Here was his speech:
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
From Ian:
'Ancient Arab Susiya' - The Town That Never Was
NGO Monitor: European-funded NGOs and the Susya Narrative
'Ancient Arab Susiya' - The Town That Never Was
The Palestinian Authority, with direct financing of the European Union and blind acceptance of lies as facts by media, is swallowing up the southern Hevron Hills, a huge area between Kiryat Arba-Hevron and Arad-Be'er Sheva.The Truth on Susiya
The latest chapter in the Palestinian Authority's re-invention of history is taking place in Susiya (pronounced "Soos-eeya") located two miles from the old borders of Israel, on the western edge of the Judean Desert that leads to the Dead Sea, and less than half an hour from Be'er Sheva, the capital of the Negev.
The Arab strategy: An Arab family erects a tent, illegally, near the archaeological site of the ancient town of Susiya. As time passes, the tent becomes a makeshift structure, which expands into several structures. With the support of extreme left-wing activists, the 'ancient' town of 'Palestinian Susiya' is invented, reported the Tazpit News Agency.
"This makes for a great human interest story, but for one setback — the 'ancient Palestinian Susiya' never existed. It shows up on no records," Tazpit wrote.
Yigal Dilmoni, deputy director-general of the Yesha Council, told Tazpit, "Fifteen-year-old [i.e., 1998—ed] aerial photos clearly show that there was no Arab village at this site ... The Arabs have come for the village of Yatta, and ... repeatedly disseminate lies."
[Back in June 2013], the Civil Lands Authority issued approximately 40 stop-work orders against projects funded by the European Union and intended to firm up Palestinian Authority claims to land where they never lived until Jews came to the area in 1983.
In that year, for the first time in 1,500 years, Jews began living in the southern Hevron Hills, setting up a community in nearby Beit Yatir, two miles to the south, and in Susiya, where the old Jewish town existed until approximately the 6th century.
NGO Monitor: European-funded NGOs and the Susya Narrative
Khirbet Susiya (Susya) is a small Arab village in the South Hebron Hills. There are widely divergent narratives regarding the village and its history; according to Israeli authorities, the village’s structures have been illegally built. A protracted court battle ensued regarding the demolition of the village.International court may not reopen flotilla case, prosecutor says
The Israeli Supreme Court recently cleared the legal barriers to demolition, on the grounds that the structures were constructed illegally, entirely without permits or approved plans. (Under the Oslo framework, Israel is responsible for planning and construction in Area C, which is where Susya is located.)
A number of governments, including the U.S. and European governments, are lobbying the Israeli government to prevent the demolition. In June, “a delegation of all European Union heads of missions to the Palestinian Authority visited Susya, accompanied by Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.”
As with many such contentious issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, many NGOs are active in promoting the Palestinian narrative, which is then repeated by the European and U.S. officials. These NGOs are themselves heavily subsidized by European and U.S. entities. (h/t Bob Knot)
The International Criminal Court will not necessarily open an investigation into the 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, despite a pretrial chamber ordering the prosecutor last week to reconsider her decision to close her initial probe into the case, the court’s chief prosecutor said Tuesday.
“The decision on whether to open an investigation depends on the facts and circumstances of each situation,” said Fatou Bensouda. “We are carefully studying the decision and will decide on the next steps in due course.”
In an email exchange with The Times of Israel, the Gambian-born Bensouda said she was aware of the United Nations Human Rights Council report on last year’s Gaza war and would consider “all credible and reliable sources of information.”
At the same time, she promised to conduct her own “independent analysis” of the controversial report.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
It seems to have started with the "Jewish Voice for Peace" writing a letter to Alison Weir, founder of the "If Americans Knew" website dedicated to exposing the supposed "Zionist" influence on the media and politics, and who has referred to Judaism as a "ruthless and supremacist faith" while using fake Talmud quotes:
Then the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" followed suit:
Oh, and virulent antisemite Gilad Atzmon defended Weir as well and slammed JVP for being too, well, Jewish.
Missing among all of these self-righteous arguments about whether some anti-Zionists are also anti-semitic is, of course, a single word from these "anti-racist" groups against widespread and explicit Arab antisemitism. Mentioning that is going too far!
Dear Ms. Weir,
Jewish Voice for Peace has chosen not to work with you because our central tenet is opposition to racism in all its forms, and you have chosen repeatedly to associate yourself with people who advocate for racism.
You have been a repeat guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show, the Free American. Clay Douglas is concerned primarily with the survival of the White race and sees malign Jewish influence everywhere. His racist, anti-Jewish, and anti-gay rhetoric can be found across the front pages of his multiple websites.
In the course of your appearance with Clay Douglas on August 25, 2010, for example, you were silent when Douglas invoked the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and engaged in a racist diatribe against Jews. Your repeated appearance on this show (April 23 and August 25, 2010; February 9 and May 18, 2011) show that you knew his extremist views and chose to continue the association....
Then the "US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation" followed suit:
1. Ms. Weir posted a blog on her personal website that references Jews as a race being “an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself,” effectively blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. (See Section 1 of Part 3)In response, the Free Palestine Movement defended Weir and publicly withdrew from the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (received via email):
2. In writing about a controversy surrounding allegations of the Israeli military harvesting the organs of Palestinians in 2009, Ms. Weir responded to supporters of Israel claiming this was a new “blood libel” by citing the research of Ariel Toaff, who purported to have uncovered ritual murder of Christian children by Jews in medieval Europe (the very definition of “blood libel”). (See Section 2 of part 3)
3. Ms. Weir has appeared at least five times for hour-long episodes on notorious white supremacist and militiaman Clayton Douglas’s radio show, the “Free American Hour,” between 2010 and 2012. A cursory glance at Douglas’s homepage would raise concerns about the host and program’s political content. Douglas’s homepage features the confederate flag, a video that opens with the title “9/11 Brainwashing and the Holohoax,” and numerous references to the “Jew World Order” and its “war on Adolph Hitler,” as well as claims of “ritual murder of Christians and Children by Jews.” While interviewing Ms. Weir, Douglas:
a. made derogatory remarks about Arabs (See 3.a and 3.d of Part 3)
b. repeatedly asserted Jewish control of the world (3.b, 3.g, 3.h, and 3.j)
c. quoted and played speech by the former head of the KKK, David Duke, proclaiming a war on Christianity (3.c, 3.e)
d. demonized adherents of communism, insinuating it is a Jewish conspiracy (3.h)
e. downplayed or denied the existence of apartheid historically in South Africa, analogizing criticism of white South Africans during apartheid, which Douglas sees as unfair, to the treatment of white Americans today. Similarly, Douglas analogizes the average German between WWI and WWII and average white American today (3.f 3.j)
...
Taken as a pattern, we concluded that Ms. Weir’s views and actions, on behalf of If Americans Knew, contradict the US Campaign’s anti-racism principles.
Please be advised that the Free Palestine Movement resigns from the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, effective immediately.Gives the word "solidarity" a whole new meaning!
We resign because of the disgraceful, disrespectful and unjust treatment of Alison Weir and her organization, If Americans Knew, in the procedures to expel her from the Campaign on the spurious grounds of insufficient avoidance of anti-Semitic persons and institutions.
We resign because it is clear that the decision had been made to expel IAK before the proceedings to do so had ever begun.
We resign because, in defiance of the most basic principles of justice, Ms. Weir was not given the opportunity to confront her accuser.
We resign because no evidence was presented that she herself is anti-Semitic.
Oh, and virulent antisemite Gilad Atzmon defended Weir as well and slammed JVP for being too, well, Jewish.
Missing among all of these self-righteous arguments about whether some anti-Zionists are also anti-semitic is, of course, a single word from these "anti-racist" groups against widespread and explicit Arab antisemitism. Mentioning that is going too far!
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
From the WSJ:
But isn't it interesting that Iran insisted as part of the deal to lift sanctions on a non-Iranian convicted nuclear smuggler, who was involved in nuclear bombmaking?
Clearly Iran felt it could ask for nearly anything it wanted in this joke of negotiations. And clearly - they were right, since the US said, "sure, no problemo! We want a deal, and if this would derail it, then we have to give in!"
Just as they did with dozens of other concessions, big and small.
The Obama administration and European Union agreed as part of the accord last week to lift sanctions over eight years on a network of Iranian scientists, military officers and companies long suspected by the U.S. and United Nations as central players in a covert nuclear weapons program.More::
The U.S. also agreed to remove a German engineer from its financial blacklist by late 2023 after he was targeted by sanctions for his alleged role in a global black market in nuclear weapons technology run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
Obama administration officials said the U.S. was required under the Vienna agreement and U.N. resolutions to lift sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities for their role Tehran’s nuclear program.
Lawmakers and nuclear experts were also puzzled by the Obama administration’s decision to remove Gerhard Wisser from its sanctions list by 2023. The German engineer was convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison by a South African court in 2007 for his role in supplying centrifuge components to the A.Q. Khan black market network.
The U.S. and IAEA accuse Mr. Khan and his associates of facilitating the sale of nuclear equipment to North Korea, Iran and Libya during the 1980s and 1990s.
The senior U.S. official didn’t provide specifics about why Mr. Wisser was granted sanctions relief as part of the Iran deal. Mr. Wisser could not be located. He pleaded guilty in 2007 in South Africa to manufacturing components that could be illegally used in nuclear technology.
A South African court sentenced a German man to 18 years in prison on Tuesday but suspended the jail term after he pleaded guilty in a case involving a global black market in atomic weapons technology. Gerhard Wisser, an engineer living in South Africa, was accused of having ties to a network run by Abdul Qadeer Khan.Wisser was also suspected of providing nuclear weapons components to Al Qaeda!
But isn't it interesting that Iran insisted as part of the deal to lift sanctions on a non-Iranian convicted nuclear smuggler, who was involved in nuclear bombmaking?
Clearly Iran felt it could ask for nearly anything it wanted in this joke of negotiations. And clearly - they were right, since the US said, "sure, no problemo! We want a deal, and if this would derail it, then we have to give in!"
Just as they did with dozens of other concessions, big and small.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
Jerusalem, July 22 - Minister of Religious Services David Azulai, hearing that Evangelical Christians have been inquiring of people whether they have found Jesus, has ordered his staff to assemble a search party to assist in efforts to locate the man.
Minister Azulai has been keen to demonstrate tolerance and support of religious communities other than Orthodox Jews after an episode several weeks ago in which he dismissed Reform and Conservative Jews as not authentically Jewish. Feeling his backpedaling on that statement has been insufficient, Azulai has sought out ways to display openness and acceptance of others, and, upon hearing that Evangelicals are habitually making inquiries after Jesus, decided to pitch in to help them.
Protestant movements, as a rule, are not officially recognized communities in Israel, with the notable exception being the Anglican Church. That recognition mainly takes the form of authority over marriage, divorce, and assorted other functions affecting each respective denomination. Nevertheless, Israel welcomes Christian tourists, and does not bar members of non-recognized denominations from living or working there. Azulai's aides identified Evangelical Christians, who enjoy political influence in large stretches of the US, as a key demographic with which to develop rapport, in part to offset the growing alienation of non-Orthodox American Jews. Helping in the search efforts for Jesus, they reasoned, would cement Azulai's, and therefore his Shas Party's, reputation for ecumenicism where they had previously been known as inward and intolerant.
Ministry officials explained that the resources a government could bring to bear in the search efforts could prove effective where private efforts have failed. "This Jesus character has been sighted all over the place, but apparently many of the places with which he is most closely associated are here in Israel, so we stand a good chance of locating him," said ministry spokesman Enli Mussag. "We will of course take into account eyewitness reports that he has appeared elsewhere in the world, such as on pieces of toast in Arkansas, but the most reliable accounts place him in these parts."
Mussag said the search party would first concentrate on surveillance of the most likely sites, and would set up cameras and other sensors in the several dozen locations where Jesus is reported to frequent. With those sites covered technologically, the team would then concentrate on other locations where reports place him. "Fortunately, those places are concentrated in two principal areas: Jerusalem and the Galilee. We should be able to make a thorough search of all the sites by the end of the summer."
Ministry officials have not said what they intend to do if they find Jesus. "We're not going to say we've found him, and certainly not by ourselves," said Minister Azulai magnanimously. "Evangelicals have been asking people whether they have found Jesus for many years already, and it is only thanks to their efforts that the search can be conducted with this level of detail. No, if this operation results in someone finding Jesus, we will step back and allow our Evangelical friends to claim the achievement as their own."
From Ian:
Caroline Glick: How and why to kill the deal
Caroline Glick: How and why to kill the deal
Unfortunately, while eminently reasonable sounding, Ignatius’s analysis is incorrect. Kerry’s details of the deal are beside the point. The big picture is the only thing that matters. That picture has two main points.Alan Dershowitz: US gave away better options on Iran
First, the deal guarantees that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. Second, it gives $150 billion to the mullahs.
The details of the deal – the number of centrifuges that keep spinning, the verification mechanisms, the dispute resolution procedures, etc. – are all debatable, and largely irrelevant, at least when compared to the two irrefutable aspects of the big picture.
According to the administration, today Iran needs a year to use the nuclear materials it is known to possess to make a nuclear bomb. Other sources claim that Iran requires several months to accomplish the task.
Since these materials will remain in Iran’s possession under the deal, if Iran abandons the agreement, it will need at most a year to build nuclear weapons.
Then there are the unknown aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. We must assume that Iran has ongoing covert nuclear operations in unknown installations through which it has acquired unknown capabilities.
These capabilities will likely reduce the time Iran requires to make bombs.
Under the deal, the US and its negotiating partners are required to protect Iran’s nuclear assets from sabotage and other forms of attack. They are required as well to teach Iran how to develop and use more advanced centrifuges. As a consequence, when the agreement expires, Iran will be able to build nuclear bombs at will.
If Iran remains a threat, the deal bars the US from taking any steps to counter it aside from all-out war.
The agreement ends the international sanctions regime against Iran. With the sanctions goes any prospect of an international coalition joining forces to take military action against Iran, if Iran does walk away from the deal. So sanctions are gone, deterrence is gone. And that leaves only war.
In other words, far from diminishing the chance of war, the deal makes it inevitable that Iran will get the bomb or there will be a full scale war, or both.
The most compelling argument the Obama administration is offering to boost what it acknowledges is a compromise nuclear deal with Iran is this: it’s better than the alternatives. That sort of pragmatic point is appealing to members of Congress, particularly skeptical Democrats who are searching for ways to support their president and who are accustomed to voting for the lesser of evils in a real-politick world where the options are often bad, worse, even worse, and worst of all.Moynihan’s message on BDS and Iran appeasement: We’ve got to stop this
But the question remains: How did we get ourselves into the situation where there are no good options?
We did so by beginning the negotiations with three important concessions. First, we took the military option off the table by publicly declaring that we were not militarily capable of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Second, we took the current tough sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that if we did not accept a deal, many of our most important partners would begin to reduce or even eliminate sanctions. Third, and most important, we took off the table the option of rejecting the deal by publicly acknowledging that if we do so, we will be worse off than if we accept even a questionable deal. Yes, the president said he would not accept a “bad” deal, but by repeatedly watering down the definition of a bad deal, and by repeatedly stating that the alternative to a deal would be disastrous, he led the Iranians to conclude we needed the deal more than they did.
These three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromises from us. The result is that we pinned ourselves into a corner. As Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute put it: “The deal itself became more important than what was in it.” President Obama seems to have confirmed that assessment when he said: “Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Only time will tell whether this deal decreases or increases the likelihood of more war. But one thing is clear: By conveying those stark alternatives to Iranian negotiators, we weakened our bargaining position.
The consequences will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and a greater likelihood of war.
Forty years ago, in July 1975, America’s new UN ambassador heard how American diplomats at the first International Women’s Conference in Mexico City tolerated Third World insults. Banging his fist on the table, Daniel Patrick Moynihan exclaimed: “We’ve got to stop this!” These are sobering times. The international threats are daunting – and leadership is wanting. Whatever you think of the Iranian agreement, the image of the great, virtuous United States of America negotiating with Iranian diplomats in exclusive European hotels while Iranian thugs yell “Death to America” on Teheran’s streets diminished all democracies. And whatever you think of Israel’s particular policies, the fact that many Progressives consider democratic Israel public enemy number one, not Iran, North Korea or other truly evil regimes, demeans liberalism.
This topsy-turvy world needs some history lessons and inspiring role models. With liberal Democrats dominating the American government and media, let’s remember muscular liberals who defended America proudly. Forty years after he became US ambassador to the UN, while building toward the fortieth anniversary of his denunciation of the infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution in November 1975, we should echo the great liberal statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, vowing: “We’ve got to stop this!” Moynihan refused to be an appeasing diplomat. Diplomats should deploy many tactics, he said, not just negotiation and compromise. Occasionally, diplomats had to defend national dignity, courageously, aggressively.
Accused of picking a fight over the Zionism-is-racism resolution, he replied, “Damned right we did!” Moynihan’s vigor stemmed directly from his liberal belief in an activist government operating intelligently, creatively and proactively, both domestically and internationally.
Moynihan mocked diplomats who believed their mission was to woo the enemy rather than defend America.
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
On CNN, Fareed Zakaria says that Ayatollah Khamanei doesn't want to destroy Israel by force, but by peaceful democratic means:
The problem is that while Zakaria notes that Khamenei is a canny politician, he is clueless that he is the person being conned.
Zakaria is brainwashed like most reporters into the fiction that the "occupation" is the single biggest obstacle to peace and that if only Israel would give away more land then everything would be OK. He applies this false meme into what Khamanei says, and therefore ignores what Khamanei actually says and means.
Yes, it is true that Iran does not want a direct war with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel by any other means. But, contrary to what Zakaria ways, that means includes indirect war. In 2012, he said:
Nothing about democracy there. Iran knows that if it attacks through Hezbollah or other terror groups, Israel would find it difficult to muster world support for an attack on Iran in response. So Khamenei cultivates those willing to die for the cause while shielding Iran from reprisals.
However, Khamenei knows that the Western world is enamoured of the idea of democracy, so he also created a lie that he cares about democracy too.
In the beginning, his message was not quite as on target. In 1994 he said:
This isn't democracy; it is rigging the game so that suckers like Zakaria believe that Khamenei cares about democracy while he plans on ethnically cleansing millions of Jews from their homes.
Zakaria doesn't think that is worth mentioning.
And in the tweet that he mentions, Khamenei says this explicitly - but Zakaria only quoted the part that make Khamenei sound like he is peaceful:
Zakaria expesses puzzlement over the idea of "throw migrated Jews into the sea," not noticing that Khamenei is explicitly advocating a plan to ethnically cleanse practically all Jews from Israel.
Notice that Khamenei's plan also includes attacks against Israeli Jews by arming West Bank terrorists.
And the one word that Khamenei doesn't say, but Zakaria emphasizes, is "occupation."
Now, let's look at the quote that Zakaria did take from this screed, where Khamenei is saying he doesn't want a "classical war" with Israel. would handing a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah or another group to approach Tel Aviv by sea and explode it be considered "classical"?
Khamenei also puts out videos like this threatening Israel with missiles:
Zakaria's defense of Khamenei, and his idea that Israel's control of its ancestral lands is a problem that would neutralize Khamenei's threat, is fantasy. And one must wonder why he either didn't read, didn't understand or chose to not inform his audience about the entire Khamenei plan that he quoted that shows that democracy is the least of Khamenei's interests.
(h/t Richard Landes)
The problem is that while Zakaria notes that Khamenei is a canny politician, he is clueless that he is the person being conned.
Zakaria is brainwashed like most reporters into the fiction that the "occupation" is the single biggest obstacle to peace and that if only Israel would give away more land then everything would be OK. He applies this false meme into what Khamanei says, and therefore ignores what Khamanei actually says and means.
Yes, it is true that Iran does not want a direct war with Israel. It wants to destroy Israel by any other means. But, contrary to what Zakaria ways, that means includes indirect war. In 2012, he said:
We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime, we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not.
Nothing about democracy there. Iran knows that if it attacks through Hezbollah or other terror groups, Israel would find it difficult to muster world support for an attack on Iran in response. So Khamenei cultivates those willing to die for the cause while shielding Iran from reprisals.
However, Khamenei knows that the Western world is enamoured of the idea of democracy, so he also created a lie that he cares about democracy too.
In the beginning, his message was not quite as on target. In 1994 he said:
Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. If the Palestinians in Palestine—in all of Palestine—form a government, peace will prevail. If you [Israel’s supporters] are truthful [about wanting peace], and if you have not conspired against the Palestinian nation, Islamic nations, and Islam, that is the solution.Nothing about democracy then either. But then he refined the message:
The solution is for the millions of the Palestinians to return to Palestine, the several millions that live away from home to return to Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—should hold a referendum to decide what kind of a regime they want. The vast majority are Muslims. There are also Jews and Christians that belong there, as their parents also lived there. They can decide the political system that they favor. Then, that state would decide what to do with the people that have moved there over the last forty to fifty years. Keep them there, return them to their original country, keep them in a special part, whatever decision the new Palestinian government makes should be respected. This is the solution to the crisis. So long as it is not implemented, no other solution will be effective.Khamenei isn't saying that the people who live in the arbitrary boundaries of British Mandate Palestine should be allowed to vote, as Azkaria implies. Jews are a majority there. Khamenei is saying that all Palestinians whose ancestors lived in Palestine at any time should be given the right to vote, but the only Jews who have that right are the ones who lived there before Israel existed. Any Jews who lived in Israel for decades have no say. And then, the resulting nation has the right to expel those Jews if they decide to do so "democratically."
This isn't democracy; it is rigging the game so that suckers like Zakaria believe that Khamenei cares about democracy while he plans on ethnically cleansing millions of Jews from their homes.
Zakaria doesn't think that is worth mentioning.
And in the tweet that he mentions, Khamenei says this explicitly - but Zakaria only quoted the part that make Khamenei sound like he is peaceful:
Zakaria expesses puzzlement over the idea of "throw migrated Jews into the sea," not noticing that Khamenei is explicitly advocating a plan to ethnically cleanse practically all Jews from Israel.
Notice that Khamenei's plan also includes attacks against Israeli Jews by arming West Bank terrorists.
And the one word that Khamenei doesn't say, but Zakaria emphasizes, is "occupation."
Now, let's look at the quote that Zakaria did take from this screed, where Khamenei is saying he doesn't want a "classical war" with Israel. would handing a nuclear bomb to Hezbollah or another group to approach Tel Aviv by sea and explode it be considered "classical"?
Khamenei also puts out videos like this threatening Israel with missiles:
Zakaria's defense of Khamenei, and his idea that Israel's control of its ancestral lands is a problem that would neutralize Khamenei's threat, is fantasy. And one must wonder why he either didn't read, didn't understand or chose to not inform his audience about the entire Khamenei plan that he quoted that shows that democracy is the least of Khamenei's interests.
(h/t Richard Landes)
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
- Amnesty, Gaza Platform
As we have seen, Amnesty is slavishly copying every incident mentioned in daily Al Mezan and PCHR reports from the war last summer, including incorrect snap judgments as to whether victims were civilian, and adding that often wrong information into its database to damn Israel.
In fact, today's tweet, about an incident where they each accused Israel of shooting into a hospital, was counted twice in this database, so the same people were counted as victims more than once in Amnesty's database that they plan to use to prove Israeli "war crimes." (Event IDs 2422 and 2345.) UPDATE: Also, they fail to mention that the hospital wasn't targeted, but a cache of anti-tank missiles that Hamas had hidden nearby - and which may have been what caused the damage.
What's wrong with a little victim inflation in a research tool, anyway?
But there is one incident that PCHR reported that Amnesty didn't mention, and it shows both PCHR's bias and Amnesty's.
As the Davis Report admitted:
So, naturally, this incident where 11 children were killed in Gaza during the war must be excluded from the Gaza Platform - because their deaths don't further Amnesty's goal of vilifying Israel.
(h/t Bob Knot)
In fact, today's tweet, about an incident where they each accused Israel of shooting into a hospital, was counted twice in this database, so the same people were counted as victims more than once in Amnesty's database that they plan to use to prove Israeli "war crimes." (Event IDs 2422 and 2345.) UPDATE: Also, they fail to mention that the hospital wasn't targeted, but a cache of anti-tank missiles that Hamas had hidden nearby - and which may have been what caused the damage.
What's wrong with a little victim inflation in a research tool, anyway?
But there is one incident that PCHR reported that Amnesty didn't mention, and it shows both PCHR's bias and Amnesty's.
At approximately 16:45 on Monday, 28 July 2014, a projectile landed near a number of Palestinian children were playing and celebrating the Eid al-Futur in the northern part of al-Shati refugee camp, west of Gaza City. As a result, 10 children and a passing old man were killed: Yousef 'Abdul Rahman Hassouna, 11; Mahmoud Hazem Shubair, 12; Ahmed Hazem Shubair, 10; Jamal Saleh 'Olayan, 8; Baraa' Akram Miqdad, 7; Mohammed Nahidh Miqdad, 13; Mohammed Mahmoud Abu Shaqfa, 7; Mohammed 'Emad Baroud, 10; Ahmed Jaberr Wishah, 10; Mansour Rami Hajjaj, 14; and Subhi 'Awadh al-Hilu, 63. A PCHR field worker arrived at the scene 20 minutes following this incidents, while ambulances were completing the evacuation of the wounded persons and the bodies of victims. She reported that the projectile landed on the street near a grocery shop as a number of children were playing in the area. She further reported that the high number of casualties and the extensive destruction in the area are not different from the outcomes of Israeli attacks over the past days.Of course, this was an Islamic Jihad rocket that killed those kids.
As the Davis Report admitted:
The commission received information from NGO’s who conducted field research and a UN source who collected information indicating that the explosion had been caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket. One of them inspected the site after the attack and concluded that the impact of the explosion on the ground could not have been caused by an Israeli missile or artillery shell; the NGO also indicated that eyewitnesses had reported seeing a rescue team go to the place just after the attack, whose members did not collect the wounded but cleared and collected the remnants of the weapons. In addition, two journalists who spoke to the commission also suggested the attacks had been caused by Palestinian rockets misfiring. One of them said that Hamas members had gone to the site immediately after the events and cleared away the debris. The other said he had been prevented by local authorities from going to the site of the attack.
The commission found there was credible information pointing to the conclusion that a misfired Palestinian rocket was the source of this explosion. Given the gravity of the case, in which 11 children and 2 adults were killed in a place crowded with civilians, and the allegations that local authorities may have attempted to hide evidence of the cause of the incident, all relevant Palestinian authorities should conduct a thorough investigation of the case to determine the origin and circumstances of the attack.
So, naturally, this incident where 11 children were killed in Gaza during the war must be excluded from the Gaza Platform - because their deaths don't further Amnesty's goal of vilifying Israel.
(h/t Bob Knot)
- Wednesday, July 22, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
From Ma'an:
If they shoot rockets into Israel and Israel ignores them, they become heroes for shooting at the Zionists.
If Israel retaliates against Hamas by saying they are responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, the Salafis win because their enemies are hurt.
If Israel targets Salafis, then they become martyrs.
Attacking Jews is a career move in the Middle East that cannot fail.
Salafi groups in the Gaza Strip threatened on Monday to fire rockets at Israel in response to what they called “Hamas crimes and conspiracies” against Salafis living in the strip.The weird thing is, from the Salafi viewpoint, this makes perfect sense.
The threat came in reaction to the arrest of militants suspected of targeting members of the armed wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad Sunday with a series of bombings on Sunday.
The Salafi groups argued in a statement that Hamas' security services were utilizing the recent attacks "to justify its arrest campaign” as an excuse for disproportionate targeting of Salafis.
"The Salafis have decided to respond to these crimes and these blows dealt by Hamas by pointing rockets towards the occupation (Israel) and carrying out reprisals," the statement read.
If they shoot rockets into Israel and Israel ignores them, they become heroes for shooting at the Zionists.
If Israel retaliates against Hamas by saying they are responsible for all rocket fire from Gaza, the Salafis win because their enemies are hurt.
If Israel targets Salafis, then they become martyrs.
Attacking Jews is a career move in the Middle East that cannot fail.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
From Ian:
PMW: PA education: A recipe for hate and terror (a comprehensive report)
PMW: PA education: A recipe for hate and terror (a comprehensive report)
Palestinian Media Watch has prepared a comprehensive report on Palestinian Authority education. It includes chapters on names of schools (dozens named after terrorists), school activities (e.g., visiting homes of terrorists), statements and activities of educators (e.g., presenting murderers as role models and promising a world without Israel), schoolbooks, informal education (children reciting poems on kids' TV programs: e.g., Jews are monkeys and pigs; Tel Aviv is "occupied Palestine"), and a chapter with examples of honoring Hitler.French prosecutor closes case on suspected Arafat poisoning
The report was prepared for and will be presented today at the 7th World Congress of Education International (EI), the international organization of teachers' unions, which is meeting this week in Ottawa, Canada. PMW was invited by the Association of Secondary School Teachers in Israel, after the association was notified that the congress, which brings together nearly 2,000 teachers and educators from all over the world, is planning to vote on several anti-Israel resolutions that include calls for boycott of Israel and support for BDS.
PMW has prepared this report documenting that hate, Antisemitism and honoring of murderers are fundamental elements of PA education, and showing the PA's central role in undermining peace. When then Sen. Hillary Clinton joined PMW to release PMW's report on PA schoolbooks in 2007, she said the PA education "profoundly poisons the minds of these children" and called some aspects of PA messaging "child abuse." This report documents that nothing has changed since then. The PA continues to poison the minds of its children. (Click to view the report in PDF)
A French prosecutor on Tuesday said there was no need to pursue an inquiry regarding the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose widow alleges he was poisoned.Who are the ICC judges who ruled against Israel on the ‘Mavi Marmara’?
“The prosecution gave the opinion that the case should be dismissed,” the prosecutor’s office told AFP.
Arafat died in Percy military hospital near Paris at the age of 75 in November 2004 after developing stomach pains while at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.
His widow Suha filed a case in 2012 at a court in Nanterre, north of Paris, saying he was murdered.
The same year, Arafat’s tomb in Ramallah was opened for a few hours allowing three teams of French, Swiss and Russian investigators to collect approximately 60 samples.
Three International Criminal Court judges who were not household names probably anywhere but in their home countries gained fame or infamy last week.
Judges Joyce Aluoch of Kenya and Cuno Tarfusser of Italy voted 2-1 against Peter Kovacs of Hungary to order ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to seriously consider reopening her file on the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla, a file which she had closed saying that the case was not grave enough for the ICC.
The focus of the file was the country of the island of Comoros, functioning according to many as a front for Turkish IHH activists, asking the Bensouda to open a full criminal investigation against IDF personnel and potentially security cabinet decision-makers.
The charges: alleged war crimes related to the IDF’s killing of 10 passengers (it has maintained in self-defense) aboard the Mavi Marmara ship which was part of a flotilla which tried to break the Gaza blockade.
Who are these three judges and what might have brought them to bring the ICC closer and deeper into the Israeli-Arab conflict than at any prior point?
- Tuesday, July 21, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
If you are in the New York City area, this is an important event to attend tomorrow.
It will also be livestreamed for those not in the New York area.
There will also be one in San Diego on Sunday.
- Tuesday, July 21, 2015
- Elder of Ziyon
This past weekend has seen demonstrations
by members of an organisation called “Reclaim Australia” that alleges and
opposes what it perceives to be the creeping islamification of Australia. One demo turned ugly when hundreds of “anti-racist”
leftist apologists for Islam bent on mayhem descended on the event and were
involved in violent scuffles with police.
Truth to tell, many of the anti-Islam demonstrators seem equally
thuggish, many others at the very least boorish, with placards bearing such
slogans as “no bacon, no boobs, no beer”.
Yet many others clearly are not the
demons that the Left and its media outlets would portray them to be, and it
goes without saying that the Left must not succeed in making mass Muslim
immigration to this country, as well as elsewhere in the West, a taboo item for
political discourse or public debate.
The presence and purpose of such Islamic supremacist groups as Hizb
ut-Tahrir, which I’ve mentioned more than once on my own blog, is testimony to
that.
Early one morning some years ago, I was at
Antwerp station, waiting for a train to Brussels. With me was my son, a sturdy young guy of six
feet three. While he went off to join a
queue for coffee, I minded our luggage, sitting at a table on the edge of what
was an otherwise deserted café area. Clearly, most of the people in the coffee queue were short-distance
commuters, grabbing a takeaway to carry onto a local train or to the station
exit and their respective workplaces.
Suddenly, I was no longer a solitary figure
among the tables and chairs. Four young
guys, unmistakably Muslim, had surrounded me.
Two took the table to my left, and two took the table to my right. They sat in silence, punctuated briefly by
low murmuring, no food or drink or luggage in sight. I’d noticed them roaming round the station
earlier, made conspicuous by the full Islamic dress of the guy who seemed to be
their leader, and their constant aimless pacing. Why, with all the other tables in the
refreshment area empty, had they clustered next to mine? And why had they split
into duos, flanking me? I felt
intimidated. My son was somewhere among
the large queuing crowd at the coffee counter, too far away from the table area
for my comfort. I couldn’t easily move
away, owing to all our bags. Alert for
trouble, I held my hand luggage closer, and hoped they wouldn’t make off with
the rest. Besides, concerned though I was,
my pride didn’t want me to be seen to flee.
Then, luckily, my son appeared with the
coffee. And what did the foursome do? It
will always strike me as significant that as he soon as he sat down opposite
they all got up and strolled away.
Presumably they had had something nefarious in mind, though of course I
shall never know what.
Not long before,
in – of all places – a side street in a small town in rural Wales, a
slightly-built Hindu university student of my acquaintance was gratuitously
attacked by two Muslim strangers.
Recognising him as Hindu from some kind of badge he was wearing, they
proceeded to give him a beating, which luckily came to a shorter end than they
anticipated since he’s an expert in one of the martial arts. In his home town, Leicester, he laments,
there are streets down which it is folly for non-Muslims to venture.
While, needless to say, it is
unconscionable to tar all Muslims in Europe with the same brush, it’s an
incontrovertible fact that mass Muslim immigration, bringing with it superstitions,
prejudices, hatreds and practices at odds with enlightened Western values, has
inflicted deleterious social consequences on the host nations.
A report issued five years ago (I haven’t
looked at later-published figures, but I’ll wager they’re very depressing)
warned that about 800 of the 8000 Muslim inmates in high-security prisons in
England and Wales were being turned into radical Islamists while inside. These
people weren’t necessarily doing time for terror-related offences, but were
being successfully indoctrinated by extremists known for or suspected of being
sympathetic to terror. Worryingly, less than 20 per cent of people convicted of
terrorism offences in Britain had been given life or indeterminate sentences.
During the five to ten years subsequent to 2010, the 800 potential mass
murderers are being released into British society. It’s feared that they’re
being groomed to concentrate not on blowing aircraft out of the skies but on
detonating explosives on trains, hotels, and sporting fixtures – any target
where crowds are gathered.
This grim news came on top of earlier
warnings that in some British prisons Islamic gangs, using threats of violence
that include a persuasive gesture that indicates a cut throat, are
proselytising among non-Muslim prisoners. As well, some Afro-Caribbean
prisoners have been won over with the message that there will be little hope
for them on the outside once they’ve served their sentences since white society
is inexorably racist and discriminatory against them, whereas Islam offers
acceptance and equality.
At that time 2000 radicalised individuals
were already being monitored by MI5, and the new crop of 800 was set to make
the task of police and security forces all the harder, particularly in view of
government plans to reduce funding for counter-terrorism. Former Home Secretary
John Reid, who was one of the most realistic and shrewd members of the atrocious
Blair government, warned that if those cuts exceeded 10 per cent danger would
follow. It was also being predicted that sooner or later a “lone wolf”
terrorist will inevitably succeed in producing carnage, since resources are so
stretched.
Quite apart from the terror issue, the
cohesiveness of British society is being threatened with erosion by radical
hotheads. In 2007, Sir Winston Churchill’s grandson, a Conservative MP also called
Winston Churchill, who died early in 2010, wrote as follows to the London Daily Telegraph:
“Britain sends
some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives
and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who,
meanwhile, is guarding our homeland? A recent police report makes clear that,
back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for
spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than
600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26
Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic
clerics. It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked.
Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more
clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to
our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi,
an ultra-conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and
also demands the entire concealment of women. According to the Lancashire
Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques
in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and
Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect
aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against
our society and the freedoms we hold so dear. When will the Government wake up
to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring
strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding
anything seen in the bombings of recent years? Why are Gordon Brown and David
Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the
most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate
majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the
homeland?”
It seems that Churchill embarrassed his
party by raising such matters, lest it be accused of “Islamophobia”, and the
issue was not given the attention it deserved.
Crime figures in many European countries
speak for themselves, even in Sweden, which notoriously conceals the true
extent of Muslim-perpetrated offences by duplicitous reporting devices. And as we realise all too well such
immigration has fuelled – indeed, reinvigorated if not reinvented –
antisemitism, as the Jews of Sweden, France, and elsewhere know only too
well. The repugnant scenes of Al Quds
Day in London this year, footage of which I posted on my own blog, in which
hordes of Muslims – men at the front of the vast procession, women at (where
else?) the back – screaming such intimidatory slogans as “Judaism yes! Zionism
no!” and proclaiming through a loudspeaker that the anti-Israel nutjobs from
Neturei Karta (who, incidentally, do not flinch at participating in such pro-Iran initiatives on
Shabbat, of all days) are “true Jews” suggests an atmosphere in which the
lynching of Jewish passers-by perceived as Zionists by frenzied hotheads is not
inconceivable. Appallingly, there were
many babies and toddlers in the procession, their tiny eardrums assailed by the
loud and raucous screeching, in which a smattering of brainwashed older boys
participated with zeal. I nearly
described these boys as “the antisemites of tomorrow” but that title surely
belongs to the numerous little kids being wheeled by their mothers; the bigger
ones seem to have been well-indoctrinated already.
This is a shocking, serious state of
affairs. Have a look at the footage if you
are inclined to disagree with me. To my
mind, the time would seem to have come for the British authorities to ban these
vile annual anti-Jewish fests – one of the many odious results of the 1979
Iranian Revolution – as an affront to societal harmony and a threat to public
order.
And though the late unlamented Libyan
dictator Muammar Gaddafi was too often portrayed as a buffoon, we in the West –
all of us, Jew and non-Jew alike – a should bear in mind and consider the ramifications
of these words of his on Al Jazeera
in 2006: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe –
without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of
Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
Gaddafi noted that if Turkey joins the
European Union – British prime minister David Cameron fervently hopes it does –
there will be a further 50 million Muslims in the heart of Europe’s counsels.
"Europe is in a predicament, and so is America," Gaddafi continued.
"They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time .... All people
must be Muslims."
Little wonder that many Cassandras warn
that Europe is being deliberately colonised by Muslims intent on imposing Islam
on everyone – and that in view of the Muslims’ relative youth and fertility
patterns theirs is the triumphant demographic weapon, the weapon that Gaddafi
spoke of in 2006. We must bear in mind
that in traditional Muslim societies polygamy tends to be restricted to
affluent men, who can afford to have up to four wives – but in dear old deluded
Britain welfare payments are available not only to the first but to surplus
wives and their children, so long as the polygamous Islamic marriages have
taken place overseas, in countries where polygamy is lawful.
It’s ironic that back in the 1960s and
1970s the “First World” was being told by latter-day Malthusians and the
vanguard of the environmental movement to restrict their families to just two
children per couple – “Zero Population Growth” – but that nowadays we’re being
told by some “experts” that large-scale immigration is necessary for economic
growth. It might not be politically correct to say so, but mass migration from
the Third World, let alone the Islamic portion of it, does present a very real
social and cultural problem for developed countries.
From Ian:
Amb. Prosor: "When the villain is laughing, you know something is wrong"
There Is No Iran Deal: West, Iran Differ Sharply over Terms
Amb. Prosor: "When the villain is laughing, you know something is wrong"
Following the Security Council meeting on Non-proliferation (Iran), Israel`s ambassador to the UN, Prosor held a press briefing:Amb. Prosor's Press Statement on Iran
Ladies and Gentleman,
Today, you have awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world.
I hate to be the one who spoils the party, but someone has to say that the emperor has no clothes. Today is a very sad day. Not only for the state of Israel, but for the entire world, even if at this moment, the international community refuses to see the tragedy.
It is a sad day because the international community is taking steps to lift the sanctions on Iran without first waiting to see if Iran complies with even a single obligation in the agreement.
It is a sad day because this agreement gives Iran a seat on the commission which will decide whether or not it has violated the agreement. This is like allowing a criminal to sit on the jury which will decide his own fate.
You haven’t changed Iran’s destructive ideology, which goes beyond proliferating deadly weapons and funding terror.
There Is No Iran Deal: West, Iran Differ Sharply over Terms
The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.Mudar Zahran: Will Israel save the world a third time?
Iran’s Foreign Ministry claims, for example, that the deal does not actually cover its ballistic missile program, as advertised. Restrictions on ballistic missiles are to be ended after eight years, according to the JCPOA. However, Iran says, according to the Times of Israel, that the UN Security Council resolution and the deal do not apply to its own missiles because they “have not been conceived to carry nuclear weapons.”
Similarly, there is confusion as to whether the deal prevents Iran from accelerating its nuclear program after the deal expires, or whether that is just an option. Such (voluntary) restrictions would have to be approved under the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the Iranian parliament is supposed to ratify, but there is no deadline for it to do so; it could wait until deal expires, in theory.
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?'”
As a Jordanian-Palestinian politician, I and many other Arab politicians and decision-makers have come to learn that Israel is vital for our own existence. In fact, Israel has saved us, and the world, from two global disasters.
The first time Israel saved us all was at the beginning of the 1980s, when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was one of the West's strongest Arab allies. He was against the Islamic Republic of Iran and was viewed as a necessary asset for Western governments and as a regional balance against Iran's might. The West was in love with Saddam to the point of allowing him a nuclear program, which he obtained with France's help.
Just as Iran does today, Saddam said his nuclear program was for "peaceful and civilian use." Saddam's nuclear reactor was built with the approval of the United States. Israel, however, did not buy Saddam's claims, and in 1981 sent its pilots on a mission -- which they were unlikely to return from -- to destroy Saddam's nuclear reactor. As reports confirmed, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush was enraged by Israel's actions while President Ronald Reagan's first reaction to the news was, "Boys will be boys." Arab and Western governments condemned Israel's strike and some even spoke of action at the U.N. Unsurprisingly, Western media outlets grilled Israel.
Just nine years later, Saddam occupied Kuwait, threatened the entire Gulf region, and openly spoke of controlling "the Arabs' oil wealth," which could have brought the West to its knees. The U.S. and many Western states had to risk blood and money to get Saddam out of Kuwait, but they did not fear a nuclear attack from him or that he might use dirty bombs. Therefore Operation Desert Storm went smoothly. Had Saddam still had his nuclear program, the entire situation and its outcome could have been different. In fact, Saddam might have stayed in power until today were it not for Israel taking the risk of destroying his nuclear program.
In short, Israel saved the world from a power freak who came close to getting nuclear weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)