Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Iraqi militants seize synagogue, plan to turn it into their HQ: report

Iraqi media are reporting that militants have seized a major synagogue in Amara.

The militants are said to have cut off all the streets leading to the synagogue and prevented journalists from filming or writing any reports relating to the subject. Reports say that the terrorists destroyed the bulk of the temple, claiming that that the synagogue will become the headquarters of the militants in southern Iraq.

There are fewer than ten Jews remaining in Iraq, the end of a community that was over 2500 years old.

From Courthouse News Service:

One of the most recognized participants in Mideast peace process, Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi testified that she met with the late Yasser Arafat "hundreds of times" during the wave of violence known as the Second Intifada.

They spoke often those days about trying to stop the terrorist attacks that the Palestinian Authority stands accused of perpetrating, Ashrawi told a New York jury on Tuesday.

...Several family members of the victims of these attacks, represented the Israeli legal organization Shurat Ha'Din - which has been involved in several similar lawsuits - allege that the more mainstream Palestinian governing bodies encouraged the violence through personnel, payments and propaganda.

They submitted internal Palestinian Authority records appearing to link employees to bombings, pictures of Arafat and his successor embracing militant leaders, and financial papers of so-called "martyr payments" to incarcerated attackers and their families.

Providing a starkly different view, Ashrawi told the jury that she "tried to appeal to everyone to stop the violence" as "morally abhorrent," in town meetings and public statements.

...On cross-examination, Yalowitz emphasized - and Ashrawi agreed - that none of these events excused killing innocent civilians.

In a steady stream of questions, Yalowitz asked whether harboring, paying, glorifying and providing safe harbor to terrorists was "morally unacceptable."

Ashrawi answered each time that it was.

Ashrawi is on the record as justifying terror.

In 2000, she said “In a sense, the army of occupation and the settlers have become legitimate and select targets of Palestinian resistance.”

Ashrawi's NGO, Miftah, has praised female terrorists as shining examples of Palestinian Arab feminism - and it still has articles on its site that praise female terrorists such as Dalal Mughrabi as recently as 2013. Other articles justify suicide bombings of Israeli civilians.

The idea that Ashrawi discussed with Arafat how to stop the suicide attacks that he ordered is absurd..

But lying is not new for Ashrawi. For example, she has said that the Israeli soldiers who were lynched in Ramallah in 2000 were really part of "death squads" and that the PA policemen who were involved in lynching them were really trying to protect them.

One year ago, Israeli authorities demolished a synagogue for building code violations. "Rights groups" were silent.

On February 12, 2014, Jerusalem authorities demolished a building for violating building codes.

It was a synagogue.

The synagogue itself, run by Rabbi Avital Maimon, wasn't illegal, but a balcony built above it was too large, and that balcony was on top of the synagogue roof. So the synagogue was destroyed, even as members of the city council tried frantically to delay the demolition to find a solution.

Jews bitterly complained that dozens of illegally built mosques are left untouched in Jerusalem because of "tolerance" but this Jewish house of worship was destroyed.

The story didn't make it into the English-language press.

Because it was only a synagogue that was destroyed, not an Arab house..

I looked at the archives of the site "Rabbis for Human Rights" for February 2014, and could not find a single article about the demolition of a synagogue, even while they have dozens of articles about Israel demolishing illegally built Arab homes.

The impression that these "rabbis" want to give is that Israel only destroys Arab homes, and that Israel's assertions that the buildings are built illegally is a lie.

This story shows that they are the ones who are lying. And the fact that they did not want to publish a word to defend a synagogue being demolished shows that they aren't rabbis in any real sense of the word.

This unreported story proves that Israeli authorities will demolish buildings that violate building codes no matter who the owner is.

The fact that it was unreported shows that there are many people who do not want the truth that might disrupt their anti-Israel memes to be revealed.

02/10 Links Pt2: Jews are Indigenous: Why Israel Advocacy Fails; French Exodus Underway

From Ian:

