Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, December 04, 2011

Abbas has no strategy - and another type of media bias

A rare wire-service article critical of Mahmoud Abbas, from AFP:

The Palestinian bid for membership of the United Nations, launched amid fanfare in September, has hit a dead end and left the major powers wondering if president Mahmud Abbas has a strategy.

The Palestinian leadership shows no sign of calling for a vote on the application for full membership at the UN Security Council and after getting acceptance by UNESCO there has been no followup to other international agencies.

Abbas told the UN General Assembly how the bid for international recognition of a Palestinian state was born out of frustration at what he considers Israel's deliberate blocking of the peace process.

But many experts call the campaign a failure.

"They did not get the ... votes at the Security Council and so I think that bid basically has failed," said David Makovsky, director of the peace process project at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

The Palestinians had to get nine votes from the 15 Security Council members, but too many said they would abstain or oppose the bid. Even if they had succeeded, the United States had made it clear it would veto the bid.

The Palestinians may be holding back because they do not want to further risk their relations with President Barack Obama's administration, Makovsky told AFP.

Philip Wilcox, a scholar with the Middle East Institute and former US diplomat with special responsibility for Middle East affairs, also called the Palestinian a "failure" -- for now.

"I don't think they will ask for a vote unless they are sure to get nine votes," Wilcox said.

The Security Council's new members committee could not agree on a united recommendation on the Palestinian application and for the past month the Council has been waiting for a sign from the Palestinian leadership on their next move.

Abbas could also decide to seek a super-observer status at the UN General Assembly where a majority is virtually guaranteed but the prize would have much less status than full membership.

Palestinian diplomats at the United Nations say they are waiting for instructions from Ramallah. Western envoys at the UN say they have been told not to take any action until Abbas decides.

"We are really not sure what the Palestinian strategy is and whether they have one," one senior Western diplomat said.

Vitaly Churkin, Russian envoy to the UN and president of the Security Council for December, indicated that he too is in the dark, when asked at a press conference on Friday.

It is a good article, showing a side of the PA that we rarely see.

And that is the problem.

Even though this article was released by AFP last night, I found it only at two news sites: Asia One and Univision. (I only noticed it at all because it was mentioned prominently in Jordan's Al Ghad in Arabic, where the readers presictably rated it "bad.")

Wire services send out articles to their client newspapers and other media. The editors at the media outlets decide whether to include these stories in their collection of articles or not.

This article is nearly invisible on news sites that choose hundreds of other articles a day from AFP.

The reason? It seems to be because it contradicts the prevailing narrative of an ascendant Palestinian Authority with its inevitable march towards statehood and respectability.

Journalists are lazy. They have a pack mentality that all but ensures that original reporting and analysis is suppressed in favor of following easy-to-understand snapshot narratives.

But even more lazy are editors. When given a chance to show an alternative to the ever-present memes, they will very often choose to ignore it. It is too hard to explain, it might bring in complaints, it contradicts the other narratives that they so lovingly embrace. Who needs the headaches?

Abbas bet his people on statehood. He lost. He has no Plan B. But the media which has portrayed him as a moderate, pragmatic hero cannot bear to explain to their readers that they were wrong and that Abbas is more interested in stunts than negotiations and compromise.

Only when events occur that they cannot ignore will editors start to accept a new narrative. But it has to be easy to understand, with a clear hero and a clear villain, or else they fear their readers will run away. Short of an Abbas sex scandal, it is easier to just let the statehood story die, and keep the image of a peaceful and moderate Abbas pristine for the next time he butts heads with the intransigent, hardline Israeli leader.

Virgin Megastore recommends Mein Kampf to its Arab customers

A Twitter user has a photo of a book display at a Virgin Megastore in Qatar:

Yes, that is Hitler's Mein Kampf prominently displayed as a recommendation for Virgin's Arabic-reading customers!

And it is not only in Qatar. This blog post from Bahrain shows that the Virgin store there also recommends Mein Kampf.

So this does not look like it was the decision of the local store manager, but of Virgin Megastores for the entire Arab region.

What does Richard Branson think?

You can tweet him at @richardbranson or you can complain to the Virgin Megastores Middle East at @VirginMegaME.

UPDATE: Virgin responds - with lies.

Islamists end up with 65% of Egypt vote

From Al Arabiya:

Islamist parties have won 65 percent of votes for party list seats in the first round of parliamentary elections, according to official figures obtained by AFP on Sunday.

The Muslim Brotherhood won 36.62 percent of the vote, followed by the hard-line Salafist al-Nur party with 24.36 and the moderate Al-Wasat with 4.27, according to a chart provided by elections committee secretary general Yusri Abdel Karim.

Abdel Karim said that the committee would not provide percentages until the end of voting on January 10, but according to an official chart he provided the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party list won 3.56 million out of 9.73 million valid ballots.

The al-Nur party won 2.37 million, and the Wasat party 415,590 votes.

The liberal coalition the Egyptian Bloc received 13.35 percent, with 1.29 million votes.

The percentages cannot be calculated into the number of seats each party list will receive until the final results for the whole country are in.

This is close to what Al Masry al Youm reported last night:

This doesn't mean that Islamists will get 65% of the seats in Parliament - they very possibly will get more.

Egyptians return to the polls on Monday for 52 run-off votes for individual candidates, who will occupy a third of the 498 elected seats in the lower house once two more rounds of the complicated voting process end in January. Two-thirds of the seats are allocated proportionately to party lists.

From what I can tell in the Egyptian press, the run-offs are between the two highest vote-getters in different districts - and in practically all cases, that means they are between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi Nour party. Which means, from a back of the envelope calculation, the Islamists will end up with about 370 seats, or 74%.

Moreover, if I am understanding things correctly, there is a real possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood alone can end up with an absolute majority of seats in the parliament after the run-offs. If they end up with 120 seats of the 334 that are allocated proportionately, they would need to get 80% of the wins in the run-off elections - something that is certainly conceivable given that they are more moderate than their likely opponents in most of those elections. Liberals and Wasat voters may vote for the MB party in those elections rather than the Nour Salafis, if given a choice.

Either way, Egypt will become an Islamist state.

Will it be extreme, or ultra extreme?

Can it cope with the economic meltdown that Egypt is now facing?

Can we expect to see a mass exodus of Copts?

Will Egypt ally closer with Iran?

Will there ever be another election?

US envoy: Muslim anti-semitism is Israel's fault (updated)

From YNet:

Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week.

Speaking Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU,) Howard Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

The American envoy, a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

The next speaker took Gutman to task:

The conference was attended by Jewish lawyers from across Europe. The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.

“The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’” Germany attorney Nathan Gelbart said.

“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”

“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less,” Gelbart said.

I would have simply pointed out this note in the book The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red sea, & Gennesareth, published in 1870 by John MacGregor:

This must be a typo; no doubt MacGregor really just mistranslated "Zionist," a word not coined until decades later.

Today's Arabs and Muslims are equally clear that they are only against Israel and not Jews. Here's a perfect example of a Muslim preacher, whom I quoted on Friday, who takes pains to make the distinction (I help him out, in case anyone could misintrepret his words.)

Servants of Allah, let us be aware that our struggle with the Jews ^(Zionists) is one of faith, identity, and existence. Read the Koran, where Allah says: “Never will the Jews ^(Zionists) or the Christians ^(Zionists) be satisfied with you until you follow their creed,” so that you may know what the Jews ^(Zionists) conceal within their hearts.

Read what Allah says: “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers you will find the Jews ^(Zionists) and the polytheists,” so that you may know the magnitude of their enmity towards the Muslims, and their hatred towards the followers of the Prophet Muhammad. These people...

Brothers and sisters, you should read history books, so you my know the history of this people ^(Zionists) , and so you may know that the Jews ^(Zionists) of the past were evil, and the Jews ^(Zionists) of today are even worse.

They ^(Zionists) are ungrateful, they ^(Zionists) distort the word [of Allah], the ^(Zionist) worshippers of the golden calf, the ^(Zionist) slayers of the prophets, the ^(Zionist) enemies of the divine prophecies, the ^(Zionist) scum of mankind, who incurred the curse and wrath of Allah, and ^(Zionists) whom Allah transformed into apes and pigs and into taghut worshippers.

You just have to be smart enough, like Gutman evidently is, to read between the lines.

UPDATE: I had forgotten about this little treatise which is really all you need to know on the matter. It's an entire e-book, so it is pretty comprehensive. (h/t Brian)

Poor little anti-semitic cartoonist getting death threats from Muslims

We have discussed Carlos Latuff's many anti-semitic cartoons before. While he has been heavily criticized for them, as far as I know nobody has threatened his life because of them.

But when he drew a fairly mild cartoon about the results of the Egyptian elections, all hell broke loose.

And his reactions showed him to be the classy guy we always suspected.

A Brazilian cartoonist whose caricatures against the former regime of Hosni Mubarak won him praise in the Arab world is now in the spotlight himself amid Egypt's divisive election.

Carlos Latuff's latest illustration, pointing to a sharp surge in support for Islamic candidates, was not received favorably Saturday by many Egyptians on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Reaction on Twitter was unexpectedly harsh, considering Latuff's series of cartoons encouraging pro-democracy protesters in Egypt, and his uncompromising criticism of the SCAF. The cartoons often showed up on signs in Tahrir square, he says.

But anger directed toward the latest caricature underscores resentment that outside interests still seek to dictate to Egyptians their political affairs, while often failing to distinguish between established religious parties and fundamentalists.

Adding fuel to the fire, Latuff shocked many of his followers by dismissing any criticism outright and responding with expletive-laden contempt, including one crude private message to a female tweeter.

Many said it was Latuff's hostility, not his cartoon, that sparked the outcry.

At the same time, Latuff said he had received multiple death threats in response to the caricature, while his supporters condemned the uproar as an attempt to stifle the artist's freedom of expression. They ridiculed as childish a campaign to "unfollow" him on Twitter.

While you gotta hand it to him to at least note that Islamists winning the Egyptian election is not wonderful, it is hard to feel sympathy for such a sickening piece of trash.

Washington Post repeats PCHR lies about civilians in Gaza

In an Washington Post article about how Gazans have to live with the constant presence of Israeli drones, we read:

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights says 825 people have been killed by drones in Gaza since the capture of Shalit, who was released in October. Most of those killed, according to the organization, have been civilians mistakenly targeted or caught in the deadly shrapnel shower of a drone strike.

The WaPo says that PCHR is saying that the civilians killed in Gaza are mostly mistakenly targeted. But PCHR claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians. The name of the report I am quoting is "Targeted Civilians." This is the first indication that PCHR is not telling the truth.

I could not find any specific report at PCHR listing the victims of drone attacks to see how many were really civilian, but we have already shown that the PCHR definition of "civilian" includes members of every major terror organization.

A small example:

In that same report on the Gaza war, they say:

At approximately 17:20 on 3 January 2009, an IOF drone fired a missile at the western gate of Martyr Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque in the north of Jabalia Refugee Camp, near Martyr Kamal ‘Odwan Hospital. The missile landed only 2 meters away from the mosque’s gate. 12 civilians, including 4 children and a father with his son, who were praying at the time of the attack, were immediately killed. Another 30 civilians were injured in the attack. A number of the injured were transferred to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Later, medical sources announced that 3 had died. A total of 15 civilians were killed in this attack.

However, 6 or 7 of those killed were actually terrorists congregated outside the mosque - the targets of the attack.

Another from the same report:

Also at approximately 14:00 pm [January 7], IOF drones bombed al-Salatin area in the north of the Gaza Strip. Mohammed ‘Ali Ahmed al-Sultan, 55, who was near his house was killed as a result.

PCHR calls him a "civilian" but here is Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades memorial page for him, where we learn that even at the age of 55 he volunteered to be a member of the Qassam Brigades and that he was "in the first row in battle, fighting the enemies of God, the invaders." He was apparently relaying the positions of Israeli planes to the "mujahadeen" at the time he was targeted. In no way could be considered a civilian.

All in all, as I have documented, the PCHR categorized some 363 terrorists killed as "civilians" during the Gaza war.

Without the PCHR details I cannot prove that most of those targeted by drones are militant, but from reading about every airstrike over the past five years, I am certain that the percentage of civilians killed by drones is far less than 50%.

But the Washington Post does not bother to find out these basic facts. Israeli drones have been shown to be remarkably accurate and effective in targeting terrorists - not perfect, but about as good as any weapons used in history in a heavily populated area. But rather than dig a little deeper in a long article about drones, the WaPo uncritically believes an NGO that has been shown to lie, repeatedly, in its reports about this specific topic.

Stand With Us' response to the Forward - that The Forward didn't publish

I wrote about hit piece in the Forward last week, written by former Ha'aretz reporter Nathan Guttman, that painted the pro-Israel organization Stand With Us as an unethical right-wing group that should be, according to Guttman, registered as a foreign agent.

Stand With Us was understandably not happy with the article and asked The Forward to publish their response.

It will surprise few that a left-wing anti-Zionist newspaper that pretends to support free speech refused.

So here is SWU's letter to the Forward that was not published:

To The Forward,

StandWithUs appreciates your recent coverage of our dynamic growth, and of our multiple educational and advocacy efforts in cities around the world.

However, we were disturbed by the bizarre angle of your article, which tried to discredit us as “right wing,” and absurdly asked whether StandWithUs should register as an agent of a foreign government even though your own sources emphatically rejected this notion. You even tried to imply that there is something suspect about our funding sources though the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and Birthright Israel can hardly be considered suspect.

Your readers deserve to know the facts.

StandWithUs does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. Our work and our respect for Israel’s democratically elected government is not contingent on which parties are in power. Instead, since our founding, our mission has been to counter the vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic propaganda campaign that was unleashed along with the Intifada in September, 2000. Our goal is to educate the public about Israel—and empower others to educate their communities—to counter the demonizing propaganda and to make it possible to have reasonable, informed conversations about Israel’s policies on campuses and in communities.

Your readers should be informed about the virulence of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign. Israel is the only modern state whose right to exist is still questioned. If you consider support for the existence of the Jewish State a right wing position, then indeed we are right wing. Yet you repeatedly confused anti-Israel propaganda with “reasonable criticism” of Israeli policies. But the boycott movement against Israel is not just critical of Israel’s occupation and settlements as you claimed. The movement opposes the very existence of the Jewish state. Read their literature and their websites which are biased screeds that ignore ongoing terrorism and falsify facts. We objected to the Israeli soldiers’ group speaking on campuses not because they are critical of the Israeli government but because they misrepresent the IDF to vilify it and contribute to the malicious misinformation about Israel on American campuses.

Similarly, your article misrepresented why we object to J Street. It is not because J Street “criticizes” Israel's government policies, but rather because it attempts to get the American government to strong arm Israel into adopting specific policies that Israeli voters clearly rejected in their democratic elections. It is an effort to bypass Israel’s democracy. Furthermore, J Street has often supported blatant demonization of Israel, as when it tried to facilitate bringing Richard Goldstone and the infamous UN Goldstone Report to Congressional members. Even Goldstone himself has admitted the inaccuracy and bias of that report.

Indeed, it seems you had to search hard to find some evidence that would justify your criticism of StandWithUs. Though you claimed that StandWithUs has many critics, the only one you cited by name is well-known for his extremist views. Your criticism of some specific facts in our educational materials is simply erroneous . Despite your claim, Israel’s founding in May, 1948, did not cause the Palestinian refugee problem. Indeed, no responsible historian, including Benny Morris, disputes the fact that had Palestinian leaders accepted the UN Partition plan instead of launching a war to destroy the newly declared state, there would have been no refugees and a Palestinian Arab state would exist today.   The Danny Ayalon video simply laid out the historical facts about the West Bank. It is disputed territory, and both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate claims to it. What policies Israel and the Palestinians choose in light of these facts is a political question that will hopefully be hammered out in negotiations. StandWithUs does not recommend any specific policies, but rather elucidates the facts and history so there can be reasonable discussions about different policy options.

It is a shame that The Forward, while seeming to congratulate our growth and achievements during the last ten years,  nonetheless chose to malign our efforts.

These are difficult times for Israel. The Arab spring has created instability in the region and allowed the rise of Islamist forces that oppose Israel’s existence.  Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons and constantly reiterates that it wants to wipe Israel off the map. Hezbollah and Hamas continue amassing arms. The anti-Israel propaganda campaign, often called the “new anti-Semitism,” (for good reason) persistently tries to make inroads in liberal Western democracies. StandWithUs alerts and educates the public about these challenges, while the Forward minimizes them, doing a disservice to its readers.

Roz Rothstein, CEO

StandWithUs

_________________________________________

If you find the original Forward piece to be offensive and (as I had written) smarmy, feel free to go there and comment.

Again, a disclaimer: I have done some work with SWU.

UPDATE: On December 7, the Forward published a condensed and edited version of the response.

Weekend open thread, with a Wall St. update

I visited Wall Street yesterday, for the first time in a couple of months.

I always liked the tile art in New York subways

Last time, you may recall, I saw the first wave of Occupy Wall Street protesters, including this gentleman:

I am happy to report that there were no protesters to be seen this time, at least not on Wall Street itself. (Well, I did see one guy telling people not to visit Thailand.)

Also, while the barricades are still up, they are not nearly as suffocating as they were in September. And they are no longer in front of the kosher Milk Street Cafe at all, which was hurt badly by the loss of customers, forcing layoffs.

The bad news is that I planned to go to Milk Street to pick up dinner for take out - but they changed their hours to close at 3:30 PM, probably because of the layoffs. So I didn't get to eat anything from there this time around.

Anyway, here are a couple of links:

Khaled Abu Toameh- Muslim Brotherhood: Extremist Islamic Group
Richard Landes - Muslim anti-Semitism, Israel and the dynamics of self-destructive scapegoating

Have a good weekend.

The Jewish National Fund owns 53 square km of land - in Syria

The Matson Collection of old photos from Palestine includes this interesting one, a photograph of a map, entitled "Map. Extent of Jewish landholdings, issued by Jewish Natl. [i.e., National] Foundation, Jerusalem", taken between 1934 and 1939:

You can see some areas that are outside Israel's current borders that are highlighted as well.

Blowing the image up, we can see details:

With a little research I found this article from Globes in 2000:

"Globes" has further learned that the documentation proving JNF ownership of 53,000 dunams on the Golan Heights deep inside Syria were submitted to Prime Minister Ehud Barak for presentation at the negotiations with Syria.

JNF chairman Shlomo Gravitz today confirmed that JNF owns 5,000 on the Golan Heights, and another 53,000 dunam deep inside Syria. He said, "It's important that the public be aware that there are lands on the Golan Heights and in Syria that belong to the Jewish nation, not to Syria. We transferred the material to the Prime Minister for use during the negotiations."

Also, this 2001 paper on the JNF says:

The JNF also owns land beyond the borders of Israel: a few thousand dunams in the Gaza Strip, which is currently under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and broad tracts of land and in Areas A and B in Judea and Samaria, which are also controlled by the PA. The Deheisheh refugee camp, for example, is situated entirely on land owned by the JNF. The JNF owns 53,000 dunams of land in Syria in a region located about 30 kilometers south of Damascus. These lands are registered in the name of the JNF in the Syrian land registry. Additional tracts of land owned by the JNF are located in Jordan, mainly in the area of Naharayim that was transferred to Jordan following the peace accords. These lands are registered in the JNF’s name in the Jordanian land registry. All the land was purchased by the JNF before the demarcation of borders recognized today.

Interesting!

I wonder how many Syrians know they are living on land belonging to the Jewish National Fund.

Saudi clerics warn of promiscuity and homosexuality when women drive (updated x2)

From The Daily Mail:

Repealing a ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia would result in ‘no more virgins’, the country’s religious council has warned.

A ‘scientific’ report claims relaxing the ban would also see more Saudis - both men and women - turn to homosexuality and pornography.

The startling conclusions were drawn by Muslim scholars at the Majlis al-Ifta’ al-A’ala, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, working in conjunction with Kamal Subhi, a former professor at the King Fahd University.

Their report assessed the possible impact of repealing the ban in Saudi Arabia, the only country in the world where women are not allowed behind the wheel.

It was delivered to all 150 members of the Shura Council, the country’s legislative body.

The report warns that allowing women to drive would ‘provoke a surge in prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce’.

Within ten years of the ban being lifted, the report’s authors claim, there would be ‘no more virgins’ in the Islamic kingdom.

And it pointed out ‘moral decline’ could already be seen in other Muslim countries where women are allowed to drive.

In the report Professor Subhi described sitting in a coffee shop in an unnamed Arab state.

‘All the women were looking at me,’ he wrote. ‘One made a gesture that made it clear she was available... this is what happens when women are allowed to drive.’

In other words, to Saudi clerics, the following two photographs are indistinguishable:

(h/t Jawa Report)

UPDATE: The Shi'ites of Iran are using this report to make fun of the Sunnis of Saudi Arabia.

UPDATE 2: AP completely whitewashes this story, watering it down to merely say that the report says woman drivers "encourage premarital sex." (h/t CAMERA)

Toy guns that "insult Aisha" found in Gaza (UPDATED)

Emirates 24/7 reported in late October:

An Emirati social expert and activist shopping in a local market stumbled across Chinese-made toy guns that issue sounds mocking Islam and called on authorities to take action against such products.

The discovery came a few days after Saudi authorities said they seized nearly 1,500 Chinese-made toy guns issuing sounds that mock and insult Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

Mariam Al Ahmadi, a well-known social activist in Abu Dhabi, said she found the toy guns at some shops in Bani Yas, just outside Abu Dhabi city.

Quoted by the Dubai-based 'Emarat Al Youm' Arabic language daily, Mariam said she had reported the guns to the police and called for immediate measures.“I call upon the police and other competent authorities to investigate how these anti-Islam guns found their way into the UAE market and to take action against all those who had brought them in,” she said.

In Saudi Arabia, police said on Sunday they had seized nearly 1,500 Chinese-made toy guns at a local market found to be issuing sounds that abuse Aisha, one of the most venerated women in Islam.Members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, the most influential law enforcement authority in the country, seized the toys during a raid on a shopping centre in the western town of Jeddah.

“The guns were found to be issuing sounds which are considered mocking and offending against the Prophet’s wife,” newspapers said, quoting Commission spokesman in Jeddah, Turki Al Zahrani.He said sellers of those toys, mostly Asians, apparently do not know they offend Islam as the guns issue sounds in Arabic.

Those Chinese toy guns sure get around. Palestine Press Agency reports that a shipment was found in Gaza yesterday.

Gazans were shocked when kids started playing with the guns in a Gaza shop and they heard unspeakable things being said about Aisha. Unfortunately, we do not know the details.

Hamas confiscated the offensive weapons and started an investigation as to how they were smuggled into Gaza.

I did not see the guns on eBay yet. Only a matter of time....

UPDATE: Onion Tears News shows a MEMRI clip from September that shows what the guns really say:

"Go, go, go. Pull over. Save the hostages." is being interpreted as "Shoot Aisha!"

The annual UN hatefest against Israel

While every day is "hate Israel" day at the UN, November 29th is special. It is the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, held ironically on the day that the UN voted to create a Palestinian Arab state, a resolution rejected by the entire Arab world.

This year's farce featured the passing of no fewer than 6 anti-Israel resolutions in one day.

Iran voted for the resolutions, but with reservations - it did not recognize any reference to a "two state solution," a "peace process" or any other language that could be construed as accepting Israel's existence.

At the same time, the UN held an art exhibit called "A Palestinian Vista — Uprooted from our homeland… We rooted the homeland in ourselves."

It featured crafts, performances and paintings of Jerusalem that have been scrubbed to ensure that no Jewish presence is acknowledged. The paintings were created by a Jordanian citizen who lives in Canada and who calls himself "Palestinian."

Anne Bayefsky wrote a piece noting the hate and hypocrisy of this event:

Speaking on behalf of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Mansour clearly relished his annual moment at UN center stage. He accused Israel of the alleged offense of “Judaization,” in addition to “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid.” Without batting an eye over the preposterous distortion, he claimed Israel’s membership in the UN was “conditional” upon “Israel’s commitment to the partition resolution” which he stressed gave it less area than it has now. He never mentioned that in 1947 Jews accepted the resolution and Arabs rejected it.

Solidarity Day also featured Yahya Mahmassani, speaking for the League of Arab States, who explicitly rejected Israel’s “insistence on recognition as a Jewish state.” Only one representative of “civil society” was invited – Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights. The reasons for his invitation quickly became clear as he called Israel an “apartheid state,” demanded “boycotts, divestment and sanctions,” claimed Israel was guilty of “pogroms,” and alleged that U.S. support for Israel resulted from our being “held hostage to domestic politics.” Ambassador Mansour clapped when the rant finally ended.

At the conclusion of the speeches, the Senegalese Chair of the UN “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” encouraged everyone to attend the screening by the UN of the film “La Terre Parle Arabe” or “The Land Speaks Arabic” – “in order to show solidarity with the Palestinian people.” Advertised in the UN daily journal,, the film draws parallels between the Nazis’ final solution and the alleged Zionist “brutal plans” for Palestinians.

The script for this UN-promoted film included: “Christians and Muslims alike…unite in their hatred of Zionism…I preferred to die as a martyr rather than be governed by the Jews …We were against the Jews…The number of Jews increased constantly…They were Zionists!… The Jews were shooting at us…They started killing people who were asleep…[We]…found a poor woman…pregnant. They had killed her and the baby came out of the womb. They started slaughtering them until morning.”

Iran's PressTV covered the art exhibit. Early on the video you can see a couple of Neturei Karta members attending. That organization has only one purpose - to destroy Israel.

The fact that they come to attend a purportedly "Palestinian" art exhibit shows that they know what all haters of Israel know - the purpose of Palestinian Arab nationalism is not the creation of a state, but the destruction of one.

If Israel didn't exist, the Arab world would never have even allowed the idea of an Arab Palestinian state.

The slick packaging of "Palestine" at the UN is nothing less than the mainstreaming of the concept of destroying the Jewish state in politically-correct terms.

Syria opposition leader would cut ties with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas

From Al Arabiya:

A Syria run by the country’s main opposition group would cut ties to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the group’s leader told the Wall Street Journal in an article published Friday.

This would remove a crucial Iranian military ally believed to play a key role in supplying Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian Hamas, potentially leading to a dramatic reordering of regional power.

The interview with Burhan Ghalioun, president of the Syrian National Council, came eight months into an increasingly violent uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, with rebels seeking international support.

“There will be no special relationship with Iran,” Ghalioun, a 66-year-old university professor, told the Journal in an interview at his home in Paris.

“Breaking the exceptional relationship means breaking the strategic, military alliance,” he said, adding that “after the fall of the Syrian regime, (Hezbollah) won’t be the same.”

He also called for more robust international support for the rebels, including the possible establishment of a no-fly zone.

“Our main objective is finding mechanisms to protect civilians and stop the killing machine,” Ghalioun said.

“We say it is imperative to use forceful measures to force the regime to respect human rights.”

The rebels may well fail to topple the 40-year-old Assad regime established by Bashar’s father Hafez, but a reorientation of Syria away from Iran and towards the West would have major implications across the region.

Ghalioun said an opposition-run Syria would be committed to recovering the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured by Israel in the 1967 war, but would pursue its return through negotiations rather than armed conflict.

He also said it would work to normalize relations with neighboring Lebanon after decades of tense relations.

Meanwhile, the Syria/Turkey rift continues to wide. From Syria's SANA news:

In response to the measures announced by the Turkish Foreign Minister at his press conference regarding Syria Wednesday, the Syrian government decided to suspend the Free Trade Zone agreement between Syria and Turkey, official Spokesman of the Syrian Foreign and Expatriate Ministry stated on Thursday.

The Syrian Government studies taking other procedures that match with what has been declared by the Turkish Minster.

Turkey's Foreign Minister announced yesterday halting a loan by the Turkish Import & Export Bank to finance Syrian infrastructure projects, suspending relations between the central banks in both countries, freezing the financial assets of the Syrian government and halting deals of financial credits in Syria in addition to suspending the Higher Strategic Cooperation with Syria.

A devastating takedown of John Mearsheimer

From Counterpoint, a conservative publication from the University of Chicago:

When, after a long career built on a theory that domestic political relationships had a minimal impact on any state’s foreign policy, John Mearsheimer co-wrote The Israel Lobby, a popular book alleging the maximal impact of a small cabal on American foreign policy, we were perplexed at the incoherence. When the book was written without accompanying scholarship on the Turkish lobby which has had a hand in the failure to recognize the Armenian Genocide or push for a Kurdish state, the Irish lobby which greatly influenced the American policy in Northern Ireland for decades, or Arab, Chinese, Tibetan, Greek, Indian, or Pakistani lobbies that have all made their mark on American foreign policy, we were left wondering at the motives of his focus. When the book was finally read and its narrative of the Israeli-Arab conflict rested on shoddy history, a mix of long-ago refuted facts (whose falsehood was easily available over Google) and stark errors of omission, we began to question the animus of Professor Mearsheimer.

He built a robust theory of states seeking security through regional hegemony, no matter their domestic politics. Yet this theory could not explain many of the adventures of the United States in the Middle East. There had to be an exogenous factor. He labeled this factor “The Israel Lobby.” But he did not use this factor to complicate the original model; he did not further examine the role of domestic constituencies in international relations. He left “The Israel Lobby” an outlier, an asterisk. It was a strange Jewish exceptionalism he propagated: only the Jews had dual loyalties. He was attacked. He dug in. More and more of his output was devoted to the dealings of the Jewish State. He began to speak at the events of Palestinian nationalists, groups whose assumptions would have seemed so contrary to realism. He would speak recklessly and accuse Israel of awful motives. This was a different John Mearsheimer. Something was going on.

John Mearsheimer is now in the denouement of a tragedy of a great academic. Too stubborn to revise his long-time model, Professor Mearsheimer has instead endorsed the theories of a long-standing anti-Semitic conspiracy. We cannot say whether Professor Mearsheimer is an honest-to-goodness anti-Semite; we do not know his heart. We can only say that he has, from the perch of an endowed chair at our university, endorsed a grotesque theory of the doings of the modern Jew.

There are no reports of Professor Mearsheimer being anything less than cordial to his Jewish colleagues or reducing the grades of Jewish students. This is nothing like the anti-Semitism that bars Jews from country clubs; it is, indeed, an adaptation of an older anti-Semitism: a belief that old adages hold true, that the Jews are loyal only to one another and are not to be trusted with power. It is revealed, not in statements about usurers or admonishments about “kikes,” but in an unwitting animus against the prominent Jews in public life and the ascribing of much too much to their effect. This comes out in speeches segregating “Righteous Jews” (marginalized radicals) from bad Jews, “New Afrikaners” (all the heads of major Jewish organizations). It comes out in paranoid blog-posts about the potential ability of the Israel Lobby to cover-up his own assassination. It comes out in reading lists for classes featuring the most absurd rendering of Israeli-Arab revisionism (Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) and a work of historical psychoanalysis that leaves the impression that Jewish dreams of self-determination are very near a mental disorder (Jacqueline Rose’s The Question of Zion). And it comes out in John Mearsheimer’s recent endorsement of a work by an undeniable anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Who?.

...Professor Mearsheimer’s contribution to the study of powers regional and global will last, may even become canonical, but he has in recent years attracted a very sorry stain upon himself, his scholarship, and the University which enabled his many achievements. The charge of anti-Semitism is a durable one, especially when actions repeatedly fail to contradict it. Professor Mearsheimer is certainly entitled to study, author, and speak whatever he will (we do not think the approval of hateful ideas a fireable offense), but it will refract upon an institution that has done more for him than he has done for it. It lately refracts the most bigoted ravings of a British madman and the questionable animus of his endorsing professor. If Professor Mearsheimer is to retain any of the grace of an accomplished scholar and do right by his home for nearly thirty years, there is but a single option: retirement.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t Noah)