Friday, February 19, 2016

Australian Muslim MP, who called Israel lobby "cancerous," sues writer for calling him antisemitic

Can someone who criticizes Israel and Jewish supporters of Israel in harsh terms be called antisemitic? That question may go before the courts in Australia.

From The Guardian:

A defamation suit against News Corp journalist Sharri Markson by a New South Wales MP aims to test when criticism of Israel can be equated with antisemitism, according to a solicitor running the case.

Labor’s Shaoquett Moselmane will on Friday serve Markson, a senior writer with the Australian, with a statement of claim about a column published online on 2 February under the headline “ALP’s antisemitic views behind push for trip ban”. It ran in print on the same day under a different headline.

The piece highlighted a May 2013 speech by Moselmane in which he attacked the Australian’s coverage of Israel and Palestine, referring to a “political lobby group that is cancerous, malicious and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger”.

Markson wrote in February that Moselmane, the first Muslim MP in the state, had been referring to “Jewish advocacy groups” and said the speech was “racist commentary” that expressed “antisemitic sentiments”.

She was writing about a debate within the ALP over whether to ban study trips to Israel funded by Jewish organisations.

A letter of concern by Moselmane’s lawyer, Rick Mitry, said the Labor MP “opposes some policies of the government of Israel and some actions of the group that lobbies on Israel’s behalf”.

“But his views in this regard are entirely free of prejudice against or ill-feeling towards Jews,” he said.

Guardian Australia understands News Corp offered Moselmane a right of reply, which he declined. Mitry said the matter aimed to “test whether criticism of the Israeli government’s policies by anyone can be called antisemitic or racist, as often happens, and that’s why my client is pursuing this”.

The statement of claim, obtained by Guardian Australia, accuses Markson of saying or implying Moselmane was a racist, antisemite, “a hypocrite because he decries racism but holds racist views”, and deserved to be expelled from the NSW parliament.

The article he was referring to, which was an op-ed, said:

Jewish advocacy groups are “cancerous” and “malicious” and try to “deny, misinform and scaremonger”.

A NSW Labor politician voiced these incendiary words — the first NSW Muslim MP, in fact, Shaoquett Moselmane.

He didn’t utter them in the privacy of his own home. He felt comfortable enough broadcasting this anti-semitic sentiment within the walls of the NSW Parliament. This is terrifying in itself.

The MP, who ironically decried racism in his first speech to parliament, made the remarks just two years ago, in May 2013. He was not shouted-out of the high office he holds for racist commentary. On the contrary, Labor continues to support him and Moselmane is now a vocal advocate behind a push to ban Labor MPs from visiting Israel on trips funded by Jewish organisations.

A group Moselmane is aligned with, Labor Friends of Palestine, supports the ban on the trips while the Netanyahu government continues settlements, refuses a Palestinian state and “brutally mistreats Arab residents of the West Bank.”

This is one of 39 resolutions critical of Israel submitted to the NSW Labor conference this month.

By comparison, just 17 motions have been put forward that relate to other countries, including Iraq, Syria, China or Libya. There are none on Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Countries that kill women for adultery. That jail writers, like Raif Badawi, for supporting free-speech. That censor the news. That destroy ancient relics. That fund terrorists who kill innocent people as they go to the theatre or draw cartoons.

But no, NSW Labor is most worried about Israel, a tiny Jewish state. A democracy. A country that has lively political debate within its society and media. Where one of its mainstream newspapers, Haaretz, criticises the government daily. Where some of its population complain and campaign loudly about Netanyahu and illegal settlements.

Here is what Moselmane said about "Israel lobby" groups in context:

In a democratic country such as ours there are many ways in which people can express their views - the opportunities are wide open. I am a person who will not shy away from having my say. I will always say and do what is right, even in the face of the trash I have read in the Australian-Israeli media. One or two reporters writing in the Murdoch press - namely the Australian - have been attacking me and denying the truth of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and the killing and dehumanising of the Palestinian people. This is utter garbage. I accept the right of people to express their views, even when they are wrong, naive, ill-informed, indoctrinated and blinded by the power of a political lobby group that is cancerous, malicious, and seeks to deny, misinform and scaremonger. What I do take exception to is foreigners intervening in the right of Australian politicians to speak out. Therefore, I say to the Israeli ambassador, Yuval Rotem, 'Butt out and stay out. Your perceived right to bully as you do in the Middle East does not extend to the Australian political arena.'

Moselmane is echoing antisemitic stereotypes of a Jewish lobby and a Jewish stranglehold on the media - but he is careful to use the word "Israeli" instead of "Jewish" (as if The Australian is an Israeli paper!)

One person at least is not fooled by Moselmane's use of language to pretend to distance himself from antisemitic attitudes. That person is proud antisemite David Duke, who reported the 2013 story as "A Lebanese-born lawmaker in Australia has attacked the Jewish lobby in that nation as 'cancerous' and 'malicious.'" In other words, Moselmane knows that his fans will understand that he really means "Jews" when he says "Israelis."

This lawsuit will be quite interesting.

(h/t Joe)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Legal team demands IRS revoke tax exempt status of MSF for supporting Hamas

Israel advocate and New York lawyer David Abrams has filed a petition with the IRS demanding that they revoke the tax-exempt status of Doctors Without Borders (Medecins sans Frontieres USA) for supporting terror.

His argument is compelling.

Here is the letter sent in, accompanied with lots of documentation, much of it from the MSF website itself:

Dear Sir / Madam:

I am respectfully submitting this memorandum in support of an application on behalf of myself and Mr. Sam Abrams of Rochester, New York, for cancellation of the tax-exempt status of the above-referenced organization. I also enclose a completed IRS Form 13909. As set forth in more detail below, my research indicates that the above-referenced organization provides material support to terrorist organizations in violation of American law.

By way of background, Medecins sans Frontieres USA Inc. ("Doctors without Borders") is an organization which provides medical services in poor and conflict-ridden areas around the world. Although there are numerous organizations which provide similar services, Doctors without Borders is among the most prominent.

As set forth in the attached documents, Doctors without Borders has admitted on its own web sites to collaboration with Hamas in terms of provision of medical services. More specifically, Doctors without Borders admits to “collaboration” with the Palestinian Ministry of Health. See Exhibit A. Since this collaboration took place within Gaza, it necessarily refers to Hamas. See Exhibit B.

Similarly, Doctors without Borders admits on its web site that in 2013, it “started supporting the Ministry of Health on intensive care, by implementing training programmes for medical and paramedical staff.” See Exhibit C. (The "Nasser Hospital" referred to by this statement is located in Gaza.) Indeed, Doctors without Borders admits on its web site that in 2011 in Gaza it implemented a series of assessments in “partnership” with the Ministry of Health in Gaza. See Exhibit D. Another story from the Doctors Without Borders web site indicates that "worked with" the Ministry of Health to provide training at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza. See Exhibit E.

A lengthy article from a Doctors Without Borders-affiliated web site, attached hereto as Exhibit F, discusses the transition to Hamas rule in Gaza and how Doctors Without Borders ultimately decided to start collaborating with Hamas. (See page 3). Significantly the same article all but admits that the activities of Doctors Without Borders were in conflict with government policies against supporting terrorism:

The main institutional donors made funding for non-governmental organisations dependent on an undertaking not to enter into contact with Hamas, forcing some NGOs to limit or even suspend their activities. MSF, whose projects were financed from private funds, was not affected by these constraints . . . .

While it may be true that Doctors Without Borders is financed primarily from private funds, the fact is that as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization it in effect receives millions of dollars of subsidies every year from the United States government. In any event, the law is clear that a 501(c)(3) organization must be operated "exclusively" for charitable purposes. This obviously excludes providing material support to terrorist organizations in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2339B.

Although Doctors Without Borders would no doubt argue that its activities are strictly humanitarian and therefore do not constitute unlawful material support for terrorism, this argument was decisively rejected by the Supreme Court in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) which held that even humanitarian assistance to terrorist organizations violates the statute. Although the statute contains exceptions for food and medical supplies, there is no exception for medical training or medical services. This is entirely consistent with the holding of Holder, since by acting as Hamas' health service provider, Doctors Without Borders frees up resources which can be used for Hamas' direct and regular attacks on civilians in both Israel and Gaza.

As noted above, it is axiomatic that a 501(c)(3) organization’s activities must be exclusively for charitable purposes; openly supporting terrorist organizations cannot be reconciled with this requirement. And of course Hamas has been a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since October 8, 1997.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Commissioner investigate Doctors without Borders and revoke its status as a charitable organization.

This is worth watching closely.

(h/t Irene for Holder link)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

EoZTV Live 2/18

Chat Software

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/18 Links Pt2: Majoring in Anti-Semitism at Vassar; Ban Ki-Moon’s Obsession with Israel

From Ian:

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed: “Majoring in Anti-Semitism at Vassar”

Wild charges against Israel have often been aired on U.S. campuses over the past several years, and their moral perversity pointed out. But Ms. Puar’s calumnies reached a new low. She spoke of Jews deliberately starving Palestinians, “stunting” and “maiming” a population. The false accusation that a people, some of whose members were experimented on at Auschwitz, are today experimenting on others is a disgrace.
Yet characterizing Israel and Zionism in ways that anti-Semites formerly characterized Jews has become a stock in trade among anti-Israeli activists on college campuses. And it exposes the real motivation of those who profess to criticize only the Israeli government’s policies with regard to the West Bank, not Jews themselves.
Now there is a resolution before the Vassar student union, in part seeking a boycott of Ben & Jerry’s, on the grounds that the company—founded by two Jews—sells ice-cream “transported on Jewish-only roads to be sold in Jewish-only settlements.” This is part of a broader divest-from-Israel resolution to be voted on this spring, which also includes other U.S. companies.
These events are transforming a prestigious institution into a parody ripe for ridicule—a place embarrassing to prominent alumni and worrisome for prospective Jewish students.

Jews know that a boycott is just the beginning

BDS claims it protests against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, and models itself on the anti-apartheid boycott of South Africa.
But polls show that the Jewish community believes it to constitute anti-Semitism. Why?
First, BDS aims to eradicate Israel completely – its founder, Omar Barghouti, openly declared that “we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine”.
Second, the boycotters target the Jewish state alone. BDS does not go after any other liberal democracy or British ally, let alone any dictatorship; only Israel, the Jew among nations.
Third, wherever BDS surfaces, it is accompanied by harassment of Jews – whether it’s Jewish students who retreat from campus life for fear of intimidation, or kosher food being forcibly removed from supermarket shelves, or Jewish trade union members who see their unions become vehicles for anti-Jewish hate, or a Jewish-American reggae performer being booted from a music festival.
Fourth, anyone remotely sensitive to Jewish history will know that boycotts have been the instrument of Jewish persecution for a millennium. The last century taught the Jews full well that what begins with a boycott by a few thugs or unknown academics does not end there. If “never again” is to mean anything, it is that BDS cannot be tolerated in a decent and civilised society.

PMW: Fatah draws map of "Palestine" with blood of terrorist

Abbas' Fatah and the Palestinian Authority never miss an opportunity to demonstrate to their people that their vision of "the State of Palestine" encompasses all of Israel, leaving little meaning to Abbas' claim that he accepts the two-state solution, which he repeats when addressing international forums.
Illustrating "Palestine's" borders, Fatah's official Facebook page sported the macabre photo above, of a dying terrorist and her trickling blood, with the text:
"This is the blood that drew the borders of the State of Palestine" [Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 14, 2016]
The photo-shopped image shows the shape of the map of "Palestine" including the PA areas as well as all of Israel, formed by the blood of terrorist Yasmin Al-Zaru Tamimi, a 20-year-old female terrorist, who was shot when she tried to stab an Israeli soldier near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron on Feb. 14, 2016. Part of the map is her actual blood, while some was added to the photo. Tamimi later died of her wounds in an Israeli hospital.

"Apartheid?" poster: Ayoob Kara

Latest in the series. I can't believe I hadn't made one for him yet.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

This may be the worst short-term consequence of the Iranian nuclear deal of all:

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan is on a two-day tour of Moscow to meet with his counterparts about the signing of a new $8 billion arms contract, according to Iran’s state-controlled media.

Iranian leaders are said to have provided Russia with what they call a “shopping list” of various arms and military hardware. The visit by Dehghan is expected to “speed up a number of key arms deal[s]” between the countries, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

Iran wants to purchase more sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems and also a new cadre of warplanes, according to the report. The new deals will be in addition to several outstanding arms and military contracts that have already been signed between Iran and Russia.

The troubling part is not that Iran will improve its military capabilities, although of course that will happen in a few years as the arms are delivered and integrated into the Iranian forces. But it’s what happens tomorrow which is worrisome: Iran becomes Russia’s best customer in a very profitable industry.

The same will be true of other countries. Germany and France sent delegations to Iran for dealmaking before the ink on the deal was dry (except that there wasn’t any ink – nothing has been signed except the various documents required to free up at least $100 billion in frozen Iranian funds and to remove sanctions on Iran’s oil industry). Iran is also expected to buy weapons from China. These deals will give Iran the ability to pressure its suppliers for political favors.

I’ve argued that Israel needs to reduce its dependence on the US for military hardware and should develop relationships with countries like Russia, China and (as Caroline Glick recently suggested) India. But this will be more difficult if it becomes important to those countries to keep the Iranian regime happy. It’s already happening:

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday called for establishing a Palestinian state within the pre-1967-war borders amid efforts by Beijing to assert its economic and political clout in the Middle East.

Addressing the Cairo-based Arab League, Xi said the Palestinian problem "should not be marginalized."

"China supports the peaceful process in the Middle East [and] the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital being eastern Jerusalem," he added through an interpreter. …

The Chinese president had arrived in Egypt Wednesday as part of a regional tour that has already taken him to Saudi Arabia.Iran will be the final stop in his three-nation trip. [my emphasis]

The relationship between Israel and the US, which seems to be getting worse all the time, may suffer even more. Recently, the huge General Electric Company sent the head of its oil and gas division to Iran to explore business opportunities.

In international business/politics, the customer is always right – and the big customer gets big influence. Usually it’s expressed by behind-the-scenes lobbying, but in 1973 oil companies doing business in the Arab world went public, with Texaco, Chevron, and Mobil all publicly calling for a change in US Middle East policy.

After the war began, the oil companies lobbied US President Nixon against resupplying Israel (fortunately, fearing that Israel in extremis would be driven to use nuclear weapons, he did not follow their advice). Will GE and other American companies be pressured to support Iranian goals once commerce with Iran becomes an important part of their business? How could they not?

Under the present addict/pusher arrangement, Israel lacks the leverage it would get if there were competition for its business. Israel receives military aid from the US and then is required to use it to buy arms from US companies (and not only weapons – things like boots, which once were produced by Israeli businesses, are imported from the US).

It doesn’t have clout with the Americans either. For example, Israel wanted access to the source code for the F-35’s computer systems, so that it could modify and improve it. The US refused. Not only does this significantly slow the process of integration of the new aircraft with Israel’s systems, but it raises the specter of possible ‘back doors’ into the code which might enable the US to track or even force the plane down.

Think about it. How hard would it be to implant a routine in the aircraft’s software that would provide a position report to an American satellite every few seconds? What if the airborne computer could receive a command to disable certain weapons systems? Or the engine? Or even be instructed to do so automatically when, say, the Iranian border is crossed? This isn’t science fiction — it’s a lot easier than many of the things a flight computer has to do.

After the Iran deal was signed, the administration promised Israel that it would be “compensated” with additional aid. Israel wanted to use it to buy F-15SE aircraft and bunker busters, but according to Caroline Glick, the US refused and told it to buy more F-35s instead.

Iran has been given multiple gifts by the Obama Administration, from billions of dollars up front to permission to ultimately build nuclear weapons (and the de facto ability to build them now without getting caught). It was considered Israel’s number one threat even before the deal, and the deal only made it stronger, militarily, politically and psychologically.

Israel, on the other hand, has been hamstrung by the US. The administration interferes when Israel is forced to defend itself from attack by the Iranian proxies on its borders, prevents it from obtaining the weapons it would need to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, subjects it to constant diplomatic pressure over the Palestinian issue, and now – with the recent decision to enforce a rule demanding special labeling for goods produced over the Green Line – joins Europe in encouraging BDS, in practice if not in words.

$3 billion is a lot of money, but unlike the $100 billion that the nuclear deal has made available to Iran, it comes with so many strings attached that we would be better off without it.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/18 Links Pt1: Have the Palestinians Renounced the Peace Process?; PA blames UK for conflict

From Ian:

Amb. Alan Baker: Have the Palestinians Renounced the Peace Process?

Thus, this official announcement by the Palestinian foreign minister ending, to all intents and purposes, any continuation of a negotiated peace process between the Palestinians and Israel, should logically be treated by leaders of the US, the EU, the UN and by other major international elements as a resounding and shocking volte-face by the Palestinians. It should be considered to be a clear violation of all Palestinian commitments so far, and possibly as a fundamental breach of the Oslo accords, by frustrating any possible return to negotiations.
It cuts through and undermines all the various UN, EU and other resolutions urging the parties to return to negotiations. It represents a clear slap in the face to all those senior politicians, foreign ministers, parliaments and others who repeatedly blame Israel for impeding the negotiation process.
This statement basically endorses what has, in practice, become the accepted policy of the Palestinian leadership, of encouraging anything other than direct negotiation, in the hope that the French, the US, the EU and the UN might bully Israel into accepting Palestinian dictates and impose a solution without taking into consideration Israel’s own legal, political, security and historical rights and needs.
One might presume that all those senior politicians and foreign ministers who consider themselves involved in the Middle East peace process – and especially US Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini – will express their immediate indignation and objection to this statement by the Palestinian foreign minister.
One might hope that they will demand some solid, public reassurance by the Palestinian leadership that the Palestinians have not given up the option to solve the dispute through negotiation.
Is this too much to hope for?

The UN Spends Millions on Anti-Israel Propaganda Every Year. Here’s What We Can Do About It.

The Palestinian People Committee’s report to the General Assembly for its 2015 activities tells you all you need to know about how anti-Israel bias works its way through the U.N. system. Inter alia, we learn that one “Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,” delivered a lecture as part of the “International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.” We are told about the economic costs of the “occupation,” but the rife corruption in the Palestinian Authority that has eaten billions of dollars in aid money isn’t mentioned. At another point, we are informed that calculating the “occupation’s cost” is “complex and multidimensional, requiring expertise in economics, law, history, and politics.” Preferably acquired at the Kim Il Sung University in Pyongyang, I’ll wager.
These and similar ignominies are documented on a regular basis by U.N. Watch, which also reports diligently on those human rights crises ignored by the U.N. But what hasn’t yet happened is an international discussion about the future of the Palestinian People Committee and its associated bodies.
Hence my suggestion. Since the U.N. doesn’t like abolishing existing committees, why not replace the Palestinian People Committee with another body dedicated to all stateless nations and minorities? That would include the Palestinians, but also the Kurds, the Sahrawis, and the Tibetans. It would underline international awareness of vulnerable minorities like the Yazidis in the Middle East. And it could avoid political controversies by focusing on education and human rights.
True, this new committee would carry its own set of problems, whatever final form it takes: nothing is ever easy at the U.N. But democratic member states need to understand that as long as the bodies dedicated to anti-Israel propaganda remain active within the U.N. structure, very little is going to change. Are we going to have this same conversation for the next 50 years?

France's Relentless Hostility to the Jewish State

France today is one of the main enemies of Israel -- maybe its main enemy -- in the Western world. France's disregard of the threats faced by Israel is more than simple willful blindness. It is complicity.
At a time when Mahmoud Abbas constantly encourages terror and hatred against Israel, and when murders of Israeli Jews by Palestinian Arabs occur on a daily basis, France's anti-Israel relentlessness can only be seen as the latest extension of France's centuries-old anti-Semitism.
France's "Arab policy" has gone hand-in-hand with a massive wave of Muslim immigration. France has quickly become the main Muslim country in Europe. More than six million Muslims live in France, and make up approximately 10% of the population. The Muslim vote is now an important factor in French politicians' decisions; the risk of Muslim riots is taken into account.

Sinkholes and landslides in Gaza because of all the tunnels being flooded by Egypt (photos)

The Rafah Municipality Facebook page has some stunning photos of sinkholes and landslides in Gaza which they blame on Egypt for pumping seawater into the moat along the border.

Of course, the only reason that there would be so many sinkholes is because there were so many tunnels to smuggle goods, weapons and people. Chances are that there are tunnels underneath each of these sinkholes.

Rafah used to be flush with money because of the illegal smuggling going on under its houses.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Here is the press release by the UK government saying that boycotting Israel by public institutions is illegal. They are simply highlighting existing laws and agreements that make all boycotts of countries under the WTO illegal.

Notably, the press release explicitly says that the boycotts pushed by the BDS movement are "fuelling anti-Semitism."

Note also that the same press release also reiterates support for labeling all goods from the territories:

Guidance published today makes clear that procurement boycotts by public authorities are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the government.

Town hall boycotts undermine good community relations, poisoning and polarising debate, weakening integration and fuelling anti-Semitism.

Locally imposed boycotts can roll back integration as well as hinder Britain’s export trade and harm international relationship.

All contracting authorities will be impacted by this new guidance including central government, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies, the wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Any public body found to be in breach of the regulations could be subject to severe penalties.

The World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement – an international market access agreement – requires all those countries that have signed up to the Agreement to treat suppliers equally. This includes the EU and Israel. Any discrimination against Israeli suppliers involving procurements would therefore be in breach of the Agreement.

The guidance published today complements existing government guidance about trading or investing overseas (including with Israel), where we advise UK businesses to consider any potential legal and economic risks of doing so. It is also in line with the government’s existing policy of support for clear and transparent labelling of settlement products to ensure that individual consumers are able to make informed choices before they buy.

Cabinet Office Minister, Matthew Hancock said:

We need to challenge and prevent these divisive town hall boycotts. The new guidance on procurement combined with changes we are making to how pension pots can be invested will help prevent damaging and counter-productive local foreign policies undermining our national security.

We support UK local authorities, businesses and individual consumers alike in making informed choices about how they procure services and products from overseas.

Here are the actual guidelines that were issued, which do not mention Israel at all:

Procurement Policy Note: Ensuring compliance with wider international obligations when letting public contracts
Information Note 01/16 17th February 2016

Issue

1. This PPN sets out contracting authorities’ international obligations when letting public contracts. It makes clear that boycotts in public procurement are inappropriate, outside where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government.

Dissemination and Scope

2. This PPN is directly applicable to all contracting authorities, including Central Government, Executive Agencies, Non Departmental Public Bodies, wider public sector, local authorities and NHS bodies. Please circulate this document (for information) within your organisation, including where relevant to Executive Agencies and Non Departmental Public Bodies and other contracting authorities for which you are responsible, drawing it to the attention of those with a purchasing role.

Advice

3. The UK has a longstanding and widely accepted policy that applies to all public contracts, of ensuring value for money in public procurement, as set out in HMT's Managing Public Money. Value for money is defined as securing the best mix of quality and effectiveness for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. That definition has recently been updated to make clearer that the key factor is whole life cost, not necessarily the lowest purchase price.

4. Further, wider policy objectives (such as economic or employment-related considerations) can be pursued through the procurement process where they are linked to the subject-matter of the contract. The new Public Contract Regulations (PCR) 2015 also provide flexibility for authorities to take account of wider matters in the procurement process, such as social and environmental factors. Contracting authorities may apply these flexibilities where relevant, ensuring always that all suppliers are treated equally and without discrimination.

5. The UK's regime of procurement rules (the PCR 2015), derives largely from the EU procurement directives and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) - an international market access agreement. These rules impose a legal obligation on public authorities when awarding contracts above certain thresholds to treat EU and GPA 2 suppliers equally, and not discriminate by, amongst other things, favouring national suppliers. There are remedies available through the courts for breaches of these rules, such as damages, fines and ineffectiveness (contract cancellation). The European Commission can also bring legal proceedings against the UK Government for alleged breaches of EU law by a UK contracting authority. This can lead to formal action being required to rectify the breach, and substantial fines against the Government. The Government will always involve the relevant contracting authority in these proceedings.

6. Suppliers from "third countries" (which are neither part of the EU, nor the GPA or other international free-trade agreements with the EU) do not enjoy access to our remedies system if they are discriminated against. However, third country suppliers could, potentially, offer the best value for money outcome, so the UK Government expects that its authorities will deal with bids from such third countries in the same way as EU or GPA countries.

7. Public procurement should never be used as a tool to boycott tenders from suppliers based in other countries, except where formal legal sanctions, embargoes and restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government. There are wider national and international consequences from imposing such local level boycotts. They can damage integration and community cohesion within the United Kingdom, hinder Britain’s export trade, and harm foreign relations to the detriment of Britain’s economic and international security. As highlighted earlier, it can also be unlawful and lead to severe penalties against the contracting authority and the Government.

Contact
8. Enquiries about this PPN should be directed to the Crown Commercial Service Helpdesk (telephone 0345 410 2222, email info@crowncommercial.gov.uk)

The PLO is furious, and is using the "peace process" that they oppose as a reason to boycott Israel:

“This policy puts the UK in the position of defending Israel’s occupation, expansion, racism and colonialism,” said Husam Zomlot, ambassador-at-large for the Palestinian leadership.

"It is a bullet at the heart of peacemaking because peace will only come when Israel is under pressure and feels consequences for its illegal actions."

That is the entire PLO foreign policy message in a single sentence. They have no responsibilities, only rights, including many that no one else has.

Peace-seeker Zomlot likes analogies to bullets, because he also told Financial Times "This is a bullet at the very heart of a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East and the very heart of democracy in Britain."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Palestinian national football team is named "Fedayeen" - after terrorists who murdered hundreds

Yesterday, the Palestinian national soccer team defeated the Algerian team, 1-0, in front of a reported 75,000 fans. For those who are interested, here was the winning goal:

The name of the Palestinian team?

The Fedayeen.

The fedayeen were the terrorists who murdered hundreds of Jews in the 1950s and 1960s, and some groups under that category continued to kill Israelis through the second intifada.

Effectively, the PLO has named its national soccer team "the terrorists."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

EoZTV Livecast

Here's a video of the live broadcast of EoZTV. You can skip the first minute as I get things up and running.

This is the chatroom we used. I might keep it for next time.

Chat Software

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/17 Link Pt2: Israel’s Legitimacy is not dependent on a Palestinian State, or NY Times

From Ian:

Israel’s Legitimacy is not dependent on a Palestinian State, or The NY Times

We hear from critics of Israel that Israel needs a two-state solution to be legitimate.
Without a Palestinian state, the argument goes, Israel will rule over millions of resentful Palestinians to whom it will have to deny their basic rights in order to maintain its Jewish nature. Or if Israel enfranchises the Palestinians, they could overwhelm the Jews with their votes and then Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. So the reasoning goes, without a separate Palestinian state, Israel will either cease being Jewish or democratic.
But there was already a separation achieved in 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords.
By the end of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from the major population areas in the West Bank, leaving over 90% of Palestinians under the political control of the Palestinian Authority. In 2005, Israel “disengaged” from Gaza ending the occupation of that territory.
On the political front, Yasser Arafat rejected a two state solution from then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. In 2008 Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas rejected a peace deal from then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Two years ago, Abbas rejected a framework agreement that current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had reluctantly agreed to.
So the problem isn’t the occupation but what the Palestinians have done or haven’t done with the opportunity.
By focusing strictly on Israel, the peace processors have absolved the Palestinians of any responsibility for their own plight. Worse, by making Israel responsible, they give the Palestinians the ability to determine Israel’s legitimacy.

Jewish star of Scandinavian BBC crime drama The Bridge reveals he quit the show because he was fed up with filming in 'anti-Semitic' Malmo

Danish actor Kim Bodnia has revealed that one of the reasons why he quit hit show The Bridge was because as a Jew he did not feel safe working in Sweden.
Bodnia played detective Martin Rohde in two seasons of the Scandi-crime show, but after first signing up for a third, he later dropped out.
The 50-year-old had previously cited issues with the script, but has now said his departure was also caused by of the rise of anti-Semitism in Sweden.
The Bridge is filmed on both sides of the Oresund - in Denmark and Sweden - and its first two seasons starred Bodnia as Rodhe, and Sofia Helin as the socially awkward Swedish detective Saga Noren.
Despite initially signing up to return as Rohde in season three, Bodnia later announced he was quitting the show in 2014.
Bodnia made the controversial comments during an interview for Israeli TV where he spoke about why he left The Bridge.
After initially explaining that the changes made to the script and lack of influence on it as an actor was the main reason, he is then asked about anti-Semitism in Scandinvia.
‘It [anti-Semitism] is growing, especially in Malmo where we shot the Bridge in Sweden,' he told Channel 10. (h/t Zvi)

The Ambassador From Hell?

Yet there were—and are—clearly other options. In A Problem From Hell, Power suggests that the United States “should set up safe areas to house refugees and civilians, and protect them with well-armed and robustly mandated peacekeepers, airpower, or both.” Lots of people did argue for a no-fly zone or buffer zone to protect Syrians fleeing from Assad’s killing machine. But the White House said no. Mighty Syrian air defenses were too much for the U.S. air force, said former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.
There was a time when virtually all of Obama’s national security staff advocated arming the rebels to take down Assad. The president was against it. He derided the opposition. As he told Thomas Friedman in August 2014, “This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.” But the reality is that those doctors, farmers, and pharmacists are still out in the field, and might already have stopped the genocide against them on their own, if the president of the United States had been moved to help them help themselves.
Last week John Kerry blamed members of the anti-Assad opposition for walking away from the negotiating table at Geneva, even as Aleppo was being bombed by Russian planes. He told them to expect another three months of bombing, which, he said, would “decimate” them. When the opposition petitioned Kerry to do more, he replied: “Don’t blame me, go and blame your opposition.” Then he continued: “What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia?” This represents something new in the history of American acquiescence to genocide, and something not even Power documented in her handbook—a U.S. official demanding pity from the victims of a genocide whose suffering he thinks can be alleviated by surrendering to the people who are killing them.
The entire White House, from the president on down, is complicit in the crimes that Power tweets about. As the person who quite literally wrote the book on how the American superpower must stop genocides when it has the power to do so, why hasn’t she resigned? Maybe genocide isn’t actually that important after all, when measured against things like a trade deal with Asia. Perhaps, like the predecessors she describes in her book, she “assumed that U.S. policy was immutable, that their concerns were already understood by their superiors, and that speaking (or walking) out would only reduce their capacity to improve the policy.” Power’s book was taken at the time of its publication as a powerful warning against the moral price that our country pays for such delusional rationalizations. It will be hard to read it the same way again.

Clifford D. May: Bystanders to genocide

One must wonder: Is Ambassador Power asking herself that question now that she's a key figure in an administration that for five years has been choosing to look away from the carnage in Syria and hardly mentioning -- much less taking steps to "mitigate and prevent" -- what history is likely to record as the genocide of Middle Easter Christians?
On the same day last week that the Syrian Center for Policy Research released its report on the death toll, American, Russian and other diplomats meeting in Munich agreed to a "cessation of hostilities" that is to begin within a week. Critics say it will allow Assad and his allies to consolidate their recent gains and prepare for further advances.
We should hope the critics are wrong. But by now we also should have learned that the Russians and Iranians do not see diplomacy as does Obama. They are not trying to "get to yes," find "win-win" compromises or achieve "conflict resolution." Sparing innocent lives is certainly not a priority. To them, diplomacy is war by other means, and wars are for winning.
As they see it, Americans in recent years have been defeated in one diplomatic battle after another -- by North Koreans, by Cubans, by Iran's revolutionary jihadis. They expect to build on this trend. A convincing argument that they're wrong would be challenging to mount.

"Apartheid?"poster - Makram Khoury

Latest in the series:

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

"Got A Shoehorn? I Gotta Fit A Story Into The Anti-Israel Narrative" (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Got A Shoehorn? I Gotta Fit A Story Into The Anti-Israel Narrative

By Luke Baker, Reuters

I seem to have misplaced my shoehorn. That’s going to make it more difficult to force the story I have to report to fit the familiar assumptions of Israel-bad, Palestinians-good. Not impossible, mind you, but more difficult. Do you happen to have a shoehorn you can spare, just for an hour or so? I'll give it right back.

An eraser might do for some types of adjustment to fit the narrative, yes, but that risks leaving too many gaping holes in the story, and that would be simply unprofessional. A reporter of my credentials knows better than to make glaring omissions that only make the reader wonder whether more than meets the eye is going on, instead of accepting the framing of the event as yet another iteration of Israeli brutality and noble Palestinian victimhood. We cannot have that. It would undermine decades of careful adherence to that line. So please, have you got maybe a crowbar?

A chisel might do, as well, or a reasonably firm spatula. Just something to help wedge the facts into the comfortable confines of Israeli repression and honorable Palestinian resistance. Of Israeli censorship and beleaguered journalists putting up a brave fight to report the truth. Of sinister Israeli racism and liberal Palestinian values. Perhaps a hammer? I suppose it’s not strictly necessary to wedge the facts into the narrative – it might be possible to just keep smashing them into the form I want them. Crude, but effective.

Another possibility would be to use the right kind of industrial lubricant, and have the story slide more easily into the preconceived anti-Israel pattern. Some of the more reputable agencies do that, but with deadline pressures it's not always possible to achieve the proper results in time. With longer feature pieces, for example, a dose of fragrant essential oils, and you can massage that baby until it slides right into the existing prejudices.

Still, I prefer the simple elegance of a shoehorn, be it of the standard or longer variety. It makes the bias so much more subtle and deniable than the brute force of a hammer, but still provides a reasonable way to accomplish the distortion quickly enough to meet the pressures of a minute-to-minute breaking news cycle. So have you got one?

Oh, just a butcher's knife? No worries, Muhammad. That will do just fine. I'll give it right back to you when I'm finished. Then you can go on your way toward Damascus Gate.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/17 Link Pt1: Why the Palestinians Say Never; Nasrallah Threatens Haifa Chemical Facility

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinian Leaders: Who Are They Fooling?

For Abbas and the Palestinian leadership, the death of more than 170 Palestinians and 26 Israelis in the past five months occurred in the context of a "popular and peaceful uprising." One can only imagine what the uprising would have looked like had it not been "peaceful."
Abbas assured his people that those who die defending their holy sites would go straight to heaven. "Every drop of blood that is spilled in Jerusalem is pure blood," he stressed.
According to the Palestinian Authority, these youths are acting out of despair -- over settlements, checkpoints and lack of progress in the peace process. The attackers are in fact targeting Jews because they have been incited and brainwashed by the same leaders who are now denouncing Israel for protecting itself.
Not a single senior Palestinian official has condemned the targeting of innocent civilians in this "peaceful" uprising. They are too busy glorifying the assailants and naming streets after them.
The blood of the Palestinians who are being shot and killed while attacking Jews is on the hands of Abbas and his senior officials.

Why the Palestinians Say Never

While the PA has at times spoken of being willing to make peace but its leader Mahmoud Abbas has always made it clear that he will never recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Moreover, the PA is locked in a deadly competition with Hamas, which is more open about its true intentions. Hamas regards all of Israel as “occupied territory” that must be liberated. As studies have illustrated, that is more in line with the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Palestinians. Most Palestinians share Hamas’s belief that the Jews have no right to a single inch of the country and believe all acts of terror against Jews — even the most heinous crimes against helpless innocents — are praiseworthy. For over 100 years, Palestinian nationalism has been inextricably linked to conflict with the Jews and, until a critical mass of them adopts some other approach to identity, peace isn’t possible.
What this adds up to is a situation that puts Abbas and any potential successor (he is currently serving the 11th year of the four-year-term to which he was elected in 2005) in the same boat that his predecessor Arafat claimed to be in Camp David in 2000. Neither Arafat nor Abbas believed they could ever sell a peace deal to their people — let alone their Hamas foes — if it meant ending the century-long war against Zionism.
So while the Palestinians say they will “never” go back to negotiations because they believe they can’t get a good deal, their real reason is just the opposite. If, as happened in 2000, 2001 and 2008, they engage in talks, their greatest fear is getting a very good deal that will give them statehood and independence. Their goal is to avoid negotiating because getting to yes with Israel would actually mean peace. And that is something they cannot do until a sea change in their political culture happens. Though when most people say the word never, they mean something very different, in this case, the Palestinian never may very well mean never.

Defiant Israeli Owner of Ohio Restaurant Attacked by Machete-Wielding Assailant Says He Will Now Wear Star of David

The owner of the Columbus, Ohio restaurant in which four people were wounded in a machete attack last week said he will not let the incident deter his support for Israel, The Washington Post reported.
Hany Baransi, a Christian Arab from Haifa, displays an Israeli flag in the window of his restaurant, Nazareth Mediterranean Cuisine, which has been open for 27 years. When asked if he would consider removing the flag as a precaution, Baransi rejected the idea.
“Actually I have another flag, and I am going to get a bigger flag, and I am going to get a Star of David necklace and put it on my chest, and I am going to get a tattoo,” he said. “Honest to God, I am not kidding. They don’t scare me. We are Israelis. We are Israelis. We are resilient, we fight back.”
Though authorities initially said they believed that the attacker, Somali immigrant Mohamed Barry, terrorized the restaurant randomly, new information has surfaced making it seem likely that it was targeted because of Baransi’s being Israeli, according to The Washington Post.
Baransi said that half an hour before the attack, the assailant asked a waiter where the owner was from, and she told him he was from Israel. The attacker, 30, then left the eatery after learning that Baransi was not on the premises. He returned 30 minutes later wielding a machete and slashing diners.