Jews are Indigenous: Why Israel Advocacy Fails

So why do those who care about indigenous rights not support a native people’s right to live on its ancestral lands?
Both liberal and conservative Israel advocacy organizations in America are doing it wrong. Every time they portray Israel as a Western country, identify Jews (even indirectly) as white people while simultaneously referring to our ancient national culture as a “religion” or speak in a mannerism which would suggest we are anything but an indigenous people, they are reinforcing the bizarre but successful anti-Israel narrative depicting us as Western European colonialists in a foreign land. Since the hasbara industry has collectively been identifying us in this fashion for years we shouldn’t be surprised when we are told to “go back to Europe.” When all of the largest Jewish American Israel advocacy groups, whether right or left, insist on this false Western presentation of our people it not only weakens our position, it also destroys the possibility of ever truly integrating into the region and making peace with our neighbors. A Western country does not belong in the Middle East and the inclination of the other peoples of the region to oppose such a state is instinctive.
Gay rights, women’s rights and Western-style democracy are also not going to do the trick as all three are irrelevant to the core issue at hand, and true indigenous status easily trumps all three in the minds of even the most progressive young activists. Even if such topics may help gain the support of many American liberals, focusing on these issues bolsters the narrative that we are foreign to the Middle East, ultimately falsifying our people’s true historic narrative and further alienating the other Semitic peoples from us (those we are actually destined to live with). It is also time to throw away the (somewhat arrogant and very much irrelevant to the point of discussion) “we are the good guys because we are more civilized/produce better technology/have more Nobel prizes than you” rhetoric and go back to the authentic definition of Zionism as an indigenous people’s liberation movement, with our inherent connection to our land based on indigenous rights, the correction of historic injustices and the universal rights of all native peoples.
In other words, it all comes down to self-identification. It is ultimately up to Diaspora Jews to make a decision. You are either native to Eretz Yisrael, the ancestral homeland of the people you are part of, to which your people’s language, customs, and traditions are indigenous and to which your people aspired and sacrificed to return for thousands of years; or you are indigenous to the place in which you were born in only because Assyrian, Babylonian, and Roman imperialists invaded your people’s homeland some centuries back. You are either part of a Semitic people, a proud and ancient Middle Eastern nation with a rich treasured past and a collective meaningful future, or you choose to willingly give in to subtle Western social constructs pressuring you to discard your people’s authentic self-definition and identify as white people, part of the Euro-Western nations, history and ethos with the only thing distinguishing you being some kind of different “religion.” I know where I stand.

US bill seeks to link massive EU trade pact with BDS rejection

A new Congressional bill will seek to battle efforts to boycott Israel by linking rejection of BDS to a trade agreement being negotiated with the European Union, the largest free trade deal in history.
The Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act, which will be officially submitted Tuesday afternoon in Washington, enjoys bipartisan sponsorship which backers hope will help it advance quickly through Congress.
Representatives Peter Roskam (R-IL) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) co-sponsored the bipartisan legislation, which they say will “leverage ongoing trade negotiations to discourage prospective US trade partners from engaging in economic discrimination against Israel.”
The bill, which has been worked on for over six months, does not authorize any sort of federal response to domestic BDS initiatives, but rather would use free trade negotiations to discourage foreign and international institutions from supporting initiatives to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.

Church of England Bans Anti-Zionist Vicar From Speaking, Writing on Middle East Issues

In an encouraging sign that the Anglican Church is starting to recognize the intimate relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, a rabidly anti-Israel Church of England vicar has been ordered to stop speaking and writing about the Middle East or risk losing his job.
Dr. Stephen Sizer, the vicar of Christ Church in Virginia Water, located in the affluent southern region of Surrey, has a long track record of offensive, often antisemitic statements about Israel. As recently as last October, Sizer traveled to Iran for a conference that brought together Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists from around the world. While in Tehran, Sizer ominously declared, “Those who criticize this kind of conference must think very carefully of the consequences of their words for Jews and Christians in countries like Iran.”
Because of these and similar statements, Sizer signed a reconciliation agreement in 2012 with the Board of Deputies of British Jews in which he undertook to have his online activism moderated. But last month, Sizer took to Facebook to promote an article entitled “9/11: Israel did it” and reportedly wrote: “Is this antisemitic? It raises so many questions.”
As a direct consequence, Sizer’s immediate superior, the Rt Revd Andrew Watson, Bishop of Guildford, announced today that he had given the vicar an ultimatum: stop your activism over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or lose your parish.

Good news! We aren't apes and pigs; only our ancestors were!

From MEMRI:

Following are excerpts from an address by Algerian cleric Chemseddine el Djazairi, which aired on Ennahar TV on February 8, 2015:

Chemseddine el Djazairi: A viewer asks: What is your position about the prevalent belief that contemporary Jews are of the seed of those who were transformed into apes and pigs? This belief is not true. Contemporary Jews are of the seed of Adam, not of the apes and pigs, because the line of those transformed into apes and pigs was severed.
[…]
A Jew who rebelled so much against God that he was thus transformed – how is this the fault of his children or grandchildren? Perhaps their descendents will convert to Islam, and know that there is no god but Allah. This is in keeping with Islamic law as well as with logic. Those who were transformed are extinct. None exist anymore.
[…]
This transformation is true. Some nations were transformed by Allah into apes and pigs. However, they have no descendents. Get it?

