipedia, the US ranks thirty-eighth with a Muslim population of some 4.5 million (about one and half percent of our population - others, such as Pew, see it as even smaller [Much smaller - 1.6 million - EoZ]). Indonesia is first at over two hundred and seven million. A slip of the tongue? A meaningless statement? Perhaps.

But could you ever imagine President Obama saying that the United States, with probably double or triple the number of Jews than Muslims, could be considered the second-largest Jewish country in the world? Can you imagine the firestorm that would result at such a statement?

For that matter, imagine the outcry if Obama more accurately characterized the US as one of the largest Christian countries in the world?

Trusting instincts over facts

2001:

Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin have met for the first time and appear to have hit it off.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.

2009:

In brief remarks to reporters prior to the meeting, [Obama said] he'd come to "seek His Majesty's counsel" and stressing the importance of visiting the birthplace of Islam ahead of the Cairo speech. "This is my first visit to Saudi Arabia, but I've had several conversations with His Majesty. And I've been struck by his wisdom and his graciousness. Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship, we have a strategic relationship,"

I guess that dictators can violate human rights as much as they want as long as they have good social skills with American presidents.

Questionable statistic from the UN

Ma'an reports:

Israel’s military “buffer zone” along the eastern and northern edge of the Gaza Strip eats up 30% of the territory’s arable land, the United Nations said this week.

Fieldworkers with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) told the Christian Science Monitor that they have been unable to verify conditions in this 300-meter-wide band of land along the Green Line.

A quick calculation shows that 300 meters along a border 6 miles wide and 25 miles long is roughly 10 square kilometers. Gaza itself is 360 square kilometers. This means that Israel's buffer zone takes up less than 3% of Gaza land.

If that is 30% of Gaza's arable land, that means that Gaza has really very little arable land to begin with - some 33 square kilometers, less than 10% of the area. Satellite pictures of Gaza look like at least half of Gaza is "green," however.

This statistic seems unreliable, to say the least.

Moonbattery masqerading as statistics - 2009 edition

Yesterday a group called the "Economist Intelligence Unit" came out with a ranking of world countries based on how "peaceful" they are The US came in 83rd out of 144 countries, and Israel came in 141st. (Libya was #46, Egypt #54.) It was heavily covered in newspapers worldwide.

They have a very elaborate methodology, taking into account many different factors. The factors themselves seem to be the product of an interesting mindset. First they try to make it sound like it is entirely the result of rigorous statistics, but then they go into the specific indicators, which sound sort of reasonable until you dig in a little bit. They measure things like:

Number of external and internal conflicts fought: 2001-06
Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external)
Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
Level of organised conflict (internal)
Relations with neighbouring countries
Level of distrust in other citizens
Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population
Political instability
Level of disrespect for human rights (Political Terror Scale)
Potential for terrorist acts
Number of homicides per 100,000 people
Level of violent crime
Likelihood of violent demonstrations
Number of jailed population per 100,000 people
Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people
Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people
Volume of transfers (imports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
Volume of transfers (exports) of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
UN Deployments 2007-08 (percentage of total armed forces)
Non-UN Deployments 2007-08 (percentage of total armed forces)
Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people
Ease of access to small arms and light weapons
Military capability/sophistication

Then they weight it according to various factors.

The problem is that many of these "indicators" are purely subjective, and when subjective criteria are used to come up with objective data, the results are anything but objective.

In the case of Israel, their breakdown shows exactly where they go wrong. For example, here are some rankings where Israel did poorly according to the EIU:

Perceptions of criminality in society
Qualitative assessment of level of distrust in other citizens. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Israel got a 4, on a purely subjective guess based on little knowledge.

Similarly:

Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction
Qualitative assessment of the ease of access to small arms and light weapons. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.

Israel got a 3 (out of 5). Unmentioned are any controls around the access to these weapons or training in their use, as Israel's handgun deaths are quite low.

Level of organised conflict (internal) - 4
Qualitative assessment of the intensity of conflicts within the country. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Respect for human rights - 4
A qualitative measure of the level of political terror through an analysis of Amnesty International's Yearbook.

Potential for terriorist acts - 3.5
Qualitative assessment of the potential for terrorist acts. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Political instability - 2.25
Qualitative assessment of level of political instability. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Any time it says "qualitative assessment" it is using a fancy word for "guesses based on reading newspapers and Amnesty International reports."

Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people - 5
Active armed services personnel comprises all servicemen and women on full-time duty in the army, navy, air force and joint forces (including conscripts and long-term assignments from the Reserves)

Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people - 5
Source: Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC)

Military capability/sophistication - 5
Qualitative assessment of the grade of sophistication and the extent of military research and development (R&D) Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

See the problem here? This august group makes an assumption that any country that has a large and sophisticated military must be, inherently, non-peaceful. The logical fallacy of these assumptions are staggering, yet escape this think-tank.

