Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Palestinian Arabs warn that USAID money is meant to promote peace

Palestine Times has an article quoting a Professor Abdul Sattar Qassem as warning Palestinian Arab universities against accepting money from USAID - because it comes with strings attached.

USAID spends millions of dollars to promote excellence in teaching and other programs at Palestinian Arab universities. But Qassem sees a dark side:

America requires the recipients of aid not to have been previously arrested by the Zionist occupation, and not to be affiliated with, Palestinian resistance groups. The aid is meant to favor negotiations with the Zionists, and the search for a peaceful solution; it is in favor of two-state solution; and even more dangerous it supports normalization with the Zionists, [for example] with scientific cooperation...the universities that [receive aid from the] U.S. must normalize relations with the Zionist entity, and participate in many activities with the Zionist universities and academics.

USAID funds dozens of projects in the territories, at a cost of some $200 million a year.

Last year a PalArab newspaper accused USAID of being a spy agency and accused it of similar crimes that Professor Qassem is accusing it of, even saying that the only people who receive USAID funding after the terrorists are weeded out are those who have abandoned their national heritage.

"Why luvvies and liberals hate Israel" (Brendan O'Neill)

This article is behind the paywall at The Australian, temporarily available at the author's website:

A new ailment is spreading through the chattering classes. Symptoms include an aversion to art or literature created in Israel, an intolerance of all foodstuffs produced in Israel, and an allergy to the Israeli flag, the Israeli football team and Israeli professors. If you or any of your friends have those symptoms, get help: it is possible you’re suffering from Israel Sensitivity Disorder.

This most middle-class of maladies is widespread in respectable circles. It has flared up very badly in Britain during the past week, with some of the most prominent carriers seeking to keep an Israeli theatre company off this sceptred isle.

Habima, Israel’s national theatre company, is due to perform at the World Shakespeare Festival at London’s famous Globe Theatre. Theatre troupes from every corner of the earth will be there, including from the new nation of South Sudan (whose actors will perform Cymbeline in Juba Arabic) and from New Zealand (in the first Maori-language performance of Troilus and Cressida). Some authoritarian states are involved, too, including China and Zimbabwe.

But it is Habima’s involvement, and Habima’s involvement alone, that has riled Britain’s luvvies and liberals. In a letter to The Guardian, actress Emma Thompson and others said they were “dismayed” at the inclusion of Habima in this global festival. Apparently, by inviting Habima, the Globe is “associating itself with policies of exclusion practised by the Israeli state”.

That is, it is infecting itself with the Israeli toxin; it is failing in its duty to keep itself clean of any contact with Israel and Israeli artists, as every member of decent society apparently must now do.

This extraordinary (and thankfully failed) attempt to ban a theatre company from a global festival follows on from last year’s ugly interruption of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms, an eight-week season of classical music that takes place at the Royal Albert Hall every summer. Musicians from across the world take part. But when the influential Israel-bashers heard that an orchestra from that country was taking part, their hives started to itch.

And so these “philistines for Palestine” (as an editorial in The Australian labelled them) jeered and shouted “shame” as the orchestra started to play. Watch the video on YouTube. It’s a truly depressing spectacle, as the orchestra’s solo violinist tries to make his music heard above the din of those who think that nothing Israeli should be seen or heard in polite society.

These censorious attacks on Israel’s art fit neatly with broader campaigns to boycott its academics and produce.

Across the West, anti-Israel agitators demand that universities refuse to have any dealings with their Israeli counterparts while right-on shoppers make a virtue of the fact they never buy Israeli oranges or coffee.

There’s something very ugly in this PC loathing of everything Israeli-made. You don’t have to look far into the historical records, certainly here in Europe, to see that nothing good comes from the boycotting of shops run by “those people” or the attempted ghetto-isation of their culture and practices. Surely Britain’s anti-Israel luvvies have at least watched Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, the Holocaust-based tale of a man deprived of his true love - making music - because of what he is?

Of course the drowning out of Israeli music at the Royal Albert Hall and the attempted exclusion of an Israeli theatre company from the Globe are nothing like putting Jews into a real, walled-off ghetto. But all involve a process of ghetto-isation, a process of marginalising people on the basis of their origins.

