Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, August 27, 2010

Here's to you, Gaza Israeli flag painter

Today I saw another of these types of pictures in the Islamic Jihad-oriented Palestine Today:

Someone painted the Israelis (and don't forget the American) flag that these Islamic Jihad terrorists are happily stepping upon, in what to them is an obvious insult to Israel and the US.

The flag on the right has what appears to be two stars, the main one on top of one that seems to have been poorly erased:

Who has this job? Does he feel a feeling of accomplishment when he finishes painting the flag to be trodden upon? Was he embarrassed that the first star was not up to the correct standards and his sense of pride forced him to do it right? Did he make a conscious decision to paint the vertical Israeli flag as opposed to the horizontal? If so, was it based on aesthetics, or intended use, or was he simply following Israeli guidelines as to when the vertical flag should be used? Is he happy when his work is destroyed? Does he get paid by Islamic Jihad to paint Israeli flags? If he does a poor job in painting enemy flags, do they punish him?

Someone needs to find this guy and interview him.

Islamophobia! Attack at a Hebron mosque!

Oh, sorry, no Jews were involved.

The pro-Hamas Palestine Times reports that a Hamas politician tried to give a sermon before Friday prayers, but worshipers started a ruckus because Fatah has been limiting Hamas clerics from giving sermons in the West Bank. The situation deteriorated, and the PA deployed forces in Hebron around the mosque to keep the situation under control.

There has been a lot of tension between Hamas and the PA since the PA's religious minister declared that Hamas members would not be allowed to give political sermons.

In defense of settlers (Fred Barnes)

Fred Barnes, in The Weekly Standard, writes a rare article where Jews who live in Judea and Samaria are given a chance to actually speak.

When direct talks begin next week between Israelis and Palestinians, the fate of Jewish settlers in the West Bank – tens of thousands of them – will be a major issue in the negotiations. But the settlers themselves won’t be part of the discussion. Nor have American officials involved in the talks been willing to meet with them.

You’ve probably heard that the settlers are an obstacle to peace. That’s not exactly true. Their absentee role in the peace process is different. They’re opposed to an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians that would uproot a large number of settlers from their homes or would leave Israel with inadequate security, at least from their viewpoint.

Obstacles or not, they’ve become “the most stereotyped and demonized people in the world,” says Dani Dayyan, the leader of the Yesha settler council for the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. Yet the settlers have a case. It’s neither incoherent nor unreasonable, but it’s politically unacceptable and thus off the table in the new talks.

The settlers insist, for starters, that their settlements aren’t located on “occupied” Palestinian territory. Rather, they live on “disputed” territory, claimed as a homeland by both Palestinians and Jews (some of whom don’t consider themselves Israelis). “This is my homeland,” Dayyan says. “How can you ‘occupy’ your homeland?”

And Israel has a “morally flawless” claim to the West Bank and other land it captured in the Six Day War in 1967, according to Dayyan. “We took what we thought was ours in a defensive war” against Arab countries, he says. “The rule that winner takes all was set by the Palestinians,” since they were prepared to claim any land seized in the war.

The settlers also point to the ancient past. “Jewish civilization and history come from Judea and Samaria,” Dayyan says. “Everything Jewish was born” in the West Bank. King David never visited Tel Aviv, but “his first capital was Hebron” in the West Bank. Today, a Jewish settlement has been established in the heart of Hebron.

There’s an overriding concern. Israel’s security would be jeopardized without settlers in the West Bank, Dayyan insists. “We are the guarantee of Israel’s security. Israel is indefensible without Judea and Samaria.” At one point, Israel is 9 miles wide. The Ben Gurion Airport is “geographically controlled by the hills of Samaria.” Thus, he says, Hamas or al Qaeda terrorists with shoulder-fired rockets could attack the airport and “paralyze” the country.

The worst fear of the settlers is that the West Bank, were it to become a Palestinian state, might fall under the control of Hamas, which favors terrorism as a tactic and the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, it was “ethnically cleansed of a Jewish presence,” Dayyan says. Hamas now controls Gaza.

“It’s naïve to think something different would happen if the West Bank is separated from Israel,” he says. “It would be completely impossible to defend Israel without Judea and Samaria.” Besides, Hamas and “Islamic fundamentalist groups won’t recognize an agreement” that provides for Israel’s security.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t My Right Word)

Barely legal

Junior Elder is in Israel for the year. He just sent me some pictures that he took from his dorm room in Jerusalem.

