Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, January 26, 2015

Gaza minister ends boycott of Israeli products that never existed

Gaza's Ministry of Economy said Sunday that it would allow the entry of Israeli products into the Gaza Strip for the first time in five years.

Imad al-Baz, assistant deputy of the ministry, said soft drinks, clothes, coffee, and other Israeli goods would be allowed into the Strip.

"The last war led to the destruction of thousands of factories, which affected the production power (in Gaza), and to fill that gap we decided to allow Zionist products in," al-Baz said.

"The war damaged the production ability of factories and the nature and quality of the product, because some raw materials are not allowed in" due to the blockade.

"We decided to allow (Israeli) products to enter so that the market is not hindered and so products are available," al-Baz added.

But Israeli consumer products have been seen in Gaza continuously over the past five years.

Since a photo essay that I published in 2011 that showed everything from Israeli snacks by Osem to Chanukah gelt being sold, that same Metro Market in Gaza City has featured many Israeli items on its Facebook page.

Corn Flakes in 2012:

Chicken in 2013:

Ice cream and Krembo in 2014:

Laundry detergent in 2015:

Here is a 2012 video showing how many goods are able to enter Gaza and into this supermarket (including Israeli products):

So unless Gaza officials are loosening their restrictions on specific Israeli product categories that had been not allowed into Gaza (I wonder what Gisha thinks of that,) I don't understand what this announcement is about. There is no reason why coffee and clothing and soft drinks cannot be imported via Europe through Kerem Shalom while keeping Gaza clean of those Zionist products.

Another remarkable coincidence!

Last month, I noted that Gisha, the Israeli NGO that pretends to care about freedom of movement of people and goods to and from Gaza, had never said anything bad about Hamas.

This even though Hamas was routinely stymieing movement to and from Gaza, which is exactly what Gisha supposedly cares about. Specifically, I noted a widely reported story of how Hamas didn't allow some 37 orphans to leave Gaza to go to Israel, which Israel gave approval for.

I noted that Gisha, funded from European dollars, was taking an interesting position by ignoring Hamas violations of freedom of movement while concentrating on Israeli and (to a lesser extent) Egyptian restrictions.

Lo and behold, two days after I wrote my article, Gisha wrote its first extraordinarily mild scolding of Hamas for this same story. Although it couched it as a minor infraction compared to Israeli restrictions, Gisha reluctantly wrote:

According to the most recent data released by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 43.2% of Gaza residents are children under the age of 14, which is slightly more than 750,000 children. Around 1,500 of them are newly orphaned since the fighting last summer. Hamas’s decision prevented 37 of them from receiving a rare opportunity to leave the Gaza Strip, since Israel allows Palestinians to exit only if they meet a strict set of criteria. Most Palestinians who receive approval to exit are medical patients and those accompanying them, merchants and a handful of “exceptional humanitarian cases”. Given this, it’s unfortunate that Hamas officials also obstruct travel for political reasons.

"Unfortunate!" Oooh, that must have hurt! But it is important to protect your funding sources, and we cannot have European governments asking uncomfortable questions about why Gisha refuses to ever say anything bad about Hamas. Better to write the barest minimum possible against Hamas so if anyone does ask a question, Gisha can answer, "Look! See? We did it! We're objective! Please keep our funding going!"

Sheer coincidence that the first negative thing Gisha seems to have ever written on its own about Hamas (not quoting other sources) happened right after I pointed this out.

Hamas leader says "No Jew will ever enter Gaza"

Mahmoud Zahar gave a speech on Friday night, during a memorial for Hamas "martyrs" killed last year during Operation Protective Edge. It was widely published in Arabic media.

During the speech, after assuring families of the dead terrorists that Hamas will do everything necessary to "unconditionally liberate the land of Palestine," Zahar said that Gaza "would remain defiant of the Jews, and no Jew would ever enter it, whatever it costs us. "

Zahar forgot the rule to pretend that this has nothing to do with Jews and to always use the word "Zionists" as a substitute, even when referring to how evil "Zionists" have been for 3000 years.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Comic artists invoke Charlie Hebdo to support those who HATE freedom of speech

From JTA:

Dozens of comics artists signed a letter calling for a boycott against any Israeli entity that does not “promote freedom and justice for Palestinians.”

The open letter, cosigned by more than 80 individuals involved in producing comics, was sent out Wednesday to the organizers of an international festival for comics artists scheduled to open next week in France, and which is cosponsored by the Israeli company Sodastream.

In the letter, the authors wrote that they call for the Angoulême International Comics Festival to sever all ties with Sodastream, which has a factory in Ma’aleh Adumim – an Israeli settlement regarded internationally as illegal because it is situated in the West Bank.

Here is their open letter:

Statement of solidarity:

We want to express our grief and outrage at the slaying of five cartoonists, Wolinski, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous, Charb, among many others, at the Charlie Hebdo offices. These horrific acts of violence compel us to act even more urgently for a world where the dignity, freedom, and equality of all people are respected and promoted. We reaffirm that the Palestinian boycott movement is one important step towards that vision, and we hope that you will continue to join us in this movement.

Here are Palestinian Arabs in Ramallah and Jerusalem protesting against Charlie Hebdo's freedom of speech:

Palestinian Arab cartoonists also came out against Charlie Hebdo's freedom of speech. So did the Union of Palestinian Clerics in Gaza. So did the Greek Orthodox archibishop in Jerusalem. So did a group of Gazans who proudly screamed outside the French Cultural Center, "Leave Gaza, you French, or we will slaughter you by cutting your throats."

These are the people who the cartoonists want to show solidarity with.

In fact, you will not find a single rally in support of freedom of speech for Charlie Hebdo in all of the Palestinian Arab territories.

So how exactly do these cartoonists think that solidarity with people who are uniformly against freedom of speech is somehow a tribute to the memory of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who literally died upholding that principle?

Not to mention that the PLO was behind the murder of the most iconic Palestinian cartoonist, for lampooning Arafat's girlfriend!

Logic is not exactly the strong point for these cartoonists. They make it clear that it is Israel - not the "occupation," but Israel - that they are against:

Today, the Sodastream company proudly boasts of its factory’s location in the illegal settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which makes it complicit in the crime of military occupation. However, even if Sodastream, thanks in part to the pressure campaign launched last year, moved its manufacturing to the Negev (where Palestinian Bedouins are facing eviction from their ancestral lands by Israeli government’s Prawer Plan) it, and other Israeli companies and institutions, are part of a system built on the mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinian communities and sustained through racism and discrimination. It, and other Israeli companies, contribute to the economy of a state which conducted a brutal military assault against a civilian population in Gaza in the summer of 2014, resulting in over 2,100 deaths, including over 500 children.

Facts are also not exactly one of these cartoonists' strengths, as this paragraph shows. (Sodastream treats their Arab employees exactly like their Jewish employees; the Prawer plan has never been approved, the Gaza war was not against a"civilian population"....)

But bigotry against Jews, and only Jews, having the right to self-determination is clearly a major part of their agenda, all in the name of being against discrimination!

Their hypocrisy doesn't end there. Some of the cartoonists signing this letter would be jailed or lynched if they tried to publish their works in the Palestinian Arab territories. One of them draws what would be considered lesbian pornography (NSFW).

But their thought processes cannot go beyond the simplistic "We are against murdering cartoonists. We are against the only state in the region who wouldn't murder cartoonists. Therefore, the two positions must be consistent, evidence be damned."

(h/t Yenta and Ian)

Hasby Award for Best Watchdog - Arabic Media and NGOs

The Hasby Award nominees for Best Watchdog - Arabic Media and NGOs are:

MEMRI

NGO Monitor

UN Watch

Again, even though there were only three nominees, it was a very hard category.

And the winner of the Hasby is....

01/25 Links: France most dangerous for Jews; Official PA paper: Israel behind terror attacks in France

From Ian:

Howard Jacobson: Try ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ and you’ll find that America and Israel are not to blame for all the world’s atrocities

And so it has been these past few shameful weeks with the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Little by little, day by day, the “But Brigade” has turned its monosyllabic screw until the cartoonists become complicit in their own demise and their murder appals us a little less. Yes the requisite noises are made – free speech non-negotiable blah blah – but the “butters” are quick to invoke instances where we do negotiate it: anti-Semites removed from their positions, for example, anti-Semites not allowed to speak what’s on their minds. Funny how it’s always the freedom to be an anti-Semite the “But Brigade” protects. And finally, in justification of murder, the issue of provocation is wheeled out, though the concept of “asking for it” would not be entertained for a second if the crime were rape.
Pace the Papa, he who insults my mother might deserve a stern rebuke, but not with rocket launchers and Kalashnikovs. Nor does being rude to someone’s ma equate to criticising his beliefs. I thought we had long ago decided we are all fair game when it comes to the gods we choose to revere, whereas our mothers, like the colour of our skin, we are given. If the Pope has a vested interest in protecting religion from scrutiny, so does the “But Brigade” have a vested interest in drawing attention away from any atrocity that isn’t perpetrated by Americans or Israelis. Except that there isn’t any atrocity which isn’t perpetrated by Americans or Israelis, for who else is ever on the end of the chain of repercussion, extenuation and blame that begins with that malignant “but”?

Douglas Murray: I don’t want to live under Islamic blasphemy law. That doesn’t make me racist

But let us take a strain from this strained idea and pretend that Muslims constitute a tiny put-upon sect in France and Western Europe, and that for this reason anything which transgresses Islamic blasphemy laws must be recognised as the big guys (cartoonists) beating up the little guys (tens of millions of Muslims). If it is the minority component that is the issue then let us transfer this to a country where Islam does not constitute a minority. Saudi Arabia, say. Or Iran. Or Pakistan. What if a free-thinker were to publish a cartoon of Mohammed there? Would that be Myriam’s and Mehdi’s kind of satire? I cannot help thinking that they and all the other ‘context of these cartoons’ complainers would feel no happier about a drawing of Mohammed done in Mecca, Tehran or Islamabad than one drawn in Copenhagen or Paris. In the same way I can see them being little happier about free Western non-Muslims ‘insulting’ Mohammed if they also did this alongside making more jokes about the Holocaust.
Incidentally the Holocaust detour is a particularly fascinating one. Disturbing too, because it is surprising how many Muslims in particular have in recent weeks responded to drawings of Mohammed with the cry ‘But you can’t draw cartoons that upset the Jews or joke about the Holocaust.’ In saying this they not only confuse denial, diminishment or praise of the murder of six million Jews within living memory with a stick drawing of someone subsequently called ‘Mohammed’. They also give something away. Because although I am sure that Mehdi, Myriam et al are far too moderate to wish to start taunting Jews about the Holocaust, I cannot forget all those banners at anti-Israel parades in Britain where, for instance, the banners say ‘Stop the Holocaust in Gaza’ and so on. And I cannot help thinking that here too the selection of the Holocaust or Jews as the comparison is a little more revealing, or insinuating, than the speakers intend it to be. ‘Taunt my prophet and I’ll taunt your dead family’ is an interesting argument. But after the last couple of weeks I have come to the conclusion that there are more people than I had previously thought who wish to really get stuck in on the Jews and the Holocaust once they get the chance.
But like most other arguments against Charlie Hebdo in recent weeks what this boils down to is a scramble for a justification for why Islamic blasphemy law must be observed even in Western Europe.

Fatah statement urges ‘resistance’ to IDF, settlers

In a statement published on Fatah’s official website, the movement’s West Bank branch lambasted Israel’s decision to withhold tax revenue from the PA in the wake of the Palestinian UN bid, dubbing it an act of “theft” that “deprives our people of their daily bread.”
Fatah pledged its support for Abbas’s international attempt to isolate Israel, calling for “an escalation of popular resistance against occupation forces and settlers.”
Abbas has publicly criticized the armed intifada, or uprising, against Israeli civilians, but has endorsed “popular resistance” consisting of large-scale rallies, processions, and the boycotting of settlement products.
The new statement appeared to legitimize physical attacks against IDF soldiers and Israelis living in the West Bank, which have dramatically increased in recent months.

Reporter who broke news of Nisman’s death is on his way to Israel

Damian Pachter of the English-language Buenos Aires Herald left the country Saturday, the local journalism group Foro de Periodismo Argentino said.
Pachter told The Times of Israel on Sunday afternoon that he is on his way to Israel. Haaretz reported earlier that he is “planning to take refuge” in the country.
Pachter, who is Jewish and has Israeli citizenship, told a local internet site that “I left because my life was in danger. My phones were being monitored. I intend to return to Argentina when my sources tell me conditions have changed. I don’t think that will happen in the term of this government.”
The Buenos Aires journalism group said Pachter reported on Friday he was followed by unknown people and felt his safety was at risk but did not elaborate. (h/t Yenta Press)

Those of you who follow my writings or Jon Haber's blog, Divest this!, know that we have been conversing about Israel, the western-left, and the Obama administration for a number of months.

I don't want to call it a debate so much as a conversation between people with somewhat differing views, but with mutual concerns. A list of each of our contributions can be found toward the top of the right side bar at Israel Thrives.

My fundamental argument is that the Obama administration validated political Islam through supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of both Qaeda and Hamas and if not a parent organization of the Islamic State, certainly an ideological partner in praying for the extinction of Jewish sovereignty and self-defense.

While Jon agrees that I am not a political partisan, and we both understand that partisanship is not automatically a reprehensible thing, he also acknowledges that the Obama administration has been far too friendly to the enemies of the Jewish people.

In his recent piece entitled Partisanship, Haber writes:

But there is no disagreement that the current President’s choices: from cutting endless slack to Islamist foes of both Israel and the US to picking needless fights with the Israeli government, make it a perfectly reasonable choice for Jews who support Israel (which describes the majority of us) to refuse to vote for him.

According to Haber, Obama gave "endless slack to Islamist foes."

At this point it becomes difficult to know where we actually disagree.

At the end of the day, that is my fundamental point. It is my thesis in a nutshell, although we would need to determine just where slack ended and support began?

Jon, however, takes issue with the fact that I have sometimes characterized progressive-left Jews as people with their heads buried in the sand.

I must admit that Jon is correct and that I have resorted to my favorite ostrich image more than once.

I did so particularly in my Failures of the Progressive-Left Zionism series.

In those writings, I criticized the Jewish Left for refusing to seriously denounce political Islam.

I criticized the Jewish Left for demonizing their fellow Jews who live where neither Mahmoud Abbas, nor Barack Obama, want them to live.

I criticized the Jewish Left for constantly playing political defense, which is always an invitation for aggressors and a general sign of insecurity within one's own beliefs.

I criticized the Jewish Left for tending to support their enemies over their friends out of a misguided and self-righteous political altruism.

These are not in-depth pieces, but merely pointers to problems. That is all.

And, in truth, there are other reasonable criticisms that I am not even bothering with for the moment on the assumption that liberal Jews, such as myself, are rethinking - just as we are all continually rethinking - as political sands shift.

My only real discomfort with Jon's analysis is that he chalks up Jewish American support for Barack Obama, despite Obama's alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, to the fact that American Jews preferred Obama over his opponent on a broad range of issues beyond the Arab-Israel conflict.

While this is clearly true, why be content to leave it at that?

Haber writes:

Jews (like all Americans) were not casting a vote on each and every issue of importance to them, but were rather making a narrow choice between two individuals. And had the Republican candidate been more appealing in ways having nothing to do with Israel and the Middle East (as was Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984), who knows how the Jewish vote might have gone?

Even if I don’t expect to ever see a total party realignment of the Jewish public, I think it’s safe to say that the majority of Jews voted for Obama for the same reasons the majority of Americans did: they liked him better than the other guy.

We know that the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a variety of ways, including material and financial support. We also know that the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of both Hamas and al-Qaeda, if not the Islamic State, itself. The Brotherhood backed the Nazis during World War II and assisted many Nazis and friends of Nazis, such as Haj Mohammed Amin el-Husseini, in escaping the consequences of their behavior upon the conclusion of that war. In recent years Brotherhood leader, and ex-President of Egypt, Muhammad Morsi, supported calls for the conquest of Jerusalem among throngs of his supporters, both before and after his "election" and still maintained Obama administration support.

I do not know about you, but as someone who voted for Obama the first time around, I was absolutely horrified.

There is no question that Jon is correct when he notes that the majority of American Jews simply liked Obama more than the other guy. I, too, like Obama - as a guy to have a beer with - more than that other guy. Furthermore, on many domestic issues I very much prefer the Democratic agenda over that of the Republican agenda.

But however much I support a woman's right to choose an abortion, or however much I like Obama's idea for federal support to community college students, none of that can possibly outweigh my concern for the fact that there are 6 million Jews in the Middle East surrounded by 400 million Arabs who generally do not want them there and are often prepared to use extreme violence to make their case.

This is what I cannot get past.

The chance of any Republican administration in the United States rolling back abortion rights are virtually nil, yet such concerns are supposed to trump our concern for our own families in Israel?

I do not think so.

It seems to me that diaspora Jewry, as a group, tends to be very good about looking out for the well-being of others. For example, no other group in American history, aside from the Black American community, stood up more for Civil Rights during the 1950s and the 1960s than did Jewish Americans... although, I am not certain that you would learn this from the recent film Selma, which I am very much looking forward to renting.

In the United States, the Jewish people were almost universally behind abolitionism and nineteenth-century American progressivism, with its workers' solidarity and early union activity. By inordinate percentages Jews favored women's rights to suffrage, the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, Women's Rights, GBLT, environmentalism, and the rights of all ethnic minorities to equal treatment under the law.

We are among the most persecuted people within record human history and this is precisely why we tend to support movements for social justice.

But...

There must come a point wherein a violent and ongoing threat to the Jewish community becomes a primary concern.

My question is this:

In what ways do Obama administration support for political Islam, via support for the Muslim Brotherhood, advance the interests of either the American people or the Jewish people?

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.

Molotov cocktails were thrown at the guard stations at the Jewish community of Bet El on Saturday.

Another one was hurled at an Israeli bus south of Hebron.

Both of these incidents are so routine that the English-language Israeli media didn't even bother to report it. Both of these stories came from Arab media.

Arabic media also reported two other cases of Molotov cocktails being hurled over the weekend.

One was thrown at the home of a police captain in Egypt. Another was thrown at another policeman's car in Minya, blowing up the car.

Thankfully, there were no injuries in any of these cases.

But the Egyptian newspapers referred to both of the stories in Egypt as being done by "terrorists."

Of course, no one besides Zionists ever refer to Arabs who throw firebombs at Jews as being "terrorists."

But what else can you call someone who throws a firebomb at civilians?

On Friday, I noted that the New York Times sneaked in a new phrase in an article about Obama and Netanyahu, referring to the "1967 borders with Palestine" - a nonsensical phrase that the newspaper had never used before.

My piece was also published in The Algemeiner.

On Saturday, they changed it, as NewsDiffs shows:

Famously, many of those conversations have been deeply uncomfortable. The two leaders have often clashed on Israel’s determination to build new settlements, which Mr. Obama viewed as a way to sabotage peace talks. Mr. Netanyahu was accused of lecturing Mr. Obama in front of the cameras in the Oval Office during an angry conversation in May 2011, after Mr. Obama suggested that
~~the 1967 borders with Palestine~~Israel’s pre-1967 borders should be the starting point for peace negotiations. Later that year, after former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France complained in front of an open microphone that Mr. Netanyahu was “a liar,” Mr. Obama said, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”

That was the only substantial difference between those two versions of the article. But there was no acknowledgement of the correction, and of course the print version has the original nonsense phrase.

It is still wrong, of course: they weren't borders but 1949 armistice lines, never agreed to as border by the international community as UNSC 242 makes clear. But the NYT has erroneously referred to them as "borders" for decades as I showed in my original piece.

Newspapers that subscribe to the New York Times News Service still have the old phrase as well.

Miracle Allah Ear, 2015 edition

We saw it in 2007 with a baby born in Ramallah.

We saw it again in 2010.

Now, a baby in Bethlehem is the latest one with a malformed ear which resembles the Arabic word "Allah."

This is considered a miracle, unlike when Allah's name manifests itself on ice-cream cone logos (2005):

Or on athletic shoes (1997):

Even some Muslims make fun of CAIR for freaking out over Nike's logo which barely resembles the word Allah.

01/24 Links: Dershowitz: The Case Against the International Criminal Court Investigating Israel

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: The Case Against the International Criminal Court Investigating Israel

It is telling that Hamas has expressed satisfaction with the decision of the ICC to open an investigation of Israel’s military action during the recent war in Gaza. The hypocrisy of a terrorist group that boasts of its multiple war crimes expressing satisfaction that the victims of these war crimes are being investigated for trying to stop rocket and tunnel attacks, should be evident to any reasonable person.
More significant is the response of the US, which issued the following statement: “We strongly disagree with the ICC prosecutor’s action. The place to resolve the differences between the parties is through direct negotiation, not unilateral actions by either side.”
Ocampo acknowledges that the principle of “complementarity” precludes an ICC investigation of Israel unless “there are no genuine national investigations of the crimes committed under its jurisdiction.” I am familiar with the Israeli legal system and its mechanisms for investigating alleged war crimes. There is no country in the world with a legal system that is more responsive to claims made by victims of war crimes. At the apex of the Israeli legal system is its Supreme Court, which is widely admired by lawyers around the world. If it were to be ruled that the Israeli legal system does not provide the required complementarity to deny the ICC institution jurisdiction as “a court of last resort,” then no nation would pass that test. The United States will never, and should never, submit itself to the jurisdiction of an international court that does not regard the Israeli legal system as a satisfactory fulfillment of the principle of complementarity.
On balance, the decision to open an investigation against Israel at this time will harm prospects for a peaceful resolution of the conflict and will harm the credibility of the ICC. It is a serious mistake and should be rescinded.

The Folly of Partition: ICC Ruling Seals Fate of Gaza Residents

The ICC’s decision effectively rejects a century of Jewish reconciliation efforts: acceptance of partition, failure to annex and populate the West Bank, and the recognition of a new independent Arab entity in areas known until very recently as Judea and Samaria.
Tragically, partition has served the interests of neither Israelis nor Gazans. Quite the contrary, it has both condemned nearly two million people to a fate worse than death on one side, and placed nearly eight million people within range of rocket fire on the other.
Israel, a vibrant, thriving – if wildly imperfect – exercise in Middle East democracy, will weather the tempest being kicked up by a pack of lawyers in The Hague.
However, this is a dark day for those forsaken men, women, and children living under Hamas’ jackboot of hate and terror.
The ICC, by delegitimizing one sovereign nation’s right to defend itself, has granted the Islamist Jihadists cover to commit acts of exceptional barbarity inside the Gaza Strip – and unleash another wave of violence against Israel and its allies in the near future.

WH: Houthis 'Legitimate Political Constituency'

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has continued the Obama Administration’s whitewashing of radical Islamist groups, referring to the Houthis of Yemen as a “legitimate political constituency.” The Houthis’ slogan is simple: “Death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews and victory to Islam,” echoing similar slogans utilized by Shiite terrorists in Iraq and supporters of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, considered a terrorist group by the United States since 1997.
Psaki said, “The Houthis are a legitimate political constituency in Yemen and have a right to participate in affairs of the state. We urge them to be a part of a peaceful transition process. That said, we condemn their use of violence and are concerned by their non-compliance with agreements they have been signatories to.”
The White House has also whitewashed the Muslim Brotherhood; only last month the White House rejected a July petition signed by more than 200,000 Americans in a single month demanding the Obama Administration label the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Obama Will Not Attend 70th Anniversary of Auschwitz Liberation

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will represent the United States at the 70th anniversary ceremony for the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp on Tuesday—rather than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden—while other countries are slated to send their heads of state.
Tuesday’s ceremony will likely be the last major anniversary where a significant number of survivors of the Nazi camp are present. About 300 are expected to attend, and most of them are in their 90s or older than 100. Nazi authorities killed 1.1 million people at the camp, mostly Jews, which was liberated by the Soviet army in January 1945.
The New York Times reported on the foreign dignitaries that would be present:
"A preliminary list of those attending includes President François Hollande of France, President Joachim Gauck of Germany and President Heinz Fischer of Austria, as well as King Philippe of Belgium, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. The United States delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said he would not attend because his schedule was too crowded and because he had not received an invitation. Museum officials said no head of state had received one. Mr. Putin had attended the 60th anniversary ceremony in 2005 — it was Soviet troops, after all, who liberated the camp in 1945 — but relations between Russia and Poland have soured over the conflict in Ukraine."
Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in an email that, “President Obama will be in India, on a long-scheduled trip.”

Obama cuts India trip short to visit Saudi Arabia

President Obama has cancelled the end of his trip to India to fly to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the death of the country's king and growing instability in the region, U.S. and Indian officials said Saturday.
The officials said Obama will fly from India Tuesday, skipping a planned trip to the Taj Mahal.

01/23 Links Pt2: Europe Offers Israel the Peace of the Dead; BHL & Prosor at UN antisemitism conf.

From Ian:

Sarah Honig: Zionism and etrogism

The name switches of what until recently marketed itself as the Israel Labor Party offer fascinating insight into how Zionism has steadily lost its allure on the Israeli Left.
What began life as Poalei Zion – the Workers of Zion – in time it morphed into MAPAI, Hebrew acronym for the Party of the Workers of Eretz Yisrael. The next stage was adopting the generic name of Labor – doubtless borrowed from the British context. So far the trend is clear and straightforward.
But now comes the spin – under its latest leading light, Isaac (not Yitzhak) “Buji” Herzog, Labor (aligned with Tzipi Livni’s disintegrating list) has chosen to call its ticket the Zionist Camp. At first hearing this certainly appears to be the sort of affirmation that would gladden Zionist hearts. Here at last is the cause of Zionism ostensibly espoused proudly and unapologetically.
A true balm for the soul – or is it?

‘What You Saw Here Today Was Naked, Blind Antisemitism:’ NYC Councilman Slams Palestine Activists Who Disrupted Auschwitz Commemoration Debate

New York City Councilman David Greenfield fiercely denounced a group of antisemitic pro-Palestinian demonstrators who disrupted a Council meeting today, at the exact time that a resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was being discussed.
Moments after the demonstrators were escorted from the chamber by security guards, Greenfield, the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, began a speech that rapidly evolved into an impassioned discourse on the overlap between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews.
“While we were discussing a resolution regarding the murder of 1.1 million human beings – I will point out that 90 percent of them were Jewish, but the other 10 percent, they were political dissidents, they were Jehovah’s Witnesses, they were gays, those were the people who were being killed together at Auschwitz-Birkenau,” Greenfield declared, “while we were discussing that, they had the chutzpah, the nerve, the temerity, to unfurl a Palestinian flag and yell at us.”
Voice rising, Greenfield contrasted Israel’s open society with the repressive regimes across the Middle East, before asserting, “What you saw here today was naked, blind antisemitism.”
Greenfield said that the demonstrators had unfurled the Palestinian flag out of anger that “Hitler had not finished the job. He only wiped out half of my family.”
He concluded: “Shame on them for disrespecting the most diverse democratically elected body in the United States of America, and that’s why we go to Israel.”
Other councillors joined Greenfield in condemning the antisemitic disruption, which included the fringe group “Jewish Voice for Peace” among the participants. “City Council protesters today were so hate-filled and venomous that they strengthened our support for Israel, ONLY democracy in Middle east,” tweeted Councilman Mark D. Levine. Councilman Cory Johnson called the demonstration “incredibly disrespectful and offensive. Simply awful.”
Republican Councilman Eric Ulrich told the meeting that “to be pro Israel you don’t have to be Jewish. Israel is a vibrant democracy and I’m proud to go back to Israel again. I will not be intimidated by the hecklers. I will not sit here and allow people to attack the Jews.”

Councilman Greenfield Denounces Anti-Semitic Outburst in NYC Council Chamber

Yarmulke-Clad Swedish Gentile Reporter Attacked in Malmo (VIDEO)

Eighteen months after an intrepid gentile journalist strolled the streets of Malmo, Sweden wearing a yarmulke, in order to get a sense of how residents of the city view Jews, a new video suggests that the situation has only worsened, Israel’s NRG News reported Thursday.
In October, 2013, Patrick Reily, a journalist for The Local English-language newspaper, spent a day in the city of Malmö wearing the traditional kippah headcovering in order to see how passersby might react.
After an uncomfortable few hours walking the streets, and becoming the object of stares and insults, Reilly concluded: “As an Irish person abroad I’ve never felt remotely threatened, but wearing the kippah for a few hours was enough to instill feelings of fear. Even when I didn’t feel afraid I was made to feel different and unwelcome.”
This time it was Peter Lindgren’s turn to don a kippah and Star of David chain around his neck and head into town. The result: “He received direct threats as he walked through the city,” according to expressen.se.
Lindgren, walking with a hidden camera and microphone alongside, recorded every step. The report showed the reporter enduring verbal abuse by a man who called him a “Jewish s***” and told him to “leave.” Another person hit him and shouted “Satan Jew,” at him.

Danish police, officials praise a mosque that supports ISIS. Really.

The bar for praising Muslims has hit a new low.

From TheLocal.dk:

Aarhus's Grimhøj Mosque was once again thrust back in the spotlight earlier this month after the airing of a documentary in which mosque leaders said that they want to see an Islamic caliphate established, that they don’t believe in democracy and that a Danish convert who carried out a suicide bomb attack in Iraq is a hero.

The DR documentary led to a fresh round of political calls to shut down the mosque.

The week after that, mosque leaders said they were receiving so many threats that they felt the need to contact police for assistance.

Now the mosque is making news again, but this time it is because local authorities are praising its leadership for their role in slowing the stream of Danish Muslims who travel to Syria as foreign fighters.

East Jutland Police have previously said that around two dozen of the at least 110 individuals who have left Denmark to fight in Syria have come from Grimhøj Mosque. But a police spokesman said that only one person from the Aarhus area is thought to have gone to Syria in 2014 and that person had no association with the mosque.

“Grimhøj Mosque deserves a large part of the credit for the development that we can see in 2014. If you would have asked the mosque’s chairman a year ago, he would have said that it is a personal choice if one wants to go to Syria. Today, the mosque warns young people against it. We can see that the young people are listening,” East Jutland Police commissioner Allan Aarslev told Berlingske.

A radical mosque is being praised because it is not actively sending young people to join ISIS as fighters, even though it teaches them that ISIS is correct.

Another cringeworthy quote:

The head of Aarhus Council’s leisure and youth department also credited the mosque for discouraging foreign fighters and said that the calls to shut Grimhøj Mosque are misguided.

“Firstly, it will just confirm among the young [mosque members] that democracy is only for the majority. Secondly, our access to the radicalized environment will be different and it will be more hidden from us [if the mosque closes]. One must remember that the mindset won’t be removed just because you close a mosque,” Toke Agerschou told Berlingske.

Here's the history of this wonderful mosque:

Grimhøj Mosque has long been accused of promoting an extremist interpretation of Islam.

Representatives of the mosque travelled the Middle East in 2006 stirring up discontent over Jyllands-Posten’s publication of 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Those cartoons were laterrepublished by French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the target of a recent terror attack in Paris.

In July 2014, a video emerged of Abu Bilal Ismail, an imam at the mosque who is also featured in the documentary, calling on God to “destroy the Zionist Jews”.

Two months later, the mosque made international headlines after declaring its support for the terrorist group Isis, comments El-Saadidoubled down on in the recent documentary.

Oh, thank you Muslims for not sending your sons to behead people in Syria and Iraq! Because you are so damn moderate, you can feel free to preach that those beheaders are doing the right thing and that Jews should all die.

Does it get more condescending than this?

01/23 Links Pt1: Glick: Iran, Obama, Boehner and Netanyahu; An attack against coexistence

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Iran, Obama, Boehner and Netanyahu

Obama's message then is clear. Not only will the diplomatic policy he has adopted not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (and the ability to attack the US with nuclear warheads attached to an ICBM), but in the event that Iran fails to agree to even cosmetic limitations on its nuclear progress, it will suffer no consequences for its recalcitrance.
And this brings us back to Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu.
With Obama’s diplomatic policy toward Iran enabling rather than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, members of the House and Senate are seeking a credible, unwavering voice that offers an alternative path. For the past 20 years, Netanyahu has been the global leader most outspoken about the need to take all necessary measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, not only for Israel’s benefit, but to protect the entire free world. From the perspective of the congressional leadership, then, inviting Netanyahu to speak was a logical move.
In the Israeli context, however, it was an astounding development. For the past generation, the Israeli Left has insisted Israel’s role on the world stage is that of a follower.
As a small, isolated nation, Israel has no choice, they say, other than to follow the lead of the West, and particularly of the White House, on all issues, even when the US president is wrong. All resistance to White House policies is dangerous and irresponsible, leaders like Herzog and Tzipi Livni continuously warn.
Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu exposes the Left’s dogma as dangerous nonsense.
The role of an Israeli leader is to adopt the policies that protect Israel, even when they are unpopular at the White House. Far from being ostracized for those policies, such an Israeli leader will be supported, respected, and relied upon by those who share with him a concern for what truly matters.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Islamic State Deepens Grip in Future Palestine

According to Israeli security forces, dozens of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members in the West Bank have defected to the Islamic State in recent months. Their main goal, according to sources, is to topple the Palestinian Authority and launch terror attacks on Israel.
Some 200 supporters of the Islamic State, who held up Islamic State flags, took to the streets of Gaza City to protest the latest cartoons published by the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. They also chanted slogans that called for slaughtering French nationals, and burned French flags. Attempts by Hamas to impose a news blackout on the protest failed, as photos and videos found their way to social media.
The glorification of terrorists and jihadists by the Palestinian Authority, and the ongoing anti-Israel incitement by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, is driving many Palestinians into the open arms of the Islamic State.

Ben-Dror Yemini: An attack against coexistence

Make no mistake. This wasn't a terror attack against the occupation. This wasn't a national attack. There may have been such terror attacks in the past. No more. The terror attacks of the past few years are not attacks aimed at protesting a certain injustice.
Does anyone seriously think that the despicable terrorist used a long knife so that the Palestinians would have a sovereign state, prosperity, welfare, advanced education and human rights? Does anyone think that the vile terrorist is frustrated over the fact that the two states for two people solution has not been realized? Come on. Nearly all the attacks of the past few years are aimed at imposing Islam on central Tel Aviv, just like they are aimed at imposing Islam on central Paris.
The terrorist targeted bus No. 40 precisely because it represents Israeli normalcy. The normalcy of Israelis who go out to work every morning. The normalcy in which Arabs and Jews can live together despite everything.
This normalcy is irritating. It's not a simple normalcy. It's normalcy with numerous tensions and problems. But it's still normalcy. It can and should be improved. It's not that there is great harmony between the many different people who travel on the bus, but considering the lack of normalcy in every area in which this terrorist's friends gain their strength – and it's happening in too many places around the world – we should welcome what we have.

Dozens of Arabic media outlets are quoting FARS News saying that the deputy commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Hossein Salami, stressed that "all the targets of the Zionist entity are in the range of our missiles."

He then added, "All our [military] capabilities are at the disposal of the Islamic world."

Salami said "Our enemies are provoking division in the Islamic world ... They are trying to break our unity and [force us to increase] self-draining energies of the Islamic world rather than direct [this energy] to face colonialism and arrogance."

Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states should take him up on the offer of free weapons. It might come in handy for them. He just might not like the target so much.

This was just one of a series of threats that Iranian officials hurled at Israel this week. This FARS article has a roundup with a hilarious last sentence:

“This action (the Israeli attack) was the reflection of numerous defeats that both Americans and Israelis have suffered in their current strategies,” Lieutenant Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Brigadier General Hossein Salami said on Thursday.

He said their failure in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain made them understand that their existence is on the decline.

“They have seen IRGC’s reactions before, and (therefore) they are worried, and they will witness destructive thunderbolts in practice,” he said.

“They (Israeli officials) should be waiting for crushing responses,” Salami said.

On Tuesday, Commander of the IRGC Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari warned Tel Aviv of the devastating response of the regional resistance movements to Israel.

“The IRGC will remain steadfast on the path to the collapse of the Zionist regime of Israel through its continued support for the Lebanese and Palestinian combatants, but this time it supports will be on a scale larger than its supports during the 33-day and 51-day wars against the Israeli army,” General Jafari said in a message released on the occasion of the martyrdom of Allahdadi.

The Iranian top commander said resistance groups in the region would soon give a crushing response to Israel's Sunday raid.

“The Zionists must wait for the devastating thunderbolts of the anti-Israel resistance groups in the region," the Iranian commander warned.

Also, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces for Logistics Major General Mostafa Izadi underlined on Wednesday that the Israelis are and should be deeply worried about the crushing response that they will receive for killing several Hezbollah members and the Iranian military adviser in Syria.

"They thought that they will a get good result, but now they know that they will receive a crushing response and because fear and fright is intermingled with their nature, they make these remarks (that they weren’t aware of the veteran Iranian commander's presence among those martyred in Israeli air raid in Syria on Sunday). Muslim fighters will take a firm and powerful revenge for the blood of these martyrs," Izadi said in Tehran.

Izadi said that the assassination occurred in Syria which is not directly in war with Israel and their attack was carried out on purpose "and the Zionists' remarks are only desperate propaganda".

He also stressed that Iran merely plays an advisory role in Syria.