Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

2015 US spending bill limitations on funding a Palestinian government - full text

This comes from the latest version of the US budget proposal.

It is painful to read, mostly because it is written in bureaucratese. But from what I can gather, it looks like some members of Congress really tried to put into law different controls to ensure that US funds do not go towards terrorist groups - and other members (or the White House) pushed back to have veto power over almost every one of these controls.

So for example, in the first section quoted here, there are lots of limitations on funding any "State of Palestine" - and then there is a waiver for the President to determine that national security trumps it all.

(This may be standard with all foreign policy issues, but still...it seems to be, for example, the official reason why the US embassy is not moved to Jerusalem every year despite Congress passing the law mandating it.)

It looks like many of the controls are riddled with similar loopholes. For example, at the very end it seems to say that the US will not fund the PLO, This is silly because the PA reports to the PLO, even though it is not "part" of the PLO.

At the end there is a very interesting section on reducing aid by the amount that it is determined that the PA is paying terrorists in prison (or employees before they were killed while trying to kill Israelis.) But even that seems to have lots of wiggle room.

Anyway, here it is:

PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD
2 SEC. 7036. (a) LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.—None
3 of the funds appropriated under titles III through VI of
4 this Act may be provided to support a Palestinian state
5 unless the Secretary of State determines and certifies to
6 the appropriate congressional committees that—
7 (1) the governing entity of a new Palestinian
8 state—
9 (A) has demonstrated a firm commitment
10 to peaceful co-existence with the State of Israel;
11 and
12 (B) is taking appropriate measures to
13 counter terrorism and terrorist financing in the
14 West Bank and Gaza, including the dismantling
15 of terrorist infrastructures, and is cooperating
16 with appropriate Israeli and other appropriate
17 security organizations; and
18 (2) the Palestinian Authority (or the governing
19 entity of a new Palestinian state) is working with
20 other countries in the region to vigorously pursue ef-
21 forts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive
22 peace in the Middle East that will enable Israel and
23 an independent Palestinian state to exist within the
24 context of full and normal relationships, which
25 should include—
1 (A) termination of all claims or states of
2 belligerency;
3 (B) respect for and acknowledgment of the
4 sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political
5 independence of every state in the area through
6 measures including the establishment of demili-
7 tarized zones;
8 (C) their right to live in peace within se-
9 cure and recognized boundaries free from
10 threats or acts of force;
11 (D) freedom of navigation through inter-
12 national waterways in the area; and
13 (E) a framework for achieving a just set-
14 tlement of the refugee problem.
15 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
16 gress that the governing entity should enact a constitution
17 assuring the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and
18 respect for human rights for its citizens, and should enact
19 other laws and regulations assuring transparent and ac-
20 countable governance.
21 (c) WAIVER.—The President may waive subsection
22 (a) if the President determines that it is important to the
23 national security interest of the United States to do so.

Lots more....

Palestinians To Pay Family Of Crown Heights Stabber (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Ramallah, December 10 - The Palestinian Authority announced today that it had added the name of the man who stabbed a Lubavicher Hasid in Brooklyn early Tuesday morning to its roster of martyrs whose families receive pensions.

Late last night a 40-year-old man entered the Chabad Lubavich world headquarters building on Eastern Parkway with a knife. He attacked a 22-year-old Israeli student in the head and was shot by police after refusing to put his weapon down. The attacker later died at a local hospital. In keeping with longstanding Palestinian policy, President Mahmoud Abbas ordered officials to begin sending payments to the family of the slain attacker.

President Abbas stressed that the location of the attack on Jews should in no way prejudice the payment policy against the martyr who dies as a result of the act, and that he will ensure that such an exception is specifically negated in the regulations governing those payments. "It would be a disservice to our brave martyrs and their families to exclude such deeds from eligibility simply because they take place overseas," he said.

Even before the release of the stabber's identity by the New York Police Department, Abbas instructed his financial officials to discover the relevant information regarding the man's family so that payment could be arranged as soon as possible. The fact that the stabber was not Palestinian, stressed Abbas, or even knew his victim was Israeli, should not be factor in his family's eligibility for a pension. "The fact that this brave man died because he wielded a knife and yelled, 'Kill the Jew!' is enough," he stated.

Observers initially thought the stabbing was directly germane to the ongoing protests and violence surrounding the deaths of black men at the hands of police officers across the US. However, no direct connection has yet been made, and video of the shooting in this case includes clear footage of the stabber refusing to put down his knife and getting shot as a result. Abbas welcomed the invocation of the Palestinian cause in the demonstrations, as some activists have done, and the way in which they obscure or ignore the cases of clear justification for certain such killings on the part of police. "We urge our supporters and spiritual brothers in urban America to adopt our practice of hailing every single person who dies at the hand of better-armed authorities as a martyr whose blood must be avenged, regardless of the circumstances of that death," he continued.

Palestinian officials refused to comment on whether they would also begin formal incitement to murder Jews beyond the Middle East, or whether only post facto rewarding of such acts would be instituted.

12/10 Links Pt1: Israeli home demolitions deter Palestinian terrorism; Election Won’t Change Israeli Policies

From Ian:

Israeli home demolitions deter Palestinian terrorism, study finds

Israeli house demolitions effectively decrease terrorist attacks, according to a new study.
The study, “Counter-Suicide-Terrorism: Evidence from House Demolitions,” to be published in the January issue of the Journal of Politics, found that Israel’s policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists causes “an immediate, significant decrease in the number of suicide attacks.”
The study examines data on punitive house demolitions between 2000 and 2005, and precautionary demolitions — those based on the location of a house but unrelated to the identity of the house’s owner — from 2004 to 2005. The authors found that punitive house demolitions during that time led to “fewer suicide attacks in the month following,” while precautionary demolitions caused “a significant increase in the number of suicide attacks.”
Co-authored by researchers at Northwestern University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the study runs contrary to the widely held belief that punitive house demolitions do not dissuade would-be terrorists.

Eugene Kontorovich: Resolution 242 Revisited: New Evidence on the Required Scope of Israeli Withdrawal

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, passed in November 1967, in the wake of the Six Day War, is widely regarded as among the most important ever. But it’s meaning is also the most debated. The resolution famously called for “Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” The meaning of this provision – in particular, the extent of the required withdrawal - has been contested ever since.
This article presents new evidence on the resolution’s meaning – an issue that has gained new relevance amidst current diplomatic efforts for a Security Council resolution that could effectively supersede 242. The article does not engage all the myriad disputes and questions about the resolution, nor aim at a comprehensive evaluation of it. Rather, it adds two important but previously unappreciated dimensions that bear on how 242 should be read.
First, the article examines the meaning of 242’s withdrawal provision by comparing it to all other such territorial withdrawal demands issued by the Security Council. It finds that the language of 242 differs notably from the other 18 distinct territorial withdrawal demands, all of which explicitly require a complete withdraw from the territory in question. An examination of these resolutions supports the view that 242’s unusual wording was a meaningful and substantive drafting choice.
Second, the article examines contemporaneous understandings in the United Nations about the rules concerning territorial. Discussions in the International Law Commission, involving the leading international law jurists of the post-WWII era, demonstrates that it was generally agreed that the U.N. Charter introduced a new prohibition on territorial changes as a result of war, a principle referred to in the preamble of 242. Yet the same discussions also make clear that this rule was understood to have significant limitations and exceptions. (h/t billposer)

Eugene Kontorovich: The legitimacy of Israel’s nation-state bill (I): comparative constitutionalism

These objections do not hold water. For one, ensuring Israel’s status as a Jewish nation state is a goal expressly endorsed by the same critics, when it comes to pressuring Israel into diplomatic concessions. Second, the law is far from unusual by Western standards: it actually does far less to recognize Jewish nationhood or religion than provisions common in other democratic constitutions. This post will consider the general parameters of the legislation in comparison to constitutional provisions of other Western democracies. Tomorrow, a second post will relate the law to the “two state solution.”
The nation state bills mostly constitutionalize the national anthem, symbols, holidays, and so forth. There is nothing racist, or even unusual, about having national or religious character reflected in constitutional commitments, as research by my colleagues at the Kohelet Policy Forum demonstrates. Seven EU states have constitutional “nationhood” provisions, which typically speak of the state as being the national home and locus of self-determination for the country’s majority ethnic group. This is even the case in places like the Baltics, with large and alienated minority populations.

Lavishly funded Jordanian media NGO uses a terrorist as its role model

Here's how the Jordanian Media Institute describes its goals:

Vision

JMI aims to become an unparalleled Centre of Excellence in the Middle East to help improve the standards, raise the integrity and rebuild public trust in journalism in Jordan and the region at large. Our programmes, which feature practical training, innovative curricula and world-class facilities, will enable our graduates to consistently challenge the current level of media production in the Arab world.

Mission

Our groundbreaking, home-grown programmes meet with the highest international standards and acknowledge the distinctiveness of Arab culture and philosophy. Our students are trained to become world-class journalists who possess the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to truly excel within this region’s unique media environment.

Sounds good, right? So good that JMI has attracted a Who's Who of major donors and partners:

JMI has a link to a sister site in Arabic called "JMI Journalists." On the sidebar of every page of that site there is a section called "Success Models" - to give young Jordanian journalists a role model to emulate.

The first person listed in that section is Ahlam Tamimi.

She is a terrorist, responsible for planning and implementation of the Sbarro pizza shop bombing that killed 15, including seven children.

Tamimi - who is now working as a journalist in Jordan after being released in a prisoner swap - has a fawning bio on the site, where her terror background is highlighted. They say that she went to "Martyr's University," as Birzeit University was called because of how many terrorists came from there.

The bio says that she insisted to be the first woman terrorist for Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades.

Apparently, an unrepentant murderer represents "the distinctiveness of Arab culture and philosophy" that JMI wants people to know about.

Drop what you are doing now and email to the heads of the corporations, governments and agencies listed above and ask them why they are funding a program that thinks child-murderers are heroes. They will not want to be associated with this.

In the end, they will end up pressuring JMI to only take down the article, but msot or all will keep funding an organization that enthusiastically supports terrorists. Most of them will not withdraw their funding, but one or two might. It is still worth it to shame these donors into checking how their money is spent.

There is a huge disconnect between the values that Western donors want to help spread around the world and how the recipients actually feel about those Western values - but they eagerly accept their money anyway.

Read more here, from Arnold Roth, father of one of the children Tamimi murdered.

Check out Ma'an's report of the incident in Turmsayya this morning:

The head of the Palestinian Authority committee against the separation wall and settlements died Wednesday after Israeli soldiers assaulted him in a village near Ramallah, committee sources said.

Ziad Abu Ein, 55, died after an Israeli soldier beat him on the chest with his helmet in the village of Turmsayya in the Ramallah district, the director of the committee's information center, Jamil al-Barghouthi, told Ma'an.

Abu Ein also suffered severe tear gas inhalation as Israeli soldiers fired canisters in the area.

A Palestinian security source told AFP that Israeli forces beat Abu Ein with the butts of their rifles and their helmets during a protest march.

So during peaceful protest march, multiple IDF soldiers singled out a 55-year old to attack him with their helmets and rifle butts, besides shooting tear gas, all for no reason of course.

If you believe Palestinian Arab sources.

Even without a counter-narrative, this makes no sense.

However, a reporter who was right there and took the picture above says that the soldiers did not hit him at all. Another says that he was seen clutching his chest ten minutes after the tear gas was shot. The IDF says its initial inquiry shows no physical altercation although it is investigating.

Video released after this was initially written showed a little shoving, at most. Certainly no helmet or rifle butting.

Abu Ein, who wasn't well, almost certainly died of a heart attack.

Most news stories aren't mentioning that he was also a murderer. He killed 2 teens in 1979:

That is enough to qualify him to be a PA official.

Abbas, of course, immediately jumped on the bogus story as an excuse to slam Israel for a "barbaric murder." Because he is too moderate to incite violence by amplifying lies.

The script for this incident has been played out many times before, and the media is doing its part to immediately trumpet the craziest accusations without question - just as their role demands.

UPDATE: Best video so far (h/t Yenta)

Abu Ein goes on the offensive against the policeman after being separated by the soldier, even afterwards he tries to fight back rather than act defensive, as one would if they were hurt.

Palestinians revive the Mamilla Cemetery lies. Here's the truth.

Ma'an says:

Israeli authorities have resumed excavations in Mamilla graveyard in West Jerusalem as part of the "Museum of Tolerance" project, a local committee said Tuesday.

The head of the Islamic cemeteries preservation committee, Mustafa Abu Zahra, said large machinery was placed in the cemetery. It poured reinforced concrete in preparation for the building of the structure of the museum.

Abu Zahra added that the structure is scheduled to be built over the "remains of icons, martyrs, grandparents and parents," and he said that the project is being implemented by a California-based center in cooperation with the Jerusalem municipality and other Israeli departments.

The project was started by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in 2001, and 12 dunams of the cemetery ground were seized including 70 percent which was transformed into "Independence Park," he explained.

Abu Zahra said that the construction was a grave assault on Muslim heritage and history.

It is so easy to revive old lies.

The original Museum of Tolerance judgment, and the judgment following a further petition, show very convincingly that all graves in the construction area had been moved years ago and all the other arguments against the museum were without merit:

Museum of Tolerance Judgment by Elder of Ziyon

Mamilla Appeal Judgment by Elder of Ziyon

Furthermore, I had discovered that in 1945, the Supreme Muslim Council planned to turn this supposedly sacred ground into an office park where they would have their headquarters:

It gets better.

The Mufti of Jerusalem built a hotel across the street from the cemetery, and found human remains . He told his people to hush that little fact up. Furthermore, he had so much respect for the cemetery that he redirected sewage pipes into it to facilitate building of his hotel, as this book by Tom Segev documented:

Oh, and Muslims planted fake graves there to stop the construction - and then complained when the Jerusalem municipality destroyed them.

There are plenty of examples of Arab hypocrisy, but rarely are they as stark as we have seen with the Mamilla cemetery controversy. And the Arabs know that they can whip people up in a frenzy by recycling the same, tired lies every few years.

4 out of 5 Palestinians support stabbing random Jews in Israel

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just released their latest poll on Palestinian Arab attitudes.

Here is one of their findings:

80% support and 20% oppose attempts by individual Palestinians to stab or run over Israelis in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.

The pollster pretends that this is partially a result of another big finding:

An overwhelming majority (86%) believes that al Haram al Sharif is in grave danger: 56% believe that Israel intends to destroy al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace them with a Jewish temple.

The two are related, but not in the way the pollster claims.

Both of those findings as a result of Mahmoud Abbas and his state-run media, not to mention the incitement from Hamas and other terror groups and plenty of social media, that constantly lie about Jews "desecrating" and planning to destroy Al Aqsa, as well as inciting people to defend it "by any means necessary." Arabic media has been in a frenzy over, literally, nothing and the broad-based support for murder comes directly from this incitement at both the political and media levels.

More proof comes from this other finding, also a direct reflection of what the Arabic media has been trying to push:

56% support return to an armed intifada...Three months ago, support for a return to armed intifada stood at 50% and six months ago at 41%.

Israeli policy hasn't changed. The amount of incitement in Arabic media and from "moderate" politicians, on the other hand, has increased a great deal.

And through some strange freakish logic, many Europeans and "progressives" use these sorts of findings as a reason to give the would-be murderers more and more, in the hope that they will be appeased.

12/09 Links Pt2: Max Blumenthal: Too Extreme for German Commies, Just Right for the NYT

From Ian:

Jewish Group Accuses New York Times of “Crossing Red Line” By Publishing American Anti-Semite Max Blumenthal

Less than one month after being indefinitely banned from entering the German parliament following an attempted violent assault on Gregor Gysi, the parliamentary leader of that country’s Left Party, the American anti-Semitic propagandist Max Blumenthal has been handed an opportunity to rescue his sullied reputation by no less than the New York Times – a move decried by a prominent American Jewish leader as “breaching a red line.”
In an article for the Times’ “Room for Debate” section on the proposed “Jewish State bill” that is being energetically discussed in Israel, Blumenthal attacks the “Zionist project” as an inherently racist endeavor.
But in an indication of Blumenthal’s contempt for accurate reporting about Israel, the paper was forced to publish a correction within hours of the piece appearing, after Blumenthal falsely claimed that the Prawer Plan – a bill that would have regulated the settlement of Beduin in the Negev area, but which was shelved last December – had been implemented.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, blasted the New York Times for “insulting” those on the Zionist left in Israel who are opposed to the bill by selecting Blumenthal, “who believes that Zionism is racism,” to make the case against it.
Cooper told The Algemeiner that he welcomed a “healthy, multi-layered” debate about the bill. “But when you invite someone who conflates the illusory crimes of Israel with the Holocaust, then a red line has been crossed,” he said.

Max Blumenthal: Too Extreme for German Commies, Just Right for the New York Times

How bad is the New York Times?
A party of East German Commies gave Max Blumenthal the boot for being a bigot. The left-wing Forward called his book the “I Hate Israel” handbook. His colleague at The Nation said it could have been put out by “The Friends of Hamas Book Club.”
One of Blumenthal’s smears about Israel was picked up by the Neo-Nazi gunman responsible for the Kansas City Jewish community center shootings.
But the influence of Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal is still strong enough to get his racist son in at the New York Times. (hat tip to Jamie Kirchik for the link and headline)
Blumenthal rants about how far “rightward” Israel has gone. That’s an ironic accusation coming from a man so far to the left that even German Communists find him extreme and even critics of Israel consider him anti-Semitic.
Max Blumenthal has called for the destruction of Israel. So maybe the New York Times should have looked a little closely at his claims about Israel.

Rolling Stone Apologized. Will the Times?

Have you heard the one about the major news organization that published an abominable piece by a contributor who made no real effort to obtain a thorough account and ran instead with an impassioned story that sounds plausible and moving just as long as you don’t bother looking at the actual facts? I’m not talking about Rolling Stone’s disastrous UVA piece; I’m talking about the New York Times. This morning, the paper of record ran an opinion piece by Max Blumenthal, lambasting Israel for being perpetually predatory to its minorities and neighbors.
Let’s not mince words here: Blumenthal is an anti-Semite. He’s been labeled as such by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as well as by the leader of Germany’s Left opposition party, who cancelled a talk Blumenthal was scheduled to give in the Bundestag. The snub provoked Blumenthal to harass the politician, which got Blumenthal banned from entering the parliament building in the future.
The New York Times editors who invited Blumenthal to contribute, then, knew exactly what they’d get. They must have known, if they’ve ever read anything by or about Blumenthal, that they’d be in for nothing more than a hysterical, slanted, nonsensical account that obliterates all nuance in an effort to convince that Israel is a singularly awful nation—racist, violent, murderous—and therefore has little or no right to exist.

What It’s Like to Be an Atheist in Palestine

Waleed Al Husseini spent 10 months in Palestinian prison for being an atheist blogger. He asks why non-believers like himself are abandoned by the world.
Like many non-religious people around the world, I use the Internet to express my thoughts. It provides a relatively safe way of speaking freely, especially in a country where the vast majority believe in one religion and do not like to hear criticism. Or so I thought.
I used to run a blog in Arabic called “Nour Alakl” and ran a satirical Facebook page under the pseudonym “Allah.” But in October 2010, Palestinian security forces stormed into an Internet cafe and arrested me. Until then, I had been under the impression that I had a right to freedom of speech and to the freedom of belief. But in jail, I was told that my online statements about religion and Islam were illegal. I was told that society didn’t accept such criticisms.
I was beaten by prison guards who demanded to know who had made me write against Islam. In their minds, I could only say these things as the result of some plot, some conspiracy. The idea that I might simply want to express my independent thoughts was alien to them.
The 10 months I spent in Palestinian prison were the worse of my life. I faced constant pressure to retract my statements. I was told they had removed my blog and that I must apologize for publishing it. Even once I was freed, I was told I should never again use the Internet, nor meet with the media. (h/t Effect)

Belly dancer video causes "furor" in Egypt

From Al Arabiya:

Controversial Egyptian belly dancer Sama al-Masry sparked controversy once again this week after appearing holding underwear in her latest video clip.

In the clip, called “Ahmed, el shebsheb daa” or “Ahmed, I lost my slipper,” the singer appears in provocative clothes and holding underwear in her hands.

After the release of the video clip, many social media users reacted to the scenes.

“The only terrorism act is Sama al-Masry being on television,” one user wrote on Twitter.

The article didn't link to the video, so here it is.

It is certainly suggestive, as the dancer washes her undergarments on a rooftop in front of a weight-lifting macho Egyptian man.

The video itself is pretty horrendous, but it doesn't show anything that wouldn't be on the Disney channel. I think that Egyptian cinema in the 1960s was more risque.

You can expect to see larger than usual crowds of Muslims visiting the Temple Mount on Chanukah.

Arab media are buzzing about calls from Jewish groups to visit the Temple Mount on the eve of Chanukah next Tuesday and during the holiday as well.

So the Al Aqsa Foundation is calling on all Muslims to show up and block the Jews from coming on those days.

It is always interesting to see that the biggest incentive they have to convince Muslims to visit their "holy site" is to prevent Jews from visiting their holy site.

Well, maybe I'm no being fair. Here is a video taken last weekend showing young devout followers of Islam taking classes in the Al Aqsa Mosque compound on how to show their devotion to Allah more keenly.

12/09 Links Pt1: Israeli Stabbed at Brooklyn Synagogue; Palestinian sought Obama assassin

From Ian:

US calls on UNRWA to ‘uphold neutrality’ after call to boycott ‘Post’

The State Department is calling on personnel at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East to “uphold its stated policy of neutrality,” after its spokesman, Chris Gunness, called for a boycott of The Jerusalem Post last week.
“Our position on UNRWA and its important humanitarian role is very clear,” State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez told the Post. “It is imperative that all sides respect the humanitarian and development role of UNRWA. And we expect UNRWA personnel to uphold its stated policy of neutrality so that it can carry out its critical mandate.”
Gunness claimed impartiality in an article published by the Post last week, reacting with a series of tweets critical of the newspaper and its staff. The article was an op-ed, written by Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid.
One of those tweets called for a “boycott of JPost,” interpreted by the newspaper as a breach of its commitment to neutrality.
“We have been in touch with Chris Gunness, who has made clear that, in his tweets, he was not calling for a boycott against any media outlet but instead was making his objections to a single article that we all find problematic,” one UN spokesman said, responding to the incident.

Jennifer Rubin: What is a U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees doing in D.C.?

The U.N. Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act of 2011 included provisions to deal with longstanding concerns about UNRWA’s use of anti-Israel textbooks, anti-Israel rhetoric, association with Hamas members and employment of some 31,000 “refugees” (“presenting a clear conflict of interest”).
But a new issue is taking center stage. As Right Turn reported:
"Early last year it set up a D.C. “liaison” office. With whom is it liaisoning? Mostly Congress, it turns out. U.S. law forbids the United Nations from lobbying Congress, but as we learned with Newt Gingrich “lobbying” or a “lobbyist” is in the eye of the beholder. UNRWA employs two full-time staffers in D.C., both of whom have loads of experience on Capitol Hill. Chris McGrath is a former aide for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.); his boss, Matthew Reynolds, worked in legislative affairs for the State Department. I was assured no “lobbying” goes on, but they do meet virtually nonstop with lawmakers — appropriators are key — to answer questions about how taxpayer dollars are spent, why UNRWA’s work is important and how it makes sure money isn’t going to terrorists.
It seems American tax dollars are going, in part, to fund this office that in effect makes sure Congress doesn’t get fed up and cut off the money flow."

Palestinian sought to recruit Texas man to kill Obama last year, Israel Police say

An unnamed Palestinian man sought to recruit a US citizen to assassinate Barack Obama when the US president visited Israel and the West Bank in March 2013, Israel police said on Tuesday.
The American, Adam Livix, was indicted in Tel Aviv on Tuesday on a separate matter, for charges that include an attempt to buy plastic explosives from Israeli soldiers with the apparent intention of harming Muslim holy sites.
Israel Police said that Livix, who lived in Hebron and Bethlehem in 2013, was asked at that time by a Palestinian operative if he could assassinate Obama with a sniper’s rifle during the president’s visit, but he refused to do so. No reference to this allegation was made in the charge sheet released Tuesday.
Livix, a Christian from Texas who pretended to be a Navy Seal, is wanted in the US for questioning regarding drug violations and has been in Israel Police custody since November 19, the police said.
The investigation of Livix in recent weeks was carried out in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In Amnesty's latest hack job on Israel, they describe their methodology:

Amnesty International has been unable to send a delegation of researchers to visit the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the conflict. The Israeli authorities have refused, up to the time of writing this report, to allow it and researchers from other international human rights organizations to enter the Gaza Strip through the Erez crossing with Israel, despite the organization’s repeated requests since the beginning of the conflict to do so. The Egyptian authorities have also not granted Amnesty International permission to enter the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing with Egypt, again despite the organization’s repeated requests to do so.

Amnesty International has consequently had to carry out research remotely, supported by two fieldworkers based in Gaza who were contracted to work with the organization for periods of several weeks. They travelled extensively within the Strip, visiting every site described in this briefing, interviewing victims and eyewitnesses of every case recorded and taking photos and videos of the sites. Amnesty International studied relevant documentation produced by UN agencies, Palestinian, Israeli and other non-governmental organizations, local officials, media, and others who monitored the conflict, and consulted with them as needed, before writing the report. The organization also consulted on the interpretation of photos and videoswith military experts and extensively reviewed relevant statements by the Israeli military and other official bodies.

Amnesty hired local Gazans - people who live under Hamas rule and who have witnessed Hamas executing "collaborators" in the street - to objectively investigate the circumstances of events during the war.

What a surprise that they couldn't not find any evidence of terrorist targets in these buildings!

All those interviewed by Amnesty International said that they did not expect the whole building and its contents to be destroyed. Riad al-Holi said:

“We thought they would hit a floor or two, without bringing down the whole building. I think Israel is targeting the infrastructure. There are no resistance fighters in this complex; there are no open spaces for them to fire anything from. If the tradespeople had suspected anything, they would not have kept such large stocks in their shops.”

I was unaware that the Al Qaassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades put signs on the doors of their command and control centers with their logos so the surrounding businesses would know to evacuate the premises.

Amnesty lists the names of companies in that building, but has no idea what some of them are:

On the third floor, there was an engineering company belonging to someone called Tayseer Abu Jarad...On the fourth floor, there were several offices, including those of three companies named al-Ruwaq, al-Uthman and Abu Shamal.

If Hamas had a weapons manufacturing facility in the "engineering company," Fatah a communications hub in "al-Ruwaq" and Islamic Jihad a command center in "Abu Shamal," would Amnesty know that based on this incredible remote investigation?

Amnesty is the blind man next to the elephant, confidently announcing its conclusions on topics it doesn't even know enough to research properly to begin with.

