Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, January 05, 2015

01/05 Links Pt2: Mohammad Zoabi Breaks His Silence; The Miseducation of Chris Gunness

From Ian:

Mohammad Zoabi has posted his first message since being forced to leave Israel due to threats against his life for supporting Israel and the Jewish people.
Hello everybody.
First of all let me start by honestly, politely and simply saying: I HAVE MISSED YOU SO FREAKING MUCH!!!!!!!
Whew……i feel much better now..!
My dear friends, the last half year was not an easy period of my life. I had to hide, go under ground, keep a low profile like what if i have done a nasty crime.
I simply went and still going through things that teenagers rarely go through. And i do have to say that though i don’t believe that i have done anything wrong by showing my love and loyalty to my country Israel and its people, love makes me blind, and my lovely Israel with all its positive and negative sides blinded me and i was, still and will be ready to pay the price of defending and loving it!
Simply because its my country and i have no other! (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Eugene Kontorovich: Is the International Criminal Court biased against Israel?

In a prior post, I examined the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which contains an important provision directly designed to target Israel.
Now we’ll turn to the Court as an institution. In the wake of the Palestinian turn to the International Criminal Court, several commentators have argued that there is no reason to think the institution is out to get Israel. That is true. Of course, the Court has done so little in its twelve year history, that it is hard to say much with confidence about its inclinations and proclivities. And prosecutions of Israelis (nationals of a non-member state) would be a kind of activity the Court has never engaged in without the request of the Security Council, so there is even less data.
There is no reason to think the prosecutor or Court are eager for Israel/Palestine cases, and a lot of reasons to think they are not, given the disproportionate political headaches they entail.
Yet there is cause to think that the the Court is a most improper venue for sorting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, even absent any bias, the Court is structured in a way that cannot do equal justice, and is thus properly seen as a Palestinian tool against Israel. Moreover, recent statements by the Prosecutor give troubling evidence that she may be willing to replace legal analysis with the off-the-shelf views of the “international community” on the conflict.

The Miseducation of Chris Gunness

On November 6th 2014, investigative blogger Elder of Ziyon, who is well known for his efficient foot-work when it comes to revealing incitement on social media and the internet, discovered the following alarming story: In 2010, UNRWA announced that it would take excelling Gazan students to the United States, where they would visit New-York City and the US Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. According to the media, Hamas demanded UNRWA to cancel the “suspicious” tour. Apparently, the reasons for the cancellation were far more disturbing, as written by Gaza’s UNRWA union, on February 2011
Let me sum this up: Mr. Da’las, the Deputy Chief of Staff at UNRWA’s Gaza Union, released an official statement that is even more extreme than the statement made by Hamas. In this official statement, he rejects the offer to send Palestinian students on an educational tour to the US, because it includes a “fake trip” to a museum revolving “the alleged Holocaust,” where educators will “try to feed students concepts and ideas about the fake injustices suffered by the Jews” according to a “curriculum on so-called human rights.”
Is it possible that a curriculum that was consisted with Holocaust education content was rejected by a United Nations’ agency official because of a claim that the Holocaust never happened? Ever since this disturbing story was published, I have been trying to get a clarification from UNRWA’s spokesperson, Chris Gunness at the most popular arena of our time for media personnel and news sources to exchange ideas and thoughts: Twitter. I had a good reason to believe that I will get a proper reply since Chris Gunness owns a Twitter account, which he is using on a regular basis to post UNRWA-related updates and interact with others.

Menasseh Ben Israel by Rembrandt

Menasseh Ben Israel was a brilliant 17th century rabbi and theologian.

He was born a secret Jew in a Portuguese island off of Africa, baptized as Manuel Diaz Soeiro. The family fled to Amsterdam where his father renamed himself Joseph Ben Israel and named his two sons after Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Menashe (Manasseh.)

Manasseh wrote his first book on Hebrew grammar at 17 and became rabbi of a shul in Amsterdam at 18. He also started a printing press in the city, the first Hebrew press in Holland.

He became famous in the non-Jewish world by publishing, in Spanish, "El Conciliador:"

...a laborious enumeration and discussion of all the passages contained in the Old Testament which seem to conflict with one another. Manasseh brought his very extensive rabbinical knowledge to bear upon each of these, and wrote, in fluent Spanish, an exposition of the recognized Jewish method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies. The book was almost the first written in a modern language by a Jew which had an independent interest for Christian readers, and it accordingly gave Manasseh a wide-spread reputation in the learned world. Some of the best scholars of his time had correspondence with him—Isaac and Dionysius Vossius, Hugo Grotius, Caspar Barlæus, Cunæus Bochart, Huet, and Blondel; Anna Marie de Schurman consulted him. His Jewish acquaintance was even more numerous, and included Emanuel Frances, and the Buenos, Abravanels (relatives of his wife), Pintos, Abudientes, and Henriques. He corresponded also with Zacuto Lusitano, Daniel Caceres, and Diego Barrassa (to whom he dedicated one of his works), and assisted Joseph Delmedigo to publish a selection of his works at Amsterdam.

Ben-Israel was 27 when he published volume 1 of this work, on the Pentateuch. While he relied primarily on major Jewish sources he was not averse to quoting non-Jews in his works.

He then became known for being at the forefront of working to allow Jews to return to England after their expulsion in the 13th century.

From "The Occident and American Jewish Advocate" newspaper, May, 1845:

Menasseh Ben Israel’s Apology for the Jews.

