Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, March 20, 2015

A Hamas rocket hit a mosque in Gaza last summer, injuring 10 (MAG report part 2)

On August 1, the UN's OCHA reported in its daily Gaza situation report:

Also of concern are continuing incidents where humanitarian relief personnel and objects have come under attack. At 06:15 this morning, IDF troops fired five shells at Omar Bin Al Khatab mosque, northeast of Jabalia, spraying a nearby UNRWA school with shrapnel, and injuring ten IDPs who were taking shelter there, including two in serious condition.

It turns out that the mosque was hit by Gaza terror rockets, not Israeli munitions:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, no such strikes were identified as having been carried out by IDF forces. However, the path of a rocket fired from inside the Gaza Strip, apparently by Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was identified by the IDF in real time, and which struck in the immediate vicinity of the mosque at the exact time in question. In light of the fact that the injury to the individuals in the school resulted from rocket fire by Palestinian terror organizations, the MAG ordered the case to be closed.

Is Chris Gunness going to express outrage that a Hamas or Islamic Jihad rocket injured 10 people sheltering at a UNRWA school?

We know that there were hundreds of Gaza rockets that fell in Gaza. Every case of death and injury during the war has a non-trivial chance of being the result of Hamas or Islamic Jihad rockets. We know of one case of nine children killed by a Hamas rocket. In the months before the war there were at least three Gaza civilians, and a number of terrorists, who were killed by terror rockets.

Once incident in Beit Hanoun seems likely to have been from a Hamas rocket as well:

Correspondence from an NGO alleged that in the morning hours of 22 July 2014, the IDF "struck three ambulances that were involved in the evacuation of wounded persons east of the industrial area of Bet Hanoun. One of the wounded persons in an ambulance was killed and the three vehicles were seriously damaged". As a result, and in accordance with the MAG's investigation policy, the incident was referred to the FFAM.

Following a thorough review conducted by the FFAM with all the forces identified as operating in the relevant area, such a strike by IDF forces operating in that area could not be identified. Likewise, and in contrast to other complaints concerning similar incidents, no report could be located from the time of the incident indicating that harm had been caused to a rescue crew. In turn, the FFAM did not dismiss the possibility that damage, insofar as such occurred, was the result of activity other than that of the IDF.

No NGO or news media are investigating these incidents of apparent rocket attacks within Gaza itself. Because they don't care about the truth and they don't care about dead Gazans- they only care about blaming Israel.

The truth starts to come out about Gaza incidents. Part 1: Al Bakri family home

Yesterday, Israel's Military Advocate General came out with a new report (part 3) describing the circumstances of several incidents from Operation Protective Edge that had been described as "war crimes" by the media and NGOs.

One case was the Israeli strike of the al-Bakri family on August 4. This case had been covered by Amnesty International, B'Tselem and media outlets.

This report from ABC Australia from November is typical:

Almost four months on, I have been drawn back to Gaza by the face of a seven-year-old girl.

Her name is Aseel Al-Bakri.

The last time I saw her was on August 4. She was lying in a morgue at Gaza's Shifa Hospital, a few hours after an Israeli air strike had killed her.

That day, the ABC crew in Gaza had arrived at her house, just minutes after it had been crushed from above.

The concrete structure was a crumpled mess of twisted metal and the destroyed remnants of a family's life.

We watched and filmed as the girl's tiny body was rushed out on a stretcher, and thousands of Palestinians swarmed around the rubble in the summer heat.

Ever since, I have wondered why Aseel Al-Bakri's home was targeted by an Israeli bomb. So I have come back to Gaza to find out.

On the morning of August 4 Haneen and her little sister Aseel had just returned from buying falafel.

Their mother Ibtisam was baking bread and the family was preparing to eat breakfast.

That is the last thing the children remember. Their next recollection is waking up in a Gaza hospital and being told that their mother and two sisters were dead.

Mr Al-Bakri is a religious man. He stoically insists that his wife and two children are now in a better place.

"It was very sad for me to discover what happened," he said.

"But we believe in God and we wish that they are all now in heaven."

When pressed, he opens up a little more about the family's trauma.

"I can't explain what I'm feeling right now. I can't hide my sadness. I feel stressed and depressed," he said.

I ask him why he thinks it was bombed, and whether he has any links with any of the militant factions operating in Gaza.

"I don't believe the stories about them [Israel] only hitting wanted people or militants," he said.

"Myself, I work as a dustman. I do my work and go home. I'm a simple guy, not involved with any activists or organisations."

The correspondent, Hayden Cooper, didn't bother to check out that B'Tselem reported that one of those killed in the house was not named al-Bakri, but Ibrahim al-Misharawi. Why was he there?

As I had already documented last August, Misharawi was a member of Islamic Jihad - a small fact that Cooper didn't bother to investigate months later, even though he claims to have gone back to Gaza specifically to find out the circumstances. No, he went back to Gaza to try to win an award for tear-jerking reporting.

Soon after, Amnesty International released its own report, and they did a slightly better job while still concluding that Israel had no business hitting the home. After 12 paragraphs of describing how horrible the bombing was, including two interviews of victims, Amnesty reluctantly admits:

Although family members denied it, both Ramadan Kamal al-Bakri and Ibrahim alMashharawi were members of Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades, as was confirmed when, after some weeks, their names appeared on their list of “martyrs.”