So I went to Google Maps to see which direction the pictures had been taken from, and saw it showed a dotted line only a couple of hundred meters to east. I highlighted that line here:

Of course, that is the Green Line that represents the 1949 armistice lines between Israel and Jordan.

Just yesterday, Hamas leader Haniyeh said "No negotiator who would give up Jerusalem has a national mandate," and by that he means that terror and war will continue until every square centimeter of land to the east of that line is given to Arabs and every Jew uprooted from their homes that were built on the "illegal" side. (Actually, he didn't say "East Jerusalem" Western analysts know what he really means so we'll let that go.)

As we all know, a line that was never considered a border for a mere 19 years has more legal standing than a city that has been unified for 41 years, and everything done in that city for four decades must be rolled back to those wonderful days when a stroll to the places on the right side of this picture could get you killed. Those 19 years of a wall cutting through the Jerusalem, a tiny blip in its 3000 year history, is considered by the wise men of the international community to be the hallowed "status quo." According to these geniuses who fondly recall how peaceful things were from 1948-1967, the importance of those 19 years far outstrips the importance of the city of Jerusalem itself or the lives of its residents.

I don't know how accurate that line is, but just to play it safe I'll have to warn Junior Elder to make sure that when he takes a Shabbat walk to avoid going past the houses on Ramat HaGolan street that are bisected by that line. If he sees the residents of those two houses, as well as the ones on Tzalmona, Maavar HaMitle and other affected streets, he should give them sage advice to voluntarily destroy the eastern parts of their homes. After all, why antagonize the Arabs and the legal scholars who say that it belongs to a country that never existed?

Belated Thursday links

I meant to post this yesterday...

Alan Dershowitz reviews Mitchell Bard's new book, "The Arab Lobby."

Sultan Knish writes a provocative piece on the media's "Anti-Semitic Hate Machine."

And George Will continues his columns from Israel with his skepticism about the "peace process."

The myth of "Islamophobia" in America

Time magazine's cover story last week asks a simple question:

Jonah Goldberg, writing in the Los Angeles Times, shows that the number of anti-Islamic bias incidents in the US peaked in 2001 for obvious reasons, and then plummeted in 2002, and has never gone back up.

I went to the FBI hate crime page and pulled out the anti-religious hate crimes statistics for the years 2004-2008, the most recent ones published. It shows that anti-Islamic hate crimes were trending down:

The number of incidents, combined over fifty states, does not seem to be too alarming. One could spin a story about the massive increase in anti-atheist hate crimes, as they soared from 6 to 14 in 2008, an increase of 133%!

I purposefully kept a dataset out of this graph. Because when you add anti-Jewish hate crimes in America, they would be off the chart:

Can you imagine Time magazine having a cover story on the relatively large number, and increase, of anti-semitic crimes in America (at the very same time that anti-Islamic crimes were going down)?

Of course not. As Goldberg points out,

Why aren't we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn't one. And there isn't an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there's a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don't like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you'll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party") than you will toward Muslims.

In other words, Time's cover story is not trying to uncover a truth but rather it is trying to obscure one. "Islamophobia" is a gross exaggeration that has been peddled by Muslim political leaders with an agenda.

In New York State, the very spot where Islamic terrorists murdered nearly 3000 people, the number of anti-Islamic crimes were a mere six in 2008. The number of anti-semitic crimes? 129.

In liberal, tolerant California, also in 2008, there were 11 hate crimes against Muslims - less than once a month. Anti-semitic crimes? 294.

Let's look at all hate crimes in America, not just those against religion. Here are the FBI's 2008 statistics, sorted by number of incidents:

Type	Amount
Anti-Black	2,876
Anti-Jewish	1,013
Anti-Male Homosexual	776
Anti-White	716
Anti-Hispanic	561
Anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin	333
Anti-Homosexual	307
Anti-Multiple Races, Group	209
Anti-Other Religion	191
Anti-Female Homosexual	154
Anti-Asian/Pacific Islander	137
Anti-Islamic	105
Anti-Catholic	75
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group	65
Anti-Protestant	56
Anti-Mental	56
Anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native	54
Anti-Heterosexual	33
Anti-Bisexual	27
Anti-Physical	22
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.	14

The answer to Time's titular question is a resounding "no."

In context, so-called "Islamophobia" is virtually non-existent, only 1.3% of all hate crimes, which are in themselves only a minute percentage of all crimes in America.

All hate crimes need to be taken seriously, but to exaggerate one set is to minimize the many hate crimes that far outstrip anti-Islamic crimes.

About that Lebanese "charity" that killed 2 Hezb men (updated)

I mentioned yesterday that Hezbollah members were in a firefight with an Islamic charity, and three ended up killed - two on Hezbollah's side.

It turns out that the so-called charity is known as al-Ahbash or the AICP- Association of Islamic Charitable Projects. It espouses a controversial view of Islam, and it claims to be moderate while it tends to be pro-Syrian.

This "moderation" apparently allows one to walk around with RPGs and machine guns.

It turns out that the AICP is not only a Lebanese group, but it also has a number of branches in the US, as well as the UK, Canada, France, Australia and Switzerland.

From a quick look at a number of their websites I cannot determine exactly what "charities" this association comprises of, or gives money to. They solicit donations, of course, but they are very light on how exactly those donations get spent, outside of proselytizing Islam.

So while some Sufi-oriented Muslims might consider gifts to the AICP to be considered part of their Zakat (charity) obligation, to call it a "charity" seems a bit of a stretch.

To call it "moderate" seems a bit of a joke.

UPDATE: Zvi finds out much more:

More details about al-Ahbash from a 2008 postby Daoud Ibrahim:

The name al-Ahbash, recently mentioned in the media in connection to the UN investigation into the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, refers to The Association of Islamic Charitable Projects in Lebanon which was founded by A Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Yusuf al Hirari, nicknamed “al Habashi”, referring to his Ethiopian origin. Born in the city of al Hirara , near Somalia , al Hirari settled in Lebanon in 1950 where he taught religious studies and cultivated a personal following.

Maintaining strong relations with the Syrian government, the groups leader, Nizar al Halabi was killed in 1995 by Ahmad Abdul Karim al Saaid, known as Abu Mihjin, who headed “Asbat al Ansar”or the League of Partisans. The latter was sentenced to death in absentia for his crime.

In April 2001, al Ahbash organized a series of public rallies to counter demonstrations called by those opposed to Syria's presence in Lebanon on the anniversary of the civil war. Members took to the streets dressed in black and wearing face paint and masks, the al-Ahbash members chanted pro-Syrian slogans before the TV cameras while waving nail-encrusted broomsticks, kitchen knives, brass knuckles, chains, axes, old rusted swords and hammers.
Released on Friday, the UN report into the assassination of Hariri featured the name of three brothers, Ahmad Abd al Al, an active member of al Ahbash currently in Lebanese custody, Walid, a member of the Presidential Guard, and Mahmud, also member of al Ahbash who, according to the investigation telephoned Lebanese President Emile Lahoud moments before the bombing which targeted Hariri’s convoy on February 14 th 2005. Mahmud was arrested on Sunday on a warrant issued by Magistrate Judge Sai Mirza. Police in Beirut also raised a sweet shop in Tariq al Jadidah neighbourhood owned by Hashem Mahmud Alian, allegedly a member of al Ahbash where hand grenades were found and confiscates and Alian arrested.
...

On violence and terrorism, the group says the following. I wish they included some indication that non-Muslim civilians - e.g. Jews - are innocent and must not be harmed. But they don't:

“The Association rejects the Takfir ideology and opposes the use of violence against the ruling authorities and the killing of the elderly, women, and children. It does not depend on any government for financial support and rejects the takfir ideologies that denounce Muslims as infidels”.

Read the rest.

The group itself says,

Unlike the followers of Sayyid Qutub [ Muslim Brotherhood - Zvi ] who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung fifty years ago, and unlike the followers of Muhammad ibn ^adbil-Wahhab [ the Wahhabis - Zvi ] who deviated from the right path by following an erroneous idea that sprung two hundred years ago, unlike them we are following the right path of the prophet, his companions and their followers.

The group runs The Islamic Education School, several colleges, a couple of radio stations, etc.