Our readers are doubtlessly aware that at the time of the Protector Cromwell, Jews were prohibited from residing in England, having been banished from England by various royal decrees, and lastly by that of Edward I., in 1290. We extract from Lingard: “The sufferings, however, of this unhappy people were not yet at an end. In 1287, on an appointed day, all the Jews in England, without any distinction of age or sex, were arrested, thrown into prison, and confined till they had purchased their liberty by a present to the king, of twelve thousand pounds. Three years later, in 1290, their doom was fixed. The whole race was ordered by proclamation to quit the kingdom for ever, within the space of two months, and under the penalty of death. The number of the exiles was sixteen thousand five hundred and eleven, who were furnished with passports by the king, and allowed to carry with them a competent supply for the journey; but their houses and lands, treasures and debts, were confiscated for the benefit of the crown. It is said that during their passage, many perished through the hatred or rapacity of the mariners, of whom several were afterwards convicted, and suffered the punishment due to their crime.” This is merely one instance of what the Jews suffered; we shall probably give more hereafter, with some comments of our own. At present our object is merely to introduce to our readers the contents of the Apology of the celebrated Rabbi and physician Menasseh Ben Israel, who visited England during the protectorate, and addressed Cromwell upon the benefit which the country would derive by re-admitting the Jews within its boundaries. The existence of this document is generally known, but few we think have ever seen it. And as we wish to make the Occident the recipient of every thing of interest, we believe that we cannot communicate to our friends a more gratifying article than the one which we commence in this number. We retain the ancient spelling, and state merely at the same time, that from the appearance of the copy from which we transcribe, we deem it to be one of the original edition, say of the year 1655.—Ed. Oc.

To His Highnesse The Lord Protector of the Common-Wealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Humble Addresses of Menasseh Ben Israel, A Divine and Doctor of Physick, in Behalf of The Jewish Nation.

Give me leave, at such a juncture of time, to speak to your Highnesse, in a style and manner fitting to us Jewes and our condition. It is a thing most certaine, that the great God of Israel, Creator of Heaven and Earth, doth give and take away Dominions and Empires, according to his owne pleasure; exalting some, and overthrowing others: who, seeing he hath the hearts of Kings in his hand, he easily moves them whithersoever himselfe pleaseth, to put in execution his Divine Commands. This, my Lord, appears most evidently out of those words of Daniel, where he, rendering thanks unto God, for revealing unto him that prodigious dreame of Nebuchadnezar, doth say: Thou that removest Kings, and sets up Kings. And else-where, To the end the living might know, that the Highest hath dominion in Mans Kingdome, and giveth the same to whom he please. Of the very same minde are the Thalmudists likewise, affirming that a good Government, or Governor, is a Heavenly Gift; and that there is no Governor, but is first called by God unto that dignity: and this they prove from that passage of Exodus: Behold I have called Bazale’l by name, &c., all things being governed by Divine Providence, God dispensing rewards unto Vertues, and punishment unto Vices, according to his owne good Will. This the Examples of great Monarchs make good; especially of such, who have afflicted the people of Israel: For none hath ever afflicted them, who hath not been by some ominous Exit, most heavily punished of God Almighty; as is manifest from the Histories of those Kings, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezar, Antiochus Epiphanies, Pompey, and others. And on the contrary, none ever was a Benefactor to that people, and cherished them in their Countries, who thereupon hath not presently begun very much to flourish. In so much that the Oracle to Abraham (I will blesse then that blesse thee, and curse them that curse thee) seemeth yet daily to have its accomplishment. Hence I, one of the least among the Hebrews, since by experience I have found, that through Gods great bounty toward us, many considerable and eminent persons both for Piety and Power, are moved with sincere and inward pitty and compassion towards us, and do comfort us concerning the approaching deliverance of Israel, could not but for myself, and in the behalf of my Countrey men, make this my humble addresse to your Highness, and beseech you for Gods sake, that ye would, according to that Piety and Power wherein you are eminent beyond others, vouchsafe to grant, that the Great and Glorious Name of the Lord our God may be extolled, and solemnly worshipped and praised by us through all the bounds of this Common-wealth; and to grant us place in your Countrey, that we may have our Synagogues, and free exercise of our Religion. I nothing doubting, but that your Clemency will easily grant this most equitable Petition of ours. Pagans have of old, out of reverence to the God of Israel; and the esteem they had to his people, granted most willingly free liberty, even to apostated Jewes; as Onias the High Priest, to build another Temple in their Countrey, like unto that at Jerusalem: how much more then may we, that are not Apostate or runagate Jewes, hope it from your Highnesse and your Christian Council, since you have so great knowledge of, and adore the same one onely God of Israel, together with us. Besides, it increases our confidence of your bounty towards us, in that so soon as ever the rumour of that most wished-for liberty, that ye were a thinking to grant us, was made known unto our Countrey-men; I, in the name of my Nation, the Jewes, That live in Holland, did congratulate and entertaine their Excellencies, the Ambassadors of England; who were received in our Synagogue with as great pomp and applause, Hymns and cheerfulnesse of minde, as ever any Soveraigne Prince was. For our people did in their owns mindes presage, that the Kingly Government being now changed into that of a Common-wealth, the antient hatred towards them, would also be changed into good-will: that those rigorous Laws (if any there be yet extant, made under the Kings) against so innocent a people, would happily be repealed. So that we hope now for better from your gentleness and goodness, since, from the beginning of your Government of this Common-wealth, your Highnesse hath professed much respect, and favour towards us. Wherefore I humbly entreat your Highnesse, that you would with a gracious eye have regard unto us, and our Petition, and grant unto us, as you have done unto others, free exercise of our Religion, that we may have our Synagogues, and keep our own publick worship, as our brethren doe in Italy, Germany, Poland, and many other places, and we shall pray for the happinesse and Peace of this your much renowned and puissant Common-wealth.

