Dinner party anti-semitism (The Spectator)

From Rowan Dean in The Spectator:

‘I hate f-—ing Jews!’ screeched one dinner guest, his face contorted in rage only millimetres in front of mine. It was quite an unexpected spray; delivered with the added impetus of several large droplets of beer-flavoured spittle landing on my face. I instinctively recoiled, from the phlegm as much as the intensity of the sentiment. I’ve always believed that free speech means you may permit such vile comments to be expressed, but if you do not share them it is your duty to counter them, or at least to attempt to, no matter how belligerent the tone of your interlocutor.

But beware. The cost of tackling such prejudice will not only ruin the evening, it often destroys the friendship as well.

Greg Sheridan recently identified the sickening rise of anti-Semitism throughout the world, and broke it down into three distinct strands; official Arab denigration of Jews and Israel, the re-emergence of old-fashioned Nazi anti-Semitism in Europe and the modern Left’s energetic attempts to delegitimise all things Jewish/Israeli. As Sheridan pointed out: ‘Several currents of this noxious, moral poison are operating simultaneously.’

With respect to Mr Sheridan, I’d like to add a fourth stream to his list: dinner party anti-Semitism.

Dinner party anti-Semitism crosses all political boundaries, age groups, geographical and socio-economic divides, and is just as likely to occur in a trendy inner-city restaurant, at a western suburbs barbeque or within the elegant confines of a plush North Shore dining room.

...A typical discussion with a DPAS involves a bizarre dance of seven veils, where as soon as you think you have revealed what is really troubling them, that particular prejudice is whisked away and replaced with another. Always, the hatred tries to dress itself in prettier clothes.

Concern for the ‘plight’ of the Palestinians is a fave, although no such concern, apparently, is necessary for those whose lives are a living hell in the rest of the Arab world. Contempt for the ‘apartheid’ of the West Bank and Gaza is another, allowing the DPAS to draw fatuous comparisons with South Africa. A sickening and utterly false moral comparison between the Nazis and modern Israeli soldiering techniques is another. Even circumcision gets thrown into the mix.

Don’t even bother trying to point out that successive Israeli governments have offered virtually the entire West Bank back to the Palestinians if only — is it really such a big ask? — they remove the bits in their charter calling for the annihilation of the Jews. Your DPAS isn’t remotely interested.

Mercifully, these days you rarely hear intelligent people rant on about ‘abos’, ‘niggers’ or ‘slopes’ during a polite dinner, but I’ve lost count of the number of times a perfectly pleasant social occasion has seen some idiot launch into an equally irrational attack on Jews. I normally respond by attempting to engage in some form of debate, on the basis that it is best to counter such beliefs with argument and persuasion. Sadly, the deeper one wades into such rants, the more treacherous Mr Sheridan’s currents become, and the conviviality of the evening gets swept away in a tide of bile.

Invariably, there reaches a point where the DPAS comes out with something that is so ludicrous, so grotesque or so wrong-headed that it’s time to call for a cab.

Intelligence is irrelevant. One such conversation I was a party to, with a woman who was completing her Masters at Sydney University, concluded on her absurd claim that: ‘There must be something wrong with the Jews. Otherwise why would so many civilisations have tried to wipe them out?’

This concept defied any rational response. (If you can think of a good one, let me know!) The conversation had begun quite innocently, as they always do. But then comes the inevitable muttered comment, heavy sigh or rolling of eyeballs, usually at some innocuous mention of Israel, the Middle East or something (or somebody) Jewish.

Another dinner party debate, at a friend’s birthday in a restaurant, turned ugly when it descended into a lengthy and passionate debate by an otherwise engaging and intelligent bloke in which — forgive me if I don’t get this quite right, but I think I’ve got the gist of it — the Jews engineered the GFC in order to drive up the price of gold in order to cover up the fact that they brought down the twin towers in order to bankrupt America in order to create a banking monopoly in order to bring on an attack on Iran in order to fulfil the Old Test…

‘Your cab’s here, sir.’

‘Thank God.’

Read More

Can anyone imagine a Palestinian helping Israel get the boys back?

Today, Israel is in an uproar over the disappearance and possible kidnapping of three teenage yeshiva students.

One of the three teenage yeshiva students who went missing and were feared kidnapped in the West Bank Thursday overnight is a dual Israeli-American citizen, according to Israeli media. US Ambassador in Israel, Dan Shapiro, was briefed on the situation.

Israel’s security forces were continuing their large-scale operation Friday to locate the three teenagers, and roadblocks were set up around the West Bank to prevent the possible transfer of the three to the Gaza Strip, Channel 2 reported Friday.

Palestinian prisoners in Israel were celebrating the news of the feared kidnappings, according to Channel 2. Over 100 Palestinian prisoners have been on hunger strike to protest their detention without charge.

No Palestinian organization has yet claimed responsibility. A senior Islamic Jihad official on Friday called on Palestinians to kidnap Israeli citizens, arguing that Israel had proven in the past that it was willing to negotiate the release of Palestinian security prisoners in exchange for the lives of its civilians.

Even though they are 16, Hamas is calling them "soldiers" and "usurpers."

Now, just imagine that a random Palestinian family lives next door to a place that appears to be where the boys are hidden. Or an Arab woman overhears a rumor that the boys are in the next village.

Can you imagine any of them, without outside incentive, telling the authorities about it?

These are minors. Kidnapping them is reprehensible, a war crime that is about as severe as anything in the Geneva Conventions. A normal person would be disgusted at this act and ashamed to be associated with it.

What percentage of Palestinian Arab society would be against it? How many would publicly say, unprompted by outside considerations (like politicians trying to keep the flow of Western money,) that kidnapping Jewish boys is to be condemned?

You don't have to ask. Just look in the talkbacks and comments in Arab articles or message forums. You will find very few Palestinian Arabs who are outraged, or even uncomfortable, with such an act.

Read More

06/13 Links Pt1: Why the US supports Hamas; 88 US Senators: Hamas-Abbas a “Setback to Peace”

From Ian:

---

So Much for Arab Nationality; Ditto for "Occupation"

Rejection of Jewish nationalism from the 1920s, attempted to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine by violence and defiance of any form of Jewish political power; including any plans to share stewardship with Arabs which crystallized into the expression of Palestinianism.
No other positive definition of an Arab-Palestinian people has surfaced. This point is admirably illustrated in the following historic incident:
“In 1926, Lord Plumer was appointed as the second High Commissioner of Palestine. The Arabs within the Mandate were infuriated when Plumer stood up for the Zionists’ national anthem Hatikva during ceremonies held in his honor when Plumer first visited Tel Aviv.
When a delegation of Palestinian Arabs protested Plumer’s ‘Zionist bias,’ the High Commissioner asked the Arabs if he remained seated when their national anthem was played, ‘wouldn’t you regard my behavior as most unmannerly?’ Met by silence,
Plumer asked: ‘By the way, have you got a national anthem?’ When the delegation replied with chagrin that they did not, he snapped back, “I think you had better get one as soon as possible.”
But it took the Palestinian Arabs more than 60 years to heed Plumer’s advice.

Why the US supports Hamas, and why it may help Iran

Why is the US supporting the PA? Ostensibly because it is the most likely candidate to take over in the territories that the US so passionately wants Israel to vacate. But negotiations between the PA and Israel broke down because the Palestinians were unable to accept the existence of a Jewish state between the river and the sea with any borders. Now with Hamas in the government, an agreement is even less likely.
What will it take for the administration to understand that a) the only acceptable deal with the Palestinians involves Israel’s suicide, and b) Israel isn’t suicidal?
I suspect that the US fears that even Hamas is better than the more radical Sunni Islamists out there. But if it wants stability, why doesn’t it simply support Israeli sovereignty over the territories?
That would be too logical, apparently.
If the prospect of Israel and the US on opposite sides of a war feels strange, the situation in Iraq is equally strange. The prospect of ISIS overthrowing the al-Maliki regime in Iraq has the US contemplating intervention of some kind — which would put it on the same side as Iran.
This is happening very rapidly — as I write — so a decision will have to be made soon.

Read More

PA prime minister admits he has no power, but NYT misses context

From the New York Times:

The Palestinian Authority has had a new government for 10 days now, but the prime minister, Rami Hamdallah, acknowledged on Thursday that he still lacked any authority in the Hamas-dominated Gaza Strip and that nothing had yet changed on the ground.

Though the new government was approved by both of the rival Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, Mr. Hamdallah offered no plan for disarming militants, integrating the two sides’ security forces, or even getting Gaza’s 1.7 million residents to start paying taxes and electricity bills.

In an hourlong interview, Mr. Hamdallah laid much of the responsibility for reconciling the West Bank and Gaza after seven years of schism on two committees, one of which has yet to be formed. He repeated political platitudes about Palestinian unity, but offered no practical program to deliver it.

Asked when he would visit Gaza, Mr. Hamdallah was silent for a long moment and then said, “We haven’t set a time for that.”

“You have to be realistic — we’re not in control,” said Mr. Hamdallah, 55, a former university president. He noted that German reunification started a quarter-century ago, and that “up until now, they are still working on that, so don’t expect we’ll do it all in 24 hours.”

The new government has already weathered one crisis, a dispute over the payment of public-sector salaries in which the Hamas-affiliated police in Gaza shut the territory’s banks for a week and even confiscated credit-card readers from some supermarkets. But Mr. Hamdallah said it was public pressure in Gaza and the intervention of a monetary official that got the banks reopened, not him or his ministers.

There is no plan to avoid a similar clash next month. Mr. Hamdallah said that the Palestinian Authority would not pay the 40,000 employees of the former Hamas government in Gaza, and that it had not secured a commitment from Qatar or other countries to do so.

In Gaza, the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, stepped aside, but his picture still hangs in government offices. The streets are patrolled by Hamas forces. A rocket was fired Wednesday into Israeli territory. The Rafah border crossing into Egypt remains closed, and Mr. Hamdallah said negotiations with Egypt to reopen it had not begun.

“I wish I could open it yesterday,” he said, “but this is not in our hands.”

Mr. Hamdallah said his cabinet had appointed a five-member committee on Tuesday to tackle administrative, financial and legal issues surrounding integration. One task is to reverse a decree Mr. Abbas signed years ago exempting Gazans from taxes and other payments because Hamas had taken over there.

Security issues, including disarming Hamas’s military wing and other groups, will be left for a high commission that Mr. Abbas has yet to name, Mr. Hamdallah said.

This entire article doesn't mention the PLO once.

Without understanding the relationship between the PLO and the PA, none of this makes sense.

The PA reports to the PLO. It is sort of like the interior ministry of the organization that is really responsible for all decisions out of the West Bank areas. Hamas remains in power in Gaza. The "unity government" is a joke - it is not a government in any sense of the word.

Just for fun, go to the "State of Palestine"'s Ministry of Justice website. It has exactly two articles, one from 2012 and one from 2011. Most subsections are blank. It's a charade. I can't remember the last time I read a story in the PalArab media about a trial. (A quick search in Ma'an since the beginning of the year for any stories with both the words "trial" and "judge" finds 21 results - all of which refer to events in Israel or Egypt.)

The Ministry of Social Affairs page has not updated with the name of its new minister. They have a "Ministry of State" site which mostly complains about Israel and doesn't even have a logo. The "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" site actually is updated, but, while everyone has heard of the PLO's spokesman Erekat, can anyone actually name the Foreign Affairs minister? It is only a ceremonial position because all foreign affairs are done by the PLO!

In the sense that the PA is technocratic and has no Hamas members, this is true. In the sense that it has no power over Gaza, that is true as well. But the larger picture is missing - the entire "government" is not a government in any sense of the word. The real government is Hamas and the Fatah-dominated PLO, and it will remain that way. They make all the decisions - sometimes together, usually apart.