The basic thinking of this group is that armies are inherently evil. This is breathtakingly stupid.

But there is a patina of objectivity around this extraordinarily flawed, and simply wrongheaded, analysis. The media is quick to lap these sorts of things up as if they have any real value.

Even more ironically, the EIU says that one of the biggest reasons for having such an index is to help businesses decide where to set up shop:

Business benefits greatly from an environment of peace. Understanding the attributes of peace allows governments to better understand what they can do to improve the business environment This knowledge allows business to make more confident investment decisions on the basis of actual and predicted stability in a community or nation.

They are pretty clearly saying that companies that choose to do business in Israel are idiots, because of their pseudo-scientific rankings.

Now, who do you trust more to make business decisions: a group that includes Google, IBM, Motorola, Microsoft and Warren Buffet, or the EIU?

The EIU has been doing this sham for a few years now, and one would think that they would adjust their sacred methodology to account for what is obviously a ridiculous conclusion, that Israel is less peaceful than most African nations where tens of thousands die monthly. But they get lots of press, and no one calls them on their basic methodological flaws, so why not keep it going?

(This post is an update of one I wrote last year on the same topic.)

Early "Palestinian" nationalists for a Greater Syria

L. King alerted me to an quote from James Gelvin's "The Israel-Palestine Conflict: 100 Years of War" of a pamphlet from 1920:

"The Decision of the Palestinian General Congress ( Feb 1920)

1. We confirm what we have always said, that Palestine is an integral part of Syria. We demand that it remain so, and shall use all measures to the last drop of our blood and the last breath of our children to achieve this end.

2. Because we come from all parts of Syria, we consider the Zionist danger to be directed against us and against our political and economic existence in the future. We shall therefore throw back the Zionists with all our force. If the allies continue to let them pursue their activities we shall oppose them by all means possible...

O Arab sons of Palestine:

The Syrian nation and the Palestinian associations are incensed that the [allies] would seek to detach Palestine from its motherland Syria, under the guise of establishing a national government. How can we accept the life of slaves to the Jews and foreigners and not defend our political and national rights? Raise your voice, protest this treachery and never fear threats of intimidation... If there exists a man among you who, bribed by gold or honors, rallies to the occupation government, stay away from him, boycott him, and show him your scorn, for he is a traitor to his country and his nation. Likewise, boycott the Jews, sell them nothing and buy nothing from them. Boycott those who sustain them and serve as underlings..."

Gelvin goes on to describe how most Arabs in Palestine preferred Syrian nationalism to Palestinian Arab nationalism, until France effectively shut down that possibility by separating Syria from Palestine (yet some still fought for Greater Syria even after that.)

The portions of the book that are available on Google Books are quite interesting.

L. King reviewed the book for Amazon here.

An earlier article on the pan-Syrian movement and the origins of the term "nakba" here.

Egyptian dissident: "Arab leaders want conflict"

A very interesting interview with Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a prominent Egyptian dissident, by Jeff Jacoby (h/t Soccer Dad), where Ibrahim talks about hwo Arab regimes use the Palestinian issue to avoid democratization. Here are some excerpts:

should Obama say something about freedom and human rights?
A: Yes. Even when he talks about Palestine, he can help the cause of democracy and human rights, because that issue has been used by all the authoritarian rulers to postpone democratic reform. They say: "Oh, we have a bigger issue: the issue of Palestine."

Q: Do you agree with those who say that what Arab leaders want isn't a Palestinian state, but a Palestinian struggle?

A: Yes, there are vested interests in keeping the Palestinian conflict going. So if Obama's speech will really be a breakthrough for peace, it will also be a stepping-stone to genuine democratization. Peace will take away the excuse that the authoritarian regimes use to justify their own hold on power.

Q: Do you see any Middle East leaders today as visionary peacemakers?

A: Not yet. You don't have a Sadat; you don't have a Rabin; you don't have a Begin.

Q: If Anwar Sadat could return and see what has happened in the Middle East in the last 30 years, what would he think?

A: You know, Sadat is the one who alerted me.

Q: Alerted you to what?

A: That the Arab regimes are living off the continuance of the conflict. He summoned me one day to the presidential palace.

Q: When was this?

A: In 1981; five weeks before he was assassinated.
Q: What happened?

A: I traveled to his compound and Sadat said to me: "I know you hate us." I was dumbfounded. I said, "Mr. President, why would I hate you? I just disagree with some of your policies." This was after the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor, and I had written that Sadat met with Begin three days before that attack. There were a lot of questions.

Q: About whether Sadat knew the attack was coming?

A: Exactly. If he did, it would be considered collusion with Israel against an Arab country. Remember, the whole Arab world had severed relations with Egypt [over Sadat's peace treaty with Israel]. Then Sadat said, "Do you think any of these guys really want to end the Arab-Israeli conflict?"

Q: Which guys?

A: The other Arab rulers. He said, "These guys do not want to solve anything. They want the conflict, because that's what justifies their continuation of power." He used an Arabic expression: "I will cut off my arm if 10 years from now any of them has made peace."

The exact same logic applies to the Palestinian Arab leadership today, a set of thugs who have consistently made decisions to extend their people's misery, year after year after year.

The entire interview is very good. Ibrahim is not as pessimistic as Westerners about the chances that democratic elections will put Islamists in power for any real timeframe, but he also realizes that Arab nations would need a number of years of freedom before being able to have real democratic elections - a point that I have made a number of times in the past, in eerily accurate postings about the Gaza elections from three and even four years ago.

Arab nations not paying pledges to PA

From AP, in a story I only saw picked up by two media outlets:

The Palestinian Authority faces a serious cash crisis after receiving only half of the aid money it needs to function every month, the International Monetary Fund said Monday, blaming delinquent Arab donors.
At risk are the salaries of around 150,000 Palestinian civil servants, who support most families in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Many economic analysts say Arab donors are reluctant to pay up because of Palestinian infighting between Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and the Islamic militant Hamas, which overran Gaza two years ago.
Arab donors believe if they withhold cash, it will pressure the two parties to reconcile, said Samir Hazboun, head of the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce.

Um, not quite, Samir. Arab donors don't want to waste their money.

But IMF official Oussama Kanaan warned that everyday Palestinians are getting caught in the middle.

"Arab donors should be aware that if they don't pay, they are not punishing one party or another. The average Palestinian will be hurt," he said.
The Palestinian Authority needs around $120 million dollars in aid to balance its monthly budget, but is receiving only around $66 million.
At a summit in 2000, Arab countries pledged to give around $50 million a month to the Palestinian Authority, but they have sent only $77 million altogether this year, Kanaan said, or a little more than a quarter of the amount they promised.
European countries and the United States have largely fulfilled their aid pledges, economists said.
The Palestinian Authority owes around $530 million to local banks in loans to make up the shortfall, said Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in a statement.
Kanaan said it was unlikely banks would keep extending credit to the Palestinian Authority.

Arab countries talk big about how they want to help their poor, oppressed Palestinian brethren. Every time the West suggests that perhaps they act like adults - silly little things like human rights and fighting terror - they respond that they can't do anything as long as the Palestinian issue isn't resolved.

Yet, when it comes to actually doing things to help the Palestinian Arabs themselves, all they have is words. They will give high-profile donations of ambulances to Gaza that cost little, but real economic help is left to the West.

The reasons remain the same as they were last year - the Arabs don't consider the Palestinian Arabs to be a good investment.

They value the PalArabs for their propaganda value and their ability to keep the heat off of their own regimes; a way to distract their own people from real problems, a way to blame Israel for all of their own shortcomings.

But they have zero incentive to actually help Palestinian Arabs live their lives in peace and prosperity. In fact, they have a incentive to keep Palestinian Arabs stateless and miserable.

It would behoove President Obama not to listen to the words of the Arab regimes when he visits Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but to look at their actions on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. Perhaps then he would realize that "settlements" is hardly the obstacle to peace - it is the Arabs themselves.

An illusion of free speech in Saudi Arabia

The Saudi Gazette did end up posting my reply to their article from last week.

However, they waited for a number of days before doing it, ensuring that essentially no one would ever read it, as very few people would stumble onto that article after it falls off the front page of their website.

This way, they can claim that they welcome all viewpoints and still practice censorship at the same time.

Late night open thread

As time available for blogging continues to dwindle, I have to create more and more open threads to pick up the slack...

Feel free to post any cool links or messages. Here's one from yesterday.

Abbas happy Obama pressuring Israel

An incredibly depressing editorial in the Washington Post sheds light on Obama's New Middle East, where old agreements are scuttled and ignored, and where America pressures Israel while Palestinian Arabs have no responsibilities:

On Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula.

Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position, however, is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments. From its first days the Bush administration made it clear that the onus for change in the Middle East was on the Palestinians: Until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel.

Obama, in contrast, has repeatedly and publicly stressed the need for a West Bank settlement freeze, with no exceptions. In so doing he has shifted the focus to Israel. He has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told me and Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.' "

Of course, Abbas did close to nothing that was required from him while the US leaned on him. Even then, his strategy was to wait - until Bush was gone.

He's excellent at doing nothing and being praised for it.

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said.

