Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, August 07, 2014

"Killed" Pallywood girl is alive (update - maybe not)

On Monday I reported on the Pallywood scene in Rafah, where I found video of people placing what appeared to be a dead girl next to jihadis who had been dragged closer to the UNRWA school, purely for photo-ops.

Photo of her being placed on the ground:

Video:

After she was used for one photo-op she was then used for a second one, with someone running with her down a street away from where any ambulances would be dispatched to, but in front of the cameras:

Here's AP, saying the girl was dead:, with the photo of that man down the block, slowing down after most of the cameras were behind him.

Miraculously, after being used as a prop twice, the girl was photographed dazed but alive in the hospital.

You can see the same wound on her left hand, same pants, same shirt: (from the Hamas Ministry of Interior Facebook page):

Clearly she is injured, although it is unclear how. No visible wounds on her upper body, the second photo shows some sort of dressing on her injured hand.

So instead of getting her as quickly as possible to an ambulance, the Gazans felt it was more important to parade her around for the cameras - twice. (And maybe three times, if you count the hospital pictures.)

(h/t Irene)

UPDATE: Commenters are making a case that she is dead in these photos. I don't know enough either way. However, PCHR listed 11 names of victims outside the school. Only one of them seems to be the right age as this girl - she looks around 7 or 8 - and that is (from what I can tell) a boy's name.

1. Aya Mohammed Abu Rejel, 3, a displaced child;
2. Munther Mohammed Abu Rejel, a displaced child;
3. Saqer Bassam al-Kashef, 7, a displaced child;
4. Tariq Ziad Abu Khatla, 15, a displaced child;
5. 'Amru Tariq Abu al-Rous, 15, a displaced child;
6. Hazem 'Abdul Basset Abu Hilal, 25, the guard of the school;
7. Mohammed 'Omar 'Awaja, 30, a volunteer in the shelter;
8. Ahmed Khaled Abu Harba, 14, a peddler;
9. Yousef Akram al-Eskafi, 16, a peddler; and
10. Ahmed Kamal al-Nahhal, 25; and
11. Ismail Sameer Shallouf, 17, both were traveling on a motorbike.

I did not see any mention of a child in Rafah succumbing to wounds on the following day's list.

If she is really dead, it looks like she wasn't killed at the school.

08/07 Links Pt1: Bishop: Hamas fired rockets from Gaza church; Hamas Hide Behind ISM Activists

From Ian:

Gaza Bishop: Hamas fired rockets from church compound

Israeli missiles targeted an area close to the church sanctuary.
In this video released today, Archbishop Alexios of Gaza describes how Hamas had fired rockets from the church compound (at 1:12)(h/t ColRichardKemp)
"Alexios took CBN News to the roof terrace outside his office to show how Hamas used the church compound to launch rockets into Israel. He refused to discuss details on camera for security reasons, but days after the war started, Israeli missiles targeted an area close to the church sanctuary."

Gaza Bishop: Hamas Used Church to Fire Rockets

Hamas Leaders Hide Behind ISM Activists

This first was apparent at the WAFA hospital where Hamas command and control leaders and weapons caches could be found being guarded by ISM human shields. The ISM sent out emails to its world members to contact the foreign ministries from the many EU countries from whence they came asking their pro-Hamas colleagues to write and call, urging them to demand the IDF not attack the hospital because to do so would violate “international law.”
Good sense prevailed though, and after the IDF gave warnings to allow the ISM-ers and their Hamas charges to flee and escape, the hospital was destroyed. Rumor had it that as they evacuated the hospital, local Arabs threw garbage and insults at the ISM and Hamas for bringing a bombing down on their neighborhood.
The ISM and their Hamas charges then went by ambulances to the Beit Hannoun hospital. They started the same scenario, writing ISM supporters worldwide that they needed to write foreign ministers and demand Israel be criticized for bombing hospitals. This time the issue was protecting “medical personnel” at Beit Hannoun hospital. According to the ISM itself, there was only one patient there attended by 60 “doctors” and the rest were ISM activists from all over Europe, and one in particular, Joe Catron from the USA.

GAZA DOME

NDTV journalist: "How long do we self-censor because of fear" of Hamas?

The NDTV journalist who aired the video of a Hamas rocket being built and fired right next to his hotel room in Gaza has written about the episode, and it proves that most journalists in Gaza deliberately kept the truth from their audience.

Which sort of defeats the point of trusting journalists.

There is an important detail about that spot which I mention in our video report which may not have fully registered - this was the exact location from where a rocket was fired five days prior. It happened around midnight, so it was impossible to film. Panic ensued. The Israel Defence Force (IDF) sent a warning to two hotels across the road to evacuate; within minutes they were empty. Those in our building slept in a safe room on the ground floor. And so that spot was seared in our memory.

And not reported by any of the reporters who witnessed the rocket fire.

So when we saw the tent on the same location with two men (later three) moving in and out, working on something inside which they seemed to be burying into the ground, it wasn't hard to conclude what this was. When they started running wires out of the tent, the final steps before covering the earth with a spade, moving some shrubbery on top and then slinking away, it was even clearer.

