Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, March 05, 2015

Purim Joke 5: The conversion

Two old Jewish men are strolling down the street one day, when they happen to walk by a Catholic church.

They see a big sign posted that says, “Convert to Catholicism and get $10.“

One of the Jewish men stops walking and stares at the sign. His friend turns to him and says, “Murray, what’s going on?”

“Abe,” replies Murray, “I’m thinking of doing it.”

Abe says, “What are you, crazy?”

Murray thinks for a minute and says, “Abe, I’m going to do it.”

With that, Murray strides purposefully into the church and comes out twenty minutes later with his head bowed.

“So,” asks Abe, “did you get your ten dollars?”

Murray looks up at him and says, “Is that all you people think about?”

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

And if, in fact, [Iran] does not have some sense that sanctions will not be removed, it will not have an interest in avoiding the path that it’s currently on. — Barack Obama, March 3, 2015

I must admit that I feel sorry for President Obama, and not just because of his syntactical difficulties. I was able to watch PM Netanyahu’s speech in real time, while Obama was too busy, and had to content himself with looking at the transcript. To think, he even could have been present at the historic event had he wished to be!

I’m reminded of the day I stayed home in Pittsburgh to go to a football game, the day that Martin Luther King Jr. gave his ‘I have a dream’ speech in Washington. Or when a bunch of friends went to some music festival at Woodstock. I had to work that weekend.

Because it truly was historic. I’m sure that except for the most cynical partisans (e.g., Pelosi), all of those present felt it. The representatives of the American people, and not just the Republican ones, responded warmly and positively. Netanyahu spoke honestly, both intellectually and from the heart, and it was impossible to listen to him without perceiving this.

The speech had two parts, melded together. The first was the practical argument about stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The second was more of an emotional appeal for morality in policy, which stood in sharp contrast to the Kafkaesque language that issues from the Obama Administration.

Obama said that Netanyahu didn’t say anything new and didn’t offer a “viable alternative.” It is true that he didn’t say anything new — the nature of the deal and the fundamental problems with it have been explained over and over, by Netanyahu and others. But he did offer an alternative: a better deal that would seriously restrict Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and require Iran to change its behavior:

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Obama responded with a remarkably convoluted argument which first mischaracterizes the PM’s position, and then seems to say that since nothing we can threaten Iran with can stop them from developing nuclear weapons, we can only stop them by not threatening them.

I won’t take up too much space on this. Here’s an analogy:

Judge: You are guilty of bank robbery. I sentence you to 10 years in prison.
Bank robber: I won’t agree to more than 2 years. Take it or leave it.
Judge: Oh, OK then.

Iran has violated the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty that it signed, refuses to allow inspections of sensitive facilities, and maintains secret installations. It violates the UN Charter by committing armed aggression against its neighbors, calls for the destruction of another UN member state and exports terrorism and murder all over the globe. It needs to be called to account — made to stop its behavior by full-scale international sanctions of every kind, including military action if all else fails.

This is the moment — maybe the last chance — for the post WWII ideal of morality in international relations, for those who believe that cooperation can bring about peace and deliver human rights to step up and take the right side for a change. PM Netanyahu probably doesn’t expect much from the international institutions like the UN, nor, unfortunately, from the Obama Administration. But he does think the American people and their representatives will understand and respond.

Barack Obama considers “the nature of the Iranian regime’s ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism” a distraction. But the nuclear issue doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are moral reasons to oppose the regime, with or without nuclear weapons:

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Netanyahu listed some of the crimes that the Iranian regime has committed against Americans and innocent people all over the world. And he didn’t hesitate to describe it precisely as it is:

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Americans have been aching to hear words like this from its own leadership, but they will not. They won’t hear the word ‘jihad’, or even the word ‘enemy’ unless applied to an abstract concept like terrorism. They won’t hear terrorism connected to Islam. They won’t be told that the world’s conflicts are related to ideology, specifically Islamic ideology; rather, they’ll hear that the problem is poverty and economic inequality. They’ll even be told that the US can partner with Iran to stabilize Iraq, while Iran holds war games in which mockups of US naval vessels are blown up.

Americans and their congresspeople are not stupid, and they understand that there is something very wrong here, even sinister. Part of the impact that Netanyahu’s address obviously had comes from the contrast between his plain speech and the administration’s Orwellian discourse.

