Tuesday, March 10, 2015

From Ian:

Wild Thing: Max Blumenthal’s Creepy Anti-Zionist Odyssey
Max Blumenthal’s stock in trade is anti-Zionist polemic dripping with cartoon-like, racially weighted depictions of Israeli Jews. What distinguishes him from many other anti-Zionist writers is not his political views, but the obsessive nature of his work, which seems animated not by moral passion or analysis but by hate. It’s no surprise that Neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Cross, the accused KKK killer who attacked Jewish community centers in Kansas, has 300 citations of Blumenthal on his website, VNN Forum. Blumenthal is also a go-to source about Jewish evildoers and evildoing for the neo-Nazi Stormfront site, and David Duke has endorsed his work. One of Blumenthal’s chapter titles in Goliath has been especially popular with the white supremacist sites that gleefully embrace his work: “How To Kill Goyim and Influence People.”
And it’s not just anti-Semitic crackpots who flock to him anymore. Mainstream journalists like James Fallows and Andrew Sullivan have also praised Blumenthal’s work. Astonishingly, Blumenthal has promoted Goliath at the New America Foundation, a centrist Democratic Party think-tank, and was recently given a platform by the New York Times.
But the truth is that Blumenthal is a pisher di tutti pishers and the mainstreaming of him has no political importance, since none of his political views are original to him. As a reporter, the best one can say about him is that he doesn’t speak Hebrew or Arabic, and he doesn’t have any sources—so it’s hard to fault him for getting things wrong. Rather, his specialty is the age-old marketing of Israel as a unique repository of the world’s evils and therefore a deserving target of unrestrained invective. The question then, is really for anti-Zionists who believe their cause to be motivated by justice and human rights: What to do about the hater in their midst?
Anti-Israel Rhetoric Toxic When Consumed In Large Doses
Blumenthal is a frequent speaker on campuses, and the darling of groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine. Blumenthal was the featured pro-divestment speaker at the U. Michigan divestment vote a year ago, and recently in Paris:
How did we get to the point that such anti-Israel propaganda finds such a receptive audience on our campuses?
Is it any wonder that a student at UCLA was challenged for having a conflict of interest because she was Jewish? Is it any wonder that Walking While Jewish is dangerous in many places in Europe.
Perhaps it’s unfair to focus on Blumenthal. He’s just one of many criss-crossing the globe and our campuses spreading a distorted, demonic view of Israel. He’s a symptom of a much bigger problem.
We'll be the Judge, episode 5
The fifth episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, March 5, 2015.


  • Tuesday, March 10, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Earlier today, I published here the JINSA-sponsored report "2014 Gaza War Assessment" which showed in detail where anti-Israel NGOs are wrong in their interpretations of the Laws of Armed Conflict when they damned Israel for Operation Cast Lead.

Naomi Paiss, self described "Pro-Israel progressive VP New Israel Fund," sided with the anti-Israel NGOs and tried to say that the report was ipso facto inaccurate based purely on who sponsored it:

I answered her:










I received no response.

We won't see any substantial critique of the report that exonerated Israeli actions in Gaza, written by military experts who are sorely lacking from NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The reason is that they know that they are wrong. They know that they cannot argue with these generals on the topic of international law or the law of armed conflict, because they would lose. They know that if they would be intellectually honest they would have to drop their entire anti-Israel positions, which is the source for much of their funding.

I'm sure that Paiss didn't even read the report before dismissing it out of hand. Because she is not pro-Israel nor is she pro-truth. She reflexively chose to support those whose anti-Israel bias is proven and palpable.

So these esteemed NGOs, and purported "pro-Israel" organizations like the NIF, will continue to ignore the report for as long as they can, hoping it gets no traction.  And if there is enough pressure, they will find someone to nitpick about a minor part of the report and the entire crowd will point to that as a "rebuttal." They'll say things like "But look at all the houses destroyed!" as if that point isn't discussed in the general's report.

They'll resort to sarcasm and deflection and misdirection. But none of them will honestly take on the challenge of answering the report itself.

Because Israel's critics aren't intellectually honest. And Naomi Paiss' tweets prove it.

But I am more than willing to be proven wrong if someone is willing to write a real critique of the JINSA report.

  • Tuesday, March 10, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon


Blood libel? Check.

Holocaust denial? Check.

Jews control the world? Check.

Khazar theory? Check.

Insane accusations? Check.

(The entire net worth of the world is less than half this amount!)
Veterans Today, whose authors provide much of the commentary seen in Iran's Press TV, have outdone themselves in this huge, rambling article that covers nearly all the standard antisemitic tropes in one place.