I see a slight inconsistency here; first he ways that today's Jews are not descendants of the apes and pigs, but later he says that the children and grandchildren of the apes and pigs were not transformed. Apparently the apes and pigs could not have human children after the transformation but their existing progeny (if they weren't pig-worthy) remained human.

So when people say that Jews are the "descendants of apes and pigs," they are still speaking accurately according to this moderate cleric.

Good information to have.

The Jews and Arabs of Palestine, 1852

Here's another in an occasional series of contemporaneous writings from the 19th century and earlier showing that the supposed tolerance that Muslims had of Jews is a myth.

From Remarks on the present condition and future prospects of the Jews in Palestine, by Arthur George Harper Hollingsworth, 1852:

The population in Palestine is composed of Arabs, who roam about the plains, or lurk in the mountain fastnesses as robbers and strangers, having no settled home, and without any fixed attachment to the land. In many of the ruined cities and villages there exists also, a limited number of Christian families, uncivilized, and not knowing correctly from what race they derive their origin. Poor, and without influence, they tremblingly hold their miserable possessions from year to year, without security, and without wealth, in a land which they confess is not their own. ...

The Arab and Christian populations diminish every year. Poverty, distress, insecurity, robbery, and disease continue to weaken the inhabitants of this fine country. Ruins fall upon ruins; solitudes increase in the deserted vallies. The land mourneth for its inhabitants. ...

Amongst the scattered and feeble population of this once happy country, is found, however, an increasing number of poor Jews; some of their most learned men reside in the holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Tiberias. Their synagogues are still in existence. Jews frequently arrive in Palestine from every nation in Europe, and remain there for many years'; and others die with the satisfaction of mingling their remains with their forefathers’ dust, which fills every valley, and is found in every cave.

This Jewish population is poor beyond any adequate word ; it is degraded in its social and political condition, to a state of misery, so great, that it possesses no rights. It can shew no wealth even if possessed of it, because to display riches would secure robbery from the Mahometan population, the Turkish officials, or the Bedouin Arab. These Jews live chiefly on alm, collected from the nation in all parts of the world. There is no people more charitable, though that charity is generally exclusive, than the Jew. This money is precarious in .its amount, frequently tardy in its arrival, always uncertain when it may be received, lost sometimes in its passage, and accompanied ever by the degradation of receiving a distant and unsettled charity, supporting a wretchedly impoverished and famishing people. No advancement is made by the Jew of Palestine, in trafficking, in commerce, in farming, in the possession of settled houses or lands. There alone, where he ought to be first, he is last; and where in all other countries a Jew thrives and increases in wealth, in that one he is spiritless from oppression, and without energy, because without hope of Protection. He creeps along that soil, where his forefathers proudly strode in the fulncss of a wonderful prosperity, as an alien, an outcast, a creature less than a dog, and below the oppressed Christian beggar in his own ancestral plains and cities. No harvest ripens for his hand, for he cannot tell whether he will be permitted to gather it. Land occupied by a Jew is exposed to robbery and waste. A most peevish jealousy exists against the landed prosperity, or commercial wealth, or trading advancement of the Jew. Hindrances exist to the settlement of a British Christian in that country, but a thousand petty obstructions are created to prevent the establishment of a Jew on waste land, or to the purchase and rental of land by a Jew. “

...Agricultural pursuits are attended with much hazard, for, in the vicinity of the Jordan there are many Arabs, who support themselves chiefly by plunder. ...What security exists, that a Jewish _ emigrant settling in Palestine, could receive a fair remuneration for his capital and labour? None whatever. He might toil, but his harvests would be reaped by others; the Arab robber can rush in and carry off his flocks and herds. If he appeals for redress to the nearest Pasha, the taint of his Jewish blood fills the air, and darkens the brows of his oppressors ; if he turns to his neighbour Christian, he encounters prejudice and spite ; if he claims a Turkish guard, he is insolently repulsed and scorned. How can he bring his capital into such a country, when that fugitive possession flies from places where the sword is drawn to snatch it from the owner’s hands and not protect it ?

,,,Now, how is this poor, despised, and powerless child of Abraham to obtain redress, or make his voice heard at the Sublime Porte? The more numerous the cases of oppression, (and they are many), the more clamorous their appeals for justice, the more unwillingly will the government of the Sultan,—partly from inherent and increasing weakness, partly from disinclination,—act on the side of the Jew. They despise them as an execrated race ; they hate them as the literal descendants of the original possessors of the country. ...