The difference is that Abbas is representing it as a government for which Hamas and Fatah are jointly responsible. He wants all the benefits of "unity" without any of the responsibility. He wants to allow Hamas to do whatever it wants but to pretend to be an ally. He is trying to have it both ways. But the entire system is untenable, as Hamas will not give up real power in Gaza and will only act in self interest (perhaps allowing the PLO to man the Rafah crossing, for example.)

Unfortunately, the world is buying into the charade, and the NYT blew an opportunity to say the obvious - that the "government of Palestine," no matter how "technocratic," is a toothless construct that was chosen and run by a bunch of unelected terrorists and terror supporters, some from Hamas and some from Fatah.

Read More

"Palestine" officially threatens Australia

From AFP:

Australia could face trade sanctions by Arab nations over its decision to stop using the term "occupied" when referring to East Jerusalem, the head of the Palestinian delegation to Canberra warned Friday.

Izzat Abdulhadi said Australia's new stance on East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel in a move never recognized by the international community, was a "substantial policy shift."

"We think that it's very provocative and unuseful, and it's not appropriate," Abdulhadi told AFP.

His comments came after 18 diplomats from countries including Indonesia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia protested to Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra on Thursday.

Australia said last week it would no longer refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied" because the term carries pejorative implications and was neither appropriate or useful.

"It is important, as far as you can, not to use loaded terms, not to use pejorative terms, not to use terms which suggest that matters have been prejudged and that is a freighted term," Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.

"The truth is they're disputed territories."

The comments sparked fury in the Arab world, with the Jordanian and Palestinian governments summoning Australia's diplomatic representative in protest. Israel hailed the move as "refreshing."

"We asked the government to reverse this position," Abdulhadi said of the diplomatic protest.

He added that trade sanctions could be put in place against Canberra if the government persisted with its stance, which he said left Australia isolated.

"It depends on the reaction of the Australian government," he said, adding that the issue could also be taken to the United Nations General Assembly.

"Unfortunately I think there will be negative consequences for the (Australian) government."

Abdulhadi was a bit more explicit on a TV interview:

"I'm afraid this will really cast a lot of shadows, negative shadows, over relations between Australia and the Arab world, and there will be a sort of negative consequences. We need Australia to change this position again to be more compatible with international law and United Nations resolutions," Izzat Abdulhadi, head of the General Delegation of Palestine to Australia, told ABC.

Abdulhadi stressed the government's decision will affect trading between Australia and the Arabs.

"There are a lot of exports of meat to the Arab world and now also we're talking about the wheat. I think ... the interests of Australia is to work with the Arab world," Abdulhadi warned.

National Farmers' Federation President Brent Finlay saw the issue unfortunate as the Australia-Middle East trade relations had been ongoing smoothly through the years. Australian exports to Arab's 22 member states is worth approximately $3.5 billion, exports to Indonesia is now worth $4.7 billion.

"We are very concerned about it and we are working closely with the agriculture minister. It is an unfortunate hiccup," Finlay said.

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce refused to address the issue arguing his main responsibility is to ensure trading for agricultural products.

"I will leave all that wondrous stuff on foreign affairs to those who are on a vastly better pay scale and smarter than I am. My job is to make sure we get product moving," Joyce said with sarcasm.

Read More

US publicly demands Israel, and only Israel, support its foreign policy

From Times of Israel (h/t Ian in yesterday's linkdump):

The United States may be committed to supporting Israel, but that commitment comes with strings attached, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said during a talk in Washington, DC on Wednesday evening.

“America will always maintain our iron-clad commitment to the security of Israel, ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge and can protect its territory and people,” Rice told attendees at the Center for a New American Security’s annual conference in Washington DC. “Equally, we consistently defend Israel’s legitimacy and security in the UN and other international fora. In turn, we expect Israel to stand and be counted with the US and other partners on core matters of international law and principle, such as Ukraine.”

This is truly unbelievable.

Do you think that Susan Rice says this to any other country? Perhaps that the US supports Canada or Great Britain or Australia but demands that in return they support US policy?

The answer is obviously no. Because outside of Micronesia, no country votes with the US in the UN more than Israel.

Why would the US talk to its most supportive ally in such a disparaging way?

Here are the top ten nations' UN voting records from 2013 as a percentage of coincident votes with the US:

COUNTRY	SAME	OPPOSITE	ABSTAIN	ABSENT	VOTES
					ONLY
Micronesia	61	1	4	17	98.40%
Israel	71	4	8	0	94.70%
Palau	67	4	6	6	94.40%
Canada	71	8	4	0	89.90%
Australia	55	13	15	0	80.90%
France	53	15	15	0	77.90%
Marshall Islands	55	16	2	10	77.50%
United Kingdom	55	16	11	1	77.50%

And other American allies:

COUNTRY	SAME	OPPOSITE	ABSTAIN	ABSENT	VOTES
					ONLY
Italy	50	21	12	0	70.40%
Belgium	49	21	12	1	70.00%
Bulgaria	49	21	13	0	70.00%
Denmark	49	21	13	0	70.00%
Germany	49	21	12	1	70.00%
Spain	48	21	14	0	69.60%
Japan	45	22	16	0	67.20%
Ireland	45	24	13	1	65.20%
New Zealand	46	26	11	0	63.90%
Switzerland	46	27	10	0	63.00%
Turkey	45	28	6	4	61.60%
Mexico	35	42	6	0	45.50%
Philippines	34	46	3	0	42.50%
Singapore	34	47	2	0	42.00%
Jordan	26	45	12	0	36.60%
Pakistan	24	44	13	2	35.30%
United Arab Emirates	25	46	12	0	35.20%
Indonesia	26	48	9	0	35.10%
Bahrain	24	45	14	0	34.80%
Tunisia	25	47	10	1	34.70%
Iraq	24	46	13	0	34.30%
Kuwait	21	46	16	0	31.30%
Qatar	21	46	16	0	31.30%
Oman	21	47	15	0	30.90%
Mauritania	20	45	16	2	30.80%
Yemen	20	45	16	2	30.80%
Nicaragua	22	50	10	1	30.60%
Saudi Arabia	20	47	16	0	29.90%
Egypt	16	48	19	0	25.00%

Of course, there were 18 anti-Israel resolutions in the UNGA in 2013. The US often stands almost alone with Israel on those votes.  But not completely: Canada voted with the US on every one, and still has a lower coincident rating than Israel does.  

