Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The human rights community shows its hypocrisy on Shalit

I mentioned Friday that there was a joint press release from eight human rights groups regarding Gilad Shalit. Noah Pollak at Commentary noted:

If a better example of the utter moral collapse of the human rights community exists, it would be hard to find. The statement is one of passionless brevity — just a few sentences long — and expresses no opinion on the standing of Hamas, or on its 2006 raid into Israel, or on the legitimacy of its goals and methods. Remarkably, it doesn’t even demand the release of Gilad Shalit. The most that this allegedly courageous and principled human rights community could bring itself to say to the terrorists of Hamas is that they should improve the conditions of Shalit’s imprisonment.

Even the Goldstone Report demanded Shalit’s release. Human rights groups, especially when it comes to condemning Israel, invoke what they believe to be the inflexible requirements of international law as a guide to matters of war and peace. Their only source of credibility is their adherence to principle. Yet here these same champions of international law have lost their voices, and their outrage, when it comes to making what should be the easiest of judgments: That it is against international law to raid a sovereign state for the purpose of abducting its citizens, that Shalit’s imprisonment is barbaric and utterly without legitimacy, and that Hamas must release him immediately.

Pollak's criticism is slightly unfair, but only slightly.

Let's first look at the actual press release:

Human beings are not bargaining chips

Marking five years since the capture of Gilad Shalit, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations state:

Hamas must immediately end inhumane and illegal treatment of Gilad Shalit

Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit has been in captivity for five years. Those holding him have refused to allow him to communicate with his family, nor have they provided information on his well-being and the conditions in which he is being held. The organizations stress that this conduct is inhumane and a violation of international humanitarian law.

Hamas authorities in Gaza must immediately end the cruel and inhuman treatment of Gilad Shalit. Until he is released, they must enable him to communicate with his family and should grant him access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. ]

Amnesty International & the Israel Section
B'Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights
Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement
Human Rights Watch
International Federation for Human Rights
Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Gaza
Physicians for Human Rights - Israel
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel
Rabbis for Human Rights
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights

In a separate press release,B'Tselem explicitly calls for Shalit's release:

Shalit is considered a hostage due to the circumstances of his abduction and the manner in which he is being held. International humanitarian law absolutely forbids the taking and holding of a person by force for the purpose of pressuring the adversary to comply with certain demands, while threatening to harm the person if the demands are not met. The taking of hostages is considered a war crime, for which all those involved bear personal criminal liability.

The Hamas leadership in Gaza bears an obligation to release Shalit immediately and unconditionally. Pending his release, his captors must treat him humanely and enable representatives of the ICRC to visit him.

But Amnesty does not:

Amnesty International is asking activists around the world to sign our petition to Isma’il Haniyeh, Prime Minister of the Hamas de facto administration in Gaza, urging him to alleviate the suffering of Gilad Shalit and his family by immediately complying with its obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that he is well treated, held in humane and dignified living conditions, and to allow him to communicate with his family, including through sending and receiving letters. Treating Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a flagrant violations of these obligations as Amnesty International stressed again today together with Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights NGOs.

This means that Amnesty is considering Shalit a prisoner of war, not a hostage, even though he was captured on the Israeli side of the Gaza fence and the entire operation was meant to capture hostages. Amnesty, amazingly, ignores these facts and merely calls for Hamas to treat him humanely.

HRW is equally bad. This year they merely reproduced the joint press release, but even last year they did not call for Shalit's release:

Hamas authorities in Gaza should immediately end the cruel and inhuman treatment of Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit of Israel and allow him to communicate with his family and receive visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Human Rights Watch said today. June 25, 2010 is the fourth anniversary of his captivity.

Interestingly, they did call for his unconditional release immediately after he was abducted. One can only wonder why they have dropped that demand in the years since.

B'Tselem is not blameless either.

In its press release about the joint declaration, takes pains to note that

[L]eading Israeli, Palestinian and International Human Rights organizations issued a joint statement demanding that those holding him must immediately end his inhumane and illegal treatment.

The organizations take a variety of positions on the issue. Some call for the immediate release of Shalit, while others support a prisoner swap. Some of the organizations have not made any statements until today. It is therefore particularly significant that the organizations have united around a joint message.

It is obvious that B'Tselem was the driving force behind this declaration. It is equally obvious that they tried really hard to get PCHR, the lone Palestinian Arab "human rights" group, to sign on, and they noted to AFP that the declaration was also issued in Arabic.

However, the PCHR website is silent about this declaration!

What good is the Arabic translation of the message when even its sole Arab participant refuses to admit of its participation in its own website?

Thus we can see the incredible hypocrisy of the so-called "human rights" community. By refusing to demand Shalit's immediate and unconditional release, they are winking at Hamas' abduction of Israelis as hostages and encouraging more such raids. It is a travesty of everything they pretend to stand for.

Weekend link grab bag

As always, Now Lebanon has tons of new news from Syria. Many, many major protests today, and reports of 14 killed. Hundreds of people fleeing to Turkey and Lebanon

Hundreds protesting in Jordan for reforms.

Caliphate conference coming to the UK!

Oldie but goodie BBC/Gaza spoof

Logical, but wrong

Was there a Fatah/Hamas reconciliation agreement?

Haaretz: "A leading Israeli official has praised Pope Pius XII for saving Jews during the Nazi occupation of Rome, a surprise twist in a long-standing controversy over the pontiff's wartime role."

Michael Totten on Syria/Turkey

National anthem not played for graduating law students in Haifa - because of Arab students?

A female president of an Orthodox shul in Australia. Oh, she's also an aborigine.

Israeli company cyber-spies terrorists

People are liking this video of Rep. Michele Bachmann on Israel.

Hey Jews!:

(h/t Israel Muse, Joel, YM, Yerushalimey, MM, Ian, Silke, Mitchell)

25-30% of Saudi men can't get it up

Al Quds al Arabi has two interesting stories.

One quotes a Saudi doctor and surgeon as saying that between 25% and 30% of all Saudi men suffer from erectile dysfunction. He also goes into detail about other problems Saudi men are having in the bedroom. He also noted that the percentage of Saudi men with ED have been steadily increasing over the past decade.

The other story is from Egypt. One of the new Islamist political parties that was illegal under Mubarak has a problem: their religious leaders ruled that they cannot appear on news programs where there are unveiled women, especially interviewers. This limits their ability to use the mass media to get support.

I wonder if the stories are related.

Berkeley and CAIR team up on "Islamophobia"

The University of California-Berkeley has a Center for Race and Gender, and withinthat center they have recently started an "Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project." CAIR is a major sponsor of this initiative, and CAIR co-sponsored a conference in April on the topic.

Yesterday, they announced the First Annual Islamophobia Report.

It takes only a few seconds of reading it to see that there is nothing academic about this report. It is little more than an excuse to push a myth of Muslim victimhood in America.

One proof of this is a section of the report called "The Worst":

Some individuals, institutions and groups were at the center of pushing Islamophobia in America during the period covered by this report. This list is neither comprehensive nor offered in any specific order. However, those listed below do deserve particular note for their intentional efforts to spread fear and prejudice.

Everyone that they hate, from Pamela Geller to Robert Spencer to Steven Emerson and Newt Gingrich.

I was particularly interested in their section on how "Islamophobic" Daniel Pipes is. I once had a lengthy message board exchange with a (very nice) Muslim woman who claimed that Pipes hates Muslims and Islam, and she gave me a bunch of quotes proving it from CAIR (or maybe from WRMEA.). Luckily, Pipes keeps every one of his writings available on his website, easily searchable, and I spent the time to track down the context of each quote.

Every single quote was taken out of context, deliberately, to make Pipes appear to be a hater.

Here is part of what this report, under the aegis of UCB, says about Pipes:

The grandfather of Islamophobia in America. Pipes’ eminence is fading but his contributions to anti-Muslim intolerance in America cannot be overlooked.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, a right-wing think tank.

In 1990, he said:

“Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

“This religion would seem to have nothing functional to offer,” Pipes said of Islam in 1996.

And so forth.

Pipes, however, has already responded to most of these CAIR lies here. He shows how the quotes are either mis-attributed or way out of context. And anyone can search his site and figure out that he is entirely right.

Which means that a publication with a university imprimatur is pushing what are, quite literally, lies written by CAIR. It doesn't even pretend to fact-check the lies.

This may be the worst example of pseudo-scholarship in the US today. The University of California-Berkeley is no longer even engaging in the pretense of scholarship - it is now a fully activist organization masquerading as a university.

IDF video on blockade

From the IDF website:

In order to protect Israeli civilians from attacks by the terrorist organization Hamas, the IDF lawfully enforces a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. Given previous attempts by the terrorist organization Hamas in smuggling weapons via land and sea and the inherent difficulties in conducting inspections at sea, it is critical that Israeli forces inspect all goods and material marked for Gaza prior to their transfer into Gaza. Thus, the Israel Navy will be forced to intercept the Gaza flotilla if it attempts to break the legally enforced naval blockade.

This week, the Israel Navy conducted an integrated exercise simulating all possible scenarios in the event that the Gaza flotilla attempts to breach the legally enforced naval blockade on Gaza.

Will Hezbollah attack Israel to loosen pressure on Syria?

From Reuters:

Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group is preparing for a possible war with Israel to relieve perceived Western pressure to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its guardian ally, sources close to the movement say.

The radical Shi'ite group, which has a powerful militia armed by Damascus and Iran, is watching the unrest in neighboring Syria with alarm and is determined to prevent the West from exploiting popular protests to bring down Assad.

Hezbollah supported pro-democracy movements that toppled Western-backed leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, but officials say it will not stand idly by as international pressure mounts on Assad to yield to protesters.

It is committed to do whatever it takes politically to help deflect what it sees as a foreign campaign against Damascus, but it is also readying for a possible war with Israel if Assad is weakened.

"Hezbollah will never intervene in Syria. This is an internal issue for President Bashar to tackle. But when it sees the West gearing up to bring him down, it will not just watch," a Lebanese official close to the group's thinking told Reuters.

"This is a battle for existence for the group and it is time to return the favor (of Syria's support). It will do that by fending off some of the international pressure," he added.

...While Hezbollah's fate is not linked exclusively to Assad's future, his departure would make life more difficult for the group, which depends on Syria's borders for arms supply.

"Syria is like the lung for Hezbollah...it is its backup front where it gets its weapon and other stuff," said another Lebanese official who declined to be named.

This is certainly something to be concerned about.

Then again, some of the analysts interviewed in the longish article are idiots:

While he dismissed the possibility of a regional war, Augustus Richard Norton, author of a book on Hezbollah, said an Israeli Lebanese war may be possible, adding he believed Israel was likely to strike first.

"It is not too challenging to imagine a scenario for a Israel-Lebanon war to erupt, especially given the Obama administration's diffident and permissive approach to Israel.

"...It is far more likely that Israel will pursue a war with the goal of crippling Hezbollah and punishing Lebanon than that a war will be intentionally provoked by Hezbollah," he said.

Norton is a Hezbollah apologist.

Latest Latma (6/24/2011) - Tom Friedman's love song

Great Tom Friedman skit.

There WAS an injury in last week's Qassam attack

Last week a rocket was shot from Gaza to Israel, ending a lull of no rockets landing in Israel since April. That rocket cause no damage when it landed in the Eshkol Regional Council.

What was not reported was that there were at least two rockets shot last Thursday - and one of them did cause extensive damage and significant injuries.

In Gaza.

From PCHR:

According to investigations conducted by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), at approximately 22:30 on Thursday, 16 June 2011, a home-made rocket hit the first floor of a 3-storey house belonging to Suleiman ‘Ayash Abu ‘Owaida in al-Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. As a result, Samia ‘Ayash Abu ‘Owaida, 18, was injured by shrapnel throughout his body, and the house and neighboring house belonging to Sameer Sa’id Abu Jayab was damaged.

I wonder if the upcoming flotilla will protest against these continued examples of Gaza terror groups injuring their own people with rockets.

Or will these purported "peace activists" call for better quality control to ensure that 100% of the rockets land on Israeli civilians?

Gazans attack Red Cross office for supporting Shalit (updated x2)

From Ma'an:

Palestinians threw eggs at the international Red Cross office in Gaza on Thursday to protest against a call for Hamas to show signs a captured Israeli soldier was still alive.

Dozens of angry protesters also chanted slogans against the International Committee of the Red Cross and ripped down and destroyed the Red Cross sign over the office.

They were protesting over a call earlier on Thursday by the ICRC, demanding that Gaza rulers show proof that Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured five years ago, is still alive.

How dare the Red Cross ask Hamas to do anything?

Meanwhile:

Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights groups issued a joint statement on Friday demanding that Gaza militants end "inhumane" treatment of an Israeli soldier they hold captive.

The declaration, signed by Israeli group B'Tselem, the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and eight others, comes as Israel marks the fifth anniversary of the capture of Gilad Shalit by three groups, including the current ruling party in Gaza, Hamas.

"Those holding him have refused to allow him to communicate with his family, nor have they provided information on his well-being and the conditions in which he is being held," the statement said in English, Arabic and Hebrew. "This conduct is inhumane and a violation of international humanitarian law."

So far I have been unable to find this declaration.

The B'Tselem site has a separate article calling for Shalit's release.

The Amnesty site likewise has an article demanding his release, but it felt necessary to refer to Israeli "human rights violations carried out on a daily basis against Palestinian men, women and children."

HRW does not yet have any press release about Shalit, although they have issued them every year on the anniversary of his abduction. In last year's they also felt it necessary to refer to Israeli restrictions on family visits to prisoners.

PCHR has nothing on its website about calling for Shalit to be released. Since their participation in this joint declaration is what is making headlines, it will be interesting to see when or if PCHR actually calls for Shalit's release on its own site or if this is another case of Palestinian Arabs saying one thing for Western consumption and another internally.

UPDATE: The letter is here. The only PalArab organization on the letter is PCHR. PCHR still does not have it on their website. (Which makes the fact that the letter was also written in Arabic sort of moot.) (h/t T34)

UPDATE 2: Challah Hu Akbar points out that this letter does not call for Shalit's release, only for him to be treated "humanely." Which means that PCHR is probably the only listed "human rights" organization that supports his being kept captive.

Gap between Hamas and Fatah remains wide (Toameh)

From Khaled Abu Toameh in Hudson-NY:

The Egyptian-brokered reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which was announced last month in Cairo, appears to have ended before it started.

It now turns out that the gap between the two rival parties remains as wide as ever, in spite of the accord. Hamas and Fatah continue to disagree on almost everything.

They disagree on who would head a new Palestinian unity government, on members of the government, on the government's political platform, on the future of the peace process with Israel, on security coordination with Israel, on the Palestinian Authority's relationship with the United States and European Union and on the role of the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But there are other things where Fatah and Hamas do see eye to eye.

Both parties agree on the need to restrict freedom of speech and the media. The two Palestinian governments continue to display intolerance toward any form of criticism, regardless of its source.

Palestinian journalists and political activists who dare to criticize the governments in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip face arrest, harassment and intimidation. This explains why there is not a single Palestinian opposition newspaper in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas and Fatah also agree on the need for each party to stay in power at all costs. That's why they don't want to hold new elections. In many ways, the status quo is not bad for the two parties.

In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority continues to receive millions of dollars in financial aid from the international community. The Palestinian Authority's leaders hold Israeli-issued VIP cards that allow them to travel freely, especially to fancy hotels and restaurants in Tel Aviv.

The VIP cards also allow the Palestinian leaders to pass through Israeli checkpoints without having to wait in line together with ordinary Palestinians.

The status quo is also good for the Palestinian Authority leadership because it is no longer being held responsible for what happens in the Gaza Strip. For example, no one holds the Palestinian Authority responsible for the rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on Israel.

Hamas, on the other hand, has learned from the Palestinian Authority that, in order to stay in power, it must tighten its grip over the population in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas and Fatah agree that democracy and transparency is something that they can live without. They share the perception that repressive police states are the only way to control their people.

Finally, Hamas and Fatah agree on the need to blame Israel all the time for the miseries of the Palestinians. Neither party is prepared to accept responsibility for any wrongdoing.

A new wrinkle in the unity sham has come up as well - that of Abbas trying to have it both ways.

He tells the Americans and EU that he remains the president, he appoints the prime minister and Hamas has nothing to do with the government.

But he tells his people and the Arab world that Hamas is a partner, that they are working together in forming the government, and that important progress is being made towards elections.

He needs to somehow tell both of these to the UN simultaneously, because declaring a state without Hamas proves that the state is a joke, and doing it with Hamas proves that the state supports terror. Either way, any Western country that recognizes "Palestine" under these circumstances is replacing reality with an extreme case of wishful thinking. (Any non-Western country that does it is engaging in modern anti-semitism.)

Maritime law expert: "Israel cannot and must not allow ships to Gaza"

An English translation of an article in Zeit Online:

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg is an international and maritime law expert who teaches at Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt [Oder]. He has also served as an adviser to the Turkel Commission that Israel established in the summer of 2010. The commission has been tasked with determining how and why violence erupted on 31 May 2010 between passengers on the Gaza humanitarian convoy and Israeli soldiers.

ZEIT ONLINE: The deployment of Israeli forces in May of last year against a humanitarian convoy headed for Gaza unleashed cries of protest worldwide. Now a second and far larger international convoy is on its way to Gaza – a convoy that aims to break Israeli’s sea blockade of Gaza. Is this blockade even allowable from a legal standpoint?

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg: Well that depends on how you characterize the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. When jurists come together, they often disagree on this matter. But there’s definitely a consensus on one thing – namely that what you have here is an armed conflict. Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed.

ZEIT ONLINE: But doesn’t the conflict also have to involve two or more states?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. And the problem is that Palestine is not a state – at least not yet – which is why many feel that the conflict is not an international armed conflict. And if you take that view, then blockade laws don’t apply. But if you take an objective look at the relevant legal analyses, it’s readily apparent that the basic admissibility of the Israeli blockade has never been called into question.

ZEIT ONLINE: You yourself have characterized Israel’s action against the convoy in 2010 as being perfectly legitimate. Why is that?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If a blockade is allowable in this conflict, then it’s also allowable to take measures to set up such a blockade. There’s only one principle that characterizes a blockade: the principle of effectiveness. In other words, the blockade has to prevent ships from entering or leaving the blockade zone. If the blockade fails to do this even once, it is ineffective and thus immediately becomes legally ineffective as well.

ZEIT ONLINE: So this means that when it comes to this blockade, Israel is in a catch-22 situation, right?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. The Israelis simply can’t afford to let any ship through, if they want to prevent another ship from passing through the blockade zone a few hours later.

ZEIT ONLINE: The operators of the 2010 humanitarian convoy said right from the outset that the ships were headed for Gaza. Didn’t saying this make them subject to criminal prosecution?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The mere fact that they set sail for Gaza does not constitute a criminal act. But: if you come out and say, in a public forum, that you’re heading to Gaza for the express purpose of breaking the blockade, this is clear evidence of a blockade breaking attempt. And when that happens, the state that has imposed the blockade doesn’t need to wait until the ship in question reaches the 20 nautical mile boundary; instead, it’s got the right to intervene beforehand. Because the state that’s imposing the blockade is not only entitled but also duty bound to maintain its blockade.

ZEIT ONLINE: What do you think the people onboard the current humanitarian convoy are going to be facing?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Any ship that actually breaks the blockade simply has to reckon with the fact that that military force is going to be used against them. Plus the state that’s imposing the blockade is under no obligation to wait until someone actually crosses the blockade line. All that has to happen is for there to be clearly discernible intent – in which case measures can be taken long before the blockade line is crossed.

ZEIT ONLINE: What form could or should such measures take?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Normally such measures unfold without any major problems. The state imposing the blockade stops the vessel, orders it to proceed to a specific port, inspects the ship’s cargo, and then turns the matter over to the courts. But if there’s resistance to the measures taken by the state that’s imposing the blockade, then this state needs to quell this opposition. Which means that any attempt to evade the blockade or the forces enforcing it needs to be met with reasonable force.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, was Israel’s reaction to the humanitarian convoy in 2010 a smart move given the humaniarian situation inGaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Well this is how it always is when it comes to such legal issues. In such situations, the actors don’t always act logically, or judiciously; nor are such actions necessarily the politically smart thing to do. A state that imposes a blockade is obligated to supply the civilian population in the blockaded zone with the goods they need in order to survive. But the Israelis have always done this. At the time of the humanitarian convoy in 2010, it was the same in that they said: Feel free to sail into the harbor; we guarantee that we’ll hand over your humanitarian cargo. But it was clear from the get-go that certain parties didn’t want that at all, because then they wouldn’t have achieved the same impact on public opinion.

ZEIT ONLINE: What would you advise the Israeli Prime Minister to do if the next humanitarian convoy approaches the boundary of the blockade zone?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If the Prime Minister wants to maintain the blockade, then he’s simply got to enforce it. If he doesn’t enforce it, it’ll be a dead letter; and then he’d have to resort to other measures; and then the legal situation wouldn’t be so simple. Because then he’d have to invoke the right of self -efense, which is often invoked in cases where it’s simply not appropriate to do so. Our [Germany’s] anti-terrorism operations are a prime example of this.

ZEIT ONLINE: Do you think the Israelis are going to react to this second convoy the same way they reacted to the first one?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think Israel is better prepared this time around. Last time they tried to approach the convoy ships in rubber dinghies and then climb onboard from these dinghies, in order to take control of the ships. And then they used helicopters. I suspect that the Israeli forces were simply unprepared for the resistance they met from some of the passengers on board those ships and were taken completely by surprise.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is the legal situation now more touchy due to the fact that there’s already been a conflict with a convoy?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think the reverse is the case. I hope that the relevant legal principles won’t be misused again, since the law of armed conflict applies here – not a cockeyed human rights perspective. Also, Israel didn’t act at all capriciously the first time around. It would have been quite difficult for the Israelis to sink those ships without concerning themselves with the fate of the passengers and cargo onboard. Israel only took measures that were prescribed by law – namely preventing the ships from reaching Gaza. This was the most moderate measure available to them.

ZEIT ONLINE: People are suffering in Gaza, even though they have access to the goods they need in order to survive. Isn’t it legitimate for people to want to help the citizens of Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The motivation of the blockade breakers – regardless of whether they’re acting for virtuous or reprehensible reasons – is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I, of course, have great respect for human rights activists who give of their time to pursue their goals, but you can’t get around the fact that there are certain legal boundaries. Also, I presume that these humanitarian actions are also publicity stunts aimed at mobilizing public opinion. No one would argue the fact that the citizens of Gaza have it really tough, compared to our own standards. But I don’t really see any pressing humanitarian need here.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, is there an alternative to these humanitarian convoys?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Sure there is. There are a few humanitarian organizations out there that have impeccable credentials that no one in their right mind would call into question – the most important one being the International Committee of the German Red Cross. If you really want to help the citizens of Gaza, you go to the Red Cross – an organization that the Israelis accept without hesitation.

ZEIT ONLINE: The border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was recently reopened. Do you think this will have a counterproductive effect on the naval blockade?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Israel has traditionally been able to rely on Egypt, and the border between Gaza and Egypt hasn’t been particularly permeable in the past. But this has changed. The strategic importance of the blockade in terms of protecting Israeli securityhas definitely declined. But nonetheless, the reliability of Israel’s maritime measures will not be affected in any way by the change in the status of the Gaza-Egypt border.

(h/t Kenneth)

My quarterly request for donations

It is now officially summer, and so therefore it is time for me to ask my good readers to donate to EoZ.

I spend a great deal of time on the blog - research, writing, creating graphics, making videos, corresponding with readers via email as well as Twitter and Facebook, maintaining the site, and reading comments when I can. All of this is in my free time after my job, a couple of side projects, and a family.

Over the past six months or so, I've been actively working to take the blog to the next level. I created two successful poster series that went viral. I gave two lectures on Hasbara, and made them available online. I started a partnership with StandWithUs to help create original material for them, all of which are available on the blog.

(I was also a regular writer for NewsRealBlog, where I got paid for articles, but that site closed, ending a source of revenue.)

My short-term goal is to increase my readership and help spread the truth about the Middle East to a larger audience. Since the beginning of the year that audience has gone up about 50%, and now I regularly get 5000-6000 hits a day. My Alexa ranking went up from #219,000 in December to #131,000 today, and my Technorati ranking is regularly in the Top Ten or Top Twenty for all world politics blogs.

When you donate, you become a partner in this endeavor.

The easiest way to help is to donate with the PayPal buttons in the upper right of the page. You can give a one time donation, or, if you are a regular, you may want to subscribe to pay every month. If you think that the information you get here every day is worth more than what you get from a newspaper, please consider a donation comparable to what you might pay for a subscription to your local paper. I'll even try to increase the number of comics I publish!

There are other ways you can help. You can buy products from Amazon using the search engine on the right sidebar, and I get a small percentage of what you would pay anyway.

You can also buy products from the EoZ Store at Printfection.

Finally, if you are strapped for cash, you can click on any ads you find slightly interesting. Each click is worth between 15 and 50 cents and it costs you nothing. (Don't just click away for no reason; the ad system cannot and must not be abused.)

Thanks to all those who have donated or subscribed, and as always thanks to all of you for reading EoZ. It still amazes me that so many of you enjoy the blog and I will continue to try to make it as informative and entertaining as possible.

Last week, Angelina Jolie visited Syrian refugees in Turkey.

Not everyone was happy about this.

In an open letter to Jolie reproduced at a number of Arabic sites, a very angry but anonymous Palestinian Arab writes:

Dear Angelina Jolie, I saw you in Turkey, carrying gifts for Syrian refugees who were only a couple of days within the Turkish borders. Did you ask this International Foundation: How could such a decision be taken for the Palestinian people who were refugees for 60 years? Did you ask about the number of Palestinian refugees who were displaced from their homes to spread all over the world because of the usurping by a racist Zionist military of their right to their land?

"A basic question, my sweet: Do you even know where Palestine is?

How dare Jolie seem to care about anyone besides Palestinian Arabs, the Exclusive Licensed Refugees of the Middle East®?

How dare those upstart Syrians dare flee for their lives to another country, taking vital attention away from Palestinian Arabs! The media that could have been talking about a new flotilla was instead momentarily distracted by an actress helping non-Palestinian Arabs!

The nerve!

Was this satirical video produced by Palestinian Arabs - or Israelis?

On YouTube there is a satirical cartoon video representing the leader of the Al Qassam Brigades as a baby, playing with a doll that represents Gilad Shalit and refusing to give him up, even for all the prisoners.

Here is it translated into English:

While it appears that it was created by a disgruntled Arab, the Arabic media is claiming that this video is part of Israel's psychological warfare against Hamas.

No evidence is given.

The YouTube user who uploaded it, "FreedomForPrisoners," just joined the day he uploaded it.

After Shakira visited Israel, Egyptians call to boycott her

From ABC News:

Colombian pop singer Shakira promoted her global education campaign with a stop at a joint Israeli-Arab school in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

Kicking off Israel's third annual Presidential Conference with a plea for children's education worldwide, Shakira, a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador, said the Holy Land was the "perfect place to talk about how urgent it is to invest in education."

"The most crucial decision we can make for a better tomorrow is how we educate our children," she said, speaking alongside her host, Israeli President Shimon Peres.

"How wonderful it would be if the world would act like a team. We have so many challenges ahead of us, so many problems to solve," she said. "This is the time to behave like a team, to wear the same T-shirts and to win the match of discrimination, to win the match of inequality and segregation."

Born Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll in Colombia, she has Lebanese roots. This is her first visit to Israel.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Shakira said she had great respect and love for the people of Israel.

"I'm very proud of my Lebanese heritage ... but it has nothing to do with the fact that I respect and have great affection for this country and the people of this country, both Israelis and Palestinians, and that's why I'm here, because I think that kids need us — kids don't understand about conflicts," she said.

Shakira said her experience in developing countries and charitable foundations persuaded her that investing in future generations was the answer.

"I am convinced that the road to peace has to be traveled hand in hand with education because that is the only way perhaps that we are going to achieve global stability and peace," she told the AP.

Of course, what she said is outrageous, hateful and bigoted, and she must be boycotted!

Which is just what a few new Facebook groups are calling for.

Shakira is scheduled to give a concert in November in Egypt, and some Egyptians are calling for a cancellation of the concert.

Four years ago, the pop star performed in Egypt at the foot of the Pyramids.