Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Hate for Israel wasn't enough to keep Roger Waters and Rula Jebreal together

But they look so perfect together!

From the Page Six gossip column of the New York Post:

New York’s “Palestinian Power Couple” is no more: Pink Floyd legend Roger Waters, a vocal critic of Israel, has split with Palestinian journalist and author Rula Jebreal.

Pink Floyd rocker Waters, 73, and Jebreal, 43, had been dating for a few months earlier this year, in the aftermath of Waters’ split with his fourth wife, Laurie Durning, Page Six exclusively revealed.

Their relationship became the talk of the Hamptons — where Waters owns two homes — because both are outspoken supporters of Palestinian rights. Waters is a supporter of a boycott of Israel and has likened treatment of Palestinians to apartheid South Africa, sparking criticism from the pro-Israel lobby. Likewise, Jebreal is an articulate critic of Israel and has written three books, including “Miral” — about women caught in the crossfire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — which was made into a movie by her ex, the famed artist Julian Schnabel.

A source had told us of Waters and the beautiful Jebreal’s relationship, “It is the talk of the Hamptons, and some people are calling them the ‘Palestinian power couple.’ One can only imagine the pillow talk.”

But another source now tells us, “It was over as quickly as it began — while they agreed on many issues, they couldn’t find common ground on others. Plus, their families didn’t get along.”

Ironically, Jebreal and Waters got to know each other after they were introduced by his ex-wife Durning and Jebreal’s now ex-husband, biotech entrepreneur Arthur Altschul Jr.

To the shock of both their exes, they then started a relationship. “It was very weird for their former spouses, who introduced them . . . Rula had asked to meet Roger because he’s a vocal activist for Palestine. The two former couples have had dinner together many times. They were all friends.”

The source continued, “But after Roger split with his wife, he began an affair with Rula. Arthur found out, and their marriage ended.” Reps for both Waters and Jebreal didn’t get back to us.

All together now: "Awwwwwww."

Jebreal (who is an antisemitic bigot by her own definition) had only been with her ex-husband Arthur Altschul Jr. for a couple of years.

I'm sure that they will both blame Israel for this breakup, since we all know that Israel is responsible for all problems, big and small, retroactively, since the Paleozoic era.

(h/t Bob Knot)

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.

A damning indictment of the UN at the WSJ

We've seen many, especially UN Watch, categorize how obsessed the UN is with Israel. But this short WSJ piece by Eugene Kontorovich and Penny Grunseid lays it out, in my opinion, in an even more devastating fashion.

The United Nations began its annual session this week, and Israel will be prominent on the agenda. Many fear the Security Council may consider a resolution setting definite territorial parameters, and a deadline, for the creation of a Palestinian state.

President Obama has hinted that in the final months of his term, he may reverse the traditional U.S. policy of vetoing such resolutions. The General Assembly, meanwhile, is likely to act as the chorus in this drama, reciting its yearly litany of resolutions criticizing Israel.

If Mr. Obama is seeking to leave his mark on the Israeli-Arab conflict—and outside the negotiated peace process that began in Oslo—there is no worse place to do it than the U.N. New research we have conducted shows that the U.N.’s focus on Israel not only undermines the organization’s legitimacy regarding the Jewish state. It also has apparently made the U.N. blind to the world’s many situations of occupation and settlements.

Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.

It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.

General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts, which involve the full gamut of human-rights abuses, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and torture. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.

Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.

In particular, the resolutions refer to Article 49(6), which states that the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This is the provision that the entire legal case against Israel settlements is based upon. Yet no U.N. body has ever invoked Article 49(6) in relation to any of the occupations mentioned above.

This even though, as Mr. Kontorovich shows in a new research article, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories,” all these situations have seen settlement activity, typically on a scale that eclipses Israel’s. However, the U.N. has only used the legally loaded word “settlements” to describe Israeli civilian communities (256 times by the GA and 17 by the Security Council). Neither body has ever used that word in relation to any other country with settlers in occupied territory.

Our findings don’t merely quantify the U.N.’s double standard. The evidence shows that the organization’s claim to represent the interest of international justice is hollow, because the U.N. has no interest in battling injustice unless Israel is the country accused.

At a time of serious global crises—from a disintegrating Middle East to a land war and belligerent occupation in Europe—the leaders of the free world cannot afford to tempt the U.N. into indulging its obsessions. Especially when the apparent consequence of such scapegoating is that the organization ignores other situations and people in desperate need of attention.

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.

09/13 Links Pt2: Chloe` Valdary – “Forever” – An ode to the people of Israel; Anti-Semitism and the British Left

From Ian:

Chloe` Valdary – “Forever” – An ode to the people of Israel

Jerusalem U proudly presents “Forever” – a powerful new video about Jewish pride from African-American poet Chloé Valdary; a leading new voice in the pro-Israel movement, a Tikvah fellow under Pulitzer Prize-winner Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal, and one of Algemeiner’s top 100 people positively affecting Jewish life today.
Chloé is the new Director of Partnerships & Outreach for Jerusalem U. www.JerusalemU.org
This film was made possible thanks to the generous support of Sam & Meryl Solomon

“Forever” – An ode to the people of Israel

Anti-Semitism and the British Left

For many British Jews and others, Mr. Corbyn thus personifies a tolerance among parts of the left for reactionary Islamists that is at best naïve, at worst malign — not least because it overlooks Islamism’s history of murderous repression toward democratic socialists in Muslim-majority countries.
Labour had once been Britain’s most pro-Zionist party. This began to change when support for Palestinian statehood entered party policy. Mr. Corbyn arrived as a new member of Parliament in 1983 as a sponsor of the Labour Movement Campaign for Palestine, a new group that was pledged to “eradicate Zionism” from the party and saw Israel as a colonial implant in the Middle East. Rather than being a legitimate expression of Jewish national longing, Zionism was then labeled a racist ideology akin to apartheid.
At the same time, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government included a record number of Jewish ministers. Most British Jews had long since moved on from their origins in a prewar immigrant working class, and many among the new suburban Jewish middle class were attracted to Mrs. Thatcher’s entrepreneurial capitalism. According to the historian Geoffrey Alderman, “Anglo-Jewish political attitudes and loyalties, which were substantially Liberal for much of the 19th century and substantially Labour in the mid-20th, are now substantially Conservative.”
This may be of little electoral consequence to Labour, since Jewish voters influence the outcome in only a handful of parliamentary seats. In any case, the Corbyn project seems more directed at molding an ideologically pure movement than winning power at the next general election in 2020.
Yet there remains a strong progressive tradition among Jews that now has no political home. Their alienation from Labour is an ill omen: Whether British Jews ever feel they can return to Labour will give a strong indication about the future direction and character of the party as a whole.

BDS Exploits Artists Like Brian Eno

Thankfully, major artists supporting BDS are few and far between. Hundreds of international artists, including Sia, Justin Timberlake, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Elton John, Alicia Keys, One Republic, Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Madonna, Dionne Warwick, The Black Eyed Peas, Justin Bieber, and many, many others have and will continue to perform in Israel and raise their voices loudly for peace.
In response to Mr. Eno, Batsheva's artistic director and frequent critic of the Israeli government, Ohad Naharin, wrote: “If boycotting my company would help the Palestinian people, then I would boycott my own show. If the boycott of my work could bring a peace treaty, I would be the happiest person in the world. But I know it would be useless."
We, and the more than 30,000 people who have signed our anti-boycott petition, could not agree more. BDS does not help Palestinians and will not bring peace.
The BDS movement is anti-peace and anti-coexistence. Through its anti-normalization campaign, it aims to keep Israelis and Palestinians apart, never giving them the chance to gain understanding of and empathy for one another, though both are crucial requirements for realizing true peace based on justice.
We believe art and music, through their ability to unite, can help bring this true peace to fruition. We are deeply saddened to see an artist such as Brian Eno support the BDS movement and deny his music to Batsheva.
We hope Mr. Eno will reflect on the fact that the Israeli government would fund a dance company led by a fierce critic of its policies, that the company would then choose to use music created by a fierce opponent of Israel, and then just maybe come to the conclusion that Israel is an imperfect but strong democracy worthy of engagement rather than boycotts.
Peace depends on it.

A Sudanese writer has posted on his Facebook page that he wants his government to normalize relations with Israel.

Sudanese paper Al Nilin reported that Abdel Azim Mohamed al-Jaafari wrote that he has been advocating normalization with Israel for years, saying that he has challenged religious scholars worldwide to explain why such relations with Israel would be forbidden.

Jaafari extols the economic and political benefits of relations with Israel as well as how consistent it would be with creating an atmosphere of peace in the region.

He says that he has floated the idea to a number of Sudanese as well as Israelis on the Internet. He wants nothing less than to see the Israeli flag proudly fly in the streets of Khartoum.

Interestingly, his Facebook page says that he is working at the Saudi Ministry of Agriculture, which makes one wonder if perhaps the Saudis are floating some trial balloons for is own potential opening up of relations with Israel.

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.

Usually I write about Israel. Halfway around the world, America looms large. The bond between the land of my birth and the land of my heritage is strong.

It is a bond of principles and values, of Judeo-Christian ethics. Ideas that were born in Israel and woven in to the founding of the “New Zion”, America.

It is a bond of freedom. Of ‘doers’, people allowed to speak their mind, people who, if they work hard enough can achieve anything. That is the America I grew up believing in, it is the Israel I know today.

Ours is also a bond of enemies – because of what we represent. It is America that is the ‘Great Satan’, Israel that is the ‘Little Satan’

15 years after 9/11, with enough terror attacks of our own, Israel is remembering that day. It’s a day I will never forget.

We were horrified as if the attack had happened to us. We ached for the pain of our friends, the victims and the heroes, the Jews and Israelis that were involved. At the time, our horror was in seeing our friend and ally, the country we saw as a big brother or sister, hurt in a way we thought only we would experience, a pain we wouldn’t wish on our worst enemies.

Today, the pain is in looking back at lessons unlearned. The lessons are in the actions of every-day people who knew they were the “watchmen” at the gate. People who didn’t wait to be saved, people who knew it was better to go down in flames than be used to terrorize others.

This is for Danny Lewin. Did you know that the first victim of 9/11 was an Israeli? His Israeli Special Forces training told him that something wasn't right aboard American Airlines flight 11. Deciding to tackle the terrorists, Danny was fatally stabbed trying to save everyone on the plane.

This is for Todd Beamer.

They and too many others like them have been stolen from us by terrorists. Let’s learn from their legacy.

Now it is our turn.

“Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

On 9.11.2001 America learned there is an enemy. They didn’t understand who the enemy was or why they were being attacked. They did understand that someone wanted to bring the great US of A to her knees and most Americans resolutely declared they would not let that happen. America would stand proud as she had always done, America is good and good prevails.

Todd Beamer and the other passengers on flight 93 didn’t know who the enemy was. They did know that they had been hijacked, that other planes had been hijacked and slammed in to the Twin Towers. Together they made a swift choice, deciding that it was better to go down in flames than to be used as a killing machine to murder and terrorize other Americans. Those who could, called their loved ones to say goodbye. Todd Beamer rallied other passengers around him. They recited the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm and then Beamer led the way, saying: “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.” The passengers stormed the cockpit, bringing the plane down in an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Al Qaeda attacked America and almost 3000 Americans died.

On 9.11.2012 the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya was attacked by terrorists who murdered the Ambassador as well as Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. The American people did not know who the enemy was. The government announced that the attack came as a result of Muslims being offended by a video disparaging the Prophet Mohammed. Slowly the truth has come out. The Ambassador could have been saved. The operatives that rushed to the rescue had received a stand down command. Americans had been abandoned by their government, murdered and the public was told lie after lie to make them forget.

On September 10, 2012, at least 18 hours before the attack in Benghazi, Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called for attacks on Americans in Libya.

Again, Al-Qaeda.

Despite the betrayal the American people re-elected the same government. The people did not notice (or maybe did not care) that all American fundamental values had been thrown out the window. The idea of “leave no man behind” no longer mattered. America denied protection to her own Ambassador but what difference does it make? Doubt seeped in… maybe America isn’t so good, maybe it’s America’s fault that so many people around the world hate her. Maybe America has mistreated Muslims and should apologize…

On 9.11.2014 the Islamic State looms large.

Americans took little notice of the organization as it massacred Iraqis, Christians, Shiite Moslems and Yazidis. The massacre of Syrians was dismissed as an internal civil war and mostly blamed on Bashar Assad. It was only when two American journalists were beheaded by a Muslim with a British accent that Americans really began to realize the enormity of the problem and demand Mr. Obama define US policy to deal with it.

Mr. Obama has explained that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. He has spoken about terror as a method but he has made no mention of Jihad, terror leveraged to achieve a religious-political goal i.e. submission to Islam. Mr. Obama has explained that America will fight the organization from the air and by supporting “moderates” who will do the fighting on the ground.

Who are the moderates?

One year ago, when Mr. Obama was talking about the evils of the Assad dictatorship the “moderates” were the “Syrian rebels”. America, Britain and France provided them support and weapons. In a very short time it became clear that the term “rebels” or “opposition” included secular groups that want to overthrow the Syrian government as well as the Syrian version of Al-Qaeda (=Al-Nusra) and ISIS.

Now ISIS has grown and become the Islamic State. They have captured American weapons in Iraq and were given weapons as well. Mr. Obama is proposing to fight the Islamic State by arming the “moderates” which, in his dictionary, seems to mean anyone who will fight IS. This includes Hezbollah and the Syrian version of Al-Qaeda.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. The moderates are not moderate at all. Nothing has changed.

Or maybe one thing has changed – America. The sleeping giant has been kicked in the side repeatedly but it only made her mumble, roll over and go back to sleep. The spirit of “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.” has been forgotten. The memory of the victims, of the heroes and everyone who strived to make America the great country she once was, is being dishonored.

Apathy is just as dangerous as any terror threat. America can only be beaten if she allows herself to be defeated.

America began as an idea that provided hope to the world. The Islamic State also began as an idea and its flames are swiftly spreading across the globe. The idea of a global Caliphate has existed for centuries, America for only a few hundred years. Both ideas are very powerful, both provide hope and the opportunity to belong to something larger than the individual. Which will win?

There is hope for the free world but first the sleeping giant must wake up. The enemy must be named. Action must be taken.

“Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

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.

09/13 Links Pt1: Fatah: Munich Olympic Massacre was a "heroic operation"; Temple Mount Denial

From Ian:

PMW: Fatah: Murder of Israeli athletes at Munich Olympics was "heroic operation"

Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Movement continues to take pride in the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics, when Palestinian terrorists from the Black September terror group murdered 11 Israeli athletes.
On the anniversary of the killings, Fatah's Facebook page called the massacre a "heroic operation", posting photos of the terrorists carrying out the attack and of Black September leader Salah Khalaf. Fatah stated that the attack showed "the courage and power of the Palestinian resistance fighter":
"The 44th anniversary, Sept. 5-6, 1972, the anniversary of carrying out of the heroic Munich operation that was carried out by fighters of the PLO Black September organization. The Munich operation is still remembered and is recorded in history, and it demonstrates the meaning of the courage and power of the Palestinian resistance fighter and his self-sacrifice for the homeland and for the cause."
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Sept. 5, 2016]
Another Fatah Facebook post highlighted Fatah's role in the attack with the phrase "Munich operation, Sept. 5, 1972 - Fatah was here."
Fatah's glorification of the Munich killings and its continued praise of the murderers as heroes comes only two months after the International Olympic Committee finally commemorated the tragedy with an official ceremony at the recent Rio Olympics.

Eugene Kontorovich: New research paper: ‘Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories’

My new working paper, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories,” is now available on SSRN.
Imagine that someone (a scholar or a diplomat) wanted to understand how the general prohibition on aggression in the U.N. Charter was interpreted in international law. What do the general words of Art. 2(4) mean in practice? To figure out what Art. 2(4) means, he studies the Indian invasion and annexation of Portuguese territories in 1961. Examining this one case and the international reaction to it, he would conclude that the use of force and annexation of territory are permissible in international law.
Of course, this understanding would be deeply mistaken, because the Goa incident itself was highly anomalous. Without looking at other cases, from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the Russian takeover of Crimea, one would misunderstand how states really interpret the provision. And that is why international law scholars, like lawyers generally, do not try to tease legal rules out of one particular case, but try to discern the pattern in the entire set of cases. Making law from one case risks serious error.
Yet that is exactly what happens with Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the provision that, loosely speaking, restricts settlements in occupied territory. The provision itself is quite obscure and has never been applied in any war crimes case. Thus, looking at state practice would be particularly useful to understand the scope of its meaning.
Yet scholars and humanitarian groups have only sought to understand its meaning through the lens of one case, that of Israel. If there were no other situations to look at, this would be understandable. But, as I show in my new research paper, settlement activity is fairly ubiquitous in occupations of contiguous territory. Yet state practice in these other situations has not been used to inform an understanding of the meaning of Art. 49(6).

Blood libels thicker than water

As politics goes, it doesn’t get much dirtier than the Palestinian Authority deliberately letting untreated sewage flow into water sources because it is reluctant to cooperate with Israel in building wastewater treatment plants, even though the funds and framework exist. Apparently, the PA considers normalization of relations with Israel more dangerous than any health hazards presented by the pollution and drilling of piratical wells.
In an extensive study published in 2012 by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, hydrologist Prof. Haim Gvirtzman notes that, thanks to Israeli efforts, “In comparison to [their] Arab neighbors, the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria now enjoy much better access to running water.” That was before the civil war in Syria compounded the infrastructure problems there and sent a flow of more than half a million refugees into water-strapped Jordan.
Faced with the latest libel, several friends were reminded of the periodic “dam lies” that one wit termed “a flood libel.” For example, in February, news outlets around the world reported that Israel had deliberately opened the gates to dams bordering Gaza, flooding villages and leaving scores homeless.
Israeli officials swiftly pointed out that there are no dams in the area. Israel’s water company, Mekorot, has in the past answered pleas by the UN to provide Gaza with heavy-duty pumps to help it deal with the flooding. Ironically, the Dutch water company Vitens cut off contacts with Mekorot for alleged violation of international law for operating beyond the 1949 lines.
The Palestinian stories don’t hold water. But Israel is being made to pay hell. Since the Middle Ages, many, many Jewish lives have been lost in pogroms and attacks following false claims of Jews poisoning the wells. The Palestinians will not die of either thirst or poisoned waters. But lives are already being lost by poisoned minds.

UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl held an "extraordinary session" of the UNRWA Advisory Board in order to beg for more funds.

His justifications for asking for more and more money to give an agency that perpetuates, rather than solves, statelessness, are almost rudely self-serving and still relies on blaming Israel rather than the true culprits: itself and the Arab leaders.

Here is a key part of the speech:

Time and time again, I am confronted with the question of why the world should care about the fate of Palestine refugees when there are so many more pressing issues to deal with. Well, it should care:

Because the conditions facing the 5.3 million refugees are now worse than at any time since 1948.

Because of Syria. And yet the UN inefficiently divides up Syrian refugees into "Palestinian" and "everyone else," doubling up on resources and applying them unequally and inefficiently. If UNRWA wanted to save money it would give its Syria budget to UNHCR and allow them to support all Syrian refugees instead of the 95% or so it does. For UNRWA to demand funds for refugees from Syria simply because their ancestors happen to have lived in British Mandate Palestine for a time is hardly a smart use of worldwide refugee funding.

Because the absence of political horizon is draining them of their resolve and creativity.

Yet if you look at the UNRWA webpage you see lots of articles about how wonderful their school students are, how creative and happy they are.

Because fifty years of occupation and ten years of blockade in Palestine are etched into the soul and identity of the Refugee community.

Of course, it wouldn't be UNRWA if there was no swipe at Israel. However, the people under "occupation" and "blockade" are not refugees - they live in the boundaries of the British Mandate, under the rule of their own leaders, whose decisions are what led to their being in the situation they are in.

But maybe even more importantly:

Because a young generation of Palestine refugees is growing up which is losing faith in politics and diplomacy. In the West Bank and Gaza, most young people were born after the Oslo Peace Agreement. They were told by the world that if you choose a path of moderation, there will be justice served. But it was not.

Was the enthusiastic outbreak of a murderous spree of suicide bombings immediately after Arafat spurned Clinton's peace plan an example of this path of moderation that they are now so disappointed over it not succeeding? How about the happy cries of victory after 9/11 in the streets of these youth? The people who overwhelmingly showed support for Bin Laden, and who voted for Hamas terrorists to lead them? Because that is what happened, not this fantasy of disillusioned youth attempting "a path of moderation."

Because in Syria, Palestine refugees, displaced, dispossessed and desperate, now understand in their hearts what their parents and grand-parents went through in 1948 and 1967.

This is perhaps the most offensive part of all. To compare what is happening to civilians in Syria today with what happened in 1948 or 1967 is a sick revisionist history. It is to accuse Israel of genocide, of dropping barrel bombs and poison gas. This one statement shows the depths of UNRWA's immorality, because if its leader says this statement to his donors in English, the lies and hate taught by its teachers to generations of students must be orders of magnitude worse. It might be the "narrative" but it is slander, and UNRWA is in no small part a reason that the false narrative against Israel and historic fact has been so popular.

Krähenbühl should be forced to resign based on this one disgusting lie by itself.

(h/t Gidon Shaviv)

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.

Every year, during Eid al Adha, videos are released showing amateur slaughterers trying to kill cows in the streets of Gaza.

This video - three minutes of stabbing a cow in the neck and torture that still doesn't kill the animal - is so horrific that even other Muslims are questioning whether this is allowed under Islam.

But at the same time, Gazans are posting videos of similar horrible scenes and calling them "beautiful and wonderful":

In this Gaza video, the onlookers chant "Allahu Akbar" as the poor beast slowly bleeds to death:

In this one the cow isn't even dead by the end of the video as a crowd watches and cheers:

Gaza is perhaps the worst as people chase after and slaughter animals in the street in an orgy of animal torture. But even official slaughterhouses can be as bad. This video from Beirut shows dozens of animals that are already seemingly slaughtered still alive and moving on the ground afterwards (starting at 0:24.)

Over 200 Gazans were reported injured on the first day of Eid during these scenes as cows tried to escape, slaughterers injured themselves and others with their knives, and similar injuries.

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.

Far more Christians of Palestinian origin in Chile than in the Middle East (update)

Last week, Hanan Ashrawi held a meeting with Chilean citizens of Palestinian Arab origin. Official PA news agency Wafa issued a press release which was published, nearly verbatim, by other outlets:

Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee, Thursday called on a visiting delegation of Palestinian business and civil society leaders from Chile to maintain a link to Palestine and to engage in a joint discourse and projects with Palestine.

“In light of Israeli efforts to eradicate the Palestinian identity and erase our strong connection to the land, history and culture, I am extremely encouraged by Palestinian expatriates, exiles and refugees who return to their homeland and are ready to invest in Palestine in a variety of ways,” Ashrawi told the delegation at her PLO office in Ramallah.

“We are not ready to disappear or abandon our rights,” she said. “By returning to Palestine and maintaining your links to the homeland, you are reaffirming the Palestinian connection to the land and our right to exist in freedom and in dignity.”

Ashrawi led a candid discussion on Israel’s unilateral violations of international law and Palestinian rights and its systematic efforts to destroy the chances for peace and stability.

I think when they say "candid" they really mean "canned."

Chile has a large number of people of Palestinian origin. The vast majority are Christian. Many of them arrived before anyone ever referred to them as "Palestinian" in the 19th century; the Chileans referred to them as "turcos" (Turks) because they came from the Ottoman empire. The 19th century immigrants didn't refer to themselves as Palestinian either; they identified as coming from their hometowns (Beit Jala, Bei Sahour, Bethlehem) or as Syrians or simply Arabs.

Because they are full citizens of Chile, and happy to be there, no one wants to talk about them because they obscure the narrative of a stateless diaspora Palestinian Arab community. Articles about them might encourage Palestinians to move to Chile, lose their stateless status and become no longer available as pawns and cannon fodder, which seems to be the preferred type of Palestinian to the Arab world and to their own leaders.

What is striking is that there are ten times as many Christians of Palestinian origin in Chile than there are under PA rule. There are only 50,000 Christians in the PA compared to nearly 500,000 Christians of Palestinian origin in Chile.

Israel's Christian population also dwarfs that of the Palestinian Authority, with about 150,000 Christians there, most Arab.

Most of the Christians under Arab rule have fled over the decades - from Palestinian Arab rule, from Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

The numbers show to a remarkable degree how Christians have been forced to leave Arab areas of Palestine because of Muslim persecution, a story that is also swept under the rug in favor of the "blame Israel for everything" narrative that the Palestinian leadership has so successfully and single-mindedly pushed.

No one wants to move from Chile to "Palestine." But Chile would be an obvious destination for Palestinians, especially Palestinian Christians, who want to start new lives outside the influence of the corrupt Arab leaders who want to keep them miserable - ostensibly for their own good.

If UNRWA was a real refugee agency, Chile would be a top choice for resettling stateless Palestinians.

UPDATE: Mike Conrad tells me that the Palestinian Christians of Chile indeed referred to themselves as "Palestinos" since at least 1920, based on the names of their soccer clubs and social organizations, and distinguished themselves from Lebanese and Syrian immigrants who arrived at the same time.

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.

09/12 Links Pt2: Why Islamists and feminists avoid confrontation; Corbyn thought Hebrew was 'too Zionist'

From Ian:

Why Islamists and feminists avoid confronting each other

From the standpoint taken by Owen Jones above, making sure the correct victim groups and oppressor groups keep their places is a vital function – and it is a function that you can see him and others repeating again and again in what they say and do, almost as if by clockwork. It is a presiding perspective. It gives protection to the favoured groups, including by protecting them against criticism, while directing criticism either to broad generalities about society or to the unfavoured identity groups – of which ‘white men’ is a favourite given that it incorporates at least two unfavoured identity markers – of white skin colour and male sex (and also implies a third, of non-Muslim).
We can see this protective stance in how liberal-left institutions like the Labour Party and the Guardian choose what to highlight and what they do not, but it also feeds out into general society through taboos of what we should all talk about and avert our eyes from. For us here, the point about Islamists* is that they benefit from this protection as the representatives of Muslims, including through representative organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain, Muslim Association of Britain and Islamic Human Rights Commission. The administration of diversity treats Muslims as a victim group (indeed with double victim status due to Muslims generally being non-white). So whenever these organisations and others speaking on behalf of Muslims claim victimhood – by crying ‘Islamophobia’ for example – they can expect the liberal-left to respond and support them, as with their opposition to the Government’s anti-extremism strategy ‘Prevent’.
These organisations and others routinely segregate women from men at events and invite speakers who preach about curtailing women’s rights in public life and against homosexuality. But they rarely if ever directly confront feminists who take the opposite standpoint. The reason is structural – for the protection and support they receive from administrators of diversity is at the very least allied to feminists if not actively feminist in character itself (as with Owen Jones). Any challenge to feminism directly would bring into question their place in the system and right to support and protection.
So it’s in the interests of Islamists to maintain that protection and access to wider public life and not remove themselves from the system which provides it. This means not offending those who preside over it or challenging the right of other favoured groups to favouritism. In consequence, rather than attacking and ridiculing feminists publicly, they stick to attacking broad generalities in their public pronouncements, like British society, the West, white racism and British foreign policy – keeping to the victimhood narrative. By doing this they do not challenge those who provide support to them, the system remains robustly intact, and politics can continue as it did before.

Corbyn thought Hebrew was 'too Zionist', says former aide

British Labour leader Jeremy Corbin asked to remove a Hebrew greeting from his Passover message because it made him sound “too Zionist”, his former policy adviser claimed over the weekend.
The Labour leader’s office denied the claim, however, saying it was categorically untrue, according to a report Sunday in The Independent.
The allegation was made in a newspaper article on Saturday in which the former adviser, Joshua Simons, wrote, “After six months working as a policy adviser for Jeremy Corbyn, it was clear to me that the way Corbyn and those around him think about Jewish people is shaped by a frenetic anti-imperialism, focused on Israel and America.”
“Without a hint of irony, one senior aide asked that I remove the greeting 'Chag Kasher VeSameach' from Corbyn’s Passover message, for fear that Corbyn’s supporters might think the use of Hebrew 'Zionist'”, charged Simons.

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation?

During the past 15 years, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Jews have fled France.
Of these, approximately 40,000 have fled to Israel, according to Israeli figures. Many thousands of others have fled to Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. France is increasingly becoming a nation in which it is no longer safe to be openly Jewish.
To explain why so many Jews are leaving Europe, it helps to understand the increasingly toxic context developing in France for Jews.
Synagogues and Jewish schools across France are regularly guarded by police officers and soldiers. Jews in Europe see their holy sites and places of worship under threat.
In December 2015, 14 Jews were poisoned by a toxic substance which had been smeared on to the keypad to access a Paris synagogue. No one was killed by the poison, but "25 firemen rushed to the synagogue, where they treated congregants and traced their condition to the daubed lock."
Another Paris synagogue was vandalized and a window smashed. Synagogues seem to be one of the targets in a new wave of anti-Semitism rising across France and Europe.
On the way to a synagogue, a 13-year-old boy was called a "dirty Jew" and then seriously assaulted. The attackers are said to have attacked the boy because of he wore a skullcap. Only 71 years after the end of one of the darkest periods of European history, after which we pledged "never again," it seems to have become open season to hate and persecute Jews.
The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism. In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers' chants apparently included "Death to the Jews," "Murderous Israel," and "One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists."

‘No future for Jews in Western Europe,’ says French prosecutor

As for Baccouche, the BNVCA’s volunteer lieutenant president, he doesn’t wear a yarmulka or a Magen David necklace.
“I put tefillin (phylacteries) on and go to synagogue since I was young,” he says, matter of factly.
When asked why, his simple answer is “Because. It has no connection to anti-Semitism,” he says. “I feel myself as a Jew from North Africa but I decline to say what country I’m from. For me, it’s not important.
“I’m not a prophet or a prince but there is no future for Jews in all of Western Europe. Not only because of the war in the Mediterranean basin but because anti-Semitism is part of the Koran. I don’t think there is a future for Jews in France. There will be a day when all of Israel will be gathered back in our country,” Baccouche says.
Despite his negative predictions of Europe, Bacchouche says, “We are not going to our deaths. We live. Jews are more and more living amongst ourselves. There are always interactions with non-Jews but all our social interactions are with Jews, more and more. For example, ‘Elisheva’ has to remove her Jewish symbols but it’s a shame. She doesn’t bother anyone.”

Does this guy look like an innocent civilian to you?

B'Tselem writes:

On 16 August 2016, at around 5:00 P.M., a military sniper shot and killed 19-year-old Palestinian Muhammad Yusef Saber Abu Hashhash during a raid on al-Fawwar Refugee Camp, which lies southwest of Hebron. According to media reports, Abu Hashhash was shot from behind. A live bullet penetrated his back and exited through his chest, above the heart.

Bob Knot found some other photos of Abu Hashhash, like this "martyr's poster" from Fatah:

And this:

Do you still believe that he was an innocent bystander that was shot in the back? Obviously B'Tselem does. After all, they took testimonies!

And the name of their field researcher is - Abu Hashhash.

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.

Abby Martin: just another conspiracy theorist who hates Israel (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

If you look up Abby Martin on her own website, you will learn that at the tender age of 19, she “began streaming her thoughts and emotions through a paint brush” and “discovered her niche.” Unfortunately, Martin didn’t stick with painting and now prefers to ‘stream her thoughts and emotions’ through “news” programs that offer much food for thought to conspiracy theorists and people who can’t hear enough about how evil America and the West are. It goes without saying that pleasing such an audience also requires an intense hatred for the world’s only Jewish state.

Martin is certainly no slacker in this respect. Her views on Israel are informed by the likes of Max Blumenthal, whom she has interviewed repeatedly and reverently. In November 2014, she commiserated with Blumenthal when he complained bitterly about “How Germany is Using ‘Anti-Semitism’ to Shut Down Israel Criticism;” exactly a year later, she talked with him about “Palestine’s Rebellion” – a euphemism for the wave of murderous terror attacks that began a year ago – and “Israel’s Fascism.” Shortly before this interview with Blumenthal, Martin also produced a vile anti-Israel propaganda clip under the title “The Distortion & Death Behind Israel/Palestine Coverage,” which features some disgusting cartoons, and where she calls Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad “resistance forces” (11.41).

When she recently visited Israel in order to produce yet another program showcasing her hate for the world’s only Jewish state, many of her related tweets garnered hundreds of retweets and heartfelt “likes.” However, her Twitter fans seemed most pleased when she tweeted: “Israel is the most Orwellian country in the world. Its entire existence depends on projecting what they do to others as being done to them.”

One of the responses to her tweet came from BDS supporter @Ha1Piper, who posted the following image:

Claiming that Israel “uses” the Holocaust “as an excuse to commit genocide” is of course popular among anti-Israel activists, but it is also antisemitic.

Here you can watch Abby Martin making pretty much the same vile claims with great passion and utter conviction.

Of course, Abby Martin feels it’s totally unfair to accuse her of antisemitism when all she pretends to be doing is “being against Netanyahu’s policies” and “criticizing the Israeli government’s bad policies.” It’s really such an unfortunate coincidence that – just like Jew-haters everywhere – she seems unable to “criticize” the world’s only Jewish state without demonizing it as the epitome of evil while whitewashing murderous genocidal terror groups like Hamas that want very much what Martin and her fans want: to see Israel replaced with yet another Muslim-Arab majority state.

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.

09/12 Links Pt1: Yarden Frankl: How the World Sees Jerusalem; Gordis: Getting to ‘why’

From Ian:

Daniel Gordis: Getting to ‘why’

Yet those early Zionists cared about much more than mere safety. They believed that if a new Jewish state could come to be, a new Jew would also emerge.
Who would that Jew be? What would she stand for? How would she be educated? What values would she place at the center of society? About that, those Zionists disagreed passionately. On this, though, they agreed: As they imagined Jewish sovereignty restored, they also imagined the Jew recreated.
Do the Jews have a purpose in today’s world? Millennia ago, we taught the world about monotheism, Shabbat, the evils of slavery, the notion that the rich could not harm the poor with impunity, society’s responsibility to widows and orphans. Yet what ideas are the Jews contributing to the world today? What is our 21st-century prophetic message that – if only it were heard – might constitute the Jewish people’s raison d’être?
And what role does a Jewish state play in our shaping that message? Is the state our stage? Is it our laboratory? In what ways has the Jewish state already modeled ideas and behaviors from which the world could learn? In what ways must we continue to rethink what a sovereign Jewish state should be, if we are to justify the high cost that protecting it exacts from our people?
Perhaps we should set aside settlements and borders, checkpoints and refugees – not because they are unimportant, but because our inability to shape policy is part of what leads to the vituperativeness of our discourse. If we were to do so, would we locate both a subject that could animate large swathes of the Jewish people, engage us in a conversation about why the Jewish people matters and, in the process, foster a conversation much less toxic than the one we have created?
We have yet to try. Strangely, in the midst of all the Israel-teaching that we do, we hardly ever discuss why – and whether – the State of Israel really matters. Yet if we are to have any hope of a young generation of Jews wanting to have anything to do with the Jewish state, it is time to do what Jews have always done best. It is time to place front and center the question that matters most of all – the question of “why?

JPost Editorial: Unhelpful messages

Netanyahu’s basic argument – that the Palestinian demand to uproot Jewish settlements reveals bigotry and intolerance – has been made by this paper in the past. If the peace process is genuine, a future Palestinian state should be tolerant enough to accommodate and protect a Jewish minority in its midst. That the Palestinian political leadership is unable to contemplate such an arrangement is a worrying sign that any purported peace process would be empty of meaning. Only when settlements cease to be perceived as the key obstacle to peace, will there be hope of a true reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
However, Netanyahu’s choice of words was unfortunate. The US and other pro-Zionist supporters of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not advocates of ethnic cleansing. They view the dismantling of Jewish communities as a means of reducing tension between the sides. These settlements should be removed not because Jews’ unalterable ethnic affiliation disqualifies them to live in this geographic area, rather because the legacy of the conflict makes it impossible for the two peoples to live together right now. It is, therefore, better to separate the two peoples in the short term.
The US position – shared by a large swath of the international community – should not be confused with support for ethnic cleansing of Jews. The idea that Israelis and Palestinians cannot live with one another and therefore must be separated underlies the reasoning of the two-state solution. Zionist political parties that support such a solution – such as Labor and Meretz, and even Netanyahu according to his famous Bar-Ilan speech in 2009 – believe that peace is worth the heavy price of uprooting Jewish settlements. They also believe that maintaining control over Judea and Samaria with its large Palestinian population for the sake of the settlements undermines Israel’s standing as a democracy.
Indeed, it was Menachem Begin, Israel’s first prime minister from the Right, who set the precedent for uprooting settlements and transferring Jewish populations as a precondition for peace with our Arab neighbors. The 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty was made possible after Begin agreed to dismantle Jewish settlements built in Sinai.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians: Bad News
for Israel-Haters

Sheikh Abdullah Tamimi and his colleagues do not believe in boycotts and divestment. They are convinced that real peace can be achieved through dialogue between Palestinians and all Israelis -- not just those who are affiliated with the left-wing. The Israeli left-wing, they contend, does not have a monopoly over peace-making.
For Tamimi, real peace begins between the people and through economic cooperation and improving the living conditions of the Palestinians. This, he explains, is more important than the talk about the establishment of a Palestinian state, which he believes, under the current circumstances, is not a realistic option. This notion goes against the ideas of the advocates of "anti-normalization" and others in the West obviously acting against the true interests of the Palestinians by promoting boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
Venal leadership has always been the main tragedy of the Palestinians. But it has created a vacuum that provides an opportunity for Palestinians such as Tamimi to search for other alternatives. This, of course, comes as bad news for those who hate Israel and keep hoping to destroy it. Now the question is, who will triumph: Palestinians and their Jewish neighbors in the West Bank who wish to live in peace, or the anti-Palestinian, anti-Israel, "anti-normalization" activists who seek to derail a true peace at any cost?

No separation of mosque and state in "Palestine" (correction)

One of the more under-reported stories in the West is how a Palestinian state would be an explicitly Muslim state, in many ways far more than Israel is a Jewish state.

Article 4 of the Palestinian Basic Law states "Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained.
The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a principal source of legislation." Islam is not an official religion, the official religion.

Yet no one complains about "apartheid."

The extent of involvement of the Palestinian government in religious affairs is ignored by the West. They have a Ministry of Waqf and Religious Affairs that issues rulings under the name of the Palestinian Authority. Here's one example on how Mahmoud Abbas' government tells women how to dress:

There are no howls of outrage over this from supposedly liberal and human rights groups.

Today, during Eid Al Adha celebrations, as he does every year, Mahmoud Abbas participated in the ceremony in his own presidential palace.

Abbas at Eid service in 2013

Separation of mosque and state? It is not even a remote possibility for "Palestine." But no one even considers bringing this up as an issue, while many bitterly and falsely accuse Israel of being a theocracy.

CORRECTION: Originally I reported that Abbas led the service, but he did not. (h/t Ibn Boutros)

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.

From Times of London:

The head of a controversial charity is leaving without a job to go to amid investigations by the Charity Commission into the organisation’s “campaigning and political activities”.

John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, will step down next month after growing controversy about the charity’s work against Israel. War on Want funds Israeli Apartheid Week, an event at universities that Jewish Human Rights Watch has accused of “targeting and harassing Jewish students and inviting anti-semitic speakers to campuses”.

At this year’s event, War on Want paid for the accommodation of a speaker, Steven Salaita, who appeared to defend violence, saying: “If we are going to reduce a project of ethnic cleansing, illegal settlement and military occupation to the minuscule chance that a soldier or a settler will be harmed by an act of resistance by the natives, then we forfeit all right to be taken seriously.”

Another speaker, Malia Bouattia, who is now president of the National Union of Students, claimed UK government policy was fuelled by “Zionist and neocon lobbies”. A third called for Israel’s destruction.

War on Want also campaigns against the “violence of neoliberalism”, saying benefit cuts in the UK are a form of “violence against the poor”. British law says an organisation cannot be a charity if its purposes are political, but War on Want explicitly says it is a “political organisation” that believes in “justice, not charity”.

Its website states: “We do not provide humanitarian relief or deliver services to the poor . . . For War on Want, change comes from contesting power through concerted political action.”

The Charity Commission said it had received complaints about War on Want, “particularly in respect of its campaigning and political activities”, and would be publishing an “operational case report” into the charity, a rare procedure that is carried out only when there is “significant public interest in the issues involved” or “lessons that other charities can learn” from it. The case began last year after a complaint by Jewish Human Rights Watch.

Hilary has repeatedly denied the existence of any inquiry, calling it a “complete fabrication.” This year he said the Charity Commission had “rebuffed all the complaints which were made against War on Want in the past by certain different Zionist groups”.

However, in an email seen by The Sunday Times, a commission official, Neil Robertson, said it was “not necessarily” taking up Jewish Human Rights Watch’s specific concerns but had identified “regulatory issues of our own that require attention”.

Hilary said: “My decision to leave the organisation was taken many months ago, in view of the fact that I have been at War on Want for 12 successful years. Any implication there is another reason . . . is pure fantasy.”

War on Want was actually the major sponsor of Israeli Apartheid Week this year, as this poster detail shows:

Their website brags:

War on Want has worked for decades to support the call for justice for Palestinians. We support the activist movement behind the Palestinian call for a global campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, focusing on high-profile actions and direct challenges to corporations complicit in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. War on Want coordinates its actions closely with the Boycott National Committee in Palestine, as well as with Palestinian social movements and human rights groups opposing Israel’s continuing oppression of the Palestinian people. We confront UK and EU support for Israel through our call for an immediate cessation of all contact with Israeli arms manufacturers, including those responsible for building the next generation of UK military drones. Our credibility and strong partnerships with Palestinian organisations give War on Want a unique position as the largest mainstream charity demanding justice for Palestinians.

Notice it doesn't say "occupation." The organization is against Israel altogether, and Israel is the only country it targets in such a way.

One of its funders is Interpal, which is designated by the US State Department as a terrorist organization.

(h/t Adam Levick)

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.