02/10 Links Pt1: Obama Calls Terror Attack on Paris Jews ‘Random’ Shooting; More Election Interference

From Ian:

Obama Calls Terror Attack on Paris Jews ‘Random’ Shooting

President Barack Obama has called the terror attack on Jews in a kosher supermarket in Paris last month an act of random violence, rather than a terror attack or an antisemitic attack.
Obama’s remark appears in an interview with Matt Yglesias of Vox.com. The president calls the attackers “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” He elides past the religion of the attackers or the victims in an attack that claimed four innocent lives.
Obama was responding to a sympathetic question by Yglesias about whether “the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease.” While stating that Americans were right to be concerned, Obama agreed that the media had overstated the problem of terror because of a general tendency towards sensational reporting: “If it bleeds, it leads, right?”
The White House came under unusually intense criticism when President Obama declined to attend a major anti-terror rally in Paris that followed the attack on the kosher supermarket and an earlier attack on the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper. Obama’s remarks parallel those of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who infamously suggested the Benghazi terror attack may have happened when “guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans.”

‘If It Bleeds, It Leads’: Obama Says Media ‘Overstates’ Terror Threat

Why Obama Thinks All Muslim Terror Attacks Are 'Random'

Randomly shoot “a bunch of folks” in a deli in Paris? No mention of anti-Semitism from the president here. By this measure, Nazis randomly broke the windows of a bunch of folks in delis in Germany right around 1938.
But that’s the point: Were Obama to face up to the real problem of anti-Semitism globally, he would have to stop isolating Israel, given that global isolation of Israel is a manifestation of the same anti-Semitism that ended with the murders of Jews in a Paris deli. Were Obama to lump together the Jews and the victims of Charlie Hebdo, he could no longer plausibly claim that Israeli settlement policy spurs Islamic murder — as it turns out, the victims of Charlie Hebdo and those in the kosher supermarket had nothing to do with Israeli settlements. They have to do, instead, with radical Islam.
Instead, Obama prefers to see the murders as random, unforeseeable events.
Obama’s casual dismissal of anti-Semitic murder isn’t out of character. Obama often dismisses Islamic evil with a wave of the hand, a bothersome but random circumstance. Less than two weeks after the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya, Obama described the terrorist attacks leading to their deaths as “bumps in the road”:

‘There’s Nothing Random About the Threats Against Jewish Targets:’ US Jewish Leader Chides Obama Over Paris Terror Comments

Cooper, who is currently in Paris for talks with French Jewish leaders and government officials, added: “We’re talking about an explosion of antisemitism on this continent, and a convergence of antisemitic hate with terrorism. As we know, many Jews left France last year, well before the January attacks. Here in France, people in authority, especially the leaders of the country, have their eyes wide open to the nature of this problem and the seriousness of the situation. There’s nothing ‘random’ about the threats against Jewish targets, which is why the government has put 10,000 troops on the ground to protect the Jewish community.”
One tweet reacting to Obama’s interview declared, “POTUS in interview calls terrorist shootings at Paris Jewish deli random. Mr. President, antisemitism isn’t random,” a sentiment that was widely shared in similar comments.
Obama also insinuated that the threats to security and freedom emanating from the Middle East had been exaggerated over the past decade. “You know, the strategy that was crafted in Washington didn’t always match up with the actual threats that were out there,” he claimed, in yet another swipe at the previous George W. Bush Administration.

Video: Gaza kids play in a real tunnel

Gaza kids pretending to be Hamas tunnel fighters:

And when the tunnel collapses, they can play martyr!

(h/t Bob Knot)

From Doyle McManus in the LA Times:

The Houthis, Shiite Muslim rebels who announced that they were taking control of Yemen's government last week, don't seem much like natural allies of the United States.

One of their favorite slogans is “Death to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews.” U.S. officials say they've received money, weapons and training from Iran. An Iranian official boasted recently that thanks to the Houthis, Yemen's capital is now “in the hands of Iran,” along with those of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

Should we be worried that the enemy of our enemy Al Qaeda is also friends with our other enemies -- adversaries, anyway -- in Tehran?
-
And yet, last week, Obama administration officials were scrambling to contact Houthi leaders and assure them that the United States doesn't consider them an enemy. “We're talking with everybody,” an official told me — “everybody who will talk with us.” The Houthis' top leaders haven't been willing to meet so far, but the Americans are working on it.

Why so much eagerness for a working relationship with a group that wants less U.S. influence in its homeland, not more? Because the Houthis and their allies are now in charge in Yemen, one of the main battlegrounds in the long U.S. war against Al Qaeda. And the Houthis hate Al Qaeda.

US foreign policy seems to be that anyone who screams "Death to America" the loudest is a potential ally who must be cultivated.

Hey, Iran also says "death to America" - and look what great buddies they are!

The poor Saudis and Egyptians and other Arab nations who have tried for decades to be closer to the US are treated like enemies. (Except when Egypt was briefly ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, another group who hates America and who Obama loves back.)

When the leader of the free world chooses to ignore explicit statements of hate for his country and instead rely on wishful thinking for his foreign policy decisions to treat avowed enemies as potential partners, we have a serious problem.

Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah stripped away all pretenses of leading a legitimate government (the "political wing" that Europeans like to pretend is OK.)

On January 30th, he said "We no longer recognize the rules of engagement....We have the right to respond to any kind of aggression, anywhere, with any kind of confrontation, anywhere and any time."

That is a thinly disguised call for terror attacks.

The crowd loved it, chanting "We respond to your call, O Nasrallah."

From MEMRI:

In a televised speech on January 30, 2015, during a ceremony "commemorating the Quneitra martyrs," Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said: "We no longer recognize the rules of engagement... We no longer accept the separation of the battle fronts.

Following are excerpts:

Hassan Nasrallah: If the Israeli enemy believes that the resistance has been deterred, and that it fears war, let me say today, as we commemorate the Quneitra martyrs, and after the high-profile operation in the Shebaa Farms, that the enemy is hereby informed that we do not fear war, that we will not hesitate to wage this war if it is imposed upon us, and that we will prevail in it, Allah willing.

Crowd: We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

[…]

Hassan Nasrallah: We in the Islamic resistance in Lebanon no longer care about the rules of engagement. We no longer recognize the rules of engagement. It's over. There are no rules of engagement when one confronts aggression and assassinations. We no longer accept the separation of the battle fronts. Get it? We have the legitimate, moral, legal, and human right – and even according to international law, if anyone wants to argue legalities with us… We have the right to respond to any kind of aggression, anywhere, with any kind of confrontation, anywhere and any time.

Crowd: We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

We respond to your call, oh Nasrallah.

After Iran rejects US deadline, US claims there never was a deadline!

For months, the State Department has been heralding two deadlines for Iran negotiations: A political agreement by the end of March and a technical agreement by the end of June. Here are three examples where they used that language.

From the November 24 State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: Why is that wrong? Why shouldn’t they pass more sanctions? Why shouldn’t the President not veto them? And why shouldn’t – why doesn’t that send you to into the negotiating room over the next seven months with a stronger hand?

MR. RATHKE: Well, the Secretary, when he was in the Senate, played a central role in putting into place the sanctions regime that exists now and that – as I discussed with Lara – that has been essential to bringing Iran to the negotiating table. Now the factors that went into the JPOA that you outlined, those remain the case. We are committed to the negotiating process not for negotiation’s sake but because we believe progress is being made. And that’s why we have on the one hand the four-month deadline for a political agreement and then three months after that to do the technical work. The Secretary outlined all that in detail. And our reasoning about the efficacy of additional sanctions during that period also remains the same as it has been throughout the period when the JPOA has been in effect.

January 21 briefing:

MS. PSAKI: Sure. So Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke about this a little bit during his hearing, but let me reiterate some of the points he made. So on the deadline question, which I know you’ve had in the past, the P5+1, coordinated by the EU and Iran, agreed to extend the nuclear talks until March 31st to reach a political agreement, and then June 30th to reach all of the technical details. So a political agreement means, in our view, a political understanding on the elements of a deal so that we can use the remaining months to work out the technical details by June 30th.

Press briefing January 28th:

Q Okay, and just one other topic. On the question of Iran, of course the President made it clear he would veto the sanctions bill if Congress did it -- saying it would interfere with negotiations. Now Senator Menendez and nine other Democrats who all support that bill have conceded to the White House that they will not support a sanctions bill until March 24th; that’s the date that you’re supposed to have a framework agreement. So does the veto threat go away after March 24th? Because they say they want to vote on it right after March 24th if Iran has not agreed to that framework agreement. So will you -- they’ve now made a big concession to the White House that they’re going to hold off. Will that veto threat be dropped on March 24th if there is no framework agreement?

MR. SCHULTZ: Jon, the President does indeed appreciate the recognition that our negotiators need continued time and space to pursue this diplomatic option. We welcome the commitment by Senator Menendez and others to vote against, as you point out, the sanctions bill on the floor right now. We’re going to continue to work closely with Congress on this.

Q But my question is, does the veto threat go away on March 24th if there is no agreement, if the Iranians have not agreed to a broad framework?

MR. SCHULTZ: Jon, the President has made clear the importance of the end-of-March deadline in our own pursuit of a political framework there. So we’re going to certainly engage Congress at that point, just like we have been thus far. And if we determine that negotiations have failed, we have always said we’ll be the first ones to move for sanctions; I think the President has said that. We’ll take a day or two, but that’s a determination we’re going to make based on the progress of the negotiations at that point.

On Sunday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei rejected the entire idea of a political agreement at all as well as deadlines:

I do not favor remarks that we should agree on some principles and later on details. I dislike it when they say that there should be a deal on general principles at one stage and then we can talk about details. Given our experience with the other side, they will use this as a tool for repeatedly making excuses regarding details. If they want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations. This is not logical.

And within a single day, the State Department backpedaled on the idea of a political deadline:

QUESTION: So just to understand that, the extension that if you had an agreement on some sort of – so essentially, you’re not thinking about potentially extending the March deadline, but if you have something by March and the technical details go on, then the June one could be a softer deadline. Is that the way to read it?

MS. PSAKI: No. I think we see the end of June as the – that’s when technically the JPOA is extended until. Our goal remains coming to a political framework by the end of March. And I think what you heard from the Secretary and the President is that the longer time goes on, it doesn’t become easier. And so that remains our goal and our focus, and there are – is a lot of technical work that would need to be done with annexes, et cetera. So that would be what that time would be spent on.

QUESTION: Right. I just asked – I think the President said you couldn’t do it without a basis for an extension, along the lines of you need a reason for it.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: But that seems to me that the March is a fixed deadline; there can’t be an extension since the framework is supposed to be the basis, right? You can’t have a basis of a basis, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s no – but the JPOA is technically extended through the end of June.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: That doesn’t change the fact that the Secretary and many other senior officials have been very vocal about our goal of achieving a political framework by the end of March, because we need the time to go through the annexes and the very difficult technical details.

QUESTION: So that – so what you just said seems to imply to me that that’s not a fixed hard deadline, the end of March, because that’s not actually part of the JPOA extension. Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: No. What I was conveying is --

QUESTION: It’s a goal, but --

MS. PSAKI: Yes. It is a goal, it remains a goal. But – and the Secretary has been very vocal about that. So I don’t – we’ve never called it a deadline; we’ve called it a goal of when we want to achieve the political framework.

QUESTION: Okay. So if it’s March 31st – sorry to beat on this point -- If it’s March 31st and you still think there’s scope to reach a deal by the end of June but you don’t have all of the details of your framework or basis or principles agreed upon, that doesn’t mean the talks are over. You can go into April to get a framework.

MS. PSAKI: I think we’ll have to discuss that and determine at that point in time. We’re not there yet.

Deadlines? Who ever said anything about deadlines? They were just "goals!"

What a great example of "diplomacy in action:"

It would be funny if the end result wouldn't be the US giving Iran all the time in the world to continue to build its nuclear weapons program as well as the ballistic missile capability to deliver those nuclear weapons.

(h/t OC)

02/09 Links Pt2: Sherri Mandell: How Brian Williams betrayed my family; U Cal boycotts the world!

From Ian:

Sherri Mandell: How Brian Williams (and Tom Brokaw) betrayed my family

After talking about how we came to Israel, we told Mr. Williams that Koby and Yosef had been eighth-grade boys who cut school, went hiking in the canyon behind our home in 2001, and were murdered by Palestinians terrorists, beaten with rocks.
He sympathized and then asked whether Seth had a gun. Seth said yes—he had one locked in a safe upstairs in the bedroom.
“Would you mind going upstairs and getting the gun so we can film you with it?” his producer asked Seth.
Seth said no. We both realized that they wanted to stage a scene – to reinforce a stereotype, a visual of the angry rifle-toting, trigger-happy settler.
A few days later, we saw the interview on the Internet. I was furious. I wasn’t upset by what Seth and I had said. We were distraught about the way our story was framed. To open the segment, NBC interviewed an Israeli – an English speaker from Tel Aviv – about her views on the intifada. She sat on the couch in her Tel Aviv apartment and said: The settlers are a cancer on today’s society. They are the reason for all of the problems in Israel.
Then the newscaster said: And here is an example of the people she is talking about: Seth and Sherri Mandell. Settlers from Tekoa. And the camera panned to show us sitting on our couch in our sunroom.
Of course I knew the station wanted to use us to ignite emotion in its viewers. I knew that the media was about conflict, drama and ratings. But how could they malign and betray us like that? How could they mislead us into thinking that they were going to tell our story, our story alone? Nobody had informed us that my son’s murder would be folded into a specious debate about the settlements.
The next morning I wrote to Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw. I sent them an email that said that the way they had framed the broadcast was outrageous, and that they had done us—and the memory of our son Koby — an injustice. They had let the woman from Tel Aviv attack us without giving us a chance to defend ourselves. It was as if she and they had personally called us a cancer.
Tom Brokaw emailed me back. He wrote that the night the program had aired, he had been out to dinner with a Jewish couple, friends of his who had seen the broadcast and thought that it was just fine. A lovely Jewish couple who he had dined with had found the broadcast unobjectionable. Indeed they had felt that we, the settlers, were portrayed very positively.

Douglas Murray: Obama Makes Up Facts - Again

Since it was President Obama who brought these up, you might have thought he would have had the information to know a little about the background. In particular that the Crusades -- gruesome as they were -- were not some early outbreak of "Islamophobia." They were an effort, by Christian nations in Europe, to defend Christians in the Middle East who were being slaughtered by Muslim tribes, and specifically to take back the city of Jerusalem from the Muslim armies who had conquered it. The question of whom Jerusalem ought to have belonged to is a long and interesting one, but unless you think that Muslim armies should have been allowed to conquer Jerusalem and wipe out Christians across the Middle East a millennium ago, it is hard to see why the Crusades should be regarded as a particular sin of Christians. And Christian Americans in particular might rightly wonder what guilt they are meant to feel for a religious war that took place centuries before America as a country even existed.
As for slavery, do we really need to keep going around this one? Because while it is true that you can find religious people who endorsed slavery -- in the Bible and elsewhere -- any historian would find it hard to deny that the movement to abolish slavery was also led by Christians. Slavery is still practiced by Muslims in Mauritania and, as recently seen, by Boko Haram. It is a very strange interpretation of history that is willing to put the blame for slavery (a worldwide practice at most times in history) on Christians, but to ignore William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) and other Christians who led the world in fighting to abolish it.
Only someone ignorant would claim that Islam is the only religion in whose name bad things have been done. But only a historian with an agenda would try to kick over the actual complexities to invent his own set of facts. In Britain, this effort to manipulate the facts in order to come to a pre-ordained conclusion is known as the "Whig interpretation of history." Perhaps Americans might rename it the "Obama interpretation of history."

Edgar Davidson: Obama: Nazis were not Nazis and were no worse than the Jews who slaughtered Amalekites* (satire)

Following his National Prayer Breakfast speech (in which he said Islamist terrorists are not Islamist and that Christians were just as brutal as ISIS) President Obama addressed Jewish prayer leaders today, telling them that the vast majority of those who claimed to be Nazis during World War 2 were not Nazis at all:
"Everybody knows that 99.9999999999% of all Nazis were peace-loving folk who wanted exactly the same things as leftist, casually anti-semitic American/Kenyans like me. The tiny proportion who murdered people to further the cause of Nazism were, by definition, anti-Nazis rather than Nazis because nowhere in Hitler's Mein Kampf was it written that they had to do this.
Moreover, the so-called Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews actually did far more damage to Nazis than they did to the Jews, because they gave Nazis a really bad name and there was a terrible backlash against normal, peace-loving Nazis. So, basically the real victims of so-called Nazism were in fact Nazis who wanted nothing to do with what those anti-Nazis were doing in the name of Nazism. Had I been President during World War 2 absolutely none of this would have happened because I would have made sure that the word Nazi and all its derivations could never have been used in a negative context."
President Obama went on to admonish Jews who complained of brutal mistreatment under the so-called Nazis who we now know were really anti-Nazis:
"You Jews of all people need to get off of your high horses on this one. It was, after all, less than 4,000 years since the Jews slaughtered the Amalekites and less than 3,000 years since they slaughtered the harmless Persian Minister Haman and his followers at the very same time as diplomats were trying to arrange a peaceful final solution with King Ahasuerus to the Jewish problem in Persia."

Palestinian Dictator Mahmoud Abbas Gets a Free Pass

Which “moderate” Arab president publicly hugged the genocidal leader of Sudan last week? Which Middle Eastern “reformer” just entered his 10th year of a four-year term? Which Western “ally” days ago ordered an investigation into a cartoonist for possibly drawing Mohammed?
The answer is Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
These three stories barely made it into Western press. Why? Put simply, the bar has been set so low that they were not deemed newsworthy. An Arab leader who doesn’t allow elections? Yawn. A Middle Eastern president who embraces one of the worst mass murderers in recent history? Nothing to see here.
There is a tragic disconnect between Western rhetoric and Arab reality. Abbas, if one listens to leaders of the free world, is a moderate, reformer and ally. He is better than Hamas, after all, isn’t he?

Hamas recruitment video for kids

Here's a video that Hamas uses to attract kids to join their "camps" from which they learn to become Hamas terrorists.

"Travel Palestine" site has some whoppers

The official Palestinian Authority tourism site, TravelPalestine.ps, is about as interested in facts as any other official Palestinian Authority site.

Here are a couple of their whoppers:

From their front page:

With a history that envelops more than one million years, Palestine has played an important role in human civilisation.

A million year history! That's even longer than Saeb Erekat's 9,000 year history!

Luckily, I found the details behind this history in one of their booklets:

Ah, the Lower Paleolithic! I'm surprised they didn't mention the Big Bang as one of the major events in Palestine's history.

Notice who is missing in this little chronology. Besides the British, that is.

That's not the only place that Jews are erased from history in this site. the only mentions of Jews are when they claim that "The Golden Gate, called Bab-Dahiriyeh in Arabic or Gate of Eternity, on the east is blocked pending the arrival of the Messiah, according to Jewish religious zealots." and that a synagogue in Jericho from the 8th century is interesting. Otherwise, there have been no Jews in the Holy Land, according to this site.

Here's a much smaller lie but one that can easily be overlooked.

In the "Palestine Destination Overview 2014" they say:

Pope Francis' prayer at the security barrier was silent. No one knows what he prayed for. As far as I could tell, in none of the public prayers or speeches during his visit did he say a word about "ending occupation."

(h/t Messy57)

UPDATE: By request:

If I had time I'd put Raquel Welch in a hijab.

02/09 Links Pt1: Is Jordan’s response to ISIS “proportionate”?; Fatah: Martyrdom is our destiny

From Ian:

Is Jordan’s response to ISIS “proportionate”? (asks no one)

Hey, remember when Hamas was lobbing thousands of missiles at Israeli cities, trying to kidnap people, and killing when they got lucky?
Of course you remember it. It has happened every couple of years since Hamas took over Gaza.
And before that, the Palestinians strapped bombs on their loved ones and sent them to blow up restaurants, supermarkets, buses, and anything else they could sneak into.
And before that ….
But always the question is whether Israel’s response is proportionate,
ISIS just killed a Jordanian pilot, brutally by setting him on fire. No justification, but one person.
Jordan is now bombing the hell out of ISIS positions, including in cities and civilian areas, certainly killing civilians.
And has vowed to continue Till we run ‘out of fuel and bullets’:

Abbas’ Fatah: “Martyrdom-death is a destiny ‎we assume willingly and serenely”‎

Some of those who Fatah has exalted as "Martyrs" in recent months and whom the movement honored in its statement with its "highest praise" and "appreciation" are the following terrorists, as documented by Palestinian Media Watch:
The synagogue murderers Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal murdered 4 worshippers and a policeman in a Jerusalem synagogue (Nov. 18, 2014).
Fatah posted a picture of the graves of the two terrorists on its official Facebook page, with the text: "This is the place of eternal rest of Martyrs Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal."
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Shaloudi murdered a three-month-old baby and a young woman, when he intentionally drove his car into people waiting for a train.
Fatah posted an obituary for the murderer on its official Facebook page, calling him "heroic Martyr."
Dalal Mughrabi led the most lethal terror attack in Israel's history, known as the Coastal Road massacre, in 1978, when she and other Fatah terrorists hijacked a bus on Israel's Coastal Highway, killing 37 civilians, 12 of them children, and wounding over 70. Fatah organized a tournament named after her, and Fatah-run Awdah TV broadcast at length from a party commemorating the terrorist, referring to her as "Martyr" and stating that "we renew the promise to her and its fulfillment... [she] will remain a path for the next generations to follow."

Abbas book tying Nazism to Zionism to be translated to Hebrew

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's 1984 book linking Nazism to Zionism, as part of his pursuit of a doctorate degree at a Moscow institution, is set to be translated into Hebrew, Walla! news reported Monday.
The work, titled The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism was first released in Jordan and has, since then, seen light in academic libraries across the globe - particularly in Arab-speaking nations - and is accessible on the PA's official website.
Spanning 252 pages and 16-chapters, Abbas's published work claims that Nazi and Zionist ideologies aligned. He outlined their cooperative relationship and went as far as to say that David Ben-Gurion and Adolf Hitler were "good friends."
Abbas's text accuses the Zionist movement of participating in the Holocaust, cooperating with the Third Reich, and actively foiling plots to rescue Jews, their guiding motive being the formation of a national state in "Palestine."

Hamas MP: Jewish treachery and conspiracies led to the Holocaust

Jewish "conspiracies and treachery" led to the Holocaust, a Hamas MP said in a recent speech translated by MEMRI on Monday.
In a speech aired on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV on January 23, Hamas MP Marwan Abu Ras charged that Germany supports Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians in order to "to make amends for its historical sin toward the Jews."
He attacked Germany and the West for arming Israel at Hamas's expense.
"How is it our fault? What did we have to do with your burning of the Jews? Were the Jews burned for no fault of their own?" he queried.
"Their conspiracies and treachery are what led to their being burned. Their deception and plots against humanity led to their being burned. They conspired against all people - even against people who were benevolent toward them," he said.