Saturday, December 12, 2015

12/12 Links: Intellectual State of Emergency; The penny finally drops for John Kerry

From Ian:

The Occupied Territories of Progressive Thought
Who are today's racists?
A "March for Dignity" recently assembled outraged "anti-racists," who shouted insults in the name of universal love.
It was in the name of anti-racism that the progressives chanted "death to Jews" at the UN's Durban conference against racism in 2001.
Every week, the Place de la République has seen the roaring processions of the Sheikh Yassin Collective, inciting the hatred of Jews. Did anyone even care?
These "progressives" were strangely silent while a quarter of a million people were killed in Syria, while Yazidi women were sold into slavery, or when a new Caliph ordered the massacre of thousands in the name of Allah, or the mutilation and murder of Christians who refused to convert. Is that kind of behavior nothing more than bad taste?
Today the new virus of prejudice has two faces: brandishing a knife and trying to appear as innocent as a lamb.
The suffering of the Arabs, of the Palestinians and of the suburban youth is real, but will be alleviated only if there is first a critical examination of the delusional views on what is causing it. Neither the Jews nor Israel are at the root of this suffering.

Ben-Dror Yemini: The penny finally drops for John Kerry

John Kerry has been spewing out quite a bit of nonsense over the past two years. This column has not let him off easy. But his latest statement, for a change, belongs to a different department. He claimed Israel must decide whether it was a Jewish state, or a binational state. About 70 percent of Israelis prefer a Jewish state. It includes at least a third of Likud voters. This is the national and Zionist interest, regardless of the Palestinian position, and Israel should beware of perpetuating the existing situation and slipping into becoming a binational state only because of Palestinian intransigence.
Kerry's critics should also take note: The very use of the words "Jewish state" is a testament to the fact the speaker, even if he can be annoying at times, is a friend of Israel. Israel's haters on campuses, not just in the US, treat anyone who supports this basic concept as a colonial leper and a borderline fascist. And the fact that Kerry supports the Jewish state, and objects to Israel slipping into becoming a binational state, is commendable.
After Kerry expressed his vision of a Jewish state, Israel's embassies all over the world received a new position paper from the Foreign Ministry about the settlements. According to international law, the new document stipulates, the settlements are legal. Let's assume every word there is true. And let's assume Jews are allowed to settle in the very heart of Hebron and in upper Nablus. So what? Will this "legality" prevent the catastrophe of a binational state? And what exactly does it mean? After all, if we are talking about just one entity, then why is it that only Jews are allowed to settle in the midst of the Arab population? Arabs are also allowed to settle in the midst of the Jewish population.

How Not to Promote Coexistence

It is no secret that neither Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, nor the members of his government and the political parties that make up his coalition, are particularly popular with either the U.S. government or the American media. The same can be said for much of the American Jewish community that tends to see Netanyahu’s views on the peace process — which represent the consensus of the Israeli electorate — as being at odds with the political liberalism that most of them espouse. But there is one member of the Knesset, who is pretty popular in the United States. Ayman Odeh, the head of the Joint List of Arab political parties in Israel’s parliament, received a hero’s welcome in the media this week when he arrived for a visit to the United States.
The New York Times embraced Odeh as a voice for “a more inclusive Israeli democracy” as well as “the creation of a Palestinian state.” But Odeh was embraced for more than positions that are odds with those of Netanyahu. Odeh was treated as a tribune for a downtrodden Israeli Arab minority that is finally making its voice heard in the Jewish state. He was also taken at face value when he claimed the fact that his alliance gained a piddling 10,000 Jewish votes (out of 4.2 million that were cast in March) as proof that “Arabs and Jews refuse to be enemies.”
But an incident involving a meeting of Jewish organizational leaders to which he was invited told us more about Odeh’s real agenda and the charges that were made against Netanyahu for racism earlier this year than the platitudes he spun for the Times. Though Jewish groups have been as eager to celebrate Odeh and the Joint List as proof of the reality of Israeli democracy and have exhibited no reluctance to hear his views on the issues, he had some interesting conditions for such meetings. He refused to even set foot in the offices of groups that are dedicated to supporting Israel’s existence and helping Jews immigrate there.
That’s what happened when he was invited to a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Rather than seize the opportunity to influence the umbrella group that, along with AIPAC, represents those organizations concerned with Israel, Odeh said he wouldn’t go into their offices since doing so would compromise his integrity and principles.

IDF soldiers photobomb (videobomb?) Palestinian TV reporter

This is unprofessional - but too funny:

The Palestine TV reporter is clearly frightened for her life by being in close proximity to the evil, trigger-happy IDF soldiers, isn't she?

(h/t Yenta)

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.

Chanukah Video Night 7: Shloimy Bluth plus bonus Julie Geller

Bonus:

12/11 Links Pt2: Even Muslim Scholars Agree: Jerusalem Is Jewish; Folly at the Forum

From Ian:

Folly at the Forum

The curious thing about the discourse on the Arab-Israeli conflict, in general and Israeli-Palestinian one, in particular, is that it does not matter how utterly unhinged what you have to say is, as long as you declare that you support the two-state principle. Once you utter the “magic password,” you are immediately welcomed into “polite society,” embraced by the “enlightened, erudite” bonton, and invited to participate in prestigious events to expound on your “progressive perspectives” – no matter how deluded/detached from reality they may be.
Intellectual inbreeding?
The recent Saban Forum in Washington provided prime examples of this pernicious perversity in what is, with a few exceptions, a cozy “Democratophilic” environment for intellectual inbreeding.
Take, for instance, the key note address by US Secretary of State John Kerry, never accused of being the sharpest knife in the drawer. Kerry addressed the esteemed Forum on December 5, focusing on the nuclear agreement with Iran and, of course, the pressing imperative for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On Iran, Kerry declared “... we aren’t making any assumptions about Iran’s future policies because we base our policy on observable facts, on actions that we can see...”
Strangely enough, this pronouncement was not received by hoots of derisive laughter or howls of indignant protest.
Not making any “assumptions,” Mr. Secretary?? Basing policy on observable facts, are we? Really? One can only wonder how closely you are, in fact, following the “observable facts.” I guess you must have missed the one about Iran’s November 21 “ballistic missile test in breach of two United Nations Security Council resolutions.” The missile, a “liquid-fueled missile with a 1,900-km. range... was capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.” (Reuters, December 8)

Even Muslim Scholars Agree: Jerusalem Is Jewish

Twice more this pattern repeated itself in later centuries, including during the 12th-century Crusades. Jerusalem briefly became the focus of jihad and religious longing – all because then-Muslim leader Salah a-Din needed to inflame his warriors against the Christian Crusaders.
The same thing is now happening once again. Until 100 years ago, Jerusalem remained way in the background for the Muslim world, but when Jews began returning to their homeland, Muslims again awoke and “remembered” the holy city as a pinnacle of its religious aspirations. Again, however, its interests are simply to rid the Middle East of Israel – as statements by current PA and Hamas leaders indicate.
It’s noteworthy that when the PLO was founded in 1964, its original charter did not even mention Jerusalem.
As Prof. Ziedan has told his Egyptian listeners, angering many Muslims in the process: “The religious aspect of the [Israeli-Arab] conflict is nonsense…. The only reason why Muslims insist on the sanctity of Jerusalem is simply politics.”
On a related note, just last week the Israel Antiquities Authority announced the unearthing of further evidence of Jewish history in Jerusalem – from many centuries before the founding of Islam. An impression of the royal seal of the biblical King Hezekiah, who reigned between 727–698 BCE, was discovered at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount. On it is ancient Hebrew script reading, “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah.” Other artifacts with Hebrew names were found together with it.

How UNRWA perpetuates Palestinian maximalism – Einat Wilf

5 More Einat Wilf videos at UN Watch's YouTube channel.

Chanukah Video Night 6: Ari Goldwag & Sheves Chaverim - Shir Ushvacha + bonus: Chabad Global Dance

Bonus:

From ANSAMed:

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saed Erekat said Friday at the Med Forum in the Italian capital that Israel has pushed the current moderate leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to the verge of collapse and total delegitimization. Erekat, who is also the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) secretary, added that he saw a ''dark future'' if the international community does not force Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu into an agreement foreseeing a two-state solution along the 1967 borders.

''We have recognized Israel and promised our population that this would have led to a Palestinian state. However, Israel continues to not want to recognize us and we are living in a regime of occupation and apartheid.''

''If the PA is weakened further by Israel's attitude, the Islamic State (ISIS) will arrive in the Palestinian Territories and the conflict - which up until now has been kept at the political level - will become religious: between a Jewish state and an Islamic one,'' Erekat warned. ''It will be the abyss.''

Let's parse this a little bit.

"a 'dark future' if the international community does not force Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu into an agreement foreseeing a two-state solution along the 1967 borders."

Why can't a Palestinian state be along the borders outlined in one of the Israeli peace proposals? Why can there not be peace with compromises on the PA's part? Because they aren't interested in peace; they are interested in having the "international community" hand them their demands on a silver platter.

And how does he want to make that occur? Why, with threats, by saying that ISIS will take over the West Bank and Gaza.

This means that Erekat is saying that the Palestinian people cannot be trusted to stop ISIS from taking over their territory - ISIS can appeal to enough of them to overturn the existing Palestinian leadership.

If that is true - then why would things be different if Palestine was a state? How could Fatah stop people from being radicalized for ISIS when they are part of the movement to radicalize their own youth to kill Jews? How can they stop the Islamicization of the territories when they themselves have ensured that Christians would flee their supposedly benevolent rule?

Erekat is saying that his people aren't mature enough to fend off ISIS from attracting their youth - and is using that as a reason to hand them a state???

If Erekat is afraid of ISIS taking over, then he would want Israel to militarily re-occupy the entire West Bank as quickly as possible to ensure the security of his people!

But this is how Erekat and Abbas work. They make a straw man argument that they must get all of their demands or there won't be peace. It is Mafia protection racket logic - we'll keep things quiet if you give us what we want, otherwise you'll pay.

Yet the West is happy to lap it up.

12/11 Links Pt1: Palestinians' Biggest Tragedy: Failed Leadership; How the Israel Fixation Feeds Terror

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians' Biggest Tragedy: Failed Leadership

It was recently reported that the commander of the Islamic State (ISIS) branch in Sinai held talks in the Gaza Strip with leaders of Hamas's armed wing, the Ezaddin al-Qassam Brigades, about expanding their cooperation.
President Abbas does not seem to care whether the Palestinians of Gaza are turned into hostages and prisoners. He is probably hoping that the crisis will drive Palestinians to revolt against the Hamas regime, paving the way for his PA to return to the Gaza Strip.
Instead of trying to solve the Gaza crisis, Abbas is too busy waging a diplomatic war against Israel. He wants to file "war crimes" charges against Israel with the International Criminal Court -- ignoring the fact that he and Hamas are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza.
The Palestinians ignore the fact that their biggest tragedy over the past few decades has been (and remains) their failed and corrupt leadership that is willing to sacrifice them for its own interests.

Mordechai Kedar: The war between the coalitions

Israel, as part of the local geography, cannot afford the luxury of staying out of the Middle Eastern ball park. Netanyahu realized that Russia is the global power that is willing to shed blood and provide funding in the region, and has been doing everything he can to reach understandings with that power. Erdogan did not see it coming and totally destroyed his relations with Russia.
The strange situation that has been created by Israel's standing with Russia puts the Jewish state in a coalition that has as its members Iran and Hezbollah, who came to Assad's aid along with Russia. Does this mean there may be a modus vivendi struck between the Ayatollahs and Israel? Not necessarily, because, as was mentioned above, there are coalitions whose members continue to fight one another, despite the relationship each maintains with the main pillar of the coalition, in this case, Russia.
The West's blindness has allowed the Middle East to become a Russian monopoly, although 25 years ago, when the USSR collapsed, all the experts were sure that the world controlled by the opposing forces of the USSR and the US had turned into a world led by the US alone. In today's Middle East, that situation has reversed itself, and the ruling monopoly is now the one led by Russia. Israel must relate to this development, especially now that the West has turned into a hollow reed and Saudi Arabia is left to fight Russia without the backing of any global power.
Since it has been discovered that the San Bernardino terrorist became a radical Islamist while in Saudi Arabia, the chance that the US will come to that country's aid in its struggle with Russia are very slight. Trump says out loud what many American's feel behind the mask of political correctness: they don't want any Muslims, neither Syrian, Saudi or Iranian. The US has achieved energy independence, so as far as many Americans are concerned, Putin is more than welcome to the Middle East. And if Israel disappears while this happens, another problem will be solved, one that many Americans are heartily sick of hearing about.

How the Israel Fixation Feeds Terror

Several commentators have pointed out recently that, had the West not spent decades treating terror against Jews and Israel as an “understandable” outgrowth of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it might have less of a terrorism problem today.
Liel Leibovitz of Tablet detailed links between people who perpetrated attacks on Jews and people who later perpetrated attacks on non-Jews in the same countries. His analysis suggests that, had the original attacks on Jews been investigated more thoroughly, the later attacks might have been preventable. Gil Troy argued in the Jerusalem Post that the West’s consistent response to Palestinian terror – capitulating to the terrorists’ demands and pressuring Israel to do the same – persuaded subsequent generations of Islamic terrorists that terror is an effective means of furthering their goals. But there’s a third way in which the West’s attitudes toward Israel have contributed to its terrorism problem: Its conviction – in defiance of all evidence – that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was the Mideast’s central problem led it to focus obsessively on this issue, at the expense of all the real problems that are coming back to haunt it now. And nothing better illustrates this than the seemingly trivial issue of NGO funding.
Both Europe and America, but especially the former, grant tens of millions of dollars a year to Israeli NGOs for the ostensible purpose of promoting “democracy” and “human rights” in the one Middle Eastern country that already does a reasonable job of protecting both. However, they spend far less on promoting democracy and human rights in other Mideast countries. A document obtained by the Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon, for instance, showed that in 2010, the British government gave £600,000 to Israeli NGOs; if you exclude Iraq, that’s six times as much as it gave NGOs in all other Arab countries combined. Nor does the West lavish this kind of money on NGOs in other fellow democracies: According to NGO Monitor, “No other democracy gets nearly as much foreign government funding” as Israel does.
Why this peculiar obsession with democracy and human rights in Israel, alone of all the world’s countries? The answer, of course, is that the donations aren’t primarily motivated by concern for democracy and human rights at all. They go almost exclusively to organizations dealing in some way with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict – or, to be precise, organizations striving in some way to get Israel to adopt the West’s recipe for solving it: ever more concessions to the Palestinians.

The "illegal settlement" myth

JPost reports:

Where the Israeli High Court of Justice has approved specific settlements as legal, this could provide a complete defense to any allegations that they are war crimes, former International Criminal Court chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

Moreno-Ocampo is in Jerusalem lecturing at the The Fried-Gal Transitional Justice Initiative at the Hebrew University Law School.

Although Moreno-Ocampo has stepped down from his post, he was the boss of the current ICC chief prosecutor who will decide whether or not the settlements qualify as a war crime, is considered highly influential internationally and his statement could be a major coup in the debate over the issue.

Moreno-Ocampo did not by any means say that the settlements were legal under international law.

But he did say that “Israel’s High Court is highly respected internationally” and that anyone prosecuting Israelis regarding settlement activity would be incapable of proving criminal intent if those Israelis explained that they honestly believed their actions were legal once ratified by the country’s top court.

“At least they could show no intention” to commit a crime said the former chief ICC prosecutor.

The High court has weighed in many times over the years about whether particular settlements or outposts were legal or not, occasionally ordering the state to remove outposts for being built illegally, but mostly accepting the legality of the settlements in the context of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

In other words, the High Court has ratified most settlements as legal pending a deal that resolves the conflict, at which time politician decisions might be taken to withdraw from certain disputed areas of the West Bank.

Moreno-Ocampo is saying that since the Israeli Supreme Court says most settlements are legal, then the accusation of "war crimes" in building there goes away, because there is legal cover for it.

But settlements that the Israeli government regards as illegal are by definition not illegal under international law!

Why? Because the Geneva Convention that people cite to say settlements are illegal only says that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Forget about the fact that here is no way to regard Jews who quite voluntarily move across the Green Line as being "deported or transferred." The framers of Geneva did not consider the possibility of a members of a country wanting to move to territories on their own because of longstanding religious and cultural ties to that land, and there is no indication that they would have considered that illegal.

But besides that...

If these Jews are moving in opposition to Israeli law, then there is no possible way to regard Israel as violating the rule of transferring them!

So legalized settlements are not likely to be considered a war crime, and illegal settlements under Israeli law are by definition not illegal under international law.

When people say that "settlements are illegal," ask them which ones they are referring to and which international law they violate.

See also this 2008 article by Eugene Kontorovich and my previous article about all of the discussions at Geneva regarding this article, indicating that the "transfer" that is illegal in Geneva is involuntary.

World military leaders slam @Amnesty, praise IDF

From TheJC:

Israel fought “an exemplary campaign” during the Gaza conflict last year, an independent group of prominent military personnel and a former United Nations war crimes prosecutor has concluded.

A report by the High Level Military Group (HLMG), made up of 11 former military and intelligence leaders from five continents, said Israel operated “within the parameters of the Law of Armed Conflict” and had even “in some respects exceeded the highest standards we set for our own nations’ militaries,”

The group unanimously agreed that Israel's military response was reasonable.

“Israel’s efforts were entirely justified, appropriately conceived and lawfully carried out, and necessary in the defence of that country’s national security.”

The study was compiled this summer during six fact-finding and research trips.

The former officers, who held important positions in the US, UK, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Indian, Australian and Colombian defence forces, said they had enjoyed a level of access to military information which was “undoubtedly in excess of what our own countries would afford in similar circumstances.”

The actual report includes some details that, as far as I know, were not previously made public.

This section shows the amount of care the IDF uses before choosing to bomb a target:

186. A comprehensive protocol exists in the IDF to assert LOAC compliance during active hostilities, no matter how complex the battlefield. This was clearly evidenced during our fact-finding. In particular the HLMG was able to consider in detail IDF targeting practices and those as related to operating around sensitive sites, two of the most controversial aspects of Operation Protective Edge.

187. Where the IDF prepares pre-planned targets for attack against military objectives, it follows a multi-stage process for approval in order to ensure LOAC compliance. The procedure consists of the collection of intelligence about the potential target in order to ascertain that it constitutes a valid military objective and that the conditions for proportionality are met, as well as to assess any civilians, infrastructure or sensitive sites that may be affected by the attack. Commanders then determine objectives in regard to the target on the basis of this information. Here conditions can include the extent of destruction warranted, the necessity of enemy presence and similar considerations. Separately, operational planners may also advise on options for a specific attack, geared towards the further minimisation of collateral damage for example. Officers then examine all parameters and make a professional assessment of the target. This includes a binding assessment by a legal adviser about the legality of the attack and any necessary stipulations. Commanders may add additional conditions beyond legal considerations; and the input provided into the decision by the various different organisations, such as intelligence or operational planning, is updated and re-evaluated on a timely basis in advance of any attack. A senior commander will ultimately review the information before an attack and approve it, if necessary subject to certain conditions; suspend action pending further input regarding parameters that are insufficiently clear; or decide not to attack the target at that time.

188. The process of ensuring LOAC compliance of IDF attacks is in most cases aided by what the IDF refers to as a Target Card, a standardised document which centralises all the above information into one place so that the commander may make an informed decision. The Target Card contains relevant intelligence, including imagery, an assessment of the military value of the target, options regarding operational plans as well as a binding legal opinion regarding the intended attack’s compliance with LOAC.

189. Some of the members of the HLMG expressed explicit concerns that these procedures are excessive, and that they are not necessary, particularly when the IDF is educated in the application of the LOAC throughout their training. They expressed concern in particular that these elaborate procedures may establish an unwarranted precedent that yields significant advantage to an adversary that intentionally violates LOAC to achieve tactical, operational, and strategic advantage.

190. Where the acute realities and necessities of combat prevent real-time legal input and do not allow for such a deliberative targeting process, for example during intense air and ground combat operations or other specific situations where targets are highly time sensitive, commanders are instructed to be diligently reliant on their training, specific relevant directives and other relevant actors to ensure their compliance with all aspects of LOAC. In relation to so-called sensitive sites - that is, objects that are considered to have special protection from attack under LOAC or warrant special consideration on account of policy decisions, such as for example, hospitals, schools, religious sites, large food factories, power stations and UN facilities - detailed regulations exist in the IDF to ensure their appropriate safeguarding. Notice of the location of sensitive sites is distributed to all levels of command, and updated on a real-time basis by a specific officer tasked with ensuring the real-time data is up to date. This data is widely accessible, including to relevant commanders in the field. There are limited circumstances in which sensitive sites may be damaged, either on account of an attack in their proximity, or directly in circumstances where they are legitimate military targets on account of their use for military purposes thus invalidating their protected status. These instances are governed by detailed IDF regulations that mandate precautionary measures and require attacks to be granted specific approval by a high ranking officer. Depending on the type of target and attack, this approval can go all the way to the Chief of Staff and, in certain extremely sensitive cases, to the Minister of Defence and even the Prime Minister.

Here's a copy of a Target Card (probably translated from Hebrew):

You will never learn this from reading reports from the UN or Amnesty or HRW. They write their reports with the conclusion that Israel acted recklessly as the initial premise and all evidence is chosen to support that premise.

In fact, the HLMG points out that the "human rights" NGOs have zero military expertise, which is a necessity in deciding what is legal or not in warfare - and that these groups misstatements of international law actually have severe ramifications for the free world:

Without seeking to deny the necessity or discourage in any way the practice of appropriate formal and informal checks and balances on warfare in the international system, we further note that in reviewing commentary from the United Nations Human Rights Council, a number of NGOs such as Amnesty International, and sections of the media commentary on the 2014 Gaza Conflict, there are stark, unwarranted condemnations of the IDF’s conduct that do not accord with our own examination. We believe that where ideological motivation can be discounted, the principal reason for this disparity is the absence of the appropriate military and legal expertise and judgement in much of this commentary. Our concern with this matter stems primarily from an appreciation that the misapplication of outcome-based assessments made on the basis of incomplete information and incorrect interpretation of the laws and norms governing warfare pose a concern to all democratic nations.

Beyond that, the HLMG says (and provides documentation for) this:

It is further our view that in the overall conduct of its campaign, the IDF not only met its obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied its operation. In many cases where the fighting was concerned, this came at significant tactical cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules of Engagement and it is obvious that instances existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did not attack lawful military objectives on account of a deliberate policy of restraint. The IDF also used a number of highly innovative tactics over and above the necessities of the precautions required by the Law of Armed Conflict. It further used its formidable intelligence capability in an effort to contain its action as closely as possible to Hamas’s assets and protect the civilian population amid which these were purposely and unlawfully embedded. Intelligence is not infallible however, nor is it possible to preclude completely preclude civilian casualties through precautions enacted in compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict.

Critics will point out that this study was facilitated by the Friends of Israel Initiative and the director of that group - Rafael L. Bardají - is also one of the members of the HLMG, with the qualifications of being a former National Security Adviser in Spain and many other impressive achievements. But the other members of the group cannot be said to be biased; all have formidable experience in the military and in national defense for their respective countries. The report itself is detailed and does not have a whiff of bias in its presentation. But since Israel's critics have little to stand on, they will dismiss this because it is sponsored by a Zionist group, while pretending that Amnesty and HRW aren't biased.

I am unaware of anyone with significant military leadership experience who has criticized Israel's conduct in Gaza. (And, no, I don't include John Kerry in that category.)

He's smiling, so he must be tolerant

Ayman Odeh, leader of the Joint Arab List, is visiting America. The US media coverage has been positive about this would-be modern Martin Luther King.

The New York Times wrote:

A prominent Arab-Israeli member of Israel’s Parliament whose party alliance made strong gains in the last election expressed optimism on Wednesday about the future of a more inclusive Israeli democracy and the creation of a Palestinian state.

“We are living proof that Arabs and Jews can refuse to be enemies,” Mr. Odeh, 40, a lawyer from the northern city of Haifa who views the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as role models, said in an interview with The New York Times, speaking in a mix of English and Hebrew.

“There is no other solution” except a Palestinian state side by side with Israel, he said. “Israel cannot be a democracy if it occupies land of other people.”

Mr. Odeh also said that as a legislator, he would push for greater rights and improved livelihoods among his fellow Arab-Israelis, who are in many cases poorer and less educated than Israeli Jews.

Bloomberg reported:

Ayman Odeh, who has helped turn Israel’s marginalized Arab politicians into the third-biggest force in parliament, is preparing for his next campaign by visiting the U.S. this week and going to the church where Martin Luther King Jr. once preached.

With his native land suffering through a spasm of violence, Odeh has been seeking political support in Washington and New York, and spiritual nourishment in Atlanta. On Sunday, he attended services at Ebenezer Baptist Church where King and his father were pastors. He says he shares King’s goals: dialogue and civil rights.

“Even with all the difficulties, my dream is to strengthen the national conversation between citizens in the state of Israel -- Arabs and Jews together,” he said in an interview in Jerusalem.

Odeh presents himself as a new brand of Arab-Israeli politician, seeking to build equality rather than denigrate Israel. He speaks of fighting discrimination and building alliances, downplaying national security and foreign relations that accentuate the Arab-Jewish divide.

"There is no democracy with discrimination and those who want Israel to be a true democracy have to work for equality for the Arab minority in Israel," Odeh said in an interview in New York. "When we struggle for equality and rights, this is a struggle for democracy. This is a struggle for the common interest of all people."

Odeh said he is visiting the U.S., which he called "the most important place in the world," partly to appeal to U.S. Jews and their influence on Israeli public opinion as well as to explain the plight of Israeli Arabs.

"The Jewish American community has such a high moral standing," Odeh said. "They were the biggest supporters of the African-American civil rights movement." Then, citing a line from the Jewish liturgy, he said, "Justice, justice you shall pursue."

Then, this happened:

The chairman of the Joint (Arab) List MK Ayman Odeh refused to address the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Thursday, protesting the fact that the New York offices in which the meeting was to be held also housed the Jewish Agency and other Zionist organizations.

According to the meeting’s organizers, Odeh entered the building’s lobby, but refused to go in, citing the fact that the offices on the floor with the Conference of Presidents also housed the Jewish Agency — a quasi-governmental organization that the Arab List claims participates in discriminatory practices against Israeli Arabs and Palestinians.

“I came here to represent the Arab public in Israel to American audiences,” Odeh later recounted in a statement. “As their representative, I cannot in good conscience participate in meetings in the offices of organizations whose work displaces Arab citizens, just as in the Knesset, we do not participate in the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Ministry, and the Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption.”

“Throughout my visit to the United States, I have spoken with Jewish and Palestinian communities about the need for a joint struggle for our shared future, based on mutual respect and independence for both peoples,” he wrote in his statement. “The Conference of Presidents’ refusal to meet in any other location shows a deep lack of understanding and respect.”

633 3rd Avenue

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is headquartered at 633 3rd Avenue. So is the Jewish Agency and American Zionist Movement and the Union for Reform Judaism.

But so is the New York Job Development Authority, Consulate Generals of Switzerland and Afghanistan, a branch of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and of New York Sports Clubs, the NYC Office of the Governor of New York, and UNICEF-USA.

It is an office building!

Ayman Odeh's hate and intolerance is so extreme that he cannot bring himself to enter a building that includes Zionist groups (except the Knesset itself where he gains other benefits.) And his respect for Jews is so low that he insists that they move the entire meeting - in the name of respect.

For him.

The facade of a tolerant Arab leader willing to share his message of moderation and coexistence has been destroyed. To Odeh, "respect" is a one way street - only Arabs deserve respect. Jews are meant to be manipulated and bullied. Odeh speaks to the New Israel Fund and the Haaretz conference and other Jewish-heavy audiences only to fool them into believing that he is moderate by sprinkling in words like "Martin Luther King" and "democracy" and "tolerance" and "equality." He does not want dialogue; he demands a monologue - but he knows that many credulous Jews are willing to overlook his hate and intolerance as long as he uses the right language.

Arab politicians willing to cover over their hate with a message of liberalism is not a new phenomenon. But here we see the contrast between words and deeds on the same day.

Now, one would think that the story of such hypocrisy being revealed so deliciously by a politician would be like catnip for the media. But you would be wrong.

The only news outlets to cover the story of Odeh's hate and hypocrisy, a day after it happened, are Israeli and Jewish media. (JTA, which had a worshipful piece on Odeh a couple of days ago, covered the New York story as well.)

To the mainstream media outlets, the only message they want their audiences to read about is how an Israeli Arab leader is tolerant and peaceful. Odeh's actions contradict the narrative that they have built up, so it must be ignored. Words speak louder than actions when the words confirm your bias and the actions contradict them.

This isn't only a story about hypocrisy from an Arab leader. It is a story about how the media will choose the messages it gives and suppress those that it doesn't want anyone to know.

12/10 Links Pt2: Col. Kemp: The need for the closest friendship between Britain and Israel

From Ian:

Col Kemp: The need for the closest friendship between Britain and Israel

Ninety-eight years ago tomorrow (December 11) General Sir Edmund Allenby entered the Holy City after defeating the Ottoman forces in the Battle of Jerusalem. This was one of Britain’s great victories in the First World War and a much-needed uplift for our national spirit, reeling from the 300,000 casualties sustained in the Battle of Passchendaele in Belgium that ended the previous month.
This anniversary reminds us of the shared history and values of Britain and the State of Israel; and, with the perils we face in the world today, of the need for the closest friendship between our two countries.
According to Lieutenant General Sir George Macdonogh, director of British military intelligence during the Great War, Allenby’s conquest of Palestine in 1917 and 1918 was made possible by the Jewish intelligence network, Nili. Led by the distinguished botanist Aaron Aaronsohn and his sister Sarah, Nili took tremendous risks to pass vital information on the Turks to Allenby’s forces. Some, including Sarah, sacrificed their lives to help the British.
Within Allenby’s army was the Jewish Legion: the 38th, 39th and 40th Battalions of The Royal Fusiliers, which had been raised in the British Army to fight the Ottomans. Formed and led by British Christian officer Lieutenant Colonel John Patterson and Russian Zionist leader and soldier Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the Legion was made up of Jews from Britain, the US, Palestine, Russia, Canada, Argentina and the Ottoman Empire. They fought valiantly in battles to the north of Jerusalem and in the Jordan Valley.
The Jewish Legion was the first formed Jewish fighting force since the Maccabees, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called John Patterson the godfather of the IDF.

Gerald Steinberg: Amnesty International and the Tragedy of Human Rights Day

In the past year, Amnesty’s moral bankruptcy was further highlighted by exposure of wider connections to terrorists. In August, The Times (London) published a series of articles revealing that Yasmin Hussein, the NGO’s Director of Faith and Human Rights and formerly Director of International Advocacy, has links to the Muslim Brotherhood and possibly to Hamas. Hussein’s husband, Wael Mussabeh, holds a position in the Human Relief Foundation (HRF), a member of the Union of Good, an organization designated by the US and Israeli governments as involved in funding terror groups. Before working at Amnesty, Hussein was employed at Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), also banned by Israel in 2014 for its alleged financial connections to Hamas.
In addition, Amnesty’s lack of credibility in accusations and allegations of human rights violations and war crimes is increasingly visible. In 2015, the organization associated itself with a flashy project known as “forensic architecture” based on pseudo-scientific methodologies. In a series of publications, Amnesty officials marketed what they referred to as the Gaza Platform, an “online tool” that purports to “map Israeli attacks” during the 2014 conflict. A promotional video titled “CSI: Gaza” intersperses highly emotive images of dead children with shots of staffers purporting to be remotely “investigating” the Gaza “crime scene”.
However, the Gaza Platform provides no real evidence, relying exclusively on publications by Palestinian NGOs which themselves have no credibility, no independent verification capabilities, and often contradictory allegations. Information that is essential for the establishment of war crimes allegations – such as the location of enemy forces and military targets, nature of combat, and intelligence available to commanders at the time of the fighting – is entirely absent. And the “Gaza Platform” based on “forensic architecture” fails to mention more than 4,000 rocket attacks from Gaza. (This exercise in propaganda was funded by a European Research Council grant.)
In contrast, in many places where real atrocities and human rights violations are committed daily, such as in Syria and Iran, Amnesty is irrelevant. The limited human rights reporting that does take place is provided by local groups with much smaller budgets, and by people with more interest in the substance than in the public relations aspects.

EU Makes Up Bogus Laws to Target -- Guess Who?

Israel's occupation of the West Bank is fully legal under the terms of UN Resolution 242 (1967), which was carefully drafted to guarantee Israel's rights to remain there until such time as there is a "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
When the EU states that its aim is "to ensure the respect of Union positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the Union of Israel's sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967," it refuses to recognize the validity of UN Resolution 242, and it gives no proper explanation of what is meant by "sovereignty."
As only Israeli armed forces will be required to withdraw in the event that such boundaries are created, the presence of Israeli settlements there will remain legal under the terms of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which stipulates that there should be close Jewish settlement in all areas. Those Mandate provisions were incorporated in the UN Resolution 181, which established a Jewish and an Arab state.
The European Union has never demanded that China, Morocco, Russia, Pakistan or India -- all with territories under dispute -- label goods in ways like those demanded of Israel.
"The EU does not have a general set of rules for dealing with occupied territories, settlements or territorial administrations whose legality is not recognized by the EU. Rather, the EU has special restrictions aimed at Israel." -- Law Professors Eugene Kontorovich (Northwestern University) and Avi Bell (University of San Diego).

Chanukah Video Night 5: Lift Yourself Up (Shir Soul) + bonus: SAR Academy

Why are there so many acapella Jewish groups?

Bonus:

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

History stands at the beginning stages of Islam’s latest attempt to dominate the world.

That’s a very broad statement, of course. Do I mean political subjugation and occupation, as in the Arab conquests of the 7^th century? Do I mean some kind of ideological domination and political control, as with the Soviet empire?

Actually, both. Islam is both a religion and a political ideology, an ideology that is essentially expansionist, one that wants to expand dar al islam (the lands of Islam) at the expense of dar al harb (the lands of the sword; and they mean that literally). This struggle for domination, violent or not, is called ‘jihad’.

Is there a ‘radical Islam’ and a ‘moderate Islam’? Not really. To quote Turkish PM Erdoğan, “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Of course there are radical Muslims who try to achieve their goals by means of war or terrorism, and there are others that prefer more civilized means such as persuasion, propaganda, infiltration/subversion, migration, politics or demography. The latter are the ‘moderates’. But there are none who do not believe that it would be better if everyone in the world were Muslim.

There are two main headquarters of the worldwide jihad today: Iran and Saudi Arabia lead the Shia and Sunni factions respectively. Iran’s tactics are radical, including terrorism and war, while the Saudis are more moderate, mostly using their petrodollars to buy influence. There are also autonomous and semi-autonomous groups. The Islamic State (Da’esh) practices the most radical form of jihad, conquering territory by force and coercing the inhabitants to become Muslim by violent means (when they don’t just kill them for the effect).

While there are doctrinal disagreements between those waging jihad, most seriously between the Sunni and Shia branches, they often cooperate and support each other against their common enemies (Shia Iran helping Sunni Hamas is an example).

Although it’s impossible to find a single hand coordinating the worldwide jihad, we can see various tactics being applied in various places:

In Iraq and Syria, Da’esh and Iran are both attempting to conquer territory and subjugate the inhabitants by force.
In Israel (but also Europe and North America) terror groups are inciting ‘decentralized’ acts of violence, inspired and incited – but not directly controlled – by them. These are almost impossible for security forces to prevent, because the perpetrators (often young people) have no records and few direct connections to known organizations.
In Europe, the mass migration of Muslims, few of whom are actually ‘refugees’, is combined with murderous terrorism, both organized and spontaneous.
In the US, terrorism continues, much or all of it decentralized. In addition, tactics of infiltration, subversion and propaganda are employed to prevent the authorities from responding and to open the doors for additional migration. The very Muslim-friendly Obama Administration almost seems to be cooperating to facilitate the jihad.

Terrorism is the deliberate murder of noncombatants to achieve political goals. In this post, I would like to take a closer look at terrorism as a tactic of jihad.

How does stabbing a few Jews on the street or shooting up a concert or a meeting at a government agency advance the goal of jihad? Actually, quite a lot. Terrorism has multiple objectives:

It provokes responses from the authorities which can be used to justify more terrorism and to impugn the victim in world opinion.
It attracts attention to Muslim grievances and prompts concessions to them.
It intimidates the population. The psychological effect is to cause someone to seek safety for himself by identifying with the terrorists. Recent well-publicized terrorism in Paris and California coincided with a spike in Americans calling for an increase in immigration of Muslim ‘refugees’, and undoubtedly an increase in those seeking to convert to Islam, as happened immediately after 9/11. I can’t prove it, but I speculate that there is a connection.
It damages confidence in governments and authorities and destabilizes them. The pressure to “do something” about terrorism turns the public against their leaders.
It accumulates ‘honor’ for Muslims, who often feel that they have been humbled by Western colonialism and economic and technological superiority.
It encourages jihadists – violent and non-violent – to redouble their efforts.

In the case of Israel, jihadists believe that they can make life unpleasant enough for the Jewish ‘colonists’ to get up and ‘go back to where they came from’. This is a serious misunderstanding of Israeli attitudes, especially of those of Mizrachi descent, who are not prepared to go back to Morocco or Iraq, for example, or for those whose parents survived the Holocaust.

In the past, terrorism persuaded some Israeli politicians that they should make concessions to the Arabs, whom they foolishly expected to respond by stopping it. So the Oslo accords followed the first Intifada, and the withdrawal from Gaza (the ‘disengagement’) followed the second. Unfortunately, concessions only facilitated and encouraged more pressure and more terrorism.

The Israeli electorate has learned its lesson, and will not vote for this type of politician in the future. Somewhat ironically, since it is becoming generally known that the Palestinian Arab leadership is not interested in any outcome in which a Jewish state continues to exist, terrorism is less effective at extracting concessions to them.

Israelis are also much harder to intimidate than Europeans or Americans, since several generations have grown up with terrorism as a daily companion. Nevertheless, there are still some cases – especially in the shrinking Israeli Left – of the so-called “Oslo Syndrome,” which causes sufferers to internalize the anti-Jewish attitudes of their persecutors. For examples, see anything by Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz.

The recent wave of terrorism has definitely caused a great deal of criticism of the Netanyahu government, which has struggled to contain decentralized terrorism with little success. So in this respect, it is achieving its goal. On the other hand, nobody thinks the Opposition has any better ideas.

In Europe and the US, it seems that the use of terrorism to promote concessions and to intimidate has been much more effective. In Europe, political leaders have welcomed Muslim immigration and blamed Israel for Muslim terrorism. In the US, the Attorney General has suggested that the threat of a backlash against Muslims is more worrisome than that of actual Islamic terrorism (two words that the President is unable to bring himself to say).

The policies of the US and most European governments are inconsistent and ineffectual. They do not inspire confidence in their ability to overcome the Islamic jihad. In many cases they aren’t even able to define their problem and name their enemy.

Israel is on the ‘seam line’ between Islam and the West, and therefore is a prime target of terrorism. As I’ve suggested, Israel is the single nation best adapted to fight terrorism and to deal with its effects. But unfortunately its jihadist opponents have been remarkably successful with their propaganda aimed at Europe and the US, falsely portraying Israel as a colonialist oppressor, war criminal and apartheid state. Europeans and left-wing elements in the US (including the Obama Administration) have become convinced that Israel, rather than a bulwark against Islamic jihad, is a ‘problem’ that needs to be solved by forcing it to surrender to the jihadists.

As a result, Israel is unable to be a source of support for Europe and the US, and indeed needs to devote considerable resources to counteracting their efforts to push it into the hands of its enemies.

This is stupid, self-defeating behavior on their part. If the democratic West wants to survive, it must cooperate with all those who are also targets of the jihad, especially the one country that probably has the best intelligence in the region and the most experience in dealing with their common enemy.

Even if that country is the Jew among nations.

12/10 Links Pt1: Fatah official: Murderers of 4 are “giants and leaders”; Pres. Carter Banned Iranians

From Ian:

JCPA: Do Stabbing Attacks Constitute Terrorism?

It is curious to note that Sweden recently adopted a “New Swedish strategy against terrorism” as presented to the Swedish parliament by its minister for home affairs on August 28, 2015.
This strategy states:
Terrorism threatens international peace and security, national security and our fundamental rights and freedoms. Every year, numerous terrorist attacks are carried out around the world. Recent years have seen a sharp increase in problems related to foreign terrorist fighters and there is presently no indication that this trend will abate.
The strategy sets the goal of all counter-terrorism activities – to keep terrorist attacks from being carried out, including a specific reference for the need to prevent terror through influencing “the intent of individuals to commit or support terrorist crime”.
Clearly, stabbing attacks by individuals – even against Israelis – would enter within the need, as set out in the Swedish strategy against terrorism, to “Prevent, Preempt and Protect against such terror.”
Why did the Swedish leadership, while acknowledging the need to prevent individuals from carrying out acts of terror, nevertheless appear to have maintained such a blatant double-standard in denying that knife attacks by individuals against Israeli citizens could be acts of terror?
While any prime minister and foreign minister are human and may even make mistakes, one might assume that in any efficient governmental system, statements on major issues of a legal nature issued by senior governmental representatives, regarding actions of friendly states, would be based on accurate knowledge and awareness of the legal principles involved and devoid of partisan double-standards. It appears the Swedish government may be taking a crash course on these anti-terrorist principles.

PMW: Fatah official: “Whoever succeeded in killing, this is a big thing”

After mentioning by name two terrorists who in total murdered four Israelis, senior Fatah official Abbas Zaki praised all Palestinian attackers, and in particular those who succeeded to murder:
“Whoever succeeded in killing, this is a big thing, and whoever [was killed but] succeeded in at least scaring the Israeli pedestrian is also a Martyr.”[Official PA TV, Oct. 31, 2015]
According to Zaki, all those who attacked Israelis are “giants,” “leaders,” and “pioneers” and those who died attacking Israelis are “Martyrs.” Although terrorist Raed Jaradat did not “succeed” in killing anyone, but “only” stabbed and critically wounded an Israeli soldier, Zaki singled him out, stating that he is “just like” the murderers, i.e., just as honorable. Zaki exemplifies the PA policy Palestinian Media Watch has documented of turning terrorists into role models and heroes for society, stating that this stabber surely will have something named after him:
“I believe that, Allah willing, something will be built and named after him [Raed]. When Palestine is liberated, Allah willing, he will have at least an institution named after him, and a statue [made] of him.”

PMW: Rock-throwing dolls for Palestinian children misrepresented by PA

A container load of dolls holdings rocks in their raised hands (see picture above) and wearing Palestinian headscarves - keffiyehs - with the inscriptions "Jerusalem is ours" and "O Jerusalem, here we come" was intended for Palestinian Authority children to play with. However, the Israeli Customs Authority confiscated the dolls shipped from the United Arab Emirates as "inciting material" this week.
The official PA daily referred to the confiscation as the "Israeli war against children's dolls" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 9, 2015] and pretended the problem was the Palestinian headscarf: "Israel confiscated 4,000 dolls whose faces were covered with a Palestinian keffiyeh!" The paper did not mention the fact that the doll is positioned to throw a rock and is promoting child violence.
However, this reaction is not surprising as the rock-throwing doll fits nicely the hate and violence messages of PA children's education. Palestinian Media Watch has reported that a PA school recently honored and named a football tournament after a terrorist who stabbed and seriously injured two civilians. Similarly, Fatah official Tawfiq Tirawi praised his 2-year-old son for singing "Daddy, buy me a machine gun and a rifle, so that I will defeat Israel and the Zionists":

On Sunday I reported (for the second time) about the virulent antisemitism of the leader of the Palestinian Commission for Refugees Rights Protection and how that organization has been funded and/or supported by places like USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Anna Lindh Foundation, the UN Development Program and others.

Many of my readers wrote to these organizations. So far, only the National Endowment for Democracy has responded, and in fact NED's spokesperson pro-actively wrote to me as well. Here is her response:

Dear EoZ,

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been made aware of your recent blog post about the Palestinian Commission for Refugees Right Protection (PCRP) by some of your readers.

While we are working on a more thorough response, I did want to let you know that NED has not supported this group for several years. NED did provide 4 grants to this group from 2007 – 2011, and to the best of our knowledge, Dr. Gamal Abdel Nasser Mohammed Abu Nahel was not affiliated with the group during that period, and until your post, we knew nothing about him. I want to assure you that NED has zero tolerance for anti-Semitism or incitement to violence.

I will get back to you as soon as I can with a more detailed reply – but wanted it to be clear that NED has not provided support to this group since 2011.

Sincerely,

Jane Riley Jacobsen Senior Director, Public Affairs, National Endowment for Democracy

This is exactly what I predicted in my article. Here was my response:

Hi Jane,

I appreciate your response.

Given your past support, I think it would be appropriate for the NED to publicly (and privately) respond to this pattern of antisemitism at the PCRP by telling them that they cannot expect any future funding as long as Dr. Nahel is allowed to be part of that organization, and that this behavior is unacceptable.

I firmly believe that the only way to combat endemic antisemitism in the PA is to publicly denounce it, and as a former partner, NED has a chance to not only dissociate itself from the organization but to actively help fix the problem. For too long the media and NGOs have been treating this hate as "one of those things" and it is past time to demand the same accountability from the Palestinian side that would rightly be demanded from Israel. NED can be part of the solution.

Thanks again,

Elder

I have not seen any responses from USAID, Anna Lindh or UNDP. Please write to these organizations and demand answers as to why they support an antisemitic organization (the hateful articles are linked to from the PCRP's official Facebook page) and ask what they plan to do to counter it.