Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, March 23, 2015

03/23 Links Pt2: Red Cross at Hamas Uni; Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian; LATMA Ep7

From Ian:

Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian

We need more people to start using their brains. If there was a Palestinian state declared tomorrow, do you honestly believe the PEOPLE in “Palestine” would gain anything? Has the PA ever done anything that suggest competent governance? Do you think Hamas has? If they were to be GIVEN a State without being held to some accountability, we would be looking at a corrupt inept state for decades, with no chance at representative government, and damn sure no chance of real peace without violence. This is fact not opinion. Fact based on careful analysis of previous situations like this one.
There is hope. There are now Palestinans who are speaking up and while they may not be “Pro-Israel,” they are not ANTI Israel which until now has been the truth behind this pro-Palestinian movement. By speaking up they risk a lot of persecution and even murder. The thing is, without them speaking up, I would assume that Palestinians are OK with Hamas and Fatah speaking for them, OK with the rife corruption that is endemic in the Palestinian government and OK with trying to kill Jews constantly.
I believe that Palestinians will eventually find a leader who doesn’t want to perpetuate the conflict to fatten his own wallet with the skimming of aid money. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean we cannot hope. But my support of the PEOPLE in Palestine is based on what I think is best for them long term and I believe that they will need to be part of Israel eventually, but must show that they belong and they understand they belong before that can even be discussed.
Israel is a singular place, a place where people are allowed to worship God as they see fit, where women are respected and where gay rights are not just words but actions. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East and most importantly the people have demonstrated their moral clarity on several occasions. That alone should be enough for us to be very careful about lecturing Israelis on doing what we want them to do. Most of them understand that what’s best for the Arabs in Judeah and Samaria will also be what’s best for Israel and that’s not just giving it up but building it up, making it into a thriving region that is part of a vibrant and peaceful nation. Most Arabs seem to want that, at least the ones not living outside of those borders who just want to see dead Jews.

Ryan Bellerose discusses the parallels between the indigenous struggles in North America and Israel.
Video: Ryan Bellerose at CIJR full discussion 110min

Ryan Bellerose CIJR Highlights

Red Cross Cooperating with Hamas-Affiliated University

The faculty of Sharia (Islamic law) at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University in Gaza is preparing to hold an international conference in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross on the subject of international humanitarian law in light of Islamic Sharia.
The conference is scheduled to take place on October 13 and 14 this year, according to a joint ad of the Red Cross and the Islamic University, which appeared in the Hamas-affiliated Palestine newspaper on Sunday.
According to the ad, the first session of the conference will deal with humanitarian issues. The second session will discuss the basic principles in the management of armed conflicts, the third session will deal with victims’ rights and measures for their protection during armed conflict, and the fourth session will deal with guarantees for the implementation of the principles of the management of armed conflict and modern challenges.
All the sessions will examine these issues according to Sharia law and international humanitarian law, the ad states.
The cooperation with the Red Cross is puzzling given that the Islamic University is considered a stronghold of Hamas and, according to Israeli intelligence, Hamas uses it to develop its rocket arsenal.

LATMA: We'll be the Judge, Episode 7

The Seven episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, March 19, 2015.

JTA has a very interesting article today about how traditional Christian sculptures, still visible in Europe, show antisemitic motifs.

One of the examples they give is very instructive:

Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is among the most visited sites on the planet and a splendid example of Gothic architecture

Each year, millions flock to admire and photograph its flying buttresses and statuary, yet few take any real notice of two prominent female statues on either side of the main entrance. The one on the left is dressed in fine clothing and bathed in light, while the one on the right is disheveled, with a large snake draped over her eyes like a blindfold.

The statues, known as Ecclesia and Sinagoga, respectively, and generally found in juxtaposition, are a common motif in medieval art and represent the Christian theological concept known as supercessionism, whereby the Church is triumphant and the Synagogue defeated.

Sinagoga is depicted here with head bowed, broken staff, the tablets of the law slipping from her hand and a fallen crown at her feet. Ecclesia stands upright with crowned head and carries a chalice and a staff adorned with the cross.

Wikipedia adds:

The figures reflect the Christian belief, sometimes called Supersessionism, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that Judaism as a religion was therefore made unnecessary, by its own tenets, once Christianity was established, and that all Jews should convert. Today opposed by dual-covenant theology, this belief was universal in the medieval church. Synagoga's blindfold reflected the refusal of medieval Jews to "see" this point, which was regarded as stubborn.

The sculpted portal figures are generally found on the cathedrals of larger cities in northern Europe that had significant Jewish communities, especially in Germany, and apart from their theological significance, were certainly also intended to remind Jews of their place in a Christian society, by projecting "an ideal of Jewish submission within an ideally ordered Christian realm.

The point of Synagoga is not to assert the Church's superiority - its presence in cities with large Jewish populations prove that the intent is to prove Judaism's inferiority, to humiliate Jews.

Humiliating others is certain indicator of low self-esteem.

Supersessionism holds that the continued existence of Jews is an anomaly. Jews were already second class citizens, but that wasn't enough. This artwork indicates not only that Jews should be subjugated, but that they are mentally ill for not embracing the obvious truth that their belief system has no legitimacy.

The very existence of vibrant Jewish communities in Christian Europe disproved the basis of supersessionism, and these elaborate sculptures and paintings and stained glass windows were meant to make Christians feel better by putting down Jews who somehow managed not to disappear as supersessionism would predict.

It is hardly surprising that the most antisemitic and anti-Zionist churches of today are the ones who still cling to supercessionism. Nor is it surprising that supersessionism is a keystone of the Palestinian Christian community, which embraced this philosophy in the Kairos document.

This attitude is more extreme than traditional dhimmitude. Muslims think that Jews have a place in society, but that society is run by Muslims and Jews must mind their second-class status. It isn't that they don't belong in society, they just have to know their place.

The proper analogy isn't between Christian xupersessionist theology and dhimmitude; it is between supersessionist attitudes towards Jews and Muslim attitudes towards Israel.

The existence of a Jewish state is the same challenge to the Muslim worldview that the existence of Jews is to Christian supersessionists. In both cases the very sight of the offending entity - Israel or Jews - is an intense source of shame, because it cuts to the heart of the belief systems. In both cases, they must be defeated in order to restore self-esteem and prove that their beliefs have validity.

One can say the same about how the existence of the Jewish people is a challenge to universalist ideology that cannot abide that different groups of people are really different, and no one symbolizes that better than the Jews.

Greater minds than mine have spent countless years pondering the nature of Jew-hatred. I think that the inability to reconcile one's own belief system with the very existence of Jews, or the existence of a Jewish nation, is a very good first step.to understanding the roots of antisemitism.

Walking down J-Street, part 1 (guest post)

EoZ reader Messy57 is at the J-Street conference in Washington. Here is his report from Saturday night:

I got an email a couple of weeks back informing me that the J Street “Progressive Zionist” organization, sort of like AIPAC’s evil twin (or good, depending on how you view things) was having it’s annual jamboree at the Walter Washington convention center in DC, and would I like to pay a ton of money to go?

I would not.( Pay the ton of money that is.)
.
So, as I do on occasion, I filled out the press form and sent a bunch of digital clippings. They gave me a ticket. Even better, KAYAK was able to get me a $150 round trip flight to DC. Another sixty bucks for two nights at the youth hostel next to the Convention center and off I went….

Day One

“Do you have a card” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “why?”

“If you’re a journalist I need to see your business card in order to talk to you.”

She was a student, you see. She had taken a training course before she came here and was told to be suspicious of skeevy old men with press badges and was told to get the business card and give it to the secret police (or whatever J street calls them). I said there was no reason, because I was only making conversation.

She gave me a very dirty look. I could understand, sort of. Netanyahu had just won the election and everyone was to some extent angry and depressed. However they did try to look cheerful. The opening ceremonies were starting soon and I headed up to take my seat.

The first two rows of seats in the grand ballroom were in fact circular tables. I searched around for a while and got a seat with a decent view. The rest of the people around my table were middle aged, behind us were the kids, allegedly there were about a thousand of them from all around the country, and Toronto, Canada, and tonight, they were the stars of the show. Lights! Music!!!!! Here we go….

Onstage comes J-Street Morton Halperin, who gets a standing ovation. He thanks the crowd, and starts on a short and forgettable speech. He then starts talking about “J Street U”, which is their version of Hillel. There’s a fanfare and football music, a bunch of squeaky clean college students enter stage right looking like something out of the Brady Bunch, and in their peppiest voices they start the roll call of the universities. I’m not sure if it’s more of a high school pep rally or a political convention. Clearly this was the latter and goes on and on and on. . Then they announce the Hillels who decided to attend. Apparently the BDSers have somehow managed to split the movement, and the two organizations are actively feuding.

J Street, no matter what else you may have heard, is currently anti-BDS, they think it makes Bibi and his ilk look like victims and it leads to anti-Semitism., both of which are true.

There’s more football music and cheering as President Jeremy Ben Ami is introduced. He’s a thin and wiry gent, with a crooked smile and glasses, kind of nerdy. He starts thanking people like in an awards show, all the kids in general, and the senior staff in particular before he sheds his kindly persona and starts attacking Bibi before going after the rest of Likud, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a whole bunch of other people and organizations.

The crowd loved it.

Then there was the “Kumbaya” story of two grandmas, one Jewish and one Palestinian, and how they called each other by phone as their governments bombed each other. Very sweet.

Finally there was Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union Reform Judaism. who gave an astoundingly good speech. He hit all the right points, wasn’t radical at all, and was almost thrilling. The crowd loved that too. Then came the cake.

We’d get to the really important stuff the following day.

03/23 Links Pt1: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu; US boycotts UNHRC

From Ian:

Isi Leibler: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu

Prior to the election, US President Barack Obama had already signaled his malicious intent by appointing Robert Malley, known for his hostility to Israel, as White House coordinator for the Middle East, and designated White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as keynote speaker at the anti-Israel J Street Conference. Still smarting over Netanyahu’s address to Congress and having failed to bring about his downfall, Obama was clearly devastated by his spectacular electoral victory.
But in light of the fact that the electorate in the only democratic country in the region extended a clear vote of confidence in Netanyahu, it is anticipated that Israel’s long-standing ally – which purports to support democracy – will accept the will of the people in good faith.
Besides, an analysis of the votes indicates Netanyahu’s victory was anything but a lurch to the far Right. It was a vindication of the center-right, with the most radical party failing to meet the threshold and the other two more conservative parties being reduced from 25 to 13 seats.
Nevertheless, the US administration effectively declared war against Netanyahu. Obama grasped two remarks made by Netanyahu, somewhat out of context at the height of the election fever, to justify a veiled threat that the US would “reassess” relations with Israel, hinting that the US would punish Israel by failing to exercise its veto to protect Israel at the UN Security Council.
Netanyahu was condemned as a racist because, in an effort to jolt his supporters to vote, he drew attention to the massive effort funded from overseas to transport Arab voters to vote for the Joint Arab List, which includes supporters of Hamas and terrorism.

The Religious Dogma of Palestinian Statehood

In an unintentional but significant slip of the tongue, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that “it has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal…”
Actually, the first U.S. president to endorse a Palestinian state was George W. Bush, in 2002 -that is, thirteen years ago. So what does Earnest have in mind when he says “more than 20 years”? Apparently he’s referring to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was 22 years ago.
But wait a minute – the Oslo Accords said nothing about a Palestinian state. In fact, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin went out of his way at the time to emphasize that the accords did not create a Palestinian state, but rather would create an experimental period in which we would see whether or not the Palestinians were genuinely ready to live in peace with Israel.
Now Josh Earnest appears to be confirming what many of us suspected all along: that the White House and the State Department were never really interested in testing the Palestinian Arabs, but wanted to use the Oslo process as a way to bring about a Palestinian state no matter what.
The Oslo process proved to be a complete failure, because the Palestinian Authority violated it with impunity. The PA sponsored mass violence against Israel (anybody remember the Second Intifada?). The PA organized massive arms smuggling operations (anybody remember the tons of weapons aboard the Palestinian ship, the Karine A, that Israel captured in 2002?). The PA sheltered fugitive terrorists, failed to disarm or outlaw terrorist groups, and refused to extradite terrorists to Israel. It educated an entire generation of Palestinian school children to hate Israel and glorify terrorism, and it relentlessly promoted anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement.

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

While at the same time not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Mansour pushed for a two-state solution.
"We are seeking peaceful, legal methods to seek accountability, to address these issues, and to fight for the right for the causes of the Palestinian people," Mansour insisted. He added, "Whether through the security council, which we have been blocked often, or through legitimate International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice."
Mansour believes that Palestine is being "punished" for seeking a resolution and feels the message received is "go and fight." But, he assures, "We don't want to fight."
"We don't want to be like other states around us," Mansour charged.
Todd interjected, "If you don't want to do that, then are you going to renounce your partnership with Hamas?" Here is the rest of the conversation:

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

"The Pharaohs discovered Australia"

Never ending amusement in Muslim media.

During a recent TV debate on the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, Syrian political analyst Yahya Badr said that the Egyptian people was entitled to claim legal rights in Australia, since inscriptions in ancient hieroglyphics had been found near Sydney, indicating that the grandson of a pharoah had landed there. On the show, which aired on the Turkish TRT TV channel on March 6, Badr was introduced as owning the patent to mummy technology.

It sounds like Egyptians discovered America, too.

Australian media describe the hieroglyphics as fake.

ACADEMICS, archaeologists and other authorities believe Dr Hans-Dieter von Senff crosses the line from fact to fantasy in claiming Egyptians lived in the hills overlooking Woy Woy about 5000 years ago.

Despite precious little scholarly or government support from anywhere between Cairo and Sydney, the self-described ‘‘amateur Egyptologist’’ from Swansea is sticking to his theory.

The 72-year-old issued a media release nationally this week announcing the discovery of a mysterious stone chamber in a bushland setting at Kariong.

The site is already notorious due to about 100 hieroglyphic-style carvings on two sandstone walls.

About 15 metres long, the parallel walls feature depictions of owls, chickens, dogs, boats and stick men, among other things.

The NSW government doesn’t subscribe to any walk or talk like Egyptians.

Taking advice from Professor Nageeb Kanawati of Macquarie University and rock art conservation specialist David Lambert, the National Parks and Wildlife Service ‘‘believes that the hieroglyphs are not genuine and were constructed in the early 1980s’’.

Dr von Senff, a bus driver, graduated from the University of Newcastle with a PhD in 2006.

His doctoral thesis dealt with the problems of German reunification from a historical and literary perspective.

#WordsMatter: White House equally skeptical of Bibi's and Khamenei's words

As we've mentioned, the White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed skepticism about Netanyahu's desire for a two-state solution by misunderstanding his remarks during his campaign and then dismissing his statement afterwards in favor of a two-state solution that ensures Israel's security as not being believable. "Words matter," the White House lectured Bibi.

It is often good advice to be skeptical of statements by politicians when they seem to contradict themselves, although in this case Bibi's words did not.

But is it wise to be skeptical when the dictator of a nation building nuclear weapons and ICBM's say "Death to America"?

In an address in Tehran on March 21, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the crowds' chants of "Death to America" by saying: "Death to America, of course, because America is the principal element behind this pressure [i.e., the economic sanctions]." Khamenei said that Obama had said "some dishonest things" in his Nowruz address and that the American goal was "to turn the [Iranian] people against the system." The address was broadcast on the Iranian news channel IRINN.

It is not even worth mentioning when Khamenei's top aide says "We shall not rest until we raise the flag of Islam over the White House.”

The White House is skeptical of a democratic ally's peaceful intentions but equally skeptical of an avowed enemy's vow to destroy America.

In other words, the White House only believes that "words matter" when the skepticism fits their agenda. In this case, their viewpoint is that peaceful statements from Israel must be insulted and warmongering from Iran must be coddled.

(Bibi explained his words, and why they weren't contradictory, on NPR.)

How progressive!

A Sydney theatre has refused to rent its premises to a Jewish group on the grounds that their policy “does not support colonialism/Zionism”.

redrattler400In a brief email response to Shailee Mendelevich who wrote requesting to book the Red Rattler Theatre in Marrickville, ‘Red Rattler Team’ responded: “Our policy does not support colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine.”

Mendelevich wrote to the theatre in her capacity as assistant director of Hillel at Sydney’s Shalom Institute. She told them in her letter that Hillel is not for profit organisation telling them “we have created a live storytelling series that features poetry, musicians and actors on stage, creating meaningful performances to educate the audience on the theme of the evening”.

She explained that Hillel “supports Jewish students and young adults.”

The matter was referred to The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies whose CEO Vic Alhadeff wrote to Red Rattler.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” I wrote a respectful letter to the theatre, saying I would like to discuss the matter in order to resolve misconceptions on the part of their team – about the organisation which had approached them and about the position of the Jewish community in regard to Palestine and about Israel itself. ”

He added in his communication to the theatre: “To categorically reject an approach by a Jewish organisation to hire your premises because of a political position that your team holds in relation to an overseas conflict is at best ill-informed and at worst racist and discriminatory.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” Despite several calls to the theatre with a request to discuss and resolve the matter and explain Hillel’s and the community’s position on these issues, I have received no response either to my letter or to several calls to the theatre.”

He added: “It’s sad to see an artistic group practise outright discrimination and worse, importing divisiveness based on conflicts taking place far from Australia. We ought to be able to get along and work with each respectfully, despite political views or differences of opinion.”

Nowhere in that Hillel's vision or mission statement is Israel even mentioned.

The subject of the performance was to understand what it means to be a third generation Holocaust survivor and how it impacts future generations.

Here is The Red Rattler's performer policy:

The Red Rattler was set up as a space where racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism are not welcome on stage, in the audience, at the door, and at the bar.

We ask you to join us in efforts to make this space welcoming, stimulating, and happiness producing to people regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality or gender.

Sadly, it has become apparent that we need to be more explicit about what it means not to be racist.

Racism includes things such as blackface performance or being derogatory towards people on the basis of their race. Blackface performance is not permitted at The Red Rattler.

Taking a self reflexive approach to our own practices is part of anti-racist strategy. One way of testing our performances can be to ask ourselves - if the room is all persons of that ethnicity, am I confident that my show is not racist?

There you go! Since Palestinians are largely Holocaust-deniers, and Hamas sympathizers are very upset at the very mention of the murder of millions of Jewish people, they would be uncomfortable sitting in the audience of such a performance and therefore it violates the Red Rattler's expansive definition of racism!

It all makes perfect sense if you are a sickening, disgusting Jew-hater pretending to be liberal.

The people behind the theatre are proud to describe themselves as "rats." That moniker is richly deserved.

UPDATE: Of course, after this story hit the world media, the Rats decided that this didn't look good and now say they have no problem with Jews.

Under heavy mortar fire in Gaza, IDF waited 50 minutes to respond (MAG report part 3)

On July 30, 2014, artillery shells hit a marketplace in Shujaiyya, Gaza, killing at least 17 people. Reports said as many as 35 were killed.

Israel was accused of violating a humanitarian ceasefire:

Despite a four-hour humanitarian ceasefire that began at 3:00 p.m., Israeli forces on Wednesday afternoon shelled a market in Shujaiyya as well as number of homes across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 35.

Gaza Ministry of Health spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra said around 6 p.m. that an Israeli airstrike had hit Shujaiyya market, killing at least 17, including a journalist, and injuring 200, including many seriously.

Gruesome (but edited) video shows one of the attacks:

What really happened?

The Military Advocate General report shows that the IDF did not violate any ceasefire and if anything, it put its soldiers in serious danger for 50 minutes before responding to heavy mortar fire:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the events associated with the incident started at approximately 16:10, when an anti-tank (AT) missile was fired at IDF forces operating in an open area on the outskirts of the Shuja'iyya neighborhood. Immediately after the anti-tank missile was fired, there commenced an intense and ongoing burst of mortar fire, emanating from a built-up area in the neighborhood, targeting the forces. As a result of this fire an IDF soldier was injured and the rest of the soldiers at the scene were placed in real danger. Further, in light of this use of fire, and the situation in which the forces found themselves (including a tank that could not move due to malfunction), the conclusion drawn by the commanders in the field was that this fire could provide cover for an attempt to abduct a soldier. During this episode of mortar fire, five sites in a built-up area were identified as points from which shells had been fired at IDF forces. Nevertheless, IDF forces did not return fire towards the sources of this fire, because of their proximity to "sensitive sites" (in the IDF, "sensitive sites" are civilian sites that receive special protection from attack under the law of armed conflict (such as medical facilities), as well as other civilian sites that warrant special consideration for policy reasons, even when there is no legal obligation (such as schools); such sites are identified in advance by the IDF and integrated into IDF's operational systems).

In other words, IDF forces were sitting ducks and in real danger because they go beyond the letter of the Laws of armed Conflict in order to reduce the possibility of hitting schools or hospitals that are nearby where terrorists are firing.

At approximately 16:40, when the mortar fire had not yet ceased, IDF forces fired a number of rounds of smoke-screening shells, in order to screen the troops, and frustrate the enemy fire. At approximately 17:00, as the mortar fire upon the troops from the built-up area continued, and in light of the ongoing threat to the lives of the troops, the forces were able to identify two additional sources of fire, from which most of the fire towards them was originating at that time. After it was concluded that one of these points was sufficiently distant from sensitive sites, it was decided to return a limited amount of fire, of five mortar shells, with the aim of suppressing the fire targeted at IDF forces. The IDF fire was carried out using mortars, since there was no available alternative for carrying out the strike, including aerial alternatives, which would allow the necessary operational effect to be achieved. In this context, the possibility of using 155 mm high-explosive artillery shells was also considered, in order to address the danger faced by the forces. This possibility was dismissed for the reason that the collateral damage expected from mortar shells was more limited.

Approximately 18 minutes after the initial mortar fire was carried out by the forces, towards the source of the fire, and after the fire emanating from that site had not ceased, it was decided to fire an additional ten mortars towards it. After this round of fire, the mortar fire on IDF forces ceased. Only around 40 minutes after the execution of the above-mentioned fire were reports received by the IDF regarding the hit on civilians in this area.

The FFA Mechanism's findings further revealed that at the time of the incident, the forces had believed that the likelihood of civilians being harmed as a result of the fire was low. Before the start of the ground incursion in Shuja'iyya, a widespread warning to evacuate had been provided, which, according to the information in the force's possession, had resulted in the evacuation of the vast majority of the civilian population in the neighborhood? An additional warning to evacuate was made two days prior to the incident, on 28 July, in order to keep the civilian population at a distance from the area of hostilities. Moreover, during the ongoing aerial surveillance carried out in the area in the period leading up to the incident, no civilian presence was identified on the roads and in the open areas of the neighborhood – which are the areas in which the danger posed by mortar shells is generally greater than the danger to those inside a building. In real time, no aerial surveillance capabilities were available to the forces. Thus, even if the possibility of civilian presence in the area had not been entirely ruled out, in consideration of the assessment that most of the population had evacuated and that no civilian presence was identified in the area prior to the incident, the understanding was that the risk of harm as a result of the limited fire was low.

After the event, by comparing the actions taken by IDF forces with the allegations contained in the complaint received by the MAG Corps, it can be concluded that one of the shells from the first round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the roof of the Al-Salak family, at a time when the family was on the roof, and killed seven family members; and that two shells from the second round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the crowd which had gathered next to the Al-Salak house in the wake of the first strike. At the same time, the possibility that the harm to civilians during this incident resulted from a misfire by a Palestinian terror organization has not been ruled out, in light of the extensive enemy mortar fire emanating from the area at the time.

But what about the return fire? Did it hit its intended target? The answer seems to be yes.

In addition to the above, intelligence information indicated that six of the deceased in this incident appear to have been militants, and thus the total civilian fatalities is lower than that alleged in the complaint.

This means that the video above was edited to as not to show/play the sounds of the outgoing mortars from the area of the market that continued after the first Israeli response.

What about that cease-fire?

The FFA Mechanism's findings further concluded that the incident in question did not take place during a ceasefire in Shuja'iyya. The IDF announced a unilateral humanitarian ceasefire between the hours of 15:00 and 19:00 on that day, but clarified that this would not apply in a number of specific areas in which IDF forces were operating at that time, including Shuja'iyya (along with a number of other areas). This was transmitted in the media and in messages that were passed to the Palestinian side.

This is corroborated by The Independent:

The Israeli military has declared a limited four-hour humanitarian ceasefire in some parts of Gaza ...

However, the four-hour ceasefire will not take place in areas where operations are already underway and residents are being warned not to return to evacuated areas.

Lt Col Peter Lerner of the Israel Defence Forces told the BBC he hoped Hamas hold their fire during the brief lull in fighting as well, "because otherwise things are going to get messier".

This incident is maddening, because it shows that the IDF ia more concerned about civilians whose collateral deaths would be perfectly legal under international law than they are about their own troops, the exact opposite of how an army should act. It also shows that Hamas is eagerly taking advantage of that weakness, apparently firing mortars from nearby or within a crowded marketplace as well as schools and medical facilities, literally shielding themselves with children and injured.

Moreover, it proves, yet again, how far out of their depth NGOs that criticize Israel are. Without knowing what goes into military decisions, they cannot begin to come to any conclusion about the legality of any specific incident; yet they sprinkle around "war crimes" accusations like candy. They know literally nothing about military matters yet they self-righteously proclaim that the IDF is violating international law - laws that were written deliberately to allow military leaders to make exactly these kinds of decisions based on the best information they have at the time without fearing to be labeled war criminals.

Don't take my word for it - read the actual sources. There is a lot of protection for military decisions that are aimed at a valid target even if there would be civilian deaths, based on the value of the target. NGO's don't know the targets, don't know their value, don't know what the commanders know at the time, and yet pretend that they know all three.

Jizya tax receipt for Christians published

Arab media have published a photo of a receipt given by ISIS to a Christian for paying the jizya tax.

The receipt, from December, was given to a Syrian Armenian Christian in the city of Raqqa.

ISIS is enforcing Islamic law by requiring Christians (and, theoretically, Jews) to pay a poll tax to their Muslim masters. If they refuse then they are branded as enemies and given a "choice" of exile or death.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their homes when ISIS took over.

The Islamic law states that the second-class dhimmis must pay on a graded scale: wealthy ones pay the value of 13 grams of gold, average people half that amount and poor people a quarter of the amount. This Armenian, Sargis Araklian, was poor so he only paid the equivalent of $136.

While there is no love of ISIS in much of the Arab world, the articles seem to be written with a sense of pride, as if this was a historic occasion. The articles are proudly showing the first photographic proof in recent history of a Christian paying the jizya tax that most Muslims believe is their due for "protecting" them.

03/22 Links: Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders; The Guardian's new anti-Israel Editor

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders

In the most educated and progressive circles, who is considered to be the archfiend of the Middle East, the person who most imperils life and freedom and the safety of the world?
Bashar Assad, perhaps, the butcher of Syria? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the psychotic Islamic State terrorist group? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who threatens a second genocide against the Jewish people? None of the above. Among progressives, the accolade from hell is bestowed instead on the prime minister of the only democracy in the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Shocked and appalled by their failure to finish him off politically – only to see him reelected stronger than ever – the Left immediately intensified its campaign of distortion and demonization against him. Its “aha” moment was that he was said to have reversed himself and come out against a two-state solution.
The Obama administration pounced and started hurling threats. It let it be known that, now that Netanyahu had opposed the creation of a separate Palestinian state, it would need to “reevaluate” the best way of bringing that about. It suggested the US might now fail to oppose the Palestinian initiative to get the UN Security Council to declare the establishment of such a state.

The Guardian appoints anti-Israel propagandist Katharine Viner as new editor-in-chief

The decision was not a surprise to those following the media group’s search for a new chief editor.
In December, I was asked by Josh Jackman of the The Jewish Chronicle to share my thoughts on the announcement that Alan Rusbridger was stepping down as the newspaper’s editor-in-chief after more than 20 years at the helm, and how the appointment of a new editor may affect their Middle East coverage. I told Jackman that the Guardian was institutionally biased against Israel and I wasn’t optimistic that a new editor will have a positive effect.
Specifically, I noted that Viner, one of the top early contenders for the job, could possibly even push the media group to adopt an even more pronounced pro-Palestinian stance.
My concerns were largely based on the fact that Viner was the co-creator of an anti-Israel play called ‘My Name is Rachel Corrie’, a piece of theatrical agitprop about the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist killed in March 2003 while attempting to stop an IDF anti-terror operation in Gaza.
In a review in 2005, Times of London culture critic Clive Davis characterized the play as “an element of unvarnished propaganda…with no attempt to set the violence in context”. “We are left”, he complained, “with the impression of unarmed civilians being crushed by faceless militarists.” At one point in the play, Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis noted, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.”

Jews are behind all bad in the world, says preacher on PA TV

The Jews are behind all that is wrong in the world, according to the host of a weekly Palestinian Authority TV program on Islam. Even when fish fight in the sea, "the Jews are behind it," said the Muslim preacher and professor of Quranic Studies, Imad Hamato. To back up this Antisemitic hate speech, Hamato went on to say that the Quran teaches that humanity will never "live in comfort... peace or fortune or tranquility" as long as "the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land." The solution for Muslims, according to the professor, is to fight Jews: "Our real Jihad is to take revenge."
"Humanity will never live in comfort as long as the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land. Humanity will never live in peace or fortune or tranquility as long as they are corrupting the land. An old man told me: If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are behind it. As Allah says: ''Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. They strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters'' (Sura 5:64)." [Official PA TV, Feb. 27, 2015]
Only a month prior to Hamato's statement, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a cleric on official PA TV who taught that Jews are "apes and pigs" whose "hearts were sealed by Allah."

"Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land" - Muslim preacher on PA TV

Israel should be commended.

In the election last Tuesday Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, won re-election after many dire warnings of his imminent demise.

The night before the elections we were practically assured that the evil, racist Netanyahu regime was about to get a big spanking for daring to speak openly to the American public and above the head of Barack Obama.

So much so that upon his re-election I was immediately put to mind of the famous image above.

"Dewey Defeats Truman"

I just love the look of joy on the old boy's face.

Herzog, however, is going to have to wait because Netanyahu has no intention, yet, of giving up the crown.

What I find sad, though, is the degree of contempt spit at Israel by western progressives due to this election. Until the Obama administration's final push to rid itself of Netanyahu, it was generally assumed that he would be re-elected. It was really only after The Speech that his numbers began to tank and, according to FOX News, there is a US Senate investigation taking place concerning possible Obama administration electoral interference. I assume that the Israeli government is looking into such allegations, as well.

It should be noted, though - and is not - that this was a significant victory for Israel's Arab voters.

The Joint Arab List came in third place among Knesset factions with 13 seats, well behind Likud, of course, with its 30 seats, but also well ahead of both Naftali Bennet's Jewish Home party and Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitunu. This victory for the Arab List should not be underestimated because if they consolidate their gains, then the Arab presence could end up more powerful within the Knesset then at any previous time in the past.

Whether such a development is welcomed or opposed is entirely up to the behavior and rhetoric of the Joint Arab List going forward.

Furthermore, the citizenry of Israel should be proud of the fact that it is, unquestionably, the least racist country in that part of the world and among the least racist countries anywhere in the world.

Does any of this get acknowledged within progressive-left venues? Of course, not. In fact, this is what some Daily Kos people had to say about Israel within the comments of a David Harris-Gershon "diary" entitled, Netanyahu's racist incitement against Arabs & rejection of two states lead to a comeback victory.

Here we learn that "Racism and Prejudice carry the day in another election for a Conservative ideologue!"

We learn that Netanyahu is a "racist Israeli war criminal" and that Israeli policies are "racist and militaristic."

We are told that:

There is no room for the Palestinians within Zionism. Zionism means: democracy is for Israeli Jews alone. Everyone else goes to the back of the bus.

The "back of the bus" imagery is both intellectually entertaining and dangerous because on a politically sub-atomic level it resonates with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, thereby turning Palestinian-Arabs into poor black people in the American South while simultaneously transforming the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors into brutal Alabama cops circa 1963.

From a propaganda perspective it is brilliant and all it takes is four small words: "back of the bus."

Also - and I hesitate - one nice young woman believes that Netanyahu has a "putrid, racist ass." Although just how she became so familiar with the Prime Minister's shapely hindquarters remains unclear.

Another friend naturally suggests that Israel is, or will be, a "racist, apartheid state."

And on and on and on. They also love to call Netanyahu both a liar and a warmonger.

Arab citizens of Israel represent 20 percent of the country and they have not always shown particular interest in participating in Israeli civic life or felt that they were welcome to do so. In fact, a sizable proportion of those Arabs honestly believe that, for reasons having to do with social justice - no less - that they have every right to try to kill Jews and that doing so is righteous in the eyes of Allah.

It is a double-whammy!

Not only does the western-left, essentially, affirm the rights of Arabs to kill Jews - due to the "Occupation of the Palestinian Territories" - but there are significant elements within the religion of Islam that consider Jewicide to be a mitzvah.

So, can you imagine how heinously "racist" the Left would tell one another that Israel is if the Arab List had come in - G-d forbid - fourth?

Whatever else this election may say about Israel, it clearly demonstrates its liberal commitment to plurality. Whatever else this election may say about Israel's enemies, it demonstrates their fundamental indifference toward the democratic and liberal nature of the Jewish State.

The Arabs now represent the third largest political bloc in the Knesset, despite the fact that it is largely an anti-Zionist bloc that has often sided with genocidal enemies of the Jewish people in that part of the world, such as Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad.

What could possibly be more democratic and less "racist," it must be asked, than for a country to willingly allow the empowerment of a hostile minority within its own chambers of governance?

In the mean time, by all accounts, Obama is preparing to punish the Jews of the Middle East for daring to disobey. When Jewish Israelis voted for Netanyahu this was a terrible insult to President of the United States, Barack Obama, and he is not going to allow you people to soon forget it.

If Obama was intent on befriending Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, before, he is now equally as intent on giving Israel the cold shoulder, if not significantly worse. So, we've got two years to ride this guy out and it would be helpful to anticipate the areas in which Obama might cause considerable grief.

That, however, is a project that I will leave for another day, with the exception of to say, obviously, watch the United Nations. If the UN was unfriendly when we had pro-Israel presidents in the White House, just imagine what it is going to be like with an openly hostile president crouching in the Oval Office.

Thus, already, we get this:

Top violator of women's rights around the world? It's Israel says UN

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.

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.

Obama is going to open the flood-gates to an extent that we have not yet seen. Not that he is directly responsible for this kind of mierda coming out of the UN, but there is no question but that the international community looks to the president for cues vis-à-vis Israel.

If we have a hostile president, which we most certainly do, then we can expect a more unfriendly international reception toward Israel, and toward Jews, on every level.

People who think that Jimmy Carter was no friend to Israel ain't seen nothin' yet, as they say.

So, yes, my heartiest congratulations to both Prime Minister Netanyahu (peace be unto him) and to the Arab List which did so well in this last round.

Good luck, fellahs.

You are going to need it.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

This is his 50th post for EoZ.

"Death to America! Curse the Jews!" BOOM

As we've mentioned before, the Houthi slogan translates to "God is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse the Jews, Victory to Islam."

Shiites in Yemen repeat this slogan during sermons in mosques.

And that is exactly what one congregation was saying at the moment a Sunni extremist decided to blow it (and himself) up:

This is not to say that this horrific bombing was justified in any way, but I'd be lying if I didn't admit a little bit of schadenfreude at the timing.

(h/t Yenta)

#WordsMatter: Obama's 2008 AIPAC speech sounded a lot like Bibi's 2015 Congress speech

From the NYT:

For the second consecutive day on Friday, the White House publicly questioned Mr. Netanyahu’s sincerity about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, suggesting that Mr. Obama did not trust him to back Palestinian statehood, a central element of United States policy in the Middle East.

Asked why the president did not take the prime minister at his word about his support for a two-state solution, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, quickly shot back: “Well, I guess the question is, which one?”

“The divergent comments of the prime minister legitimately call into question his commitment to this policy principle and his lack of commitment to what has been the foundation of our policy-making in the region,” Mr. Earnest said.

He said Mr. Netanyahu had raised questions about his “true view” on a two-state solution. “Words matter,” Mr. Earnest said.

In fact, Netanyahu didn't contradict himself, as Legal Insurrection notes. He didn't say he was against a two-state solution, he said that it wouldn't happen while he is prime minister because of the instability in the Arab world:

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state today, and evacuate areas, is giving radical Islam an area from which to attack the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “This is the true reality that has been created in past years. Those that ignore it are burying their heads in the sand. The left does this, buries its head in the sand, time and again."

Asked directly whether no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership, the prime minister answered: “Indeed.”

Yes, words do matter. And Netanyahu's words after the election did not contradict his words beforehand.

Which is better than we can say about Josh Earnest's boss, Barack Obama.

Obama's reaction to Netanyahu's speech to Congress was that it contained "nothing new." To an extent, he is right, because the "new" part of Netanyahu's speech was very close to what Obama himself said seven years ago.

Netanyahu's speech laid out three conditions for lifting sanctions on Iran in addition to dismantling its nuclear program - to stop aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, stop supporting terrorism around the globe, and stop threatening to destroy Israel.

Obama, speaking at AIPAC in 2008, also laid out three conditions to Iran that sound very similar:

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

This is the same speech where Obama promised "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." - although he walked that statement back almost immediately.

If "words matter," then how come Obama is not being held to his words as a candidate? How come Iran's daily threats against Israel and its continued support for terror - support that the White House is now trying to erase - are no longer conditions for keeping sanctions in place or reasons to "ratchet up the pressure"?

Yes, Josh Earnest, words matter. Too bad your boss tramples on that principle.

Too bad none of Obama's fans who claim to be pro-Israel are willing to hold the president to his own standards.

(h/t EBoZ, see also Joe Settler)

PalArabs claim Israeli prison conditions cause cancer

From Ma'an:

Fifteen Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons are suffering from cancer and are at risk of dying, the Hossam Association of Palestinian Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners has said.

The organization said in a statement that they believed the number was in fact higher, as the 15 include only those who have been diagnosed with cancer, but many others have tumors whose malignancy is not known because Israeli prison authorities have limited their access to tests.

The organization blamed Israeli authorities for contributing to an environment in which Palestinian prisoners faced a heightened risk of cancer due to high levels of radiation inside prison cells.

The group said that Israeli authorities set up devices to jam satellite and telephone signals near rooms where Palestinians are being held. They also pointed to the use of radiation in security scanners that prisoners are forced to go through during frequent searches and examinations.

The statement also said that a number of prisons are located near the Dimona nuclear reactor as well as toxic waste dumps in the Negev Desert, another factor which it said contributed to the high incidence of cancer.

15 people with cancer out of 5,500 prisoners?

In the US, about 1 in 30 males under the ages of 49 are expected to get cancer. That would translate to over 180 male inmates developing some sort of cancer out of 5,500. 15 seems to be awfully low, statistically.

The accusation of radiation from metal detectors is equally silly. Metal detectors give out a fraction of the background radiation that everyone is exposed to every day.

And if Dimona was sending out tons of radiation, then why do people live there?

As usual, Palestinian Arabs throw accusations at Israel, hoping that something will stick. This might not be as absurd as the charge (repeated by the UN) that 800,000 Palestinian Arabs have been in prison, but it is pretty close.

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.