Tuesday, July 06, 2010

  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
The World Zionist Organization published a book of speeches made by Zionist leaders immediately after the Balfour Declaration, called "Great Britain, Palestine and the Jews." Since the Internet is so filled with (usually bogus) statements of how Zionists were hell-bent on ethnically cleansing Arabs, I thought that it is worthwhile to publish the words of Nahum Sokolow, then secretary general of the World Zionist Congress and as mainstream and important a Zionist leader as any at the time.

We appreciate deeply the important remarks offered by our distinguished friend Sir Mark Sykes on the subject of the relations between the Jews, the Arabs, and the Armenians. My reply to these remarks is: We are Zionists—not only Zionists for ourselves, but also for the Arabs and the Armenians as well. Zionism means faithfulness to one's own old country, to one's own old home. Zionism means consciousness of a nation. Can we Jews be ignorant of the fact that the Arab nation is a noble nation which has been persecuted? Is not the co-operation between the Arabs and ourselves, the Jews, in the Middle Ages for civilisation and for true culture written in our hearts and deep-rooted in our conscience? Our membership of the Semitic race, our title to a place in the civilisation of the world and to influence the world and take our share in the development of civilisation, have always been emphasised. If racial kinship really counts, if great associations exist which must serve as a foundation for the future, these associations exist between us and the Arabs. I believe in the logic of these facts. In the principle of nationality lies the certainty of our justice. There lies also the certainty of our brotherhood with the Arabs and the Armenians. We look most hopefully to the happy days when these three nations will create—in fact they have already created in the consciousness of some of their leaders—an entente cordiale in the countries of the Near East which have been neglected for so long.

We are not going to take away anvbody's property or to prejudice anybody's rights. We are going to find the land which is available and to settle down wherever there is room, and to live in the best relations with our neighbours—to live and to let the others live. Palestine is not yet a populated, civilised, prosperous country. We are going to make it so by investing our means, our energies, and our intelligence. I was glad to hear that some of your speakers had been to Palestine. They have seen how the country looks. You may have read in The Times that one of its correspondents described the hills of Judaea as roadless, barren hills. But they were not always roadless and barren. In old times these hills were covered with terraces. Now the Jews have again gone there and have rebuilt some of these terraces. If there is anything left of civilisation, of modern agriculture, and of industry in the country it is due to the efforts of that handful of Jewish settlers working under the most difficult conditions.

I would like to say also a few words on the religious question. I had the honour to speak on this question to some representatives of the Church of England and to the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope. (Applause.) I made to them a statement, which I can repeat to you here. We Zionists hate the word toleration, and Sir Mark Sykes really struck the very point when he condemned the word. We don't like mere toleration by non-Jews, and we don't want them to be tolerated. We know that Palestine is full of sanctuaries and of holy places, holy to the Christian world, holy to Islam, holy to ourselves. Are we blind not to see that there are these places of worship and of veneration? Palestine is the very place where religious conflicts should disappear. There we should meet as brethren, and there we should learn to love each other, not merely to tolerate each other. (Applause.) I declared this to the representatives of the great Churches and I can repeat it here.
Also, in an earlier rally, the crowds heard from two Arabs who felt that the Balfour Declaration would be a precursor to kickstart a similar Arab nationalist movement:

Shahk Ismail Abdul-al-akki then addressed the meeting. He spoke in Arabic, and his speech was translated by Mr. I. Sieff, who mentioned that the speaker was under sentence of death by the Turkish Government for having joined the Arab national movement. Shahk Ismail said he desired to tender deep gratitude to the British nation and the British Government for affording his countrymen and himself help and asylum in their hour of persecution. His country was held in chains by the Turks, who were supplied with German gold, and he looked with confidence to England and France to deliver them from bondage, as he believed in the ultimate good over evil, and was confident in the victory of the Allies. He not only spoke as an Arab, but as a "Moslem" Arab, having studied five years in Theological Schools and being granted a Degree, and it was the duty of every Moslem to participate in the movement for the liberation of their countrymen. The meeting was to celebrate the great act of the British Government in recognising the aspirations of the Jewish people, and he appealed to them not to forget in the days of their happiness that...
An Armenian leader echoed the same sentiments concerning an independent Armenia that could have been heralded by a similar declaration - that never came.
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
In an interview with Al Arabiya, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal's cell phone rang.