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze -- if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. "It will take a couple of years," one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession -- such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

Instead, he says, he will remain passive. "I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements," he said. "Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." In the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian.

You mean, Israel hasn't choked the Palestinian Arab lives in the West Bank? The settlements haven't caused them to be squeezed out of life? The roadblocks haven't forced thousands of people to die trying to get to hospitals? Israel's oppressive policies are having no effect on their daily lives? They can go to work and raise their families and go out to eat and visit other countries even though they don't have their own state? Those years of pressure by the US didn't hurt their people? People living under the dreaded "occupation" are living normal lives??

It's almost as if years of articles by Palestinian Arabs about their horrible plight were all a bunch of lies! Say it ain't so, Mahmoud!

Doonesbury treats Obama better than God

For reasons I cannot fathom, I still read Doonesbury some thirty years after Garry Trudeau stopped being funny.

Last week, he finally answered the question of how a legendary satirist and dedicated liberal could make fun of the most liberal President in history - and the answer is, he cannot (click to enlarge):

The entire week of strips was about Obama's inability to be funny.

He has no problem making fun of the Jewish God (click to enlarge):

...but some things are sacred!

One reason the PA cannot survive

Yesterday, the Palestinian Authority sentenced a man to a lifetime of hard labor for "collaborating" with Israel:

A Palestinian Authority court of first instance in Ramallah sentenced a man to lifetime penal servitude after he was found guilty of treason on Monday.

Knowledgeable sources told Ma’an that the convict, who was referred to only by the initials “HA,” was found guilty of violating articles 11 and 112 of Palestinian penal law number 16 of the year 1960. He was told he could appeal the verdict.

...Israeli intelligence appointed him to spy on several wanted Palestinians including Naji Arar from the village of Qarawat Bani Hassan, helping Israeli intelligence to capture Arar and others.

The convict also admitted in court that he reported to Israeli intelligence about Palestinian resistance fighters either by mobile phone or through a woman from Ramallah, or by meetings held with intelligence officers at a military base near Ar-Ram checkpoint, or another near the Israeli settlement of Bet El.

Also yesterday, in the wake of the gun battle where the PA police were trying to arrest Hamas terrorists in the West Bank, killing two of them, Hamas issued a statement:

Mushir al-Masri of the Hamas parliament made an unprecedented attack on President Mahmoud Abbas and called him a "Zionist" and "American," asserting that Fatah does not have a genuine will for dialogue.

Mushir al-Masri said to President Abbas, "You are more Zionist than the Zionists, and you are more American than the Americans."

Now, who sounds more like a "collaborator" - the PA police or the man sentenced for treason? What argument does the PA have to answer when Hamas accuses them of collaborating with Israeli intelligence, the Americans and the IDF as they clearly have been?

The hypocrisy of taking a tough line against people who do exactly the same thing that the PA does does not go unnoticed by Palestinian Arabs. All political groups tend to allow their agendas to be set by those who are tone deaf to nuance, but Arabs more so than most - and the nuance of public denunciations of "collaboration" while engaging in much more explicit forms of the same "crime" is lost on practically all Palestinian Arabs.

When the ultimate battle between the PA and the Islamists occurs, only one side will have a consistent and defensible position that would appeal to the excitable masses. This is what happened in Gaza and this is what will happen in the West Bank, no matter how much Western money is brought in to prop up the PA.

Many or most Palestinian Arabs just want to live their lives and raise their families in peace, with the Islamic extremists probably still a minority. Yet it is exactly that attitude that causes them to not be passionate about the PA. Passionate people are targets, passionate people get killed, passionate people cannot be expected to become grandfathers. Pragmatic people play it safe and keep their heads down. As a result, the passionate people will win the battle between Hamas and the PA - the people who care most about their families are the ones who will stay out of the fight.

And they are the PA's base.

Of the rest of the people, Hamas' positions are clear, mostly consistent and attractive. Those are the people who are willing to die for their positions. No amount of money can alter that fact.

UNRWA chief slanders Israel

From Ma'an:

The UN’s director of relief operations in Gaza told Palestinians in Gaza that they had not been defeated by the Israeli military on Sunday.

“The Palestinians were not defeated by Israeli army in its latest offensive against the Gaza Strip, and they proved to be capable of resuming their life anew despite all their hardships,” said John Ging, the director of the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), which serves hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Gaza.

This means that the official UNRWA position is that Israel's goal in Gaza was to defeat the "Palestinians," not to stop rockets or deter Hamas.

The only way to interpret Ging's statement is to say that he believes that this was a war whose goal was genocide, and the Israelis failed in their attempts to eradicate all Arabs from Gaza.

This is a slanderous and sickening statement. But it is not a surprising one.