From Ian:

Edwin Black: New Israel Fund Received More Than $1 Million From U.S. State Department
The controversial New Israel Fund and its social change and political lobbying organization known as SHATIL, have received more than $1 million from the State Department under a program designed to create political change, reform, and activism in the Middle East. The government program, Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), has extended more than $600 million in grants to political and social activists and reformers in 18 Middle East countries, mainly with unstable or challenged political environments in need of democratic improvement. “MEPI supports organizations and individuals in their efforts to promote political, economic, and social reform in the Middle East and North Africa,” according to the agency’s official self-description.
The list of nations in which MEPI operates includes such countries as Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, and Yemen.
However, MEPI’s sphere of engagement includes Israel — ironically the only pluralistic, stable, and democratic nation in the Mideast. Among the leading recipients for MEPI grants in Israel is the New Israel Fund and its SHATIL organization. The NIF is an international, US-based 501(c)(3) charitable organization which has generated intense acrimony within the Jewish community and Israeli establishment for its highly politicized activities.
EXCLUSIVE EXPOSE: Husband Of New Israel Fund Director Supports Boycotts Against Israel
This weekend, Rachel Liel, Israel director of the NIF was featured in an article in YNET, the online version of Yediot Achronot. Using convenient half-truths, Liel discussed the importance of NIF projects which benefit minorities, benefits ultra-Orthodox women, and other fairly mainstream projects which few Israelis take offense at.
What was conveniently ignored was the fact that a significant portion of NIF’s $30 Million budget is spent on projects which directly harm the State of Israel. The New Israel Fund is a dangerous, radical organization which wraps their programs in a “respectable” package. They are rejected by the majority of Israelis across the political spectrum.
What has not yet been exposed is the fact that Rachel Liel’s husband, Alon is one of the world’s leading organizers of world boycotts against Israel. He is also a co-organizer of the campaign to call on European countries to undermine Israeli sovereignty by “recognizing” the “State of Palestine.” Alon Liel, Israel’s former ambassador to South Africa is a member of two organizations which receive large funding by NIF. He is on the management team of Ir Amin, which works against Jewish interests in Jerusalem, and is also a member of the B’Tselem Public Council.
UN Gaza Commissioners seek deferral of report to June
UN Watch welcomes the news that the United Nations commission of inquiry on Gaza is seeking to defer its report to June.
“This is what I proposed to the commissioners when I met them in September,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. “A serious report needs more time and must reflect material that has come to light from all parties.”
“Moreover,” said Neuer, “the resignation of William Schabas under a cloud of bias accusations requires a complete rewriting of the report.”
“Finally, UN Watch’s recent revelation that the Goldstone Report was drafted with the help of an anarchist law professor who devoted her life to prosecuting Israelis for war crimes requires a careful review of the staffers now drafting this report, who were hired by the same UN agency.”
Pierre Rehov - War crimes- Official Trailer


  • Tuesday, March 10, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Lucy Aharish is an Israeli news anchor and reporter, who was the first Hebrew-speaking Arab anchor on Israeli television.

She has experienced discrimination in Israeli society, and she has fought it admirably. Haaretz quoted her in 2009 as saying "I'm not a wretched Arab woman. How can I whine that I've been deprived? I like my life just fine, despite all the stinking racism that exists here....There is a new generation of Arabs who don't give a hoot what anyone thinks and will do everything they can to get into high positions. We have other things to get over besides the occupation and discrimination. We are fighters and don't give in. If you don't open the door for me, I will come in through the window, and if it is closed, down the chimney. We were too polite, but we learned Israeli chutzpah. It's easy to humiliate an Arab who kowtows, but when that person says 'Listen, pal, tone it down, don't talk to me like that,' you arrive at a dialogue."

Yet Aharish is also a proud Israeli. She has just been chosen to be one of people to light the torch at Mount Herzl for Israel's Independence Day this year, and she is thrilled:

Lucy Aharish, Arab Israeli television host and reporter, woke up on Saturday morning and saw that someone had been trying to reach her by phone for hours.

"I called back. It was Yitzhak Zunshine, the head of the Hasbara Center," Aharish said in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth.


"I asked what the urgency was and he responded: 'I wanted to congratulate you. You were chosen to light a torch on Independence Day.' I fell silent. I, usually very talkative, could not speak a word. Tears came to my eyes. It was the last thing I thought would happen," said Aharish.

One of the first calls Aharish made after she received the good news was to her mother. "I called her and said: 'Mom, they chose me to light a torch on Independence Day.' 'Okay, great,' she responded.

"I was surprised by her response. 'Do you fear something?' I asked her. 'It is after all the biggest ceremony at Mount Herzl.' And she answered, 'Wonderful. This is how you will hit back at all the racists who make your life hard everyday.'

"I accept what she says 100 percent. It is a slap in the face to all those racists who have no shame to post comments such as 'stinking Arab' and 'Get out of here, this is not your country' and 'who needs Arabs on their (TV) screens.'"

Aharish says she did not think of giving up the position for a second. "I'm proud of it," the television host who was born to Muslim parents and grew up in Dimona said. Aharish now resides in Tel Aviv.

"I know that a lot of people will have something to say, but the moment my parents are proud – I am happy."
You know the haters will accuse Israel of "tokenism" for choosing to honor Lucy Aharish. But there sure are a lot of "tokens" out there - at some point they add up to a lot more than a token amount.
Guess who is speaking at the annual J-Street conference?

PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat!

Yes, the same Saeb Erekat who recently compared Israel to ISIS.

The same Saeb Erekat who routinely accuses Israel of "genocide."

The same Saeb Erekat who claimed that 96% of those killed in Gaza were civilians.

The same Saeb Erekat who claimed that his family had been in Palestine for 9000 years (they came from Jordan in the 19th century.)

The same Saeb Erekat who compares Mahmoud Abbas to Mother Teresa and Thomas Jefferson.

The same Saeb Erekat who believes that Jews cannot live in "Palestine."

The same Saeb Erekat who once accused Qatar of investing in Jewish settlements.

The same Saeb Erekat who once said "Everybody should be aware that the only threat in the region is Israel’s occupation and not Iran."

Yup - he's a perfect fit for "pro-Israel, pro-peace"  J-Street.

(Eric Fingerhut, the president of Hillel International, withdrew from speaking at J Street’s conference when he found out Erekat was a featured speaker.)
  • Tuesday, March 10, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
JINSA commissioned several retired generals to assess Operation Protective Edge. Their report stands in stark contrast to the biased reports written by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

The generals are:

General Charles Wald, USAF (ret.),
Task Force Chair Former Deputy Commander of United States European Command

Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell IV, USA (ret.)
Former Commander, U.S. Army North 

Lieutenant General Richard Natonski, USMC (ret.)
Former Commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Command 

Major General Rick Devereaux, USAF (ret.)
Former Director of Operational Planning, Policy, and Strategy - Headquarters Air Force 

Major General Mike Jones, USA (ret.)
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command

The authors know the Laws of Armed Conflict far better than the NGOs do. They recognize Hamas' unique tactics of cynically putting their own civilian population in danger in order to add a public relations dimension to what they call "unrestricted warfare":

In 1999, two Chinese People’s Liberation Army officers asserted that the ability to blend technologies with military actions and political-influence activities, a technique they dubbed “unrestricted warfare,” signifies a new type of war, in which a key principle is “no longer using armed force to compel the enemy to one’s will, but rather, using all means, military and nonmilitary, lethal and non-lethal, to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.”97 In the 2014 Gaza War,

Hamas appears to have pursued precisely such unrestricted warfare. Their concept of operations aimed to force Israel into making concessions – such as reopening Gaza’s borders – as a result of political pressure. What was novel about Hamas’s approach, however, was where and how they sought to create that pressure. A key vulnerability for liberal democracies, such as the United States or Israel, is their citizens’ aversion to excessive or unjustified casualties. Though voters are willing to support wars – and casualties – that are perceived as legitimately defending the homeland or securing vital national interests, popular support for military operations can decline when these goals begin to be doubted or overshadowed by deaths of civilians from the opposing side and, especially, of their own soldiers. ...

Hamas certainly engaged in such classic irregular warfare, and utilized its enhanced arsenal and conventional military structure to inflict greater casualties among the IDF. Hamas’s infiltration tunnels, dug into Israeli territory, were particularly effective for striking at the rear of IDF formations, fundamentally transforming the location and definition of the “frontline” of the conflict. Hamas’s greater focus, however, was on the exploitation of the presence of civilians in the combat zone. It used unlawful concealment among civilians to constrain and blunt the effectiveness of IDF military operations. It sought to neutralize the IDF’s precision-guided munitions by covering and concealing its leadership and military forces amid and often below civilian infrastructure.99 It utilized its expanded tunnel networks to maneuver and supply its forces while limiting the likelihood of being detected or targeted.100 And it deliberately and unlawfully placed command and control, firing positions and logistical hubs underneath, inside or in immediate proximity to structures it knew the IDF considered specially protected, such as hospitals, schools and mosques, in full knowledge that this would substantially complicate IDF targeting decisions and attack options.101

But Hamas did not just stop with using civilians as a passive defense tactic. Its contribution to unrestricted warfare doctrine was to ensure maximum political pressure would be exerted on Israel by, at best, acting in reckless disregard of civilians’ safety or, at worst, consciously and actively provoking IDF fire on Gazan civilians. It did so in part simply by virtue of embedding itself among the surrounding civilian infrastructure.102 Simultaneously it launched rockets and attacked IDF forces from within or in direct proximity to international safe havens – especially UNRWA facilities – and from civilian buildings, often forcing civilians to congregate in these areas immediately afterward. Further, Hamas reportedly discouraged or actually prevented civilians from leaving buildings after the IDF targeted them with warning communications and munitions.103 Hamas’s strategy for victory depended on incurring civilian casualties among its own people. 