But their investigation ended there, with this conclusion:

If Ramadan Ahmad al-Bakri and Ibrahim Mohammad al-Mashharawi were the intended targets, in view of the fact that there were 21 people in the house at the time, the Israeli forces should have taken necessary precautions to minimize the risk to civilians in the house, either by giving a warning or by choosing a time and means of targeting him that was less likely to kill civilians.

They didn't bother to find out if there were any other targets in the house besides "only" two Islamic Jihad members.

Ramadan al-Bakri's martyr poster

The MAG report from Israel fills in the blanks:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the strike in question was aimed at Omar Al-Rahim, a senior commander, at a rank equivalent to that of a deputy brigade commander, in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organization. Al-Rahim was staying in the house of Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant. During the target planning process, it was assessed that there might be a number of civilians present in the building, but that the extent of the harm expected to these civilians would not be excessive in relation to the significant military advantage anticipated to result from the strike. It was planned that the strike on the building would be carried out using a precise munition, and in a way in which would allow achieving the aim of the strike whilst minimizing harm to the surrounding buildings.

After the event, as a result of the strike, the target, Omar Al-Rahim, was severely injured, and Ibrahim Al-Masharawi, who was a senior commander at a rank equivalent to a battalion commander in the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was killed, along with Ramadan Al-Bakri, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant, and four civilians.

After reviewing the factual findings and the material collated by the FFA Mechanism, the MAG found that the targeting process in question accorded with Israeli domestic law and international law requirements. The decision to strike was taken by the competent authorities and aimed at a lawful target – a senior commander in Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The strike complied with the principle of proportionality, as at the time the decision was taken, it was considered that the collateral damage expected from the strike would not be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from it. Moreover, the strike was carried out while undertaking precautionary measures which aimed to mitigate the risk of civilian harm, with an emphasis on those who were present in the surrounding buildings. Such measures included, inter alia, the choice of munition to be used, as well as the deployment of real-time visual coverage. Additionally, it was found that the provision of a specific warning prior to the attack, to the people present in the structure in which the target was located, or to those in adjacent buildings, was not required by law and was expected to result in the frustration of the strike's objective.

In light of these findings, the MAG did not find that the actions of IDF forces raised grounds for a reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct. As a result, the MAG ordered the case to be closed, without opening a criminal investigation or ordering further action against those involved in the incident.

The MAG explains why it didn't give a warning, and that Omar al-Rahim was a significant enough target to put civilians at risk. A decision like this is the right of a reasonable military commander to make.

Despite Amnesty's finding that two of the dead were Islamic Jihad members, one of them from the family itself, it didn't think to investigate further to find out if perhaps there was a bigger target that they were protecting. That target was Omar al Rahim.

The facts show that not only did the IDF act proportionately under the laws of armed conflict, but Islamic Jihad was using the al-Bakri family as human shields - a war crime that Amnesty and B'Tselem don't bother to investigate.

Islamic Jihad's tribute to Ramadan doesn't even mention the family members killed in the attack. To them, he is the only victim worth memorializing. They are the ones who don't care about human lives, not Israel.

Even more depraved was that Ramadan al-Bakri happily chose to sacrifice his own family in order to shield al-Rahim and al-Misharawi.

Such is the sick culture of Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Good luck waiting for HRW and Amnesty (and Hayden Cooper) to mention it.

Short review of Melanie Phillips talk

Tonight I went to hear Melanie Phillips speak in Manhattan.

I spoke to her briefly beforehand. I was hoping to interview her but she said she doesn't like being interviewed. Oh, well.

Her speech topic was "Contemporary Liberal Discourse and Jihadism: Why the Disconnect?" But in fact she was describing more how they are related than how they aren't.

Essentially, Phillips presented a unified theory of the Left. Her thesis is that the Left is based on dogma that is more closeminded than religions are, as they create their own ideologies - "isms" - whose foundations are not allowed to be questioned. This applies to progressivism, environmentalism, feminism and many other ideologies, which are, in her view, all really a fig leaf for narcissism - the desire to feel important at the expense of those who disagree with you. In fact, Phillips claims, these ideologies are meant to replace Western religious morality that emphasizes doing good for others with a selfish set of ideologies that emphasize self-centeredness - and self-righteousness.

In fact, one of the ironies of the Left is that this dogma is taught in universities which have now become the most dogmatic, closeminded places on the planet And from there it spreads to the media and elsewhere.

Phillips astutely pointed out that universalism will always hate the Jews, because Jews are a separate people with a separate moral code, which is a threat to these ideologies. Israel's purpose is to provide a safe haven for Jews, and that idea is anathema to any universalism. And, she noted, universalism often ends up becoming totalitarianism.

I thought she was on shakier ground when she tried to compare these ideologies with Islamism, both being universal ways of looking at the world and intolerant of dissent. True, they have made common cause - something she spoke about a bit - but I don't think that there is really any ideological reason for it. I think that they both simply hate Western civilization.

And Israel.

I am not as certain that that leftists have any ideological connection with Islamists. I don't see anyone from the Left praising ISIS or Al Qaeda.

But one of the most striking things about last weekend's #AskHamas Twitter event was seeing how many people didn't only insult Israel, which is to be expected, but how many defended and praised Hamas. I didn't see one person say "Israel is horrible but Hamas is no picnic either."

Why is one Islamist philosophy praiseworthy and the other one distasteful?

The real reason is that people who hate Jews, or use Israel as a proxy for hating Western civilization,, are so consumed with their loathing that they are willing to throw away their supposed principles to make common cause even with Islamists who are perceived as being Israel's enemy. Their only real consistent philosophy is hate. Everything else is flexible.

Anyway, the talk was excellent. This short synopsis doesn't do it justice. Hopefully a video will be made available soon.

03/19 Links Pt2: Divest from the PA!; White House chief of staff to headline J Street conference

From Ian:

White House chief of staff to headline J Street conference

Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, will headline the annual J Street conference, at a time of US-Israel tensions over the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group’s signature issue, the two-state solution.
J Street announced McDonough as its speaker Thursday, three days before the start of the conference, which is expected to attract a record 3,000 activists, including 1,000 students.
McDonough’s appearance at the conference for the group, which is strongly critical of the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, comes at a low point in ties between the Obama and Netanyahu governments.
Another featured speaker will be James Baker, the secretary of state under President George H. W. Bush who clashed with a right-wing predecessor of Netanyahu, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Baker is currently advising Bush’s son, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor vying for the GOP nod for the 2016 election.
There will also be sessions on Iran and on J Street’s role in the wider Jewish community.

Joe Lieberman: Congress Should Have Power to Review Iran Deal

In an opinion column for The Wall Street Journal, Lieberman throws his support behind the bipartisan legislation proposed by Republican Sen. Bob Corker and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez that would allow Congress to approve or reject an accord with the Islamic Republic.
"The White House has threatened a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a 'nonbinding' executive agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an inappropriate intrusion," wrote Lieberman, the vice presidential nominee in 2000.
"Not so. The Constitution and history, not to mention common sense, argue that it is entirely proper for America’s elected representatives in Congress to review a far-reaching agreement with a foreign government of such national-security significance.
"The president as commander in chief deserves deference in devising national-security strategy, but Congress has clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process."
The four-time Connecticut senator noted that in the Constitution there are "checks and balances" between the president and Congress in terms of foreign policy authority, specifically pointing to the selection of ambassadors and drawing up international treaties, which both need Senate agreement.

University of New Orleans: Divest from the Palestinian Authority

Signs of a new twist on the divestment phenomenon have recently been popping up on the campus of the University of New Orleans. Unlike the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign that began infiltrating college campuses nearly a decade ago, this divestment campaign targets the Palestinian Authority.
Started by Allies of Israel, a self-described “grass roots college organization dedicated to the promotion of the Jewish state of Israel as a sovereign nation,” this campaign asks students to sign a petition that states:
To raise awareness about the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Palestinian Authority against the Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank; to call for accountability in the foreign aid given to the Palestinian Authority and ensure it is not used to persecute Palestinians or Israelis.
Campaign organizer and student activist Chloe Valdary released a statement to the Salomon Center:
In order to give expression to the Jewish struggle for freedom, my organization Allies of Israel has launched a campaign to symbolically divest from the Palestinian Authority. Because we understand many Palestinians are employed by the P.A., we do not wish to literally pull off the shelves products which are produced by the PA. However, we do seek to stand in solidarity with our Palestinian brothers and sisters who are imprisoned and persecuted by the P.A. This includes Palestinian women, gays, religious minorities and political dissidents. In addition, we stand in solidarity with Jews in Israel and around the world and call upon the P.A. to cease sponsoring, financing, and/or encouraging the lynching of Jews and the segregation of Jews from areas that are currently off limits to Jews in Israel. (h/t Gnomercy9)

From Al Arabiya:

A Malaysian state governed by an opposition Muslim party passed a law on Thursday mandating tough Islamic criminal punishments, a move that threatens to break up a fractious opposition alliance.

The state assembly of Kelantan, which is controlled by the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), unanimously passed penalties including amputations for theft and stoning to death for adultery, according to Malaysian media reports.

It isn't law yet but here is some background:

Earlier, Kelantan chief minister Ahmad Yakob told the assembly that the new laws would be only applicable to all Muslims of sound mind and who have attained puberty and thereby deemed to be able to discern right from wrong.

"This law is certain to bring equal justice for all as it is a law designed by Allah the Great and Wise. Those who accused the law as inhumane are liars and such accusations are made by those immoral," he said.

DAP said hudud defies the Federal Constitution and it will continue to reject hudud as it is impractical and against the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition coalition's common policy framework.

DAP national political education director Liew Chin Tong said the amendment would create a wedge in PR and, if unresolved, could lead to a new anti-Umno coalition in the future.

The Bill stipulates six offences that are punishable under hudud. One of the offences is falsely accusing others of unlawful relations. Before a charge of illicit sex can be upheld, there must now be four witnesses to an act. This offence is punishable by 100 lashes.

Sodomy or anal sex is an offence not only between men or between a man and a woman out of wedlock, but also between husbands and wives in the absence of consent.

A wife may now lodge a police report against the husband for forcing anal sex on her. The offence is punishable by 100 lashes if the person is unmarried, and death by stoning if married.

Apostasy is considered a crime and could be punishable by death. Other offences that are punishable under the hudud law are theft (amputation of one hand), robbery (amputation of one hand and one foot), and consumption of liquor or intoxicants (80 lashes).

Hudud cannot be implemented as the Federal Constitution bars overlapping criminal codes, and a constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament - which Umno and PAS together cannot muster.

However, there have been suggestions that a legal carve-out could be implemented requiring a simple majority in Parliament.

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

It’s the Morning After in Israel, and it’s a beautiful day for several reasons.

The weather is great. And although pre-election polls showed Yitzhak (Buji) Herzog’s “Zionist Union” (Labor Party) ahead by as many as 4 seats, exit polls released at 10 PM showed a dead heat with Netanyahu’s Likud. This morning with 99% of the precincts reporting, the Likud was up 30 to 24 — and when soldiers’ votes come in over the next few days the gap is expected to widen. Although coalition negotiations are yet to come, it’s as close to certain as anything can be in politics that Netanyahu will be the one to form the next government. The polls were all very wrong.

Recently I went to an excellent talk about the coming election by Times of Israel analyst Haviv Rettig Gur. He mentioned the phenomenon of election surprises, which seem to have become a regular feature here. The Pensioner’s Party that came from nowhere to get 7 seats in the Knesset in 2006 and the unanticipated second-place showing (19 seats) of Yesh Atid in 2013 are examples. “But,” he said, “the surprises never help the right wing.” So much for that theory.

Rehovot, where I live, is a bellwether for the nation, sometimes called “Israel’s Ohio.” It’s a mixture of almost all the Israeli Jewish subcultures (few Arabs live here). Russians, Ethiopians, Yemenites, South Americans, Moroccans, English-speakers, descendants of some of the first Jewish immigrants to Israel, scientists from the Weizman Institute, Haredim, Modern Orthodox and secular people, even a thriving Masorati (conservative) congregation.

The volunteers (and paid staff) of the US-funded V15 organization that was “non-politically” working to defeat PM Netanyahu were everywhere in recent days. Their stickers were on light poles, their tables and free pizza in the little squares in my neighborhood. Drivers saw their signs at every junction. Their ‘suggested’ posts clogged my Facebook timeline, and their ads appeared before YouTube videos and anywhere banner ads could be purchased.

There was big foreign money against the PM (yes, I know about Israel Hayom, but that is just a newspaper, the only one of the three major papers that supports him, not a small army of political operatives), and US President Obama made it clear that he wanted to see regime change in Israel. The Israeli media (all the radio and TV stations lean left to a greater or lesser degree) was full of talk about how the Likud campaign was coming apart. The foreign media, too, was all about life after Bibi.

Election Day started out well. After I ran the gauntlet of anti-Bibi leafleters, an older man coming out of the polling place looked at me, smiled, raised his fist and said ‘machal!‘ (the ballot symbol for the Likud). I responded in kind.

So what happened? The Zionist Union and farther left parties got more or less what the polls predicted, except that the Joint Arab List benefited from a slighter greater turnout in the Arab sector. The right-wing bloc overall has been ahead since the Second Intifada. Most Israelis simply don’t trust the Left any more. But why did so many people who were expected to vote for other right-wing parties move to the Likud?

Bibi’s last-minute strategy was to appeal to the right-wing bloc to abandon the small parties and vote for him. Many Israelis find him personally off-putting — they think he’s dictatorial, a demagogue, has expensive personal tastes, etc. But compared to what the Left offers, it’s no contest. There will be no Palestinian state, Bibi said, while Buji promised to restart talks with the PLO. Only a small minority of Israelis think this would be productive, and understand that it would mean pressure on Israel for concessions like releasing prisoners, freezing construction in Jerusalem, etc. When faced with the alternative, these voters made the safe choice.

I think there was something additional here. Just before the election it became known that the Worldwide Threat Assessment, produced by US intelligence agencies under the guidance of Obama appointee James Clapper, dropped Iran and Hezbollah from its list of entities considered terrorism threats. This is more evidence, if any more is needed, that the Obama Administration is pursuing a policy of alignment with Iran. Whether it is primarily because Obama thinks he can pacify Iraq on the cheap, or if he has other, darker motives, isn’t clear. But the friend of our enemy can’t be our friend, and Israelis are uneasy with Obama.

At almost the same time, it was published that the US has failed to renew an agreement with Israel that guaranteed Israel’s oil supply in the event of war, an agreement that was first signed in 1975. Probably not a big deal, but just another reason for Israelis to wonder about whether they could depend on the Obama Administration if the chips were down.

As I wrote recently, Herzog and Livni made the relationship with the administration one of the main issues in the campaign, and the impression is that they will ‘improve’ it by doing whatever Obama wants. Buji said in regard to the P5+1 – Iran negotiations, “I trust Obama to get a good deal.” A shocking statement, really, and one that might represent the greatest policy divergence between Herzog and Netanyahu.

I think that what happened was that as the elections approached, Israelis started noticing how hard they were being pushed toward the Zionist Union, how obsequious its leaders were toward Obama, and how dangerous the policies of Obama Administration really are toward the State of Israel. I think that they were very uneasy about the clear conflict of interest shown by Herzog and Livni, whose campaign received a huge boost from groups funded by foreign money, including the US State Department and S. Daniel Abraham, an American billionaire with close connections to the Democratic party. I think they were beginning to ask themselves if someone was trying to buy a government for some pizza.

Many years ago, in the context of an American election that came out differently than expected, my father (z”l) said that it was proof that “the American people are not as dumb as they look.”

Neither are Israelis.

03/19 Links Pt1: Dershowitz: The Role of the PA in Israel's Election Results; Beinart goes Stalinist

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: The Role of the Palestinian Authority in Israel's Election Results

Those around the world who are upset with Prime Minister's Benjamin Netanyahu electoral victory over the Zionist Camp party should put much of the responsibility for Israel's rightward turn squarely where it belongs: on the Palestinian Authority (PA).
At least twice over the last 15 years, Israel has offered the Palestinians extraordinarily generous two-state solutions. The first time was in 2000-2001 when Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians more than 90% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip, with a capital in Jerusalem. Yassir Arafat turned down the offer and started an intifada, in which 4000 people were killed. This self-inflicted wound by the leader of the PA contributed greatly to the weakening of Israel's peace camp, most particularly of Ehud Barak's Labor party. The current Zionist Camp party, which is an offshoot of Labor, has continued to suffer from that weakening.
Then again, in 2007, Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians an even more generous resolution, to which Mahmoud Abbas failed to respond positively. This failure also contributed to the weakening of the Israeli center-left and the strengthening of the right.
Israel is a vibrant democracy, in which people vote their experience, their fear and their hope. In 2000-2001 and 2007, most Israelis had high hopes for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict. These hopes were dashed by Arafat's rejection and Abbas' refusal to accept generous peace offers. It is not surprising therefore, that so many Israelis now vote their fear instead of their hope.

Beinart goes Stalinist

Let me tell Beinart something about the election result: it should not have been a surprise. Israelis did not suddenly vote for ‘occupation’. A majority of Israelis have realized, since the Second Intifada, that they are stuck with it — the alternative is Hamas next door to Tel Aviv — and that the delusional thinking of the Left only brings war, terrorism and death.
This was confirmed when Hamas took over Gaza and began to rain rockets on southern Israel. There hasn’t been a majority for the left-wing bloc since 1999 because of this reality. All Netanyahu did with his “nakedly racist appeal” was to shift some votes to the Likud from parties to the right of it, in order to improve his position in the coalition negotiations to follow.
It is fascinating to watch Beinart, who talks so much about democracy, quickly adopt coercion when the democratic process produces a result he dislikes. Like many of the reactions of the Left to the election results, Beinart quickly slipped into his true, Stalinist persona. You want to annex Area C, Bennett? We’ll freeze your assets! Never mind that there are no possible legal grounds to do so.
I expect that Beinart and Obama are of the same mind about this, so I won’t be surprised when the US votes against Israel at the UN, and does who knows what else to “punish” us. But keep in mind that no Israeli government — not Bibi, but not Buji/Tzipi either — could possibly make the kind of concessions needed to satisfy Obama or the Arabs. The problem isn’t Bibi, it’s reality.
I am pleased, though to take some of the responsibility from the government. As an Israeli voter (who proudly voted for Bibi), Beinart can blame me all he likes. Go ahead, make my day!

Israel Election: Racist Leader Told Voters to ‘Punish’ Their ‘Enemies’

Controversy continues to rage after the Israeli elections. It is–or ought to be–a scandal for any leader of a civilized nation to urge one group of voters to “punish” their “enemies” from another group of voters. The exact quote was: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” The leader who uttered those disgraceful words was U.S. President Barack Obama in 2010, and the mainstream media ignored him.
In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Right-wing rule is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”
It was an unseemly remark, one that Netanyahu later had to clarify.
Yet the mainstream media had been harping on the Arab vote for weeks, specifically warning that it was a threat to Netanyahu’s government. And the U.S. State Department has been funding efforts to target the Israeli Arab vote.
If it is racist to point out that Arab voters are being bused to the polls, then it is racist to bus them to the polls in the first place, and to report (with fervent hope, as in most media articles) that those Arab voters dislodge Netanyahu from power.

Deebo at Israellycool looks at some interesting statistics from the Israeli elections.

One of the facts reported is that the most pro-Likud town in Israel is the village of All Naim, where 77% voted Likud.

Al Naim is a Bedouin Arab town.

Why did they vote for Bibi? NRG went there and asked.

Until 1999 the Bedouin village was not known, and for years it waged a war against the Israeli authorities demanding recognition and minimum conditions for life such as electrical and sewage connections.

In the past two years things have changed dramatically. Now there is a paved main street half a mile long as well as other roads and construction of over 80 houses. This week a contractor began work for laying a sewer line. "Within a few months we will have a village sewer and electricity and we are pleased," says Nimer Naim, community leader.

Of of the main themes of this website is that bias is not only evident from what is said, but often even more so by what is unsaid.

Ken Roth of HRW didn't only spend his summer slamming israel, but the leader of "human rights" organization studiously ignored nearly all of Hamas' human rights violations.

Leaders of NIF and J-Street strenuously claim to be "pro-Israel" yet they never say anything nice about Israel or defend it from its more strident critics.

Similarly, media bias is not only evident from the slanted stories that get reported, but from the complete absence of stories like these that go unreported.

The worst problem is the reluctance of the mainstream media to report anything negative about Mahmoiud Abbas or the PA, even when they make the most bigoted and hateful statements of support for terror or offer the most egregious lies.

This is because there is a meme of the "moderate Palestinians" that must be guarded, because the media is heavily invested in that falsehood.

The twin meme to that, of course, is that the Likud-led coalition government is racist and hates Arabs. It is practically an axiom.

That is why this story will not be reported. It fits every journalistic criterion of what would make a good human interest story, as it exposes something unusual and unexpected - but it goes against the meme of bigoted Bibi, and therefore cannot and must not be reported.

Once last year I listed about ten stories from a single week that the media ignored, even though - like this one - they matched every standard for newsworthiness.

The bias is not only from what is reported - it is much more obvious from what goes unreported.

(h/t Yoel, RealJerusalemStreets)

How cute: PLO says Israeli elections "destroy chance for peace"

Ma'an's headline says "PLO: Israel election results 'destroy chance for peace'".

Let's pay a short visit to Palestinian Media Watch and see how Fatah and PLO officials have been promoting peace lately:

"Good morning to the people of Palestine, the people of defiance;
Good morning, land of the free men;
Good morning, Martyrs (Shahids) of Palestine, who are watering our roots with their blood, so that they will grow into a fruitful tree, strong of trunk;
Good morning, wounds of the innocent;
Good morning, children of Palestine, who carry their innocence in one hand and the stone in the other;
Good morning, resolute mothers of Palestine, who give away what they hold most dear (i.e., their children)."
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page", Feb. 22, 2015]

And:

Official PA TV recently honored Fatima Barnawi as "a role model and example and a pioneer of sacrifice." Barnawi placed a bomb in a movie theater in Jerusalem in 1967 that failed to explode.

And:

On March 8, International Women's Day, Abbas' Fatah party posted an image of terrorist Amna Muna, addressing her as "O glorious one," and stating that she "is always present in our hearts." Muna participated in the kidnapping and murder of 16 year-old Israeli Ofir Rahum on Jan. 17, 2001. She met the Israeli youth in an online chat room, convinced him to meet her, then drove him to Ramallah where he was murdered by her two accomplices. She was arrested and sentenced to life in prison, but was released in the Gilad Shalit deal.

And:

Celebrating the anniversary of the most lethal terror attack against Israel, Abbas’ Fatah party addressed Israelis on its Facebook page, telling them to collect the body parts of murdered Israelis and leave Israel:

“Collect your body parts and leave!”
[Fatah’s Facebook page, “Fatah -
The Main Page,” March 11, 2015]

Fatah took pride in the terror attack, calling the terrorists “heroes,” and posting a photo of the destroyed bus in which terrorist Dalal Mughrabi and other terrorists killed 37 civilians and wounded over 70 in 1978.

Shhhh! Don't mention that Israel's "peace partner" publicly calls for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East! Don't mention that the PLO's ersatz state regularly praises terror attacks against Jews on its official TV broadcasts! Don't mention that one of the two states of the "two state solution" would be Judenfrei!

It isn't as if the PLO doesn't have support from Jews who supposedly love Israel but never can find a kind word to say about it, like Peter Beinart and all 3000 attendees of the upcoming J-street Conference.

Video: Hebron Arabs ransack an Israeli truck

On Monday, Arabs in Hebron broke into an Israeli delivery truck and destroyed all the packages within, tossing them onto the street to the wild cheers of the crowd.

From FajerTV:

The products seems to have been food:

This week, Fatah authorities started a new campaign against bakeries in the territories that use Israeli flour. Perhaps sensing that people won't boycott bread, they are also framing it as a consumer protection issue, claiming that bakeries that use Israeli flour are price-gouging consumers by charging 4 shekels a loaf ($1) , as they claim it should not cost more than 3 or 3.5 shekels. ($.67 or $.75.) Some are also saying that the bakeries that use Israeli flour are also violating health codes.

The new campaign against bakeries seems to be called "let it rot."

One of those racist, right wing Bibi voters

Seen on the Arabic FajerTV Facebook page.

Some Arabs did vote for right wing, and even religious, parties.

While the Arab list received over 92% of the vote in Nazareth, the remainder of the votes went to: 2.68% for the Zionist Union, 2.09% for Meretz, 1.06% for Likud, 0.42% for Kulanu, 0.39% for Yisrael Beiteinu, 0.22% for Yesh Atid, 0.19% for Shas, 0.13% for Aleh Yarok and 0.04% for Yahad.

03/18 Links Pt2: Chloe Valdary: Peace, the Grand Delusion of the Jews; Israel: Hero of the Middle East

From Ian:

Chloe Valdary: Peace, the Grand Delusion of the Jews

In 2015, the Jewish community is at a crossroads. Jews are being mowed down in the streets of Europe. Students are being intimidated on college campuses. Jewish-owned businesses and homes are being vandalized. The indigenous status of Jews in their homeland is either callously trivialized or completely denied by prominent voices in the media and elsewhere, including in academia and the United Nations. The 21st century is beginning to feel all too much like the torment of the 1930s and ’40s.
Yet, we pledged to ourselves, “Never again.”
This is not merely an adage—it is a demand. The time has come to ensure that the demand is met.
We must draw on our courage and have the audacity to force those who humiliate and threaten us to pay a price. Peace—if it means that we must lie down and be denigrated and even slaughtered while our enemies cheer, is not only wrong—it is evil.
How many more supermarkets will be attacked before we rise? How many more synagogues, schools, and homes will be assailed? How many more innocent Jews will be slaughtered while praying, or pelted with rocks while driving home?
Will we silently submit to these injustices unfolding around us? Will we be satisfied with telling ourselves that we have a higher moral claim because we want “peace?”

Col. Richard Kemp: Hamas tunnels like Auschwitz

One of the keynote speakers at the United Israel Appeal’s (UIA’s) General Division functions, Kemp was in Israel last year during much of the duration of Operation Protective Edge, where he was in contact with ground troops, generals and politicians.
He said the judgments he formed from his observations were the “mirror opposite” of the “lies, distortions and abuse” reported in the international media.
“The first item on the agenda of every war cabinet meeting … was Palestinian civilian casualties. That tells you something serious about the priority and the emphasis given by the Prime Minister and his cabinet to the issue,” he said.
He said Hamas wanted dead civilians to show the world, in order to demonise Israel “because they know – it’s been proven time and again in history – that the IDF cannot be defeated militarily”.
He also recalled his visit to a Hamas tunnel.
“There were railway lines running down the floor of the tunnel,” he said.
“Something troubled me about that tunnel, I couldn’t work out what it was and then it came to me. A few months before I was in Auschwitz and I saw similar feats of engineering … but on a much larger scale.
“The purpose of both of those things was to kill Jews. The tunnel was intended to send Hamas fighters to massacre as many Jews as they could find.”

Hero of the Middle East: The Israeli Messenger

In its evident, inexplicable eagerness to sign just about any deal with Iran to allow it nuclear weapons capability, the U.S. State Department has removed Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah -- two of the world most undisguised promoters of terror -- from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations List.
Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani, has even openly admitted that Iran's diplomacy with the U.S. is an active "jihad." How much plainer does a message have to get?
The Islamists have nothing but contempt for Europe's weakness.
The West needs to paralyze Iran, rather than appease it.
A series of significant defeats to Islamist organizations will counter the effects of their efforts to entice young people to join them, especially ISIS.
In these terrible times, critical for the future of our region, Netanyahu spoke to the representatives of the American people, despite the objections of many Israelis and Americans. He was willing to accept personal, political and diplomatic setbacks in order to look after his people's security.

Gaza Wins Bid To Host 2032 Olympics (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Gaza City, March 18 - The International Olympic Committee announced today (Wednesday) that the winning proposal to host the 2032 Summer Olympic Games was submitted by the Hamas government of the Gaza Strip.

Gaza beat out a number of other candidate locations considered by many to be better suited to the events, among them Berlin, New Delhi, Jakarta, Caracas, and Vancouver, and the organizers of the proposal admitted they were as surprised as anyone else that Gaza was chosen.
"We are humbled, proud, and, frankly, somewhat puzzled at the committee's decision, but we will try to do it justice," said Ministry of Sport spokesman Aiwil Behedd. "We have much work ahead of us now."

The planning challenges facing the government of Gaza are more imposing than those faced by any other host of Olympic games. Essentially, said Behedd, every bit of infrastructure for the games, including transportation and accommodations for attendees and participants, will have to be built from scratch, since the coastal territory lacks the most rudimentary facilities.

However, some of the obstacles that have plagued other Olympic hosts will likely not affect Gaza to nearly the same degree. For example, while other cities have engaged in protracted court battles to gain rights to property for purposes of constructing Olympic facilities, Hamas had a head start in demolishing large swaths of its territory by provoking a 5-day war with Israel last summer. By withholding permission for the rebuilding of homes from everyone but a number of proven Hamas loyalists, the government has been able to engineer significant portions of unused land that can now be converted into stadiums, the Olympic Village, press accommodations, and other support facilities.

Labor costs will also not challenge Hamas the way they have crippled other hosts, as the movement that governs Gaza does not shy way from forced child labor to complete its infrastructure projects. Hundreds of children died while digging and reinforcing the tunnels Hamas used in last summer's war, and the local population of 1.4 million is disproportionately young, meaning an effectively infinite supply of free workers. Initially reluctant to exploit that advantage in promoting Gaza's bid because of human rights violations, according to Behedd, "when we realized the international sporting community didn't care about Dubai's use of slave labor to prepare for the World Cup, we knew we had a chance."

Moreover, whereas other locales often struggle to justify the capital expenses that go into preparing for the Games, and for decades afterwards question whether any lasting benefit accrued from the investment, the residents of the Gaza Strip have never expected the Hamas government to invest in them; they have long been accustomed to being provided for by the international community, and the anticipated Olympics will probably afford them a welcome distraction from the the quotidian misery.

Nevertheless, some formidable logistical challenges remain. As it stands, Gaza lacks an airport or seaport, and is closed in on all four sides by Israeli and Egyptian forces. Tunnels to and from the Egyptian city of Rafah have been largely rendered unusable amid ongoing conflict and tension between Hamas and Cairo, and the Israeli navy interdicts most maritime traffic headed toward the Gaza coast. That leaved Turkish flotillas as the only method of entry for athletes, spectators, and personnel, and the supply of vessels for that purpose is expected to remain tight for the foreseeable future.

Political obstacles also loom: disunity with the Palestinian government in the West Bank may translate into the embarrassment of a boycott by a large portion of the host country's team, and discontent among Gaza's various militant Islamist factions also threatens to explode into violence. That last thing Hamas needs on its hands is for another war with Israel to break out during the Olympics because the Popular Resistance Committees wish to flex their muscles.

UN Security Council obsession with "Palestine," 2014

Here are the number of meetings by the UNSC on Middle East/North Africa topics in 2014.

To give some context, in 2014 there were some 76,000 killed in Syria, 17,000 in Iraq and 7600 in Afghanistan.

(h/t Irene)

03/18 Links Pt1: Election Roundup; Dershowitz: Pres. is not Commander in Chief of Foreign Policy

From Ian:

Netanyahu scores crushing victory in Israeli elections

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party was the clear winner in Tuesday’s election, a near-final tally showed early Wednesday morning, defeating the Zionist Union by a margin of some six seats.
That margin was far more decisive than TV exit polls had predicted when polling booths closed at 10 p.m. on Tuesday. All three TV polls had put Likud and Zionist Union neck-and-neck at 27 seats, albeit with Netanyahu better-placed to form a coalition.
On the basis of those TV polls, Netanyahu hailed a Likud victory, though Herzog initially refused to concede. As counting proceeded through the night, however, the Likud opened a growing margin of victory.
By 6 a.m., with some 99% of votes counted, the Central Elections Committee was indicating a dramatic victory for Netanyahu, with the Likud heading for 30 seats, compared to Zionist Union’s 24 seats.
Next came the Joint (Arab) List on 14 seats, Yesh Atid on 11, Kulanu on 10 and the Jewish Home on 8. They were followed by Shas, 7, United Torah Judaism on 6, Yisrael Beytenu on 6, and Meretz on 4 seats.

David Horovitz: King Bibi and his divided people

We’ll see the specifics of his coalition. We’ll note who he chooses as his defense minister, his foreign minister, his justice minister — outspoken hawks or gentler figures? Will he push legislation that highlights the Jewish character of the state and subtly relegates its democratic nature? Will he employ healing rhetoric as regards those ostensibly over-voting Israeli Arabs? Will he address widespread domestic concerns about the high cost of living, soaring housing prices and the growing inequalities between Israel’s haves and have-nots? Will he find a path through the conflict over ultra-Orthodox military service? Will he shift to a less dogmatic position on the two-state solution, stressing that he cannot envisage Palestinian statehood in the current Middle East reality but allowing for the possibility of change? Will he move to seize the opportunities he has frequently cited to build alliances with those Arab states that share Israel’s profound concerns about Iran’s nuclear drive and the imminent US-led deal with Tehran? Will he seek to ease the strains with an Obama administration that, he believes, wanted to see the back of him?
In the past few days, Netanyahu proved himself a political tactician in a different league from his rivals. But amid the euphoria of victory, and the majority’s reaffirmation of faith in his leadership, will he take heed of the fact that a substantial proportion of the electorate is as shocked and horrified by Tuesday’s results as he and his supporters are shocked and delighted?
Will Netanyahu seek to reposition himself, in short, from defiantly victorious leader of the Israeli right to prime minister of our riven, multi-challenged Israel?

Alan Dershowitz: President is not Commander in Chief of Foreign Policy

This important limitation on the president's power is highly relevant to the current debate about Congress having the authority to check the president's decision to make the deal that is currently being negotiated with Iran. The Constitution is clear about this. The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of our nation's foreign policy. When he is involved in "high-stakes international diplomacy," his involvement is not as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but rather as negotiator-in-chief, whose negotiations are subject to the checks and balances of the other branches.
As President, he cannot even declare war, though he can decide how a war should be fought after Congress declares it. He cannot make a treaty without the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. He cannot appoint Ambassadors without the consent of the Senate. And he cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress, without Congress changing the law. Were he the "Commander-in-Chief" of our country — as Putin is of Russia or as Ali Khamenei is of Iran — he could simply command that all of these things be done. But our Constitution separates the powers of government — the power to command — into three co-equal branches. The armed forces are different: power is vested in one commander-in-chief.
To be sure, when politicians call our president the "Commander-in-Chief," they are using that term rhetorically. But it is a dangerous rhetoric, because it suggests a concentration, rather than a division, of power. Military metaphors are as inappropriate in a democracy as is martial law, which does empower the executive to act as the commander of all people, but only in cases of extreme emergency.
So let's describe the president by his actual constitutional role: the head of the executive branch of our tripod government that stands on three equal legs. As the head of the executive branch, he gets to negotiate treaties, agreements and other bilateral and multilateral deals. But Congress has a say in whether to approve what the president has negotiated.