Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

03/11 Links Pt1: AP's Botched Investigation into Gaza Deaths; BDSers Riot at Col. Kemp Speech

From Ian:

How the AP Botched Its Investigation of Civilian Deaths in the Israel-Hamas War

Publications, aggregation sites and broadcast outlets picking up the AP probe ranged from the New York Times to the Drudge Report and Al Jazeera America, from the Washington Post to ABC News (The AP provided subscribers with two versions of the article, a roughly 2,250-word story and one about half that size). The U.K.’s Daily Mail and The Independent both ran the piece, no doubt reinforcing the British public’s already dim view of Israel. Even Stars and Stripes, the newspaper for U.S. Armed Forces, ran the AP “exclusive.” The wide pickup was a coup for the oldest and most ubiquitous of wire services, which operates in more than 280 locations worldwide and counts 1,400 U.S. daily newspapers among his members, plus thousands of TV and radio broadcast members.
There is just one problem. The AP’s exclusive investigation was botched in just about every imaginable way.
We conducted an investigation of the AP investigation. We (the authors) have formed a nonprofit investigative project, The Mideast Reporter, that is going to do a lot of that kind of thing. We found that the news agency reached faulty conclusions based on selective information, cherry-picked quotes, and above all its “painstaking” survey was fundamentally flawed, and was set into motion by slanted, politically biased non-governmental organizations.
Some of it is Journalism 101 stuff, such as failing to write accurate headlines and failing to fully and fairly quote a principal source on a crucial issue. A lead photograph simultaneously exploited a 6-year-old child while inadequately identifying his father—a Hamas commander—as a “Hamas policeman.” And correcting captions violating its ethics rules only after we brought the issue to the AP’s attention—but limiting those corrections to an archive not usually accessed by the public, rather than the articles themselves.
A video segment, released concurrently, was even worse, and was structured almost as a kind of multimedia argument for bringing Israel to the International Criminal Court for war crimes, using as its principal source a fervent critic of Israel.
In its reporting, the AP disregarded its own code of ethics, as well as the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics.

Riot at Sydney University

The lecture was being given by retired British military officer Colonel Richard Kemp, a world-renowned expert on armed conflict, the Middle East and a prolific media commentator,
Colonel Kemp had been invited by the University to speak on “Ethical Dilemmas of Military Tactics” and “Dealing with non-state armed groups,” in light of Australia’s military engagement with non-state actors, including ISIS.
Kemp began his talk with a brief explanation of his career and a joke about England’s cricket loss to Bangladesh on Monday. He went on to discuss non-state militant groups in Ireland and Afghanistan and the obligations of soldiers when engaging with civilians and civilian groups. Before he could go into any detail or discuss any other issues, he was interrupted by over a dozen students bursting into the lecture hall screaming “Richard Kemp, you can’t hide, you support genocide.”
A demonstrator with a megaphone drowned out any attempts by the moderator to get the lecture back on track. Protestors wrestled with security guards who had asked them to leave and were then forced to remove them. Protestors stood on chairs, began to push students and shout loudly at those who objected to their behaviour.
Professor Jake Lynch, the director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS) and an ardent opponent of Israel, shouted in the faces of students, including at a senior officer of the Jewish student union. He then proceeded to stand on chairs and film attendees. Lynch screamed that attempts to remove the protestors was a violent attack on freedom of speech by security guards. When another academic suggested that he ask a question, Lynch responded that was not what this is about, only later opting to ask a question when invited by the Colonel.
One student commented that Kemp “hadn’t even mentioned Israel or Palestine” in the time he had to talk. Another student mentioned that she did not have strong views on either side of this issue, was studying international relations and had come expecting a talk, not an ambush.

Hamas Tries To Fool Israel And The West With New Ceasefire Proposal

There are several problems with the Hamas proposal and the assumption that Hamas has become more moderated and has altered its stance on reaching an agreement with Israel.
Only last week, Western Journalism reported that Hamas is preparing for a new round of conflict with Israel, building new tunnels under the Israel-Gaza border and replenishing its rocket arsenal.
A closer look at the Hamas document that was given to Blair reveals that it contained inflammatory language and false claims about Israel. The document speaks of the continuous Judaization of Jerusalem and claims that Israel attacks the el-Aksa mosque on the Temple Mount and maintains a suffocating blockade on the Gaza Strip.
The document furthermore contained profound untruths about Hamas’ ideology. Hamas does not cherish the respect for human rights nor does it believe in “a positive dialogue between different civilizations with no recourse to violence or oppression,” as the proposal claims.
Hamas has murdered thousands of Israelis and Palestinians since its founding and pursued the same aggressive Islamist agenda as Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. Article 7 in the Hamas charter calls for the genocide of Jews and underlines the universal character of its jihad that must result in Islamic world domination.
Hamas did not indicate that it would be willing to annul its charter, and that explains why the organization uses the word tahdiyyah when it speaks about a ceasefire.