The public that Hamas sought to sway with these casualties, however, was not that of its opponent. Rather, its strategy appears to have been to discredit Israel in the international community more broadly, by portraying the IDF’s military operations as indiscriminate and disproportional.104 This would subsequently create pressure from Hamas’s regional supporters and others against Israel to agree to a ceasefire on Hamas’s terms. Most remarkably, Hamas undertook this effort in earnest despite intentionally and egregiously violating the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) through its targeting of Israeli civilians and its exploitation of Gazan civilians to shield its military activities (as we discuss below).105 By shrewdly controlling access to much of the Gaza Strip by media and international organizations, Hamas was also able to portray collateral damage caused by its own strategy and actions as illegal IDF conduct.
The generals also directly criticize NGOs for their ignorance of the laws of armed conflict:
These statements suggest a concerted strategy on the part of Hamas to exploit misunderstandings of LOAC to gain international condemnation of Israel. Such attempts to move the conflict from the battlefield, where Israel enjoyed military and technological superiority, to the court of international opinion appears to have been part of Hamas’s concept of operations in the 2014 Gaza War. 42 This strategy depended not just on distorting the principles of LOAC to assert claims of unlawful conduct against Israel but also – and more disturbingly – on ensuring Gazan civilian casualties to support Hamas’s assertions of Israeli legal violations.

Unfortunately, it appears to have been a successful strategy. Numerous individuals claiming to be experts in the relationship between law and military operations quickly seemed to accept Hamas’s assertions of unlawful IDF operations. On July 23, 2014, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated: “There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.” The U.N. Human Rights Council subsequently issued a resolution condemning “in the strongest terms the widespread, systematic and gross violations of international human rights and fundamental freedoms arising from the Israeli military operations” in Gaza.125 In September, Human Rights Watch issued a report declaring that “three Israeli attacks that damaged Gaza schools housing displaced people caused numerous civilian casualties in violation of the laws of war.”126 And, in November, Amnesty International concluded that the IDF’s “use of large aerial bombs [to attack civilian homes] suggests that these attacks either were intended to cause the complete destruction of the targeted structure or a determination to ensure the killing of targeted individuals without due regard to the killing and destruction to those in their immediate vicinity,” which would constitute “prima facie evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”127

These condemnations were premised on premature, effects-based assessments of military operations, or on the same flawed understandings of the law that Hamas was promoting, while refusing to apply that same law to its own actions. These routine distortions of the actual law applicable to military operations produced a fundamentally false narrative of legal compliance and non-compliance during this conflict, one that misrepresented Israeli attempts to minimize civilian deaths and the legality of their targeting Hamas and other factions engaged in military operations.
Ironically, the authors criticize Israel for going beyond the laws of armed conflict in protecting civilians - which could hurt Western armies in future wars:

An accurate understanding of LOAC is essential to properly and credibly assess the legality of combat operations. Unfortunately, it is poorly understood, allowing it to be easily distorted to present a false narrative that combat operations producing civilian casualties are inherently unlawful. Such distortions are further enabled by the almost instinctive, but legally invalid, tendency to judge military actions based on effects of combat operations.

Effects-based critiques distort this equation by relying on post hoc consequences as the sole indication of LOAC compliance. However, the legal standard for compliance turns on the reasonableness of the attack decision at the time it was made based on available information. For example, a commander may launch an attack on an identified enemy command and control bunker or tunnel, having made good faith efforts to identify all available intelligence related to the target, based on the conclusion that the bunker is used exclusively for military purposes. However, it may turn out that the enemy had encouraged civilians to shelter in the bunker, with the attack producing the effect of civilian casualties. This effect is not sufficient to conclude the law was violated. Instead, as clearly established by LOAC, compliance must be assessed on the totality of the military situation at the time the decision was made.132


In the first instance, it may seem that the appropriate response to such distorted analyses is for militaries to go to even greater lengths – above and beyond LOAC requirements – to demonstrate their respect for innocent life and avoid condemnation. Indeed, such was Israel’s approach the 2014 Gaza War. Based on this Task Force’s observation, however, this is not necessarily an effective response to offset this distortion. What may appear at first glance as a rush to defend civilians actually enables a race to the bottom, empowering those who would exploit efforts to mitigate civilian risk while gutting existing legal principles – all to the detriment of civilians’ safety.

The abusive use of law to gain tactical and strategic advantage by hybrid enemies, and to discredit lawful conduct of professional military forces, must be countered by defending – rather than abandoning – those legal principles. Military restraint beyond the carefully developed and time-tested boundaries of LOAC should be imposed only when it is perceived to produce a tactical, operational or strategic advantage, and not merely in response to anticipated improper invocation of inapposite legal standards. Furthermore, policy-based constraints should be clearly demarked from legal obligations, so that raising standards in one instance does not set a precedent to which a military force will be expected to adhere in the future. Otherwise, any constraints beyond LOAC adopted by one country will submit others to great pressures to conform similarly. Once this becomes entrenched, it will be difficult to walk back. The result of conflating policy and law, and of attempting to apply legal standards other than LOAC to armed conflicts, will not only be a greater danger to national security – as armed forces will become much more limited in their ability to respond to and counteract threats from unconventional adversaries operating among civilian populations – but an increased risk to civilians as well. The application of standards more exacting than LOAC to armed conflicts may produce the perverse effect of incentivizing unconventional adversaries to dress as civilians, hide among civilians, launch operations from civilian areas, use civilians as human shields or even (as Hamas did) deliberately seek to instigate civilian casualties, since any civilian deaths could be considered a legal violation. If such an approach to assessing legality in warfare becomes the norm, the combat power and initiative of military force will be functionally neutered. Even reasonable targeting errors resulting from the inevitable “fog of war” would subject service-members and commanders to criminal responsibility based on distorted legal principles, establish a standard that no military could reasonably meet, delegitimize and constrain the U.S. military, embolden potential adversaries and, therefore, increase the risk to civilian populations unable to defend themselves against terrorist entities. 

Therefore, proper adherence to LOAC entails stringent observance of LOAC requirements and imposition of additional policy-based constraints only when they serve the interests of mission accomplishment. The United States and its allies should devote resources to countering existing misunderstandings of LOAC. When restraint is exercised for reasons other than legal obligations, the United States should also explain its motivations and reasoning, lest it contribute to further misunderstanding of LOAC requirements.

Amnesty, HRW and the UN make pronouncements about the laws of armed conflict without actually knowing those laws. And by distorting the law, they ironically end up endangering more civilians.

Which is a strategy that Hamas embraces.

Here is the entire report.



(h/t Richard Landes)

Monday, March 09, 2015

  • Monday, March 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
On Monday, three Egyptian soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb.

This happened soon after Egypt opened up the Rafah crossing with Gaza for only the fourth time since October.

This alarmed Hamas leaders, who did not want Egypt to blame them for the bomb and close the crossing early.

So Moussa Abu Marzouk, Hamas leader who lives in Cairo, blamed Israel for the bomb, saying that they are the ones who gain from killing Egyptian soldiers because attacks like that often prompts Egypt to close the crossings.

"Malicious hands are behind every terrorist incident in the Sinai," he wrote on his Facebook page. "I do not rule out here the hands of the Zionists for these acts, starting from the death of Egyptian soldiers in the operation in Rafah In August 2012 until the attack today."

He claimed that Hamas could not have been behind the attack saying (from personal knowledge, no doubt) that terror attacks take time to plan and since Egypt only announced the opening of the crossing on Saturday, there wasn't enough time for Hamas to plan and implement such an attack.

It is funny seeing Hamas bounce back and forth between insulting Egypt for its anti-Hamas stance and begging Egypt for mercy.
From Ian:

Btselem’s Poor Methodology and Credibility
In January 2003, the Israeli human rights organization Btselem, which receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from its sponsor The New Israel Fund, posted on its official website the testimony of Bilal Murtada Muhammad Hafnawi, a 16-year-old high school student from Nablus who accused the Israeli Border Police of extreme brutal behavior against him and his friend, Khaled Hashash.
In his testimony, which was taken by phone by Btselem’s field researcher, Ali Draghmeh, Hafnawi argued that Border Police operatives beat him severely with no reason for a prolonged period of time.
Btselem considered Hafnawi’s account indisputable facts. The damning title of the Btselem report reads, “Nablus: Border Police officers beat medical personnel, preventing medical treatment, January 2003.” Btselem did not post any comment of the Police Internal Investigations Department referring to this case or any updates on Bilal Hafnawi that might be relevant to evaluate his credibility.
Btselem described Hafnawi as “a high school student,” and added no further information about him or his political affiliation and connection to terrorist organizations.
During the years 2002-3, Hafnawi the “high school student,” as portrayed by Btselem, was in fact an operative of the Hamas terrorist organization. A year later he changed allegiance to the terrorist organization Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (Fatah). During this time Hafnawi threw on three occasions Molotov cocktails at military vehicles and a tank, possessed an M-16 assault rifle that was used by senior operatives of al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades and facilitated the manufacturing of IEDs and pipe bombs in his home.
Hafnawi joined the al-Qaeda network in Jordan in 2005, and participated in the planning of a double mass-murder attack in Jerusalem. He was convicted on security charges and served eight years in prison.
This case illustrates once again Btselem’s flawed research methodology and its one-sided and anti-Israeli approach, which cast a dark shadow on its credibility.
My Schabas Dinner
“You really do? The last time we tried to outlaw war was the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and that didn’t go very well.”
“We outlawed it,” Schabas replied. “The Kellogg-Briand pact was the beginning. And then the Nuremberg trial. And the Charter of the United Nations. And it’s prevented global war.”
Attributing the failure thus far of World War III to launch to the niceties of the U.N. Charter and not, say, to the terrors of Mutually Assured Destruction, is the hallmark of a Model U.N. participant, not a serious scholar of global history. Neither the U.N. Charter nor the countless other treaties and legal instruments devised after World War II did anything to prevent the proliferation of incredibly bloody conflicts across the Third World (Korea, Vietnam, Angola, etc.) that functioned as Cold War proxy battles, nor the many small wars that have collectively claimed the lives of millions (Rwanda, Sudan, the Balkans, etc.) since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Budapest Memorandum has not stopped Russia from waging war on Ukraine. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701 have not led to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The Convention on the Rights of the Child has not stopped Burundi, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and a host of other nations—all signatories to the document—from exploiting children as soldiers.
Later in the evening, Schabas was asked to address a problem inherent in the practice of international law, specifically as it applies to Israel and its adversaries—namely that the latter groups, in their conduct as belligerents, make no pretensions whatsoever to abide by any norms, legal or moral. “I think that they have their own rule book,” Schabas replied.
“What is it?” someone else at the table asked.
“I don’t know what it is exactly. I think everybody involved in combat plays by rules. They just disagree about what the rules are and we may not agree with the rules that they’re playing by … I don’t know that the Hezbollah fighter faced with a school filled with children is going to say, ‘let’s go and kill them.’ ”
It is all well and good that William Schabas recused himself from an enterprise that was corrupt from the beginning. But the explanations cited for his unsuitability are comparatively minor and tawdry next to the fact that he is a fool.
Book Review: A World Without Jews: The Nazi Imagination from Persecution to Genocide
Historian David Cesarani hails Alon Confino’s triumphant demonstration that anti-Jewish policies are within the realms of comprehension and that it is possible to find the words to explain them accessibly, two qualities we badly need today.
At a time when we are told that a ‘wave of anti-Semitism’ is sweeping Europe and that Jews face a threat comparable to the menace of the 1930s, it is good to be reminded of what Nazi anti-Semitism was like and what it was about. Alon Confino’s subtle and elegantly written study obliges us to confront the ways in which the Nazis imagined the Jews and the emotions which these fantasies stirred in the minds of ordinary German people. Confino boldly rejects the interpretations of Nazism that currently dominate scholarship, asserting that these offer a rather too comforting explanation. He argues that Nazi anti-Jewish policy cannot be reduced to racism, and certainly not to perverted scientific thinking. Rather, ideas of race and scientific practices were warped to provide the right answers to a pre-determined ‘Jewish question’. Nor did the persecution of the Jews represent a ‘radicalisation’ of anti-Semitism or metastasise due to the brutalisation of a regime and a people that were in a virtually constant state of imagined or real warfare. On the contrary, the Nazis drew on traditions of Jew-hatred and the violence they practiced evoked patterns which were rooted in the German past and in Christianity. Crucially, Confino situates Nazi anti-Semitism within the Christian tradition of anti-Judaism. Although many scholars (and theological apologists) have maintained that National Socialism was anti-religious, Confino states that, ’Their aim was not to eradicate Christianity but to eradicate Christianity’s Jewish roots; not to replace Christianity with racism but to blend the two.’

  • Monday, March 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From The Marker:
Treasury officials are preparing bullish new estimates for economic growth this year as data coming in for the final part of 2014 and early 2015 show growth rebounding at a faster pace than anyone predicted just a few months earlier.

A final estimate is still being calculated, but Finance Ministry officials said they are now expecting Israel’s gross domestic product to expand 3.5% this year. That would mean a much faster pace of growth than the 2.8% officials were talking about last summer when they provided the first estimate ahead of the 2015 budget.

Behind the new optimism is preliminary data for the fourth quarter of 2014, which showed GDP surging ahead at a 7.2% annual rate, it fastest since the first quarter of 2008. That raised growth for all of 2014 to 2.9%.

Meantime, Israel’s unemployment rate fell to 5.9% last year from 6.2% in 2013 even as the percentage of the working age population grew to a very high 64.2%. The economy bounced back quickly from the effect of last summer’s Gaza war while a weaker shekel has been spurring higher exports, mainly to North America and Asia.
Cisco and other high tech legends are bullish on Israel:
With the opening of Amazon’s research and development center in Israel this year, each of these Internet giants [Apple, Google, Facebook] now has an R&D presence in the country. But it is the veteran technology company Cisco that most varied activity here. In addition to an R&D center that employs about 1,800 workers, it established in 1998, Cisco has acquired 10 Israeli startups for a total of more than $1.5 billion. In addition, it has invested in close to 25 others, not including its acquisition of NDS – which was long past the startup stage when Cisco bought it and had changed hands several times before the acquisition – for $5 billion three years ago.
Intel also chose Israeli technology for 3D chips.

Trade with China is growing exponentially:
Trade between Israel and China has been steadily increasing in the last three years, with trade doubling between 2010 and 2014. Trade in 2010 was about $5 billion, with Israeli exports to China amounting to $1 billion. 2014 fared better than 2013. In 2014, trade value approached $11 billion and I think Israeli exports to China accounted for nearly 30 percent of that amount. While it's a positive development it's nothing compared to the potential of the Chinese market. China also invested $300 million in Israeli high technology in 2014.
Even Ha'aretz' business column says that Palestinian boycotts of Israeli goods are only hurting themselves.

In Europe and America, politically engaged college students, performance artists and cooperative-grocery-store activists – the kind of people who form the core of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, movement – may find it personally gratifying to swear off Israel. It costs them nothing: none are likely to have ever knowingly bought an Israeli product, held shares in an Israeli company or been invited to Israel to perform or exhibit. They can take the politically correct stand by signing a petition or voting on a resolution at no personal cost.

That’s not the case for the Palestinians, who depend on Israel for goods, services and employment. By one estimate, 70% of the processed food Palestinians consume comes from Israel, so boycotting even some products entails a huge personal sacrifice.

And to what avail? Only about 3% of Israeli food sales come from the West Bank, and most of that is for basic, low-margin products. The CEOs of Israeli food companies won’t be lobbying Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to transfer the Palestinian tax receipts he has frozen, which is the ostensible reason for the boycott.

  • Monday, March 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From IMRA:



IDF soldiers on patrol engage in a pick-up soccer game with Palestinian youths

But...but...

(h/t @HummusNotWar)


From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: The Palestinians Want... Peace?
The latest PLO and Fatah campaign is not directed only against settlement products. Rather, it is targeting anything made in Israel, as a part of an "anti-normalization" movement, whose goal is to thwart any encounters between Israelis and Palestinians, including peace conferences.
While some Israelis, Americans and Europeans are talking about the need to revive the peace process after the March 17 elections in Israel, the Palestinians are clearly moving in a different direction.
"We are headed for confrontation with Israel." — Mahmoud Aloul, senior Fatah official.
The Palestinian Authority's strategy now is to intensify its campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel in the international community, and promote all forms of boycotts of Israelis and Israeli goods; to force Israel to make concessions through international pressure and through campaigns of boycott and divestment.
These campaigns are further radicalizing Palestinians, driving many of them into the open arms of radical groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
If Abbas is interested in returning to the negotiating table (as he sometimes declares he is), then he needs to prepare his people for that and not incite them even more against Israel.
Those who are opposed to the presence of Israeli products in their villages and cities will be the first to oppose the resumption of peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis.
JCPA: Is the PLO Threat to End Security Coordination with Israel an Empty Threat?
It is now clear that Abbas’ threats are empty; they were an attempt to pressure Israel to free the frozen tax revenues. The PLO Central Committee’s decision was also aimed at containing popular rage over the freezing of the revenues and at showing that the PA is not prepared to submit passively to the Israeli sanction.
In reality, Abbas knows that ending security coordination with Israel will harm the Palestinians most of all. Just a few months ago, Israel rescued Abbas’ rule when the Israel Security Agency (Shabak) apprehended an extensive Hamas network in Judea and Samaria that had planned to destabilize the PA with a series of attacks.
The security coordination is an inseparable part of the Oslo agreement signed by Israel and the PLO in 1993. Although the PA has violated numerous clauses of the agreement, so far it is refraining from violating this particular clause.
Fatah sources claim that the large-scale exercise conducted by the IDF in Judea and Samaria a few days before the PLO Central Committee met in Ramallah was meant to signal to the Palestinians that Israel will not hesitate to reconquer all of the West Bank if it needs to do so.
An escalation of the conflict between Israel and the PA has been deferred for now. Nevertheless, the Palestinians have not withdrawn their application to join the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Hamas offers long-term calm in exchange for end of blockade
Hamas recently sent a series of messages to Israel indicating interest in a long-term ceasefire lasting for several years, in exchange for an end to the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip, sources told The Times of Israel.
Senior Hamas officials met with Western diplomats about the ceasefire, and also reached a number of understandings about the character of the ceasefire, also known as a tahdiyya.
During the talks, Hamas officials emphasized that they were willing to agree on a ceasefire of at least five years (though some sources said the offer was for 15 years), during which time all military activities “above and below ground” from both parties would end. At the same time, the blockade on Gaza would be removed, including restrictions on exports, and Israel would allow the construction of a seaport and an airport.
The Western diplomats included Swiss Consul Paul Garnier, who has become the key figure in maintaining contacts with Hamas.
Garnier visited Gaza a month ago, and met with several Hamas leaders, including Moussa Abu Marzouk, Bassem Naim, Ghazi Hamid, and others.
Garnier presented these conditions to senior EU officials who are in touch with Israeli leaders.
The inevitable Hamas retraction
Hamas denies it offered Israel a temporary ceasefire

An evil Zionist rabbi, intent to bend the world to his will, secretly manipulates a demented Holocaust survivor to unwillingly make public statements in favor of Israel for his own nefarious purposes.

The plot of a bad neo-Nazi comic book?

No, the reality that exists in the mind of former B'Tselem head Jessica Montell:

Commenting on Rogel Alpher's absurd Haaretz piece, instead of pointing out how idiotic it was, she took it seriously and tweeted in response::

Isn't it interesting that a person who tries to present herself to the world as a paragon of morality is so willing to use social media to push what sounds a great deal like a traditional antisemitic conspiracy theory?

I would love to know where she "heard" this from. It would be instructive to know who her friends are.

Look at that hair!

This may not be the most offensive Haaretz column ever written, but it very possibly is the most idiotic.

From Rogel Alpher in Haaretz:

I saw you during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in Congress, Elie Wiesel. You were there, in the gallery, next to Sara Netanyahu. Your appearance was impressive and powerful, leaving its mark on everyone who saw it.

...Your thin, elderly body hardly filled the suit you wore for the occasion. It is obvious you are accustomed to such suits. They are your natural clothing. Their touch is familiar to your skin. You looked like you were completely in your element when Netanyahu pointed you out – the most famous Holocaust survivor today, a Nobel laureate, an admired author – to illustrate his commitment to stopping the fulfillment of the Iranian threat to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. Never again, and all that Holocaust jazz. You stood and thanked all the members of Congress, who gave you a standing ovation. You sat down, but they would not stop.

There is an intolerable ease in the applause you receive. It is automatic. Applauding you is the easiest, safest thing to do. And how they applauded. You sat down and stood up, modestly, to receive their overflowing esteem. You gave Netanyahu your symbolic and moral support. It is obvious you are well aware of who you are. You are Elie Wiesel. You are 86 years old. And for you, I count for nothing.

What were you doing there, Elie Wiesel? Netanyahu is my prime minister. You are not an Israeli citizen. You do not live here. The Iranian threat to destroy Israel does not apply to you. You are a Jew who lives in America. This is not your problem. By what right did you stand there, using your reputation and your prestige, to try and influence the members of Congress to accept Netanyahu’s position on an issue that has nothing to do with you?

If Israel’s future is so important to you, if the fate of Jerusalem matters so much to you, why do you not live here? Do you think that you and I have some shared fate because we are both Jews? Think again. Everything that happens to me here in Israel does not happen to you there in New York. Where do you get the right to interfere in my affairs? You have some nerve.
Rogel Alpher has created a new moral rule for the world.

Genocide in Darfur? Beheadings by ISIS? Girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? Don't speak out about it, unless you live in Nigeria or Iraq or the Sudan. Otherwise, you are a hypocritical blowhard.

Sorry, Peter Beinart. In Alpher's world, you have no right to write a column for Haaretz anymore, you damned American.

In Alpher's world, Wiesel has no right  to speak out in support of Nicaragua's Miskito Indians, Argentina's Desaparecidos, Cambodian refugees, and Kurds. That's almost as heinous a crime as Wiesel's speaking out in defense of Israel Jews!

What chutzpah for a person who survived the genocide of six million Jews to speak out against the potential genocide of six million more Jews! What a hypocrite!

The ironic thing is that Alpher has said that he is so sick of Israel that he will move out - but meanwhile, his opinion of the people he is abandoning is far more important than that of those who identify with and care about them.

Hilariously, the longest paragraph in Alpher's nonsensical piece is about Elie Wiesel's hair. I kid you not.
It is impossible to ignore your white hair, visible from afar, parted by a deep gulf on the slope of your high forehead and dividing into airy stalks of a fluttering, almost youthful, forelock with something Parisian about it. The professorial hairdo of an esteemed intellectual, the kind that characterizes a creative, instinctive and turbulent sort of person. You carry it with open self-awareness, a bit like a preening peacock, a hallmark of the icon you have become. It flew over your elongated head, your beneficent and wise eyes. The feeling was that your very hair carried something of the victory of the human spirit. That is how the hair of a distinguished humanist looks.
This photo of Alpher may explain his obsession with the hair of an 86-year old man.



This is the sort of serious thought that is esteemed by Haaretz and its shrinking readership.

  • Monday, March 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas released a new video yesterday, with the title "You will have no security, even in your dreams."

It shows a stereotypical haredi Jew who has a nightmare about being run over by a Hamas terrorist and wakes up, terrified.

Hamas' Felesteen site adds that "According to Israeli reports, hundreds of soldiers and settlers needed 'psychological help' after the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip, due to stress and anxiety." It claims, improbably, that the video is aimed only at the "settlers" who live near Gaza.



Hamas is freely admitting to threatening and targeting Jews.

Nah, nothing antisemitic about that.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive