Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

11/18 Links Pt1: Fatah: Murdering Israelis is Palestinian "right"; Kerry: Hebdo attack had a 'rationale'

From Ian:

PMW: Fatah official: Murdering Israelis is Palestinian "right"

Fatah Central Committee member Jamal Muhaisen participated in a rally honoring Palestinian terrorist murderer Muhannad Halabi, and “saluted the soul of [the] Martyr, who detonated the Jerusalem intifada,” Ma’an news agency reported. The Fatah official supported the murders committed by Halabi and the other recent shooting and stabbing murders, saying that Palestinian young men have the “right” to cause “Israeli women to cry”:
“It is the right of our young men to cause Israeli women to cry like our women are crying, even though our women make sounds of joy after their sons’ and husbands’ deaths as Martyrs.” [Ma'an, independent Palestinian news agency, Nov. 14, 2015]
Palestinian society continues to give special honor to Halabi, more than the other murderers of the current terror campaign, because he carried out the first “successful” stabbing attack. He murdered two Israeli men who were walking with their wives in Jerusalem, and his attack was then copied by dozens of other terrorists. According to Muhaisen, who spoke at a rally in Halabi’s honor, Halabi “detonated the Jerusalem intifada.” The rally itself “turned into a national wedding,” the news agency reported. This is a reference to the Islamic belief that "Martyrs" for Allah are wedded to 72 Virgins in Paradise.
At the rally, PLO Central Committee Member and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) member Omar Shehadeh stated that Halabi “represents an example and role model for generations of young.” [Ma'an, independent Palestinian news agency, Nov. 14, 2015]. PLO Executive Committee member and Deputy Secretary-General of the DFLP Qais Abd Al-Karim called terrorist Halabi a “hero,” expressed “pride” in him and talked about Palestinian “loyalty to [his] blood.”

Douglas Murray: Why are the Gulf states bankrolling IS barbarians?

Speaking at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Cameron said: “It is not good enough to say simply that Islam is a religion of peace and then to deny any connection between Islam and the extremists. Because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.”
In telling this truth the PM is following the example of Sajid Javid, who said the same thing after January’s Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.
Many people of Muslim background, like Javid, know what vicious and fanatical foes we are all up against.
It has taken 14 years, since 9/11, to get Western leaders to the point where they are willing to say this. But it is important. Unless we understand what drives the terrorists we cannot defeat them.
As the fallout from Paris shows, there is support for IS in Europe. Britain is not exempt — more British Muslims have gone to fight for IS than serve in our British Armed Forces. This swamp of support must also be tackled.
Even if IS are crushed there are many other groups with the same aims. Before anyone had heard of IS there was al-Qaeda. Before al-Qaeda, there were others.
The problem is the ideology. As are those “friends” in the Middle East who back it.

Douglas Murray - Spectator PodCast - The Paris attacks and what happens next (best bit 7:20)

John Kerry Offers “Rationale” for Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to justify the terror attacks earlier this year on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo during remarks in Paris Tuesday, saying that there was a “rationale” behind the murders of 11 cartoonists and journalists.
Kerry contrasted that massacre with the recent wave of terror attacks last week, in which 129 people have died. “There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” he said while speaking at the American embassy in Paris. “There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for.”
The terrorists who committed the Charlie Hebdo attack were reportedly upset by the magazine’s disrespectful portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad. Following the attack, no top U.S. dignitaries appeared at a major rally in Paris to support free speech and stand up against terror. (h/t Yenta Press)

Gaza-based Felesteen reports that Gazans are now creating knife and dagger-based theme parties and weddings in order to celebrate the wave of terror attacks across Israel over the past six weeks.

At weddings and other parties, children are wearing military uniforms while young men are displaying daggers and knives. Singers are rhapsodizing about the "heroes" who stab Jews and call for more attacks.

Fadi Abu Jabb, 27, wore military trousers on the eve of his wedding while placing a dagger at his waist during a bachelor party, whose attendees loved the idea. Throughout hours of the party, Fadi's friends and relatives who shared his joy by dancing with their own knives, to show their support for terror attacks in Jerusalem.

Fadi said that the military uniform was his fiancee's idea, and that this party was meant to show that all Palestinian people support "armed resistance" and car rammings and stabbings and shootings in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He prayed for God to bless him and give him the ability to set up a jihadist family to be part of the Palestine Liberation Army, Allah willing.

In a similar scene, at the wedding party of Murad Hussein there were songs associated with the stabbings. 12 children in keffiyehs performed. They put on a comic play showing Palestinians attacking a group of Jews causing them to flee even though they had submachine guns, to the amusement of the audience.

Majed Nofal, a tailor in the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood in northern Gaza City, says, "There is a big demand for the purchase of military clothing by citizens, who wear them during special events such as parties and weddings." He also provides military clothing for women who wear them at their own parties as well.

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 11 years and over 22,000 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.

From the UN News Centre:

In shadow of Beirut and Paris terror attacks, UN Security Council discusses root causes of conflict

The United Nations Security Council held an already scheduled debate on conflict prevention today amid added urgency fuelled by last week’s terrorist attacks in Beirut and Paris, with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressing that counter-terrorism must also tackle such root causes as bad governance, injustice and exclusion.

“Today’s violent conflicts and violent extremism are often rooted in a mix of exclusion, inequality, mismanagement of natural resources, corruption, oppression, governance failures, and the frustration and alienation that accompany a lack of jobs and opportunities,” he said at the opening of the Council’s day-long debate on ‘Security, development and the root causes of conflicts.’

But not radical Islam.

Turning to the most recent terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad, last month’s apparent bombing of a Russian plane over Egypt, and the mounting threat from Da’esh [also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL], which controls large swathes of Syria and Iraq, Mr. Ban warned against taking reprisals against Muslims.

“No grievance or cause can justify such acts,” he said of the terrorist attacks. But, he added: “I am especially concerned about reprisals or further discrimination against Muslims, in particular Muslim refugees and migrants. This would just exacerbate the alienation on which terrorists feed.”

Yes, the UN is more concerned about a possible - and mostly mythical - backlash against Muslims than they are about Islamic terror itself.

So what would solve the problem of Islamist terrorism? Glad you asked:

He laid out four principles for preventing conflict and terrorism, stressing the crucial importance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which calls for achieving peaceful and inclusive societies that provide access to justice and build accountable institutions.

If only ISIS and Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda felt more included in the world community and had access to justice, we wouldn't have any of these problems.

Of course, their definition of justice is to kill the infidels.

.@UNRWA wants you to know....

A tweet from UNRWA:

Did you know that #Palestine #refugees are the largest refugee population in the world? pic.twitter.com/fI4bJ5Atdf
— UNRWA (@UNRWA) November 18, 2015

Now, why could that be?

The main reason is because UNRWA has no mechanism to remove people from its "refugee" rolls. They can become citizens of other countries; they could be living in "Palestine" itself, they could be fourth generation - but as long as their ancestors (may have) lived in Palestine for a two year period from 1946-1948 and left their home, they are refugees - and their descendants remain "refugees" forever.

UNHRC refugees must prove that they fit the definition of refugee in every generation. UNRWA refugees cannot avoid being called "refugees."

A chart that I once published, I believe from Mida translated from a Norwegian blog, shows this in stark terms. The blog, called Tarud's Blog, translated the article into English and it is worth reading.

UNRWA's tweet is celebrating its ineffectiveness in helping solve the issue.

Head of the agency Pierre Krähenbühl recently tweeted about how he managed to scrounge up the funding to keep UNRWA going this year.

4. Expressed gratitude to donors & hosts for formidable support in overcoming our 2015 funding shortfall. Allowed to open schools on time.
— Pierre Krähenbühl (@PKraehenbuehl) November 16, 2015

5. Now major task ahead to avoid ever facing same crisis again. We have already brought initial 2016 shortfall down from 135 to 81 M usd.
— Pierre Krähenbühl (@PKraehenbuehl) November 16, 2015

6. Will resolutely combine internal measures w/ active outreach to donors to ensure financial stability. Also seek to broaden donor base.
— Pierre Krähenbühl (@PKraehenbuehl) November 16, 2015

But as the chart shows, you cannot put a band-aid on the funding issue. UNRWA itself will implode in a few years if it does not change its definition of "refugee" to exclude those who are not refugees by any stretch of the imagination.

Hamas seeking rapprochement with Iran

File photo

Palestine Press Agency notes that Hamas leaders sent notes of condolence to Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah in the wake of last week's bombings in Lebanon.

This is not an isolated communication; Hamas and Hezbollah have held a number of meetings recently in order to try to get Hamas back in the good graces of Iran.

According to the report, Hamas wants to rejoin the so-called "axis of resistance" that includes Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and other organizations loyal to to Iran.

Sources said that Tehran has in recent months renewed material support to Hamas' al-Qassam Brigades and sent some weapons and missiles through the Sinai despite the Egyptian campaign in the region to prevent smuggling operations and the closure of the tunnels completely.

There are indications that relations between Hamas and Iran are still rocky, with Hamas not supporting the Shiite groups fighting in Yemen.

11/17 Links Pt2: Shin Bet: October Worst for Terrorism in 9 Years; Majority of Pals support 3rd intifada

From Ian:

Matti Friedman: Book Review Winning the War of Words: Essays on Zionism and Israel

In my favourite piece here Wilf recounts a conversation with a Lebanese colleague, a Christian, who tells her, ‘We miss you’, meaning not that he misses her personally but that the Arab world misses the nearly one million Jews pushed out of the lands of Islam in the 20th century. From our vantage point in 2015 it seems that what happened to the Jews of the Middle East was only the first fissure in the regional landscape, only the first erasure of an ancient regional minority; others have followed and are following, the Christians among them, without a state of their own to flee to. ‘It is never really about the Jews,’ Wilf writes. ‘That is why it never ends with them. Hatred of Jews is about those who hate – not about those who are hated.’
That analysis, with which I must agree, is why I have my doubts about another of Wilf’s observations about intellectual efforts on behalf of Israel: ‘while victory in this battle, as in others, is not likely to be swift, with the proper resources, organization, and determination it is within reach.’ I don’t think this is the case, just as I don’t think that eloquent explanations in the 1920s could have convinced Germans that Jewish bankers were not manipulating the financial markets for their own devious gain, or that skilful essays or speeches could have countered the idea in capitalist countries that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot. No ‘war of words’, however skilful, can defeat the anti-Jewish obsession that crops up with unfortunate regularity in world history, of which today’s anti-Israel fixation is merely the most recent incarnation. Explanations of Israel’s complexities in the real world will have a limited effect not just because they are necessarily complicated, but because the Israel obsession – in the manner of obsessions – isn’t really about Israel at all, or about the real world. These pathologies can perhaps be tempered on the margins but cannot be made to go away.
An involvement with the Jewish state ‘is not for the fainthearted,’ Wilf writes: the country never promised to make it easy for anyone and indeed has never done so, like ‘a high-maintenance girlfriend,’ at once impossible and irresistible. ‘In return for never-ending efforts to woo her, not a trace of gratitude is to be offered – barely an appreciative smile.’ Wilf seems tough enough to keep it up nonetheless. Her efforts are crucial, and there is no reason to expect them to be less necessary or easier anytime soon.

“Zionism is Racism” Ideology Lives on at the United Nations

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said at the event commemorating Chaim Herzog’s speech denouncing the “Zionism Is Racism” resolution that the “reputation of the United Nations was badly damaged by the adoption of resolution 3379, in and beyond Israel and the wider Jewish community.” He noted how Mr. Herzog had spoken up “forcefully in defense of Zionism, the Jewish national movement.”
Yet on the same day he made his remarks in recognition of the moral strength of Mr. Herzog’s “defense of Zionism, the Jewish national movement,” Ban Ki-moon nominated an individual to serve as the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who showed hostility to Israel in his previous position as Commissioner-General of UNRWA. Filippo Grandi, Ban Ki-moon’s nominee, has advocated policies that would completely undermine the continued viability of a Jewish state.
“A bid for statehood does not in and of itself address the plight of the refugees,” Grandi said back in 2011. “There is no doubt in my mind that there can be no just and durable peace in the Middle East unless some five million refugees are brought out of their 63-year state of dispossession and exile.”
Less than one-sixth of this five million figure had actually experienced “dispossession” – which often was the result of a voluntary choice. Using the five million “refugee” figure, Grandi was advocating that all of these Palestinians classified as “refugees” before Palestinian independence would retain that classification even after the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the achievement of complete Palestinian self-determination. In other words, these five million Palestinians would get to choose whether to stay in the new state of Palestine or relocate to the adjoining state of Israel en masse and potentially destroy Israeli self-determination to remain a Jewish state.
In sum, while the evening commemorating Chaim Herzog’s historic speech was filled with stirring words recognizing Zionism as a positive and legitimate expression of self-determination for the Jewish people, business-as-usual at the United Nations continues to support the Palestinians’ victimhood narrative wrapped up in lies and rejectionism.

No truth to Gaza ship warrants of arrest – South African police

South African authorities have not issued warrants of arrest against officers in the Israeli military in connection with the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” of ships attempting to break a blockade in the Gaza strip region in 2010.
This is contrary to claims earlier on Tuesday by the Media Review Network (MRN) and BDS South Africa.
National police spokesman‚ Brigadier Hangwani Mulaudzi‚ denied the MRN claims.
"There is no truth to this. No arrest warrants have been issued for any of the people mentioned‚” he said. “We have checked with our Interpol and our Crimes Against The State officials and they deny any such thing."

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah again shows how peaceful they are

You know how Mahmoud Abbas claims that he is against a violent intifada?

The message on the official Fatah Facebook page says something quite different.

Here is a video from Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades that was posted on Fatah's Facebook page. Aspiring members of the terror group graduated on the anniversary of Yasir Arafat's death and they made this video celebrating Arab violence:

Some scenes are of special significance.

They proudly show rocket manufacturing::

A number of times they show themselves practicing kidnapping Israeli soldiers:

And they have conference rooms, too.

Where they no doubt plan for the "two state solution" - Fatah-land and Hamastan.

On announcing his intention to step down next year as the managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Mark Scott informed his staff, inter alia: “Can I add how pleased I am with our commitment to the main priority this year, serving the nation as the independent home of Australian conversations, culture and stories? On television, we have broadcast remarkable dramas, documentaries and comedies. Our radio services continue to connect millions of Australians each day … In news, we are breaking stories of significance every week; stories with great impact …”

The ABC, founded on 1932, is Australia’s counterpart to the BBC and similarly publicly funded – not by a license fee like the BBC but by an allocated budget funded by taxpayers. Currently, it rakes in well over one billion Australian dollars annually. Commercial broadcasters, who provide their own funds via advertising, can be as biased as they wish on topical issues, but, like the BBC, the ABC is formally obligated to be scrupulously objective. It’s required to “maintain an independent service for the broadcasting of news and information,” “to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism,” and, in news and current affairs, to enable viewers to “make up their own minds” via a “diversity of perspectives”.

Yet, like the BBC, the ABC constantly flouts the obligations on which its public funding ostensible depends, in order to present a left-liberal agenda, and to hawk, especially, a favourite core of issues, one of which is asylum and “refugee” migration. Rarely does the ABC present an alternative view on this issue to that of the Green Left; it interviews with astonishing regularity Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, an arch-critic of “refugee” detention and “turning back the boats,” giving her a great deal of air time – a courtesy it seldom accords to politicians or activists of the opposing viewpoint.

Some of its top presenters supplement their generous salaries by sounding off in newspaper columns on issues of the day, thus revealing the personal political standpoints that they are meant to conceal in the interests of perceived even-handedness, and which undermines their pretensions to objectivity. As with the BBC, an arrogant thumb-our-noses-at-the-guidelines attitude together with a left-liberal perspective is, if not pervasive throughout the Corporation, then certainly widely palpable. Take, for instance, the veteran political presenter Barrie Cassidy. He recently blogged a puerile, mocking personal attack on conservatively-inclined prime minister Tony Abbot soon after the latter lost his position in a tawdry coup: ‘…This week Tony Abbott broke free of the shackles and exposed his creed: a fundamental rejection of negotiation and compromise, and a refusal to allow compassion to get in the way of a nation's self-interest… He urged Europe to study Australia's experience, turning boats around and denying entry at the borders. "It will require some force," he declared. Fight. Fight. Fight. Even against desperate refugees…’

The ABC ethos that accepts that everyone seeking illegal entry into this country is a genuine “refugee” is also part of the BBC’s. It’s broadcast and tweeted constantly by these Tweedledums and Tweedledees. The BBC’s Matthew Price has been one industrious propagandist to this effect. So has the BBC’s man in Sydney, Jon Donnison, who makes snide tweets about Australia’s asylum policy (and Britain’s) every chance he gets, as well as making highly partisan tweets relating to Gaza and the West Bank, where he was previously based, and where his heart apparently resides.

Each week the ABC’s flagship current affairs show Q&A, the broadcaster’s equivalent to the BBC’s Question Time, packs its panel with leftists, with just a token sprinkling of proponents of the other side. Among regular panellists are two leftist Jews highly critical of Israel: elderly Viennese-born feminist Eva Cox, and Louise Adler, a member of Alternative Australian Jewish Voices. Dr Adler heads Melbourne University Press, which under her aegis has published Antony Loewenstein’s My Israel Question and London University Professor Jacqueline Rose’s Out of Zion. Perhaps needless to say, the ABC has given publicity to both books and their authors.

Writes Zeddy Lawrence, editor of the Australian Jewish News, in the current issue of that paper (http://www.jewishnews.net.au/abc-must-tackle-bias/50538):

‘Earlier this year, the corporation’s editorial integrity became a matter of public concern after Zaky Mallah was allowed to ask a question on the broadcaster’s flagship Q&A program. But for members of the Jewish community, the ABC’s editorial integrity was already in doubt, with a number of reports from Israel not only exhibiting a distinct lack of balance, but in some cases reflecting individual journalists’ personal political opinions. Readers will no doubt recall February 2014’s Four Corners episode in which the IDF was accused of targeting Palestinian children for arrest in the middle of the night, assaulting them while in detention and forcing confessions from them. The report omitted key facts about the cases it highlighted, relied on unverified allegations from sources with questionable credibility that were subsequently repudiated, failed to give context and, moreover, quoted negative UNICEF findings about the IDF, without mentioning more recent UNICEF findings that actually noted significant improvements in the IDF’s operations.
Fast-forward to July 2014 and the war with Hamas, and there were numerous cases where the ABC’s focus was on Israel’s targeted airstrikes rather than the rockets being fired indiscriminately at Israeli cities from Gaza. In one instance, seemingly oblivious to Hamas’s tactics of using human shields and the IDF’s warnings to civilians to evacuate ahead of strikes, the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson asked Benjamin Netanyahu’s spokesman Mark Regev: “Do you take enough care to avoid those casualties, ‘cause it appears the answer is no?”
In the past year alone, the ABC has featured no fewer than 20 times in our Media Week column from AIJAC [the Australian Jewish Public Affairs Council], with the same problems noted in each instance. Whether discussing subsequent investigations into the war, house demolitions, the blockade of Gaza, the Jewish connection to Jerusalem or other issues, there’s a lack of context, a lack of balance, the omission of relevant facts, interviewees with a clear agenda, and little, if any, official Israeli responses or explanations of the matters under discussion. Throw into the mix, a two-part documentary this July produced by a prominent BDS activist that effectively accused Israel of apartheid, and even included claims that Jerusalem was “being ethnically cleansed” and that the Jewish State was “imposed” and “artificial”, and the ABC appears to be acting, in some cases, as a pro-Palestinian propaganda mouthpiece.’

As mentioned on my own blog in March, the ABC’s then newly-appointed exclusive Jerusalem-based Middle East correspondent, young Sophie McNeill, was appointed to that post despite – or maybe because of – a history of pro-Palestinian activism (a remarkable state of affairs discussed by a concerned Ahron Shapiro here http://www.jwire.com.au/should-the-abc-have-given-advocacy-journalist-sophie-mcneill-the-keys-to-its-jerusalem-bureau-asks-ahron-shapiro/). In an interview she gave in 2011, Ms McNeill, who has credited Robert Fisk’s Hidden Histories with inspiring her to be a journalist, said: "If you just try to frame stories from the point of view of the people who are really suffering in a situation, be it in Lebanon, if you’re hanging out in a Palestinian refugee camp, [or] in Gaza … One of the saddest things I’ve seen in my whole life is spending some time filming in a children’s cancer ward in Gaza. I just think if you just – if you look at a situation and you just – yeah, I guess just try to spend time with the people who are – who really don t have any power and it is hard, you know, for them to have a voice. Then that’s, yeah, that’s the kind of journalism I want to do.... Everyone knew what was happening in Gaza ... you saw all the horrific videos ... a lot of people died ... there are no excuses any more..."

There have been a number of instances in which Ms McNeill’s subsequent reporting and tweeting has chagrined or indeed outraged the Australian Jewish community, overwhelmingly pro-Israel as it is, as well as numerous fair-minded non-Jewish commentators. Late last month, in a segment on the ABC’s 7.30 current affairs program, Ms McNeill informed viewers that, “after they tried to board a school bus south of Jerusalem,” two Palestinians were shot by Israeli security forces. What she failed to reveal was the crucial information that the two had just knifed someone, were armed, and were intent on attacking schoolchildren on that bus. Ms McNeill also told, hardly objectively, of a dead sixteen-year old Palestinian student who had been fatally shot at a checkpoint: “Israeli soldiers say that this friendly, gifted student tried to stab them, so they shot her dead”. There was lachrymose footage of the girl’s empty desk at school as Ms McNeill described her, in the opinion of relatives, as “so affectionate … very talented …” and, in the opinion of friends, as a “martyr … dying for Palestine”. Neglecting to tell of the incitement to violence caused by circulating canards that Israel was denying Palestinians access to their holy site in Jerusalem, Ms McNeill put her own spin on things by asserting that “Tensions are being fuelled by the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land”.

Little wonder that an excellent article in the Brisbane Courier-Mail by Rowan Dean expressed revulsion at a segment on the ABC’s 7.30 current affairs program, in which Sophie McNeill, expressed revulsion at the segment for portrayed the murderous young Palestinians concerned ‘almost as heroes, engaged in some noble struggle …. Even the segment’s title – “Meet the young generation of Palestinians behind the third intifada” – was a disgrace, sounding like some hip, funky show … Throughout eight turgid minutes, the show failed to point the finger of blame where it belongs: at those political and religious predators in the West Bank and Gaza who for a generation have tutored and groomed young Palestinians to desire to murder Jews. Muslim clerics in Palestinian mosques have been urging their followers in recent weeks to go out and hack Jews to death in the name of Allah. For the Islamist, the “cause” of “liberating” Palestine is just another facet of jihadist terrorism, the goal being the genocide of all nonbelievers, particularly Jews…’ Instead, there was ‘funky rap music, “cool” interviews, sentimental claptrap about an empty desk at a girl’s school and so on’.
Over the years, examples of ABC bias against Israel have been itemised by AIJAC and, where sufficiently egregious to warrant it, officially protested by the ECAJ. But as the ECAJ’s executive director, Peter Wertheim, has recently written, “Even when our complaints have been upheld, corrective action by the ABC has been half-hearted or slow to occur”. However, a media survey undertaken in June shows that, in Mr Wertheim’s words, “although ABC radio and television remain the nation’s most trusted sources of news and current affairs, trust levels have fallen significantly in the last five years and the ABC’s lead over commercial broadcasters and newspapers has narrowed markedly”. Thus, he continues, “For its own sake, the ABC needs a new system of oversight to guarantee its integrity. Its internal complaints unit is not independent of the organisation, nor is it sufficiently insulated from the influence of those who work there.” (To those familiar with the in-house complaints procedure at the BBC, where a functionary called Fraser Stele appears to be the sole arbiter of what does and does not constitute bias, that will sound depressingly familiar.)
Mr Wertheim goes on: “We need a completely independent ombudsman outside the ABC, appointed on a cross-partisan basis by Parliament through a public selection process, to monitor public broadcasting, assess complaints about news, current affairs programs and documentaries and report regularly to the Australian people.” Amen to that.

As Zeddy Lawrence points out: “Let us be quite clear, we are not calling for Israel, its government or its army to be declared sacrosanct or off limits. We merely want factual, balanced and fair reporting that is not skewed by the prejudices of particular reporters or that panders to popular or propaganda-driven misconceptions of the reality on the ground. To that end, in appointing the new managing director, we urge the ABC board to consider not just how well the potential candidates can manage the corporation from a business perspective, but whether they have what it takes to confront and weed out the bias, and uphold the standards of balance and impartiality that we expect our national broadcaster to embody.”

11/17 Links Pt1: First, They Came for the Jews; France and Israel: Obama’s Double Standard

From Ian:

First, They Came for the Jews

The last time Islamic State terrorists rampaged through Paris back in January, one of their principal targets was the Jews. The other two parties attacked, Charlie Hebdo and the police, may have instantiated, respectively, unbridled free expression and the law upon which Western civilization relies, but the Jews, who were attacked in the mundanity of a kosher supermarket, represented something just as profound.
The prosperity of the Jews is taken as an affront to radical Islam, as it was to Christianity in bygone eras. But the Jews represent something to Europe, too. Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, acknowledged this when he declared in an impassioned speech in Parliament following the attacks that “when the Jews of France are attacked, France is attacked, the conscience of humanity is attacked.” And in an interview just prior to the attacks, he already declaimed that if the Jews leave, “France will no longer be France.”
Some Europeans may disagree with Valls and find themselves not hugely bothered that the Jews are attacked for being Jews. But, following the attacks in Paris last week, it should at least be obvious to them that the Jews are in one respect just being attacked first: European Jews are the canary in the coal mine. Years of anti-Semitic assaults in France – leading to the exodus of French Jewry to which Valls was referring in the interview – preceded the January attacks. But whereas those January attacks deliberately targeted the Jews and, with the exception of Charlie Hebdo and the police, largely ignored everyone else, the attacks in Paris this past Friday did not discriminate. The terrorists, so far as we know, were not after free speech or authority as such, but everyone. Europeans should, therefore, be more concerned when their Jews are attacked, because first they come for the Jews, and then they come for everybody else.

Col Kemp: Islamic State could attack Britain any time – and the impact would be catastrophic

Ex-Cobra Intelligence Group Chairman also believes a stronger military presence in the UK is becoming an increasingly necessary deterrent
As they did in Paris on Friday , Islamic State terrorists could attack the UK at any time.
Are we ready?
Our intelligence services do a superb job and have disrupted many attacks planned against us by Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State . Many jihadists are in jail. But their challenge is enormous.
Andrew Parker , Director General of MI5, recently warned that there are over 3,000 Islamist extremists willing to carry out attacks in the UK.
Few attacks are conducted by terrorists who are completely unknown to our intelligence services. It appears some of those involved in the Paris attacks were on the radar screen of French intelligence.

Caroline Glick: Radical Islam – the invisible enemy

As the cleaning crews were mopping the dried blood from the stage and the seats of the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, a depressing act appeared on stage in distant Iowa.
Saturday night the three contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination took to the stage in Iowa for a debate. The moderator asked them whether they would be willing to use the term “radical Islam” to describe the ideology motivating Islamic terrorists to massacre innocents. All refused.
Like her former boss, US President Barack Obama, former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton not only refused to accept the relevance of the term. Clinton refused to acknowledge what radical Islam stands for.
She merely noted some of what it rejects.
In her words, “I think this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.”
Her opponents agreed with her.

Most Palestinians want a new intifada, and a plurality want it to be violent

A new poll from the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows that there is widespread support for the current knifing and other violent attacks, and the majority of Palestinians want a third intifada.

50.4% of the Palestinian people support the outbreak of a third intifada, while 35.2% oppose it.

And if one breaks out, 42.1% are “in favor of a violent uprising”, 29.9% said they were ”in favor of a peaceful, non-violent, popular uprising”, , and only 27.8% said:”not in favor of either of them”.

A plurality also say that West Bank Arabs should carry weapons.

"The member of the politburo of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahhar, said in a statement that the opportunity of an outbreak of a third intifada is available, and that in a likely more violent manner than that of second intifada, stressing that the only solution for defending al-Aqsa is that the citizens of the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem should carry weapons. Do you support this statement or not?” 45.8% said:”Yes, I support it”, 29.7% said:”I oppose it”.

Last week, the leftist British group Yachad released a poll of British Jews which received wide coverage. Its main findings are summarized by The Guardian:

75% of British Jews agree that “the expansion of settlements on the West Bank is a major obstacle to peace”, and 68% have a “sense of despair” whenever new expansion is approved.
73% believe Israel’s approach to peace is damaging its standing in the world.
71% see the two-state solution as the only way Israel can achieve peace.
72% reject the statement that “the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a land of their own”.
62% support ceding territory to achieve peace, but that falls to 50% if withdrawal is seen as posing a risk to Israel’s security.
47% see the Israeli government as “constantly creating obstacles to avoid engaging in the peace process” (32% disagreed).

UK Media Watch noted how the questions in the poll themselves were biased, but there is a far more fundamental problem with the sampling methodology itself.

Over 50% of the respondents were chosen this way (page 50):

A common method for recruiting a sample from an inaccessible population is to identify a group of individuals from the population and invite them to recruit other members who will both complete the questionnaire and invite still others to do the same. ‘Snowballing’ methods of this kind are capable of achieving relatively high response rates because of the element of personal contact, but they run the risk of (i) recruiting an uncontrolled and potentially unrepresentative sample, and (ii) allowing abuse by vested interest groups who may submit multiple responses or circulate links to large numbers of people within that interest group.

In order to mitigate these risks, we developed a discriminative snowballing methodology with the following features:

(i) a group of 72 initial contacts (seeds) was selected by the research team and advisory group such that the group was roughly representative of the Jewish community as a whole with respect to synagogue affiliation, age and geographical location.

(ii) each seed was then asked to send invitations by email to between 10 and 40 of their Jewish contacts asking them to participate; each contact received a personal and unique code that could only be used once (phase 1).

(iii) the phase 1 recipients, in addition to being asked to complete the survey themselves, were provided with three additional unique codes and asked to send those to Jewish contacts of their own (phase 2). We limited the number to three to prevent blanket responding.

(iv) the phase 2 recipients were also asked to send links to up to three contacts using the unique links that were displayed on screen on completion of the survey (phase 3). This methodology generated 568 responses, of which 444 were generated at phase 1 and 124 at phases 2 and 3

So the advisory group chose the initial seed which then recruited the remainder of the 568.

Who was on the advisory group?

10 of them are listed in the paper, and Jonathan Hoffman identified nine of the ten as leftists.

It is of course likely that the leftist group would recruit like-minded friends, who would again do the same in their next pass. Meaning that fully 50% of the respondents to this poll are from a likely biased set.

Like J-Street in the US, Yachad commissioned this poll to confirm their own attitudes towards Israel and to find - or create the illusion of - widespread criticism of the Jewish state that mirrors their attitudes. Which is exactly what happened.

How many supporters of Likud do you think would be in the initial 72 people chosen by this leftist "advisory panel?" Yet two thirds of British Jews who expressed an opinion said before the Israeli elections, that they would vote for Netanyahu if they were Israeli!

This is not just shoddy - this is deceptive.

UPDATE: As I mention in the comments, there is a very easy way to discover whether the people selected by the advisory group and then snowballed from there have the same opinions with the other half of those polled, whose methodology of selection seemed reasonably sound (at least in comparison.) Publish the results. If I am wrong, I will retract; if I am right and the results are significantly different, Yachad will issue an apology. Deal?

UPDATE 2: The report itself shows that the bias existed;

As predicted, the panel sample [145 people - EoZ] was the least close match; it under-represented younger Jews and to a lesser extent those with postgraduate degrees. These deviations would have shifted the findings in a hawkish direction. The snowball sample [568 people - EoZ] over-represented Jews with a left-leaning political stance and those with post-graduate qualifications; this would have produced a dovish bias. The DJN sample, as expected, was the closest match to the population profile; it slightly underrepresented members of central Orthodox synagogues and slightly over-represented older respondents; these two biases would have tended to neutralize one another in terms of any overall bias towards hawkish or dovish views.

So the pollsters admit that half the respondents held over-represented left leaning views!

The report then claims that it used weighting to eliminate the bias, but the weighting as to make the respondents fit better into the synagogue affiliation and age groups of the overall population.. But the left-leaning bias that they admit was not compensated for; they make the assumption that post-graduates will bring more post-graduates into the poll but not that people who are politically to the left would be far more likely to have friends who think the way they do.

And this footnote is interesting:

Since it is impossible to determine which sample is the most representative, and to what extent each one departs from representativeness, there is no rational basis for weighting the samples relative to one another

Yet they made the stated assumption throughout that the DJN sample was the closest, demographically, to the Jewish population as a whole. That means that they are effectively giving four times the weight to the left-leaning snowball sample than to the (supposedly) right-leaning panel sample.

Again, the only way to figure this out is to see the actual numbers and the specific formulas they used to supposedly reduce bias.

UPDATE 3: I am hearing that I am wrong - the data is similar between the snowballed sample and the rest. Will update when I get the details.

UPDATE 4/RETRACTION: Jonathan Hoffman contacted the pollsters and they took my challenge. The snowball and non-snowball halves had similar views on Israel, so in this case snowballing didn't majorly affect the responses except in a couple of specific questions.

I thank Stephen Miller for doing this analysis.

If I may interpret the differences between the groups, the "snowball" group seems to be more actively engaged in the issue of Israel than the other groups. They aren't more "hawkish" by any means but they are more supportive of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country than the population at large and proud of Israel's achievements just as they are more supportive of a Palestinian state.

Media gives more credence to Raqqa as ISIS' "capital" than Jerusalem as Israel's capital

From The Daily Beast:

From The Daily Caller:

From The Guardian:

Yet the media will never say that Jerusalem is Israel's capital!

Most of the articles about Raqqa from major news organizations refer to it as ISIS "de facto" capital of the Islamic State - an entire country that doesn't exist.

This is still far ahead of how they refer to Jerusalem, either flatly saying that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel or saying things like Reuters' boilerplate: "Israel regards all Jerusalem, including the predominantly Arab east captured and annexed in 1967, as its 'indivisible capital' - a claim not recognized internationally."

Calling the city that houses Israel's parliament and Prime Minister isn't enough to even call it a "de facto" capital. Jerusalem is only at best "claimed" by Israel while Raqqa is indeed ISIS' "de facto" capital.

(h/t Nathan)

Pals criticize store surveillance cameras - because they can be used to identify terrorists

Palestinian shop owners, like shopkeepers around the world, use surveillance cameras to deter and identify shoplifters.

But Palestine Today reports that some officials are saying that shopkeepers should take their cameras down.

The reason? Because Israeli forces sometime use the footage to identify "resistance activities" and they arrest people as a result!

In recent months, we are told, Israeli forces managed to arrest dozens of people based on information found on the surveillance videos, in east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank.

Alaa al-Rimawi, an expert on this topic, says that having cameras pointing in the direction of the street provides a treasure trove of information about young men throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Another official said that "We know that the purpose of these cameras is to protect shops from theft," but because they are under occupation, and the occupation will benefit from the cameras so it is better not to use them.

He added, that "we as Palestinians are in an exceptional situation, we must put the national interest for private interests."

The idea of discouraging kids from throwing stones and firebombs at Jews doesn't occur to them.

11/16 Links Pt2: Hungary rejects EU's labeling rules; We are all fighting like Israel now

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: The ‘true origins’ of the E.U.’s Israel labeling policy

In other words, the E.U. has transformed “origin” rules that are universally interpreted as being about place to being about people. This goes far beyond correcting any alleged confusion about whether the Golan Heights is in Israel, to providing a uniquely discriminatory interpretation of “true origin” in origin-labeling requirements.
One might add the guidelines appear internally inconsistent as well. The test to apply is whether an area is “part of the … territory” of the labeling state. Yet they approve “Palestine” labels while not suggesting that Palestine is a state at all, and thus has no territory. Moreover, it seems to exclude West Jerusalem from the scope of the guidelines, though clearly the E.U. position is that is not part of the territory of Israel. All this is bound to be very confusing to consumers.
To be sure, many people who oppose Israel’s presence in the West Bank may not care about the singularity of this rule; they will be happy with measures intended to discourage Israel’s presence. But just as the policy is not really about geographic labeling, it is also not about the peace process or a Palestinian state. The rule applies in full to the Golan Heights. So Israel is presumably also being pushed to return this area to one of the competing Syrian regimes — the al-Nusra Front, the Islamic State or the Assad regime. The absurdity of such a policy suggests that the E.U. move is motivated more out of generalized hostility to Israel than concrete policy disagreements.
Any sympathy the European Union may have generated among most dovish Israelis with its West Bank labeling is lost by its extension of these rules to the Golan.

In Israel, Hungary’s FM says his country opposes settlement labels

Hungary opposes the introduction of special labels for products made in Israeli settlements, the country’s foreign minister said Monday, calling it “irrational” and arguing that it hurts efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Last week, the European Union, of which Hungary is a member, published guidelines on how member states should label certain products made by Israelis beyond the country’s internationally recognized borders.
“We do not support that decision,” declared Péter Szijjártó, also Hungary’s trade minister, who is currently visiting Israel. “It is an inefficient instrument. It is irrational and does not contribute to a solution [to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], but causes damage.”

We are all fighting like Israel now

Just as Israel follows the movements of Hamas commanders in Gaza, so Jihadi John will have been tracked for months before the missile fell from the sky. Some of that surveillance may have been done electronically, but it must be assumed that the terrorist was wise enough to make life difficult for his pursuers by dumping his smartphone and laptop.
In Gaza, Israel supplements high-tech surveillance with a network of informers. America and Britain will be trying to do the same in Raqqa and the rest of Isil-controlled Syria. The aim will be to keep the likes of Jihadi John under the surveillance of human or electronic eyes as close to constantly as possible.
The goal will be to identify the fleeting opportunity – probably measured only in minutes – when the target can be killed without innocent civilians being harmed. So it is not good enough to discover where someone like Jihadi John happens to sleep, or where he guards hostages. In each of these locations, a drone strike would also kill those unfortunate enough to be nearby.
The best option is to strike when the quarry happens to be in a small and enclosed space, either alone or accompanied by those who share his notoriety. This explains why targets are often killed in cars. Jihadi John appears to have been dispatched as he entered a vehicle shortly before midnight - when the street around him was probably empty.
But the success of operations of this kind depends on speed. As soon as the target steps into the car, he must be spotted and this information relayed to a command centre. A drone then has to be placed on station - all within minutes. If a decision is taken to fire a missile, this will be only the final act of a long drama.
The network that is capable of gathering this information will probably rely on human agents as much as electronic surveillance.
There was a time when the Western world, including America, would publicly condemn Israel’s assassinations of Hamas commanders in Gaza. Today, by contrast, the US and its allies are assembling their own version of Israel’s system of retribution. There is a reason for that change. Israeli commanders always point out that the Middle East is “a bad neighbourhood” in which tough choices are an unpalatable necessity. The global reach of Islamic extremism, however, means Western leaders too now feel they can and must strike the same hard headed posture they once professed to spurn. (h/t Effect)

The New Israel Fund and those who support them are helping terrorists

Israel National News reported, as did all of Israeli media, that the Palestinian Arab terrorist who killed a Jewish father and son Friday was turned in by his own father and brother to Israeli security services – they admitted that were concerned that if they did not, their homes would be destroyed.
Israeli security forces arrested the suspected murderer, who killed 40-year old Yaakov Litman and his 18-year old son Netanel who were en route to a pre-wedding celebration (Sarah, Yaakov's daughter and Netanel's sister, was to be married this Tuesday. The wedding has been postponed).
Even for Israeli security, this was a quick feat – and it saved who knows how many lives, time and resources for security – and it happened because Israel’s policy of destroying the homes of terrorists works. It scared the father and brother of an Islamic Jihad would-be-martyr.
The suicide terrorist commits suicide – and he needs to know a price will be paid by those left behind.
Israel saves human lives – and deters jihadists by letting them know their families' homes will be the price paid for their acts. Each demolition is vetted by the courts, even though that means a delay.
And while Israeli soldiers protect Israel, and most American Jews stand with Israel, there remain those who fund the legal battles of the families of terrorists who wish to prevent this deterrent from being used.
Can there be a clearer example of standing with terrorists?

Today, in honor of yesterday's anniversary of "Palestine's independence" declared in 1988 in Algeria, schoolchildren in the territories are being encouraged by the Education Ministry to wear the symbol of Palestinian resistance, the keffiyeh.

This photo was taken at a school in Bethlehem where boys who bothered to bring their keffiyehs to school raised them in the air. It looks like no more than 15% of the boys actually brought in their keffiyehs, forcing the photographer to pose them with 2-3 boys per scarf.

The press release from the Education Ministry emphasizes that the keffiyeh symbolizes "resistance," although they claim that they are referring to studying as a form of resistance.

It is interesting that even education must be demanded through the prism of fighting Israel, as opposed to teaching kids that study is its own reward.