Does the US publicly attach strings to its support of any other country that votes more often against the US position than Israel does? Has Rice ever told Egypt or Jordan that billions in US aid are dependent on its supporting US policies? Has the US ever upbraided Britain for voting against the US in the UN? Can you even imagine Rice saying this about Canada or Australia?

If you can find an example where US support for any other ally was considered quid pro quo for that ally supporting US foreign policy, I'd love to see it.

Read More

Australia defends its position not to use the term "occupied"

From Tablet:

Last week, the Australian government caused a stir when it issued a statement declaring that it would no longer refer to East Jerusalem as “Occupied East Jerusalem.” The announcement drew immediate protest from Palestinian representatives, but Australia has shown no signs of backing down. On the contrary, in an interview with Tablet, Australia’s Ambassador to Israel Dave Sharma not only defended the rationale behind the controversial move, but said that the same reasoning also informed his government’s outlook towards the West Bank, though it has not taken an official position on the matter. “The statement that came out that was issued in Canberra last week didn’t make reference to this,” he told me, but “I think we just call the West Bank, ‘the West Bank,’ as a geographical entity without adding any adjectives to it, whether ‘occupied’ [the Palestinian position] or ‘disputed’ [the Israeli position]. We’ll just call it what it is, which is ‘the West Bank.’”

Though some of Israel’s critics and supporters have characterized this move as adopting the Israeli position, Sharma explains that the policy is actually designed to ensure that Australia is not taking sides in the conflict at all. “Our position on this is that all the final status issues as identified by Oslo—and that includes the status of Jerusalem, borders, right of return—are all amenable only to political negotiations and a political solution,” he said. “And so a third country taking positions on the legal merits of each party’s plans, if you like, is not helpful and not constructive and ultimately not what’s needed. So we took the view that the term ‘occupied East Jerusalem’ implied a legal view of the respective claims of the parties and we didn’t think it was helpful to be doing that, and as a result, we just said that we won’t be using that term any longer.”

In other words, Australia’s policy is not intended to endorse one side over the other, but rather to maintain neutrality and avoid prejudging the outcome of negotiations. As Israel considers Jerusalem to be sovereign Israeli territory annexed in 1967, while the Palestinians consider East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory, Australia is opting to employ language that endorses neither party’s claim. Similarly, by avoiding adjectives when it comes to the West Bank, Australia sidesteps the question of whether the area is “disputed” or “occupied” territory. In fact, the country maintains a similar policy in other territorial conflicts like those over Western Sahara and East Timor.

Naturally, dropping “occupied” from the lexicon has upset Palestinian leaders, who often benefit from the traditional diplomatic language being freighted towards their position, rather than being agnostic. But Sharma, a career foreign service official who has held his post in Israel since 2013, maintained that Australia’s policy of eschewing “occupied” is not new, but rather a codification of what the country has been doing in practice for many years. “In truth, we haven’t really used that term for some time,” he said. “As a government, we’ve certainly signed up for certain [U.N.] General Assembly resolutions where that term is used, but it’s not a common term that we would use in respect to East Jerusalem.”

It may have been Palestinian Arab protests over Australia's earlier actions that prompted this move:

Last month, Sharma himself met with an Israeli official in East Jerusalem, eliciting a sharp public condemnation from Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, who protested the envoy’s actions in “occupied East Jerusalem,” and wrote that “Australia’s actions are tantamount to complicity in ongoing Israeli violations of international laws of war.” Sharma does not apologize for the incident. “My meeting in East Jerusalem wasn’t intended to be a provocative act, and the truth is, a lot of ambassadors do meetings in East Jerusalem,” he said. “As it is now, everyone just tries to keep it quiet. It’s one of those well-kept secrets within the diplomatic community.” But rather than papering over Sharma’s conduct, the Australian government doubled down and chose to concretize the spirit underlying it as official policy. From now on, it insisted, it would not take sides on a final status issue by using loaded language to describe Jerusalem. “The description of East Jerusalem as ‘Occupied East Jerusalem’ is a term freighted with pejorative implications, which is neither appropriate nor useful,” read the June 5 statement subsequently issued by Attorney General George Brandis.

As the Jerusalem Post wrote yesterday:

As the rest of the world seemed to be losing its moral compass, the Aussies were keeping themselves on course, pointing out the unique nature of the territorial conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Bishop and Brandis were articulating a position long held by Israel and by numerous legal experts who recognize that the West Bank cannot be considered “occupied” for the simple reason that said territory did not belong to any sovereign power at the time that Israel took control of it.

The 1947 UN partition resolution set aside the West Bank and other areas of Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state. But the Palestinian political leadership rejected the partition plan and launched a war against Israel, which they lost.

Transjordan annexed the area in 1949 and renamed it Jordan after murdering or expelling all the Jews who lived there. Only Britain and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s “occupation” of the West Bank. In any event, the newly created Jordanian state – essentially a British construction – had no historical ties to Judea and Samaria, while for Jews it is the cradle of Jewish civilization and statehood from the biblical era.

Israel cannot, therefore, be considered in the strictest sense an “occupier” of another people’s land. Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that an occupying military power “shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

But since Israel is not an “occupier,” it cannot be said to be in violation of this clause. Also, this clause, written after World War II, referred principally to the huge forced population transfers perpetrated by the Nazis and other totalitarian powers.

Even UN Resolution 242, which introduced the “land for peace” formula, calls on Israel to withdraw from “territories” – not all territories – in exchange for peace with its neighbors. It was clear to the international community immediately after the Six Day War that Israel would retain an undetermined portion of Judea, Samaria and Gaza

.

Read More

06/12 Links Pt2: Czech President Checkmates The OIC; Jerusalem Light Festival

From Ian:

---

Study: Nation Facing Greatest Threats Home to Developed World's Most Optimistic Parents

Threats of annihilation from a nuclear Iran, growing tensions with the United States, and a global campaign to isolate them through boycotts and sanctions seem unable to break Israelis’ optimism about their country and their children’s future in it. So much so, in fact, that a new Citi Research global survey of parents shows that Israeli parents are the developed world’s most optimistic.
According to the Citi survey, only 27% of Israeli parents believe their children will be worse off financially they are, by far the lowest among the ten advanced societies included in the CITI poll. France topped the charts in the global pessimism survey with 90% of French parents believing their children will be worse off financially than they are. In America, 62% of parents are pessimistic about their children’s future.

Islamic Antisemitism: Czech President Checkmates The OIC

Czech president Miloš Zeman, whose under-reported outstanding speech on Israel's Independence Day, in the wake of the recent Brussels atrocity, regarding Islamic antisemitism and violence prompted an angry reaction from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

'There was a hideous assassination in the flower of Europe in the heart of European Union in a Jewish museum in Brussels. I will not let myself being calmed down by the declaration that there are only tiny fringe groups behind it. On the contrary, I am convinced that this xenophobia, and let’s call it racism or antisemitism, emerges from the very essence of the ideology these groups subscribe to.
So let me quote one of their sacred texts to support this statement: “A tree says, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. A stone says, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” I would criticize those calling for the killing of Arabs, but I do not know of any movement calling for mass murdering of Arabs. However, I know of one anti-civilisation movement calling for the mass murder of Jews.
After all, one of the paragraphs of the statutes of Hamas says: “Kill every Jew you see.” Do we really want to pretend that this is an extreme viewpoint? Do we really want to be politically correct and say that everyone is nice and only a small group of extremists and fundamentalists is committing such crimes?'

The OIC demanded an apology. But the courageous Miloš Zeman is standing his ground. To quote his spokesperson Jiří Ovčáček:

“President Zeman definitely does not intend to apologise. For the president would consider it blasphemy to apologise for the quotation of a sacred Islamic text.”

All praise for a European head of state who puts most of the rest of them to shame!

‘Who’s Behind the Hate at NYU?’ Asks New Ad Campaign

Advocacy group The Israel Project funded the campaign.
The ad was delivered by Google AdWords on news sites and went to a landing page entitled Peace Not Hate.
The campaign asks, “Why is NYU supporting academic bigotry?”
“Last year, the American Studies Association (ASA) joined the hate-campaign against Israel by voting to boycott Israeli professors,” it said.
“NYU should have immediately pulled their funding of the group, like other universities. But NYU has continued to fund its ASA chapter.”
“By steering university funding to a group that fuels academic bigotry, NYU is betraying its students and its own commitment to academic openness.”

Western Washington University Student Gov't Passes Anti-BDS Bill

In an unprecedented move, the student government on the campus of Western Washington University passed a bill stating that it will not consider divestment resolutions from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
The resolution, titled "A Resolution regarding International Divestment, Boycott, and Sanctions" the student officials slammed the BDS movement:
WWU Student Alysa Kipersztok, a StandWithUs Emerson Fellow, brought the anti-BDS resolution to the ASWWU because “I’ve seen how divisive anti-Israel BDS campaigns have been on campuses across the country. Western is a warm, respectful, inclusive community. Our mission statement states that WWU ‘brings together individuals of diverse backgrounds and perspectives in an inclusive, student-centered university.’ BDS has been a source of disconnect and resentment among students, creating a hostile environment. It divides students, marginalizing those who support Israel."

Read More

"Work accident" kills a child in Gaza

KUNA reports:

A Palestinian boy was killed and a youth was seriously injured after an unknown object exploded here on Wednesday.

The explosion occurred in a house in Al-Tufaha neighborhood in the city, killing a child, 13yrs, named Khalil Al-Ghsain, Palestinian medical sources said.

The sources added that the boy was pronounced dead shortly after arriving in hospital, while the injury of another young man in his teens, 18yrs, was seriously injured in the blast, which in turn forced Palestinian security apparatus to investigate the incident.

The blast extensively damaged the house prompting rescue teams and civil defense to search for other victims that could be underneath the rubble, the sources added

Felesteen, a Hamas newspaper, helpfully adds that "internal explosions like these are usually a result of the work of the Palestinian resistance, which operates in extremely difficult security conditions. Witnesses told Anatolia that the explosion was "huge", and led to the fire in the house, destroying the top floor completely."

Ghsain was buried in a Hamas flag.

Terrorists have killed far more Gaza civilians this year than Israel has.

(h/t Bob Knot)

Read More

By the way, synagogues are being burned down...in Israel

This was barely reported last week:

Three synagogues in Israel sustained significant fire damage over the weekend, in what police suspect were arson cases. No injuries were reported and it is unclear at this time whether the cases are related.

The first fire took place at a synagogue located at the Morasha School in Petach Tikva, where the structure was burned to the ground. The second incident took place near Wadi Ara, where a Chabad synagogue housed in a caravan caught fire and was severely damaged.

According to available details, both fires appear to have taken place in the early hours of Saturday morning.

The third incident saw the Great Synagogue on Hovevei Zion Street in Petach Tikva set ablaze. Firefighters were called to the scene around noon Saturday, and were able to extinguish the flames. Several Torah books were completely burned and the synagogue's Torah ark was damaged.

"Initial findings suggest that an unknown individual entered the synagogue in the middle of the day, when it was empty, opened several books, poured a flammable liquid on the ark, set it on fire and fled the scene," a statement by the Petach Tikva Police said.

There have reportedly been ten such synagogue attacks in Israel recently.

In this video, Moshe Feiglin in the Knesset asks the Minister of Public Security Yitzchak Ahranovich about these 10 synagogues that were burned recently in Israel. He asks him what percentage of the time invested by the police/Shabak in interrogating kids who spray painted slogans somewhere will be used to look for those people who are responsible for burning the synagogues. And if, he asks, they discover that whoever did it was from an Arab village, will he demand that that village be destroyed, as he said recently about a Jewish town in the Shomron from which he claimed that spray-painters came from, even though there was no proof?

