Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Saturday, March 21, 2015

03/21 Links: Guess Who's Not Speaking at the J Street Conference?; Why Islam Needs a Reformation

From Ian:

Alan Dershowitz: Guess Who's Not Speaking at the J Street Conference?

J Street -- the lobby group that claims to be "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace" -- is anything but "open" to centrist views that are critical of its policies. It has invited several prominent anti-Israel speakers to address its national conference, including Saeb Erekat, one of the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiators, who has repeatedly accused Israel of war crimes, and committing massacres in the West Bank. It has also invited speakers who are generally pro-Israel but who strongly oppose the current Israeli government. The one group of pro-Israel advocates who never get invited to J Street conferences are those of us who are somewhat critical of J Street, particularly with regard to its policies toward Iran and other issues involving Israel's security. I know this because I have repeatedly sought an opportunity to address the J Street conference. I have personally implored Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, either to allow me to address the conference, or to sit down with me for a public conversation in front of the group's members. He has adamantly refused. We have publicly debated and discussed our differences in front of non-J Street audiences, but he has never allowed me to engage him in the marketplace of ideas in front of his own followers.
This is more than ironic. It is hypocritical, especially in light of J Street's demands that other organizations, such as Hillel and AIPAC, be open to speakers who are critical of Israel. What's good for Hillel and AIPAC, is apparently not good for J Street -- at least by J Street's own standards.
Why then is J Street so determined to deny its members the opportunity to hear divergent views from center-leftists like me? Because its leaders are afraid that if I were allowed to address its conference, I would tell its members the truth about J Street -- a truth they try hard to conceal, particularly from college students who are lured into the J Street fold under false pretenses. The key to J Street's success in increasing its membership rolls is its ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth. To those on the hard left, it offers anti-Israel and pro-BDS speakers, support for the mendacious Goldstone Report, and opposition to keeping the military option on the table as a last resort in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Why Islam Needs a Reformation

“Islam’s borders are bloody,” wrote the late political scientist Samuel Huntington in 1996, “and so are its innards.” Nearly 20 years later, Huntington looks more right than ever before. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims. In 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims. By far the most numerous victims of Muslim violence—including executions and lynchings not captured in these statistics—are Muslims themselves.
Not all of this violence is explicitly motivated by religion, but a great deal of it is. I believe that it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.
When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

Cuba calls to “eliminate” UN Watch speech on Israeli elections as lesson for dictatorships

Statement by UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer to the UN Human Rights Council, 17 March 2015, Agenda Item 4, “Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention”
Mr. President,
Today the whole world is watching as millions of Israelis, Jews and Arabs, go to the polls to elect 120 members of parliament and a prime minister. Twenty-four parties are running, including left and right, secular and religious, and a joint Arab list that is predicted this time to win more than ten percent of the seats.
The whole world is watching, to see the results.
But my question today, Mr. President, is whether members of this United Nations Human Rights Council is watching — not the results, but the process.
Now, in this session the Council is planning to condemn Israel for violating human rights in at least four resolutions, which is four times more condemnation than is being directed against Syria, Iran, and North Korea.

Cuba calls to "eliminate" UN Watch speech on Israeli elections as lesson for dictatorships

03/20 Links Pt2: UN Claims Israel is 'Worst' Violator of Women’s Rights; B’Tselem Has Lost Its Mind

From Ian:

Anne Bayefsky: UN Claims Israel is World’s Worst Violator of Women’s Rights

Guess who is the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today? Israel. Violating the rights of Palestinian women.
At least that is the view of the UN’s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women’s rights – Israel.
Not Syria. Where government forces routinely employ rape and other sexual violence and torture against women as a tactic of war. Where in 2014 the Assad regime starved, tortured and killed at least 24,000 civilians, and three million people – mostly women and children – are refugees.
Not Saudi Arabia. Where women are physically punished if not wearing compulsory clothing, are almost entirely excluded from political life, cannot drive, cannot travel without a male relative, receive half the inheritance of their brothers, and where their testimony counts for half that of a man’s.

Leaked Draft of Iran Nuke Deal Vindicates Netanyahu’s Claims on U.S. Concessions

The United States originally insisted that Iran maintain no more than 1,500 centrifuges, and last year raised the limit to 4,000. 6,000 centrifuges would be sufficient if Iran plans to build a nuclear bomb, but not enough for a civilian nuclear power generation program.
The AP also reported that the remaining issues of contention in negotiations are Iran’s underground Fordow enrichment facility and its heavy water reactor at Arak. Iran insists on keeping hundreds of centrifuges working at Fordow and will re-engineer the Arak facility to produce less plutonium than originally projected. Arak will not be converted to a light water reactor capable of providing Iran with any of the radioactive isotopes it needs for research without producing plutonium, which would give it a second path to a nuclear bomb, in addition to enriched uranium.
According to the AP, among the United Nations sanctions that could be removed “within weeks” of an accord would be the weapons embargo. When Iran sends weapons to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to Shiite militias in Iraq, or to Hezbollah in Lebanon, it violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which states that “Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel.”
There is no mention in the AP report that the draft limits Iran’s ballistic missile development. Iran has refused to discuss its illicit weapons program and the West has not pursued any limits to the program throughout the negotiations. Ballistic missile technology is an essential part of a nuclear weapons program as ballistic missiles are necessary as delivery systems for nuclear weapons.

Matti Friedman: B’Tselem Has Lost Its Way If Not Its Mind

Matti Friedman is a self-proclaimed liberal. That is what made his piece, An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth, so groundbreaking—or at least taboo breaking. Friedman exposed the bias of the journalists, their handlers (AP, Reuters), and the people of Gaza in their reportage of all things Israel. He also outlined for us how the story of Israel trumps everything, no matter what else is going on in the world at any point in time.
And now again, Friedman’s conscience has been called to the fore over the behavior of B’Tselem, a left-wing “human rights” group that focuses specifically on Israeli human rights violations (imagined or real), in the aftermath of Israel’s most recent election.
I have respected B’Tselem בצלם for many years, and have relied on them often in my reporting. We need groups that do what B’Tselem does. I will also add that I did not vote for the right this week. The letter below from B’Tselem director Hagai El-Ad, which just reached my inbox (and many others), is disgusting. I have no idea what making Israelis aware of human rights violations in the occupied territories has to do with presenting hateful caricatures of Israelis in English to a foreign audience. El-Ad thinks this election — which yielded results identical to the last election — shows that Israelis are savages who oppress Palestinians because it’s “convenient.” “The mask is off,” he informs the international audience to whom the newsletter is addressed.
Why should Israelis listen to people who have nothing but disdain for them, can’t understand their fears, and are happy to slander them abroad and pander to the hostile international fixation with their country? B’Tselem once had an important job to do. It has lost its way, if not its mind.

EU recommends boycotting Jewish-owned stores in Jerusalem. Really.

The Guardian reports:

A hard-hitting EU report on Jerusalem warns that the city has reached a dangerous boiling point of “polarisation and violence” not seen since the end of the second intifada in 2005.

Calling for tougher European sanctions against Israel over its continued settlement construction in the city – which it blames for exacerbating recent conflict – the leaked document paints a devastating picture of a city more divided than at any time since 1967, when Israeli forces occupied the east of the city.

The leaked report describes the emergence of a “vicious cycle of violence … increasingly threatening the viability of the two-state solution”, which it says has been stoked by the continuation of “systematic” settlement building by Israel in “sensitive areas” of Jerusalem.

The paper isn't yet public, so I can't judge, but if this is an indication of its contents then its bias is clear.

Hamas and the PA celebrate the knife and car attacks against Jews in Jerusalem over the past year. They made posters urging all Arabs to do the same. They celebrated the murders of rabbis in a synagogue in Jerusalem.

And this report says that the violence is a result of Israeli policies, and not Arab incitement?

But check out this part of the report that The Guardian took a photo of:

All of these are offensive, but let's concentrate only on the last item. What does that mean?

It means that when tour guides walk through parts of Jerusalem, they should make sure that they don't buy anything at Jewish-owned stores.

Shops in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City

It cannot mean to boycott Israeli-owned stores, because no one will ask Arab store owners if they are Israeli citizens.No one cares if Israeli Arabs own stores across the Green Line and no one is going to boycott them.

No, 76 years after Kristallnacht, the EU is recommending a boycott of Jewish owned stores.

(h/t Ronald)

Report claims Israel times its attacks when news media is distracted by other stories

Here's almost certainly another example of using statistics to come up with a predetermined conclusion. From CBS Marketwatch:

One of the Israeli government’s secrets to manipulating the American media has been revealed for the first time by new research.

Israel habitually launches its most unpopular and, sometimes, deadly attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to coincide with big news events here in the U.S., so that they don’t get too much public attention, according to the study.

The news management is so sophisticated that the Israeli government is especially good about avoiding damaging “follow-up” or “day two” stories about its attacks — stories most likely to include awkward human interest details about the casualties and their families.

So finds a study conducted by Ruben Durante, professor at Sciences Po in Paris, and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, professor at the Paris School of Economics.

The researchers looked at Israel’s military interventions in Palestine over an 11-year period, from 2000 to 2011, and then compared them to what was going on in the news at the time. That included looking at whether there was big other news, and whether that other news was scheduled — such as, say, the Super Bowl — or unscheduled, such as an earthquake or tsunami or plane crash somewhere in the world.

“We find that Israeli attacks are more likely to occur prior to days with very high news pressure driven by clearly predictable events,” they found. There were statistically significant upticks in Israeli military action in the West Bank and Gaza Strip before big holidays or sporting events, but not before things that the Israeli military could not anticipate.

The study is here.

While the statistical analysis is beyond me, if I am understanding this correctly they are basing the definition of whether something is a predictable event after the fact, based on keywords they found on news stories the day after Israeli attacks compared to keywords found on other "high news pressure" days.

They are claiming that news days that the difference between the two charts shows that Israeli attacks coincide with predictable new events. Israeli leaders cannot predict hurricanes or earthquakes, but they can anticipate elections.

I think that this analysis is flawed.

Firstly, keywords like "campaign" and "war" and "Bush" do not necessarily correlate with known predictable news events. While the paper mentions things like the Super Bowl as a predictable high-pressure news event, it isn't mentioned on this list.

Secondly, it seems like their definition of "high news pressure" is very narrow. If words like "Katrina" and "tsunami" are showing up on the second list, that indicates that over the eleven year period of the study there were relatively few high-news pressure days, perhaps only a few every year. This would indicate that the sample size is very, very small to come up with these conclusions. Notice that "Obama" doesn't even show up as a keyword on high pressure news days.

It also indicates that high-pressure news days cannot be predicted. Elections can be but the Florida story of 2000 clearly could not be. (The study dates started in 2001, so perhaps the stories were about publication of the recount. I don't recall that news being as wall-to-wall as hurricanes.)

Which means that the basic assumptions of the analysis are wrong. One cannot look at the keywords after the fact to determine what the Israelis would have been able to predict beforehand would become a hot news story. To say that the keywords in the first list imply predictability seems not at all scientific.

It seems to me that a proper methodology for a study like this would be to first generate an impartial list of predictably important US news events - Super Bowl, Oscars, major primaries, national elections, New Year's Eve - and then try to correlate Israel's actions against those, not to ex post facto determine that the word "Florida"is coming from a predictable news event.

You cannot claim that things are predictable by looking at their keywords afterwards. And if the number of high-pressure news days is as small as I think it is, then there is no way that Israel's leaders could ever predict what would be a major news story and what won't - see again how the Super Bowl does not appear on this list.

These is some slight evidence in the report that Israeli strikes might have been more likely to have occurred during holidays, but I think that someone with some real statistical expertise look at the report altogether and see if its methodology is rigorous or, as I suspect, sloppy.

(h/t Nephew of Ziyon)

03/20 Links Pt1: Abbas Paving the Way to Turn West Bank into an Islamist State; America, wake up!

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The urgent business of the next government

On Tuesday, the people of Israel spoke. They gave a clear mandate to the nationalist camp, led by the Likud and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to lead the country.
Now that the people have spoken, our leaders must consider the steps they must take, immediately upon entering office, that will enable them to advance their agenda and so meet the public’s expectations.
To understand why this is necessary, we need to recall why Netanyahu decided to dismantle his last coalition government and opt for an early election. What made Netanyahu decide that he would be better off going to an election and risk losing power rather than maintaining his existing government intact? There were two developments that caused Netanyahu to break up his coalition government by firing then-justice minister Tzipi Livni and then-finance minister Yair Lapid. First, they voted in favor of the so-called “Israel Hayom” bill, legislation that would have forced the closure of the mass circulation free daily “Israel Hayom.”
Second, they opposed draft legislation for a basic law that would give a new quasi-constitutional anchor to Israel’s Jewish identity – the so-called Nation-State bill.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Abbas Paving the Way to Turn West Bank into an Islamist State

Abbas has chosen to align himself with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, thus facilitating these two organizations' dreams of taking over the West Bank. These two radical groups seek to destroy Israel and are opposed to any peace process in the Middle East.
These threats are primarily aimed at getting the international community into providing the Palestinian Authority with more financial and political support.
This alliance could also result in renewed terrorist attacks against Israel, because Hamas and Islamic Jihad will interpret Abbas's anti-Israel moves and rhetoric as a green light for such actions.
Abbas's rapprochement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad will only confirm the fears of many Israelis that the West Bank will fall onto the hands of Islamists once Israel withdraws from that area.
The two-state solution started the day Hamas kicked Abbas out of the Gaza Strip and turned it into an Islamist emirate. In the end, the Palestinians got two states that are even at war with each other.

JPost Editorial: America, wake up!

This year, Passover should be a wake-up call for America. A sour note has been injected into our celebration as we look forward to Seder night and the four cups of wine that commemorate the four expressions of the freedom bestowed upon the Jewish people at this time in history.
Unless Jonathan Pollard is home in Jerusalem to celebrate as well, it will be virtually impossible to sustain the illusion that Israel has a fair and reliable relationship with our foremost ally, the United States of America.
Too much time has gone by; the Pollard travesty of justice remains unresolved. It is no longer possible for any Israeli, or any honest person for that matter, to remain aloof and to imagine that what is happening to Pollard, concerns only Pollard.
Pollard has become a symbol – a powerful icon of Israeli weakness and of American disregard for Israel as a valued ally.

What do Jewish settlers have in common with left-wing members of kibbutzim and moshavim; as well as IDF soldiers?

They all voted disproportionately for Israel's "Green Leaf" party whose only issue is to legalize marijuana.

According to the Knesset Election Committee’s breakdown of votes by location, another ticket that did quite well in the settlements – relatively speaking, of course – was Green Leaf (“Ale Yarok”), a single-issue party fighting for the legalization of marijuana.

Not only was the percentage of voters casting ballots for Green Leaf higher than the national average at many settlements, including those where the majority of the population is Orthodox, but in quite a few instances, the pro-cannabis party did a lot better than many mainstream parties. That it came ahead of parties associated with the center and left, like Zionist Union and Yesh Atid, may not come as a surprise. But in numerous cases, it also fared better than parties on the right, among them Yisrael Beiteinu and the new Kulanu party.

Oren Lebovich, the chairman of Green Leaf, notes that before the election, the party held a parlor meeting with potential supporters in Efrata, a settlement in the Gush Etzion bloc. “That was the first time we’ve ever done any outreach like that in the settlements,” he said.

The following are some of the larger settlements where Green Leaf performed better than it did nationwide: In Givat Ze’ev, just north of Jerusalem, it captured 3.2 percent of the vote; in Ma’aleh Efraim, 2.5 percent; in both Ariel and Barkan, 2.3 percent of the vote; in Sha’arey Tikvah, 2.1 percent; in Alfei Menashe, 1.8 percent; in both Karnei Shomron and Tekoa, 1.5 percent; and in Ma’aleh Adumim, 1.2 percent.

At some smaller and largely secular settlements, the percentages were even higher in some cases. For example, at Migdalim, 8.6 percent of the voters cast their ballot for Green Leaf; at Reichan, 8.1 percent; at Beit Ha’arava, 7.8 percent; at Bekaot, 4.4 percent; at Vered Yericho, 3.7 percent; at Rimonim, 3.5 percent; at Kedar, 3.2 percent; at Kalia, 3.1 percent, and at Mitzpeh Shalem, 2.7 percent.

At both Beit El and Ofra, two major Orthodox settlements, Green Leaf took slightly less than 1 percent of the vote, but it came out ahead of other parties like Yisrael Beiteinu, Zionist Union and Yesh Atid.

It wasn’t only in the settlements that the party attracted a disproportionate share of votes, notes Lebovich. “Even though these are completely different populations, we also did well in the kibbutzim and moshavim,” he said. “It just goes to show that ours is a cause that cuts across many other divides.”

Another segment of society where Green Leaf has traditionally done well is the military. This morning, the Knesset Elections Committee published the final tally of what are known as “double envelope” votes – those ballots cast by soldiers, diplomats stationed abroad, hospital patients and prisoners, which typically come in late. Although the committee does not publish the breakdown among these different groups, the overwhelming majority of the “double envelope” votes are known to come from soldiers.

According to these figures, 8,472 “double envelope” votes went to Green Leaf, about 3.6 percent of the total. Hypothetically, then, had the party been vying for votes among soldiers alone, it would have crossed the threshold to get into the Knesset. Last year, it captured a similar number of votes in the military.

Why is the pro-cannabis party so popular in the Israeli military? Here’s how one young combat soldier tried to explain the phenomenon: “When we’re at our bases, we’re very cut off from what’s happening in the rest of the country. We don’t have TVs, and we don’t get newspapers. All we really think about is completing our service and getting high.”

Imagine that - pot brings the left and right together!

Now if we could just get the Arabs to start smoking weed, then peace might not be so elusive...

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.