The Michigan chapter says,

The A.I.C.P goes counter any form of extremism that allows the killing of innocents, and it is clear of any connections to any form of deviations or extremism that considers the mere fact of visiting the tomb of Prophet Muhammad or celebrating his birth as a type of heresy. Rather, the association warns against extremism and labors to prevent its spreading. The association considers the deviated and extremist practices of certain groups in the name of religion as a form of treason to the people and a cause for fracture among the unity of the nation.

Their Australian branch recently held a Ramadan dinner that attracted a lot ofgovernment officials as well as foreign Muslim dignitaries, including both the premier and the opposition leader of New South Wales, several MPs and ministers, and consuls general from Iraq and Bangladesh, plus the Syrian ambassador.

The al-Ahbash organization in Sydney had a long-running feud with the infamous Sheikh Hilaly (of "uncovered meat" fame). They probably are moderate when compared with psychopaths like Hilali.

On the other hand, there is this claimed quotation from "one al-Ahbash leader": “As Muslims, we must never support and encourage false religions”! (i.e. no assisting Vietnamese Buddhists).

What I can verify is that I was unable to find any instance at all in which the AICP participated in any inter-faith event.

Time to buy Ahava products

Last night, the Ahava store in London was vandalized:

An Israeli skin care shop has had red paint thrown across its windows in a suspected targeted attack.

The Ahava store – famous for its Dead Sea products – was covered in the paint during the incident in Covent Garden, central London, on Wednesday night.

Staff discovered the damage when they arrived for work on Thursday morning.

Every time an Israeli store is vandalized by "peaceful" opponents of Israel, I will put up a free ad for that store on this blog, and I encourage other blogs to do the same.

So this is a good time to give Ahava a free ad:

UPDATE: Just for kicks, I issued a press release for this initiative. I have no idea if it will go anywhere outside the press release website, but I always wondered about how they work, so I decided to give it a shot.

Elder of Ziyon Blog offers free advertising to victims of anti-Israel aggression

In reaction to the vandalism of the Ahava store in London, the Elder of Ziyon blog announces free advertising for every Israeli store that is attacked.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Aug 26, 2010 – On the night of August 25, 2010, the Ahava cosmetics store in central London was attacked by vandals who splattered red paint on its windows.

The vandals were part of a movement that wants to boycott all Israeli products.

These groups are not interested in equality, or fairness, or even in the Palestinian cause. They simply want to put a self-righteous veneer on their hatred for the existence of a Jewish state and their opposition to the Jewish right of self-determination.

In reaction, the Elder of Ziyon blog has announced a new policy: all stores and organizations that are similarly attacked will get free advertising in the blog.

It is to be hoped that all right-thinking blogs will follow suit, so that these sorts of anti-Israel and often anti-semitic stunts end up helping the intended victims.

The Elder of Ziyon blog is a popular Zionist website that draws thousands of pageviews daily. It can be read at http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com.

The full story about the vandalism of Ahava can be seen at http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/08/time-to-buy-ahava-products.html .

UPDATE 2: Commenter Bill mentions the Buycott campaign, which is specifically set up to support companies targetted by boycotters.

Kuwait apologizes to Morocco over TV cartoon

From the Arab Times:

The Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs has officially apologized to the people of Morocco for the animated comedy series screened by a Kuwaiti TV channel, reports Al-Seyassah daily.
It has been reported the improper depiction of the Moroccan women has sparked an outrage.
The Ministry apology said Kuwait respects the Kingdom of Morocco and its people. The apology also stressed on the fact that issues such as these cannot affect the distinguished and brotherly relations between the peoples of the two countries.

This came when the Moroccan community in Kuwait expressed its resentment of the TV program which greatly offended the Moroccan people and requested the Ministry of Information to delete the two episodes which were telecast on Aug 17 and Aug 18.

The Moroccans said this incident is unprecedented in the Arab world since this is the first time one Arab country has insulted the people of another.

In the meantime, the Kuwaiti daily newspaper Al-Watan, an affiliate of the channel, has issued a formal apology on its front page under the title ‘All love and respect for Morocco’. According to the paper, the play was not meant to offend the Moroccans.

I am trying to figure out what the exact offense was, and as far as I could tell, in the offensive skit, a Moroccan mother greeted two guests and gave them coffee, but was surreptitiously practicing magic on them to make them want to marry her two daughters. It might have implied that the guests specifically came to Morocco to meet and sleep with women.

Between the witchcraft and implied prostitution, Moroccans were a bit miffed.

Asharq al-Awsat on direct talks (Zvi)

From Zvi:

A group of Asharq al-Awsat commentators have weighed in to discuss the direct talks between Israel and the PA. It's a mixed bag of naivete, delusion, lies, hatred, skepticism, ignorance, bogus conventional wisdom, oppressive worry, realpolitik, actual wisdom and occasional flashes of insight.

Dr. Mamoun Fandy (outside of the region) presents six "signs" that make him think that Obama is optimistic about the direct talks. These are:

* There is a 1 year deadline, which he thinks indicates "at least 70%" confidence. It is hard to understand why he thinks this. Many "deadlines" have come and gone already. For example, Bibi Netanyahu froze settlements, a freeze that is intended to expire in September. Mahmoud Abbas burned an entire year and now will start negotiating just as the freeze expires, giving him an excuse to immediately quit negotiations. (Has anyone else noticed this?)

* He thinks that Sen. Mitchell's shuttle diplomacy has contributed to this confidence, and he hopes (apparently) that this will result in a historic victory for Obama entering the election season. He can keep on hoping; I see no reason why Obama administration policy vis a vis the Middle East will be any wiser than it has heretofore. Obama/Clinton/Mitchell have already nearly destroyed the peace process by encouraging Abbas to become even more uselessly intransigent, before finally backing off.

* He thinks that Obama has a blueprint that is "almost acceptable to all parties." I would like to hear what this blueprint is supposed to be; even the BBC is asking whether the administration has any plan at all, and I certainly have not heard anything that would work.

* I will actually quote the 4th "sign" because it is kind of an unusual perspective:

The fourth sign is that Israel and the United States have agreements on a number of common interests in the region. The most important of which is the stability of the Gulf region as a source of energy, preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb, and peace in return for [access to] the Gulf markets – in other words, a peace agreement would open the Gulf markets to Israel, and undermine Iran's nuclear capability.

Aside from implying that Israel may actually favor stability in the Arab world (which it does, but Arab commentators either don't grasp this or rarely admit to it), he is not shying away from defining what normalization might mean. Of course, he phrases it in a way that casts it as an agreement between Israel and the US, not a proposed offer by the Arabs.

* He is encouraged by the invitation of Mubarak and King Abdullah, because

This invitation could be seen as a ‘vaccination’ or "inoculation" against the failure of the 1998 Clinton – Arafat agreement where Yasser Arafat and the Israelis reached an agreement under the auspices of former US President Bill Clinton. However as soon as Arafat arrived in Gaza and descended from his plane, he rejected the agreement. The American explanation of Arafat's sudden change of heart was that some Arab leaders convinced him that he would not be able to ‘market’ what had been agreed [to the Palestinian people], and therefore, it would be better to reject the deal and announce an Intifada which would subsequently make him a leader, and that is indeed what Arafat did.

There is an unusual amount of honesty here (give or take the erroneous date; the Arafat Intifadah did not start in 1998).

He goes on to say that

the United States will guarantee Israel's signature and actions whilst Egypt and Jordan will guarantee the Palestinian signature – which is to say guarantee that the Palestinians will not violate the principles of the agreement.

* He believes that if talks fail, the world will declare a Palestinian state, regardless, so it's in Israel's interest to make the talks succeed. But if this is the case, why would the Palestinians negotiate in good faith. Abbas will sit back and complain, throwing spanners in the works at every opportunity.

He closes by saying that the PA/Hamas division is really an Arab division, and also that Arab countries that oppose normalization talk and trade with Israel behind the scenes. "However, unfortunately, Israel today has relations with the majority of Arab states."

With this "unfortunately", as with some of his other comments, Fandy demonstrates ignorance of what makes Israel tick; Israel has always been much more ready to make concessions when approached by people who hold out their hand than it has when approached by people making threats. This error reflects the collective blind spot of most of the region's opinion shapers. It's always about threats, because the idea of making concessions in order to get what you want is anathema, and because the Arab world has never come to terms with the fact that destroying Israel is off the table. Anwar Sadat was wiser. He realized that Israeli leaders serve their people, and he realized from the moment he came to Jerusalem that in the end he would need to make sure that the Israeli people were ready to accept a deal. Three and a half decades later, the rest of the Arab world still doesn't get it.

Fayyad: PA financially independent in 2013

PA prime minister Salam Fayyad said in a speech yesterday that the PA plans to no longer be reliant on foreign aid by the end of 2013.

He did mention that their "Arab brothers" tended not to pay their pledges, although they of course remained the biggest supporters of Palestinian Arabs. Funny way they have of showing it.

The only concrete infrastructure initiative I saw him mention was a plan for 15 new schools over an unspecified time period. I have a feeling that there are more than 15 new schools in the Jewish towns of Judea and Samaria every year.

Obviously, he said nothing about dismantling "refugee" camps that are wholly in PA-run territory, or of cutting the 60% of the PA budget that goes to Gaza.

He might be a brilliant economist but the idea that, with its rotten and corrupt officials still in place, the PA would be on its feet in less than four years is a pipe-dream.

Amnesty's apology leaves a bad aftertaste

I had linked to this story about how the head of Finland's branch of Amnesty International, Frank Johansson repeatedly and unapologetically referred to Israel as a "scum state" in his blog.

Now, under pressure, Johansson has not apologized but claims it was just "poorly worded" and a "mistranslation."

As the Tundra Tabloids blog proves, however, Johansson had many opportunities to clarify his wording and he refused to do so.

A reader emails me with a response that she received from Amnesty when she complained:

Thank you for your email to Amnesty International.

The comments made by Frank Johansson in a blog on the website of the Finnish daily newspaper Iltalehti are personal comments and should not be taken to reflect those of Amnesty International, including Amnesty International Finland, or to be endorsed in any way by Amnesty International.

Amnesty International has never described Israel as a “scum state” or used such terms to describe Israel or any other state and would never do so.

Obviously, we regret not only that this term was used but also that inadequate steps were taken to make clear that Frank Johansson was expressing an entirely personal view and not speaking on behalf of Amnesty International or expressing a view which reflects in any way the view of Amnesty International. Amnesty International totally disassociates itself from the comments expressed by Mr Johansson and has made this clear to him.

We have discussed this issue with Frank Johannson. He has issued a full and open apology for his ill-judged personal comments and for the offence that his comments have caused. This was an important error of judgment but there can be no doubting Frank Johannson’s long and deep commitment to human rights and to working impartially to end human rights abuses worldwide.

Best wishes, Luna

Amnesty accepts his mealy-mouthed pseudo-apology as a "full and open apology." Of course, when the Jerusalem Post reporter asked him to clarify the statements, he made very clear that they reflected exactly how he felt about Israel. Even worse, even though Johannson is very clear about his disgust for the state of Israel, Amnesty is saying as a fact that he is impartial! Meaning that Johansson will continue to work at this formerly prestigious organization as if his personal venom towards Israel is irrelevant to his work there.

Amnesty needs to do better than that.

In some ways, this is worse that Marc Garlasco's hobby of collecting Nazi memorabilia while at HRW. That was at least separate from his activities there; it was a sick indicator of bias but not nearly as direct and explicit as Johansson's. Johannson proudly and publicly displayed his hatred of Israel on a blog where he also publicly identified with Amnesty; Garlasco did not publicize the connection between his HRW human-rights activist persona and the person who was fascinated with Nazi SS jackets and Iron Crosses.

Amnesty, as a purportedly impartial organization, should fire Johannsen immediately. If they are not going to fire someone for such a statement outright, which would already reflect badly on them, they should publicly say that he will never have the slightest input into any of Amnesty's reports about the Middle East, because of his obvious and clear bias.

But this citing of his fake apology, and the facile statement that he is impartial, casts much doubt over Amnesty's commitment to truth.

Children of IHH attackers used as props for hate

A random set of children of the IHH members who were killed while attacking Israeli troops aboard the Mavi Marmara were treated to a vacation by a Turkish charity - whose level of "charity" seems to be in line with the IHH itself, leavened with hate.

The trip was a PR stunt, where the children met with other anti-Zionist societies besides Islamic cultural sites. Even the organizers admit that the "vacation" was primarily a "message to the world" to champion the "Palestinian cause," and the children were mere props.

These "orphans" were asked to speak in front of the anti-Israel groups that hosted them, saying how their fathers were killed by "insidious Zionist occupation forces" and how they hoped to meet next year in Jerusalem.

The charity plans on further trips, this time to other countries, to spread their message of hate.

How I work

I have a simple rule when blogging: Be skeptical about anything not written by a primary source.

Here's an example, and not from the left. Going down the thread to the truth, however, often reveals other truths.

Arutz-7 has a story that starts off with:

A group of more than 150 Irish artists have pledged to boycott Israel as part of a solidarity campaign coordinated with the Palestinian Authority.

Boycott campaigns are nothing new, but it would be big news if this was done in coordination with the PA, since the Abbas regime officially says that it only boycotts the "settlers" and not the state of Israel.

Arutz-7's "proof" seems to be this statement from the Irish group:

“In response to the call from Palestinian civil society for a cultural boycott of Israel, we pledge not to avail of any invitation to perform or exhibit in Israel, nor to accept any funding from any institution linked to the government of Israel, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.”

"Palestinian civil society" is not the same as the PA.

But maybe I missed something, so I went to the IPSC website, and looked at the actual announcement. Nothing about the PA.

But perhaps they had cooperated with the PA in the past, so I looked for a search engine. They don't have one, but Google can be configured to search within only one site, so I searched for "Palestinian Authority" to see if the group ever met with officials of the PA or received any encouraging statements from the PA. I couldn't find anything.

On the contrary, I found an interview with a leader of the BDS movement answering a question as to whether the PA supports a boycott:

One has to look at it in perspective. The PA is unelected. It is there because of the US. It does not represent Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. It is complicit in Israel's oppression. It is a sub-contractor of the occupation.

The PA has engaged in a small part of the boycott of settlement products. It is the only part the Oslo accords allow for. It is a step in the right direction. If the PA had a different stand, all governments would react differently. But civil society says Israel is the oppressor, not the settlements.

Here's that term "civil society" again. Since it was used in two completely different contexts by two BDS groups, it seems that this is a keyword that they use to claim that Palestinian Arabs are behind boycotts of Israel without having to actually define the term. In fact, of course, PalArabs happily buy Israeli products, even in Gaza, when they get the chance, and the BDS movement is lying when they try to imply that Palestinian Arabs as a whole support the BDS movement.

It seems apparent that Arutz-7 is wrong in this case.

Now that we see a connection between the terms "civil society" and the BDS movement, let's see where else we can see that link. Back to Google, we find a number of disparate BDS sites that use the exact same term.

One of the earlier uses was in a 2005 BDS campaign that uses the term in its title:

Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel
Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights
9 July 2005

...We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era.

In that case, they list some 150 organizations that support BDS. Most of them do not originate in Palestine: the ones that are in the territories are generally labor unions and Palestinian anti-Israel "human rights" organizations like PICCR, Addameer and Al Mezan (but not PCHR.) They do include many groups based out of Syria and Jordan as well as world-wide anti-Israel activist organizations.

We see how the BDS movement will misrepresent itself as to how aligned they are with average Palestinian Arabs, and that they disparage PalArabs who don't support the boycott by implying that they are not "civil." They are elitist by calling themselves "civil society" and they act against the wishes of the average Palestinian Arab. This is something that has happened for decades; Western reporters and diplomats accept the word of self-appointed, non-elected "leaders" whose political interests are in direct opposition to what the average Arab of Palestinian descent really wants.

America's history of Christian Zionism

From Zvi:

Christian Zionism is actually a long-standing phenomenon in the United States. It has been, for the most part, a positive and constructive movement. Many United States presidents have expressed Zionist sentiments, including John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and every US president since Woodrow Wilson, regardless of party. A few short samples (there are a lot more):

President John Q. Adams:
[I believe in the] rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation. (Letter to Major Mordecai Manuel Noah)

President Wilson:
The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth. (Response to Balfour Declaration)
President Harry Truman:
I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. (Granting de facto recognitionto the new Jewish State—11 minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence)

John F. Kennedy:
In the prophetic spirit of Zionism all free men today look to a better world and in the experience ofZionism we know that it takes courage and perseverance and dedication to achieve it.

Back then, the word Zionism had not been turned into a swear word by anti-Semitic propagandists willing to lie, cheat, steal and threaten.

Martin Luther King, Jr was very much a Christian Zionist:

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect her right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security, and that security must be a reality.”

So American Christian Zionists today can be proud to stand in excellent company. The same is true for Christian Zionists in other countries.

Today, Christian Zionists are probably one of the few bastions of sanity on topics related to Israel in places like Tromso, Norway.