A DECLARATION TO THE COMMON-WEALTH OF ENGLAND, BY RABBI MENASSEH BEN ISRAEL, SHOWING THE MOTIVES OF HIS COMING INTO ENGLAND.

Marc Shneier's blind spot on Muslim condemnations of terror (update)

Writing in The Washington Post, Rabbi Marc Schneier says:

Why don’t Muslim leaders speak out?

That question comes up every time terrorists purporting to be deeply religious Muslims carry out armed attacks that kill innocent people. Where, commentators ask, are the moderate Muslim leaders and why aren’t they decrying the horrors perpetuated by fellow Muslims?

In fact, mainstream Muslims are speaking out, clearly and consistently. Leaders around the world, many of whom I know personally through my work at the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, have issued strong and unambiguous statements virtually every time a violent attack has occurred, condemning such acts as immoral and counter to the fundamental precepts of Islam.

Yet somehow their responses are not being heard, barely registering in the public consciousness.

He gives examples of widespread condemnations by Muslim leaders, for example of the hostage taking in Australia and the massacre in Peshawar.

Schneier even says that Muslim leaders are condemning European antisemitism:

For example, after riots by a predominantly Muslim crowd in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles attacked a synagogue and Jewish businesses, the local Muslim Association sent a letter of solidarity and support to the vice president of the synagogue. National Muslim leaders took part in an interfaith ceremony that denounced the violence and called for reconciliation. French Council of the Muslim Faith head Dalil Boubakeur, who attended the ceremony, affirmed that the vast majority of French Muslims are not anti-Semitic. How could they be, he asked, when they themselves are battling racism?

To praise Muslim leaders for condemning a massacre of 130 children is faint praise indeed.

There is no political cost for a Muslim to denounce a massacre of children. There is no political cost for a Muslim leader outside ISIS-controlled areas to denounce ISIS. There is little downside for Western Muslim leaders to send letters of solidarity to Jewish victims of terror.

The question is how many Muslim leaders are willing to denounce Islamic-inspired terror, publicly and to their own confregations, when there is a political cost.

Some do. A wonderful example is Sheikh Samir Aasi, Imam of the main mosque in Akko (Acre), whose condemnation of the Har Nof synagogue attack resulted in one of his flock attacking his car with acid.

However, the emphasis on condemnations misses the point.

The fact is that the percentage of Muslims who support terror is not tiny. A significant number of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries think that suicide terrorism is sometimes or often justified.

This adds up to hundreds of millions of Muslims who justify terrorism.

When Westerners want to see Muslims condemn terror, it isn't "Islamophobic" as Max Fisher claims. They aren't demanding a mea culpa to Western audiences to demean Muslims. The desire to see Muslim leaders condemning terror is a response to the disconnect between how Muslims portray themselves to the West as being against extremism and the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims don't have a big problem with terrorism.

The point isn't soliciting condemnations. The point is the solve the problem of Islamic terror.

The question that needs answering is how can so many Muslims openly admit extreme positions worldwide without fear of being shamed by their own Muslim leadership.

If terrorism was as widely and thoroughly condemned in Islam as Rabbi Schneieir claims, then the Pew poll would show low single-digit numbers for each country's citizens supporting terror. The relatively high numbers indicate that there is a serious disconnect between what we are being told and the reality. Schneier is adding to that disconnect.

No one cares about the condemnations per se; what the world cares about is that the terror stops. Since the vast majority of terror attacks (and, now, antisemitism) are done in the name of Islam, it is reasonable to expect Muslim leaders to be in the forefront of fighting terrorism - not just condemning it but addressing it within their own communities and mosques, finding our root causes of how extremism makes it into their own communities and coming up with Islamic-centered solutions that can both convince the youth that terror is not acceptable and that can effectively defeat the ideological roots of Islamic terror.

If moderate Islam is the choice of the vast majority of Muslims, then that majority does have the responsibility to fix the problem with their extremist Muslim brothers. Condemnations are only a small, visible component of what needs to be a major, soul-searching effort.

That is what the world is not seeing.

I don't doubt that most Muslim leaders detest ISIS. But the fact is that ISIS emerged from their own belief system. And extremist ideologies like that of ISIS is offering something compelling for young people to want to join it. Perhaps it is the perception that extremism is aligned with piety, perhaps it is from years of being indoctrinated with the idea that Muslims are under attack and it is time for them to take revenge, perhaps something else. But this is not a problem that can be solved by non-Muslims. The responsibility lies with Muslim leaders, both in the first and third worlds. and like it or not, the rest of the world is not seeing the excruciating soul-searching and strategy that is a necessary component of solving this problem that is clearly in the heart of the Islamic world today, not peripheral to it.

(h/t EBoZ)

UPDATE: After I wrote this, I saw his article showing that Egypt's president gets it:

In a speech on New Year’s day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse.

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” he asked. “Impossible.”

Speaking to an audience of religious scholars celebrating the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, he called on the religious establishment to lead the fight for moderation in the Muslim world. “You imams (prayer leaders) are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

He was speaking in Al-Azhar University in Cairo, widely regarded as the leading world center for Islamic learning.

“The corpus of texts and ideas that we have made sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. You cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You must step outside yourselves and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.”

Here's part of the speech. (h/t Effect)

01/05 Links Pt1: Most Palestinians believe Israel wants to destroy Al-Aqsa; Fatah's Founding Myth

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords

1. The peace negotiation process as set out in the Oslo Accords was intended to lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinian People and mutual recognition of each other’s “mutual legitimate and political rights” (Preamble, Oslo I and Oslo II).
2. In this context Israel was prepared to compromise on the historic and legal rights of the Jewish People in the area, through agreement for peaceful relations. To this end the parties agreed in the Oslo Accords not to initiate or take any steps that will change the status of the territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations (Oslo II, Article 31(7)).
3. Yasser Arafat, in his September 9, 1993, letter to Yitzhak Rabin, declared that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”
4. This overall series of commitments and obligations constitutes a contractual framework of obligations between Israel and the Palestinians, signed as witnesses and guarantors by the King of Jordan, the Presidents of the U.S. and Egypt, the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation and Norway, the EU and endorsed by the UN.
5. By petitioning the UN, the International Criminal Court and international organizations to recognize them and accept them as a full member state, and by their unification with the Hamas terror organization, the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation.

‘Most Palestinians believe Israel wants to destroy Al-Aqsa’

Four months after Operation Protective Edge, Palestinian support for violence against Israel is at a peak, with most Palestinians believing that Israel has concrete plans to destroy the Muslim structures on the Temple Mount and replace them with a Jewish temple, a new Palestinian poll has found.
Khalil Shikaki, director of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), told journalists at the Jerusalem Press Club Sunday that Palestinian attitudes toward Israel have hardened more dramatically in the wake of Operation Protective Edge than after the two previous military operations in Gaza, in 2008 and 2012.
Fearful of Israel and distrustful of their own leadership, 43 percent of Gaza residents and 23% of West Bankers said they are seeking emigration abroad.
In a poll conducted by PSR among 1,270 Palestinians during the first week of December 2014, 86% of Palestinians said that the Temple Mount (known in Arabic as al-Haram al-Sharif) is “in great danger,” with 77% believing that Israel intends to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace them with a Jewish temple, and 21% opining that it intends to divide the plaza into Jewish and Arab domains, with a synagogue planned for the Jewish area.
Half the respondents believed Israel would succeed in implementing its plans.

Khaled Abu Toameh: What about Arab War Crimes against Palestinians?

And who ever heard of the case of Zaki al-Hobby, a 17-year old Palestinian who was shot and killed last weekend by Egyptian border guards? Had he been shot by Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border, the EU and UN would have called for an international commission of inquiry.
The stories of the Palestinians tortured to death in an Arab prison have also failed to win the attention of the Western media. Nor have the EU and the UN, which called for an investigation into the death of Abu Ein -- who died of a heart attack while in a confrontation with an Israeli soldier -- deemed it necessary to tackle the plight of the Palestinians being killed and tortured to death in Syria and other Arab countries.
As far as the Palestinian Authority is concerned — and the media, the EU, the UN and human rights groups — the only "war crimes" are being committed by Israelis, and not by Arabs who are killing, torturing and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians. And all this is happening while the international community and media continue to display an obsession only with everything connected to Israel.

Hamas TV justifies Hitler killing Jews - by comparing Hitler to Mohammed

From MEMRI:

During a December 28, 2014 Hamas TV show, Palestinian imam Sheik Iyad Abu Funun said: "If the Jews had been a respectable, well-bred people,... [Hitler] would not have done those things to them. ... Corruption is deeply rooted in that nation." Abu Funun, who in the past was sentenced to 29 years in an Israeli prison, was released in the 2011 Shalit prisoner swap. He was later rearrested after resuming his militant activity and expelled from Bethlehem to Gaza for ten years. Abu Funun delivers sermons in a Gaza mosque and recently began to moderate a show on the Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV channel, where he made the current statements.

Following are excerpts:

Iyad Abu Funun: The Europeans realized that if the Jews were to remain in Europe, it would lead to utter corruption, and so they wanted to get rid of them. The Jews are, by nature, a corrupt people, who sow corruption everywhere. Whichever land they came upon, they did their worst.

A logical question arises: Why did Hitler annihilate a number of Jews? The figure is still in dispute. Why did he do this? This is a major question. If the Jews had been a respectable, well-bred people, who treated others with respect, he would not have done those things to them.

Even in the days of the Prophet Muhammad – why did the Prophet Muhammad banish them? Because they initiated the aggression. The Jews of the Banu Qaynuqa tribe violated the honor of a Muslim woman, and killed a Muslim man. The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe committed acts of treachery. The Jews of the Banu Nazir tribe tried to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad. So we see that corruption is deeply rooted in that nation. That is why Europe wanted to get rid of them.

Europe and the Zionists could not take this land as long as the state of Islam existed. One of the most significant things I recall is that the Europeans offered the Zionists several places in the world – in Central Africa, Uganda, Niger, Brazil, Argentina, and elsewhere. They gave them a choice, and the Zionists said: "We want the Promised Land, Palestine."

Therefore, when the Austrian journalist Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, went to see Sultan Abdul Hamid, whom we are discussing today, he went in the capacity of a journalist. Imagine – when he conducted the interview with Sultan Abdul Hamid, He said to him: "How about you giving us Palestine, and we will pay all the debts of the Islamic State?" So this was no simple conspiracy. It was a conspiracy hatched by superpowers, and by the international community, as it is now known, against the Islamic state.

See? Hitler was just doing what Mohammed did, because it is all the Jews' fault for not being a "respectable, well-bred people!"

UNRWA's "Peace Starts Here" campaign silently dies

In 2010, to some fanfare, UNRWA launched a campaign called "Peace Starts Here."

Its flagship video, only viewed some 11,000 times in four years, uses the word "peace" a lot but never really defines what it means by peace. Not once is Israel mentioned and there is no indication that even one cent of this "peace" program is being spent on teaching Palestinian Arabs to co-exist peacefully with Israel.

Instead, UNRWA is calling all of its programs "peace" in order to raise money for the things it already does, which have nothing to do with the normal definition of peace.

If you don't believe me, here is how UNRWA itself describes the program. See if you can make any sense of it.

Isn't that clear?

To UNRWA, peace isn't what we normally call peace. Indeed, UNRWA spends no time or money on actually teaching its refugees that Israelis are normal human beings, let alone people to make peace with.

No, UNRWA knows that its funders lover the word "peace" so it plastered the word on top of programs that may be useful or interesting, but none of which promote real peace.

I don't know how much UNRWA spent on a series of about 18 videos showing off various programs that they all label "peace" - showing off a rehabilitation center or teaching breakdancing to Gaza kids. Each video must have cost tens of thousands of dollars. None of them besides the one shown above had over 10,000 views.

They all point back to a very slick "Peace Starts Here" webpage which also must have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Unfortunately, you can no longer visit this page. The domain has lapsed.

How much was spent on this colossal waste of time, effort and money?

Too bad that a UN agency funded by the world's countries isn't transparent enough to tell us.

There is no story too outlandish for Arab media to believe.

According to Sama News, a prisoner named Bashar al-Haroub was recently told by prison administration that he was going to a hospital for tests, even though he was not ill.

As he was leaving the prison, a guard asked him if he uses Colgate toothpaste.

When he woke up the next morning in the hospital room, he saw that the toothpaste in the room was Colgate. When he examined it, he noticed that the toothpaste did not look like normal toothpaste.

Instead of just leaving the potentially explosive tube on the counter, he brightly decided to squeeze the entire lethal product down the toilet.

When he went for his medical exam, the doctors asked him why he was there - there was nothing wrong with him.

Clearly, al-Haroub has told his lawyer, the Israelis tried to assassinate him with a James Bond-type toothpaste weapon in a hospital, where presumably all the doctors were in on the scheme so their post-mortem would never report the unspeakable toothpaste weapon that killed him.

“Any wrong action by Zionists would trigger a strong reaction by Iran.”

The latest threat by Iran to Israel, reported in Iran's Mehr News:

Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, who was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the ceremony to honor Martyr Gen. Taqavi on Sunday, said that given the capabilities of the resistance and Iran as well, “any wrong action by Zionists would trigger a strong reaction by Iran.”

On response to speculations on the media that Iran would deploy forces in the Occupied Territories borders with Zionist regime, Jazayeri asserted that there was no necessity for such deployment; “we are capable of effective damage on the Zionist regime when the situation demands,” he added.

It sounds like Iran has an ace in the hole: none other than Mohammed himself!

On holding military drills, notably that of Mohammad (SA) the Messenger of Allah in country’s southern coasts, he said that the scenarios of the drill had been successfully implemented, bringing good results, hoping that the drills would consolidate the strength of the whole system.

Mohammed is holding military drills in Iraq?

Oh, it is the name of a war game exercise. Yes, the most appropriate name for a war game exercise was "Mohammed, Messenger of Allah."

Hmmmm.

The funny part is, I'm sure that this is not a comprehensive list:

Today:

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat hinted on Sunday that the Palestinians might dissolve the Palestinian Authority and call on Israel to fully assume its responsibilities over the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In an interview with YNET, Erekat said that the Palestinian leadership would meet soon to discuss calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “to come and assume his responsibilities on the occupied Palestinian territories.”

November 2014:

Sources close to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have said that the politician asked the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, to pass along a serious message to Israel about his intention to dissolve the Palestinian Authority. Abbas allegedly made this statement during a meeting between the two politicians a few days ago in Ramallah.

Al-Quds newspaper quoted Palestinian saying, "President Mahmoud Abbas has grown quite angry at Israel's continued escalations and provocations in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He told the German Foreign Minister: 'enough is enough! Let them take the keys and manage the occupied Palestinian territories'. He is threatening to dissolve the Palestinian Authority".

April 2014:

The era of the two-state solution may soon be rocked by a decision that could signal its demise. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is mulling the merits of a proposal to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday morning.

Palestinian sources confirm that the government in Ramallah was considering the unprecedented move. Senior sources in the IDF's Central Command, who recently met with the heads of the Palestinian security services confirmed their West Bank counterparts were sincerely debating dismantling and disarming the PA's forces.

Officials in the Israeli administration have been informed of the dramatic threat, according to Palestinian sources.

June 2013:

President Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to dismantle the PA should US Secretary of State John Kerry fail to “salvage the peace process,” a senior PA official said Tuesday.

Hussein al-Sheikh, the PA minister for civilian affairs, said that Abbas has informed Kerry that the PA’s functional role would end if current efforts to revive the peace process did not succeed.

“Israel, as an occupying force, would then have to assume full responsibility [over the Palestinian population],” Sheikh told the PA’s Voice of Palestine radio station.

December 2012:

If diplomatic stagnation continues after the Israeli election and construction in the settlements doesn't stop, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will dismantle the PA and return responsibility for the West Bank to the Israeli government, he told Haaretz in an interview on Thursday.

"If there is no progress even after the election I will take the phone and call [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu," Abbas said. "I'll tell him, 'my dear friend, Mr. Netanyahu, I am inviting you to the Muqata [the PA presidential headquarters in Ramallah]. Sit in the chair here instead of me, take the keys, and you will be responsible for the Palestinian Authority."

"Once the new government in Israel is in place, Netanyahu will have to decide -- yes or no," Abbas said.

December 2010:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas threatened to dissolve the Palestinian Authority (PA) if Israel does not stop building settlements on occupied Palestinian land, he told Palestinian television before heading to Turkey and Athens.

"If Israel does not stop settlement building and if US support for the negotiations collapses, I will strive to end Palestinian self-rule in the occupied territories," he said.

"I cannot be the president of a non-existent authority as long as Israeli occupation of the West Bank continues," he said.

November 2009:

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has threatened to walk out on the struggling peace process between Palestine and Israel. Abbas announced he would not be running for election in January only a few days before other Palestinian officials claimed they were meeting in order to consider disbanding the authority. Internationally this has caused much dismay, as it strikes a blow to the fragile infrastructure of Palestine’s limited sovereignty as well as crushing hopes of further peace talks with Israel.

September 2008:

Rafik Husseini, the top adviser to the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, told The Sunday Telegraph that Palestinian politicians may take the drastic step of disbanding the authority if a lasting agreement is not reached during the current peace negotiations.

Such a move would mark the end of the US-backed talks launched with much fanfare at Annapolis last November, the report said, and put day-to-day Palestinian governance back in Israeli hands, almost certainly igniting fresh violence in the process.

July 2008:

Abbas vows to dismantle PA if Israel frees Hamas prisoners for Shalit

June 2007:

President Mahmoud Abbas will dissolve the Palestinian Authority's governmentThursday after fighting between rival parties Hamas and Fatah consumed the Gaza Strip and was expected to call for a state of emergency, sources close to Abbas confirmed to FOX News.

Medical workers in Gaza have gone on strike because they haven't been paid since the "unity government" took over seven months ago.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza (which is still Hamas, despite officially reporting to Ramallah) announced on Sunday morning that medical workers stopped all work in surgery, nurseries and intensive care units at all Gaza hospitals.

There are a lot of games being played between Hamas and Fatah, and putting people's lives at risk is just unimportant collateral damage in their political struggle. Until they can find a way to blame Israel, that is.

01/04 Links: Fatah website posts photo of Netanyahu next to noose with ICC logo

From Ian:

Alleged Islamic State terror cell arrested in West Bank

The cell members were arrested in November 2014 by operatives of the Shin Bet security service and stand accused of launching an unsuccessful attack against IDF soldiers and conspiring to kidnap and kill civilians and military personnel in the West Bank, according to a press release disseminated Monday by the security apparatus.
News of the arrests of the three men, Muhammad Zerrue, 21, Ahmad Shehadeh, 22, and Qusai Meswadeh, 23, was previously under gag order.
Investigators claim that Shehadeh intended to establish a militarized wing of the Islamic State group.
Shehadeh additionally admitted that he, along with Maswadeh, created multiple explosive devices and deployed one against IDF soldiers, causing no casualties.
The two also conspired to acquire an Israeli military uniform and rifle by killing an IDF soldier, with the intention of using the gear in shooting attacks, but later backed out of the idea. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Fatah website posts photo of Netanyahu next to noose with word 'soon' and ICC logo

Days after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Facebook page of his Fatah movement displayed a picture of Netanyahu next to a noose, with the word "soon," written both in Arabic and Hebrew.
The post also displayed the words International Criminal Court, with the body's scales of justice symbol.
Upon signing the Rome Statute on Wednesday, Abbas said that he intended to file war crimes complaints against Israelis. (h/t Jewess)

PA to Submit Request to Join Interpol

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has decided to join the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), an official told the Ma’an news agency on Saturday.
The head of the international relations and cooperation department in the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Interior told Ma'an that the PA plans to submit a request to join the group in 2015, ahead of Interpol's annual meeting.
Ahmad al-Rabie said that the PA submitted a request to join the Interpol in 2011 but that it was only accepted as an observer and not as a full member because it had not been recognized as a state at the time and did not have control over its borders.
This time, however, the PA is sure that 128 countries will vote in favor of the state joining Interpol, four above the required threshold, al-Rabie told Ma’an.
He said joining Interpol will result in several international benefits for the PA, including the ability to take part in fighting cross-border crimes and fighting terrorism, money laundering, corruption, arms trade, and human trafficking. (h/t Bob Knot)

There is an unspoken contradiction at the heart of western-left ideology that is eroding liberal values, rocking solidarity among the larger coalition, and undermining the integrity of the movement, as a whole.

Those of you familiar with my material know that I tend to focus on the progressive-left betrayal of its Jewish constituency along with the failure of its own central ideals.

A big part of that betrayal and failure is around the acceptance of political Islam as a rational player on the world stage. If it holds, this will be a significant Obama administration legacy. It is not that the Obama administration is the first American administration to sit down, on some level, with Islamists. This is obviously not the case. Rather, what distinguishes the Obama administration from the previous administrations is the enthusiasm and commitment brought to normalizing political Islam for world diplomacy and world consumption.

The Obama administration publicly supported the Muslim Brotherhood. The progressive movement supported the Obama administration. And the Jewish Left supported the progressive movement. In this way, even many on the Jewish Left end up supporting an American president who gave billions of dollars, as well as F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks, to a political organization, within a larger movement, that swears to overrun Jerusalem and murder the Jews.

Some will argue that the Obama administration opposes political Islam because it opposes the Islamic State (IS), but the Obama administration also supported the Muslim Brotherhood which is the father organization of Hamas and al-Qaeda.

So, the question that I am asking myself is, how is it that so much of the Left could end up supporting repressive, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, authoritarian regimes while turning their backs on the only country in the region where women have equality of opportunity and where Gay people can live without fear of persecution? I am hardly the first person to raise this question, but it is a good question and one that liberals need brought to their attention if they wish to have anything resembling integrity in terms of their foreign policies.

There are any number of ways to approach this topic, but I want to speak to it from the perspective of ideology.

The twin pillars of progressive-left ideology today are those of universal human rights and the multicultural ideal. Universal human rights means that our objective should be to advance social justice throughout the planet. We want people to live in freedom with governments devoted to democracy and to the well-being of their own people, everywhere. That is the broad meaning of universal human rights and it is, in fact, a noble goal.

Western progressives also believe in the multicultural ideal.

People from different cultures should be able to live cheek-by-jowl throughout the world in harmony and peace. Such a live-and-let-live arrangement would enrich all cultures through harmonious interaction and the sharing of cultural products. This is not an old-timey "melting pot" notion, but a popular contemporary outlook grounded in mutual respect for cultural distinctions.

While all of this sounds very nice, it simply has not worked out very well, unfortunately.

This is true mainly because Muslim communities, via the Islamist influence, particularly in Europe, are having none of it. European Islamists, if not the majority of Muslim immigrants into Europe, despise European culture and values and, make no mistake, universal human rights is unquestionable a western value.

Furthermore, European Islamists do not want to live under European sovereignty. What they want is cultural and legal independence from their countries of residence and these factors are beginning to rend European society as Islamists attack non-Muslims, and particularly Jews, throughout western Europe.

Those who lean toward the multicultural ideal generally find it better to let other cultures simply be what they are, but they do so with an uneasy conscience - if they have a conscience - and to the detriment of their twin ideal, that of universal human rights.

Thus the entire western Left ideological edifice struggles with itself and the multicultural ideal has won out in this more-or-less unacknowledged contest taking place just beneath the political surface.

Part of the problem is that the multicultural ideal is bolstered by people's experiences in the real world while universal human rights, as applied to people half a world away, is something of an abstraction. That is, as more and more of us are living in multi-ethnic communities the need for a live-and-let live attitude toward those communities is direct and immediate. However, the need to send in troops to save the Yazidi from the savages of the Islamic State (IS) or to insist upon women's rights in the Middle East, for two quick examples, is not immediate and is not usually of local community concern.

Whatever the reasons for the fact that the multicultural ideal has won out in its contest for the hearts and minds of progressives over universal human rights, however, no one should doubt that it has happened.

Let me give you a few examples.

Feminism, for one, is dead or dying and multiculturalism killed it or helped kill it.

Just ask Professor Phyllis Chesler. She'll tell you.

Feminism, as a political movement, gave up not only on universal human rights, but even on the rights of women outside of the white liberal west, almost entirely. In the 1990s feminists were perfectly comfortable speaking out against the Taliban and encouraging governments to take necessary action to ease the plight of abused women in the Middle East.

Those days are largely gone. Now we have prominent feminists like Naomi Wolf telling us that the burka actually represents sexual freedom for Muslim women. She wrote in a 2008 piece:

It is not that Islam suppresses sexuality, but that it embodies a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channelling - toward marriage, the bonds that sustain family life, and the attachment that secures a home.

I see.

So feminists have been telling one another that Islam is not oppressive of women in part because Islam's most privileged women tell naive and well-meaning westerners like Naomi Wolf that Islam is just terrific for women. Besides, who are these white, western, wealthy, women to tell women of color how they should feel about their own cultures? By what arrogant non-existent imperative do the daughters of the imperialist west have any right to tell non-white people what to do or think?

That is a very good question.

But, you can easily see how multicultural sympathies erode the will to stand up for universal human rights, in this case the rights of women throughout the Muslim world.

A similar argument can be made for the GBLT movement and its abandonment of Gay people throughout that part of the world, even as it castigates Israel, the only country throughout the region that is friendly toward people such as themselves.

Finally, the triumph of the multicultural ideal over that of universal human rights has had a terrible effect on the relationship between Jewish liberals and the western-left. At least partially due to the multicultural ethos many western liberals fear criticizing Arab societies - and fear being called "racist" if they do so - and this has opened space for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists to join the ranks of the progressives in exceedingly vocal ways thereby driving the conversation of the Arab-Israel conflict within left-wing venues.

There are only two groups of people free from the protection of multiculturalism within the western-left, white people and Jewish people. I, of course, happen to be both.

If the western-left wishes to remain true to its alleged values and if it wishes to maintain the loyalty and support of its various constituencies than it will need to find a way to balance the multicultural ideal with its alleged support for universal human rights.

Speaking strictly for myself, I do not see it happening, and am thus more than happy to distance myself from a political movement that supports political Islam - the single most violently racist political movement on the planet today - even as it hypocritically preaches to the rest us about anti-racism.

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.

How the Arabs added specifically anti-Israel language to the Rome Statute of the ICC

The list of war crimes enumerated in Rome Statute of the ICC includes a section that is directly aimed at Israel, and no one else.

From The International Criminal Court: the making of the Rome Statute : issues, negotiations and results by Roy S. K. Lee

Article 8(2)(b)(viii), on deportation and transfer of population, also generated extensive discussions. The provision now reads:

The transfer. directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.
The grave breach of “unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful continement" is already reflected in Article 8(l)(a)(vii). The violation in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) is based on the broader provision in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, now recognized as a grave breach in Article 85(4)(a) of Additional Protocol 1. The scope of these prohibitions is broader, as they govern not only the transfer of population of the occupied territory to other parts of that occupied territory or to places outside the occupied territory. but also the transfer by the occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory. The latter aspect was politically controversial during the negotiations. Israel was not a party to the Additional Protocol l, largely because of this provision, and emphatically disagreed that this aspect was part of customary international law. It stood, however, rather isolated in this position and was supported, to a certain extent, only by the United States.

During the December 1997 session, this provision generated heated debates, as a result of which four options were submitted for discussion at the Rome Conference.‘°' At Rome, it soon became clear that a large majority of delegations preferred a provision based on the wording of the Additional Protocol. However. the Arab delegations wanted to adapt this language. in order to make clear that an occupying power is not only responsible for this act if it deliberately organizes the transfer of its own population into occupied territory, but also if it does not take effective steps to prevent the population itself from organizing such a transfer. After some negotiations, the words “directly or indirectly" were added to this provision.

In other words,the drafting committee caved to Arab demands to expand the scope of existing international law specifically against a single state - a state that most of them were technically at war with..

Just for context, here are other crimes that the Rome Statute considers exactly as heinous as the crime of allowing one's citizens to voluntarily move to disputed territory:

* Intentionally attacking innocent civilians
* Intentionally attacking official people involved in humanitarian or peacekeeping missions
* Killing people who have surrendered
* Intentionally attacking churches, hospitals or museums for no military reason
* Subjecting the enemy to medical experiments or mutilation
* "Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy..."
* Intentionally starving civilians

Israel commented at the time:

Israel has reluctantly cast a negative vote. It fails to comprehend why it has been considered necessary to insert into the list of the most heinous and grievous war crimes the action of transferring population into occupied territory. The exigencies of lack of time and intense political and public pressure have obliged the Conference to by-pass very basic sovereign prerogatives to which we are entitled in drafting international conventions, in favour of finishing the work and achieving a Statute on a come-what-may basis. We continue to hope that the Court will indeed serve the lofty objectives for the attainment of which it is being established.

The deck is stacked against Israel at the ICC because its foundational document was partially the result of political, specifically anti-Israel move by her enemies.

A court whose rules are created not for the purposes of justice but for the purpose of revenge against a single state is flawed from the start.

Why is "Palestine"'s ICC application retroactive to June 13, 2014?

Here is the letter from Mahmoud Abbas to the ICC:

Why is the application requesting it to be effective retroactively to June 13, 2014?

Because on June 12, 2014, Palestinian Arab terrorists kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teens, Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah, from the supposed territory of "Palestine" which they claim to be part of "Palestine."

Which is a war crime under the Rome Statute.

So Mahmoud Abbas is saying that the application should only be retroactive to June 13, when Israeli forces started to frantically look for the teens still hoped to be alive. Because he isn't interested in justice - but he is interested in protecting his Hamas partner from being indicted for a war crime that they brag about..

The cynicism is breathtaking.

Not that Mahmoud Abbas is alone in this cynical use of dates to frame Israel as being guilty of war crimes without context.

The exact same thing was done by William Schabas, chair of the UNHRC investigation into the events of last summer - a mandate that explicitly excludes the kidnapping of the three Israeli teens but that includes Israel's response to the kidnappings by choosing to only investigate events from June 13th. .

Fatah claims that "skull" image was not done by them. OK, how about these?

And if you believe this one....

The political faction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas distanced itself from an image of skulls adorned with Jewish stars posted on its official Facebook page.

The image, posted Wednesday on the Fatah Facebook page, also displays a rifle, the Fatah flag and the words “lingering on your skulls.” It was posted on the occasion of Fatah’s 50th anniversary.

A spokesman for Fatah told CNN on Friday that the group was not responsible for the image.

“Fatah did not design this image,” Mahmoud al-Aloul said, who added that the person who posted it “is currently being asked to remove it. The image and the text do not reflect the opinions of Fatah.”

The image was removed after al-Aloul’s comments were made to CNN.

OK, then lets see what else is posted on the official Fatah Facebook page.

December 13:

December 15:

November 19:

November 19 (Fatah claims they are against rocket attacks)::

November 18, celebrating the Haf Nof synagogue murderers:

November 2:("non-violence")

August 2, one of the Fatah terrorists killed in Gaza when Fatah supposedly doesn't support violence anymore:

A parade of the "dismantled" Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror group in Qalandia, West Bank:

There are hundreds of photos that celebrate terror attacks, that say that Israel shouldn't exist, that glorify terror, that incite violence, that incite antisemitism.

Are these the official Fatah position? (Of course they are.) Will CNN ask them about that? (Of course not, they don't have piles of skulls so they are acceptable discourse for Israel's "peace partner.")