And look at apparent disinterest on Ahranovich's face. (Sorry, no subtitles)



Not to justify "price tag" graffiti in any way, but it is unbelievable that synagogue arson gets less attention in Israel than it does when it happens in Europe or North America. There is a real problem, and it is not kids spray-painting offensive slogans.

(h/t Yerushalimey, video description mostly quoted from a FB page but I don't have the link)

Read More

06/12 Links Pt1: Guardian assails Australia’s right to dissent on Jerusalem; Fatah film glorifies Munich

From Ian:

---

Disputed legal territory: Guardian assails Australia’s right to dissent on Jerusalem

Finally, the mere fact that Saul and others might claim that calling Jerusalem “occupied” represents the “near-universal legal status quo” does not make it so. First, the term itself is generally “used in international law to denote the presence of one country in sovereign territory that belongs to another”.
Additionally, Israel is the only recognized nation with a legitimate claim to the West Bank (including Jerusalem) – territory which was, for hundreds of years, until the end of World War I, the equivalent of a province in the Ottoman Empire. The territory never had any unique national standing other than as the future Jewish national homeland as stipulated by the League of Nations.
Jewish national rights accorded by these agreements have never been abrogated and are indeed binding to the present day.
Thus, while the status of east Jerusalem (which, let’s recall, includes the ancient Jewish quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, the holiest site at which Jews are permitted to pray) is disputed, it is not accurate to affirm – as if there is no legal debate on the matter – that is “occupied”.

Palestinian diplomat: PA should recognize Israel as Jewish state, relinquish return

In an article published in Fathom, a quarterly devoted to Israel and the Middle East, Manuel Hassassian, who has served as the Palestinian envoy to Britain since 2005, and Israeli professor Raphael Cohen-Almagor, outlined the steps that in their opinion would be necessary for the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to take in order to assure a final peace deal is realized.
“We believe that if there is a will, there is a way,” they wrote. “Peace is a precious commodity and therefore requires a high price for its achievement, reaching a solution that is agreeable to both.”
The authors posited that the ongoing conflict could only come to an end if both Israel and the Palestinians recognized the right of the other to self determination.

Khaled Abu Toameh: ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah

Security sources in Amman expressed deep concern over ISIS's threats and plans to "invade" the kingdom. The sources said that King Abdullah has requested urgent military aid from the U.S. and other Western countries so that he could foil any attempt to turn Jordan into an Islamist-controlled state.
Marwan Shehadeh, an expert on Islamist groups, said he did not rule out the possibility that ISIS would target Jordan because it views the Arab regimes, including Jordan's Hashemites, as "infidels" and "apostates" who should be fought.
The recent victories by ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria have emboldened the group and its followers throughout the Middle East. Now the terrorists are planning to move their jihad not only to Jordan, but also to the Gaza Strip, Sinai and Lebanon.
This is all happening under the watching eyes of the U.S. Administration and Western countries, who seem to be uncertain as to what needs to be done to stop the Islamist terrorists from invading neighboring countries.
ISIS is a threat not only to moderate Arabs and Muslims, but also to Israel, which the terrorists say is their ultimate destination. The U.S. and its Western allies need to wake up quickly and take the necessary measures to prevent the Islamist terrorists from achieving their goal.
Failure to act will result in the establishment in the Middle East of a dangerous extremist Islamist empire that will pose a threat to American and Western interests.

Read More

Of course Nadim Nawara was killed by live fire - but where?

When you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the correct answers.

The Guardian condescendingly reports:

A postmortem examination of the exhumed body of one of two Palestinian teenagers killed by Israeli forces at a demonstration last month has reportedly identified wounds consistent with live ammunition, despite the Israeli military's denial that it used live rounds that day.

The killings of 17-year-old Nadeem Nawara and 16-year-old Mohammad Salameh caused international outrage and calls from the US for a full investigation after their deaths were caught on video camera footage that made clear the boys posed no threat to Israeli forces at the time of their deaths.

This week Human Rights Watch issued a report suggesting that the killing of the two boys was a war crime. "The wilful killing of civilians by Israeli security forces as part of the occupation is a war crime," said Sarah Leah Whitson, the group's Middle East and North Africa director.

...Anonymous senior Israeli military officials quoted in the local media attempted in the aftermath of the killings to suggest the footage had been forged or a mystery Palestinian gunmen had actually killed the boys – shooting four rounds over a period of more than two hours, apparently without being noticed by several dozen Israeli soldiers and police.

Yup, Israelis are a bunch of liars and are engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide its decision to shoot boys wantonly. It is so fortunate that none of the Israelis seen in the CNN video are running to testify to "Breaking the Silence."

Speaking of, although it has not been translated into English, I strongly urge you to read the Google translation of this lengthy article in Maariv. It is the real "Breaking the Silence." The reporter interviews dozens of IDF soldiers as to their frustration at their inability to defend themselves from Palestinian Arab rioters. The rules of engagement are so vague, and the consequences of firing against IDF policy so onerous, that many decide to just let themselves be attacked by stones and Molotov cocktails rather than fire back. Rioters climb on army jeeps with impunity. One waves his private parts at a soldier knowing he will not respond.  Even tear gas and rubber bullets require special permission and can only be used under specific circumstances. More than one soldier describes himself as a "sitting duck."

I don't know the rules of engagement for the Border Police, but I imagine they are largely identical and their limitations are equally vague.

In short, while there are no doubt violations of the rules of engagement sometimes, the idea that these Israelis, with all the cameras around, would shoot two kids dead in the most open area possible is insane.

But that's not the main proof.

As we have shown, the Nawara's fall coincides with the police firing a rubber bullet. Of that there is no doubt. We can hear the sound of two separate firings, which sound identical, from two rifles. We see the paper wad after it is expelled from the rubber bullet attachment. We have synchronized the events and there is no way that the bullet fired then was live.



The many posts I have on this topic, and the comments with further research, and other people's work, all show this to be true.

So we have two verifiable, seemingly contradictory facts: Israeli forces didn't fire a live round at the time Nawara fell, and he was killed by a live round. How can these be reconciled?

Of course there was no Palestinian Arab gunman at the scene with a gun shooting Nawara on video. We would have heard that shot. Similarly, the idea that he was shot by Israelis 250 meters south, who were dealing with a different riot, at the exact same moment of the rubber bullet, is impossible, because the sound would have been different on the CNN audio.

When you eliminate the impossible, the remainder, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

The only way to understand what might have happened is to recall the infamous Mohammed al Dura incident, where the boy that was supposedly killed by the IDF ignited the intifada. Al Dura became a poster child for Israeli brutality. All evidence shows that he was not killed by Israeli fire.

There are clearly some people who are not above killing a child in order to further their cause. And there are many people who want to spark a new intifada. There are people with the incentive to kill a Palestinian Arab youth and manipulate events to make it appear that Israel did it.

Nawara was not killed on camera. He was killed somewhere between the video and his arrival at the hospital. Maybe even by an M-16, which are available in the West Bank.

I think Nawara was probably hit by a rubber bullet, although perhaps he was instructed to fake a fall as soon as he heard a shot - we saw at least one other fake "victim" at the same incident only minutes before the Nawara incident, and his fall seems inconsistent with being shot in the chest with a live bullet, to say the least.

The final piece of the puzzle is that Palestinian Arab "witnesses" lie, constantly, for their cause. we've also seen that in this case (the bullet that Nawara's father showed CNN, for example, and other testimony in the case claiming that Israeli forces to the south were firing at the protesters, even though none of the protesters ever look in that direction.)

If Nawara would have been shot in the ambulance, or en route to the hospital, no one would be talking about it. Such a conspiracy of silence would be unthinkable in Israel or any Western nation, but unfortunately Palestinian Arabs know what would happen to them if they publicly go against the party line.

Far fetched? Yes. But we have motive, we have opportunity, we have a scenario where no witness would publicly contradict even the most stunning cold-blooded murder. No one wants to make such an incendiary claim and reporters don't want to go down that path, but if you want to reach the truth, that is the path that must be followed.

And these are the questions that are not being asked about the death of Nadim Nawara.

Read More

"Sesame Street and Mickey Mouse are Jewish plots to destroy humanity"

From, where else, MEMRI:

In a May 15, 2014 interview on Iqraa TV, Saudi scholar and former director of the channel Nabil Hammad described an alleged Jewish-Zionist conspiracy to destroy the moral values of humanity. Hammad claimed that characters on children's shows, like Mickey Mouse and Sesame Street, were invented to advance these schemes. Following are excerpts from the interview:

Nabil Hammad: What films have we produced in the Arab world? As we all know, people like watching movies.

[…]
What animated films have we produced? A normal child, who has been watching TV from the age of two, has been assaulted by all kinds of films. How did the "sagging" pants fashion ever emerge? The men wear their pants so low that their private parts are exposed. This fashion originated on the Cartoon Network channel. The Cartoon Network aired a film showing the longest spit. What kind of education do we provide? It is not only the future generations of the Islamic world that are destroyed – the moral values of humanity are destroyed.

When I worked as an instructor for the Saudi Airlines, I had a colleague named Duncan. He told me that he does not allow his children to watch Sesame Street. I found it strange. The show is very popular here. He said that Sesame Street peddles moral values that are inappropriate to civilized society.

Take, for example, the character of Oscar the Grouch, who lives in a garbage can. Duncan said that he is a loathsome character, and he wouldn't want him to serve as a role model for his children. Another example is the character of Cookie Monster. He eats like a slob. Even people raised on British culture oppose what is shown in the media, which destroys people's moral values.

[…]
I lived in the U.S. for eight years. To this very day, I have Jewish and Christian friends there. I am not talking only about Muslims. There are moral people living there who are aware of this conspiracy to destroy humanity and its moral values. The Zionists are behind this conspiracy. There are two kinds of Zionists: Protestant Zionists and Jewish Zionists.
[…]
All the global film companies – note that I say "all" not "most"… All the global film companies are owned by Jews: the Fox company, Universal Studios, the well-known Paramount, Columbia, with the lady holding the torch, Warner Brothers, a major producer of children's films, Disney… Walt Disney himself wasn't Jewish, but the Walt Disney TV productions company is owned by well-known Zionist Jews. The Paramount company… All the animated films…

Why did they produce Mickey Mouse? Why did they focus on a mouse? There is a plan to destroy human thought and all of humanity. When Sheik Muhamamd Al-Munajid said this, he was subjected to a never-ending campaign. He asked why we make Jerry the Mouse into a hero, and Tom the Cat into a criminal? It's human nature to consider cats as clean domestic animals, and mice as animals that should be killed. When Sheik Munajid said that, he was oddly accused of fanaticism. Thus, Mickey Mouse, the rodent, became a hero and a superstar. The destruction of human morality is an old Zionist-Jewish scheme.

[…]
All of know what happened to Christianity. Along came a guy called Paul, a Jewish scheme working for the Romans, and claimed that he had become the Messiah. Thus, he was transformed into Saint Paul, and destroyed Christianity. Some Jews converted to Islam, and started sects in order to destroy Islam.
[…]
The Zionist-Jewish den of iniquity began operating in the early 18th century. Who was Durkheim? Westerners view him as the father of modern sociology – although Ibn Khaldun wrote more accurately about sociology. Durkheim was a Jewish Zionist, who sowed destruction with the information he provided. Who was Darwin, who said that human beings descended from apes? He was one of the founders of Western thought. Who was Freud? He was the founder of modern psychology, and he emphasized sex as the primal impulse in human beings. Who was Nietzsche? He spoke of a blonde, blue-eyed Western "superman." Who was Sartre? They were all Zionist Jews, except for Nietzsche, who was a Christian Zionist.

Damn! He sees right through me!

