Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Guess the date this happened

When was this story published?

Sheikh Ibrahim al Dawi recently issued a fatwa in Baghdad declaring that it was a duty incumbent upon all Muslims to participate in or to support a jihad (holy war) in defence of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and other Muslim sacred places in Palestine alleged by him to be threatened by Jewish imperialism.

Answer:.

Mufti "supports" Palestinian Arabs - because he despises them

From The Daily Star - Lebanon, June 4:

Lebanon’s grand mufti said Friday that resistance was “the only means to liberate Palestine and guarantee the return of Palestinian refugees.”

Ending this tyranny starts by standing by the side of our besieged people in Gaza and Palestine and supporting them through all possible means and not leaving them alone in confronting the enemy,” Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani said in a statement to commemorate the 44th anniversary of the Naksa, or the fall of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Syria’s Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai desert under Israel’s control in the 1967 war, which is observed on June 5.

Qabbani said boosting Palestinian national unity, in line with the Palestinian reconciliation inked last month, would enhance the steadfastness of the Palestinians and help them restore their right to an independent state, with East Jerusalem as its capital along with their right of return.

He sounds like a strong supporter of Palestinian Arabs, doesn't he?

Last Saturday, Qabbani spoke to a delegation of PLO representatives, and his words were a bit more interesting. From Al-Arab:

Palestinian sources reported that Lebanese Mufti Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani was visited by a Palestinian delegation that visited on Saturday to discuss a gathering of Palestinian refugees in Beirut. The delegation was surprised when the Mufti shouted in their faces and called them obscene and vulgar names. He told them, "You are spies and usurpers and we no longer want you guests." The Mufti also said: "You are garbage and will not win for your cause; I'm against you" and continued to repeat these words over the quarter of an hour.

It appears that some of the vaunted Arab "support" for the "Palestinian cause" is really because they want to get the Palestinian Arabs the hell out of their countries.

After I wrote this I see that Khaled Abu Toameh covered the incident in more detail in the JPost. (h/t DK)

A damning indictment of Obama's Syria policy

From Now Lebanon, by Tony Badran:

This past week, the Obama administration was once again questioned over the status of the US ambassador to Damascus, Robert Ford, as the reasoning behind keeping him there has become less tenable than ever. The Obama administration’s ever-shifting rationale, dubious to begin with, is now all but indefensible. In fact, by refusing to recall the ambassador, President Obama only continues to bestow legitimacy on the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

In late March, shortly after the uprising against Assad began, anonymous administration officials told the New York Times that Ford “has been quietly reaching out to Mr. Assad to urge him to stop firing on his people.”Ford’s task was not only an obvious failure, but even the description of it struck a dissonant note. The administration had been insisting that it needed an ambassador to send “tough messages” to Assad. “Quietly reaching out” in order to “urge” Assad gave the impression of feeble reticence rather than forceful outrage.That the message that Ford was delivering was hardly “tough” was evident in an interview he gave to Al-Arabiya in early May. Nothing in the substance of what Ford said could be characterized as “tough.” In fact, it was the embassy’s staff that was on the receiving end of the Syrian regime’s brand of “tough messages.”

In late April, the Wall Street Journal reported that an “American diplomat based in Damascus” was “hooded by Syrian security agents and ‘roughed up’ before being released.” The State Department reacted by “formally protesting” the incident to the Syrian ambassador to Washington.

But that aside, there are questions as to when was the last time that Ford actually met with high-ranking Syrian officials, let alone Assad (whom he reportedly only met once). In late April, Jacob Sullivan, head of Policy Planning at the State Department, told reporters that Ford had met with “senior Syrian officials” whose actual rank he could not specify, and it was unclear whether that was before one of the major assaults on the city of Daraa or afterward. Since then, Ford’s meetings seem to have been rather limited. The State Department’s spokesman, Mark Toner, has repeatedly told the press that Ford’s requests for meetings continue to be denied. In fact, a senior US official told the Washington correspondent for the Lebanese daily An-Nahar, Hisham Melhem, that the ambassador has not met with the Syrian Foreign Minister or his deputy “for some time,” and whatever meetings he’s had have been with “intermediaries.” As such, it’s difficult to make sense of Toner’s claim on Tuesday that having Ford in Damascus “sends a clear message” that the US is “going to continue to press the Assad regime to end its human rights abuses.”

That Ford hasn’t even been allowed to meet with Syrian officials has not been the only problem. The State Department also concedes that the ambassador’s movement is equally restricted, apparently confined to Damascus. This constraint calls into question the administration’s alternate argument that Ford’s continued presence is necessary in order to relay an accurate picture of what’s going on in Syria, given that international media is barred from entering the country. In addition, Ford and other officials have expressed reservations about relying solely on the videos streaming out of Syria by activists and dissidents.

However, at the time the Syrians “roughed up” the embassy’s diplomat, the State Department itself noted that such measures “have made it difficult for embassy personnel to adequately assess the current risks or the potential for continuing violence.” With all these constraints, one has to wonder what picture, exactly, the ambassador is relaying back to Washington.

Leaving aside why such a task requires an ambassador to begin with, there are more troubling questions surrounding Ford’s continued presence in Syria. Sources close to the Syrian opposition are claiming that the US ambassador has asked some dissidents (who, incidentally, are not even central players in the protest movement) what their conditions would be to lower the ceiling of demands to accept “reforms” rather than Assad’s toppling.

The administration’s argument for keeping an ambassador was always problematic, but if this story is true, then all of its claims about Ford's role are exposed as utterly hollow. This posture – the logical outcome of President Obama’s call on Assad to “lead the transition” – only legitimates the murderous Assad regime at a time when the US should be publicly declaring it illegitimate.

President Obama already lent American prestige to Assad when he decided to recess appoint Ambassador Ford. Awarding normal diplomatic relations with a superpower to a rogue regime is a legitimating act on its own. If the Obama administration is serious about ratcheting up the pressure against Assad, it should first state publicly that it is done dealing with the Syrian dictator, then follow that with a declaration that it is withdrawing the US ambassador from Damascus.

Hamas member electrocutes himself

From Ma'an:

The militant wing of Hamas, the Al-Qassam Brigades, issued a statement Thursday saying one of its fighters had died in hospital after sustaining a life-threatening electric shock two days earlier.

The group identified the man as Muhammad Al-Mahmoum, 20. He sustained an electric shock while he was working with the brigades in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah.

In a statement, the brigades said "Al-Mahmoum dedicated his life to jihad."

Tunnel workers often suffer electric shocks from faulty wiring in the underground passages leading between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

While it is likely that he was killed in a smuggling tunnel, the Qassam Brigades page says

The brigades confirmed that the Mujahed was died of an electric shock while performing a Jihad duty in the Rafah refugee camp, adding that he was martyred after a long bright path of Jihad, hard work, struggle and sacrifice.

May all those who embark on the long bright path of Jihad have the opportunity to join al-Mahmoum in Paradise after being equally successful with their tasks.

Popular Egyptian newspaper Rose al-Youssef is claiming that alleged Israeli spy Ilan Grapel is a member of "Unit 101," an IDF special forces unit that was accused of massacres of Arabs, including at Qibya. The newspaper says that "Unit 101" is part of Israeli intelligence.

Unit 101 hasn't existed since 1954. (He actually was part of the IDF Paratroopers 101st Battalion.)

While many Egyptians are doubting the story, the news media is convinced that Grapel is a spy.

Egypt's al-Ahram weekly reported Thursday that that Cairo's prosecution is looking into ways to expedite the legal proceedings against Ilan Grapel, an Israeli detained there on alleged espionage charges.

Should such a move be successful, Grapel may face trial within a few weeks.

The newspaper continues to claim that Grapel is a Mossad agent, who was caught "trying to recruit locals and inflame the conflict between the Egyptian people and the armed forces."

The paper also alleged that Grapel's visa application – filed with the Egyptian Embassy in Tel Aviv – stated that he was Muslim; adding that he was caught sending "several emails from Internet Cafés to the Mossad."

According to the report, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi refused to meet with the Israeli consul to Cairo on the matter.

Meanwhile, another Egyptian publication, "al-Masri al-Youm," reported that since Grapel's arrest, "dozens of young 'revolutionists' have come forward with information regarding the Israeli agent, reporting to the Attorney General."

Arabic media has even accused Grapel of planning to blow up the gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel in order to embarrass Egypt.

Commenter Mitchell writes:

Aside from being an acquaintance of Ilan Grapel, his being a spy (specifically for the Mossad) does NOT hold water because a) Grapel always used his real name b) whenever Israel wants to send someone to spy on an Arab country, they will send a NATIVE Arabic speaker, not someone with an American accent who sticks out like a sore tongue c) it takes 2.5 years of intensive training ONLY after finishing service in an IDF combat unit before the Mossad will even send you out on a mission; Grapel has been studying at Emory University (in Atlanta, Georgia) for the past two years and only got released from the IDF September, 2007, so do the math....

It is starting to look like the cirrent Egyptian regime does not want to look foolish so it is going to push the lie that Grapel is a spy and fabricate evidence.

There is even a Facebook group that seems to call for Grapel to be executed. And a demonstration is planned in front of the Israeli embassy in Cairo on Friday to protest Israeli "spying" on Egypt.

The US needs to pressure Egypt to release Grapel (and American citizen) now, because time is not on his side.

Are these Israeli weapons? (updated)

Yesterday I mentioned that Egyptian authorities claimed to have busted a Palestinian Arab arms smuggling ring, and that they captured a quantity of Israeli and American weapons.

Here's a video of the event, from Al Masry al Youm, and the weapons can be found starting at 0:47. Could someone identify the types of weapons here?

UPDATE: The consensus is represented by this comment by Jonathan:

This *is* too funny. You couldn't identify most of these firearms as most of those were self-manufactured by the swell lads here, using parts from other firearms. For example, Uzi was never manufactured with front-mounted grip, yet you could see a [weird] one on the Uzi located at the far right on the table. The third from the left seems to be based on a shortened version of Beretta M12. The fact that the rear grip is made of wood and is clearly out of place there suggests that the M12 was shortened by the Palestinians themselves.

This is not a major weapons cache and Egypt is exaggerating the importance of this find. Hamas gets much better weapons than this, and in much higher quantity.

My response to a piece in Foreign Policy

Ahmad Samih Khalidi, writing in Foreign Policy, writes:

The official PA/PLO position is that how Israel defines itself is not a Palestinian concern, and that the Palestinians cannot accede to this demand on two basic grounds: First, because it prejudices the political and civic rights of Israel's Arab citizens comprising 20 percent of the population whose second-class status would be consolidated by dint of recognition of the "Jewishness " of the state; and second, because acknowledgement of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people would compromise the Palestinian refugees' right of return as there would be no moral or political grounds for them to return to a universally recognized Jewish state.

But this is neither a complete nor totally convincing riposte. The Palestinians cannot be indifferent as to how Israel defines itself, or how others are ready to define it. In the context of the struggle over the shape and future of the Holy Land, one side's appropriation of a certain definition affects not only the rights of those who reside in this territory, but their very history and identity, their relation to the land, and by extension their rights, future and fate as well. There are, in fact, several deeper layers to this issue that warrant further examination and debate.

First, and perhaps most importantly, if Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, then the lands that it occupies today -- and perhaps more as there are as yet no borders to this homeland -- belong to this people by way of right. But if these lands rightfully comprise the Jewish homeland then the Arab presence there becomes historically aberrant and contingent; the Palestinians effectively become historic interlopers and trespassers -- a transient presence on someone else's national soil.

This is not a moot or exaggerated point. It touches on the very core of the conflict and its genesis. Indeed, it is the heart of the Zionist claim to Palestine: Palestine belongs to the Jews and their right to the land is antecedent and superior to that of the Arabs -- this is what Zionism is about and what justifies both the Jewish return to the land and the dispossession of its Arab inhabitants.

But this is not the Palestinian Arab narrative, nor can it be. We do not believe that the historical Jewish presence and connection to the land entail a superior claim to it. This we believe is our homeland established over one-and-half thousand years of continuous Arab-Muslim presence, and that we were eventually only dispossessed of it by superior force and colonial machination. For us to adopt the Zionist narrative would mean that the homes that our forefathers built, the land that they tilled for centuries, and the sanctuaries they built and prayed at were not really ours at all and that our defense of them was morally flawed and wrongful: we had no right to any of these to begin with.

...What [the Palestinians] cannot be expected to do is to renege on their past, deny their identity, take on the moral burden of transgressor, and give up on what they believe is their history. They cannot be expected to become Zionists.

As usual in a venue like FP, this is a sophisticated argument that uses a false framework. I responded there:

But the Palestinians also deny Jewish history!

Khalidi purposefully downplays the extent of the Palestinian Arabs' historical revisionism. It is not merely competing narratives; they deny basic history that there is such a thing as a Jewish people, that the Temples existed in Jerusalem, and so forth. These positions have been in official PA media and PLO statements.

Even worse, they co-opt indisputably Jewish shrines as their own - the "Bilal Mosque" that is supposedly at Rachels' Tomb simply did not exist fifteen years ago.

Real peace cannot occur if it is based on lies, and while it may be that Palestinian Arabs will not accept Zionism, they do need to face the facts that the Land of Israel has been the center of Jewish longing since before anyone ever heard of "Palestinians" - or Islam, for that matter. Their denial of those facts is not because of competing narratives - it is from an indoctrination of lies that must stop.

No Jew denies that thousands of Arabs lived in Palestine before 1948. Why can the Palestinian Arabs not accept that Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, has been the object of dreams and tears for the Jewish people since 70 CE?

Joke of the day: "Flotilla activists putting their lives on the line"

From the Australian Associated Press:

Three Australians will be putting their lives on the line when they board a boat hoping to stop the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza, the NSW Greens say.

"(They) are putting their welfare on the line to take part in a peaceful humanitarian mission to bring aid to the people of Gaza," said the party's leader David Shoebridge.

Last year nine activists were killed when Israeli marines stormed the flagship of an international aid flotilla bound for Gaza.

One of the Australians taking part, former Greens MP Sylvia Hale, said she hoped for a "more moderate" response when she takes part in the Freedom Flotilla 2.

"The Israeli government has shown by its past actions that it's prepared to shoot first and ask questions later," she said.

"We don't expect gentle handling."

The threat of violence, however, has only encouraged activists with over 500,000 applying to be part of the flotilla.

"Violence encourages further acts of resistance, the flotilla last time was comprised of six ships this time I understand there are 12," Ms Hale said.

The trio, which also includes youth worker Michael Coleman and Vivienne Porzsolt of Jews Against Occupation, has called on the Australian government to protect them.

Mr Coleman said the passengers on board the boat would be acting "completely lawfully".

"We will give Israeli forces no pretext for any assault."

Putting their lives on the line? Please. If they were interested in danger, they'd be volunteering to work in Afghanistan. Or Syria.

Everyone knows that the only people putting themselves in danger on this latest exercise in political theatre are the ones stupid enough to attack trained, armed soldiers who are doing their jobs. The reporter knows it, the Israelis know it and the flotilla fools know it quite well. After all, the people on last year's ships that were not on the "Mavi Marmara" - and didn't have jihadist, martyrdom seeking Turks wildly waving metal bars and knives* on deck - seem to have somehow made it home in one piece. How is that possible when everyone knows the IDF "shoots first and ask questions later"?

And note how this "news" article swallows the absurd statistic that 500,000 people volunteered for the flotilla. Oh, really? Where is the list? Who even made such a claim? Where are the Facebook groups of people who were denied access, and what was the reason given? Can we see the form letter of denial?

This isn't a news article; it is a press release for the Free Gaza idiots.

*I noticed today that the UN report on the flotilla claimed, in footnote 69: "The Mission has found no evidence of knives being taken on board by passengers except for one traditional ceremonial knife."

The report was published over three months after Hurriyet published photos showing "peace activists" with hunting knives - knives that Reuters cropped out of the photos initially and then republished after there was an outcry.

How could the crack investigators at the UN miss that when hundreds of thousands of people saw the photos? A real mystery, I tell ya.

Completing the seasons open thread

I had posted photos taken at a small nearby last autumn and winter for open threads. I have now completed the series:

So here is an open thread to celebrate.

And to remind you to vote in the Pro-Israel Blog-Off - I'm way, way behind in the voting. (My pleas are likely to get more pathetic as the week goes by. What can I say; I want to win. There, I admit it!)

Links!

CifWatch - Harriet Sherwood feels Hamas' pain

Colonel Richard Kemp:

...After the terrorist attacks in London on July the 7th, 2005...we in the UK were left deeply shaken by the attacks, and I remember that the first ones to call to offer help – for some time, in fact, they were the only ones to call – was the IDF. It was then that we knew who our real friends are.

Hamas on how the Jews gained from the Holocaust.

Latest issue of Military and Strategic Affairs. Looks good.

PC Magazine: Why Google Earth pixilates Israel

Israel vulnerable to cyber attack

Israel holds an olive branch towards Lebanon's new Hezbollah-dominated government!

Sheikh Raed Salah warns, for the millionth time, that Israel is preparing to ethnically cleanse all Palestinian Arabs.

"The machinations of the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are immaterial. The Arab reform process is the peace process."

Ever see Arabs drape themselves with an Israeli flag and say "Allah Akbar"?

(h/t Israel Muse, Akiva, Yisrael M., Joel)

More exposure of UNRWA lies (Zach N)

Received via email:

From the UNHRC's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

184. If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity.

In other words, it is not automatic, like the case of Palestinians (and there is actually a further exception in 188 which states, "If the dependant of a refugee falls within the terms of one of the exclusion clauses, refugee status should be denied to him)! Many Palestinians would fall within the exception clause, which I discuss at the bottom.

Another clause:

187. Where the unity of a refugee's family is destroyed by divorce, separation or death, dependants who have been granted refugee status on the basis of family unity will retain such refugee status unless they fall within the terms of a cessation clause; or if they do not have reasons other than those of personal convenience for wishing to retain refugee status; or if they themselves no longer wish to be considered as refugees."

Cessation Clause (which EoZ mentioned):

113. Article 1 C of the 1951 Convention provides that:
“This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:
(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or
(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under Section A (1) of this Article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;
(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence

This is particularly interesting:

(3) Persons considered not to be deserving of international protection

Article 1 F of the 1951 Convention:

“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

And now for the kicker:

A. War refugees
164. Persons compelled to leave their country of origin as a result of international or national armed conflicts are not normally considered refugees under the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol.22 They do, however, have the protection provided for in other international instruments, e.g. the Geneva Conventions of 1949 on the Protection of War Victims and the 1977 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 relating to the protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts.23

165. However, foreign invasion or occupation of all or part of a country can result--and occasionally has resulted--in persecution for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the 1951 Convention. In such cases, refugee status will depend upon whether the applicant is able to show that he has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” in the occupied territory and, in addition, upon whether or not he is able to avail himself of the protection of his government, or of a protecting power whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of his country during the armed conflict, and whether such protection can be considered to be effective.

166. Protection may not be available if there are no diplomatic relations between the applicant's host country and his country of origin. If the applicant's government is itself in exile, the effectiveness of the protection that it is able to extend may be open to question. Thus, every case has to be judged on its merits, both in respect of well-founded fear of persecution and of the availability of effective protection on the part of the government of the country of origin.

For some additional points, I include some quotes from James Lindsay

"That is, UNRWA already grants refugee status to the children of refugees in Jordan, even though almost all of them are Jordanian citizens—this fact complicates any argument that matrilineal descendants in other areas should remain unregistered because they have citizenship through their nonrefugee fathers," pg. 25.

"Even UNRWA sometimes finds it difficult to remain coherent on the subject of citizens who are refugees. In a May 17, 2007, interview with Riz Khan of al-Jazeera, the commissioner-general stated, “Any group of refugees, until they can go home or until they are resettled or until they decide to integrate or take another nationality, they are, they remain refugees; their descendants remain refugees.” Yet, in the same interview, she noted that “the Jordanian government has given citizenship [to most of its Palestinian refugees], but that doesn’t take away the refugeehood; the refugee status remains.” Video of the interview available online " pg. 37.

"The roughly 414,000 UNRWA-registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon have a significantly different status from their nonrefugee neighbors, but even there, some of UNRWA’s registered beneficiaries are likely citizens (given that Beirut granted citizenship to some 70,000 Palestinian Christian refugees in past years)," pg. 53.

"Nonetheless, with the increasing attention paid to women’s rights and gender equality (made a UN value by the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted in 1979)—and particularly since the May 1994 publication of Christine Cervenak’s influential article accusing UNRWA of “gender-based discrimination”—the agency has been embarrassed by its different treatment of the children of male and female refugees. In response, UNRWA began making a number of ad hoc adaptations, softening the effects of its discrimination against women married to nonrefugee men and the children of such marriages. With the adoption of the 2006 Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions, nonrefugee husbands and descendants of registered refugee women are now entitled to apply for UNRWA services. Nevertheless, because matrilineal descendants still are not registered as refugees, the supposedly unequal treatment remains in a formal sense. Therefore, the pressure to categorize descendents of all registered refugees as refugees in their own right, adding tens of thousands of new “refugees” to the rolls, will likely continue," pg. 25.

So either Gunness is ignorant of the laws that govern his institution and the UNHCR or he's a liar. Maybe he's both.

Thru Jerusalem: Great music video

Details about the video and the artist:

Thru-Jerusalem, Kutiman's latest work, is the result of a musical journey that lasted a number of weeks and included visits to a number of different musicians in the city. Kutiman stopped off in apartments, ventured out into the open air (in the backdrop of the stunning Jerusalem landscape) and visited the rehearsal rooms of local creative artists to record their work.

Among other artists appearing on the resultant video piece are musicians such as blues artist Lazer Lloyd (who after a short visit to a rabbi changed his life completely despite being signed by Atlantic Records), Guy Mar from HaDag Nahash, Safi Suede - one of the most important Kanun players in the world; the ultimate marching band - Marsh Donderma, Emanuel Wizthum on the viola and a few dozen musicians of different ages, different ethnic backgrounds and who play different instruments-but all of which derive from the city.

Kutiman worked his magic and produced an amazing 5-minute long work which documents the emotional journey he took in the city. He alternates between optimism and despair, between the future and the past, between the new and the ancient and ends the video with a mantra of harmonious and emotional prayer. The work itself is made up of a collection of unique footage of the city and in essence this is, in fact, represent the unique "sound" of the city.

(h/t The David Project)

Israeli Arabs killing each other. So guess who's to blame?

Al Arabiya reports that violence and crime is increasing among Israeli Arabs.

A recent report shows that although Arabs are 20% of the population, some 79% of all shooting incidents in Israel are among Arabs, and 60% of the fatalities.

The article quotes an Arab MK that says that while it is true that Arabs do not always want to cooperate with Israeli police to investigate these crimes, the police aren't pushing hard enough. He also accused Israel of freely allowing weapons to proliferate among Arab communities so that they kill each other. (He said they do the same with drugs.)

Yeah, Israeli Jews want to arm Arabs. Makes perfect sense.

And since the Arabs have such easy access to weapons, they are likely to use them for things like family disputes, the MK continues.

Sheikh Marwan Jabara says that while some of the responsibility does rest with the Arabs themselves, most of the responsibility is the Israelis' (meaning, of course, Jews) because it is their policies that make Arab lives so miserable that they find themselves wanting to kill each other.

A monkey causes panic in Gaza

From Firas Press:

A monkey running in one of the main streets in Gaza City caused a state of panic and fear among citizens, amid strenuous efforts by many people to apprehend the fugitive monkey.

Witnesses said the monkey escaped from a street traders tunnel, and managed to hide in one of the produce shops at the beginning of the street. Plans are underway to get him out of his place.

I'm itching to add monkeys to the Zionist Attack Zoo, so we just need someone to blame Israel....

Interesting logic behind Lebanon UNRWA protest

Palestine Press Agency reports that Palestinian arabs in the Ein al-Helwa camp in Lebanon are engaging in a series of protests against UNRWA.

They seem to have a couple of problems with UNRWA. One is that UNRWA, supposedly, changed its name from "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" to only "United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees." For some reason, they interpret this as meaning that UNRWA will start to resettle Palestinian Arabs outside Israel. (If the name change is true, to me it sounds like UNRWA wants to take responsibility for so-called "refugees" in other countries.)

But the main reason for the protest is more interesting: it is to protest UNRWA's failure in adequately providing social and health services for residents of the camp.

So what do they do to protest the lack of services? They shut it down altogether!

They burned tires, closed entrances to the camp, and prevented all UNRWA employees from doing their jobs.

Meaning that the protest reduced services from "less than 100% of what we demand" to "zero."

Way to go! That will teach those UNRWA guys, forced to take a free vacation day as they close schools and stop distributing food and medicines!

(As usual, UNRWA does not acknowledge any problems. Since it is so transparent.)