Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, January 08, 2010

Future Martyr

Firas Press has an ongoing feature where it republishes pictures of Palestinian Arab children sent in by their parents. Usually the pictures are just cute, but sometimes, the pictures are edited in ways similar to "martyr" posters.

Today's kid is definitely being set up by his parents to be a martyr, if only because he is wrapped in the flag of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades:

I happened to find the original background picture, from Reuters:

As far as I can tell, none of the commenters on the page have anything but praise for the picture.

Galloway deported from Egypt

Too funny: (h/t PTWatch)

Leader of the Viva Palestinan convoy and British MP George Galloway was deported from Egyptian soil moments after he set foot on it, crossing the border at Rafah from Gaza, organizers of the convoy said.

A statement from the group said Galloway and a colleague "were forcibly pushed into a van, refused exit and told that they were leaving the country," as they entered Egypt.

Egyptian security sources confirmed the decision to deport Galloway, saying officials had decided to bar the British MP from entering Egypt in the future and added the country would "also put all the convoy members on the black list after they leave." Officials were upset over the protests launched by the convoy, which spurred riots at the Rafah border, which lead to the death of an Egyptian police officer.

In a related story, Egypt is demanding that Hamas hand over the person who shot and killed an Egyptian guard during riots at the Rafah border over the convoy, and a "decent" apology.

PLO hypocrisy on "Right of Return"

Looking a little further at the PLO's official positions as mentioned in their Mission to the US website, we see this stunning piece of hypocrisy:

Refugees and the Right of Return

Palestinian refugees must be given the option to exercise their right of return (as well as receive compensation for their losses arising from their dispossession and displacement) though refugees may prefer other options such as: (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (even though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. What is important is that individual refugees decide for themselves which option they prefer – a decision must not be imposed upon them.

If Option (iii) is on the table, then why does there have to be a Palestinian Arab state beforehand? The stateless Palestinian Arabs could simply choose to become residents of their host countries today!

There are two groups of people that prevent that from happening: Arab leaders and Palestinian Arab leaders, including the leader of the PLO today.

The Arab League specified in 1959 that Palestinian Arabs, alone among all Arabs, were excluded from becoming citizens of Arab countries (see page 144-145 here.)

And how does the PLO leader react to this obvious case of injustice and discrimination? By agreeing with it, of course. On at least three occasions in the past couple of years, Mahmoud Abbas confirmed that he does not want Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon to have the option of becoming full citizens of the country they were born in.

The only recognized Palestinian Arab leader has said many times that he does not want Palestinian "refugees" to have the option of becoming citizens in their host countries. Yet the PLO website lies, to a Western audience, by claiming that they want to give the refugees a choice as to where they want to live!

See also this article where we learn that Arafat had zero interest in helping out the "refugees." The only time that Palestinian Arab leaders show interest in the refugees is if they think that they can help destroy Israel - otherwise, they like to see them rot.

"Historic Palestine"

One of the well-worn memes of the anti-Israel crowd is that Israel is only offering 14%, or 12%, of "Historic Palestine" to the Palestinian Arabs. For example, here is a small sample of how the phrase has been used in recent days:

What remains to the Palestinians now is less than 14% of Historic Palestine, all of it as isolated Bantustans, shrinking ghettos, walls, fences, checkpoints with surly soldiers,and the perpetual encroachment of expanding illegal Israeli colonies.

[In 1948 Israel] stole 78% of historic Palestine as the first step toward seizing it all for exclusive Jewish use.

And the Guardian defines "historic Palestine" for us:

[Islamil Haniyeh's] defiant rhetoric celebrated the movement's 22nd year, pledged never to recognise Israel and claimed the whole of historic Palestine for the Palestinians. "Palestine from the sea to the river, we won't surrender it," he told the crowd.

So does the PLO on its new US Mission website:

The problem is that historical Palestine never looked like this, unless your concept of "history" starts after World War One. This is a historic map of the Western-designed British Mandate for Palestine since 1922 or so, not in any real sense "historic" (more properly, "historical.")

Here is what Palestine looked like in a few random maps from before the British Mandate:

The Negev region is almost never included, and significant parts of today's Jordan are. (Egypt claims that Eilat is part of its own historic land.) The Jordan River is never a boundary for any conception of Palestine before the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

In terms of "Historic Palestine," the 1948 armistice lines probably includes perhaps 30% or maybe 40% - certainly not 78%.