Things are really bad in South Africa

From the South African Jewish Board of Deputies:

The SAJBD has repeatedly expressed concern that the BDS, by importing the Middle East conflict into South Africa, is creating a climate that encourages anti-Semitism while shutting down any possible and rational debate on Israeli – Palestinian issues.

The BDS demonstration held on Sunday, 8 March 2015, shows exactly how the dynamics of intimidation are at play.

In the video link below, the anger, potential for violence and antisemitism is clear. Speakers on the podium refer to the fact that they would shut down the conference. Supporters of Israel trying to attend the SA – Israel exhibition had to be escorted through the crowd by police to ensure their safety. They were jeered, boo’ed and called sell-outs. The protestors taunted private security, chanting “Takfir”, “Msunu wenja”, “Msunu Kanyoko”, “Go back to you Land”, and sang songs with words and titles such as Makuliwe (Let there be a fight), and it became increasingly clear that some BDS members and Cosas were out of control.

Here is part of a rally enthusiastically welcoming Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled to South Africa in February:

Last week, human rights activist Bassam Eid was not able to continue his lecture in the University of Johannesburg because "students barged into the venue and interrupted the speaker, calling him 'a liar and a sell-out.'

Here is the message that he had hoped to give:

The good news is that many South Africans are against the thuggery and antisemitism of the BDS movement, as this woman describes:

(h/t/ @SpotlightingSA)

Gunmen who are protesting the PA's arrest of members of terror groups have closed the entrance to the Balata camp near Nablus and there are clashes between them and the PA's security forces.

The gunmen are also Fatah, loyalists to Abbas rival Mohmmmed Dahlan.

This kind of thing has been going on for several weeks now, although the media is not reporting too much about it.

And it isn't only Dahlan supporters. Abbas is facing serious problems within his own government.

Al Monitor writes:

The West Bank is witnessing unprecedented security tensions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been arresting Hamas activists and partisans of ex-Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, and armed clashes between the youth and security officers have taken place.

Al-Monitor was able to secure a copy of the statement issued by one of Fatah’s organizational structures close to Dahlan, which read: “The PA arrested more than 20 supporters of Dahlan and attacked the offices of the Gaza members of parliament who live in the West Bank.”

Maj. Gen. Adnan al-Damiri, spokesman for the PA’s security apparatus, accused Israel, Hamas and Dahlan on Feb. 16 of conspiring together to stir chaos in the West Bank by forming groups to end the PA’s presence and get rid of President Mahmoud Abbas.

Paranoid much?

The security developments in the West Bank are not limited to a pursuit here and an arrest there. The PA is concerned about a local, regional and international scenario to turn Abbas’ page, given his multiple disputes with everyone, from Hamas to Dahlan and Israel. Fatah spokesman Osama al-Qawasmi said the PA seems to believe that these rivals might unite their interests temporarily to get rid of Abbas .

Fatah and parliament member Alaa Yaghi, who's close to Dahlan, warned on Feb. 27 of the deterioration of the security situation in the West Bank if the PA’s security campaign persists. The situation will worsen, just like the incidents in Gaza that led to the division in 2007. He said the security campaigns in the West Bank are based on a conspiracy theory and on spreading rumors that a huge network is attempting to stage a coup against the PA.

In the same context, a high-ranking official who frequently visits the PA’s headquarters, told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity about “simmering deliberations between senior Palestinian officers against the backdrop of growing tensions in the West Bank. Some of the PA’s high commands are deeply concerned about the recent behavior of some senior officers with Abbas.”

In a phone interview from Ramallah, the official said: “Abbas received information stating that some high-level security officials are reporting to the US and Israel the details of the political steps he intends to take. Upon receiving these reports, the US and Israel warn him of the danger of taking such steps.”

However, Ismail al-Ashqar, Hamas leader and chairman of the Palestinian Legislative Council's Security Committee, told Al-Monitor: “Abbas is to blame for the security chaos in the West Bank as it is in a state of loss and devastation. This could be a systematic sort of chaos that the PA is practicing to prevent Palestinians from defending themselves from the occupation’s soldiers.”

Al-Monitor has discussed that the increasing security tensions in the West Bank are annoying Abbas. Israel is threatening to cut him off and stop transferring funds to the PA’s treasury. He is afraid to see the scenario of Yasser Arafat repeated. Arafat was dismissed based on an Israeli decision and with the help of Palestinian pawns.

For this reason, Abbas is making significant changes in some security positions, especially those close to him, until he receives a verification of the reports about high-ranking officers playing a role in attempting to topple him. In the wake of the recent meeting of the PLO’s Central Council March 4-5 in Ramallah, the PA issued security warnings about a dirty game aimed at disturbing the Palestinian internal situation to weaken Abbas and make him lose credibility before the international bodies he is resorting to.

Al-Monitor received a Palestinian security report submitted to Abbas end of February that stated: “Political money is overflowing in the West Bank to make transitions that suit the interests of some parties and that serve suspicious foreign agendas to shake stability and security in the West Bank, in cooperation with Israel, Arab and European parties and with the US blessing. … Arab capitals accommodated meetings at governments’ headquarters and intelligence centers during which the terms of a plan to recommend an interim PA president and deputy were discussed. The first step would be by shaking the West Bank’s security to wreak havoc and form armed groups in the camps there.”

Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah said Feb. 6 that no party will be allowed to destabilize the West Bank or cause chaos and harm to the security of its citizens. But several refugee camps in the West Bank — especially the Balata refugee camp in Nablus — have been experiencing armed clashes between young Fatah members and security officers who tried to break into the camp to arrest them. Masked men burned tires at the entrance of the camp to prevent the advance of the officers who used their weapons multiple times.

A Palestinian security source who spoke on condition of anonymity told Al-Monitor, “News has been circulating in Balata camp that 50 gunmen ages 18-22 are in contact with Fatah leaders in the West Bank and abroad with Dahlan who funds them."

I'm sure that if there was no "occupation," then there would be none of these problems, and the PA would be a strong, secular, free, democratic state.

It's funny that Abbas is convinced of a huge conspiracy to get rid of him, when part of the reason for the crackdown to begin with is to help get rid of Israel's leader.

Yesterday, ISIS released another horrific video, this one showing a young boy murdering Mohammed Said Ismail Musallam, an Israeli Arab citizen who they claimed was a Mossad spy.

The claim is dubious, to say the least.

(The good news is that the incident will probably discourage Israeli Muslims from joining ISIS.)

But there is one aspect of Musallam's life that is not getting any attention: By any objective definition, he was an Israeli "settler."

Musallam lived in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Neve Yaakov.

Electronic Intifada calls Neve Yaakov "an illegal Jewish-only Israeli settlement in occupied East Jerusalem." Other anti-Israel groups have also characterized Neve Yaakov as "Jewish-only."

Musallam proves that they are lying.

Arabs can and do move into "Jewish-only settlements" like Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Ze'ev and French Hill.

If Musallam was an Israeli citizen living in an "illegal settlement," then he must be one of those fanatic Israeli settlers, right?

But you will not find any critics of Israel demanding that Israeli Muslims who live in those neighborhoods be expelled. No, they only want to ethnically cleanse those neighborhoods of Israeli Jews, not of Israeli Muslims. Which is a textbook definition of antisemitism.

How progressive they are!

See also
There are thousands of Israeli "settlers" that NO ONE condemns!
Ashton apparently only has a problem with Jewish, but not Israeli Arab, "settlers"

UPDATE: TOI says he lived in Beit Hanina. which is an Arab neighborhood across the Green Line.

A simple test to see if "progressives" are really "Pro-Israel" (poster)

This should be self-evident.

If you are a prolific tweeter, and yet cannot find the time to tweet a single defense of the nation you claim to love against its many critics, then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

If you cannot write a single tweet saying pointing out the absurdity of Israel-haters calling Israel an "apartheid state," then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

If you cannot compose a single tweet about Israel's beauty, culture, history, or accomplishments - then you cannot claim to be "pro-Israel."

So if you aren't pro-Israel and every single one of your Israel-related tweets is critical, what are you?

03/10 Links Pt2: Max Blumenthal’s Creepy Anti-Zionist Odyssey; LATMA: Ep5

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.

The intellectual dishonesty of the "progressive" NIF

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:

@ngomonitor @KenRoth from an org so captive to Israel interests it makes AIPAC look objective? LOL.
— Naomi Paiss (@NaomiPaiss) March 10, 2015

I answered her:

Can @NaomiPaiss or @KenRoth find a single mistake in report's def of LOAC? Didn't think so. @ngomonitor @JessicaMontell @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

OK, @NaomiPaiss, JINSA is biased. So are you. Now tell me where the report is wrong. #intellectaldishonesty @ngomonitor @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

I fisk reports critical of Israel for breakfast.Surely @NaomiPaiss with your resources can find one major error? @ngomonitor @NewIsraelFund
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) March 10, 2015

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.

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.

03/10 Links Pt1: UN Gaza Commissioners defer report to June; NIF given $1 Mil from US State Dept

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

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.)

US generals criticize Amnesty and HRW in new report on Gaza war

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.

2014 Gaza Assessment Report

(h/t Richard Landes)

Hamas blames Israel for attacks against Egyptian soldiers in Sinai

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.

03/09 Links Pt2: My Schabas Dinner; Phillips: European leaders silent on jihadi Jew hate

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.’

Israel's economy is doing quite well, thank you

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.