Obama’s media lackeys pulled out all the stops in minimizing the importance and content of the speech, in insulting and accusing Netanyahu. The New York Times, the Pravda of the Obama Administration, repeated that the speech contained ‘nothing new’ and called it “exploitative political theater.” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said members of Congress “made an unprecedented spectacle of showing allegiance to a foreign head of state.”Jon Stewart called the event a “blowjob.” Yes, he did.

But the members of Congress who gave the PM some 24 standing ovations clearly didn’t see it that way. They understood that Benjamin Netanyahu is not only fighting for the survival of his nation and his people, but providing moral clarity about the intensifying conflict between the West and radical Islam — the conflict about which Barack Obama chooses to remain ambiguous.

The speech will probably have little effect on the Israeli election either way. Israelis have heard all of this before. Some appreciate Netanyahu as the world-class leader that he is, and others will continue to despise him because — just because. But that’s a different subject.

The importance of the speech will be for Americans, who heard a polite but devastating indictment of their president and his administration. They heard the facts. Now it’s up to them to ask the question that the facts demand:

Which side are you on, Barack Obama?

03/05 Links Pt1: Dershowitz: Netanyahu deserves a response; Abbas: We won't accept a Jewish state

From Ian:

PMW: Fighting Israel and Martyrdom-death promoted by Abbas' Fatah

In a recent post on Facebook, Abbas' Fatah movement reiterated its admiration and support for those who become "Martyrs," presenting this as a good deed for the future of Palestinians. In a greeting, Fatah wrote: "Good morning, Martyrs of Palestine, who are watering our roots with their blood, so that they will grow into a fruitful tree." The greeting further addressed the Palestinian "resolute mothers," who sacrifice their children for their people when they "give away what they hold most dear":
"Good morning to the people of Palestine, the people of defiance;
Good morning, land of the free men;
Good morning, Martyrs (Shahids) of Palestine, who are watering our roots with their blood, so that they will grow into a fruitful tree, strong of trunk;
Good morning, wounds of the innocent;
Good morning, children of Palestine, who carry their innocence in one hand and the stone in the other;
Good morning, resolute mothers of Palestine, who give away what they hold most dear (i.e., their children)."
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page", Feb. 22, 2015]
A few weeks earlier, Fatah and its youth movement issued statements honoring "Martyrs," praising them for "watering the land of Palestine with their pure blood." Fatah declared that "Martyrdom-death for Palestine is a destiny."

Alan Dershowitz: The White House must respond to Netanyahu’s important new proposal

The Administration must now answer one fundamental question: why would you allow the Iranian regime to develop nuclear weapons in ten years, if at that time they were still exporting terrorism, bullying their Arab neighbors and threatening to exterminate Israel? Why not, at the very least, condition any “sunset” provision on a change in the actions of this criminal regime? The answer may be that we can’t get them to agree to this condition. If that is the case then this is indeed a bad deal that is worse than no deal. It would be far better to increase economic sanctions and other pressures, rather than to end them in exchange for a mere postponement of Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal.
There may be better answers, but the ball is now in Obama’s court to provide them, rather than to avoid answering Netanyahu’s reasonable questions by irrelevant answers about “protocol” and personal attacks on the messenger. Israel deserves better. The world deserves better. The American people deserve better. And Congress deserves better.
An unconditional sunset provision is an invitation to an Iran that continues to export terrorism, bully neighbors and threaten Israel—but with a nuclear arsenal to terrorize the entire world. This would be “a game changer”, to quote President Obama’s words from several years ago, when he promised that he would never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Suddenly, “never” has become “soon.” Congress should insist that any provision allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons after ten years must at the very least be conditioned on a significant change of behavior by the world’s most dangerous regime.

The American People Don’t Like the Terms of the Iran Deal

In a Monday interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist … if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.”
Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent—including 80 percent of Democrats—think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.
The poll of 1,001 registered voters must be taken seriously because its results show real consistency over time.
For example, “Some 55 percent think it would be ‘a disaster’ if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as ‘a problem that can be managed.’ Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010.” It shows a sharp partisan divide, which clearly reflects the reality of the present moment. But here is the most remarkable finding, to my mind:
Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.
To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Purim joke 4: The Southern debutante ball

In 1964, a US Navy cruiser put into port in Mobile, Alabama for a week's R&R. The first evening, the Captain was more than a little surprised to receive the following letter from the wife of a very wealthy plantation owner and industrialist:

Dear Captain:

Thursday will be my daughter Susan's debutante ball. I would like you to send four well-mannered, handsome, unmarried officers. They should arrive at 8 p.m. sharp, prepared for an evening of polite Southern conversation and dancing with lovely young ladies.

PS: No Jews.

Sure enough, at 8 p.m. on Thursday, the lady followed her butler to answer a rap at the door which was opened by the butler. She found in dress uniform, four handsome, exquisitely mannered and smiling African American naval officers.

Her lower jaw hit the floor, but pulling herself together she stammered, "There must be some mistake."

"Madam," said the first officer, "Captain Cohen doesn't make mistakes.”

Purim joke 3: The Vatican wedding

Three of the holiest nuns in Vatican City decided that they wanted to get married to their lord, Jesus. So the pope decided it would be appropriate to have an elaborate ceremony to celebrate such a magical and uplifting event.

As the ceremony is under way, three chassidim with long beards and black frocks suddenly walked into the cathedral and took a seat all the way in the front.

The pope went over to them and said, "No offense to you gentlemen, I do not have anything against people of your faith, however; I am just curious as to what are you doing here?? If I came into synagogue on Yom Kippur, you would certainly ask me the same thing."

They all looked up at the Pontiff. The one in the middle with a long red beard answered, “We are on the groom's side.”

Muslim leaders in Jaffa are upset at the construction of a new hotel.

The main reason? Because it is near a large mosque - second in size only to Al Aqsa - and the hotel blocks the view of the mosque from some angles.

However, they have a bunch of other reasons to be upset if that reason isn't bad enough.

For one thing, they claim that the land that the hotel is being built on is really Islamic Waqf land that was stolen from them.

In addition to this, pornographic things are practiced inside the hotel and in its grounds with swimming pools and naked women, which affects the feelings of any Muslim human being, according to [Jaffa Muslim League official Omar] Siksik.

Third, the hotel grounds allegedly include a Muslim cemetery.

Fourth, the hotel guests might insist that the mosque not issue ear-splitting calls to prayer at dawn.

Fifth, the hotel is a place where people "practice immorality."

Officials say that the hotel is 'flouting all religious rights and humanitarian principles."

British school apologizes over accurate homework on Palestinian terrorism

From the BBC:

A North Lanarkshire school has apologised following complaints about a homework worksheet which labelled Palestinians as "terrorists". [No, it didn't - EoZ]

The handout, given to P7 pupils at New Stevenson Primary School, states "Palestinians feel they have the RIGHT to use terrorism against the Israelis."

North Lanarkshire Council, which produced the worksheet, said it would ensure that it would no longer be used.

But a Palestinian group said the council had sought to "demonise" them.

North Lanarkshire Council said: "The description of Palestinian people is entirely inappropriate and we apologise unreservedly for the offence caused."

A council spokesman told the BBC that, to the best of their knowledge, this was an "isolated incident" and that the council was not aware of any other school using the material.

But he said it was in the process of contacting all schools within its area to ensure that the worksheet would no longer be used.

So what did this terrible worksheet say?

Another example of separatist terrorism is in Israel. Palestinians who live in Israel believe that it is THEIR land which is being occupied by the Israelis. Wars between Israel and Palestinians over this always ended in their defeat and so they have turned to terrorist methods for over 30 years.

In 1972 Palestinian terrorists held nine Israeli athletes hostage at the Olympic Games in Munich. All of the hostages were killed. Most recently, terrorist have carried out many SUICIDE BOMBINGS on buses and public places. They are respected by their own community as MARTYRS. A solution to this extremism is hard to find.

Palestinians feel they have the RIGHT to use terrorism against the Israelis.

Give TWO reasons why they feel this. Use the information to help you.

Describe TWO examples of Palestinian terrorist activities.

The sheet mixes up Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs, as well as Arab countries with Palestinians. But the part that people found offensive was quite accurate.

The official Fatah platform (2009) says this explicitly: "The Palestinian people’s right to practice armed resistance against the military occupation of their land remains a constant right confirmed by international law and international legality." Historically, "armed resistacne" means terrorism, and the Fatah leaders know this quite well, as they openly celebrate their history of terror attacks dating back to 1965.

Hamas says this every day.

In December 2014, a poll of Palestinians showed that "80% support and 20% oppose attempts by individual Palestinians to stab or run over Israelis in Jerusalem."

So the leaders of both major political groups explicitly support terror and the people themselves support terror by a ratio of 4-1.

Yes, there are some exceptions. There are some Bassam Eids and Mohammed Dajanis, But they are the exceptions that prove the rule. It is completely accurate to say "Palestinians feel they have the RIGHT to use terrorism against the Israelis."

Whether it is appropriate to teach this to schoolkids is a reasonable question. I'd love to know the other examples given in the materials.

But it is a shame that no one seems to want to admit that the worksheet is accurate.

Another (old) Purim joke

On the sixth day, God turned to the Angels and said: "Today I am going to create a land called Israel, it will be a land of mountains full of snow, sparkling lakes, forests full of all kinds of trees, high cliffs overlooking sandy beaches with an abundance of sea life."

God continued, "I shall make the land rich so as to make the inhabitants prosper, and I shall call these inhabitants Israelis, and they shall be known to all the people on earth."

"But Lord," asked the Angels, "don't you think you are being too generous to these Israelis?"

"Not really." God replied, "Just wait and see the neighbors I am going to give them."

A joke for Purim

Three men are in the maternity waiting room at Hadassah Hospital in Israel.

A doctor comes in and says to the first man, "Mazel Tov, your wife just gave birth to quadruplets!"

The man replied, "Wow, what a coincidence, I live in Kiryat Arba!”

Another doctor comes in and says to the second man, "Mazel Tov! Your wife just gave birth to septuplets!"

The second man replies, "I can't believe it. What a coincidence -- I live in Be'er Sheva!"

Just then, the third man faints and thuds onto the floor. The others rush over to him and one of the doctors is able to revive him.

"Sir" he says, "what happened? Are you alright?"

The man looks at the doctor and smiles weakly, "I live in Mea Shearim…”

03/04 Links Pt2: Terrorists ID'ed in 1982 Paris Jewish deli attack; Israeli Ambassador reads hate mail

From Ian:

Suspects identified in deadly 1982 Paris Jewish deli attack

More than 32 years after a deadly terror attack in Paris’ old Jewish quarter, French authorities have at last identified three suspects and are seeking their arrest.
Grenade-throwing Palestinians burst into the Jo Goldenberg deli on August 9, 1982, and sprayed machine-gun fire. Six people, including two Americans, were killed, and 21 injured. The restaurant, which has since closed, was a centerpiece tourist attraction in the famed Marais neighborhood.
Paris prosecutor’s office spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre said Wednesday that international arrest warrants have been issued for the three suspects — now aged in their late 50s and early 60s — who were believed to be members of the Abu Nidal group.
She says they are believed to be in the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Norway but declined to identify them by name, citing protocol.

BDS activists interrupt Palestinian speaker in South Africa

A lecture by Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid at the University of Johannesburg was discontinued Wednesday after students barged into the venue and interrupted the speaker, calling him “a liar and a sell-out,” according to witnesses at the scene.
The protesters were said to be associated with the BDS movement in South Africa, which urges boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Jewish state as a means to end Israeli control of the West Bank.
Eid was threatened with a finger to his face, at which point he was evacuated by campus security and was escorted to a waiting car outside the lecture hall, according to a press release issued by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies.

Israeli Christian wearing a cross in the streets of Haifa, Israel

What happens when you wear a cross in a major city in Israel?
With recent ‘apartheid week’ in mind, You've all seen the video showing what happens when you are a Jew in Paris with a kipa on top of your head... CEC Israel and Father Gabriel Naddaf pages joined hands with Jonathan Elkhoury, an Israeli Christian, to show you what happens when a Christian takes his cross to the main streets of Haifa.

Israeli Ambassador in Berlin reads hate letters

The Israeli embassy receives about 20 hate letters every day. We met embassador Yakov Hadas-Handelsman and let him read some of the letters to us.

Harvard: Homosexuality Created By Zionists To Pervert Muslims (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, March 4 - Researchers at Harvard University Medical School have concluded that homosexuality in its current form was the product of a Zionist effort to undermine the social order in Muslim societies and exploit the consequent instability to seize land and resources.

A study by epidemiologists at the university's Seminar On Disorders Of Male Youth examined historical documentation of the prevalence of male homosexuality in traditionally Muslim countries, and found that it increased exponentially immediately upon arrival of Zionist activists in the 1930's ad 40's.

Correlation does not equal causation, however, and the researchers performed a deeper, more penetrating analysis of the data to tease out the relationship between the two trends. They found that clinical evidence from that period demonstrates that the Zionists brought with them a genetically engineered pathogen specifically designed to bind to cells bearing non-Jewish mitochondrial DNA. Because Jews determine the Jewishness of a child by its mother, the use of mitochondrial DNA is crucial in distinguishing between Jew and non-Jew, since unlike the nuclear chromosomes, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted only through the mother.

The findings, to be published in the April 1 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, describe the pathogen, which attaches itself to a gene called mPHAG-2 known for its role in determining sexual orientation. As yet unnamed and unisolated, the hypothesized viral DNA remains in the host's genome through the female line, turning successive generations of non-Jews into homosexuals. The initial infection by the pathogen does not distinguish between male and female hosts, such that even daughters will carry at least one copy of the gene to pass on to their sons. If a female also inherits an X chromosome from her father that carries certain common variants of a separate gene, she becomes a lesbian.

As a result of the Zionist homosexuality pathogen, say the researchers, the frequency of homosexuality in the Muslim world has increased four hundredfold in the ensuing eighty years, fomenting social unrest and distracting the authorities from any policies that would unify Muslim countries against the Zionist scheme to gradually usurp all the land between the Nile and Euphrates, and enslave the inhabitants. The scientists note it has proved remarkably effective.

Other medical experts immediately hailed the study as a breakthrough on multiple fronts. "What we have here is nothing less than a revolutionary understanding of an epidemiological event over decades, coupled with a horrifying, yet ingenious, instance of genetic manipulation half a century before the rest of the scientific community thought it possible," said University of Göttingen Professor R. Sbandit, a noted authority on viral epidemiology who was not involved in the study. "As a scientist I am torn, feeling both revulsion at the cynical use of scientific knowledge for evil political ends, yet strangely in awe of the prowess of whoever developed this thing."

The findings also shed light on emerging Israeli military technology and may force other Middle East countries to confront the looming threat of an even more explosive onslaught of Zionist-driven homosexuality.

From Anadolu Agency:

The Egyptian authorities will arrest any member of Palestinian movement Hamas found in the country after a court issued a preliminary verdict blacklisting the group as a "terrorist" organization.

"Any [Hamas] member found in Egypt will be arrested and all their assets will be confiscated," Justice Minister Mahfouz Saber told state daily Al-Ahram al-Massai.

According to the minister, a government committee originally responsible for overseeing the assets of Muslim Brotherhood – which was likewise designated a "terrorist" group in late 2013 – will begin confiscating Hamas' assets in Egypt.
...

Meanwhile Palestinian resistance faction Hamas denounced remarks by an Egyptian government minister who warned that Egypt would arrest any Hamas members found on its soil.

Hamas "strongly condemns such remarks and their possible implications," group spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in a statement.

"Such comments are an insult to Egypt and the Arab nation, which supports the Palestinian resistance [against Israeli occupation]," he added.

"Egypt seems to no longer be a sponsor of the Palestinian cause – a role it is no longer fit to play, given its recent remarks," Abu Zuhri asserted.

Khalid Amayreh, the Hamas supporting antisemitic ESP enthusiast and columnist, is upset:

The ruling this week by an Egyptian court, classifying the Palestinian Islamic liberation movement, Hamas, as a terrorist group, underscores the moral nadir the Egyptian regime has reached. It is also an expression of shocking ignominy as well as the moral and political bankruptcy overwhelming the present rulers of Egypt.

But, in a certain sense, the shameful act is occurring within the normal order of things. After all, the Sissi regime is an unashamedly Zionist, created by the Zionists, maintained by the Zionists and sustained by the Zionists.

Indeed, the very raison d'être of the Sissi regime is to destroy Egypt from within, fight Israel's enemies in and around Egypt and corrode genuine Islamic movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, on the ground that the MB rejects Israel as a matter of principle and ideology.

03/04 Links Pt1: Netanyahu’s devastating, irrevocable indictment of Obama

From Ian:

David Horovitz: Netanyahu’s devastating, irrevocable indictment of Obama

For all the cynicism and the political filtering over Netanyahu’s motivations, furthermore, the prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that Iran is determined to advance its benighted ideology across the region and beyond. The prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that the deal taking shape will immunize the ayatollahs from any prospect of revolution from within or effective challenge from without. The deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb,” he warned. “It paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
And the cardinal fact is that the prime minister is convinced, in his heart of hearts, that the Islamist regime in Tehran is bent on the destruction of Israel. Ayatollah Khamenei “tweets that Israel must be annihilated,” Netanyahu wailed, repeating: “He tweets! You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.”
Although a first response to his speech from an unnamed White House official said that Netanyahu had offered “no concrete alternative” to the deal taking shape, and that his speech was “all rhetoric and no action,” and despite Obama’s subsequent elaborate defense of the US approach, the prime minister did offer an alternative. He urged the P5+1 to recalibrate, to reconsider, and then to push for a better deal. And “if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,” he advised, the wise, wary Middle Easterner lecturing Obama and the other Western naifs. “They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.”

JPost Editorial: Netanyahu’s speech

No country more than Israel has a stake in seeing a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Iran, because Israel would suffer if the situation deteriorates into a military conflagration.
Since sanctions were what brought the Iranians to the bargaining table in the first place, Netanyahu proposed not lifting sanctions until the Iranians stop their aggression.
Indeed, premature lifting of sanctions would actually encourage Iranian aggression. And sanctions can be particularly effective now, as oil prices have fallen to their lowest level in decades.
Only once the Iranians have stopped supporting terrorism around the world from Buenos Aires and Burgas to Baghdad and Beirut; only once they stop threatening the annihilation of Israel; only once they stop demonstrations of aggression against the US like last week’s staged attack on a replica US aircraft carrier can the P5+1 be expected to reduce sanctions.
“If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country,” intoned Netanyahu, “it should begin acting like a normal country,” adding that the alternative to a bad deal with Iran does not have to be war, it can be an even better deal.
Still, while Netanyahu made it clear that Israelis overwhelmingly prefer a negotiated deal through diplomacy and still hold out hope for a peaceful solution, the renewal of Jewish sovereignty after nearly two millennia of longing means that Israel no longer has to rely on others to defend it.
Pointing to Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel, who was sitting next to Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister noted that the man’s life and work gave new meaning to the words “never again.”
“And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned.... But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.”

If US fails, PM signals Sunni Arab states, we’ll hold the line against Iran

It was to another audience, to the Sunni Arab peoples and governments who watch in despair the unchecked ascent of Shiite Iran, that Netanyahu dedicated the most persuasive and actionable part of his speech. Israel will hold the line even if America fails us on Iran, he told the Arabs.
As Arab leaders know well, Israel is not the only regional power battling ferociously against the impending nuclear deal – it is merely the only one that can take its case publicly to the heart of the world’s most powerful capital, even in brazen defiance of the wishes of the American president.
The location of Netanyahu’s speech was as important as its content in delivering this message to the Arab world. Israel would defy Iran not only with its advanced warplanes and intelligence agencies, but with its most famous strategic asset – the ability to deliver its case before a joint meeting of the United States Congress.
And therein lies a special irony. America is the problem, Netanyahu is telling his prospective Middle Eastern allies, but in the very forum he chose to deliver the message he acknowledged that America, still the preeminent world power and Israel’s most significant ally, remains part of the solution. Even as he presented the first glimpse into Israel’s vision of a post-American regional order, Netanyahu offered an unintended testament to America’s enduring significance.

Why Obama hates Netanyahu, and vice versa

The White House’s favorite argument for the deal – that the choice before Western powers was to strike a deal or go to war – demonstrates for Netanyahu the incompetence he saw in the White House’s strategy. The argument amounted to a declaration to the Iranians that the US needed a deal more than they did.
Even the complaint about his decision to deliver Tuesday’s speech to Congress wins little sympathy from the Israeli leader. After all, Obama was the first to travel to the other’s capital and rebuke him to his own people. When Obama finally came to Israel as president, in March of 2013, he pointedly turned down an invitation to address Israel’s parliament – the comparison to his eager address to the parliament in Istanbul four years earlier was not lost on Israeli pundits – and instead gave a public speech to an audience of young Israelis at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center.
It was a speech “to the people of Israel,” not its leadership, the White House said – much like the Cairo speech was addressed not to governments but to Muslims. “I can promise you this,” Obama told Israelis of their prime minister, “political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks.”
Netanyahu has written off the Obama White House as a failure; blinkered by its pompous self-assurance, it cannot be trusted to competently manage the security of the world. Obama has written off Netanyahu as an obstacle, a hypocritical partisan whose narrow vision of politics stand in the way of meaningful progress on any issue in which he is involved.
For both men, the gap runs deeper than the Democrat-Republican divide, deeper than the Palestinian issue, deeper even than the battle over Iran. Obama sought to introduce a new consciousness into global affairs, a consciousness that defined his political identity. Netanyahu defiantly champions the old ways of doing business — on which, he believes, his nation’s safety depends.

Israeli series mocking the Torah upsets Muslims more than Jews

An Israeli TV series, "The Jews Are Coming," makes fun of various stories in Jewish history. For example:

Now, Muslims are upset at how an Israeli TV series is depicting Jewish prophets. While they admit that the series is meant to be funny, they claim that the details come from the Talmud, and distort the true version of how the prophets lived as written in the Quran. (Actually, the Talmud and commentaries would answer all of the seeming inconsistencies that the series seems to delight in, which reminds me of the flight recorder joke anecdote mentioned by Douglas Adams.)

From what I can tell, the series' Biblical parody has not caused a huge uproar in Israel, although some of its political humor did, with song parodies about Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir that were not broadcast.

Yesterday, the UN released its latest Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, by Makarim Wibisono (Richard Falks' replacement.)

Wibisono is known to have made anti-Israel statements in the past.

The report is not nearly as over the top as Falk's reports had been, to be sure. It is pretty much a repeat of things said at the UN and by the OCHA-OPT, relying on Palestinian Arab NGOs for some information.

Twice the report quotes the UN's OCHA-OPT as saying that "The information recorded and provided by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) showed that 2,256 Palestinians were killed, of whom 1,563 were civilians, including 538 children." with a small footnote saying "Verification continues." Yet those numbers have not changed since the war, indicating that no one at OCHA-OPT really cares to revisit the false statistics that have been widely quoted worldwide as fact.

Even though many of those same "civilians" were shown to be terrorists by the Meir Amit Center.

But, surprisingly, the report does mention that!

According to OHCHR, some 69 per cent of the Palestinians killed during the hostilities in Gaza were civilians. An Israeli organization compiling its own statistics on Palestinian fatalities has so far found the Palestinian civilian to combatant casualty ratio to be somewhat lower, at 48 per cent*.

*This ratio is based on 54 per cent of verified fatalities. See Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, “Examination of the names of the Palestinians killed in Operation Protective Edge”, 1 December 2014.

That in itself is a marked contrast to the bilious, one sided reports from Richard Falk, who would parrot the most absurd anti-Israel accusations by the most unreliable NGOs without even bothering to find out Israel's side of the story.

This is not to say that the report is unbiased. It is very biased. It doesn't mention Hamas' tunnels once, even though they were the main target of Israeli operations - and they were built under many of the homes that the IDF destroyed, unfortunately killing civilians. In fact, it barely mentions Hamas. It makes false assumptions about international law.

It is not quite sure if Hamas even fired rockets to begin with, saying only that "thousands of indiscriminate rockets were reportedly fired by Palestinian armed groups from Gaza."

The report that supposedly looks at human rights in the territories doesn't mention Hamas' use of human shields, of public executions, of booby-trapping civilian buildings, of placing military targets in medical facilities, or any of the many Hamas actions that directly violated Gaza civilians' human rights and international law.

While the UNHRC remains implacably anti-Israel, and this report shows that, it seems that it has been clearly stung by many of the criticisms that have been leveled against it so it is making some cosmetic changes to soften its reports.