I have said before that I am not happy with how long it takes Israel to respond to these charges and to explain the evidence that they have of why they target specific locations. But the idea that Israel was wantonly targeting civilian structures for no reason except to put "pressure" on Gazans to insist that Hamas stop the war - something which has never happened - is insane.

As usual, Amnesty knew what it was going to "report" ahead of time. The contractors were hired not to find facts but to find confirmation of Amnesty's pre-existing bias.

Even the title of the report, "Nothing is immune," is deceptive. Here is the section where Amnesty quotes it:

On the same day, Israeli news media reported that the Israeli security cabinet had decided to intensify the army’s operations by expanding their aerial attacks against a broader range of areas. An Israeli security official was quoted saying: “Areas from which rockets are being launched will be targeted in a severe and massive manner, even if this includes buildings with the assistance of which the attacks were being carried out.”9 Another security official reportedly stated: “Nothing is immune, even if a 14-story building has terrorist activity, the building will be damaged and will collapse.”
A senior military officer speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that Israel had adopted a “policy of striking at buildings containing Hamas operational centres or those from which military activities are launched. There is now a widening of locations that the military can target.” The official reportedly added: “Each strike requires prior approval from military lawyers and is carried out only after the local population is warned.”

What this means is that Israel was voluntarily holding back on hitting targets that were fully valid within international law up until that point, and decided to widen the scope - but still within the law. Amnesty cannot find any real evidence that Israel violated international law; instead it makes assumptions about proportionality and distinction that it is not in a position to make without mind-reading.

Notice how Amnesty uses the word "reportedly" here. In the original Independent article, the same official is quoted for all the things he says, none of his quotes are any less accurate than any other, but since he is saying something that exonerates Israel from the charge of violating international law, Amnesty has to add a qualifying statement that was not in the original.

If lawyers are consulted before each major airstrike - and there is no reason to assume they are not - then that means that the lawyers have far more information than Amnesty has in determining the value of the target and the methods allowed to hit it. Amnesty wants to cast doubt in the reader's mind about this very point, so it adds the dismissive "reportedly " (IDF lawyers also know international law far better than Amnesty does.)

And then, based on this highly skewed version of half-facts, Amnesty announces that Israel is guilty of war crimes.

In short, this shoddy, amateurish report is what we expect from Amnesty when reporting on Israel - bias over facts and slander over research.

On Friday, AP reported on a US document that listed the concessions that Iran supposedly gave to extend the nuclear negotiations:

The authenticity of the document was confirmed by three U.S. officials and congressional aides familiar with closed-doors discussions in recent days that have included top U.S. nuclear negotiator Wendy Sherman and Jake Sullivan, formerly Vice President Joe Biden's national security adviser.

The U.S. says Iran will further limit its development of new technology for enriching uranium that could be used for energy generation, as Tehran says is its objective, or for use in a nuclear warhead, which Washington and its international partners fear may be Iran's ultimate intent. It also seems to patch up what critics of last year's interim nuclear agreement described as loopholes on Iran's research and development of advanced centrifuges.

For one centrifuge model Iran has been working on, the U.S. says Tehran won't be able to pursue the industrial-scale operation needed for any "breakout" effort toward producing enough material for a nuclear weapon. For other models in the pipeline, Iran won't be permitted to feed the centrifuges with uranium gas or begin testing on a cascade level, which are needed steps in their development.

Iran also has agreed to turn 35 kilograms of higher-enriched uranium oxide stocks into fuel, making it unusable in the event Iran tries to secretly reach nuclear weapons capacity. That amounts for almost half of Iran's remaining stockpile of material that could in theory be converted into a form that is close to weapons-grade uranium.

In addition, the administration says Iran will grant international inspectors expanded access to its centrifuge production facilities, allowing the U.N. nuclear agency to double the amount of visits it makes to sites and to undertake unannounced or "snap" inspections. The monitoring aims to deter Iran from producing centrifuges for any covert facility.

Lastly, Iran will refrain from any other forms of enrichment, including through the use of laser technology. Last year's agreement halted Iran's progress on its gas centrifuge program, but U.S. officials feared the Iranians could experiment with other technology designed to do the same thing. Iran has attempted laser enrichment in the past, the U.S. believes, but now has committed to refrain from exploring it any further.

One other point, though:

There is no proof Tehran has agreed to or will follow through on the steps outlined,

Now, Iran is denying everything in the report:

In response to the AP’s initial report about the White House’s claims, a top Iranian official said that no further concessions have been agreed to by Iran.

“The conditions for extending the nuclear negotiations to July 1, 2015, were like the conditions reining the extension of the previous deadlines and no new undertaking has been added to it,” Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI,), told the country’s state-run media over the weekend.

Other Iranian officials also rejected the terms of the deal as presented to Congress by the White House.

“A source close to the Tehran-powers negotiations said that ‘this is not true at all and the trend of R&D on enrichment is moving along its natural track at the AEOI,’” Iran’s Fars News Agency reported.

So, who do you believe?

NewsMax reports something that, if true, makes the answer pretty clear:

Reza Kahlili (pseudonym for a former CIA operative inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards) wrote in The Daily Caller that Tehran has adopted a policy of "elongation" of talks with the United States and five other international powers (Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany) in which it prolongs the talks "as it develops nuclear weapons."

He quoted Alireza Forghani, a prominent strategist with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who explained in his blog last week that the negotiations with the six nations were "never supposed to be brought to a successful conclusion … whether positive or negative."

Forghani warned that soon he will promote the slogan "nuclear weapon is [sic] our definite right," and that there will be people in the streets demanding a nuclear-armed Iran. He hinted that these events would lead to the destruction of Israel, adding that this "is exactly what Almighty God wants."

He declared that soon the world will face "a nuclear Iran that not only has nuclear power, but also is equipped with nuclear weapons. Hence, Tehran will not negotiate with Washington anymore."

(h/t TIP)

The first sentence of an article in Ma'an by Nora Lester Murad, the founder of Palestinian NGO "Dalia Foundation," , pretty much sums up how Palestinian Arabs feel they must be treated:

"Palestinians have a right to request international aid, and donors have an obligation to provide it."

See? The world is obligated to throw billions of dollars to Palestinians, without question. Why? Because they have a right to it!

One part of the aid that they get rankles these NGOs.

"The policy of non-confrontation with Israel regardless of its actions conveys international acquiescence and contributes to Israeli impunity."

What does that mean? Look at the Dalia Foundation's petition where it mentions a numbers of issues that they have with international aid, among of which are:

"Anti-terrorism certification is unacceptable."

Meaning, when Westerners give their billions, they must not demand that their money is not used to kill Israeli civilians. Killing Israeli women and children is a human right, and by limiting funding to worthless things like peace and women's rights and feeding children, these donors are violating the basic Palestinian human right to murder.

And don't think I'm exaggerating. The Palestinians truly believe that they have the right to murder Jews. Their major proof is UN General Assembly Resolution 33/24, which says it "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle."

Oh, and by the way - these same people claim that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself, a position echoed by this writer when she asserts that US funding for Iron Dome is a violation of international law.

In short, Arabs have the right to kill Jews with impunity, and Jews have no human rights whatsoever, according to this NGO founder (who, of course, gets funded from European sources.)

The outrage is that these positions elicit no outrage.

UNRWA refuses to correct "2200 civilians killed" lie (UPDATE: Cover-up!)

On Friday, I noted that a speech given by UNRWA Deputy Commissioner-General Margot Ellis contained a major falsehood in a speech she gave.

Referring to the Gaza war, she said "This summer, around 2,200 civilians were killed in 50 days."

Perhaps she misspoke and she meant to say "people" instead of "civilians." Even that is problematic, because it would be equating the lives of the innocent and the terrorists in an attempt to inflate the seeming callousness of the IDF towards human life.

However, it is increasingly hard to give that benefit of the doubt. For one thing, this is the transcript of the speech as written, and one would expect that an official giving a major speech in front of a UN committee would be very careful with her words.

Moreover, UNRWA has refused to correct this.

I emailed to two UNRWA spokespeople on Friday. I tweeted spokesperson Chris Gunness multiple times as well.I know some of my readers also emailed about this. But the lie is still on the UNRWA webpage.

A newspaper would usually correct such an egregious error quickly, because newspapers want to appear to care about the truth.. If a UN organization refuses to issue such a clear correction, it appears as if they actually want to tell the world the lie that Israel only kills civilians.

When a UN organization is so willing to allow a anti-Israel lie be spread, and it does nothing to fix the lie, that goes a long way towards explaining why Israel can never trust the UN, and UNRWA specifically, to be fair.

UPDATE: In classic UNRWA fashion, they changed her remark to "people" it - but without admitting that they made a mistake to begin with.

Which means, of course, that they will never apologize for libeling Israel in the actual speech. Because why should a record of the speech reflect what was actually said to UN officials? Easier to change history and pretend that you never did anything wrong, just as UNRWA has done before.

This is the level of transparency that UNRWA has. And it is outrageous that an organization funded to the tune of over a billion dollars a year is allowed to act as if it has no obligation to truth and transparency.

(UNISPAL archives continue to include the offensive phrase.)