Read More

State Department says rocket attacks aren't bad enough yet

Here is the entire, amazing, Alice in Wonderland-quality exchange between (mostly) Matt Lee of AP and Jen Psaki in the daily US State Department press briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: On that, did you – not on the meeting, but did you have anything to say about this new rocket attack into Israel from Gaza?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we condemn all rocket fire from Gaza. It is unprovoked aggression against civilian targets and is totally unacceptable. We welcome President Abbas’s prompt and outspoken condemnation of this attack. We note that he has demanded that all the Palestinian factions remain committed to the ceasefire agreement that was signed in Cairo in 2012, and we expect the Palestinian Authority will do everything in its power to prevent attacks into Gaza – from Gaza into Israel. But we acknowledge the reality that Hamas currently controls Gaza.

QUESTION: Well, okay. So the Israelis say that President Abbas, since the unity government has been formed, that he bears responsibility for not disarming this or not preventing this attack and attacks of its kind. Do you agree that President Abbas shares – or it is his responsibility to do that, and that he is – the Israelis could look at him and say this is his fault?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we believe that President Abbas must do all in his power to prevent deterioration in the security situation, but we would also note that he has upheld his responsibility to maintain security coordination with Israel and he has publicly stressed his commitment to do that. And so I think he has made every effort to be – continue to be a partner in this regard.

QUESTION: So this doesn’t have any – this attack doesn’t have anything – won’t have any bearing on your decision to work with the unity government and continue to provide assistance to it?

MS. PSAKI: It does not. Obviously, we’re concerned about it and we condemn it in the strongest terms. But his – President Abbas’s ability to impact these type of attacks is really severely limited at this point in time.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but isn’t that part of the – I mean, that’s part of the entire problem with agreeing to go along and work with a government, is it not? I mean, the Israelis said the whole time that these attacks are going to continue. If you recognize that his ability is extremely limited to prevent this kind of thing, for there to be security cooperation between him, his government, and the Israelis, how is it that you made the leap to go ahead and say, “All right, this is a government that we can do business with?”

MS. PSAKI: Well, this is one – this was the creation of an interim technocratic government. Obviously, at some point there will be elections. This is an interim period. As we’ve long stated, we’ll – we’re continuing assistance if we – but we’ll be watching closely and if something changes, so will – we’ll act accordingly. But nothing --

QUESTION: So how many more rocket attacks do there have to be before you decide that it’s – that we made a mistake?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Matt, you’re familiar, I’m sure, with what the criteria are for delivering assistance. While we’re very concerned about these rocket attacks and we feel President Abbas needs to do everything possible to prevent them, we understand that his ability to do that is severely limited at this point in time.

QUESTION: So but then I don’t understand why – I can’t – I mean, if you think that this guy doesn’t have control over everyone who is either a member of or is backing his unity government, why would you do business with it? Why would you give it money? I mean, if you were one part of – I don’t know, one segment of the Israeli society, political society or otherwise, you could, if you hold Abbas responsible for this attack, hold the United States, in a sense, responsible for this attack because you guys are just continuing to support the unity government.

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there are no members of Hamas in the technocratic unity government – technocratic government, I should call it, which is the accurate --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- term for it. That is one of our criteria for continuing to provide assistance. We’ll be watching closely over the course of the coming weeks and months.

QUESTION: So even though it is backed by Hamas and you hold Hamas responsible for this rocket attack today, that – you don’t see a connection? No?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not suggesting we don’t understand the connection, Matt. But again, this is a case where President Abbas strongly condemned these actions. We think he should do everything possible to prevent them from happening and to call for and provoke unity among these groups. But we understand at this point in time there’s very little that he can do to prevent them.

QUESTION: Why is it in your interest to continue to deal with the interim government notwithstanding this rocket attack?

MS. PSAKI: Because the Palestinian people and our relationship with the Palestinian Authority is an important relationship to the United States. We continue to believe that support to them is something that is important to the United States.

QUESTION: But if Hamas feels that it can shoot rockets from Gaza into Israel with impunity and this has no effect whatsoever, for example, on its ability to form a unity government with the PA, even if there are no Hamas members in the actual government – you have a disincentive that you could use here, which would be to stop dealing with the unity government or to stop funding it, and that might tell Hamas, “Well, maybe we should think twice about sending rockets in.” But the way you’ve cast it, they can send an unlimited number of rockets in and they can still be supportive of this unity government and you’ll still give the unity government and the PA money.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we made a decision as the United States Government that our assistance to the Palestinian Authority is important to the United States. And so that’s why it is continuing. And they did – have met the criteria, including the Quartet principles that have been laid out. We will be judging this government by its actions and we will address issues as needed moving forward, but nothing has changed at this point in time.

QUESTION: You don’t see this attack as an action of the government?

MS. PSAKI: No, we --

QUESTION: You see it by – you see it as an action by a supporter of the government. Not you, I’m talking about Hamas, right? I mean, you – correct me if I – I mean, if you – well, is that correct? Let’s just start there. You see this as an attack by Hamas on Israel. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Yes. You do understand the equivalent – the Israelis say that because Hamas is a – while there are no Hamas members in it, this government, this technocratic government is supported by Hamas, and therefore this is a problem. You don’t agree with that.

MS. PSAKI: Well again, Matt, this is a technocratic government that just formed in the past couple of weeks. We’ll be watching events closely as time continues. The government itself has abided by the principles that we have outlined through the Quartet and what the United States expects as well, and we’ll evaluate accordingly. But nothing has changed as it relates to our assistance.

QUESTION: All right. And then just on Abbas himself, you say that he has condemned it. But the condemnation is really – I mean it’s good, I suppose, that he is not applauding and saying this is a good thing. But he needs to stop it, doesn’t he? Isn’t that the U.S. position?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he’s also demanded that all factions abide by the ceasefire agreement.

QUESTION: Right. But at some point it’s got to be actions, not words, right? So this is – I just – this is not an action enough to get you to – to get the Administration to change its position?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Clarification: Are you certain that it was Hamas that fired the rocket, or could it be some rogue group from Gaza? Because there are all kinds of rogue groups.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I don’t have any more information. I think we’re all familiar with the connection between Hamas and Gaza and how they control Gaza.

(h/t Josh K)

Read More