The aversion to all things Israeli has gone way beyond a normal political boycott. The obsession with avoiding Israeli stuff has nothing in common with the positive boycotts carried out by political radicals in the past, whether it was suffragettes boycotting Britain’s 1911 census or blacks in the American south boycotting buses with segregationist seating.

Rather, the avoidance of Israel and all its ideas and wares has become a weird way of life for some people, where the aim isn’t to achieve tangible political goals but rather an inner sensation of super moral smugness.

Hating Israel is no longer a serious political stance so much as a cultural signifier. It’s one of the key ways through which the chattering classes now advertise their decency, their caring streak, their loathing of “evil” and their pity for “victims”.

And therefore, the more conspicuous they can make their loathing of Israel, the more loudly and colourfully they can declare it, the better. That is why they constantly write letters to newspapers, tell everyone that they studiously avoid Israeli shops, and wear the Yasser Arafat-inspired keffiyeh - because these are all signifiers of moral worth and thus must be made visible to all and sundry.

Hating Israel is now like wearing a red ribbon for AIDS or making a virtue of eating only organic foodstuffs.

Its consequences, however, are far more dire than donning a ribbon. For the end result of all these self-serving anti-Israel antics is that one tiny country is singled out for chattering-class opprobrium and in the process is transformed into a pariah state. These anti-Israel activists claim to be concerned that Israel is becoming an apartheid state, yet they themselves practice cultural apartheid against Israel.

Habima has come in for some flak in Israel, too, because at the Globe’s festival it is planning to perform what some consider to be Shakespeare’s anti-Semitic play, The Merchant of Venice.

Yet that play also contains a profound plea for tolerance that the anti-Israel lobby would do well to heed: “Hath not a Jew eyes? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”

(h/t Ian)

YNet interviews two of the Mavi Marmara survivors

The IDF survivors, that is.

The first to reach the deck was the squad commander, who was immediately hurt and neutralized. A. was the second man down the rope. He is a 23-year-old resident of northern Israel, whose mother also served in the elite unit.

"At first I didn't understand what's happening," he said. "Just as I came down, five or six terrorists carrying crowbars, clubs, chairs and anything else they could fight with jumped at me. I sustained blows to my head and they also tried to choke me. While doing it, they also tried to lift me and throw me down to the lower deck."

"When I realized what was going on, I also realized that I was fighting for my life; it was either I overcome them, or they'll throw me into the sea," he said.

So what did you do?

I fought with my fists and started to push them away. When I came down to the deck, I only held a paintball gun…so in the initial stage I only fought with my hands. This is what we were taught to do when we have no weapons.

But you had a handgun.

It was attached to my calf. I tried to reach it, but this takes time.

What was going through your mind at that time?

You're fighting for your life. The struggle lasted some 30 seconds. They tried to throw me overboard, yet just when I managed to reach my handgun, I was hit with that bullet to the stomach."

Meanwhile, Y. also landed on the deck. "As I was sliding down the rope, I saw a group of people fighting. I had no choice, as I couldn't climb back up. So I kept sliding down and saw four or five terrorists waiting for me there, armed with clubs, metal pipes and chairs. I came down, and they immediate started to beat me up, focusing on my head. I was wearing a military helmet, but they got it off, shattered it and started to pulverize me with blows to the head. While doing it, they started pulling me towards the edge of the deck, in order to throw my overboard."

Seconds after landing on the Marmara's deck, his left arm was completely crushed and remained hanging from his shoulder. Y. managed to pull out his handgun with his other hand and fired at the legs of his assailants.

"At that moment, I spotted one of our soldiers on the other side of the deck, with two terrorists standing above him and beating him up; he was bleeding on the floor. So I fired at the two terrorists and brought them down."

How did you know who's a terrorist and who's an innocent civilian?

"There was no problem identifying them. The terrorists wore orange life vests, protective vests, and gas masks. All of them were equipped with cold arms. This is not what innocent peace activists look like."

By this time, A. also managed to pull out his handgun. "The moment the assailants saw that I was holding a gun and waving it, they got away. I then looked up and saw another terrorist with a handgun aiming at a member of my squad. At that moment I opened fire at him and finished him off. I went back and saw that the terrorists who were on top of me earlier were now fighting my comrades. I opened fire at another one who jeopardized another soldier and took him down."