We had all of it on tape, but wrestled with the dilemma of what to do with it. Two considerations weighed on our mind. One, the fear which hobbles the reporting such material: fear of reprisals from Hamas against us and those who worked with us, fear of inviting an Israeli response on the spot (these have been known to miss). Two, we needed to be 100 % sure that this was a rocket launch site. So we did nothing, setting off on our assignment for the day, mulling over the material in our possession.

The next morning was meant to be our last in Gaza, and the day when a 72-hour ceasefire was meant to bring some relief to the area. As we woke early to pack - stealing tense glances at the 'rocket' patch - the final step was enacted. With minutes left for the ceasefire to kick in, flurries of Hamas rockets were fired. At about 7:52 am, this patch of earth was activated; the rockets took off with a bang and a plume of smoke. We managed to catch it on video just seconds after. By then the men who assembled it had long gone.

We knew then we had to air the story. For us to have filmed how a rocket was assembled next to us, on a site used twice to launch a rocket, endangering the lives of all those around us on two occasions -to not have reported it would have been simply wrong.

Meaning, every other journalist in the area was effectively a Hamas lackey.

But we did take precautions - we aired the report a good five hours after the rocket was launched, well into the ceasefire. By then it was clear that Israel was not responding, at least for the period of the ceasefire. (Incidentally, given Israel's extensive surveillance of rockets launched from the Gaza Strip it hardly seems they would need the media to point out to them where rockets are fired from.)

There was the question of possible reprisal by Hamas; to this one, there are no easy answers other than to ask: how long do we self-censor because of the fear of personal safety in return for not telling a story that exposes how those launching rockets are putting so many more lives at risk, while the rocket-makers themselves are at a safe distance? More so when we have rare, first hand proof of how it works?

NDTV is the exception that proves the rule: you could not trust any reporter in Gaza to be willing to report anything Hamas did not want them to report.

See also my previous posts on this topic.

Iraqi site Kitabat has an interesting theory about why ISIS is destroying so many mosques and tombs in Iraq.

If we look at history, the article says, "we find this culture - a culture of vandalism - in the philosophy of the hostile Jew who calls his companions to sabotage Temples of others because they are offenders to their creed, In the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we find these commandments, to perform revenge attacks. The Elders of Zion told their Jewish followers to destroy Christian churches and temples and idols. Evidence of this culture is rooted in the hearts of the Jews, and they still practice it."

The Jews leaked this culture to the Arabian Peninsula and influenced the polytheists there.

The ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria are simply descendants of the polytheistic vandals who got their psychotic hate from the Jews, the original source of all evil, as the Protocols prove. QED.

After all, Muslims wouldn't disrespect and usurp and destroy religious sites of other faiths, right? That's a Jewish thing.

Amnesty can't find any evidence of Hamas using hospitals and ambulances???

Amnesty released a report claiming that Israel "deliberately" targeted ambulances and hospitals, based entirely on witness accounts.

As one might expect, they completely discount the possibility that "eyewitnesses" in Gaza often lie to push an anti-Israel narrative.

After all, Amnesty has admitted that Palestinian Arabs often lie about attacks they "witnessed." Their researcher even admitted that NGOs are sometimes swept up in events and cannot look at the situation objectively.

Too bad they do not follow their own advice, because this report is as biased as they come.

This is clear from this paragraph:

Amnesty International is aware of reports that Palestinian armed groups have fired indiscriminate rockets from near hospitals or health facilities, or otherwise used these facilities or areas for military purposes. Amnesty International has not been able to confirm any of these reports.

To anyone who thinks Amnesty is unbiased, this must come as an astonishing claim. While Amnesty believes, without question, the testimony of people who hate Israel, they cannot find a shred of evidence that terror organizations use hospital workers as human shields and use hospitals as bases of operation.

Here is video showing not only a terrorist shooting directly from Wafa Hospital,but also the secondary explosions that show that explosives were kept there:

Here are two videos of terrorists using ambulances to avoid IDF fire:

If the IDF was targeting ambulances, why is Hamas using them to escape?

The Washington Post reported that Shifa Hospital was the de facto headquarters for Hamas,and everyone knew it.

French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abu Dagga described in detail about how he was interrogated by armed Al Qassam terrorists in an office next to the emergency room of Shifa Hospital.

Here's a photo of Hamas spokesman Mushir al Masri using Shifa Hospital as a Hamas media center, complete with fake backdrop.

Another reporter noted that damage to Gaza's main hospital seemed to come from Hamas, not Israel.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society - whose employees are quoted uncritically by Amnesty - has published outrageous claims form a proven conspiracy theorist that Israel uses depleted uranium weapons

A Hamas member captured by Israel admitted that the tenth floor of a PRCS building was being used as a sniper position.

Hamas booby-trapped a health clinic that was used as a tunnel entrance.

Yet Amnesty cannot find a shred of evidence that Hamas uses hospitals and ambulances and other medical facilities.

Amnesty illustrates its press release with this photo of a heavily damaged ambulance.

Even this is deceptive. Amnesty wants its readers to believe that this ambulance was deliberately targeted, yet this photo was taken in Sheja'eya which was a Hamas stronghold. The ambulance here was just parked there and ws damaged in the airstrikes at Hamas targets, it was clearly not targeted. For some reason, Amnesty couldn't find any photos of the ambulances they claim were actually targeted in their report, so they have to find the best photo they can with the knowledge that most people won't look too carefully at it.

Amnesty goes out of its way to believe any anti-Israel evidence without skepticism, and it goes out of its way to discount overwhelming evidence that shows how Hamas has used medical facilities for war. Then it goes out of its way to find a way to illustrate the press release with a completely irrelevant photo that they imply is evidence.

Why don't Amnesty's donors find this to be a problem?

(h/t Bob Knot)

450 news correspondents in Gaza, but very few journalists

JTA reports:

Some 705 journalists from 42 countries came to Israel specifically to cover the Gaza conflict, according to Israel’s Government Press Office.

The correspondents for the Israeli military’s Operation Protective Edge joined approximately 750 journalists who are stationed in Israel on a regular basis.

In contrast, some 303 foreign journalists arrived in Israel during Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012.

Following the ceasefire that went into effect Tuesday morning, the press office said it gathered testimony from foreign journalists regarding harassment by Hamas activists while trying to carry out their assignments.

“Journalists said that during their coverage of the fighting they received threats and – in several cases – were the victims of violence that included destruction of their equipment because they had documented criminal activity by Hamas such as the launching of rockets from the heart of civilian areas,” the press office statement said.

Haaretz adds:

Two thirds of the visiting media teams don’t report from the Israeli side but make their way to Gaza via the Erez crossing.

This means that over 450 correspondents were in Gaza - and yet almost none of them managed to film a Hamas rocket being launched, or seeing the damage from one falling short, or even any Hamas member, until the ceasefire.

None of them reported about Hamas killing "collaborators" and making it look like they were killed by Israel. None of them reported about how Hamas was using the war to injure and eliminate its political rivals - something they've done before.

Their reporting, by and large, was only parroting Hamas talking points.

Hundreds of corespondents either too lazy to report on both sides of the story or too scared to stand up to Hamas threats - and to tell their audiences about them. Behind these reporters were scores of news agencies who refused, until the very end, to even acknowledge that there were rockets being fired from civilian areas. They still deny that anyone was threatened, even after so many articles and tweets were removed after obvious threats.

Only now, under pressure from bloggers and tweeters and Israeli government officials, are so-called "journalists" starting to reluctantly mention what they were silent about for so long. No mea culpas, of course - they are now pretending to have the courage that they didn't show when it mattered, when public opinion was being formed.

Today's Washington Post has one such belated story of Hamas media manipulation, although more of the 2006 Hezbollah variety than then naked threats that reporters still don't want to admit:

The scene was too neat.

I had just arrived outside the shattered remains of a large mosque in central Gaza City last week. It had been pulverized by an Israeli airstrike. There was rubble, glass and metal everywhere. But on a patch of ground in front of the structure, visible for everyone to see, was a small, dusty carpet.

On top lay piles of burned, ripped copies of the Koran, Islam’s holy book. The symbolism was obvious, almost too perfect. It was clear that someone had placed them there to attract sympathy for the Palestinian cause. A television crew spotted the pile and filmed it. Mission accomplished.

...Take the attack in the Beach Camp neighborhood of Gaza City last week. Hamas militants blamed an Israeli strike; Israel declared that Hamas accidentally fired a mortar into the neighborhood. Children had died.

In the middle of the road, where the kids were killed, was a small pool of blood. At first glance, it evoked a sense of sadness and outrage. As I looked closer, I noticed a child’s slipper in the middle of the blood. The slipper was intact. There were no bloodstains. And next to the slipper, a black plastic toy gun.

Again I noticed a television cameraman drawn to this powerful image. I moved on.

Earlier that day in Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, as the dead and wounded were being rushed into the building, I saw a girl, no older than 7, dressed in a yellow and blue dress, speaking in front of a television camera.

“Bring back my brother and father,” she cried, visibly upset.

Her mother, seated next to her, whispered into her ear and nudged her.

“They were kids,” the girl continued, following her mother’s coaching. “They were just playing. What is their crime, for Israel to target them? They are just kids.”

That last vignette points to other shortcomings of the media: they would prefer to film the obviously coached girl than to report the coaching.

Moreover, that story shows that Gazans - and Palestinian Arabs in general - are brought up to playact to Westerners. I can't count the number of times I have reported "eyewitnesses" to Israeli airstrikes that never happened. The ghoulish manipulation of a dead girl for the cameras on Sunday probably wasn't done by Hamas, but by ordinary Gazans conditioned to play for the cameras.

Real journalists would look a little beyond the story to find the truth. Real journalists would ensure that the reality would get reported, even if not directly from them. Real journalists wouldn't just follow the crowd. Real journalists have ethics.

There were very few real journalists among the 450 in Gaza this past month.

08/06 Links Pt2: The Poisoned Lancet; Jewish Revolt era coins discovered near Jerusalem

From Ian:

Ryan Bellerose: Of Skullcaps And Asshats

I had people tell me they didn’t think I should wear something so offensive, which I found odd. I have some T shirts that even I think are offensive, yet nobody in Canada has ever said a word to me, even when I wore a T shirt with a woman in a hijab saying “ Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lusts.” Or “Save the trees, wipe your ass with an owl.” So can someone explain to me why a simple cap with some Hebrew on it is considered to be so damn offensive?
The last one is the most annoying, the “reasonable” guy who explains how he doesn’t hate Jews, he hates Zionists, and the Rothschilds and the people who control the banks and the media who happen to be Jewish. I met two of those guys, the asshats not the Rothschilds. On the asshat scale they are about a 10.5. I have no doubt they tell themselves they aren’t bigots, but what they say is every bit as offensive to me as the one guy who told me I was a genocidal baby killer. The odd thing is that wearing a kippah doesn’t mean you support Israel. I have debated Jewish people like Lucas Koerner who wore a kippah and hates Israel. I wish that kid would walk through one of these neighbourhood wearing his kippah. Maybe he would understand why the world needs Israel.
I am halfway through the week, the week I decided to wear a Kkippah. I have had some good experiences but they have been vasty outweighed by ignorance and outright bigotry. I think people are unaware of the bigotry. I have to believe that this is the case because if they knew and still said nothing , I would have to say they are asshats.

College Democrats of America Student Leader Equates Israel With Nazi Germany

In a shocking exchange uncovered by citizen journalist Aaron Robinow, high ranking student officials in College Democrats of America equated Israel with Nazi Germany and told a pro-Israel member of the CDA to "go f**k himself." Robinow highlighted the exchange on his website:
[S]enior officers from College Democrats of America took to Facebook to bully a colleague for supporting Israel’s right to defend itself. Giovanni Hashimoto, a member of CDA’s national communication team posted on Facebook to support Israel as a “peace loving.” Within minutes he was harassed, name called with classic leftists tactics–by his colleagues at CDA. Chris Woodside, a social media coordinator for the national organization, equated Israel with Nazi Germany, exclaimed Israeli PM Netanyahu is a war criminal and perpetuating genocide and declared being pro-Israel and a “good person” mutually exclusive. Evan Goldstein, also listed by College Democrats of America as a social media coordinator, told the pro-Israel student to “go (f**k) himself” and described him as a “douchebag” for supporting the Jewish state.

The Poisoned Lancet

These are the people whose Israel-hating letter was featured by the Lancet, ostensibly a medical journal. Not one is identified as the lifelong defender of Israel’s enemies and radical activist against Israel’s existence that each one is.
Lancet has a history of poisoning medical reporting with its radical left-wing politics. It made worldwide headlines in 2006 by reporting what were ultimately deemed wild exaggerations, if not outright lies, about the number of Iraqis killed during the American war in Iraq.
Lancet perfectly embodies four observations about our world.
One is from the prophet Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”
The second is from the legendary American screenwriter Ben Hecht (1894–1964), a two-time Academy Award winner: “How sad that in the warmest hearts I knew lurked always a little cold spot for the Jew.”
The third, if I may quote myself, is one of the earliest realizations of my life: “Those who don’t fight evil hate those who do.”
And the fourth is that, from the universities to the arts to religion, the Left damages everything it touches. Lancet was once a great medical journal.

Kent State Under Fire For Anti-Semitic Professor Who Likened Israel To 'Nazism'

On Tuesday, the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent a letter to Kent State University asking that they condemn professor Julio Pino. Pino wrote a letter to “academic friends of Israel” holding Israel responsible for deaths in Gaza and claimed Israel was the “spiritual heir to Nazism.”
“We urge you to condemn the recent, highly offensive and blatantly anti-Semitic remarks of Julio Pino – an Associate Professor of History at your university," the organization wrote to Kent State University president Beverly Warren.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center highlighted that "Pino addressed the ‘academic friends of Israel’ with the following vitriol: 'Your names are scrawled on every bullet fired, bomb dropped, body buried and burnt forehead in Gaza. May your names become a curse word on the lips of every justice-loving person on earth, along with 'Obama' and 'Netanyahu.' Pino then went on to remark, “Jihad until victory!” and '[Zionism is] a regime that is the spiritual heir to Nazism.'"

Anti-Israel Prof. loses job offer at U. Illinois over hateful tweets

We previously featured Virginia Tech, and soon-to-be U. Illinois (at Urbana-Champaign) Professor Steven Salaita, someone committed to the destruction of Israel, for his tweet partly blaming Zionism for anti-Semitic outbursts around the world:
That was not even the worst of his tweets. I’ve been following his account for months now, and his Twitter action was hateful against Israel to the point of deranged (view his tweets at the bottom of the post and see if you agree).
Apparently, these tweets have cost him his job offer at U. Illinois, but not before he resigned from Virginia Tech. It appears that because his “offer” was contingent on various approvals, he thought he had an actual “offer” but really only had nothing but a promise to consider hiring him and a departmental recommendation to hire.

Algeria picking a fight with Israel

A couple of days ago, a rumor started in Algeria that Mark Regev, the spokesperson for the Prime Minister's office, had said "the financial support of Algeria to the Gaza Strip is an act of support for a terrorist organization", namely Hamas, and that the $25 million given by Algeria "is a hostile act against the state of Israel."

I can find no such statement.

But now an op-ed in El Chorouk is threatening Israel for supposedly threatening Algeria.

The article goes on about "Mark Regev, official spokesman of the Government of Jewish terrorism in occupied Palestine" and how Algerian Jews were traitors against independence and engaged in terror attacks against Algerians (the truth was the opposite) and how Israel is threatened by Algeria's strong support of Hamas.

Good thing there are no Jews left in Algeria to find out how tolerant their hosts are.

John Dugard accidentally proves that Gaza isn't occupied

I received some tweets lately that indicated that Israel does not have the right to self defense under international law.

Yes, really.

One of the source-texts is by John Dugard, former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian Arab territories, writing in Al Jazeera America. His main argument is that since (he claims) Israel is occupying Gaza, therefore the normal laws of self-defense in international law do not apply. Moreover, he says that Hamas rockets aimed at Israeli civilians are perfectly legal, calling them "acts of resistance of an occupied people."

That last fact should be enough to prove that Dugard has no interest in either international law but only in finding bizarre justifications for terror attacks. However, even within the narrower framework of international law, Dugard reveals himself to be a fraud.

He states:

But the status of Gaza is clear. It is an occupied territory — part of the occupied Palestinian territory. In 2005 Israel withdrew its settlers and the Israel Defense Forces from Gaza, but it continues to retain control of it, not only through intermittent incursions into and regular shelling of the territory but also by effectively controlling the land crossings into Gaza, its airspace and territorial waters and its population registry, which determines who may leave and enter.

Effective control is the test for occupation. The International Court of Justice recently confirmed this in a dispute between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. The physical presence of Israel in Gaza is not necessary provided it retains effective control and authority over the territory by other means. Modern technology now permits effective control from outside the occupied territory, and this is what Israel has established.

The ICJ, in defining "effective control" in the Congo vs. Uganda case, says the exact opposite of what Dugard is claiming!

The ruling stated:

[T]o reach a conclusion as to whether a State … is an ‘occupying Power’ … the Court must examine whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the said authority was in fact established and exercised by the intervening State in the areas in question. … armed forces [must] not only be stationed in particular locations but also substitute[] their own authority… .”

The test is very simple. If Israel cannot substitute its authority for Hamas, it is not an occupying power. If it cannot change Gaza's government, or court system, or police force, then it is not an occupying power. Occupation only extends to areas where they can exert authority, and in Gaza, authority is exclusive to Hamas.

(For further proof, the Hague Conventions that define occupation give the occupant the obligation to "take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety." It is obvious that the occupier must have that ability in order to be able to have that obligation.)

This is not the first time this lie has been spread. The UN Human Rights Council tried to push the exact same lie - using the same bogus source - in a 2008 document, as I demonstrated at the time. They rely on the fact practically no one will actually look up the citation and find that they are lying. Chances are, Dugard was behind that citation as well.

Dugard is not only an immoral supporter of terror, but a proven liar in the very subject that he claims expertise in. His own proof-text of Gaza being occupied proves that Gaza is not occupied.

Since Dugard is now an emeritus professor of international law at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, perhaps people might want to ask the school if they know that one of their faculty fabricates source material?

By the way, it is interesting to see how the ICRC defined "occupation" before Israel withdrew from Gaza.

The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territories become applicable whenever territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets no armed resistance and there is no fighting.

The question of "control" calls up at least two different interpretations. It could be taken to mean that a situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958).

An alternative and more restrictive approach would be to say that a situation of occupation exists only once a party to a conflict is in a position to exercise sufficient authority over enemy territory to enable it to discharge all of the duties imposed by the law of occupation. This approach is adopted by a number of military manuals.

...The normal way for an occupation to end is for the occupying power to withdraw from the occupied territory or be driven out of it. However, the continued presence of foreign troops does not necessarily mean that occupation continues.

A transfer of authority to a local government re-establishing the full and free exercise of sovereignty will normally end the state of occupation, if the government agrees to the continued presence of foreign troops on its territory. However, the law of occupation may become applicable again if the situation on the ground changes, that is to say, if the territory again becomes "actually placed under the authority of the hostile army" (H R, art. 42) – in other words, under the control of foreign troops without the consent of the local authorities.

Compare how it has changed that definition since then to shoe-horn Israel into a definition as an occupier - something they wouldn't have done for any other country.

The mention of military manuals is important, because much of international law is sometimes derived from a consensus in such manuals. As far as I know, no military manual defines anything close to Israel's relationship to Gaza as being an occupation.

The only actual legal ruling that has ever occurred regarding whether Gaza is occupied comes from Israel's quite liberal Supreme Court, which stated:

[S]ince September 2005, Israel no longer has effective control over the events in the Gaza strip. The military government that had applied to that area was annulled in a government decision, and Israeli soldiers are not in the area on a permanent basis, nor are they managing affairs there. In such circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to look after the welfare of the residents of the strip or to maintain public order within the Gaza Strip pursuant to the entirety of the Law of Belligerent Occupation in International Law. Nor does Israel have effective capability, in its present status, to enforce order and manage civilian life in the Gaza Strip.

No wonder Israel-haters have to resort to sui generis arguments and fake citations to pretend that Gaza is occupied. They have no legal leg to stand on.

This is the 20,000th post at EoZ since the blog started nearly 10 years ago.

Those 20,000 posts included over 11 million words, about a quarter the size of Encyclopædia Britannica.

Also, Monday was a blog record for pageviews - over 30,000 hits that day alone.

Thanks for all your support!

I will be speaking one evening next week in Manhattan about new media and the Gaza war. If you are interested in attending, email me and I can send you the details. (The event is meant for Jews in their 20s and 30s exclusively.)

08/06 Links Pt1: What Would Hamas Do If It Could Do Whatever It Wanted?; 475 Rockets fell in Gaza

From Ian:

Jeffrey Goldberg: What Would Hamas Do If It Could Do Whatever It Wanted?

Hamas is an organization devoted to ending Jewish history. This is what so many Jews understand, and what so many non-Jews don’t. The novelist Amos Oz, who has led Israel's left-wing peace camp for decades, said in an interview last week that he doesn't see a prospect for compromise between Israel and Hamas. "I have been a man of compromise all my life," Oz said. "But even a man of compromise cannot approach Hamas and say: 'Maybe we meet halfway and Israel only exists on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.'"
In the years since it adopted its charter, Hamas leaders and spokesmen have reinforced its message again and again. Mahmoud Zahar said in 2006 that the group "will not change a single word in its covenant." To underscore the point, in 2010 Zahhar said, "Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy."
In 2011, the former Hamas minister of culture, Atallah Abu al-Subh, said that "the Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah. Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world." Just last week, a top Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, accused Jews of using Christian blood to make matzo. This is not a group, in other words, that is seeking the sort of peace that Amos Oz—or, for that matter, the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas—is seeking. People wonder why Israelis have such a visceral reaction to Hamas. The answer is easy. Israel is a small country, and most of its citizens know someone who was murdered by Hamas in its extended suicide-bombing campaigns; and most people also understand that if Hamas had its way, it would kill them as well.

Caroline Glick: Fighting without silver bullets

The UN is institutionally committed to delegitimizing and ultimately destroying Israel.
Fatah can only come into Gaza after Hamas has been destroyed completely and driven from leadership by Israel.
Under any other circumstance, Fatah will collaborate with Hamas against Israel, as it has always done. And if Hamas is routed and destroyed Fatah would only destabilize the situation.
The time has come for us to recognize that there are no easy answers for Israel. IDF operations in Gaza in recent weeks have dealt a harsh blow to Hamas. Perhaps the terror commanders have been deterred. Perhaps not.
Whatever the case may be, if Israel and Egypt are able to continue to block US attempts to open the borders for Hamas resupply until Kerry gets swept up in another major crisis, then Hamas can be defeated through attrition.
If not, then Israel will have no choice but to retake control of Gaza while maintaining enough forces in reserve to respond to a second front in the North, and finally end Iran’s dream of becoming a nuclear power.
There are no silver bullets. The price of freedom is hard work and vigilance.

David Horovitz: Israel might have won; Hamas certainly lost

Ten thoughts at the (possible) end of the Israel-Hamas war.
1. Hamas lost. Whether or not Israel “won” — by which I mean attaining the “sustained calm” for its people that was the limited goal of the war — will be determined by the negotiations now taking place in Cairo, or the failure of those negotiations. But Hamas certainly lost. Three weeks ago, with its rocket capacity largely intact, its fighting forces completely intact, the tunnel network it had spent seven years building intact, and most of the Gaza it claims to represent intact, it rejected an unconditional ceasefire which Israel accepted and instead issued a long list of arrogant preconditions.
On Tuesday, with most of its rockets used to relatively little effect, hundreds of its gunmen dead, 32 of its major tunnels smashed, and Gaza devastated, its “military wing” in Gaza overruled its fat-cat political chief Khaled Mashaal in his Qatar hotel, waved a metaphorical white flag, and pleaded for the very same unconditional ceasefire. That does not constitute evisceration. Hamas aims to live to fight another day. But it does constitute defeat.
8. Challenges faced by the ground forces. Israelis are deeply impressed with how the IDF ground forces tackled Hamas. The troops faced gunmen in civvies, gunmen in IDF uniforms, snipers, IEDs, booby-trapped homes, suicide bombers, sophisticated weaponry, gunmen popping out of tunnels, holes in walls, cupboards. They learned to their cost that even areas that had been theoretically rendered safe were not — that gunmen could appear out of nowhere and shoot them dead. When soldiers fell in battle, thousands upon thousands of Israelis came to some of their funerals. Few Israelis doubt that the IDF could and would have “smashed” Hamas and retaken Gaza if ordered to do so. Had the IDF been told to go get the bunkered Hamas leaders, “we would have gone to Shifa [hospital] and pulled them out by their ears,” Lt.-Col. (res.) Ori Shechter, the deputy commander of the Nahal Brigade, said on Army Radio on Wednesday. But there’s been no vocal criticism from the IDF about the political direction, and nor is there likely to be.

Saudis and Egyptians might want Hamas destroyed, but they still hate Jews

Even though many have noted that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been quietly rooting for Israel to destroy Hamas and deal a major strike at the Muslim Brotherhood, both countries remain stridently antisemitic.

Al Ahram, the major Egyptian newspaper, has an op-ed by (believe it or not) Dr. Gamal Abdel Nasser, about how Gaza is just another manifestation of how Jews are uniquely evil:

The history of the Jews - with the Arabs in particular - shows the extent of their corruption....The Qur'an told us about them; you will find the character of the Arab in their books in Jewish literature one of humiliation, where they portray the Arab in their stories as a petty stupid person with no value.

The four Jewish tribes Jews that escaped from the persecution of Roman rulers and others, lived in the Arabian Peninsula, corrupting the earth; by working in the arms trade and charging interest and spreading immorality among the Arab tribes, and trying to sow sedition and inciting tribes against each other, and they lit wars between tribal elders.

...Jews today own have the largest usurious banks in the world, and have companies in costumes and fashions and they trade in sex and even promote this type of trade, and are working in the drug trade and promotion [of drugs] to the Arab and Muslim countries in particular.

Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, major Islamic scholar Saleh bin Awad al Maghamsi, who is the imam of the Quba Mosque of Medina, tweeted that the only reason Allah placed Jews in Israel is to destroy them, as the Quran says (17:104), "And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell in the land, and when there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will bring you forth in [one] gathering.'"

For those who so desperately pray for peace in the Middle East - this is what it looks like. At best.

(h/t Shawarma News)

Dead Gaza children win again, at the NYT

The New York Times has an article about the looming war over statistics of what percentage of the Gaza casualties were civilian and terrorist.

It pretends to be even-handed, although it falls very short.

The article downplayed the fact that Hamas killed collaborators and counts them as civiiians killed by Israel, and the possibility that many of the victims were killed by Hamas rockets and bullets and mortars. It didn't mention that Hamas took steps to ensure that terrorist casualties were not reported or named - something that the PCHR, a group mentioned, adhered to. It didn't mention that PCHR goes out of its way to minimize the number of terrorists counted. It didn't mention the flawed methodology of the information gatherers that the UN relies on, at Israel's expense. It gives credence to the uninformed guesses of a volunteer from New Zealand - a volunteer for Hamas. It didn't mention that at the end of Operation Cast Lead, Hamas had claimed only a few dozen killed; only much later did they admit that Israel's statistics of 709 terrorist deaths were largely correct. It didn't mention comparable statistics of civilian dead in other wars in urban areas, including wars fought by Western powers that killed orders of magnitude more people. It didn't look up the latest statistics from the Meir Amit ITIC published on their website, only saying that their much earlier statistics before the ground war were impressive. It didn't mention that on Sunday, the day of the casualties outside the Rafah UNRWA school, even according to the Hamas-obedient PCHR more than 60% of those killed were terrorists.

But even if Jodi Rudoren's team had done all of that, it wouldn't have made a difference. Because accompanying the article was a large, poignant photo of a dead child.

There is no such thing as objectivity when there the subconscious message is that Israel is murdering babies. The message from the photo overwhelms the article, no matter what it says.

Of course it is newsworthy to mention civilian casualties. But anti-Zionists and antisemites are using the photos of dead children as their most potent weapons. Even though this article notes that the proportion of children and women killed were far smaller than their percentage of the Gaza population, all of that is meaningless when there is a dead child's hand hovering over the article.

The Israel-haters are repeating over and over, implicitly and explicitly, that the rules of war do not allow a single civilian to be killed, and every violation is a war crime. This is nonsense, but you wouldn't know that from reading the NYT. On the contrary, the newspaper is playing up that lie, without explicitly saying it.

Did the New York Times ever a similar number of photos of dead children killed by Western armies in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan? Did the newspaper ever investigate the number of civilians being killed in Egypt's similar battles against Islamists - that are being covered up?

The photos may be accurate, but they poison any accuracy that may have been in that article. No amount of IDF videos showing Hamas shooting rockets from civilian areas and the IDF avoiding innocent civilians can counteract those images.

And the haters of Israel and Jews couldn't be happier at this coverage.

(h/t EBoZ)

Jimmy Carter and Mary Robinson wrote an op-ed, published in Foreign Policy and many newspapers, that continue their shameful record of supporting terror.

There is really no other way to look at it.

Their only criticism of Hamas is a perfunctory condemnation of missiles - the same kind of fake condemnation that we see from groups like Human Rights Watch, as a fig-leaf to pretend that they are "balanced" when they are anything but. Carter and Robinson couch it this way:

There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war. Israeli bombs, missiles and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools and hospitals. More than 250,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinian noncombatants have been killed. Much of Gaza has lost access to water and electricity completely. This is a humanitarian catastrophe.

There is never an excuse for deliberate attacks on civilians in conflict. These are war crimes. This is true for both sides. Hamas' indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians is equally unacceptable. However, three Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian rockets, while an overwhelming majority of the 1,600 Palestinians killed have been civilians, including more than 330 children. The need for international judicial proceedings to investigate and end these violations of international law should be taken very seriously.

That's it.

Carter and Robinson spin a tale of fantasy:

Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor — one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people — can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons. Ever since the internationally monitored 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power in Palestine, the West's approach has manifestly contributed to the opposite result.

Hamas killing hundreds of Fatah members in 2006 as it seized full control of Gaza seems to indicate otherwise!

Unity between Fatah and Hamas is currently stronger than it has been for many years. As Elders, we believe this is one of the most encouraging developments in recent years and welcome it warmly.

The very first act Hamas did after "unity" was to brutally kidnap and murder three Israeli boys. And it was done deliberately in the West Bank in order for Hamas to assert itself there - not to accept the PA's cooperation with Israel but to impose Hamas terror specifically where it had been largely suppressed by the PA.

Make no mistake - if the kidnapping would have been successful and Hamas held a child hostage, the entire Palestinian Arab population would have cheered, and Carter's op-ed today would be to justify that as legitimate "resistance" even as he would offer to negotiate Israel's capitulation to terror.

Worst of all, and the biggest indication of Carter's and Robinson's utter depravity in tacitly supporting terror, is what they refuse to say about Hamas as they mercilessly blame Israel for everything.

They don't mention the many other Hamas war crimes besides rockets, like holding Gazans and the media as human shields, firing rockets from the vicinity of hospitals and schools and hotels.

They don't mention Hamas' using the war as a reason to kill and maim its political enemies in Fatah.

They don't mention Hamas' repeated attempts to take Israelis hostage.

They don't mention Hamas' attempts at nuclear terrorism, nor their targeting civilian airports.

Worst of all, they don't mention Hamas extensive terror tunnel network that reached into the midst of Israeli communities - terror tunnels that cost millions of diverted Western aid dollars, whose entire purpose was to perform one or many mega-terror attacks against innocent civilians. The entire goal of the ground war is ignored, as if Israel just felt like killing Gaza civilians for fun.

In the name of "peace" and "humanitarianism," Carter and Robinson are tacitly encouraging and supporting Hamas terror. And now they are trying as hard as possible to ensure that Hamas gains politically for their terror.

They are truly beneath contempt.

Chris Gunness lies again - UNRWA schools are anything but liberal

I just saw Chris Gunness on Fox News trying to defend himself from charges that jihadist concepts are being taught in UNRWA schools.

The show first showed clips from this video:

There's another video here.

Then Gunness went on, claimed that the person behind it - David Bedein - has no credibility and that these shots weren't taken at UNRWA schools.

Given a choice of believing Gunness or Bedein, I trust Bedein hands down. (I've spoken to him on the phone and corresponded with him via email.)

The reason I know Gunness is lying is because I did my own research project in 2012. I visited the websites of UNRWA schools in Gaza - all with the "unrwa.ps" domain - and looked to see what sort of materials were there.

I found that the UNRWA school system in Gaza was hardly secular. They had job postings for "religious instruction" teachers.

School websites had articles extolling the virtues of martyrdom.

A poem at the website of a central school site talked about how Zionists raped Palestine and how the author will return to Jaffa:

Palestine should know I adore madness
Jaffa, I should know I'll come back to it
Let him know it's the crazy sons of Zion
With their thought of raping Palestine
The land of Canaan will be only to those who love her
Those who are occupied by people who do not
The land of Isra and Mi'raj cradle of the prophets
The land of jihad and martyrdom

There are stories of young men who asked their parents for permission to wage jihad and who died heroically.

As I noted then then, all of these examples directly contradict what UNRWA's stated educational standards are, which include the idea that they are "tolerant and open minded, upholding human values and religious tolerance."

Are Palestinian Christians forced to attend mandatory Quran classes run by UNRWA? Should the UN be in the Islamic education business? How much of UNRWA's budget goes towards "religious education?" Are Western donors to UNRWA even aware that they are funding these lessons of jihad and martyrdom?

Guess what happened when I publicized this on my blog? Within a couple of weeks, every single one of these school websites were taken down. No acknowledgement, no apology, no relluctant press releases about how UNRWA has failed its mission.

Instead, Chris Gunness engineered a coverup.

So, sorry, UNRWA, but I don't believe a word Gunness is saying about how UNRWA schools in Gaza are so liberal and teach human rights and peace and tolerance. I saw the lessons that the schools were showing to the world in Arabic. And it proves that Chris Gunness is a liar.