Tuesday, June 09, 2015

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
One of the more egregious attempts to whitewash Hamas comes from "analysts" who say that Hamas accepts a two-state solution.

I've documented it since at least 2006, when The Guardian reported that Hamas accepts Israel - and Hamas immediately denied it.

That didn't stop others from doing the same, over and over. And once the PA sees how clueless Western media and analysts are, they push the same lies.  (So does Jordan.)

Even Hamas will allow gullible Westerners to misinterpret its ambiguous statements but will turn around and say in Arabic to its own people, very clearly, that their goal is to destroy Israel.

Luckily, Hamas organ Al Resalah has written, in English, what Hamas' position is:

Senior leader of Hamas Mahmoud al-Zahhar said all options are available to confront the Israeli occupation, including armed and popular resistance and resistance of boycott.

Armed resistance is not a political issue that may be negotiated, said al-Zahhar in a meeting organized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis City on Sunday to commemorate the day Jerusalem was occupied.

"It is neither a controversial, nor a negotiable issue; it is, rather, dogmatic fundamental cause in struggle with Israel," said al-Zahhar, referring to armed resistance, pointing out that Israel has long sought to erase the Palestinian constants, concerning the Palestinian lands, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Al-Zahhar stressed that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) refuses a Palestinian state within the 1967 or 1948 territories, saying "Our policy is Palestine, all of Palestine". He explained that Palestine as a whole is a part of the Islamic dogma that is derived from the Holy Qura'an.

But good luck waiting for Reuters or the BBC to cover this story the way they cover the many fictional stories of Hamas moderation.
  • Tuesday, June 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon


I last met Australian Jewish historian Professor Suzanne Rutland at a major international Jewish Studies Conference in Moscow in 2006.  There, in the bustling foyer of the massive hotel where the conference was taking place, she happened to mention to me that she and the veteran Australian political journalist Sam Lipski were collaborating on a book about the Australian contribution to the struggle for Soviet Jewry.  So it was wonderful to catch up with Suzanne (and Sam) again a few weeks ago when the result of their joint endeavours – Let My People Go: The untold story of Australia and the Soviet Jews 1959-89 (Hybrid Publishers, Melbourne) – was launched in Melbourne by Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian newspaper, whose columns supportive of Israel over the years will, I’m certain, be familiar to many of Elder’s readers.

In a delightfully droll but profoundly perceptive speech, Sheridan nailed it when he said:

“There’s a certain small stream of Australian braggadocio which thinks we’re a great power and can solve the world’s problems… But the other extreme is [the self-perception that] we’re really a backwater, we count for nothing, our opinions don’t matter … The truth is Australia is a very significant middle power”.
The ultimate success of Australia’s long and tenacious campaign for the prisoners of Zion and the refuseniks testifies to that.  As Sam Lipski has remarked, securing the freedom of the trapped and persecuted Jews of the Soviet Union was the third most momentous occurrence in twentieth-century Jewish history, the others being, obviously, the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel.
The book’s final text is the work of Lipski, who pays due tribute to the formidable research that Suzanne Rutland undertook in Jerusalem, notably in Isi Leibler’s extensive private archive, in Sydney, and in Canberra, and to her drafts and suggestions.  As Lipski notes in the book:

“Australian Jews had mobilised and lobbied on other major issues before Soviet Jewry.  In 1947-48 a small group of Sydney Jewish leaders had helped to persuade Labor’s External Affairs Minister Herbert Evatt to support the partition of Palestine and the emergence of Israel.  In 1950 a broader coalition of Melbourne and Sydney leaders could not prevent the Menzies government, supported by Labor, from allowing 100,000 German settlers to come to Australia.”
But the campaign for Soviet Jewry “reflected a greater militancy, especially in Melbourne, a new sophistication in engaging and informing sympathetic parliamentarians, and a new readiness to involve the mainstream media”.  What makes the story so compelling is the fact that Lipski is no mere narrator of events: he was himself involved in the campaign, and he brings an insider’s eye – and the observations of a sophisticated political analyst – to the unfolding events.

Isi Leibler, whose very substantial archive proved so rich a resource in Suzanne’s research, was, of course, one of the key players in the saga. The book tells of the little-known seminal meeting in 1959 between the then 25-year-old Australian, a religious Zionist and already the “coming man” of the  Jewish communal leadership scene in Melbourne, and the 60-year-old Israeli Shaul Avigur, who headed the Lishkat Hakesher (“The Liaison Bureau”), more commonly dubbed the Lishkah.  Founded in 1952, it aimed to forge contacts with the three million Jews of the Soviet Union beset by Stalinist oppression and antisemitism, kindle Jewish education among them, and eventually see them settled in Israel. 

It was owing to Leibler’s meeting with Avigur, and Leibler’s ensuing drive and  tenacity in pressing the issue,  that the plight of Soviet Jewry became a central focus of the Australian Jewish community.  As early as 1958 the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the community’s federal roof body, resolved to request the federal government to urge the United Nations to seek amelioration of the Jews’ situation in the Soviet Union, to ask the Conference of Jewish Organizations convening in New York that year to raise global awareness by publicising the plight of Soviet Jewry, and to call on Australia similarly to inform the public.  But only in 1962 did these initiatives begin to bear fruit.

 In April that year Liberal federal MP Billy Wentworth, a staunch anti-Communist who had sought advice on the subject from Leibler and who would be in touch with him again, asked the Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick, about the extent and purpose of antisemitism in the Soviet Union – to which Barwick responded that there were indeed “indications of a recrudescence of antisemitism in Russia”.  The upshot was that in October that year, Barwick announced that Australia would raise the matter the following month at the United Nations.  Thus, on 2 November, at the UN General Assembly’s Social Committee, Australia’s representative Douglas White described examples of antisemitism in the Soviet Union, adding: ‘should the USSR find difficulty in according to Soviet Jewry full freedom to practise their religion, it should, we believe, permit them to leave the country.  Indeed, it has a moral obligation to do so under article 13, paragraph 2, of the UN Declaration of Human Rights …
This initiative, presenting the plight of Soviet Jewry as a human rights issue, set a precedent for the West, and convinced the previously wary Israeli government no longer to prevaricate on the issue.  Moreover, Canberra had acted without prior consultation with Washington. Over the years, as the situation of Soviet Jewry grew more visibly dire (especially after 1967 with the publication of overtly antisemitic material) there was a groundswell of support in Australia for Soviet Jewry, emanating from various sides of politics, and involving a campaign by Jews themselves, officially started in 1970 by their federal roof body.

In 1965 appeared Leibler’s influential small book Soviet Jewry and Human Rights –  endorsed, crucially, by a sympathetic Australian Communist, Rex Mortimer, thus undermining the odious stance taken on the issue by sections of the Communist Party and elements on the political left, including, especially reprehensibly, the Jewish Senator Sam Cohen.

In 1967 Leibler, representing Australia, received a standing ovation at the World Jewish Congress in Strasbourg when he accused the WJC’s president, Dr Nahum Goldmann, of shtadlanut,  of opposing public rallies to publicise the cause in favour of exclusive reliance on unobtrusive overtures.
Unlike his Labor predecessor Gough Whitlam, Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser proved sympathetic to the plight of Soviet Jewry, allowing refuseniks’ highly sensitive documents to be sent out of the country in the Australian embassy’s diplomatic bag, and declaring that his government fully supported its American counterpart’s “strenuous efforts in negotiations with the Soviet Union to allow free emigration of Jews and others who wish to leave…”  During Fraser’s prime ministership, owing to a petition introduced into federal parliament in November 1976 by Billy Wentworth, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence’s Inquiry into Human Rights in the Soviet Union was set up.  Chaired by Kim Beazley, who had been a minister in the Whitlam government, it heard first from the former refusenik Professor Alexander Voronel, a distinguished scientist living in Israel, and tabled its lengthy landmark report in November 1979.

As a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Robert Goot, put it at the Lipski/Rutland book’s Sydney launch:

 “A significant part of this wonderful book focuses on events surrounding the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the way in which that event not only presented opportunities for the Soviet Jewry movement, but also demonstrated the lack of leadership consensus on how to leverage those opportunities – to boycott or not to boycott. We read of the appointment of Isi Leibler’s company Jetset as the Australian Olympic Committee’s official travel agent for the games and the controversy that generated; the opportunities that the AOC appointment provided Isi Leibler to visit Russia, meet with and advance the cause of the refuseniks; the Hawke visits [to Israel and to Russia]; the Australian government’s boycott of the games; and much more. It is a part of the story filled with excitement, allegations of conflict of interest, leadership schisms, intrigue, shady KGB operatives; lots of vodka, some beer (in deference to Hawke), hope and despair, but above all of Soviet Jewish heroes. In short, the book conveys a fascinating plot, larger than life characters and most importantly for Soviet Jewry, a happy ending. And not only is it true, but it recounts a part of the saga that is driven uniquely by Australians.”

In 1987, Leibler was invited by Moscow’s chief rabbi to address worshippers from the pulpit of the KGB-controlled Archipova Synagogue at Rosh Hashana. “Giving a Zionist address in broken Yiddish to a packed synagogue in the presence of refusenik friends ... was an unforgettable experience”, he has recalled. 

The book ends with the opening in Moscow in February 1989 of the Solomon Mykhoels Cultural Centre, named in honour of a famous Yiddish theatrical figure murdered on Stalin’s orders in 1948.  Leibler affixed the mezuzah to the Centre’s door in the presence of over 70 Israeli and international Jewish communal representatives and to the echo of encouraging messages from, among others, Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.  Concludes that chapter:

“[The far-reaching consequences of Gorbachev’s perestroika] still lay in the future.  But enough had happened for Isi Leibler to look back 30 years to a meeting with Shaul Avigur…. Israel’s legendary spymaster … had asked him to work for Mission Improbable: to bring the Soviet Union’s imprisoned and persecuted Jews to Israel.  And to work for that goal from Australia, a relatively minor player in the Cold War, with a small post-Holocaust Jewish community of limited influence.
In 1959 the signs were not all that propitious.  But over the next 30 years Australian Jews and their leaders worked with Australian governments, parliamentarians, diplomats and opinion makers and took up the Soviet cause with growing fervour.  They made a difference....”
Sam Lipski began his speech by pointing out that, entirely by serendipity, the date of the book’s launch, 17 May, coincided, to the very day, with the concert for former refuseniks held in 1988 at the Melbourne Concert Hall – a joyous event entitled “From Russia With Thanks” that I remember well.  To thunderous applause the elderly scientist Professor Alexander Lerner, on behalf of himself and the other fourteen ex-refuseniks present, presented Bob Hawke (the intended hero of the occasion, who had endeared himself to the refuseniks by visiting Russia in 1979 to intercede for them) with a specially commissioned silver sculpture and told him:

“Through your strength, you have saved the Jewish community of Russia from a loss of dignity and from death.  Your name will be remembered forever…”
As the book recalls in some detail, however, that occasion was unexpectedly marred by inappropriate remarks by Hawke, who had been veering away from his celebrated championship of Israel into a more even-handed approach and who – too cocksure of the affection in which the Australian Jewish community held him – ten minutes into an otherwise splendid on-topic speech gratuitously referred to the Intifada that had broken out six months earlier and proceeded to drew an analogy between the Palestinians and the refuseniks, giving dismay and offence in consequence, not least to Isi Leibler, who had a humdinger of a row with Hawke afterwards.  Lipski wrote at the time, in his editorial in the Australian Jewish News, “The special relationship [between Hawke and Australian Jewry] will never quite be the same again”.  Nor, indeed, has it been.



From Ian:

UN Agency Spokesman Goes Wild on Twitter to Defend Denial
Chris Gunness, spokesperson for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which deals with Palestinian refugees, denied last week that UNRWA had handed weapons to Hamas during last summer’s Gaza war. He then blocked critics on Twitter who had questioned his denial.
Gunness also responded to critics by tweeting a graphic photograph of a maimed Palestinian child, and by accusing UN human rights critic Anne Bayefsky of “racism” for her criticism.
The controversy erupted at a panel discussion last week, held to commemorate the 65th anniversary of UNRWA. Bayefsky asked Gunness to respond to the recent report on UNRWA’s role in the Gaza war by the UN Secretary-General’s Board of Inquiry.
The report noted that when weapons were found stored in UNRWA schools–to use the schools and the children human shields against Israel–the agency handed them to “local authorities” and gave contradictory statements to the press.
“So what’s UNRWA’s response to the Secretary-General’s finding that UNRWA actively contributed to the commission of war crimes during the Gaza war?” she asked.
PMW: Antisemitic Sheikh defends his blood libel
Palestinian Media Watch's exposure of Sheikh Khaled Al-Mughrabi's Antisemitic lesson at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, triggered international response. The Wiesenthal Center publically condemned it, urging King Abdullah of Jordan and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to denounce the hate speech and ban the Sheikh [The Jerusalem Post, June 4, 2015]. In response, in a subsequent lesson in the mosque, this past Friday, Al-Mughrabi defended and even added to the Antisemitism he had disseminated.
Last week, Al-Mughrabi taught the medieval blood libel that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to make Passover matzah bread. He also charged that Jews were behind the 9-11 attacks and that they slaughter their own relatives as sacrifices to Satan, as part of their activities in the Freemasons.
In his subsequent lesson, Sheikh Al-Mughrabi defended his Antisemitic teachings. He categorized them as "advice" to the Jews - "the Children of Israel" - who he was trying to "save" from "Hell," implying that by exposing to the world that the Jews make matzah by murdering children, the Jews will improve their behavior. He added that it is not only Jews who Muslims try to save from Hell, as Muslims may give advice to a "Jew or Christian or Buddhist" in order "to save him from the fire of Hell":
Phyllis Chesler: As ISIS Brutalizes Women, a Pathetic Feminist Silence
What is going on?
Feminists are, typically, leftists who view "Amerika" and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.
Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they're strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be "racist." They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.
The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam's long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.
And why? They are terrified of being seen as "politically incorrect" and then demonized and shunned for it.
The Middle East and Western Africa are burning; Iran is raping female civilians and torturing political prisoners; the Pakistani Taliban are shooting young girls in the head for trying to get an education and disfiguring them with acid if their veils are askew — and yet, NOW passed no resolution opposing this.
Twenty-first century feminists need to oppose misogynistic, totalitarian movements. They need to reassess the global threats to liberty, and rekindle our original passion for universal justice and freedom.

  • Tuesday, June 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Reuters:

Ambassador Robert Stephen Beecroft
Egypt summoned the U.S. ambassador in Cairo to show displeasure at Muslim Brotherhood figures coming to Washington for a private conference, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency on Monday.

One source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. officials did not intend to meet the group although they had met some Brotherhood figures that came to Washington in January.

The tensions reflect a clash between U.S. diplomats' desire to deal with the whole political spectrum in Egypt and a fear of alienating Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who, as army chief, toppled a Muslim Brotherhood-led government in 2013.

The sources declined to say precisely when U.S. Ambassador Stephen Beecroft was called in by the Egyptian government, though one said it was in recent days. Egypt sought the meeting to make clear its unhappiness at U.S. dealings with the Brotherhood.

State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke declined to say whether Beecroft was summoned by the Egyptian authorities or whether U.S. officials would meet Brotherhood figures visiting Washington, telling reporters he was aware of media reports of such a visit but that "I don't have any meetings to announce."

He said it continued to be U.S. policy to engage with people from across the political spectrum in Egypt.

Last week Obama administration officials met with members of Breaking the Silence, a group whose entire purpose is to delegitimize Israel on the world stage. Shouldn't Israel have protested that the way Egypt protested this?

UPDATE: The State Department decided not to meet with the MB, which makes my question even more cogent.
  • Tuesday, June 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
The website of the Waqf is now accusing Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount of practicing sorcery on the Temple Mount.

It is well known that many Jews like to write notes expressing their prayers and wishes in between the stones of the Kotel - letters to God, as it were.  One Jew apparently decided that if a note on the outside of the Western Wall is effective, then placing one on the inside would be even better!

The Islamic authorities found this note between the stones adjacent to the Moroccan Gate - the only gate that non-Muslims are allowed to enter from - and, of course, freaked out, saying that this was an example of Jewish "sorcery."

This note, the Waqf says, shows "clear evidence on the multifaceted nature of these violations" of the Al Aqsa Mosque.


  • Tuesday, June 09, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Parchin
From the Tehran Times:

Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has said that the Additional Protocol allows “general access” which does not “mean access” to military sites.

He made the remarks during an interview with Al-Alam new network aired on Sunday.

Access to non-nuclear sites mentioned in the Additional Protocol is “general” and if a country does give access to a certain non-nuclear site due to some reasons, it can give access to neighboring areas for sampling, he stated.

Kamalvandi also stated that the protocol does not allow interviewing scientists.

Elsewhere in his remarks, he said that the IAEA should “substantiate the existing records”, because most of its records are prepared by the intelligence services of the Zionist regime of Israel.

The nuclear official also said that Iran will not accept a protocol that allows access to military facilities.

He went on to say that there are some “broad interpretations” on the protocol that seem to be aimed at undermining the nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers.
There were similar articles coming out of Iran this weekend.

The IAEA disagrees:
VIENNA — The chief U.N. nuclear inspector on Monday rejected a ban by Iran's supreme leader blocking U.N. experts from seeing Iranian military sites or meeting with Iranian atomic scientists, deepening a confrontation with Tehran over how much openness the country must accept under any nuclear deal.

Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month declared that "no inspection of any military site and interview with nuclear scientists will be allowed," and Iranian negotiators have since said Khamenei's ban is indisputable.

Amano, however, challenged that, saying Iran already has committed to permit "access to sites, documents (and) people" under a preliminary agreement that outlined components of the deal now being negotiated.

Coming just weeks ahead of a June 30 target date for a nuclear deal, Amano's comments were certain to further inflame the controversy between Iran and the international community over the degree of intrusiveness the nuclear agreement will give the IAEA.
To be precise, while the IAEA's 1997 model Additional Protocol seems to allow more expansive inspections, no one has ever published the specific version Iran signed to in 2003.


Monday, June 08, 2015

  • Monday, June 08, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
A maddening article at Point of No Return:
During the first three days of the Six Day War, the Egyptian media claimed victory, and Egyptians did not know their army was crushed. Everyone was certain troops were at the doors of Tel Aviv. Rumors spread that thousands of Israeli prisoners were being shipped to Cairo by train to be paraded for all to see in Ramses Square, where the train station is located.

The authorities had trouble satisfying this demand, as Egypt had caught no more than a handful of Israeli POWs. But a solution was found. On the first day of the war, at a quarter to five sharp, we heard a knock at the door. We opened. Two policemen in civilian clothes wanted my brother Sami for 10 minutes at the station.

He followed them. Two minutes later, Zeinab, the custodian's wife, knocked at the door. Shaken and with tears in her eyes she asked: "Why did they take him?" Still in shock, we just repeated what we heard: "He will be back in ten minutes".

A minute later, our neighbor Set Olfat, who saw from her window my brother taken away in a police truck, arrived. As my mother welcomed her, the slightly obese woman headed quickly toward my father and asked: "Why did they take him, Mr. Sabet?" The custodian, Am Taher, also came, and told my parents that they should not leave the house; he would run all errands for us. Set Olfat confirmed the warning, assuring us her maid would get us what we needed.

All evening my mother would look at the clock. "It will not be 10 minutes", my father said. My brother did not come the next day, nor the day after, nor by the end of the week on Friday, June 9, when a cease-fire was declared.
...

The authorities arrested nearly all Jewish males between the ages of 17 and 60. Those who held foreign citizenship were taken to Alexandria and thrown on a boat, to be disgorged somewhere in southern Europe. They were the fortunate ones. The others, Egyptians and stateless (Jews as a rule were denied citizenship), were taken to the notorious detention camps of Abu Zabaal, near Cairo.

On the third day of the war, as a substitute for Israeli POWs, the authorities decided to parade instead the Jews from Alexandria, who were taken by train to Abu Zabaal by way of Cairo. The spectacle took place in Ramses Square in front of local mobs, who abused the Jews as they were thrown into open trucks. A Christian friend of my mother, Ang le, lived near the station, and saw the spectacle. She only told me a year later how young and old were throwing stones at the men in the trucks, while shouting "Yahud."
Read the whole thing.


From Ian:

Rabbi Sacks: Anti-Semites Using Guise of 'Human Rights'
Former UK Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks spoke on Monday about anti-Semitism, and warned that not only is the volatile trend which is spreading out of control in Europe a threat for the continent's Jews, but it is also a destructive threat for all Europeans.
Speaking at a discussion entitled "Islam and BDS in Europe: A Strategic Threat?," which was held on Monday at the 2015 Herzliya Conference, Rabbi Sacks spoke about the connection between BDS - the boycott movement targeting Israel economically - and classical anti-Semitism.
According to the rabbi, who is Chief Rabbi Emeritus of the United Hebrew Congregation of the Commonwealth, "anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism," and just as attacks on Jews must be stopped, Europe must likewise stop attacks on the Jewish state.
Tracing the evolution of Jew hatred, the rabbi noted that once anti-Semitism was based on religion, and then race, but "today they (Jews) are hated for the new nation state."
"The assault on Jews has had to justify itself in the highest cannon of authority," he said, explaining that in the Middle Ages religion was the highest authority, whereas in the 19th century CE it was replaced with science in Western culture. As a result, "the scientific study, that today we know is a pseudo-science of race and social Darwinism was used to justify hate against Jews."
"Now, human rights are the highest form of authority. For this reason it is used against Israel. The new anti-Semitism has to be spoken in the language of human rights," said Sachs, explaining modern anti-Semitism.
Jerusalem mayor urges Obama to recognize Israel’s capital
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat on Monday urged US President Barack Obama to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, hours after the US Supreme Court struck down a law to permit Americans born in Jerusalem to list their birthplace as Israel in their US passports.
The landmark ruling, which backed the president’s official stance on Jerusalem, was also fiercely criticized by MK Michael Oren — formerly the Israeli ambassador to the US — while the Foreign Ministry declined to comment.
“Just as Washington is the capital of the US, London is the capital of England, and Paris the capital of France — so too Jerusalem was and always will be the capital of Israel,” Barkat said in a statement.
Pointing to rising anti-Semitism and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, the mayor said, “I call on US President Barack Obama to publicly declare what we’ve known for generations — that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Israel is the home of the Jewish people.”
Oren, of the Kulanu party and a former US citizen, also denounced the ruling, which he said was “damaging to Israel’s sovereignty and to the alliance of Israel and the United States.
“Today, to my regret, the court rejected the appeal on the claim that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is in the unique purview of the president and behold — President [Barack] Obama uses this authority and chooses not to recognize Jerusalem as our capital,” he said.
BBC's 'Impartiality' Cut References to Jews From Concentration Camp Reports
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) edited out all mention of Jewish people from a front-line report on the liberation of Belsen concentration camp in Germany at the end of World War II, it has emerged.
The corporation had not wanted to air the report at all, only conceding when veteran broadcaster Richard Dimbleby threatened to resign.
On April 15, 1945, the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen was liberated. There, despite there being no gas chambers, at least 50,000 Jews, Poles, Soviets, Dutch, Czechs, Germans and Austrians had lost their lives. Allied forces entering the camp found 60,000 prisoners still alive in the camp, most of them emaciated. A further 13,000 dead bodies were scattered around the grounds, unburied.
Among the first to arrive at the camp to witness the scenes was the broadcaster Richard Dimbleby, one of the BBC’s small band of pioneering war correspondents. Millions of radio listeners back in Britain heard the horror in his voice as he described the scene:
“Here over an acre of ground lay dead and dying people. You could not see which was which… The living lay with their heads against the corpses and around them moved the awful, ghostly procession of emaciated, aimless people, with nothing to do and with no hope of life, unable to move out of your way, unable to look at the terrible sights around them …
“Babies had been born here, tiny wizened things that could not live … A mother, driven mad, screamed at a British sentry to give her milk for her child, and thrust the tiny mite into his arms, then ran off, crying terribly. He opened the bundle and found the baby had been dead for days.
“This day at Belsen was the most horrible of my life”.

But the report they were hearing had been edited, from an original length of eleven minutes down to just six, and all reference to Jews had been taken out.

  • Monday, June 08, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From JPost:
In a major blow to a 13-year-old effort to bolster Jerusalem's status under American law as an undisputed part of Israel, the US Supreme Court on Monday struck down as unconstitutional a Congressional law which authorized placing "Israel" on passports of Jerusalem-born Americans.

The 6-3 split ruling was also a victory for the administration of US President Barack Obama, which said the law unlawfully encroached on the president's power to set foreign policy and would, if enforced, undermine the US government's claim to be a neutral peacemaker in the Middle East.
Notice that the decision is not about US citizens born across the Green Line. It is about citizens born in any part of Jerusalem.

All of the bluster from the White House about how Israel shouldn't build in "east Jerusalem" covers for the fact that parts of US policy have never made a distinction between any parts of Jerusalem. The Green Line - that is disingenuously claimed to be an "internationally recognized border" - doesn't exist in Jerusalem, unless people want a further excuse to bash Israel.

This memo from the State Department in 1953 seems like it could be written today by the same department:

The United States regrets that the Israeli Government has seen fit to move its Foreign Office from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

We have made known our feelings on that subject to the Government of Israel on two prior occasions. It was done in July 1952 and again in March 1953, when our Ambassador, hearing rumors that this was in contemplation, called upon the Israeli Government and requested them not to transfer their Foreign Ministry to Jerusalem.

We feel that way because we believe that it would embarrass the United Nations, which has a primary responsibility for determining the future status of Jerusalem. You may recall that the presently standing U.N. resolution about Jerusalem contemplates that it should be to a large extent at least an international city. Also, we feel that this particular action by the Government of Israel at this particular time is inopportune in relation to the tensions which exist in the Near East, tensions which are rather extreme, and that this will add to rather than to relax any of these tensions.

The views that I express here are, we know, shared by a considerable number of other governments who have concern with the development of an atmosphere of peace and good will in that part of the world.

We have notified the Government of Israel that we do not intend to move our own Embassy to Jerusalem.
In 1962, the US wrote a memo explicitly discouraging nations from opening embassies in Jerusalem.

The results of a US policy that seems to be reliant on a UN resolution that was never implemented are often bizarre. For example, the Obama White House once went through its website to erase any mention of "Jerusalem, Israel." Yet US diplomats often make speeches in Jerusalem where they say they are happy to be "here in Israel."

President Obama said that he was "here in Israel" when speaking from Jerusalem a number of times on his most recent trip to Israel in March 2013: at the Prime Minister's residenceYad Vashem and twice at the Jerusalem Convention Center

The State Department spokesperson once went through a bizarre exercise in answering questions about whether Jerusalem is Israel's capital:

QUESTION: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the Department about the travel of your boss.MS. NULAND: Yes.QUESTION: Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first Media Note was issued in error without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that Under Secretary – Acting Under Secretary for R, Kathy Stephens, will be traveling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations between the parties.QUESTION: Is it the view of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the Embassy, the location of the U.S. Embassy?MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.QUESTION: Does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent status issue; it’s got to be resolved through negotiations.QUESTION: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue --QUESTION: No, no. But --MS. NULAND: -- and I have nothing further to say on it.QUESTION: You’ve spoken to the issue but didn’t answer the question, and I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying – and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.MS. NULAND: That is our --QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.QUESTION: What is the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: Our Embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.QUESTION: So does that mean that you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.Lalit, thank you....QUESTION: I just want to go back to – I want to clarify something.MS. NULAND: Yeah.QUESTION: Perhaps give you an out on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final status issue or do you think – or is it just East Jerusalem?MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I said 17 times on that subject. Okay?QUESTION: All right. So hold on – so – I just want to make sure, you’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final status issue?MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.Please.

As I have noted, though, no one is claiming that the status of Bethlehem is up to the UN or negotiations - even though Bethlehem was meant to be part of the "corpus separatum" that the UN envisioned Jerusalem to be a part of:


The US policy on Jerusalem is still in many ways stuck in 1947, and the idea that US recognizing any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel is detrimental to peace is a shameful legacy of the past 12 US administrations. 
  • Monday, June 08, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas' Felesteen reports that the Hamas government in Gaza has busted an illegal black-market cement operation.  They pretended that they did this for the most civic of reasons, to stop price manipulation.

In reality, Hamas wanted to eliminate the competition from its own black market in cement, that has allowed it to rebuild terror tunnels at a rate that is probably outpacing the reconstruction of houses.

What do you think will happen to the cement it seized?

In that same spirit of civic-mindedness, Hamas asked all Gazans to report on any illicit cement activity that they see.


From Ian:

The case for Israel is rooted in more than security
Noses went out of joint and knickers got in a twist when Israel’s new deputy foreign minister delivered her inaugural speech to the Jewish state’s diplomatic corps.
“We need to get back to the basic truth of our right to this land,” said Tzipi Hotovely, who is running the foreign ministry’s day-to-day operations, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu retains the title of foreign minister. The land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, she declared, and their claim to it is as old as the Bible. “It’s important to say this” when making Israel’s case before the world, she said, and not to focus solely on Israel’s security interests. Of course security is a profound concern, Hotovely observed, but arguments grounded in justice, morality, and deep historical rights are stronger. She even quoted the medieval Jewish sage Rashi, who wrote that Genesis opens with God’s creation of the world to preempt any subsequent charge that the Jewish claim to the land was without merit.
Needless to say, Hotovely’s message was scorned on the left as primitive zealotry. “Her remarks raised eyebrows among many in the audience,” the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported. One diplomat said his colleagues “were in shock” at the suggestion that they should cite the Torah when advocating for Israel abroad.
Diplomacy is not Bible class. Yet why should Israel and its envoys shrink from making the fullest defense of Jewish rights in what was always the Jewish homeland? Though modern Zionism didn’t arise as a political movement until the 1800s, the land of Israel has always been at the core of Jews’ national consciousness. Even during 19 centuries of exile, Jewish life in Israel (renamed “Palestine” by the Romans) never ceased. In all those years, no other people ever claimed the land as their country, or built it into their own nation-state.
Jewish sovereignty wasn’t regained by downplaying the historical and religious bonds linking the Jews to the land. World leaders and opinion-makers didn’t regard those links with patronizing disdain; many found them intensely compelling.
History Matters: Remembering the Six-Day War
Mention the word “history” and it can trigger a roll of the eyes.
Add “Middle East” to the equation and folks might start running for the hills, unwilling to get caught up in the seemingly bottomless pit of details and disputes.
But without an understanding of what happened, it’s impossible to grasp where we are — and where we are has profound relevance for the region and the world.
Forty-eight years ago this week, the Six-Day War broke out.
While some wars fade into obscurity, this one remains as relevant today as in 1967. Many of its core issues remain unresolved and in the news.
Politicians, diplomats, and journalists continue to grapple with the consequences of that war, but rarely provide context. Yet without context, some critically important things may not make sense.
First, in June 1967, there was no state of Palestine. It didn’t exist and never had. Its creation, proposed by the UN in 1947, was rejected by the Arab world because it also meant the establishment of a Jewish state alongside.
Declassified documents reveal Israel feared Egyptian attack on Dimona nuclear reactor
One of Israel’s most worrisome concerns in the days preceding the 1967 Six Day War was that the Egyptian Air Force would attack the nuclear reactor in Dimona. This was revealed in the newly released and declassified secret documents of the IDF archives, to mark the 48th anniversary of that war, which began June 5.
The war broke out with the Israel Air Force’s surprise preemptive strike, which within three hours destroyed the entire Egyptian Air Force, sitting like ducks on the tarmacs of its airfields.
On June 2, the government’s security cabinet convened for a tense and dramatic meeting with the IDF General Staff. It was the first session to include Moshe Dayan as the new defense minister, appointed only a day before, after prime minister Levi Eshkol was forced due to public pressure to relinquish the defense post.
Eshkol’s decision to step down as defense minister was a result of a confusing speech that he delivered during a live radio broadcast in which he stuttered. The impression on the Israeli public, already under tremendous fear of another Holocaust, was overwhelming.

  • Monday, June 08, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Mohammed Dahlan, former Fatah strongman in Gaza and bitter rival of Mahmoud Abbas who is living in exile in Abu Dhabi, has announced that the UAE will pay the families of "martyrs" of Gaza from last year's war.

Dahlan said that the UAE's National Committee will pay a "martyr's bonus" approved by the UAE political leadership to pay the families $5,000 per family in the coming days.

Roughly half of those killed in Gaza were terrorists.

The story is more interesting for who announced it than for what he announced. ($10 million is chicken feed for the UAE.)

Dahlan is vying to be the successor to the aging Mahmoud Abbas, and he is living in luxury in Abu Dhabi plotting his return. As Newsweek reported recently:
No place in the Arab world could be more different from the Gaza Strip than Abu Dhabi. The affluent emirate on the Gulf has shimmering skyscrapers, a Grand Prix racetrack and its own Louvre. Yet Mohammed Dahlan, the 53-year-old Gaza native and exiled political leader, seems comfortable here. His home is a glossy mingling of marble and glass, with chandeliers hanging from high ceilings and framed paintings on the walls. On a sunny winter day recently, he worked in his garden dressed in jeans and soft loafers, then greeted me on his waterfront patio.

But for all its luxuriousness, Abu Dhabi is only temporary, Dahlan says—a staging area where he now plots his comeback. He’s lived in this city for four years, ever since Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expelled him from the governing Fatah party and charged him with corruption and defamation. The rift between them cut short a political career that seemed brimming with promise. Over a 20-year period, Dahlan served as the powerful security chief of Gaza, an adviser to Yasser Arafat, a negotiator with Israel and Abbas’s minister of interior. Now he’s trying to succeed his rival and become the next president of Palestine. “I have a nice life here, but believe me, my heart is there,” he tells Newsweek. “If there’s an election tomorrow, I’ll go back.”

In his interview with Newsweek, Dahlan positioned himself as a counterweight to Hamas, one of the few political figures with enough clout and muscle to defeat the Islamists. He made clear that he was using money and political connections—two resources he seems to have in abundance—to regain relevance in the territory he left behind. “The Gazan people are victims of Hamas, the Israelis and Abbas,” he says. “They all talk about the suffering of the people, but none of them are doing anything.”

For the past year, Dahlan has been raising money in Gulf countries and distributing it to needy Gazans, in part through a charity run by his wife.
Dahlan also took credit for the partial opening of the Rafah crossing last week.

Interestingly, the Newsweek article notes that Dahlan took Serbian citizenship last year, an option that Arab countries do not offer for Palestinian "refugees."

An eye-opening report from the UN's IRIN news site,  May 25:
Until November, it is alleged that Jordan routinely deported Syrian refugees who had broken the law back to Syria... Most Syrians are now sent to the Azraq refugee camp in Jordan instead. However, this is not the case for Palestinians, whose deportations do not appear to have been halted.
Jordan has denied entrance to Palestinian refugees living in Syria since January 2013, although this had already been the unofficial policy for months prior to the official announcement.

“They should stay in Syria until the end of the crisis,” Jordan’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour said in an interview at the time with the pan-Arab daily newspaper al-Hayat.

Many people fleeing Syria’s civil war have, however, been smuggled across the border, and Palestinians found to have entered the country illegally have been detained and are often deported back to Syria.

At least 42 Palestinians from Syria have been forcibly deported this year, in addition to 117 in 2014, according to sources familiar with the cases. Rights groups say those deported are at high risk of being arrested and tortured.
Here is the full quote from Jordan's Prime Minister:
Al-Hayat: But why are you preventing the Palestinian refugees fleeing from Syria from entering the kingdom, while knowing that they have Syrian travel documents?

Ensour: There are those who want to exempt Israel from the repercussions of displacing the Palestinians from their homes. Jordan is not a place to solve Israel’s problems. Jordan has made a clear and explicit sovereign decision to not allow the crossing to Jordan by our Palestinian brothers who hold Syrian documents. Receiving those brothers is a red line because that would be a prelude to another wave of displacement, which is what the Israeli government wants. Our Palestinian brothers in Syria have the right to go back to their country of origin. They should stay in Syria until the end of the crisis.
If we save their lives, we'd be doing what Israel wants us to do! Better to let them rot!

This is reminiscent of Mahmoud Abbas' own words saying that it is better for Palestinians to die in Syria rather than give up the mythical "right to return" to Israel.

The IRIN article shows that it is not only Jordan that turns its back on Syrian residents with Palestinian ancestry:

Palestinians from Syria are not allowed to register with the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, to receive aid, and many say they cannot contact other NGOs for fear of being discovered and stripped of their citizenship and deported. Many aid agencies will not work with them or represent them, making them particularly vulnerable to exploitation in the informal labour market.

Other Middle Eastern countries, including Lebanon, have also effectively banned Palestinians from Syria from entering.
There are literally hundred of NGOs operating in Israel and the territories, mostly funded by Europe, that are "pro-Palestinian." Yet almost none of these supposedly "pro-Palestinian" agencies take the slightest interest in the plight of Palestinians whose suffering cannot be blamed on Jews.

Now, why would that be?

(h/t Irene)

  • Monday, June 08, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon


I've mentioned that a new Egyptian Ramadan TV series about Egyptian Jews in the 1950s, called "Jewish Quarter," is quite sympathetic to Egypt's vanished Jewish community.

The Times of Israel had a more detailed report on the series.
Egyptian soap operas, produced annually to entertain millions of Muslims breaking their fast during the holy month of Ramadan, have often been platforms for antisemitic and anti-Israeli vitriol.

The 2012 series “Naji Atallah’s Team,” starring veteran actor Adel Imam, depicted an Egyptian group’s attempt to rob a bank in deeply racist Israel. The 2002 historic show “Knight Without a Horse,” located in 1932 Egypt and based on the antisemitic canard “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” almost caused Israel to withdraw its ambassador from Cairo and sparked condemnation also from the US State Department.

But a new drama about the Jews of Egypt scheduled to air this Ramadan, come June 18, promises to be significantly different.

The plot of “Haret al-Yahood,” or The Jewish Quarter, unfolds in Cairo between two landmark events in 20th century Egyptian history: the 1952 Revolution — which replaced the ruling monarchy with the militaristic Free Officers Movement led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser — and the 1956 Suez Crisis, known in Israel as the Kadesh Operation and in Egypt as the Tripartite Aggression.

It depicts a love story between Ali, an Egyptian army officer played by Iyad Nassar, and Laila, a young Jewish woman, played by Mona Shalabi. As one might expect, the romance is marred by the rising wave of Egyptian nationalism and the social tensions brought about by the creation of Israel.
Menna Shalabi is now telling Egyptian media to please not think that she is a filthy Zionist:

Shalabi releaeed a statement that the series "Jewish Quarter" is not intended to "beautify the face of Israel."

She said that the series is meant to show the social and and political history of Egypt at a point in time, and said that to accuse her of beautifying the face of Israel is completely unacceptable.

She said there is a difference between the state of Israel "that adopts the idea of ​​occupation" and the Jewish religion and Jews as human beings, as citizens have lived a long time in Egypt.

Shalabi pleaded for critics and the public not to rush to judgment on the work before its full release.

One doesn't have to read between the lines to see that she has been criticized in social media for the role and she is worried that she might be a target.

Sunday, June 07, 2015

  • Sunday, June 07, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
I received this email from J-Street's Jeremy Ben Ami:

Sheldon Adelson, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Christians United For Israel -- hardly a group representative of the American Jewish community -- spent this Saturday convening a secretive Las Vegas conclave to fight BDS. The problem: their approach is all wrong, and the impact for Israel advocacy on campus could be dire.

This wasn't just any strategy session: they invited 50 organizations that work on college campuses, ranging from the political center to the most extreme and Islamophobic. At the end of the day, the organizations got to compete for millions in funding. The donors have made clear that with all this money, they want to “assign roles” and “command and control” our community’s work on campus.

It's clear who is most likely to be the biggest loser in all this: not BDS, but Israel, and the students who know that the best way to be pro-Israel is to be anti-occupation and pro-peace.
There is more chutzpah in these three three short paragraphs than the proverbial son who killed his parents and asked for mercy because he was an orphan.

J-street is lecturing Zionist organizations on Israel advocacy? Really? When has J-Street ever said a pro-Israel word to "Students for Justice in Palestine"? when have they ever written a letter to professors who want to boycott Israel? I'm still waiting for a single tweet from Jeremy Ben Ami that defends Israel against the worse kind of antisemitic, anti-Israel propaganda.

J-Street characterizes a conference that has been widely reported in the media as "secretive." This coming from someone who tries to sweep the anti-Zionist opinions of his own board members under the rug. This comes from someone who pretends to be pro-Israel but cannot allow his organization to explicitly say that they support a Jewish state because that is way too right-wing for J-Street.

And, really, doesn't use of the word "secretive" suggest antisemitic stereotypes? The language doesn't bother them at all.

J-Street claims on the one habd to oppose BDS, but on the other they invite BDS champions like Mustafa Barghouti and Rebecca Vilkomerson to speak at their conferences.

So what in reality has J-Street done to combat BDS? Have they been vocal against the many divestment initiatives on campus? I have never heard them say a word in any of these public student debates on the topic - but they berate StandWithUs, who does a masterful job defending Israel and defeating these initiatives that J-Street seems to be de facto ambivalent about.

Well, J-street U has a "BDS Response Toolkit."

It is password-protected. 

Who is "secretive?"



AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive