Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

"Be careful how we ask Allah to destroy the Jews"

From Sulayman Ushayhib Ali Al-Faqir, writing in Jordanian site Assawsana:

On every Friday, in all the (Hashemite) Kingdom’s mosques, at the end of every Friday sermon, we hear the dear preachers say “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who follow them/are friends with them”.

Truth be told, I have some reservations regarding this saying, but I think that we are cursing the Muslims and the Arabs.

When we interpret this sentence, cursing those who support/are friends with/allied with the Jews – well, we (Jordan) and some (Arab) countries have a peace treaty (with Israel). Therefore we must not curse ourselves, while we have diplomatic and trade ties (with Israel), security exchange (of information) and private visits.

As for the word “Jews”: it is the group that is now centered in the state of the Israeli entity in plundered Palestine. As for the word “muwalaa” (being friends with, allied to, close to), it means that you are friends with/allied with/close to them (the Jews) because of their deeds and their conduct, and you are content with their killing (of Arabs), their loathsome crimes against the Palestinian people, and we are silent in the face of crimes being committed from time to time against the innocent (Palestinian) people, who have no weapons and no state.

I hereby ask the Minister of Religious Endowments to instruct the dear preachers to change the sentence (“Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who follow them/are friends with them”) and say instead “Oh Allah, destroy the Jews because of their deeds”.

Every Friday, in every Jordanian mosque, there are calls for genocide against Jews! And the article implies that this is a decision from a Jordanian government minister!

In some science-fiction, alternate universes, this might be considered newsworthy.

A Google search of the phrase "اللهم عليك باليهود ومن ولاهم" "Oh Allah, destroy the Jews and those who are associated with them," gets 31,000 hits.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Hamas adds taxes to dozens of goods that come from the PA

The Gaza version of the Ministry of Finance, using PA letterhead, announced that it was adding taxes to 50 types of goods that are being imported from the West Bank through Kerem Shalom.

For example, a 15 shekel tax is being imposed on each kilo of honey.

It sure sounds like Hamas hasn't taken this "unity" thing that seriously, doesn't it?

Joseph Levine is an awful human being

What makes someone an awful human being? Apparently, this is a philosophical question.

Joseph Levine, a professor of philosophy writing in the New York Times, chooses to use his rhetorical abilities to defend the tweets of Steven Salaita.

He writes (I apologize for quoting such a lengthy excerpt, but it is necessary):

While many of Salaita’s critics in the media accused him of anti-Semitism, the main issue seems to be — at least in the language of the university’s explanation of it’s action — whether Salaita’s tweets violated a norm of “civility” that is supposed to govern academic and political dispute (at least within the academy). I am not concerned here with the question of whether or not it was right to rescind the offer; to my mind, it was wrong — a straightforward violation of intellectual and academic freedom. Rather, I want to explore the notion of “civility,” particularly as it relates to one of the controversial tweets.

Here is the tweet in question:

Let’s cut to the chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now you’re an awful human being.
11:46 PM – 8 Jul 2014

At that point, Israel had begun intensive bombing of Gaza, and quite a few civilians had been killed, including children. (By the time a cease-fire went into effect in late August, according to the United Nations, more than 2,100 Palestinians had been killed, over two-thirds of them civilians, among whom almost 500 were children; 11,000 Palestinians were wounded, 20,000 homes were destroyed, and 500,000 people over all were displaced. During this period 70 Israelis were killed, 64 of whom were soldiers, and one of whom was a child.) So, was this tweet an illegitimate breach of civility? I believe not in the end, yet I must confess to some initial ambivalence on the question. Here is how I resolved that ambivalence.

First, let’s separate some issues. One question concerns a moral evaluation of Israel’s actions themselves, and the other concerns an evaluation of the moral character of those who supported what Israel did. I myself am in complete agreement with Salaita about the first question. I can’t mount a full defense of this position here, but let me just say that careful attention to the actual sequence of events over the summer, alongside the vastly disproportionate violence visited on the trapped and totally vulnerable Gaza residents, renders the Israeli claim that they were acting in justifiable self-defense completely unreasonable. Note that holding and expressing that opinion was not by itself supposed to be a breach of civility. Rather, it was taking the next step and publicly indicting the moral character of those who supported the bombing that was the culprit.

Next, we need to determine whether what he said in the tweet is true — on the assumption, again, that the bombing was itself morally condemnable — and, in addition, whether it was a breach of civility to say it. Obviously, these two issues are intimately related. Imagine how you would react to someone who spouted overtly racist or anti-Semitic sentiments. Would civil engagement over the question be the appropriate response? Clearly, your judgment that you were dealing with a person of objectionable moral character would color your reaction as a decent person. Obviously, if Salaita had been tweeting instead about supporters of the 9/11 attacks as “awful human beings” no one would have been upset.

I locate the source of my initial ambivalence at precisely this point. While I shared his moral outrage at Israel’s actions, I balked at taking the next step and severely indicting the character of those who disagreed. I resolved my ambivalence by reasoning my way to the following twofold conclusion regarding the claim in the tweet: The claim itself is not true, but it ought to be, and that is the deeper truth that legitimates the breach of civility.

Why isn’t it true? Why doesn’t it follow from supporting morally monstrous actions that one is oneself a moral monster? Because the moral evaluation of character depends not only on what one does but also on the epistemic context in which one does it. In particular, we normally apply what we might call a “reasonable person” test. If a reasonable person, given the information available to her, including the evaluative perspectives available to her, could act a certain way, then even if what she does is in fact morally condemnable, that condemnation doesn’t carry over to her character as well.

By the information available I just mean the obvious — what she’s likely to know about the facts of the situation. But one brings more than just an opinion about the facts to bear in making a moral evaluation; one evaluates the facts from within a moral perspective, a system of values and a scheme of interpretation of the facts in light of those values. A person does not derive her moral perspective on her own, but develops it over time through her social interaction with parents, teachers, other role models and her wider social circle. This is why we judge racists today much more harshly than those who lived long ago; we expect more today.

Returning to Salaita’s tweet, we can now see why I claim it’s not true. Think about the average person who supported Israel’s attacks this summer. Someone who gets most of her information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the mainstream media, and generally identifies with the reigning ideology of current American political culture, will find severe moral condemnation of Israel’s actions difficult to accept. When most people around you, people who in their daily lives exhibit relatively virtuous character, espouse a certain point of view, it is difficult to entertain the possibility that they are radically mistaken. To the extent we take this into account, we are led to let people off the hook, at least with respect to our evaluation of their character.

But then this brings me to the second part of my answer: It ought to be true. Or rather, it ought to have been true, and I look forward to the day in which it is true. For if you let individuals off the hook in this case because they pass the reasonable person test, then you have to indict the social-political perspective from which such actions can seem moral and reasonable. No, these people aren’t awful, but what does it say about our society that we can support such an attack without being awful? What does it say that decent people can even entertain the kinds of excuses we hear (“but they were storing weapons near where those kids were playing”) without counting automatically as indecent?

...I can see two reasons for being so “uncivil” as to impugn his opponents’ moral character. First, there is just the need to express outrage at the state of our discussion on this matter. While the people targeted by the tweet are not actually awful human beings, it’s about time we came to generally see things from the perspective from which they certainly seem to be. Having to listen to justifications for bombing children can wear you down, even if you know very well where it’s all coming from.

But more important, expressing moral outrage in this way — intentionally breaching civility by refusing to merely engage in calm persuasion — is itself part of the very process by which social-political perspectives shift. If it ought to have been true that only awful human beings would support this attack, how do we move society toward that point? One way is reasoned argument, no doubt. But it’s also important to exhibit the perspective, and not just argue for it; to adopt the perspective and provocatively manifest how things look from within it. When you do that, something like Salaita’s controversial tweet is likely to come out.

I assert that by Levine's own definition, he is an awful human being and I am morally obligated to say so.

Let's look at Levine's example of a person who does not deserve to be treated civilly: "someone who spouted overtly racist or anti-Semitic sentiments." This is a person of objectionable moral character and therefore no longer deserves to be treated with respect, rather he should be treated with contempt.

I would submit that someone who lies about a group of people and builds an entire argument about why someone should hate them based on lies is essentially a bigot, and does not deserve to be treated with respect. Hence, it is proper to call him an awful human being.

Levine says "careful attention to the actual sequence of events over the summer, alongside the vastly disproportionate violence visited on the trapped and totally vulnerable Gaza residents, renders the Israeli claim that they were acting in justifiable self-defense completely unreasonable." Even if we accept that fact - and I most certainly do not - Levine has deceptively changed the parameters of the discussion from what a reasonable person might have known on the night of July 8 to what is known now.

On July 7, Gaza terror groups shot about 60 rockets into Israeli civilian areas. Hamas claimed responsibility for dozens of them, and other groups claimed the rest. (Israel had killed 8 terrorists overnight July 6-7.)

By the evening of July 8, Israel had responded vigorously, and killed about 20 people in Gaza. At the same time, Gaza groups increased their own rocket fire, and shot rockets towards Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as well.

This is what was known as of the evening of July 8. Clearly as of that moment, Israel's actions could not be called "vastly disproportionate violence" by any measure of the term.

Based on that information, which is the only information that was available, Salaita said that anyone who defends Israel is an awful human being. Levine is going beyond that, saying that anyone who doesn't think that such a person is an awful human being is lacking in moral character (or is, at best, brainwashed by the media - which is quite condescending.) He justifies this position not based on the state of knowledge as of the time of the tweet, but on his (still false) ex post facto feelings about the entire summer war.

Is this kind of deception that Levine is engaging in considered moral in his philosophical universe?

Given that he has not given any alternative action that Israel could do to defend itself, then we must conclude that Levine believes that:

A) Israel has no right to defend itself from rocket fire, and must allow its own citizens to be terrorized, injured and killed without response, and/or

B) Israeli actions are responsible for Hamas rocket fire, and Hamas has no responsibility for its choice to shoot rockets at Israeli civilians.

Both of those positions are fundamentally immoral.

For A), It is the basic duty of a state to defend its citizens, and it is immoral not to do so. For B), to regard Gaza militants as somehow lacking in normal human responsibility is to regard them as less than human, and therefore to be a bigot.

Since these are immoral positions, and as we have seen Levine is not above using irrelevant information to justify his position after the fact, Levine has proven himself to be an immoral person, and not deserving of respect. Or, in Salaita's words, he is an awful human being. And under Levine's rules I am obligated to say so.

Because I do not want to live in a world where Israelis, and only Israelis, are expected to stoically allow their friends and families to live under constant terror while their Jew-hating enemies plot to kill them. I do not want to live in a world where people with delusions of grandeur and in love with their own supposed philosophical brilliance resort to using deception to support their arguments because the actual arguments are so weak. I do not want to live in a world where philosophy professors assert in major newspapers, without the slightest actual knowledge, that the Israeli army chooses to target women and children just for the sheer hell of it. I do not want to live in a world where blowhards can simplify an entire war into a sickeningly biased narrative of one side firing huge weapons only at innocent civilians for no reason. Ignoring context and ignoring facts is what is immoral, and that must be denigrated.

Since that is the moral world that I want to live in, I must say that Joseph Levine is a sickening human being.

And by his own standards, he must support me saying so.

12/15 Links Pt2: Europeans Fund Anti-Israel Libels; The scholars who ban disagreement

From Ian:

Gerald Steinberg: Europeans Fund Anti-Israel Libels

There is a direct and causal connection between increased funding for political advocacy NGOs, mainstream media visibility, and support for the distorted Palestinian narrative. As a result of an increase in funds, Zochrot was able to go from a fringe group with virtually no impact to a major player, influencing others with its ideological and political perspective.
NGOs are important players in international politics and within the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular. In this case, Zochrot's ability to promote its agenda through the media and other venues is dependent on the funding it receives from foreign governments. This, coupled with unprofessional media reporting, promotes the group's propaganda and fuels the conflict.
Through the iNakba app, Zochrot gained a platform to promote a highly partisan, false perspective via journalists who accepted the narrative at face value and then acted as force multipliers for this agenda. This is the halo effect, in which the NGOs are perceived as reliable sources with moral authority and knowledge untainted by partisan politics at a time when they are actually partisan purveyors of a false historical narrative and executors of a political warfare that has reinforced Palestinian rejectionism and made peace ever more remote.

Elliott Abrams: The scholars who ban disagreement

The scholars defend themselves from criticism. They are moderates, you see:
"The … call for personal sanctions very specifically opposes wide boycott efforts and its backers are not worried about being lumped together with the BDS proponents who are widely regarded as working toward Israel's destruction. It is 'utterly different than anathematizing an entire category of persons like the academic boycott efforts,' Gitlin said. 'In this case there is a proper target, people whose activity is toxic and we think they need to be named.' 'This would provide a way of mobilizing votes against blanket boycotts but equally against the attempts to make the occupation irreversible,' Shafir said. 'It would allow us to find a place in the middle and remain distinguished from but remain part of the ongoing dialogue in a productive way that is protective of Israel's ties with the U.S., the world and liberal intellectuals.'"
They have a place in the middle, you see. "Liberal intellectuals" from Israel can travel, and this group of scholars will protect Israel's connection to liberal intellectuals around the world. Elected officials who do not share their liberal views (and actually may not even be liberal intellectuals at all!) have no such right to travel.
Nothing will come of this ludicrous idea, but it worth noting and thinking through. Here is a group of intellectuals who wish to apply this test to one single country on the face of the earth, Israel, a democracy -- but think themselves are in the "middle" and are "protective" of Israel.
As the saying goes, with friends like these …

UK: Hamas-linked Interpal Enjoys Mainstream Support

Oborne argues that working with Hamas is unavoidable: "it is almost impossible not to deal with Hamas, the ruling political party in the territory before the unity deal earlier this year, if you're a charity working there."
This claim, however, is demonstrably untrue. First, scores of British charities operate in the Gaza strip, but very few of their trustees find themselves starring in Hamas photo-shoots. Second, does having to "deal with Hamas" really include visits to the family homes and shrines of Hamas terrorist leaders?
In 2012, for instance, Essam Yusuf visited the homes of Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, a senior Hamas leader who once promised he would "kill Jews everywhere;" and Sheikh Said Seyam, who commanded Hamas's Executive Force, a militia that tortured and murdered Palestinian supporters of Fatah during Hamas's violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2006.
So what makes Oborne write a column for Britain's top-selling broadsheet in support of Interpal?
It is notable that just a few days before his Telegraph article, Oborne spoke at an event organized by Interpal to celebrate its 20th anniversary. His fellow speakers included Chris Gunness, the spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA]; Daud Abdullah, the former head of the Muslim Council of Britain; Oliver McTernan, a commentator who runs a pro-Hamas British group called Forward Thinking; and Jeremy Corbyn MP.
Among these speakers, there seems to have been a bit of mutual back-scratching. Interpal has pledged $500,000 for UNRWA, and Oliver McTernan and UNRWA were both quoted in defense of Interpal as part of Peter Oborne's Telegraph article. Jeremy Corbyn MP has sponsored and signed a number of Early Day Motions in parliament that praise Interpal for its "humanitarian work" and condemn the "damaging designation of Interpal" as a terror-support organization.

Our heroes at the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice are up on the latest technology. They even have an IT crime department where they jealously check out reports of bad behavior online and they swing into action.

From Arab News:

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Haia) has shut down 10,117 Twitter accounts during the year because of religious violations, its spokesman, Turki Al-Shulail, has revealed.

“Their users were committing religious and ethical violations. Haia blocked and arrested some of their owners. However, it was hard to follow all the accounts due to the advanced security used in this kind of social media,” he told the media.

“The IT crime department at Haia played a major role to close these accounts. Our unit is divided into two sections: The first receives reports and complaints from citizens and residents and the second one monitors and does follow-up operations through websites and software applications,” he pointed out.

Ahmed Al-Ahamri, a lawyer specialized in IT crimes told Arab News that Saudi law punishes IT-related crimes with prison sentences that may exceed five years as well as fines as high as SR3 million.

“The crimes include religious or moral violations via the Internet. The number of these accounts has increased during the last five years and there is a need to put an end to them and arrest the users who publish material against our religion and society,” he stressed.

Cairo police destroy "atheist cafe" as residents accuse it of Satanism

From Morocco World News, quoting Egypt's Youm7:

Egyptian police on Sunday reportedly destroyed a café of atheists in the Hay Al Abidine district in Cairo. During the destruction, residents who live near the café expressed their joy and denounced the atheists, local media reported.

Egypti’s Youm7 quoted the head of Hay Al Abidin Jamal Mohi as saying that the café was located on Avenue Al Falaki in downtown Cario, and “it was a resort for atheists and Satanists who were spreading wrong ideas about religion.”

Jamal Mohi went on to add that local authorities decided to destroy the café after they received many requests from residents who live the café.

“Residents said that each midnight, atheists and Satanists in the café would start performing sort of satanic rituals,” he explained.

Mohi also revealed that the local authorities destroyed the café amid local women’s ululations of joy.

On the other hand, decision to destroy the café angered some Egyptian social media activists, who condemned closing the café and considered it a violation of the freedom of beliefs.

Ayman Ramzy, an Egyptian atheist and social media activist, told El Wady News that that café does not impact the beliefs of the Egyptian citizens.

Ramzy went on to add that local authorities should worry about the critical issues that Egypt is facing, such as the growing number of homeless children, rather than violating the individual freedoms of Egyptian citizens.

He explained that the number of atheists is on the rise in Egypt due to the awareness of youth and the behavior of religious institutions.

It is worth mentioning that a recent study released by the Egyptian Dar al-Ifta (Fatwa House) revealed that Egypt has the highest number of atheists in the Islamic world, estimating their number at 866 people.

That "866" number is referenced in this related article:

No one in Egypt can agree on how many people live in Cairo, let alone the precise ratio of Muslims to Christians. But senior government clerics are quite sure of one thing: there are exactly 866 atheists in Egypt – roughly 0.00001% of the population.

This suspiciously precise figure means Egypt harbours the highest number of atheists in the Arab world, according to claims by Dar al-Ifta, an official wing of government that issues religious edicts, citing research released this week by a regional polling group. Morocco came in second, with supposedly only 325 atheists. Yemen is meant to have 32.

Religiosity is very high in Egypt, and across the Arab world. But the tiny estimates nevertheless prompted high amusement among atheists and secularists in Egypt, who say atheism is slowly on the rise. Even Dar al-Ifta’s definitions of atheism seemed comic. According to the clerics, atheists include not just unbelievers, but those who believe in a secular state, and Muslims who convert to other religions.

“They are in denial,” said Rabab Kamal, a spokesperson for The Secularists, a small but vocal group that lobbies for a secular state. “I could count more than that number of atheists at al-Azhar university alone,” she added, referencing the Cairo-based institution that is widely regarded as the seat of global Sunni learning.

“In pragmatic terms, you can’t make scientific studies about how many atheists or agnostics there are – we’re in a country where talking about ideology other than Islam is a stigma.”

Dar al-Ifta clerics say the number of atheists in Egypt is a dangerous development that should “set alarm bells ringing” – a stance that may surprise outsiders who imagined last year’s overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood constituted a stepping stone towards a secular state.

Wishful thinking again trumps reality in the Middle East.

(h/t Bob Knot)

12/15 Links Pt1: Police foil ‘pregnant’ suicide bomber plot; Islamic Terrorist Siege in Sydney Ends

From Ian:

Shin Bet, police foil ‘pregnant’ suicide bomber plot in Tel Aviv

A Palestinian terror cell planning a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv and other attacks was thwarted over the last several months, the Shin Bet security service said Monday.
Five suspects hailing from Jenin and the village Attil in the Tulkarem area of the West Bank planned to infiltrate into Israel by acquiring a permit for the female member of their group to receive medical care in Israel.
She was then to dress as a pregnant Jewish woman and detonate an explosive belt in Tel Aviv, the Shin Bet said in a statement.
The cell members admitted under Shin Bet interrogation to planning to carry out shooting attacks, detonate a mine next to a bus carrying soldiers, and kidnap a soldier as well, according to the internal security agency.
The five were arrested between October and November by IDF forces working with the Shin Bet and police, but the information was only cleared for release Monday.

HOSTAGE TAKING ENDS AS SYDNEY POLICE STORM CAFE AMID GUNFIRE

Police toting automatic weapons and lobbing flash grenades stormed a Sydney cafe early Tuesday, bringing to a dramatic end a 16-hour standoff in which a jihadist and murder suspect held an unknown number of hostages in a scene much of the world watched on television.
A series of explosions, believed to be gunshots and flash grenades, came just before 2:30 a.m. local time as several more hostages fled Lindt Chocolat Cafe, where a man identified as Man Haron Monis, an Iranian also known for sending hate mail to the families of fallen soldiers, was holed up with an unknown number of captives. The drama, which began early Monday, appeared to be coming to a dramatic resolution, as frenzied activity enveloped the scene that Australians had been watching on television for hours.
"Police and paramedics have stormed the building," the Sydney Morning Herald reported. "Dozens of continuous bangs and possibly gun shots have lit up the sky."
Several people were taken from the building on stretchers as an alarm rang and police in riot gear moved in and out of the shop, in the heart of Australia's largest city's business district. A bomb disposal robot was seen being deployed in the shop, though police said the standoff was over. It was not clear if anyone was killed or what had happened to the suspect. The handful of hostages seen fleeing as the explosions echoed through the predawn air followed escapes hours earlier by five captives.
Four of the hostages were seen being taken from the cafe on stretchers, while one received CPR at the scene, Sky News reports.

Speaking at Hamas' 27th anniversary parade, leading Hamas figure Khalil al-Hayya announced that Hamas would expand their "resistance" (meaning, terror) to the West Bank and Jerusalem.

During a speech that lasted over 30 minutes, al-Hayya said "We will do everything in our power to activate the resistance in Palestine, in the West bank and Jerusalem....Hamas, along with with the rest of the resistance factions, will activate the resistance in all of Palestine, and in the heart of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and will remain supporting Gaza until all of Palestine is liberated."

In other words, it was a Sunday in Gaza.

UPDATE: Even Russia Today noticed that Hamas called to destroy Israel.

BBC says that targeting Israelis disqualifies you from being a Jihadist (UPDATE)

The BBC reports:

The data gathered by the BBC found that 5,042 people were killed in 664 jihadist attacks across 14 countries - a daily average of 168 deaths, or seven every hour.

About 80% of the deaths came in just four countries - Iraq, Nigeria, Syria and Afghanistan, according to the study of media and civil society reports.

Iraq was the most dangerous place to be, with 1,770 deaths in 233 attacks, ranging from shootings to suicide bombings.

Civilians bore the brunt of the attacks with a total of 2,079 killed, followed by 1,723 military personnel.

The BBC lists 14 countries where Jihadists killed people.

Israel is not one of them.

So when Islamists kill people in churches or mosques, it is Jihad. But killing Jews worshiping in synagogues is
not.

The BBC offers their methodology:

While jihad is an Islamic concept which means ‘struggle’ and has both military and spiritual connotations, the term jihad-ism describes a political ideology; and while many Shia groups and individuals refer to themselves as ‘jihadists’ this count focuses on a particular movement categorised by Al Qaeda, its affiliates and those who subscribe to a similar philosophy.

 These jihadists believe that Islam is under attack – from the West, Israel, apostate Muslim rulers, and the Shiites –and that every Muslim must come to its defence.

 What differentiates jihadists from other groups and individuals that have justified violence in Islamic terms is their doctrine and long-term political vision. The jihadists’ aim is to create states or societies that are governed by an extremely narrow, puritanical interpretation of Sunni Islam known as Salafism (or Wahhabism).

 Salafi doctrine accounts for the jihadists’ aggressive hostility towards other sects and religions; their rejection ofman-made laws and democracy; and their enforcement of public morality, dress codes, and social norms.

 Many groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan – most prominently the Taliban – do not classify as Salafist or Wahhabist. They typically follow the Deobandi or Ahl e Hadith traditions, which are similar to Salafism in their emphasis on literalism and have developed more or less in parallel. For the purposes of this study we have included them as jihadist groups.

Some of the beliefs listed above are held by other Muslims but it is a combination of all of these beliefs along with the readiness to kill in the name of those ideas that defines jihadism in this count.

Only a minority of Sunni Muslims worldwide are Salafists, and only a small fraction of Salafists are jihadists. Jihadists,therefore, do not represent mainstream Islam, and their doctrine, views and methods are not shared by the vast majority of Muslims.

Pseudo-social science meets political correctness.

The BBC defines jihadism as Wahhabism/Salafism, except when they want to include others, but they certainly don't want to include Palestinian jihad groups - that's for sure.Above all, they don't want the readers to confuse legitimate jihad with violent jihad, or to mix up violent jihad against Jews with violent jihad against Christians and Muslims.

So we have a situation where a group whose nae is Islamic Jihad is not considered "jihadist."

We habe a situation where Hamas terrorists, who sign all of their press releases with "It is jihad, victory or martyrdom," are not considered jihadists.

Absurdly, the BBC pretends that the philosophy of the jihadists of Hamas who execute their enemies in the street and who slash the throats of Jews in a synagogue is somehow fundamentally different from the jihadists who are beheading people in Syria and Iraq. Sure they both want an Islamic caliphate that institutes Sharia law, and sure they want to kill the infidels and subdue the dhimmis, but, you know, Israel builds houses so they have a good reason to want to slash the necks of Jews.

It is obvious that the BBC created n arbitrary definition of jihadism in order to minimize the seeming threat of Islamists to the West and to exclude any Palestinian Arabs from the definition altogether, no matter what - even as they admit that jihadists hate Israel. And the fact that the BBC cannot face up to the real threat of Islamism even when purportedly doing research in the topic shows a great deal about how the fear of offending Muslims colors its reporting.

(h/t Stanley)

UPDATE: See also Israellycool.

One of the many offshoots of Fatah under the name of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has issued a statement denouncing Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas.

In a statement released to Karama Press, the group said that "the era of Abbas defeats and setbacks must end" and called for him to leave the presidency.

"After a long silence and giving many opportunities after opportunities to Mahmoud Abbas, he has failed and foiled all national goals and demolished and destroyed and brought havoc and corruption and has accomplished only repeated defeats and divisions on the internal and external level," he statement said. It also decried the "obnoxious security coordination with the Zionist occupation" and the "construction of dictatorship and authoritarian rule at the expense of national institutions."

The statement accused Abbas of turning Fatah into his own "private company and ignoring its internal regulations and programs and the spirit of militancy."

The group went on to accuse Abbas of "treason and trafficking holy blood and suffering of our people to our cause."

I could not find this on any of the Al Aqsa Brigades webpages I follow, but there are quite a few groups under that name. There is always the possibility that this is a hoax, since the original statement is only electronic and anyone could have forged it easily. These things happen; there have been a number of false documents that Hamas and Fatah have each used against each other.

At least four of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades groups claimed credit for shooting rockets at Israel during the Gaza war.

The split in Fatah between Abbas and Mahmoud Dahlan, on the other hand, is quite real. Dahlan still has a serious base of support especially in Gaza - his people reportedly participated in the Hamas anniversary rally this weekend - even as he is accused of corruption and has been cut out of Fatah in the West Bank.

Swedish Democrat head says Jews are not true Swedes (update x2)

From TheLocal.se:

The party secretary of the Sweden Democrats has suggested that migrants should be given a cash incentive to leave Sweden and suggested that minority groups needed to "assimilate" more to be considered true Swedes.

"It would be good with a repatriation grant," Björn Söder said in a lengthy interview with Dagens Nyheter.

When asked specifically if migrants in the southern city of Malmö should be given money to return home he stated that he was not against the idea.

"Yes, and that is good. We must make it easier for those considering moving back to their own country. Then we'll be in a better condition to create a society of common identity."

Elsewhere in the interview Söder mentioned Jews, Kurds and Sami people as examples of groups that may have Swedish citizenship but, in his view, can't be considered true Swedes if they don't "assimilate" into Swedish society.

"We are for an inclusive society where everybody who wants to can fit in. We have an open Swedishness which also includes people with foreign roots. But you have to adapt to the Swedish and assimilate in order to become Swedish," said Söder.

He added; "I think that most people with Jewish origin who have become Swedes leave their Jewish identity behind. But if they don't it doesn't have to be an issue.

"You have to differentiate between citizenship and national affiliation. They can still be Swedish citizens and live in Sweden. Sami and Jews have lived in Sweden for a long time," he said.

His remarks have not gone down well with the chairperson of the Swedish committee against anti-Semitism, Willy Silberstein.

"I am Jewish and born in Sweden. I am just as much Swedish as Björn Söder. There is an us and them mentality which I think is a characteristic of the party.

"We should remember that the Sweden Democrats come from Nazi organizations."

Since this is a right-wing party, the story might get some traction in the media, unlike when Muslims say antisemitic things.

(h/t Marcus)

UPDATE: A number of people are writing to me that his words were twisted, and that the SD party has been the only one speaking out against antisemitism in Malmo. See the comments. I can't pretend to know the situation well and the possibility of media manipulation is always quite real, but it is still arrogant to declare who is and who isn't a true Swede and to put Jews who lived in Sweden for generations in a position to have to continuously prove themselves as "true Swedes."

UPDATE 2: Björn Söder responds in a letter to Haaretz:

In a biased article in one of Sweden’s largest newspapers, Dagens Nyheter, some of my statements were dramatically taken out of context to erroneously credit me opinions that do not correspond with reality. Politically biased journalists and political opponents have further distorted the statements resulting in a presentation virtually the complete opposite of my actual statements and opinions. This is now distributed in the international press, such as in Haaretz, which therefore necessitates a clarification on my part.

I represent the Sweden Democrats, a social conservative party on a nationalistic/patriotic foundation which views value conservatism and the maintenance of a solidarity-based welfare model as the most important tools in building a well-functioning society. We are also Sweden’s most ardent pro-Israeli party, strongly opposed to Sweden’s recognition of a Palestinian state as well as any aid to the Palestinian Authority as we do not wish to be associated with financially aiding terrorism in any way.

Along with a Jewish colleague on a trip to Israel in the spring of 2012, I visited among other places Samaria and the Golan Heights to obtain an understanding about the situation for the Jewish people in Israel. I also visited the Knesset and met several Israeli politicians. Those who know me are well familiar with my strong commitment to the State of Israel and the Jewish people. To then be accused of the direct opposite is outright insulting.

The Sweden Democrats advocate a policy of assimilation, which means that immigrants coming to Sweden should be expected to adapt to Swedish society. In my conversation with the DN journalist I discussed the fact that Sweden currently recognizes five national minorities, which are exempt from these requirements. These minorities are Sami, Roma, Sweden Finns, Tornedalers and Jews. Common to these minority groups is that they have lived in Sweden for a prolonged period of time and that they represent groups with a pronounced affinity. They have a religious, linguistic or cultural background and a desire to preserve this identity of theirs. They thus constitute their own nations within the Swedish state.

We distinguish between nationhood and citizenship. For this I have been criticized, but I am certain that you in Israel make this same distinction. Of course not all Israeli citizens are Jewish and the same certainly applies in Sweden.

Naturally there are some people from these minority nations who have, partly or fully, joined the Swedish nation by adapting a Swedish identity. I personally have relatives who have Sami and Jewish backgrounds but who would not consider themselves as anything other than Swedes.

When asked whether one can simultaneously be both Jewish and Swedish, I did not respond “no,” though this is exactly how it was portrayed in the Swedish press. I replied that I believe most people of Jewish origin that have become Swedes (as in becoming a part of the Swedish nation) may have partly abandoned their Jewish identity in some cases. I emphasized, however, that whether they do or not, it does not pose a problem since they have lived in Sweden for so long and they are in fact part of a recognized minority. This enables them to continue living here in Sweden with their Jewish nationhood and Swedish citizenship. The same applies to the other recognized minority groups. Some Jews in Sweden are Jewish strictly in a religious sense while others are also Jewish in a national and cultural sense.

I have defended our recognized minority groups, including the Jews, as having the right to maintain this unique societal position, as compared to other minority groups in the country. To this end I have now been attributed various political viewpoints that are foreign to me.

Bjorn Soder
Secretary-General for the Sweden Democrats
Second Deputy Speaker of the Swedish Parliament

Yemen Akhbar reports that the Sanaa, Yemen Office of education has decided to change the days that schools are off from Friday/Saturday to Thursday/Friday.

The reason? Because the Houthis who have been taking over Yemen demanded it, since Saturday is a day of "foul Jews and infidels."

Houthis had already managed to do the same in the province of Dhamar.

Iran openly supports the Houthis in Yemen, where they are acting the same as Hezbollah in Lebanon by taking over large parts of the territory and seizing political power.

12/14 Links: On journalists, political conflict and NGOs; ISIS, the Joker, and Tom Friedman;

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Proportionate response

When someone initiates an attack against you, a proportionate response is said to be one that suffices to prevent further attacks. When critics of Israel’s response to thousands of Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza during Operation Protective Shield accused it of a disproportionate response, they were mainly referring to the fact that fewer Israelis than Gazans died in the conflict, ignoring the fact that such deaths were the unavoidable result of Israel’s attempt to defend itself and to halt terrorist attacks.
The IDF’s counterattacks were undertaken with caution that included efforts to minimize civilian casualties, even warning possible collateral victims before responding to a Hamas barrage. In military terms, the achievement of a more or less binding cease-fire after 50 days of strife is proof that Israel’s response was indeed proportionate: it stopped the violence.
Would that things were so clear-cut in the world media’s treatment of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. This is dominated by biased attacks on Israel that reflect another kind of disproportion: one that focuses on Israel’s alleged misdeeds while ignoring far greater crimes against humanity by numerous other nations.

Gerald Steinberg: On journalists, political conflict and NGOs

As a critic of human rights NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have often seen this preferential relationship in action. Friedman’s article confirms the intense efforts to keep the research that I and NGO Monitor publish from getting into the media, and into the hands of policy makers. We now know that in 2009, the AP’s Jerusalem bureau chief, Steve Gutkin, issued a formal ban on quoting me and NGO Monitor. According to Friedman (and confirmed by another ex-AP reporter), “In my time as an AP writer moving through the local conflict, with its myriad lunatics, bigots and killers, the only person I ever saw subjected to an interview ban was this professor.”
Highlighting the deep fear of exposing the NGO-media alliance, Friedman’s article was subject to a number of counter-attacks. The Columbia Journalism Review – the bastion of journalism’s power elite – immediately ran a column attacking both Friedman and NGO Monitor, repeating the political labels and false allegations against both of us. This response, and the lack of basic fact checking at CJR, inadvertently provided a blatant example of the problems and failures in media coverage of Israel. The fact that the author, Jared Malsin, worked for the Palestinian wire service Ma’an between 2007 and 2010, was omitted. The editors of CJR also refused to even respond to my submission on the NGO-media alliance. Like the AP’s official ban, and the New York Times in practice, this “prestigious” publication on journalism censored the criticism.
In democracies, journalists enjoy a privileged position as the embodiment of a free press, enabling them to criticize powerful actors, and to help the public make informed decisions. But when the media itself promotes the unchecked power of political groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, and suppresses criticism of these NGOs, democracy is ill-served.

ISIS, the Joker, and Tom Friedman

Thomas Friedman quoted a Batman movie to prove his point, but all Tom proved was that he didn't understand the movie.
“I warn you, he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you: He really is an idiot!” — The Joker, Arkham Asylum
A friend drew my attention today to a recent column by New York Times resident joker and professional stuffed shirt Thomas Friedman, in which Friedman cites a scene from Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight as a metaphor for the fight against Islamic terrorism.
As I read the column, I grew intrigued — because for a brief moment, it seemed as though the generally clueless Friedman had experienced a genuine epiphany. But by the time I reached the end of the column, I realized that it was a false alarm: The metaphor that he cited (which he says was referred to him by Orit Perlov) was indeed strikingly apt, but Friedman himself completely failed to grasp its meaning.

As many of you know, Jon Haber of divestthis! and I are having an ongoing discussion around the relationship between the Jewish people, the State of Israel, and the western-left.

The heart of my argument is that the progressive-left, and the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party, has forsaken its Jewish constituency through accepting and encouraging anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of its larger constituency.

I fail to understand why this should be acceptable to any self-respecting Jewish person, most particularly any self-respecting Jewish liberal... which I proudly count myself as one.

Jon argues that just as the mid-twentieth-century Marxist-Leninist "Hard-Left" sought to impose itself on the broader American Left through ideological bullying - and the more blunt kind - so today's BDSers insist that opposition to Israel - which is, in effect, opposition to the well-being of the Jewish people - is a prerequisite for admittance into the progressive-left knitting circle. In this way we both agree that the Left represents the political ground upon which the fight against anti-Semitic anti-Zionists takes place in the west today.

Jon writes:

So if this is the nature of the battle being fought, are we doing ourselves a disservice for condemning a Left that might include the inheritors of an anti-Communist tradition (my emphasis) that is trying to find a way to apply lessons learned in the 20th century fight against Marxism to our current conflict...

My response to Jon's question is this:

Should we not acknowledge the obvious due to fear of offending allies who are already behaving less and less like allies? The implication of Jon's question if answered in the affirmative - that, yes, we do ourselves a disservice by condemning the Left - is that we must be careful not to offend.

In Jon's most recent criticisms at Divestthis!, What’s Left? – Arguing with Mike, he takes two issues with my recent argument. The first is with my usage of Barack Obama's 2011 United Nations speech to illustrate the President's overall hostility - whether conscious or not - to Jewish nationalism through his embrace of political Islam and thus, by logical necessity, of Islamic anti-Zionism. In that speech Obama compared anti-Semitic, homophobic, misogynistic Islamists - raping and rampaging their way through the "Arab Spring" - to the Sons of Liberty and to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s.

I understand that this was not the President's intention, merely the case.

Jon agreed that Barack Obama's comparisons were foolish, but argues:

this was just one of many daft things said during the heyday of Arab Spring fantasies. And while I admit that the invocation of a sacred civil rights icon to describe what was happening in the Middle East seemed inappropriate even then, I’m hesitant to use such a statement as the basis of a critique of even the Obama administration, much less “The Left” that the Obama administration is supposed to be representing in Mike’s argument.

For there are all kinds of indictments one can bring to the current President’s foreign policy...

Indeed, there are any number of indictments a person can bring, but for the moment, I am only bringing this one.

My central indictment of the western Left in the United States is that it supported an American president who not only claimed a profound respect for the "Arab Spring" but went about providing US tax dollars and heavy weaponry, such F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

To do what with, I wonder? Defend against Libya?

For those of you who may not know, the Brotherhood has been around in Cairo since the 1920s and is the parent organization of both Qaeda and Hamas. The Brotherhood sided with the Hitler during World War II and helped Nazi refugees, including the murderous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, to escape Europe after the war. Al-Husseini promised Hitler that once the Nazis crossed into Palestine he would implement The Final Solution to the Jewish Question on Jewish soil.

Furthermore, during the 2012 election campaign of Mohamed Morsi, the Brotherhood held a rally in Tahrir Square, with Morsi in attendance, in which tens of thousands of people, if not more, screamed for the bloody conquest of Jerusalem.

And, yet, still Barack Obama stood behind the Brotherhood.

And, yet, still American Jewry stood behind Barack Obama.

So, yes, there are any number of indictments or complaints or grievances that someone can level against Obama's foreign policy, but the one that primarily interests me, at this moment, is the fact that he literally supported political Islam and we let him get away with it. Remember, I write this as someone who was a life-long Democrat - if that concept makes any sense - and who voted for Obama on the first go-round.

Jon's second point is this:

The other point Mike made that I take issue with is the notion that we must decide between criticizing the Left for the fact that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism dwells within its ranks (which it obviously does) or staying mum out of fear of offending potential allies within that end of the spectrum.

Jon argued that perhaps we do "ourselves a disservice for condemning a Left that might include the inheritors of an anti-Communist tradition..."

All I am saying is that we should not be afraid to criticize.

I do not "condemn" the Left. Hell, I come out of the Left and my positions, if you go down the list, are still largely on the Left. What I have for the Left is not condemnation, but criticism which they mainly refuse to address or consider. The progressive-left and the Democratic Party in the United States are indifferent to the interests of its Jewish constituency. The reason this is so is precisely because we fail to strongly criticize them when we should. One obvious example was voting Barack Obama a second time even after he stood with the Muslim Brotherhood.

We can no longer afford to allow the Democratic Party to take American Jewry for granted.

Every generation of American Jews has given the Democratic Party its wholehearted support since FDR and FDR was not even a friend to the Jewish people. Vice President Henry Wallace noted in his diary that FDR thought that Jews needed to be scattered around the globe so that we might be assimilated into the larger world demographic and thereby made to go away, i.e., "to spread the Jews thin all over the world."

When the Democratic delegates to the 2012 National Convention cannot even bring themselves to affirm a voice-vote recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, you know that it is at least time to stop kissing Democratic feet.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.