The question that no Palestinian Arab or supporter has yet answered is why their claims always coincide with the parts of Palestine that are under Jewish rule, and not the parts that are under Arab rule? Why did the PLO in 1964 explicitly exclude the West Bank from its desired nation? Why doesn't Hamas today say that parts of Jordan should be within the boundaries of the state they demand?

If "Palestine" is so important to them, why don't they claim it all? Why do they accept the arbitrary, imperialistic Western division of their "historic nation" as a basis of their supposedly ancient historic claims?

The answer is simple - they don't care about historic Palestine. They care about the ultimate destruction of any Jewish state on what they consider Arab or Muslim land. All of the rhetoric about "historic Palestine" is a lie that is meant to mislead the West.

From the Guardian link mentioned above, it is a lie that has been extraordinarily successful.

(See also my previous post on "Eastern Palestine".)

PLO spells out its positions on Jerusalem

For those who naively think that the PA "only" wants Israel to withdraw to the Green Line and then peace will reign supreme, the new "PLO Mission to the United States" website spells out otherwise.

This website is meant to portray a moderate front to Western audiences, but it is filled with half-lies and outright lies that would take a month of fisking to flesh out. Here is just what they say about Jerusalem:

Israel has no legal right to any part of East Jerusalem since East Jerusalem was part of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. East Jerusalem is part of the territory over which the indigenous Palestinian population shall exercise sovereignty upon Israeli withdrawal.

In 1967, there were no legally recognized "Palestinian territories" and Israel's acquisition of them in a defensive war with Jordan is not a legal "occupation" according to the only definition of occupation listed in international law, the 1907 Hague Conventions.

In conformity with international law and as stated in the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, all of Jerusalem (and not merely East Jerusalem) is the subject of permanent status negotiations.

The PLO here is formally stating that they want to go beyond the Green Line and claim a stake in the western part of Jerusalem as well. When Oslo says in 1993 that "Jerusalem" will be a part of the permanent status negotiations, the PLO is interpreting that as if all of Jerusalem is on the table - a gross misintepretation of the 1993 agreement, which is only saying that Jerusalem will be discussed at a later time, not that the western part is up for negotiations.

Jerusalem should be an open city. Within Jerusalem, irrespective of the resolution of the question of sovereignty, there should be no physical partition that would prevent the free circulation of persons within it.

Here is where they are solidifying their claim above - saying that they want full rights to allow terrorists to freely enter Jewish areas of the city, and beyond.

Palestine and Israel shall be committed to guaranteeing freedom of worship at and access to religious sites within Jerusalem. Both states will take all possible measures to protect such sites and preserve their dignity.

This is a joke meant as a sop to the West. The PLO officially does not want any Jewish access to Jewish holy sites in Hebron, Nablus and Bethlehem, and the only reason there is any access today is because of Israel's "illegal occupation," not because of any liberal thinking on the PLO's part. Jerusalem would be the same in short order if the PLO would convince the West of its "peaceful intentions." Moreover, the idea that the PLO would ever allow Jewish free access to the Temple Mount is beyond absurd.

The PLO is who Israel is officially negotiating with, not the PA, so this is not an extreme, splinter position. This is what the "moderate" Palestinian wing is demanding, in English.

In Arabic, you will still be hard-pressed to find a map of "Palestine" that shows Israel at all.

Muslims massacre 7 Coptic Christians in Egypt

From Time:

Three men in a car sprayed automatic gunfire into a crowd of churchgoers in southern Egyptian as they left a midnight Mass for Coptic Christmas, killing at least seven people in a drive-by shooting, the church bishop and security officials said.

Muslims are fearful that Christians worldwide will riot and threaten their communities in retaliation for the massacre.

Just kidding!

Hamas terror training in Lebanon; Hezbollah upset

From Naharnet:

The explosion that rocked Beirut's southern suburbs over the weekend has reportedly took place during live ammunition training of Hamas members.
Pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, citing Lebanese sources, said Wednesday the blast occurred as Hamas members exercised with live ammunition in the basement of Hamas headquarters in Haret Hreik neighborhood in Dahiyeh.

Beirut media agreed that the explosion took place inside a room used by Hamas members in the basement of a building that houses Bank of Kuwait and the Arab World on the main road between Haret Hreik and Bir Abed.

