Thursday, December 02, 2010

  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From JPost, a story I meant to post a couple of days ago:
The Dutch government has been funding the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation, a Dutch aid organization that finances the Electronic Intifada website that, NGO Monitor told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, is anti-Semitic and frequently compares Israeli policies with those of the Nazi regime.

NGO Monitor’s exposure of Dutch government funding for the Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO) prompted Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal to say on Thursday to the Post, "I will look into the matter personally. If it appears that the government subsidized NGO ICCO does fund Electronic Intifada, it will have a serious problem with me.”

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, said, “This type of poisonous activity is precisely why European government funding of NGOs requires close oversight and full transparency."

“Based on our experience, we assume that the top Dutch government officials are completely unaware of the link between money given to ICCO for aid, and Electronic Intifada, a group whose rhetoric and activities undermine hopes for mutual understanding.”

The ICCO website devotes a page to Electronic Intifada, praising its work as “an internationally recognized daily news source” that provides a counterweight to “positive reporting” about Israel. ICCO’s website notes its three-year funding pledge for Electronic Intifada.

NGO Monitor told the Post that “EI executive director Ali Abunimah is a leader in delegitimization and demonization campaigns against Israel. In his travels and speaking engagements, facilitated by Electronic Intifada’s budget, he calls for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and routinely uses false apartheid rhetoric."

“Abunimah also equates Israel to Nazi Germany, comparing the Israeli press to Der Stürmer, referring to Gaza as a ‘ghetto for surplus non-Jews,’ and claiming that ‘Zionism is not atonement for the Holocaust, but its continuation in spirit.’” NGO Monitor criticized ICCO’s employment of Mieke Zagt, who is “the ICCO official directing the funding to EI,” a “former employee of Amnesty International’s Middle East division, and a vocal proponent of BDS herself.” BDS is the abbreviation for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.
NGO Monitor has been doing a great job in discovering links like these.

I'm already getting a little sick of the animated bears, but if you want to see a humorous video about the story, you can find it here.
  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
I've been arguing for a while that the "right of return" is the means by which the Arab world is seeking to destroy Israel, and that this can be seen by the lack of any hint of flexibility on the Arab side about the matter even though Western diplomats always  assume that it can be taken care of in a peace agreement.

A very important article by Jonathan Dahoah HaLevi for JCPA that explains how the PLO plans to keep the "right of return" alive even after a state would be established, no matter what is agreed. His summary:
The gap between Israel and the Palestinians on the refugee question cannot be reconciled. The Palestinians demand a "just peace," which implies recognition of the right of return according to their interpretation, and rejects any compromise on the issue.

The Palestinian position, which receives support from Palestinian and even some Israeli human rights organizations, looks to UN resolutions that uphold the right of return as a "private right" of every refugee. This means that the representatives of the Palestinian people (as well as the Arab League and the United Nations) have no authority to waive this right in the name of the refugees.

According to the Palestinian consensus, non-implementation of the right of return will leave open the gates of the conflict with Israel. This implies justification for the continued armed struggle against Israel even following the establishment of a Palestinian state.

By rejecting "patriation" or the resettlement of the refugees in any Arab state, the Arab Peace Initiative essentially leaves each refugee with no choice but to go to Israel itself. The Arab states rejected any solution that involves "resettling [of the Palestinians] outside of their homes."The Arab Peace Initiative does not envision the Palestinian refugees being resettled in a West Bank and Gaza Palestinian state.

The transfer of border crossings to Palestinian control and/or the establishment of a Palestinian state is likely to bring about a wave of immigration, combined with a mass expulsion of Palestinians (primarily from Lebanon, Syria and Jordan) toward the Palestinian territory even without a political agreement on the refugee issue. This could lead to the infiltration by Palestinians into Israeli territory, as well as legal claims by refugees at the International Court in The Hague for the right of return, restitution of property, and compensation.

Since the Israeli consensus holds that the mass return of Palestinian refugees to Israel means national suicide, Israel will require robust international support in negotiations on a final status agreement to reach an accord on the basis of defensible borders, and to find a permanent solution to the refugee problem based primarily on the Palestinian refugees receiving citizenship in their host countries or their absorption in a Palestinian state.
HaLevi shows exhaustively that even the most "pragmatic" and "moderate" of Palestinian Arab leaders insist on the "right of return" - and the destruction of the Jewish state:
The positions of prominent Palestinian personalities, considered by the West as belonging to the moderate political current, do not deviate from the consensus with regards to the right of return. Marwan Barghouti, head of Fatah in the West Bank who is serving a life prison sentence for the murder of Israeli civilians, said in an interview with the newspaper Al Hayat on September 28, 2007, that negotiations with the Israeli government prior to its commitment to principles [including the right of return] is "useless." Barghouti added that it would be erroneous to conduct negotiations with Israel "without it [Israel] obligating itself to the legitimate international decisions, the principle of concluding the occupation, withdrawal to the ‘67 boundaries including from east Jerusalem, the right of return of the refugees in accordance with Resolution 194, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty, and the release of all the prisoners." According to Barghouti, the Palestinians were striving for an agreement in the framework of which "refugees would realize their right to return in accordance with Resolution 194."37 Hussam Khader, a Fatah leader in Nablus, clarified, "Any [Palestinian] president who will sign in the name of the refugees on a waiver of the right of return...we will be obligated to kill him or rebel against him."38

Hanan Ashrawi, another prominent representative of what is depicted as the "pragmatic" stream, presents positions similar to the Palestinian consensus and emphasizes that the right of return is a private right of every refugee. In other words, representatives of the Palestinian people have no authority to waive it. In an interview with the Hebrew paper Zman Yerushalayim on September 25, 2007, Ashrawi - currently the head of the nonprofit Miftah organization for promoting democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Authority, a member of the PLO Executive Committee, and a member of the Palestinian Parliament - says: "One must recognize rights according to international law and Resolution 194 of the United Nations. There is not a single Palestinian who will forgo the rights of the refugees. A leader who will tell you he will do this in order to propitiate you will lose credibility among his own people." Referring to a way to solve the refugee problem, Ashrawi said: "The options will be diverse and will provide various solutions, according to law. The most important aspect is the right to choose. They will choose like any human being who wants the best for his children....The moment that you thaw out and recognize the iniquity, they will be free to make decisions. One should try this, but the moment that they can choose - and many choices exist according to law - then we will see what option they will select."39

Dr. Samir Abdallah signed the Geneva Initiative in 2003 that aroused criticism in the Palestinian arena over passages that were implicitly interpreted as a compromise on the right of return. When he served as Minister of Labor and Planning in the Palestinian Authority, Abdallah addressed the issue in a newspaper interview on April 12, 2008. In response to a question: "Do you still stick to the right of return?" he said: "Of course, we will never forgo it. This is a collective and private right and the return of the refugees is the most important card from this standpoint in the negotiations, and its value pertaining to the Palestinian people is higher from a diplomatic and material standpoint than all the other topics."40 Additional Palestinian personages (including Iyad Sarraj, Nabil Kasis and Fayha Abd-el Hadi) who signed the Geneva Initiative were parties to the dispatch of a public letter to Abbas in 2010 in which they expressed their vigorous opposition to renewing negotiations with Israel without a prior agreement on the source of authority for the discussions that were to have included, according to them, the guarantee of the right of return.41

This should be read by everybody interested in peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. It is, I would say, the major issue and one that cannot be left over as something to discuss after Israel gives up more concessions and land, but something that needs to be brought into the forefront of negotiations immediately, with Israel making it very clear that this is a red line that will halt every other peace track while it remains a Palestinian Arab demand.
  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Al Quds al Arabi reports that Palestinian Authority prime minister Salam Fayyad has announced, on the radio, that the PA no longer abides by the Oslo Accords, which have governed the fragile relations between Israel and the PA since 1993.

Fayyad said during his weekly radio show on local Palestinian radio stations Wednesday that the Palestinian National Authority 'will not be a prisoner to the restrictions of Oslo'.

Fayyad added 'The National Authority recognizes the magnitude of the challenges and difficulties our people are living under on a daily basis, and it works to assume its full responsibilities. All the possibilities are available to it to strengthen the resilience of its citizens, and adhere and stay on their land, in the various regions, particularly the Jordan Valley area, all areas classified Area C, which constitute about 60 percent of the West Bank, including the areas behind the wall', he said,' These areas are not disputed areas, it is part and parcel of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the responsibility of the Palestinian National Authority is essential that work to the maximum of their capacities to provide services for all its citizens, it will not be a prisoner to the restrictions of Oslo."
As I pointed out yesterday, the Palestinian Authority derives all of its powers from the Oslo Accords, so if Oslo is not operative, he should be out of a job.

Does this mean that Israel no longer has to adhere to Oslo any more either, or is this just a one-way decision?
  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From WTHR, Indiananpolis:
Hanukkah takes on added significance for the Jewish community in Bloomington.

Police there are investigating five acts of what they call anti-semitic vandalism in the past week.

The Hillel House is one of the centers targeted by vandals. It is a meeting place on the campus of Indiana University. Tonight, many are gathering at Hillel House to celebrate the first of eight nights of Hanukkah.

On the first day of a festival that marks the triumph of good over evil, members of the Jewish community in Bloomington are struggling to overcome the malicious attack.

"There was a rock thrown in the kitchen," asked puzzled IU student Shelli Goldzband.

Goldzband just learned about the five acts of vandalism targeting Jewish facilities in the past week.

Police say someone threw rocks into windows --and damaged Hebrew books at the library in the Hillel House, where Goldzband volunteers each week.

"I'm really sad, just really sad," said Goldzband.

"Why would anyone raise a hand to someone who's done no harm to you," asked Yehohsua Chincholker of the Chabad House.

The Chabad house was twice targeted, most recently Tuesday morning, when someone threw a rock into an upstairs window shared by three women, none of them Jewish.

"They didn't know we weren't Jewish but knew someone was here and the light was on," said one of the girls.

The rash of attacks has the entire Bloomington campus on alert. Wednesday, the Indiana University family received an email from the school saying, " the university condemns the criminal acts of vandalism in our community."

"We take this very seriously," said Provost Karen Hanson.

Police are also taking these cases seriously, stepping up patrols and aggressively searching for a suspect.

"If it means federal charges, we'll certainly pursue it that way," said IUPD Chief Keith Cash.

During this season of lights, there is hope that the person responsible will come to light and good will once again triumph over evil.

Police say they have a person of interest in mind. Witnesses described a white man in his 40s. However, detectives have not identified anyone as a suspect.

At the Hillel house, they will continue to go about their business, which includes lighting the first candle of the season to celebrate Hanukkah.

From WISH News 8 (Indiana):
Hebrew-related books were reported vandalized Saturday at the Wells Library. The books were removed from shelves and taken to restrooms on different floors, where the vandals urinated on them.


We have to brace ourselves for Jewish extremists, who seem to mostly live in the West Bank, to start rampaging, rioting and issuing Jewish legal rulings calling for Americans worldwide to be killed because of the possible desecration of holy books by someone in America.

Because, from what I've read in the media, that's what extremists do, and extremists from all religions are equally immoral.

(h/t Israeligirl)
  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Today's Zaman:
President of the Flemish parliament in Belgium Jan Peter Peumans has said he did not mean to offend Turks with remarks he made during a live quiz show on a local TV channel, the Turkish Embassy in Brussels said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Peumans said he is sorry because the situation has caused consequences beyond his intention,” read the embassy's statement.

When asked which nation was the most disgusting on the face of earth in famous French philosopher Voltaire's opinion during the “De Pappenheimers” quiz show on the VRT channel on Sunday, Peumans -- who is also a member of the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) -- said that among the choices presented to him -- “Flemish, Jews or Turks” -- he knew the answer was Jews, but because he “did not have the courage to say anything against them” he would say Turks instead. “I really knew it [correctly] but I do not have any courage to say something new about Jews. They are very sensitive people. I once said something about their liberalism and it really caused me a lot of trouble,” Peumans had said. Following his words, film director Jan Eelen, another contestant, told Peumans that “it appears saying something against Turks is not a problem, then.”
While it is true the the question was quoting the anti-semite Voltaire, not saying that it is a fact that the Jewish people are disgusting, it is still an inflammatory question for a popular broadcast quiz show.

On the positive side, it shows that even Voltaire recognized that Jews are a nation, unlike today's anti-semites. It is amazing how Jew-haters throughout the centuries will change their elastic list of reasons why Jews are to be loathed (too separate/too integrated, too religious/too liberal...) but the fact that they are hated remains amazingly constant.

(h/t Joel)
  • Thursday, December 02, 2010
  • Suzanne
It's generally known that Hezbollah is active in Latin-America. Basically it's not new what Wikileaks reveals, but still it's worth it to mention.

This is what Wikileaks has released so far:
"While the majority of Brazil’s Muslims are moderate in orientation and the overwhelming majority is moderate in deed and action, genuine radical elements do exist here, some in the Tri-Border area of Foz de Iguacu and others among Sao Paulo’s estimated 20,000-strong, Hezbollah-oriented Shia population. Muslims at the moderate, Sunni-oriented Future Institute charge that Shia immigrants sometimes come to Brazil with Hezbollah support (allegedly USD 50,000 is a typical sum) to found businesses to support Hezbollah in Lebanon." [Nov 2009]

and:
"Sao Paulo's Muslim moderates worry about the rise of fundamentalism and Hezbollah influence among more recent waves of largely Shia Lebanese immigrants, as they promote a broadly tolerant vision of "modern Islam". Their own community remains quite traditional, with women's and youth organizations limited. Even so, the traditional leadership's eagerness to engage, acute awareness of the dangers of radicalism, and their solid achievements in integrating Muslim and Brazilian identities make them an excellent example of how a unique MMC (Muslim Minority Community) has, by and large, carved out a positive space within a diverse Latin American country. ...
As [XXXX], a Lebanese Brazilian banker and Maronite Christian, told SMRC Pandith, "Hezbollah is gaining [adherents]," particularly with more recent Shia Lebanese immigrants. Consequently, the moderates want to "push back against the radicals" by promoting popular interfaith activities. " [December 2009]

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
The depths of crazy, courtesy of Turkey's Hurriyet Daily News:

Israel could have engineered the release of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents on WikiLeaks as a plot to corner Turkey on both domestic and foreign policy, according to a senior ruling party official.

“One has to look at which countries are pleased with these. Israel is very pleased. Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents,” Hüseyin Çelik, deputy leader of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and the party’s spokesperson, told reporters at a press conference Wednesday.

Following initial reaction to the leaked U.S. Embassy cables, which have revealed diplomatic secrets about Turkey, Azerbaijan, its Middle Eastern neighbors, Turkish officials have started to suspect that “the main cause of these leaks was to weaken the Turkish government.”

WikiLeaks has released approximately 250,000 documents of confidential U.S. diplomatic correspondence to newspapers around the world. Around 8,000 of those documents are from the U.S. Embassy to Ankara.
That a whopping 3%.
Yasin Doğan, a columnist for the pro-government Yeni Şafak newspaper, also named the Israeli lobby in the U.S. as the source of the cable leaks.

According to observers, government officials believe the cables leaked through WikiLeaks were selected as part of a comprehensive plan to corner Turkey both in terms of domestic and international politics.

On foreign policy, the release of cables indicating that many Arab countries were in fact in favor of a military attack on Iran to scuttle Tehran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons were seen as moves to show that Turkey was alone in defending Iran in the region.

“This situation posits Turkey as the only advocate of Iran not only in Europe but also in the Middle East,” Murat Yetkin, Ankara representative of the daily Radikal, wrote in his column Wednesday.

Yetkin added his observation that Ankara has evaluated the cables as a psychological campaign to push Turkey to take a cooler stance on Iran.

Furthermore, the release of remarks by Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev on Turkey and other remarks that Balkan countries were extremely uncomfortable with Davutoğlu’s frequently heard rhetoric on neo-Ottonamism were also evaluated as moves to weaken Turkish influence in its near abroad.
One problem with megalomaniacs is that they think that everything revolves around them.

(h/t Vandoren)
Another winner from Khaled Abu Toameh in Hudson-NY:
The Western-backed ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank has just concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah with a series of statements that will make it virtually impossible for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to reach a deal with Israel that includes any compromises.

A statement issued by the Fatah Revolutionary Council, which consists of more than 100 Fatah officials, said no to almost every proposal or idea that could have paved the way for some kind of a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

No to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state; no to any solution that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state with temporary borders; no to the idea of a land swap between Israel and the Palestinians; no to any resuming peace talks with Israel unless construction in settlements and east Jerusalem is halted; no to understandings between Israel and the US regarding the future of the peace process; no to supplying Israel with US weapons; no to recognizing the Western Wall's significance to Jews and not to a new Israeli law that requires a referendum before any withdrawal from Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

With a position like this, it is hard to see how any progress could be achieved when and if the peace talks ever resume. What Fatah is actually saying is that Israel must accept 100% of our demands if it wants peace. This is the only "yes" that Fatah had to offer.

The Fatah statement should not come as a surprise to anyone: this has in fact always been the faction's position, especially since the beginning of the peace process with Israel. Fatah has actually been consistent in its policy and its positions have not changed over the past two decades.

The problem is not Fatah as much as it is the Western governments that continue to ignore what Fatah is -- and always has been -- saying. The international media is also to be blamed for ignoring or downplaying such statements made by the "moderate" Fatah in the West Bank.

Abbas could not make any concessions to Israel in light of the Fatah declaration even if he wanted to.

The message that Fatah has once again sent to all Palestinians is that no one has a mandate to reach a deal with Israel that does not meet all their demands. This is why the Fatah communiqué was published in Arabic in Fatah-controlled media outlets – to make sure that Palestinians read every word and understand the message.

Of course Abbas, who attended the Fatah gathering, has endorsed the statement, vowing that he would not make any compromises on any of the Palestinians' rights.

...In this part of the world, it is important to listen to what people say in their own language -- not only what they say in English to US and European governments and journalists.
Abbas bragged about his intransigence at a rally two weeks ago, in a story that was only reported in Arabic.
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
The first night of Chanukah is tonight.
Have an illuminating holiday!


  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
A press release that is apparently from the Palestine Prime Minister's office although I couldn't find it on its website:

We build roads of peace, the Israeli government destroys them. We plant trees to protect our environment, they uproot them. We send our young children to school and their soldiers bully them and beat them up. Our state-building efforts meet with state-destruction by Israel.

We note with alarm that Israel continues with its persistent policy of destroying infrastructure that we build for our people on our land, economic projects and private homes. Prime Minster Netanyahu is vociferously fighting for the rights of Israeli settlers to illegally build on Palestinian land while Israeli soldiers and settlers relentlessly attack, destroy, and violate Palestinian children, women, and the elderly within their own neighborhoods and homes. The unwarranted destruction of the “Freedom Road” in the village of Qarawat Bani Hassan by the Israeli authorities is an affront to all countries that contributed to building this road for Palestinian families to access their homes, schools, agricultural land, and health clinics. We request donors to report back to their capitals on the unjustifiable destruction of this road that was paid for through the generous support of their tax payers.
Here's the photo that accompanied the release:

So why are the evil Israelis destroying Palestinian Arab roads that are only meant to help little old Arab ladies get to their health clinics?

The answer is that the road was not built to help Palestinian Arabs, but rather for the purpose of forcing Israel to destroy it so that the above press release could be written and heartbreaking photos can be distributed.

Because what Salam Fayyad's office is not saying is that this road was built in Area C, the part of the West Bank that remains under full Israeli control under the Oslo Accords. Fayyad is simply not allowed to build there according to the existing agreements.

As the LA Times Babylon and Beyond blog states:
According to the Oslo breakdown of the West Bank, Area C, which makes up more than 60% of the West Bank land, remains under full Israeli military control. But Area C is also an important segment in Fayyad’s state building program, crucial to his dream of setting up the necessary infrastructure for a viable Palestinian state by August 2011.

Israeli officials had informed Fayyad and the village residents that they would not allow the road because it was located in an area under its full control.

According to the village mayor, the Israeli army tried to stop construction on the $335,000 road, paid for by the Palestinian Authority, several times. But they continued with the project, and when the road was completed, Israeli officials informed the mayor two days before the inauguration that he had one week to destroy the road or the army would be sent in to do so.

But Fayyad snubbed the Israeli threat and proceeded with the official inauguration ceremonies.

Israel did not act until about three months later, when Fayyad was abroad, and bulldozers were sent in.
In other words, Fayyad took $335,000 from money donated to the PA from mostly American and European state donors to build a road that he knew - and was warned explicitly - would be destroyed.

Now, he is saying that he will tell his donors that their money was wasted by Israel destroying a road, without telling them that he is using possibly millions of dollars of Western aid not to build a state but to score cheap propaganda points against Israel.

And Fayyad has planned to do this and similar projects for well over a year. As a JCPA analysis from October 2009 said,
Fayyad's "blueprint" calls for massive Palestinian development in Area "C" of the disputed West Bank, which is under Israeli civil and security control, and which directly challenges the delicate, agreed-upon framework of the 1993 Oslo accords.35 Palestinian plans include building an airport in the Jordan Valley, taking control of Atarot airport near Jerusalem, establishing new rail links to neighboring states, and water installation projects near Tulkarem and Kalkilya close to the pre-1967 "green line."36 Israeli security echelons firmly oppose Palestinian airport development plans near Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley. Furthermore, Fayyad's agenda has broader designs on Area "C." Fayyad told the Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat in a September 1, 2009, interview: "Many think that zone "C" areas have become disputed territories rather than occupied territories in the public consciousness. We assert that these are PNA territories where the state will be established."
This was no mistake. This was Fayyad cynically using donor money to make a political point, in a a plan that he published.

And JCPA's footnote 36 reveals more:

Fayyad, Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State, p. 35. Fayyad's aggressive plans to build in Area "C" of the West Bank is the most far-reaching attempt by the Palestinian Authority to establish de facto control outside of Palestinian Areas "A" and "B" as defined at Oslo. See also Alan Baker, "De Facto Deliberations." Baker, former legal advisor to Israel's Foreign Ministry and a legal architect of the Oslo accords, notes: "The concept of a one-sided establishment of a de facto state outside the agreed-upon process would appear to ignore a central component of the framework in which Fayyad himself is permitted to function, and from which he derives his own authority." The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip "still remains the valid source of authority for the Palestinian administration in the territories, as well as for the entire functioning of Palestinian governance. This agreement sets out and enables the establishment and functioning of the Palestinian Council (which serves as the parliament of the Palestinian Authority), details the mode of election of its members and appointment of its ministers, and defines its jurisdiction, its legislative and other powers, structure and prerogatives."

If Fayyad is throwing out Oslo, he is also throwing out the entire political structure of the Palestinian Authority. He obviously feels confident enough that he can make unilateral moves like these without any repercussions.

But shouldn't nations know that they are paying money for him to build infrastructure specifically for it to be torn down?
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Received via email from UN Watch (the website does not seem to be updated yet):

I just learned great news: German law professor Christian Tomuschat, the anti-Israel and anti-American official heading the U.N. committee to enforce the Goldstone Report, has resigned. The biased U.N. probe now has no leader, and is in disarray.

This unprecedented resignation follows a global campaign by UN Watch that exposed Professor Tomuschat's egregious bias and breach of his obligation under international law to be objective and impartial:

•   UN Watch's team of researchers tracked down and translated Professor Tomuschat's German academic writings. We published a 30-page report revealing how he had frequently compared Israeli actions with the "barbarism" and "inferno" of World War II; how he performed legal work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat; and how he repeatedly accused Israel of “state terrorism.” This was reported worldwide.

•   When Tomuschat delivered his report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in September -- calling for the investigation of Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni for alleged war crimes in Gaza -- UN Watch was the only group to take the floor and directly challenge Tomuschat for his bias, stirring reactions from Tomuschat as well as the council president himself.

•   When Tomuschat then appeared at a U.N. press conference, journalists followed up on UN Watch's campaign and challenged Tomuschat to defend himself.

Finally, thousands of UN Watch supporters worldwide have been taking action on our website every day to demand from the U.N. that Tomuschat resign. In the end, he gave in.
Stellar job by Hillel Neuer and UN Watch!
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
The anti-semites always said that Jews control the government - and here's proof that we can make them dance to our tune whenever we want to:


(h/t O)
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
An interesting cable about a meeting between Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and Egyptian General Intelligence Service Chief Omar Soliman, April 2009. In it, we learn that Egypt is recruiting spies in Syria and Iraq to infiltrate Iran, that Egypt is just as upset at Iran as any other Arab state - and not just because of the nuclear issue; that Iran was smuggling arms and $25 million of cash into Gaza a month; that Gaza puts moderate Arab regimes in a corner (presumably because they don't support Hamas radicalism but their people do), that Soliman does not distinguish between Hezbollah and Iran at all. Excerpts:

Soliman said radicalism was the "backbone" of regional security threats, adding that radicalism in Gaza posed a particularly serious threat to Egyptian national security. Soliman said Egypt must "confront" Iranian attempts to smuggle arms to Gaza and stop arms smuggling through Egyptian territory.

We do not want incidents like Gaza to inflame public anger," Soliman said, adding that the Gaza conflict put "moderate (Arab) regimes" in a corner. To prevent another outbreak of violence, Egypt is focusing on Palestinian reconciliation and a durable cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. On reconciliation, Soliman explained, the ultimate goal was to return the Palestinian Authority to Gaza, as "Gaza in the hands of radicals will never be calm."

Iran is "very active in Egypt," Soliman said. Iranian financial support to Hamas amounted to $25 million a month, but he said Egypt was "succeeding" in preventing financial support from entering Gaza through Egypt. Iran has tried several times to pay the salaries for the al-Qassam Battalions, but Egypt had succeeded in preventing the money from reaching Gaza. Soliman said the Egyptian government had arrested a "big Hezbollah cell," which was Hezbollah's first attempt to stand up a cell within Egypt. Iran was also trying to recruit support from the Sinai Bedouins, he claimed, in order to facilitate arms smuggling to Gaza.

Egypt has "started a confrontation with Hezbollah and Iran," Soliman stressed, and "we will not allow Iran to operate in Egypt." Soliman said Egypt had sent a clear message to Iran that if they interfere in Egypt, Egypt will interfere in Iran, adding that EGIS had already begun recruiting agents in Iraq and Syria. Soliman hoped the U.S. would "not walk the same track as the Europeans" in regards to negotiating with Iran and warned against only focusing on one issue at time, like Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran must "pay the price" for its actions and not be allowed to interfere in regional affairs. "If you want Egypt to cooperate with you on Iran, we will," Soliman added, "it would take a big burden off our shoulders."
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
Xtranormal lets anyone create videos with pre-defined characters...and people are doing that.

Here's a cartoon representation of a conversation between Netanyahu and Obama:


And here's an excellent cartoon made by Mere Rhetoric describing how the State Department has its priorities a bit skewed:
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2010
  • Elder of Ziyon
As I mentioned earlier today, the US condemned the PA's position that the Western Wall is not Jewish, as shown in a study published on an official PA Ministry of Information website.

The pressure seems to have had an effect, as the study is no longer available on that website, as reported by Hamas' PalTimes.

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