Remember, the IHH terrorists shot first, as the Eiland report showed. And while that first shot seems to have come from the gun of an soldier who lost it, we have photos of at least one weapon on the ship and we know that shell casings found on the ship did not match any IDF handguns.

The IHH "peace activists" were terrorists, period.

Islamic Jihad threatens Eilat

Palestine Today reports that Islamic Jihad has released a book meant to highlight the strategic value of Eilat to Israel and stress how much damage could be done to the Jewish state if it was attacked.

According to the book, Eilat (or Rashrash in Arabic) is so strategic that it means "life or death" to Israel; it asserts that Israel isn't supported by four legs, but merely one - Eilat.

The book states that Israel is using Eilat to infiltrate into African and other states, and its tourism trade is critical as well. It descies that fact that Palestinian Arab terrorists have mostly ignored the city.

At a press conference at the book launch, an official said that Arab, Islamic and Palestinian terrorists should concentrate on the task of dealing with this strategic area and hit control systems on the port and the surrounding area and destroy the layout and routine of everyday life, as well as take away any sense of personal security that Eilat residents enjoy.

Earlier this month a two rockets were fired into Eilat from the Sinai. Israel blamed the Popular Resistance Committees which they denied. The rockets reportedly originated in Libya.

There was a similar rocket attack on Eilat in April 2010.

Ouda Tarabin may be released this week in prisoner swap

From YNet:

The al-Muhit Arab website reported Thursday that Israel and Egypt will complete a prisoner exchange deal as part of which 63 Egyptian prisoners will be traded off in exchange for Israeli citizen Ouda Tarabin by April 25.

The report stated that the prisoners' relatives were promised that the deal will go through by April 25 – the day Egypt marks as Sinai liberation day.

Based on the same promise, members of the Sinai Multinational Force recently captured by Bedouins were freed and a Central Sinai road has been reopened. The report could not be confirmed.

Other Egyptian media outlets reported that an Israeli envoy arrived in Egypt on Wednesday for a brief visit. During a meeting with Egyptian officials, the parties discussed the latest developments in the prisoners issue, including the Ouda Tarabin deal.

Egyptian media reported many times of a possible agreement for Tarabin's release over the past few years.

Several weeks ago, the al-Ahram newspaper reported that a high-level Israeli delegation discussed the issue with Egyptian officials in Cairo.

Tarabin has been held in Egypt on espionage charges since 2000.

Egyptian media are reporting anywhere between 56 and 65 prisoners being released by Israel.

Last year when Ilan Grapel was released there was much speculation that a Tarabin deal was imminent as well. Last month there was renewed rumors that a Tarabin deal was nearing completion.

Hilarious spoof of JVP Haggadah

I recently noted the Jewish Voice for Peace Haggadah, which I called the "Hamas Haggadah."

Divest This! made a hilarious "early draft" that incredibly offensive booklet. It's really great, especially if you glanced through the real thing.

JVP Hagaddah - Oy

Khamanei's "anti-nuclear fatwa" is a myth

Today, in Israel Hayom, Dore Gold said something quite interesting about the seemingly famous fatwa supposedly issued by Ayatollah Khamanei against nuclear weapons:

When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the talks that were held this week between the P5+1 (five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) and Iran, she detailed how the idea for these negotiations was raised. She explained that she had heard a report from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu about their visit with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to the Turks, Khamenei told them that, under Islam, weapons of mass destruction are prohibited.

Clinton suggested that the supreme leader's stance needed to be "operationalized" and explained: "We will be meeting with the Iranians to discuss how you translate what is a stated belief into a plan of action." However, the religious argument being used by the Iranians to prove that their nuclear program is not military in nature is nothing new. In fact, on Aug. 10, 2005, the Iranian government sent an official letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna stating that "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam." A fatwa is a written opinion on Islamic law, issued by a religious authority.

In the years that followed, several Western governments, including Britain and France, made many repeated inquiries about Khamenei's nuclear fatwa. At the IAEA, Pierre Goldschmidt, the body's former deputy director-general, wanted to see if this fatwa even existed. At a conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies on Feb. 4, 2012, he said that he had actually asked for a copy of the exact text of the nuclear fatwa in 2005 but the Iranians never presented anything in writing.

It shouldn't be hard to track down a fatwa written by the Supreme Leader of Iran, should it?

Well, it might be a tad difficult if the fatwa is fiction. And MEMRI is now stating definitively that there is no such fatwa:

MEMRI's investigation reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever issued or published, and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime apparatuses – in an attempt to deceive top U.S. administration officials and the others mentioned above.

What does exist are Iranian reports starting in 2005, on statements by an Iranian representative, Sirus Naseri, at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on August 11, 2005 that Khamenei had issued such a fatwa (See Appendix II for documents.)

After 2005, there are additional statements by senior regime representatives about the existence of the fatwa, for example on April 12, 2012 by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in an op-ed in the Washington Post on the eve of the talks. He wrote: "We have strongly marked our opposition to weapons of mass destruction on many occasions. Almost seven years ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a binding commitment. He issued a religious edict – a fatwa – forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons."[6]

Also, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported on April 11, 2012, that Iranian judiciary head Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani had said: "The fatwa that the Supreme Leader has issued is the best guarantee that Iran will never seek to produce nuclear weapons." Mehr itself also noted in the same report that Khamenei had issued a fatwa banning the use of nuclear weapons: "Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are all haram (prohibited in Islam)."[7]

In contrast, a review published April 8, 2012 by Iran's official news agency IRNA giving in detail Supreme Leader Khamenei's past mentions of the ban on the use of nuclear weapons does not mention any fatwa by him.[8] This, even though in August 2005 IRNA had already reported that Iran's special representative to the IAEA Board of Directors had handed a report on Khamenei's alleged fatwa, and that this report – though not the fatwa itself – had been submitted to the IAEA board as an official Iranian document (see Appendix II). It should be noted that this August 2005 IRNA report on the fatwa was reported by other websites, such as mathaba.net[9] but that the original report in IRNA, at http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm, can no longer be accessed (see Appendix III).[10]

These reports were designed to, and apparently did, elevate Iran's status vis-à-vis the West, despite Iran's refusal to allow inspections of its nuclear sites. Iranian regime officials' presentation of statements on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to Iran's nuclear facilities.

Khamanei has been quoted as saying that nuclear bombs are forbidden in speeches. But, as MEMRI points out,

Since the West does not consider mere statements, by Khamenei or by other regime officials, to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa that the West would be more inclined to trust.

It is simply another lies on top of other lies meant to buy time for more nuclear weapons development. Exactly was it has been for years - lies to the EU, lies to the IAEA, lies to the US.

Juan Cole, considered an "expert" on Iran. has stated many times that this fatwa exists. Is he willing to find it? He can really damage MEMRI's credibility if he digs it up. So, will he? Or will be admit he is wrong if he can't?

Of course, the answer to both is "no." Honesty is not an attribute that is too important to some "experts" like Cole, and he considers it beneath himself to admit to being wrong.

But the credibility of a lying academic is not nearly as important as the fact that we see here yet again that the Iranian regime is willing to lie to the West, and that nothing they say can be trusted.

Let's hope that Western diplomats finally learn that lesson.

(h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

Links by Ian

I don't know why I haven't just been copying and pasting the linkdumps that a couple of my commenters have been creating....

Here are Ian's links for the day:

The elephant of Jew hatred – Caroline Glick
http://www.carolineglick.com/e...

Michael Coren on Danish agitators in Israel
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mi...

Before Memorial Day: monuments were destroyed in the Jordan Valley (Hebrew)
http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/26...

Rockets fired at Eilat earlier this month ‘were smuggled out of Libya’
http://www.timesofisrael.com/r...

In Gaza, Hamas rule has not turned out as many expected
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Occupy Facebook Page Touts Jew Hating Cartoon
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...

WWII referred to as the European Civil War: The EU cannot be serious?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...

Media Matters' Oliver Willis Wants Pro-Israel Liberals 'Marginalized'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J...

What must be said remains unspeakable by Nick Dyrenfurth
“The declaration condemned the inconsistent ''crying out against the war of destruction being perpetrated by the Americans against the population of Vietnam and passing over in silence the far worse Holocaust being planned by the Arabs against Israel''. Signatories included the leading Marxist scholar Ernst Bloch and novelist Gunter Grass.”
http://www.theage.com.au/opini...

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Assange
World-infamous advocate of free media, Julian Assange has jumped into bed with the Kremlin and aired his new Russia Today show, "The World Tomorrow". His debut guest? Hassan Nasrallah
http://www.thecommentator.com/...

U.S. Backs Israel on Stopping 'Flytilla'
The United States defends Israel’s actions " to stop the anti-Israel ‘flytilla’, says it acted "as a sovereign nation."
http://www.israelnationalnews....

Salafist insults Egyptian TV hostess as Jewish

From Al Arabiya:

Egyptian Islamist Gamal Saber, campaign manager for disqualified Salafist presidential candidate Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail, was expelled from a television program after he told the show host that she was of “Jewish origin.”

Saber told Azza Mustafa, who hosts Studio al-Balad program at Sada al-Balad TV, that the reason of her popularity is that she is of Jewish origin.

“You are a prominent media personality, and you are famous worldwide because you are talented and smart, and you moderate the dialogue very well…But there is another reason why you are so famous. Do you know what it is? I know that you know, but I will let the viewers know as well. [Our host] Azza is of Jewish origin! Here are the documents. You may have a look,” Saber said on air last Wednesday.

Show host Mustafa took the documents, looked at them and said, “Let me see this. This is a picture of [the show's co-host] Dina Ramez.”

“Whatever,” the Salafist said.

“No, you put a picture of Dina Ramez on this document,” the show host said.

“You have a problem with the Egyptian state. Maybe the elections committee allows you to talk about forgeries, but even if you apologize, I do not allow you to accuse me of being Jewish,” she added.

“I am very sorry, but you will have to leave. Even if you want to demonstrate how anyone can accuse anyone of anything, I'm asking you to leave because you made this comparison and told me I am Jewish,” she added.

She then asked Salafist Saber to “go home” and “solve your problem” over the suspension of Sheik Abu Ismail with the elections committee.

“Don't come here saying: By the way, you are Jewish. I refuse to have you here," she said.

“I am the one refusing to be here. You in the media are leading people astray,” Saber replied.

I think she would have been less insulted if he produced paperwork showing that she was a dog.

A stunning case of "eye-washing"

From Israel's MFA:

When the seven-person crew from the Israeli volunteer organization Eye from Zion arrived in a remote region in Ethiopia in February to provide free cataract surgery, they were expecting several dozen patients. Instead, hordes of adults and children were waiting to receive the life-changing operation. And one young girl with a protruding eye was given a very special gift –– a medical trip to Israel.

Using its proprietary mobile unit that encases the patient’s head in a sterile environment, Eye from Zion has already performed the 20-minute procedure on thousands of people in Asian and African countries. This time, the organization was asked by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to pay a visit to northern Ethiopia because so many people there are blinded by cataracts.

Confronted with the unexpected mass of people, Eye from Zion founder Nati Marcus decided he would send no one away if he thought they could be helped. “They told us 70, and when we arrived there were 1,400 waiting for us. We sent 400 away immediately because there was nothing we could do -- some even had no eyes. But we knew there were about 1,000 we could help.”

After an initial 170 operations in the regions of Debark and Gondar, plus training for a local nurse who had taken it upon herself to perform cataract operations, Marcus planned to return with another team of four eye doctors, a couple of nurses and a technician over the course of the year to finish the job for those on the waiting list.

On March 17, a crew led by Prof. Dov Weinberger, head of ophthalmology at Rabin Medical Center, flew over with representatives from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), which has on-the-ground staff in Ethiopia.

“One thousand is an unbelievable number,” Marcus says. “We worked from morning to night with a local doctor from Ethiopia who helped us in the mobile operating room.”

Marcus, a retired businessman, invented this unique surgical setup to overcome the problem of operating in remote locations. The contents of the unit were donated by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer after Marcus founded Eye from Zion four years ago in order to share Israeli medical expertise and training to people in developing areas.

Supported by MASHAV, Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Foreign Ministry and volunteer medical personnel, as well as donations, Eye from Zion also enables doctors from around the world to network and share techniques that can advance medical treatment for improving sight in the developing world.

Israel haters at this point are fuming. Since they know, a priori, that the Zionist entity is inherently evil, then it must follow that everything that every Israeli does is by definition a human rights violation. This must be, too. How can they prove it?

But then a ray of light appears for them to grab onto:

Marcus always hopes that people who benefit from the training and the treatment will go on to become goodwill ambassadors for Israel and the Jewish people.

A-ha! You see - these doctors aren't spending months in remote areas, volunteering their time, helping thousands of people see, for purely altruistic reasons! Of course not! It's pure hasbara! They are using purported good deeds to make Israel look good! They are asking their patients to show gratitude towards the occupying Zionist power!

It's eye-washing!

This ten-year old girl, who had a life-threatening tumor behind her eye removed by these volunteers and who is now in Israel to have follow-up surgery, is obviously nothing but a Hasbara pawn. She may be too young to know to refuse the tainted Zionist services, but what excuse do her parents have?

(If Mondoweiss or any of the other anti-Israel idiots would deign to cover this story, you would see that what I am writing here is no exaggeration.)

Another fake BDS victory?

BDSers are crowing about their latest supposed victory:

The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP) is pleased to be able to mark Palestinian Prisoners Day by announcing that the European Union has declined to renew a contract with private security company G4S amidst concerns raised by MEPs and campaign groups about the role the company plays in equipping Israeli prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held in violation of international law.

G4S has provided security services to the buildings of the European Parliament since 2008 but the contract award notice (service contract 118611-2012) published on the EU official tenders’ website on April 13th shows that G4S hast lost its contract with the European Parliament.

In March 2011, a group of 28 Members of the European Parliament, including 8 MEPs from Denmark and 6 from the UK wrote a letter to former EU Parliament President Jerzy Buzek, demanding that the Parliament dropped G4S as the principal security contractor if G4S continued to provide security services to illegal Israeli settlements, checkpoints and Israeli prisons at which Palestinians are detained. Their demands were a response to investigations conducted by the Danish NGO DanWatch and a report made by the Israeli research project “Who Profits” which revealed and documented G4S’ implication in illegal activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

With the assistance of lawyers, campaigners from ECCP member organisations also raised the issue with various EU officials, in cooperation with Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Merton Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and the Waltham Forest Palestine Solidarity Campaign. G4S held a meeting for MEPs and EU officials in an attempt to deflect the criticisms but failed to provide sufficient guarantees that it would abandon all of its illegal activities.

“The non-renewal of this contract with a company that is deeply complicit with Israeli violations of international law is a vital step towards ensuring that Israel and corporations comply with basic legal standards” said ECCP chairperson Pierre Galand.

“We also salute and thank those MEPs that we are pleased to have worked alongside on this effective campaign.”

OK, let's look up the service contract:

B-Brussels: provision of general safety, fire safety, security accreditation and maintenance of radio systems and controls rounds on the site of the European Parliament in Brussels

It shows that the contract was awarded to Securitas SA/NV.

But bidding on the contract was announced in July 2011, only a couple of months after the original BDS letter. How likely is it that they decided to dump their old security firm in such a short timeframe?

And in the original bid, we see that the duration of the contract is 60 months. Nothing about any automatic renewal or preferential treatment for existing suppliers.

In other words, the G4S contract was already completed, with a date that could easily be determined - and the BDS crowd looked it up and decided to write a letter a few months prior to the bid that was already going to be placed out anyway!

Not only that, but G4S was probably already under pressure for a different reason: an embarrassing incident in 2009 when a thief stole €50,000 from a bank in the Parliament building complex and got away. If G4S was asked not to bid - and we don't know that is the case- it was probably because of that.

Almost certainly the EU bureaucratic behemoth has strict guidelines on ensuring a fair bidding procedure, and there is zero evidence that political considerations had anything to do with the changing of the security firm for that building. We don't know the details of the three bids that were offered. In all likelihood, Securitas simply won the contract based on its having the lowest bid, something that most governments enforce to minimize corruption in handing out contracts.

The BDSers do not give a shred of proof that anything they did has anything to do with the change of preferred security providers. They don't name any of the MEPs that supposedly helped them. They don't quote any officials, they don't link to any speeches, they don't provide any documents. Nothing.

It is notable that G4S also provides security services to many Arab nations: Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and Morocco. If G4S was such a horrible Zionist company, then why can't the BDSers even get friendly Arab governments to drop them? Why don't they even try?

The reason is probably because BDS is completely ineffective, and to make it appear like they make a difference they simply take credit every time a company associated however tenuously with Israel loses a contract for any reason.

"The occupation of Jerusalem" (Burak Bekdil, Hurriyet)

In the Hurriyet Daily News, in an op-ed that starts off criticizing Israel for its reaction to Günter Grass’ poem, Burak Bekdil notes something very important:

Hardly a day passes in the Islamic world (or in the western intellectual world) without people standing up against and decrying the occupation of “al-Quds” (otherwise known as Jerusalem). In this column I have often argued otherwise: A counter-occupation is no occupation.

Now, dear Islamists, I have a “witness” whom I guess you could hardly refute. Forget my words and listen to what Turkey’s top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, had to say just last week: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds he was invited to pray at a church (since there were no mosques in Jerusalem). But he politely refused because he was worried that the (conquering) Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there.”

Now, read that line once again, or a thousand times if you wish to: “After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds…” And think about why there were no mosques in Jerusalem at the time of the conquest. Still no clue? Allow me to explain: Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. And now you claim it back because it is under “Jewish occupation!”

The refusal to pray at the church was very noble of the Prophet Omar. I personally do not expect you, dear Islamists, to behave as virtuously and gallantly as the prophet, but at least you can do something easier: Stop fighting for a city that belonged to other faiths before your ancestors conquered it. And please recall my witness when you flood my inbox with more hate-mail tomorrow. Or is Professor Görmez, too, an infidel like me?

Notice that this shows that even Islamists know that there was no "farthest mosque" ("Al Aqsa") in Jerusalem when Mohammed had his flying horse dream. They just say that there was to justify their own occupation of the city.

(h/t Simone)

Why peace is impossible, reason #3951 (plus proof ME "experts" are anything but)

Excerpts from The Forward's article about their interview with Hamas' Abu Marzouk:

Any agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will be subject to far-reaching changes if Hamas comes to power in a democratic Palestinian state, a top Hamas leader told the Forward in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview.

Mousa Abu Marzook, considered Hamas’s second-highest-ranking official, said that his group would view an agreement between Israel and the P.A. — even one ratified by a referendum of all Palestinians — as a hudna, or cease-fire, rather than as a peace treaty. In power, he said, Hamas would feel free to shift away from those provisions of the agreement that define it as a peace treaty and move instead toward a relationship of armed truce.

“We will not recognize Israel as a state,” he said emphatically. “It will be like the relationship between Lebanon and Israel or Syria and Israel.”

He also made clear that such an agreement must include the unqualified right of Palestinians to return to land in what is now Israel.

Abu Marzook was at pains to knock down suggestions in numerous media outlets that Hamas is preparing to abandon armed resistance against Israel in favor of mass popular resistance against Israeli rule.

A February 6 article by Time magazine correspondent Karl Vick about the “mainstreaming” of Hamas was one object of his disdain. In it, Vick played up comments by Meshal, who, at a November reconciliation meeting with Fatah leaders, praised the popular protests of the Arab Spring last year in Egypt and Tunisia as packing “the power of a tsunami.”

“The new government emerging in Cairo may be dominated by Islamists,” Vick wrote hopefully, “but it has pushed both sides to make up and adopt the nonviolent strategy against Israel, complete with negotiations.”

For Abu Marzook, the November meeting in Cairo meant something “completely different.” At the meeting, he said, the groups involved asked, “What kind of [activities] between us we can share together?” And mass civil resistance, it was decided, was one in which all could participate.

“We accept that,” he said. “[It] can now make reconciliation easier.” But giving up both the right and the opportunity to conduct military operations? “It doesn’t mean that,” Abu Marzook stated flatly.

Indeed, a careful look at the original Agence France Presse report from which Vick drew Meshal’s comments reveals some important remarks the Time correspondent left out. “Now we have a common ground that we can work on,” Meshal said then. But he added, “As long as there is an occupation on our land, we have the right to defend our land by all means, including military resistance.”

In a long exchange about terrorism, the Hamas leader resolutely defended his organization’s past acts of violence targeting civilians.

As for the Protocols, “The Zionists wrote it, and they said, ‘No, we didn’t.‘ [It’s] linked to Zionists,” he said.

Informed that the document was, in fact, a forgery, Abu Marzook appeared nonplussed. “Really? This is the first time I know [about this],” he said.

So any peace agreement that Israel might manage to hammer out with the PA would be torn up after any elections that bring Hamas to power - like the last ones. Making any already illusory potential agreement meaningless.

Astonishingly, the Forward takes pains to quote "experts" throughout the article who see these very words by a Hamas leader and try to spin them as if they are peaceful, the exact way that Karl Vick did and Marzouk proved wrong:

Quite apart from the content of Abu Marzook’s remarks, several veteran observers of the hard-line Islamist group viewed the fact that the interview took place as a larger signal of change now roiling the organization.

“I think the mere fact of his speaking to you, independent of what he said, is almost more important than the specifics,” said Shlomi Eldar, who has reported on Hamas from Gaza for Israel TV’s Channel 10 and other media outlets since 1991. “Even granting such an interview is far away from what he thought two or three years ago…. What [Abu Marzook] really wants is for Jewish Americans to convince the Israelis that Hamas is not like an animal.”

Gershon Baskin, an Israeli peace activist who has acted as a liaison between Hamas and senior Israeli government officials, including in the process that finally freed Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, termed the interview an “historic landmark.”

“The amount of time he gave you is amazing,” Baskin said.

Why is this fundamentally different than Hamas writing op-eds for the New York Times, something they have done a number of times? All it means is that they are learning how to spin the media better - and how to spin these "experts"who substitute wishful thinking for actually listening to what is being said, explicitly. The idea that people can find the fact that an interview occurred to be more relevant than the actual words spoken is stunning. And it shows that Hamas' new-found media savviness works to its advantage, because so many will disregard their hardline positions and instead find some fake symbolic peacefulness. Hamas doesn't even have to lie to get Westerners to fall all over themselves to praise the murderous thugs; they just have to act vaguely Western.

One other "expert" is also shown to be clueless about Hamas:

At some points, Abu Marzook seemed to claim that the Hamas leaders who publicly celebrated such killings — who have included Meshal himself — were not speaking for the organization, or that Hamas had not itself directed and planned the actions or, at least, had not planned them as civilian hits.

“There’s no one speaker [within] the resistance,” he said. “Everybody talks about their actions, and you can make what you want of those speakers. They make it as [if this is] the policy of the resistance. And this is not right. Our policy is… against targeting any civilian.”

On those occasions when civilians die in such actions, “there is no planning” for this, he claimed, “because it’s very difficult to make something like this to be perfect…. When you killed his brother or his [fellow Palestinian] civilians, he wants to retaliate. It’s very difficult to say anything bad to him.”

Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based Middle East contributing editor to Middle East Report who follows Hamas closely, expressed surprise at such distancing remarks.
“I’m surprised he didn’t repeat their traditional justifications,” he said.

In the past, Rabbani said, Hamas had expressed interest in reaching an understanding with Israel whereby each side would undertake to avoid hitting civilians or civilian infrastructure targets. “In the past, among other arguments, they’ve justified their actions by claiming every Israeli is a soldier. It’s very uncommon for them to basically disavow these actions.”

No, it's not. During Cast Lead they claimed that they were not targeting civilians with their rockets, and their response to the Goldstone Report said the same. I have traced the first time Hamas made the claim that they don't target children back to 2008 and I explain exactly what prompted them to make that claim.

Besides proving that peace is impossible, this Forward article also proves that many so-called experts on the Middle East are clueless about basic facts.

BBC can't find a Muslim cleric willing to appear with a rabbi in Doha

From Israel Hayom:

Former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi and current Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau was scheduled to travel to Qatar in the coming weeks to take part in the monthly Doha Debates panel, together with other religious leaders. The event was canceled, however, because no Muslim representative could be found to participate.

The Doha Debates, which have been broadcast on BBC World News since 2005 and have a potential viewership of more than 350 million people, had already secured a Christian representative to speak alongside Rabbi Lau, but no Muslim cleric would agree to join them.

"They are always talking about dialogue and [peace] partners, but apparently they don't really mean it," Lau told Israel Hayom on Wednesday. "We reach our hand out and they leave us hanging."

The Doha Debates are chaired by award-winning former BBC correspondent and interviewer Tim Sebastian, who founded the program in 2004 and secured its editorial independence.

No government, official body or broadcaster has control over what is said at the sessions or who is invited.

As I have noted many times before, to the Muslim establishment, "dialogue" means a monologue where they can impose their viewpoint but will not listen to any other. In fact, at least one fatwa explicitly rejects "dialogue" when there is no way for the Muslims to control the message.

Apparently, most Muslim leaders have a real problem with "free speech" when that speech includes anything that they disagree with.