Asharq al-Awsat said Hizbullah was displeased with Hamas.

It said Hizbullah has informed Hamas leadership that the Shiite group was "deeply dismayed at what had happened, particularly that training took place without the knowledge of the party and inside a residential building."

How dare Hamas store and test weapons in civilian areas in Lebanon? Hezbollah has the exclusive franchise on that business!

The Guardian makes a slight correction; still wrong

The Guardian article I quoted this morning has been updated to include the death of an Egyptian guard from rioting Gazans. It took out its self-contradictory part, but kept a flat-out lie:

Israel's strict blockade of Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, prevents all exports and limits imports to a few humanitarian items. Egypt has also kept its one border crossing with Gaza, at Rafah, largely closed.

The number of items that Israel allows into Gaza, while not a comprehensive list of everything needed, has included a wide variety of categories, way beyond a "few" items. And, as I noted, Israel has allowed flowers and strawberries to be exported from Gaza, both last spring for the flowers (if I recall correctly) and in the past week for both items.

Notice also that Israel "blockades" while Egypt simply "largely closes" its border. The Guardian could not bother to mention that 99% of all goods that enter Gaza is through the party doing the "blockading."

Anti-semitic C-SPAN video clip with Michael Scheuer

A helpful tipster managed to download the C-SPAN interview I mentioned yesterday. Here is the section with the unbelievably anti-semitic question by the caller, the clueless C-SPAN anchor not even blinking as he asks for comments, and then Michael Scheuer pretty much telling the world how Israel deserves to be the target of terror attacks.

Gazans recycling rubble

After a year of using rubble from Cast Lead as a huge prop for TV cameras, Gazans are finally starting to do something constructive:

They are recycling the rubble into new cement blocks.

This photo essay from Palestine Today shows how:

Which means that Hamas is now back building weapons bunkers under Gaza homes and schools.

Arab warns of Israeli rumors

An article in the Islamic Jihad-aligned Palestine Today warns that Israelis are trying to destroy the fabric of Palestinian Arab society by planting rumors. Ironically, the author brings no specific examples of an Israeli-started rumor, meaning that he is starting a rumor himself.

We should cut him some slack, though. After all, I hear that he acts as a collaborator for the Mossad and suffers from erectile dysfunction.

"Peace" protestors riot in Egypt

George Galloway's "Viva Palestina" convoy members started rioting in El Arish when the Egyptian government told them that some of the items that they planned to bring to Gaza must go through Israel.

A security official said the vehicles in question are carrying pickup trucks, sedans, generators and other equipment, which are not allowed to pass through the Egyptian crossing at Rafah and had to go via Israel. Only medical aid and passengers are allowed through, the official said.

While the Galloway group insists that the rioting was started by plainclothes Egyptian policemen throwing rocks at the group, other reports have the group abducting four harbor police officers. As many as 15 police were injured.

Palestine Press Agency reports that Egyptian TV showed injured Egyptian police, and said that police were injured by members of the convoy pelting them with rocks. It also adds that the agreement between the convoy and Egyptian authorities were that only buses would be allowed to enter, not private cars.

Non-violence!

The Guardian throws in this very inaccurate paragraph as background information:

Israel's strict blockade of Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, prevents all exports and limits imports to a few humanitarian items. The policy has grown ever tighter since Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, won parliamentary elections in early 2006 and then seized full security control of Gaza a year later. Israel now regards the strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, as a "hostile entity".

I emailed to them, saying:

The two sentences contradict each other - the first says the blockade began in 2007 and the second says it began much earlier.

Besides that, Israel has recently allowed exports of flowers and strawberries from Gaza, and they also allowed a shipment of flowers last spring.

We will see if they correct the story.

Iraq seeking compensation for Osirak bombing

Palestine Press Agency quotes Maariv as saying that the current Iraqi government is seeking financial compensation from Israel for the damage caused by the bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

Would the Iraqis agree to also pay Israel for the damage caused by their Scud missiles, the cost of gas masks for every Israeli citizen and compensation for the cost of every "safe room" in all Israeli houses and buildings that were built directly because of Iraqi actions and threats? Will they compensate Iraqi Jews whose property they expropriated in the 1950s and after the Six Day War? And once we are looking at compensation, how about compensation for the lives of 180 Jews murdered in the Farhud pogrom of 1941 during Shavuot?

Arabs: Don't visit our third holiest site!

From the Jordan Times:

Anti-normalisation activists on Saturday urged Jordanians to refrain from visiting Jerusalem and other sites in Palestine for religious purposes, but travel agents insisted they were within their rights to offer tour packages to these sites.
Hamzah Mansour, president of the National Committee for Anti-Normalisation, said the committee is considering holding a public event to condemn tourism to Palestine.

In a statement posted on the Islamic Action Front website, Mansour criticised travel agents who promote tours to Jerusalem and called for an end to this practice.

"We noticed an increase in the number of visits to Israel under the pretext of seeing holy sites in Jerusalem and other places. This must stop because it is an act of normalisation," said Mansour, who insists that obtaining a visa from the Israeli embassy in Amman is recognition of Israel's existence.

The Islamist movement opposes peace with Israel and refuses to recognise it.

Mansour, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood shura council and a former MP, accused travel agents of "preying on religious sentiments" by promoting travel to Israel.

Jerusalem is holy to all three monotheistic religions, being home to Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam's third holiest site, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which Christians believe to be the site of Christ's death and resurrection.

This is the second time in less than two months that activists have spoken out against visits to Israel through tour packages.

There are no official figures on the number of Jordanians who visited Israel for religious purposes, but activists say more such trips were organised last year than in 2008.

Travel agents, however, insist they have committed no wrongdoing.

A travel agent from the city of Fuheis, who preferred not to be named, said the decision whether or not to travel to Palestine should be left up to individual people.

"We don’t force anybody. This is a personal decision. People have the freedom to do what they want. Moreover, even if these places are under Israeli occupation, we must see them because they belong to us, not the Jews," he told The Jordan Times.

The Al Jazeera version of the story was republished in Al Quds with some additional detail.

The entire story points to a basic truth about many Arabs that needs to be stressed: they hate Israel far more than they love Jerusalem. (And, as we have seen throughout history, their stated love of Jerusalem is directly proportional to the number of Jews there.)

This initiative to stop Arab tourism to holy sites also impacts some other people: the many Arabs who make their livings in the souks of the Old City. Ask them whether they would prefer to see Jordanian tourists or not. The supposed defenders of Islam who are railing against visits to Jerusalem do not care at all about the Palestinian Arabs who are hurt by their decision, showing again that they hate Israel more than they love their Arab brethren.

Former CIA analyst throws Israel to the dogs on C-SPAN

Incredible anti-semitism and Israel loathing on C-SPAN, noticed by Adam Holland:

In an interview televised on C-SPAN on January 4, former CIA bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer advocated that the United States should "dissuade" terrorists from focusing their anger on the U.S. by "persuad(ing) them to focus their anger on what they themselves perceive as their enemy: the governments that ... oppress them and Israel". His comment is viewable at 10:30 of the below-linked video:

C-SPAN Video Player - Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief (1996-99)

Following this modest proposal to throw Israel to the wolves, Scheuer received the following grossly anti-Semitic question from a caller called John from Franklin, NY who identified himself as a political independent (viewable at 15:00 of the above-linked video). Question and answer are presented below in their entirety. Scheuer's response is instructive:

John from Franklin: I for one am sick and tired of all these Jews coming on C-SPAN and other stations and pushing us to go to war against our Muslim friends. They're willing to spend the last drop of American blood and treasure to get their way in the world. They have way too much power in this country. People like Wolfowitz and Feith an the other neo-cons -- that jewed us into Iraq -- and now we're going to spend the next 60 years rehabilitating our soldiers -- I'm sick and tired of it.

C-SPAN host: Any comments?

Scheuer: Yeah. I think that American foreign policy is ultimately up to the American people. One of the big things we have not been able to discuss for the past 30 years is the Israelis. Whether we want to be involved in fighting Israel's wars in the future is something that Americans should be able to talk about. They may vote yes. They may want to see their kids killed in Iraq or Yemen or somewhere else to defend Israel. But the question is: we need to talk about it. Ultimately Israel is a country that is of no particular worth the United States.

C-SPAN host: You mean strategically?

Scheuer: Strategically. They have no resources we need. Their manpower is minimal. Their association with us is a negative for the United States. Now that's a fact. What you want to do about that fact is entirely different. But for anyone to stand up in the United States and say that support for Israel doesn't hurt us in the Muslim world is to just defy reality.