Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, January 24, 2011

Anti-semitism as a tool of Arab regimes (Mudar Zahran)

Mudar Zahran is a London-based Jordanian writer who I have previously reported was the object of public death threats from people in his home country. This article in Hudson-NY shows one reason why.

For more than sixty years of conflict, the carefully government-channeled hatred revolved around Zionism and Israel, rather than around Judaism and Jews.

Since 2008, however, the Jordanian printed media has been launching a fierce attack on almost everything Jewish.

Why would the supposedly-moderate Jordan adopt a strong anti-Semitic agenda?

The answer to this question is simple; Jordan's oppressed Palestinian majority has been seeking more civil rights in the last few years. Therefore, the Jordanian government has to distract them by igniting anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Arab regimes apparently needed a new method to direct their own people's anger towards someone else. The US and Europe were, of course, out of the question, and the communist "infidel" states were no longer in existence. Again, Arab regimes were stuck with Israel as "the source of all evil" with no way for regimes to revive that notion: their people have become fed up after decades of propaganda. The Arab regimes' "Plan B" was to ignite an even larger religious zeal by constantly reminding their people that the Israelis are "a part of a larger Jewish scheme of controlling the world."

Today, the message has dramatically changed; media language and definitions have been surgically altered by many Arab governments. The term "Zionist" has turned into "Jews," and, for the more moderate Arab media, "Peace talks" into "Jewish opposition to peace…or world peace."

The growing trend of anti-Semitism on Arab TV shows has been vigorously picking up momentum the last few years. Anti-Semitic-themed shows have become common on many of the 300-plus Arab satellite networks, including TV Channels and media outlets owned by theoretically pro-Western Arab governments are no exception -- crossing the line from anti-Semitism to open support for terrorism.

Read the whole thing.

Turkel excerpt on specifics of Mavi Marmara shots

Here is more from the Turkel Report that demolishes the idea that it is a whitewash. In addition, it destroys the assumption of the IHH and "activists" that people who were shot in the top of their heads were shot from the helicopter.

Estimating the number of shots fired that actually hit their target is very difficult. From the military debriefings, it appears that, during the course of the operation on the Mavi Marmara, the Israeli forces discharged 308 rounds (from the soldiers' testimonies, it appears that 110 rounds were shot aimed at persons; an estimated 39 hits were identified by the soldiers; out of which an estimated 16 participants were injured by shots to the center of mass), 87 bean bags, and 264 paint ball rounds. The number of rounds fired does not in and of itself imply that the use of force was excessive. From the soldiers’ testimonies, it appears that a significant number of rounds were not fired directly at IHH activists. The IDF applied a graduated use of force, including the use of warning shots and deterring fire.

When appropriate to limit the chance of causing death or serious injury, the Israeli military's graduated use of force also provides for firing at the legs and feet of a person. This use of force appears to have resulted in the wounding of a number of the IHH activists. In determining whether such disabling fire is excessive, it must be weighed against the alternative of shooting at the center of visible mass of the target, with increased likelihood of death or serious injury.

The evidence shows that the IDF soldiers made considerable use of graduated force during the operation, with soldiers switching repeatedly between less-lethal and lethal weapons, depending upon the threat being posed.

The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Israeli army did not fire any rounds from the helicopter. The only force that was used on the helicopters were 3-4 “flash bang” grenades that were deployed from the first helicopter in the initial stages of the fast roping to attempt to stop IHH activists from interfering with the ropes. The accurate use of firearms from a helicopter requires both specific equipment and specially trained personnel, with which the helicopters were not equipped.

A high angle of the trajectory of wounds in some deceased IHH activists could have been the result of a number of factors. First, some firing took place under circumstances where IHH activists were on top of or bent over one Israeli soldier who was lying on the deck while they were assaulting him. Secondly, firing also took place from the roof down towards the IHH activists who were threatening the IDF soldiers on a lower deck. Finally, in some instances, numerous rounds were fired either by one soldier or by more than one soldier to stop an IHH activist who was a threat to the lives of themselves or other soldiers. It cannot be discounted that some rounds impacted when the person had already started to fall.

The specific testimonies of soldiers are footnoted but that annex has not yet been released. The commission recommended that the annex be released as well.

Vote for Round 1 of the Pro-Israel Blog-Off!

Round One of the Pro-Israel Blog-Off is underway!

You can vote for my entry or for my competition, Liberty's Spirit or Life Through My Eyes.

The entire point is to promote pro-Israel blogs, so definitely look at the other entries, this week and all the weeks of the competition.

The winner, chosen by a combination of reader votes and the esteemed judges, gets an iPad. I wouldn't mind winning :)

Go to this page at IsraellyCool to vote!

The Palestine Papers

I have not had the time to go through the seeming bombshell of Al Jazeera releasing as many as 1600 documents about negotiations between the PA and Israel.

You can read about it here.

At this time it appears to be the Palestinian Arab version of events, so whether they will be corroborated is an open question. They certainly seems to indicate that PLO negotiators have gone beyond their public statements in their offers. They appear to show that the issue of Jerusalem is essentially not solvable. For example, while the Palestinian Arabs think that their offer of letting most Jewish areas of Jerusalem stay in Israel's hands was most generous, even the most left wing Israeli government cannot consider evicting Jews from Maaleh Adumim or even Har Homa.

The Arab backlash that is likely to occur against the PA/PLO from these documents' release may be significant. JPost has more. Someone in the PLO obviously leaked them so this indicates a severe fissure within their ranks, despite (or more likely because of) Mahmoud Abbas' political strengthening of his leadership.

The Israeli backlash may be significant as well, although Olmert and Livni will be able to deny details since it is not their version of events.

A'jad whines, threatens about Zionists. Again.

From PressTV:

A day after multifaceted talks between Iran and the P5+1, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad advises the six major world powers to stop following up the path of Israel.

Addressing thousands of enthusiastic people in the northern city of Rasht on Sunday, the Iranian president said certain arrogant Western powers, including the US, are not interested in resolving issues with Iran.

He added that Iran repeats to the officials of the P5+1 (Russia, China, France, Britain and the US plus Germany) to get rid of pressure by certain "narrow minded" Zionist individuals “if you wants talks to bear fruit.”

“In that case, grounds will be prepared for further interaction,” Ahmadinejad stressed.

The Iranian chief executive emphasized that talks should be based on justice and respect, saying, “Negotiations should lead to the recognition of legal rights of the Iranian people and other nations.”

He warned that animosity with Iran and the Iranian nation would be to the detriment of Western interests and noted that the Islamic Republic welcomes “cooperation and interaction.”

The Iranian president further cautioned the P5+1 against the continuation of their previous path and said, "Now that Iranians have become a nuclear nation, hundreds of (countries) like you will not be able to force them to retreat one iota from their positions."

The comments are fun to read as well.

Open thread

Going on a short day trip with Mrs. Elder, so carry on without me....

Kuwaiti paper extols the benefits of camel milk plus urine

A Kuwaiti newspaper describes a vacation in the desert, and then says:

Camel herders brought fresh [camel] milk directly to us, and when we were reluctant to drink, [they told us that] the research conducted on camel milk has proven that it cures diseases, suxh as autoimmune blood disorders, ascites, hepatitis, tuberculosis, ulcers, colitis and skin cancer, and recommended a cup of camel milk mixed with a cup of urine to recover from these diseases.

The comments section adds many more diseases that camel milk and urine cures, including dandruff, baldness, gangrene, cancer and a penis disease.

Bottoms up!

Turkel on whether Gaza is "occupied"

Here is a section of the Turkel report that discusses whether the Gaza Strip is legally "occupied" by Israel, as Amnesty and other organizations continue to bizarrely insist:

In Al-Bassiouni v. Prime Minister, the Supreme Court of Israel held that since the disengagement in 2005, Israel does not have ‘effective control’ over the Gaza Strip. Because of the importance of this conclusion, the actual wording of the Supreme Court is cited below:

‘… since September 2005 Israel no longer has effective control over what happens in the Gaza Strip. Military rule that applied in the past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory on a permanent basis, nor are they in charge of what happens there. In these circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to maintain public order in the Gaza Strip according to the laws of belligerent occupation in international law. Neither does Israel have any effective capability, in its present position, of enforcing order and managing civilian life in the Gaza Strip.’
In its judgment, the Supreme Court further held that the main obligations imposed on the State of Israel vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip derive from the existence of an armed conflict between Israel and the Hamas organization; the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel over the border crossings between it and the Gaza Strip; and the relationship of dependency that was created - at least in certain spheres, such as the electricity supply to the Gaza Strip - during the long period of military rule in the Gaza Strip.

The court also held, in accordance with the position presented by the State, that Israel is subject to the rules of customary international law that apply in armed conflict, including the requirement to permit the passage of ‘food and basic humanitarian supplies necessary for the survival of the civilian population.’

As previously noted, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding, several organizations have adopted the position that despite the disengagement, the Gaza Strip continues to be under Israeli occupation. This position is mainly based on the claim that although Israel no longer has a permanent military presence in the Gaza strip, Israel’s control of several areas that effect the fabric of life in the Gaza Strip amount to ‘effective control’ of the Gaza Strip. For example, the organization Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement presented before the Commission its position that Israel effectively continues to control the Gaza Strip for six reasons: (i) Israel controls movement to and from the Gaza Strip via land crossings; (ii) Israel exercises complete control over Gaza's airspace and territorial waters; (iii) Israel controls movement within Gaza through periodic incursions and a "no-go zone"; (iv) Israel controls the Palestinian population registry; (v) Israel exercises control over Gaza's tax system and fiscal policy; (vi) Israel exercises control over the Palestinian Authority and its ability to provide services to Gaza residents. A similar position was also presented by the representatives of the B’Tselem organization in their testimony before the Commission.

Indeed, academics have diverging opinions as to whether Israel has ‘effective control’ over the Gaza Strip. Certainly, the adoption of the position that Israel continues to be an occupying power in the Gaza strip requires an unjustifiably flexible and novel interpretation of the term ‘effective control.’ In other words, this interpretation would have to be based on the understanding that two different opposing powers can exercise ‘effective control’ in a territory at the same time: the Hamas and Israel. Moreover, the interpretation of the term ‘effective control’ needs to be assessed against the currently accepted approach in international law
that ‘occupation’ does not merely require military forces to be stationed in a certain territory, but also that the occupying power performs the functions of an existing government.

Indeed, during the long period that Israel had the Gaza Strip under effective control, the Gaza Strip did become dependent on Israel in certain spheres. However, as the Supreme Court of Israel held in Al-Bassiouni v. Prime Minister, this dependency is insufficient to establish ‘effective control.’ It should also be stated, inter alia, that insofar as the conclusion that Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza Strip derives from Israel’s control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, there is no support in international law for the proposition that the control of airspace amounts to ‘effective control.’

With regard to land access to the Gaza Strip, it should be noted that the Gaza Strip also has a border crossing with Egypt (the Rafah crossing), even though Egypt, for its own reasons, also exercises control of the crossing from its territory into the Gaza Strip. Similarly, the imposition of a naval blockade does not create a situation in which the laws of occupation come into effect. It should be emphasized that the very lack of ‘control’ over the land territory in the Gaza Strip in the traditional sense of this term is what makes an external naval blockade necessary to control access to and egress from that territory. As a comparison, a land siege does not automatically result in the besieged city being held under occupation. States, and particularly those that might employ navies or air forces, either unilaterally or within the framework of a coalition, will
likely be wary of accepting the argument that the mere imposition of a naval blockade or influence over events on the shore of a State by the use of military power automatically creates a situation of occupation.

If Israel did indeed have effective control over the Gaza Strip, then it would have the power to act as the authority responsible for maintaining order in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli forces would then be able to wait on the coast of the Gaza Strip and intercept the vessels there. In practice, however, Israel does not control the coast of the Gaza Strip. This area is under the ‘effective control’ of the Hamas. The lack of effective control

over the Gaza Strip, including the ability to impose order there, and the security threat that the Hamas presents to the naval forces operating near the coast of the Gaza Strip, clearly indicate the underlying logic of international law that permits the enforcement of a naval blockade at some distance from the coast. Similarly, it is difficult to see how the Gaza situation differs in a practical sense from Lebanon in 2006, when the blockading Israeli warship INS Hanit was hit by a missile launched by Hezbollah from the Lebanese coast.

In light of the fact that the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip contain mainly small vessels that are capable of moving at high speeds, Israel’s naval forces are confronted with a significant risk. Examples such as the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the attack on the French supertanker Limburg in 2002 highlight both the threat presented by small vessels and the difficulty in stopping them.

An examination of the arguments, both individually and cumulatively, therefore leads to the conclusion that Israel does not have ‘effective control’ in the Gaza Strip. Therefore, in alignment with the Supreme Court of Israel, the Commission takes the position that Israel’s effective control of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed in 2005.

BBC's "whitewash"

Here is the entire BBC report on the results of the Turkel Commission:

An Israeli inquiry has found the country's army acted legally in a deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships trying to reach Gaza last May.
The raid, in which nine Turkish activists were killed, attracted widespread international condemnation.
A separate UN inquiry last year said the navy had shown an "unacceptable level of brutality".
But Israel's inquiry found the actions of its navy "to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law".
There was widespread international criticism of Israel's actions, which severely strained relations with its long-time Muslim ally, Turkey.
The inquiry also found that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was legal.
Whitewash

The Free Gaza Flotilla, which had over 600 pro-Palestinian activists on board, was trying to break Israel's blockade of the territory when it was intercepted by Israeli navy commandos on 31 May.
Israel says its commandos used live fire only after being attacked with clubs, knives and gunfire by activists.
But activists on board the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, where all the killings took place, say the commandos started shooting as soon as they boarded the vessel.
In June, Israel set up a panel of inquiry headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Yaakov Turkel, with five Israeli members and two international observers.
It had a mandate to look into the legality of the raid, but critics attacked this remit as too narrow.
One of the inquiry's members died aged 93 during its hearings.
Correspondents say that for Israel's critics, the internal investigation had little credibility and has been written off as a whitewash.
'Four shots in head'

The inquiry heard testimony from high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and army chief General Gabi Ashkenazi.
None of the soldiers involved in the raid was authorised to provide testimony.
In August, Mr Netanyahu told the inquiry that Israel "acted under international law" when it intercepted the flotilla.
He said the Gaza blockade was legal and that Israeli troops only used force when their lives were in danger.
Turkey has described the attack - which took place in international waters, about 80 miles from the Israeli coast - as a violation of international law, "tantamount to banditry and piracy" and described the killings as "state-sponsored terrorism".
Results of Turkish post-mortem examinations have suggested that a total of 30 bullets were found in the bodies of the nine dead activists, including one who had been shot four times in the head.
After criticism from its allies over the flotilla incident, Israel considerably eased its blockade of Gaza - allowing in more food and humanitarian goods.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on the coastal territory when the Islamist militant group, Hamas, seized control of it in 2007.
Israel says it is intended to stop militants in Gaza from obtaining rockets to fire at Israel.
The restrictions have been widely described as collective punishment of the population of Gaza, resulting in a humanitarian crisis.

I italicized the biased part of the report. But that's not the worst part, by far.

Part One of the Turkel Commission report is online, and it is 295 pages long. One only needs to read it for a couple of minutes to see that it is far from a whitewash and it takes its mandate seriously. It goes into great detail on the events of May 31, 2010 as well as background information on the history and legality of the blockade, whether Israel is legally occupying Gaza, what happened on the Mavi Marmara as well as the other ships, and much more. It specifically addresses the critics of the naval action in great detail.

But the BBC dismisses the entire report with one word :"Whitewash." And the only other subhead it uses in this report is the (unconfirmed) charge of "four shots in the head."

Astonishingly, the BBC does not mention the name "IHH" once in its report. It also does not mention that there is a second UN inquiry underway, only referring to the hopelessly biased and ridiculously fast UNHRC inquiry.

Nothing is quoted from the Turkel report.

Even worse, although the BBC itself documented that Israel's claims were essentially all true and the activists were caught lying, this report ignores the facts uncovered by this same news organization to give credence to unnamed "critics" of Israel and giving them more space and attention than the actual subject of the report.

To BBC readers, this is par for the course. But it is unconscionable for an organization as supposedly prestigious as the BBC to write such a tilted, uninformed report that summarily dismisses the serious work of many people over many months. The BBC in this article gives more space to the the unnamed Israel-bashing "critics" than to the supposed subject of the article!

(h/t T34)

UPDATE: The BBC has changed the story a bit, and changed the subheads as well. However, they added a new, very similar article on the Turkish reaction. (h/t Biased BBC)

Egypt says Gaza's "Army of Islam" behind Alexandria bombings

From Al Masry al Youm:

An Al-Qaida-linked group in Gaza was behind the New Year's Day suicide bombing that killed at least 21 Christians and wounded about a hundred outside a church in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, the country's interior minister Habib al-Adly announced Sunday.

Al-Adly said "conclusive evidence" showed that the shadowy, Gaza-based Army of Islam was behind the planning and execution of the attack, which sparked three days of Coptic rioting in Cairo and several other cities. It was the deadliest attack against Copts in Egypt in more than a decade.

He also suggested that the group recruited Egyptians in the planning and execution of the attack, but that this could not conceal the role it played in the "callous and terrorist" act.

The state-run media said al-Adli briefed President Hosni Mubarak on the evidence and the suspects' confessions before the start of the Police Day celebrations.

Army of Islam was responsible for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

The group denies its involvement, although it praised the bombing.

Jed in the comments points out that the media is careful not to say "Palestinians" but rather "militants from Gaza."

Abbas pardons and forgives female Hamas terrorist

From JPost:

How can you not forgive this face?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday ordered the release of a Hamas woman who had been arrested by the PA security forces in the West Bank on suspicion of planning attacks on senior Palestinian officials.

The woman, Tamam Abu Saud, was part of a Hamas cell that allegedly planned to assassinate the PA governor of Nablus and attack various Fatah-affiliated institutions in the West Bank.

PA security sources said that Abbas decided to release Abu Saud after she appealed to him and asked for forgiveness.

The sources claimed that Abbas accepted her appeal although she had previously confessed to the charges against her.

“The release of the woman is a humanitarian gesture by President Mahmoud Abbas, who is the caring and passionate father of all Palestinians, including those who commit mistakes,” the sources said.

See? Abbas is a moderate! He can compromise with vicious terrorist organizations whenever he wants to!

Palestinian Soft-core Terrorist Theatre

Just for fun...

Work accident!

A Palestinian Arab worker was killed in a Gaza blast, and the Hamas medical authorities immediately blamed it in an Israeli mortar or tank shell.

The only problem is that Israel didn't do anything.

Chances are it was a misfired rocket or Hamas bomb.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how PCHR categorizes this in their next weekly report. (They already said that Jawaher Abu Rahma was killed by Israel.)

Who are the Palestinians? (video)

A decent Xtranormal animation.

(h/t Darcy)

Saddam Hussein's handwritten order to shoot rockets at Israel

An Egyptian newspaper has uncovered the original, handwritten order by Saddam Hussein to shoot Scud missiles at Israel, and the article is getting a bit of play in Arab newspapers and message board forums - often with great praise.

Fatah forums are praising Saddam as well, one person wishing that Saddam's Iraq had a direct border with Israel back then.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Mercy-giving.

To Staff Brigadier General Hazim Abd ar-Razzaq,

Peace be upon you [as-Salam ‘alaykum!],

Go ahead with God’s blessings and strike targets inside the criminal Zionist entity with the heaviest possible fire, making sure to be careful about the possibility that you might be spotted. And carry out the strikes with the usual conventional warheads on the missiles. Let the launching continue until further notice.