The ringtone was the theme song of the popular Turkish soap opera that was translated into Arabic as "Noor."

He's a real man's man.

(I've blogged about how wildly popular Noor was in the past. Wikipedia says that it is going to become a feature film.)

Correction: It was Meshal's son's phone, not his. (h/t Ali)
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From MEMRI:

Mahmoud Al-Zahhar: "We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land. 
"This is our plan for this stage – to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, without recognizing Israel’s right to a single inch of land, and without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee.
[...]
"Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy. "

"As for the issue of a referendum – [the Palestinian Authority] is ready to impose its position on people by force. Whoever wants to hold a referendum, and believes that he can get all of Palestine for the Palestinians, can hold a referendum, but will not give up the platform of resistance, and the plan to liberate Palestine in its entirety. This is unequivocal.
[...]
"If we could liberate the Negev now, we would continue [our military activity], but our capabilities dictate that after we got rid of the Israeli presence in Gaza, we must finish off the remnants of that occupation, and move on to the West Bank."

Source: Al-Wafd, Egypt, June 23, 2010

This is strikingly similar to Yasir Arafat's "phased plan" to destroy Israel in stages, formulated in 1974:
The Liberation Organization will employ all means, and first and foremost armed struggle, to liberate Palestinian territory and to establish the independent combatant national authority for the people over every part of Palestinian territory that is liberated. This will require further changes being effected in the balance of power in favour of our people and their struggle.

The Liberation Organization will struggle against any proposal for a Palestinian entity the price of which is recognition, peace, secure frontiers, renunciation of national rights and the deprival of our people of their right to return and their right to self-determination on the soil of their homeland.
Arafat (and other leaders)  referred to this plan often even after Oslo.

But just as an unrepentant Fatah-dominated PLO is now considered a peace partner for Israel today, some are now calling Hamas a similarly pragmatic potential peace partner.

Yet the facts belie the idea that either of them are interested in peace. The Fatah platform from last year as well as the current PA leadership explicitly reject the idea of Palestinian Arab resettlement in Arab countries, and any eventual West Bank state cannot accommodate all of the "refugees." The clear intent is to push the "right of return" on day one after any Palestinian Arab state is declared, using the successful formula of incessantly using the language of human rights to negate any Jewish rights to the historic Jewish homeland.

The only difference between Hamas and Fatah is that Hamas is more honest.

(h/t Jed for YouTube link)
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Podhoretz on NYT's latest (interestingly timed) revelation.

CSM on how US efforts to separate Syria from Hezbollah are boomeranging.

Yaakov Lozowick notices a telling statement.

YNet reports on Iran's officially approved haircuts for men.

Moshe Arens on Egypt and Jordan's fear of Palestinian Arabs on their border.

Israel smartly decided to use an existing international agreement to define the list of items not allowed into Gaza.

Pajamas Media discusses the "peace index" that I had written about today.
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
The IDF has just come out with a press release:

The IDF Military Advocate General, Maj. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit, has decided to take legal action regarding a number of incidents that occurred during Operation Cast Lead, following his examination of the findings from the investigations carried out through a number of different channels.

The Military Advocate General has decided to indict a number of officers and soldiers for their conduct during the operation. In one case, an IDF officer at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel was summoned to a disciplinary hearing for having deviated from military directives pertaining to the prohibition on the use of civilians for operational activity. In a second case, the Military Advocate General indicted an IDF Staff Sergeant for manslaughter. In a third case, the Military Advocate General ordered a criminal investigation following his review of a field investigation in order to clarify the circumstances of a specific incident. In a fourth case, disciplinary action was taken against an IDF Captain for his failed professional judgment in authorizing an attack against a terror operative.

In accordance with the Chief of the General Staff’s commitment on the matter, an ongoing, comprehensive process of examination has been carried out within the IDF since the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead, in order to study claims made by various individuals and organizations regarding IDF conduct during the operation.

Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi ordered an examination of IDF conduct, and the ethical aspects thereof, in full confidence of the moral justness of the IDF, its officers and soldiers, as well as of the IDF’s ability to examine any incident, to draw the necessary conclusions, and to take legal action as necessary. More than 150 incidents have been examined and nearly 50 investigations have been launched by the Military Police Criminal Investigations Division since the operation’s conclusion.
The four incidents include the Al Maqadama Mosque incident, where the IDF confirms that it targeted a terrorist outside the mosque (as we now know, he was with a number of other terrorists as well, who were hit.) Even so, the IDF says that procedures were not properly adhered to.

Similarly, indictment concerning the complaint by Majdi Abed-Rabbo that he was used as a human shield includes the interesting fact that, according to IDF soldiers at the scene, he had asked the IDF soldiers if he could go to speak to the militants inside his house in order to minimize the chances for his house next door being destroyed if there was a battle. According to IDF rules, the battalion commander should not have allowed it to happen.

There is also an indictment on an apparent case of a soldier firing on a group with a white flag as well as an air-strike on the Al Samouni residence.

These investigations are nightmarishly complex, but from reading this release one gets the impression that the IDF takes them very seriously, even as the world accuses them of whitewashing any deviations from protocol.
Firas Press reports that a 21-year old man killed and buried his 20-year old sister for reasons of "family honor" in the northern Gaza strip.

He confessed to the crime. Police are still looking for the body.

By my count, this is the eleventh woman murdered this year in the territories.
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Once again, Vision of Humanity compiled the Global Peace Index, which defines "peace" in bizarre ways - and, of course, ranks Israel close to last among all countries.

This year, Israel's position changed from 141 out of 144 countries to 144 out of 149, which they say is an improvement of two places.

The US is ranked 85th, on the lower half of the scale. 

While Israel is ranked as more peaceful than Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan, it falls below the Congo, Lebanon and even Yemen, with its ongoing multiple conflicts.


As with previous years, the "experts" who compiled this list create a flawed methodology that pretends to be objective but is filled with estimates that they pretty much make up.

The most notable change in individual scores was Israel's ranking for "disrespect for human rights." Unlike most of the qualitative scores, they actually give a specific definition of what each score means in this category. This is how they define the rankings:


• Level 1: Countries under a secure rule of law. People are not imprisoned for their views and torture is rare or exceptional.
• Level 2: There is a limited amount of imprisonment for non-violent political activity. However, few persons are affected and torture and beatings are exceptional. Politically motivated murder is rare.
• Level 3: There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views is accepted.
• Level 4: Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances, and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level political terror affects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas.
• Level 5: Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals.

Now, the worst one can say about Israel - even including the territories as part of Israel, as this survey appears to do without actually saying so - is Level 2. (If you consider assassinations of terrorist leaders to be "politically motivated murder," you might be able to argue that Israel was a Level 3 in previous years, but I am unaware of any targeted assassinations in 2009.)  There is no way that you can say that in Israel "murders, disappearances, and torture are a common part of life" (level 4) or that it ranks as the worst in the world in disrespect for human rights, with the government terrorizing the entire population (level 5).

Yet Israel is ranked as Level 5 - worse than the 4 it received in previous years. (For comparison, Syria, Yemen and Iran are rated as to getting a 4, Egypt and Saudi Arabia a 3.5, Libya a 3. North Korea was one of the few countries besides Israel to be rated a 5.)

They mention this in the text, and give the reason for the score - without referring to their own definition:


There was also a substantial fall in the level of respect for human rights to a score of 5, although this indicator refers to 2008 and so includes the incursion of the Israel Defence Force into Gaza – a conflict that resulted in an estimated 1,417 Palestinian casualties (official Israeli sources put the death toll at 1,166) and 13 Israeli fatalities.


Is this objective science? Of course not. Many of the indicators they rank countries on (such as electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, civil liberties, corruption perceptions, freedom of the press) are "qualitative assessments" made either by the Economist Intelligence Unit or other "experts."

Rankings like these  are only as good as the data that is used, and when a large percentage of that data is subjective, then the conclusions cannot be anything but deeply flawed. If anything, these results reflect the cumulative effect of years of worldwide demonization of Israel affecting the supposed impartiality of the experts whose opinions form the backbone of this index.

Not to mention the assumption that countries that, for example, export weapons are by definition less peaceful than countries that don't. Syria doesn't have a very big weapons industry; Israel does - and that is just one reason why Syria, with its repressive military government and explicit support for terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, is ranked at 115, way above Israel. Not only is the data bad, but the very assumptions behind the data are wrong.

Not that this stops the media from referring to this Peace Index as an authoritative source.

(See also my post about this from last year.)
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas' coordinator for goods from Israel, Raed Fattouh, said that the cement that is now coming into Gaza both from the flotilla and from others is all earmarked for "international projects" and will not benefit ordinary Gazans.

Which is strange, because while UNRWA is also saying that the cement and other building materials it plans to bring into Gaza is meant for "international projects," it defines them as including rebuilding the houses destroyed during Cast Lead - which is specifically for ordinary citizens.

Given that UNRWA has a track record of building houses for Gazans, seems to be a bit more believable.
  • Tuesday, July 06, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
UNRWA recently came out with its "medium-term" strategy document. And once again, it says that it has a "non-political role" in trying to improve the lives of Palestinian Arabs.

The strategy document itself starkly shows the difference between UNRWA today and from when it was formed.  Even though the W of UNRWA stands for "works," UNRWA has completely and totally abandoned its original purpose of finding reasonable employment for Palestinian Arabs in their host countries by creating works projects. Those countries pushed back in the 1950s to ensure that none of the jobs created would make their Palestinian Arab guests comfortable enough to want to stay, so instead they used them as free labor paid for by the nations of the world and cut them off as soon as the projects ended.

Eventually, UNRWA gave up, and became what it is today - a self-perpetuating organization that allows a "refugee" population to grow ad infinitum.

As we mentioned recently, internal UNRWA policy directs its employees to ensure that "they shall avoid any action and in particular any kind of public pronouncement which may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity, independence and impartiality which are required by that status."

That has once again been shown to be an absolute lie this weekend.

John Ging, Director of UNRWA Operations in Gaza, recently spoke to influential German politicians at a breakfast sponsored by the Korber Foundation. In that speech he talked about "Israeli policy towards Gaza as well as on policy options for the international community and current trends in the inner-Palestinian political discourse." The name of the breakfast was "Political Breakfast with John Ging."

A month earlier, Ging also violated UNRWA's stated policy of "integrity, independence and impartiality" by giving a lecture entitled "Inhumane, illegal and insane: A Medieval Siege on Gaza in 2010."

Does this sound remotely impartial or non-political?

(h/t Silke)

Monday, July 05, 2010

  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Firas Press reports on a man who was very close to marrying his own "sister."

A 30-year old man from the Asir region had already booked the banquet hall and sent out the invitations, when an aunt contacted him and told him that his late mother had nursed his fiancée many years before.  According to Islam, that maker her his "breast sister" and he is therefore forbidden from marrying her.

The man said he'd be especially careful to make sure he doesn't make that mistake for his next bride.

In a related story, Saudi feminists threatened to take advantage of the recent fatwa that suggested that Saudi women should breastfeed their drivers in order to avoid them being illegally alone with their female passengers in the car by making the male drivers their "sons." They proposed that they would go through with the fatwa's recommendations and breastfeed these men, unless the Saudi authorities allow women to drive!


(h/t Ali for translation help)
  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Al Arabiya:

Iran has developed a new human-like walking robot to be used in "sensitive jobs," government newspaper Iran reported on Sunday.

Soorena-2, named after an ancient Persian warrior, was unveiled by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday. It is 1.45 metres (4.7 feet) tall and weighs 45 kilograms (99 pounds), the report said.

"Walking slowly like human beings with regular arm and leg movements are among its characteristics," it said. "Such robots are designed and developed to be used in sensitive and difficult jobs on behalf of a person or as help."
Now, what sort of "sensitive jobs" might such a robot be meant for? Perhaps something - radioactive?

And doesn't the robot that Iran claims to have developed strongly resemble the Honda Asimo robot?
  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Al Arabiya talks about a phenomenon in Saudi Arabia where people are teaching parrots to repeat long stretches of the Koran.

Some parrots can do multiple chapters.

Which brings up the question: can a parrot win a Koran-memorization competition?
  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
You just know that this will end up as fodder for Israel bashers, and leftists will be outraged, and there's an outside chance that the UN will hold a special session to denounce it, but it is funny nonetheless.

From JoeSettler at The Muqata, soldiers in Hebron show off their moves:

  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Naharnet:
The Lebanese government declared Tuesday a national day of mourning over the death of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

A government statement also announced a one-day countrywide shutdown on Tuesday.

Fadlallah, former spiritual mentor of Hizbullah and branded a "terrorist" by Washington, died in hospital on Sunday. He was 75.

Fadlallah's funeral will take place at 1:30pm Tuesday in Beirut's southern suburbs of Haret Hreik.
Note that this day of mourning was not declared by Hezbollah, or even Lebanon's Shiites. It was declared by Lebanon's government.
  • Monday, July 05, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Nicholas Kristof, who we have just seen taking a guided tour of the West Bank and uncritically parroting the words of his tour guide, writes an equally clueless dispatch from Gaza.

The problem with closing off Gaza, quite aside from the injustice of collective punishment, is that it tends to foster just the extremism that most threatens Israel and the entire Middle East.
How many times must this idiotic truism be demolished? Israel has made concessions to Arabs and those concessions have stoked extremism (withdrawal from Gaza, withdrawal from Lebanon, a peace treaty with Jordan....) Hatred of Israel is independent of Israel's actions, and very dependent on Israel's continued audacity to exist. History has shown again and again that the quietest Israeli borders come after Israel fights to secure them. Arabs do not think like Westerners do, and Kristof's projection of his liberal ideas onto a completely different people with a completely different mindset is representative of everything wrong with Western efforts at diplomacy.

One can argue as to the effectiveness of the closure, but the idea that it has somehow made Hamas more extremist is beyond stupid. In fact, Hamas is now in a position where it is actively trying to stop rockets from being shot towards Israeli citizens daily - and those rockets were being sent by the thousands before the closure and before Cast Lead. This is an obvious counterproof to Kristof's thesis, yet it escapes him.

It’s very hard to gauge how popular Hamas is, but my vague sense is that Hamas may have lost popularity since the election in 2006 and since my last visit (2008). This doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Israeli policies, but rather with weariness with Hamas’s Islamism, nuttiness and intolerance. Antics like Hamas’s attacks on summer camps for kids are emblematic of how the group antagonizes ordinary people.
Hamas is a bloodthirsty regime that routinely tortures and murders its political opponents. Yet Kristof minimizes this reality by using words such as "antics" and "nuttiness."
People are just tired of Hamas, and if Israel would stay out of the picture there’s some hope Hamas could eventually be displaced.
Kristof implies that they are just like some outlying political party who managed to get into office by a fluke and will be gone by the next election, if only Israel doesn't interfere.

He has no idea of how much Hamas has solidified its grip on Gaza.

Hamas has ruthlessly removed any opposition from teachers' unions, student leadership, doctors' associations, mosques, and the news media. They have used supposedly democratic elections to become an autocracy. They have spent the past two years solidifying and entrenching their political and military hold on Gaza. How can Kristof visit Gaza and not know these basic facts? How can he even conceive that, even if Gazans are unhappy with Hamas (and they are), that they are not powerless?

Once again, we see that the most prestigious newspaper in the United States will happily publish nonsense from one of its senior columnists, and this received wisdom will now trickle down into the consciousness of ordinary Americans either from their reading it directly or from the moronic mindset influencing wire service agencies and countless local news outlets. Kristof is not merely wrong - he is mind-bogglingly wrong. Yet because he managed to visit Gaza - where he apparently did not speak to a single ordinary Gazan citizen and where his itinerary was vetted by Hamas itself - he is now regarded as an expert on the matter.

He is nothing of the sort. He is a dupe who didn't do even basic research and didn't ask a single hard question from his hosts.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive