Friday, June 26, 2015

06/26 Links Pt1: Time to call out those aiding the Israel pogrom; The Iranian-American nuclear project

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Time to call out those aiding the Israel pogrom

We know that the NGOs are the instruments of the Soviet-inspired psychological warfare campaign to bend the collective Western mind with systematic falsehoods and blood libels about Israel.
What we haven’t done is hold to account those who have enabled these institutions and groups to do these wicked things, and who have given them traction.
Israel and its defenders should be publicly calling out those Western governments which fund these NGOs, and demanding that they stop funding such demonization and incitement to Israel’s destruction.
Most of these Israeli NGOs are part of the New Israel Fund’s network. The NIF should be ostracized. If an organism has ingested poison it must expel it or else it may die.
UN Watch points out that since its establishment the UNHRC has condemned Israel more than the rest of the world combined. Why are the UK and US still members of this travesty of a human rights arbiter? As long as they participate in it, they validate and legitimize it. As long as Israel’s allies keep silent in the face of the libels against Israel pouring out of the NGOs, UN and other international bodies and their own media and universities, those governmental allies are themselves implicitly conniving at this delegitimization campaign. As long as they continue to fund these NGOs, they too have blood on their hands.
The Davis report is just the latest manifestation of the surreal nightmare through which we are living, in which much of the world has been turned into one giant pogrom, both physical and intellectual, against the Jewish state. To fight it, we must not only delegitimize the delegitimizers but hold their enablers’ feet to the fire, too.

Caroline Glick: The Iranian-American nuclear project

If the US fails to reverse Obama’s policies toward Iran in the next two years, it is hard to see how it will be able to rebuild its strategic posture in the future.
The pace of change in the region and the world is too rapid today to rely on past achievements as a basis for future power.
As for Israel, it is now clear that there is no “crisis” in Israel-US relations. The Obama administration is betraying Israel. The centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy is his desire to transform Iran’s illicit nuclear program, which endangers Israel’s existence, into a legal Iranian-American nuclear program that endangers Israel’s existence.
Consequently, the last thing Israel should worry about is upsetting Obama. To convince fence-sitting Democratic senators to vote against Obama’s Iran deal, Israel should expose all the ruinous details of the nuclear agreement. Israel should let the American people know how the deal endangers not just Israel, but their soldiers, and indeed, the US homeland itself.
By doing so, Israel stands a chance of separating the issue of Democratic support for Obama from Democratic opposition to the nuclear deal. Obama wants this deal to be about himself. Israel needs to explain how it is about America.
At the end of the day, what we now know about US collaboration with Iran brings home – yet again – the sad fact that the only chance Israel has ever had of preventing Iran from getting the bomb is to destroy the mullahs’ nuclear installations itself. If Israel can still conduct such an operation, it makes sense for it to be carried out before Iran’s nuclear program officially becomes the Iranian-American nuclear project.

Martin Sherman: The logical lacunae of the Left - Ari Shavit at AJC

One of the annual program’s highlights is the Forum’s Great Debate, which this year featured The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline B. Glick and Haaretz’s Ari Shavit, on whether the two-state formula offers a constructive solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or is merely a dangerous delusion.
Unsurprisingly, Glick gave a feisty repudiation of the conceptual rationale and practical feasibility of any resolution based on the two-state principle. My strong misgivings regarding the alternative one-state paradigm she proposes are well known, but while I differ on what should be done, I always find her arguments as to what shouldn’t be done powerful and persuasive.
But it is on her opponent, Ari Shavit, that I should like to focus in the ensuing paragraphs.
At the start of the debate, Glick showered lavish praise on him, describing him as “a shining example, of what is best on the Left.” She continued that although “from a policy prescription he remains entirely true to his tribe... he represents the best of his tribe,” adding, with a wry reference to his fellow ideologues’ tendency to disregard recalcitrant realities, “because from time to time, he can make room for facts that are uncomfortable to his tribe.”
Sadly, in his address Shavit displayed scant signs of such virtues.

Those Gaza kids never let you down

Chris Gunness of UNRWA tweeted this message (misspelling his organization's name):

Put your trust in the children of #Gaza they will never let you down. Support @URNWA's #SOS4Gaza campaign. RT pic.twitter.com/BHUxmBu4xm
— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) June 24, 2015

Yes, those children of Gaza will never let you down if you want them to grow up to be terrorists.

Saeb Erekat has been busy lately.

He issued a document describing a strategy on how to destroy Israel, in the words of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (not yet in English.)

His main points are:

Consider rescinding the PLO's recognition of Israel
Mobilize international support to force Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines
Ensure that "refugees" and their descendants retain that status for generations, with the aim for the eventual demographic destruction of the State of Israel
Continuation of activities designed to give legitimaxy to the independence of the State of Palestine through joining international institutions
Absolute denial of any offer of temporary or partial agreements with Israel
A legal battle against Israel in the international arena in order to limit its ability to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism
Strategic aligning with Palestinian terrorist organizations, led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, through their participation in the PLO institutions and speeding up the process of reconciliation with Hamas
Full support for Palestinian terrorist organizations and diplomatic activity to prevent the entry of any terrorist organization into any list of terrorist organizations.
Support of terrorist murderers serving sentences for war crimes and pushing a political struggle for their immediate unconditional release.
Supporting "lone wolf" attacks against Israelis, such as stabbings, car terror, IEDs and Molotov cocktails
Help increase the political power of Israeli Arabs.

He also has been making grandiose claims, saying yesterday that as the head of the PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department, he represents 11 million Palestinians. Which would be news to the ones who live in Lebanon or Syria, since the PLO has been treating them as cannon fodder rather than as human beings.

(h/t Yoel)

J-Street: Pointing in the wrong direction

Times of Israel reports:

After weeks of legislative drama, a trade bill containing provisions opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel cleared its final legislative hurdle Wednesday afternoon. The anti-BDS language, passed as part of the controversial Trade Promotion Authority legislation, is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama, who had pushed Congress to pass the trade bill as soon as possible.

Two amendments opposing BDS in Europe – one sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin and Republican Sen. Rob Portman and the other by Republican Representative Peter Roskam and Democratic Representative Juan Vargas – were included in a trade authorization package that was considered must-pass legislation for the administration.

Reading J-Street's reasoning in opposing the bill reveals much about that purportedly "pro-Israel" organization:

J Street is adamantly opposed to the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement. We’ve worked consistently, particularly on college campuses*, to oppose BDS efforts that are often thinly-veiled attempts to delegitimize Israel.

We view the Roskam-Vargas “U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act” (H.R.825) as not simply unhelpful to the effort to combat Global BDS, but contrary to longstanding US policy opposing settlement of the territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.
...
The current stalemate in diplomatic progress toward a two-state solution has led some groups to pursue more limited boycotts or divestment initiatives in opposition to only the occupation and not Israel itself. These “targeted” efforts do not call for a boycott of Israel itself or Israeli goods, but of settlement products, unlike the all-encompassing boycott of Israel promoted by the global BDS Movement.

While J Street does not participate in such targeted boycott or divestment initiatives, we do not believe it is productive or appropriate for the United States government to spend time and resources preventing or reporting on such efforts.

J-Street claims to be opposed to BDS. But legislation that opposes BDS in all territories controlled by Israel is considered so heinous that they would rather see Israel boycotted than consider that Jews who live in their ancestral lands should not be boycotted. Which means that their opposition to BDS is not really so strong.

To put it another way, they claim to love Israel, but if that means that all Israeli citizens are treated the same whatever side of the Green Line they happen to live on, then screw Israel.

Also, while J-Street claims that this legislation doesn't distinguish between Israel and the territories, its opposition shows that J-Street doesn't distinguish between the Western Wall and Ramallah - all of them are the same occupied territory according to J-Street where Jews should be allowed to be boycotted if their friends at Jewish Voice for Peace want to. If someone wants to boycott a kosher falafel shop in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, J-Street supports that right.

Legislation often includes parts that not everyone is thrilled with, but the greater good is considered worth the price of the particular parts that one doesn't like. J-Street has decided that the possibility of supporting Jews in the territories against discrimination more than negates any good that comes from a major piece of anti-BDS legislation.

Pro-Israel? Yeah, right.

--------
* I have looked hard for evidence of a single J-Street action on a single college campus - a table, a protest, anything - publicly denouncing BDS. I have not found one yet. They only have some online documents against BDS that as far as I can tell were never physically distributed to anyone.

The impression one gets is that J-Street wants to maintain its ties to radical anti-Israel BDS groups like JVP but still wants to pretend to be pro-Israel.

(h/t fizziks)

Something fishy about the "flotilla" (update)

This morning, Palestine News Network said:

One of the organizers of Freedom Flotilla III trip, Dror Feiler Wednesday said that Marianne of Gothenburg is about to set off to Gaza within a few hours.

Today, however,m the story has changed:

One of the ships taking part in a flotilla headed towards Gaza strip was sabotaged south of Crete, an activist aboard one of the ships said Thursday.

Israeli-born Swedish activist Dror Feiler told Nazareth-based al-Shams radio that the ship had been sabotaged by professionals, and would have sunk if sailed at sea.

"Somebody went underneath the ship at night and sabotaged its propellers, just like they sabotaged the same ship in 2011,” Fieler said referring to similar damage that was inflicted upon a ship participating in a previous flotilla.

Feiler, who relinquished his Israeli citizenship after moving to Sweden, boarded the trawler Marianne of Gothenburg in Sweden with 18 other activists six weeks ago. The crew had refrained from stopping at European ports prior to avoid being held by authorities, but their trip was cut short after realizing that they might have drowned had they continued.

Despite the sabotage, the remainder of the flotilla convoy will move as planned with the ships expected arrive in Gaza in succession within three days, Feiler said.

I've been watching the Marianne av Goteburg on Internet vessel search sites since yesterday. Here's its track for the past two days (the thin blue line on the bottom:)

It was going straight until sometime during the day Wednesday, and it started circling about 24 hours ago. If it was in danger of sinking, as claimed - why didn't it go to a port?

Silently sabotaging a propeller on a moving ship sounds very suspicious to me as well.

Not that I don't believe that Israel might do that, but this story isn't adding up.

UPDATE 6-26: Miraculously, the ship has been on its way for about the past 20 hours

06/25 Links Pt2: BHL: A yellow star for the Jewish state?; Fmr. Obama advisers warn against Iran deal

From Ian:

Bernard-Henri Levy: A yellow star for the Jewish state?

Is this just a detail that can be safely ignored on the grounds that BDS targets “only” the territories, the Jewish settlements being built there, and the goods that the settlers produce? This is another sucker trap.
Here, too, it is enough to read the movement’s founding declaration of July 9, 2005, which specifies that one of its “three objectives” is to “protect” the “rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.” In fact and in law, that would amount to establishing on those lands a new Arab country that could be counted on, in short order, to undergo an ethnic cleansing that would make it judenfrei.
And, finally, how can I refrain from reminding those whose memory is as full of holes as their thinking that the idea of boycotting Israel is not as new as it appears? In fact, it is older than the Jewish state, having emerged on December 2, 1945, from a decision by the Arab League, which then wasted no time in relying on that decision to reject the United Nations’ dual resolution to establish two states. Among the promoters of this brilliant idea were Nazi war criminals who had settled in Syria and Egypt, where they gave their new masters lessons in marking Jewish shops and businesses.
A comparison is not an argument. And the meaning of a slogan does not reside entirely in its genealogy. But words do have a history. As do debates. And it is better to know that history, if we wish to avoid repeating its ugliest scenes.
The truth is that the BDS movement is nothing more than a sinister caricature of the anti-totalitarian and anti-apartheid struggles. It is a campaign whose instigators have no aim other than to discriminate against, delegitimize, and vilify an Israel that in their mind never stopped wearing its yellow star.
To activists of good faith who may have been taken in by duplicitous representations of the movement, I would say only that there are too many noble causes in need of assistance to allow oneself to be enlisted in a dubious one. Those worthy causes include fighting the jihadist decapitators, saving the women and girls enslaved by Boko Haram, defending the Middle East’s imperiled Christians and Arab democrats, and, of course, striving for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Labour’s Hamas connection

Among the Labour mainstream, complacency about Corbyn has been replaced by a rising sense of anger. “He claims he is a socialist, yet the first principle of socialism is supposed to be equality,” says James Bloodworth, editor of the influential Labour website Left Foot Forward. “Is he deluded enough to think that anti-Semitic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah care a jot for the human rights of women, of gay people and of Jews?”
Bloodworth continues: “He needs to clarify his past statements as a matter of urgency. If he still stands by the things he has said, anyone genuinely interested in human rights cannot support him.”
But he is not alone in his affection for hardline Islamists. A seam of similar feeling runs through the British political establishment, particularly on the left.
The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) is a British campaign group that — according to the Tel Aviv-based Meir Amit Terrorism and Intelligence Center — is affiliated to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2009, it welcomed the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as its guest speaker at its annual conference; and it has long enjoyed the patronage of MPs.
At a PRC event held at Parliament in 2013, Corbyn took the stage alongside Baroness Jenny Tonge, who was forced to resign from her position in the Liberal party after saying that if she were Palestinian, she “might just consider” becoming a suicide bomber; and Lord Nazir Ahmed, who after causing a deadly road accident by texting behind the wheel, blamed his prison sentence on a Jewish conspiracy.
A surprising number of other British politicians, including Andy Slaughter, Sir Gerald Kaufman and Crispin Blunt, have visited Hamas leaders in Gaza, and some — George Galloway included — have made sizable donations to the terror group. Now that Corbyn’s star is rising, this loose collective of pro-Islamist MPs may have a new representative at the top table. (h/t Yenta Press)

Landmark anti-BDS law passes final Senate legislative hurdle

After weeks of legislative drama, a trade bill containing provisions opposing the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel cleared its final legislative hurdle Wednesday afternoon. The anti-BDS language, passed as part of the controversial Trade Promotion Authority legislation, is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama, who had pushed Congress to pass the trade bill as soon as possible.
Two amendments opposing BDS in Europe – one sponsored by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin and Republican Sen. Rob Portman and the other by Republican Representative Peter Roskam and Democratic Representative Juan Vargas – were included in a trade authorization package that was considered must-pass legislation for the administration.
The president needed Congress’s vote to authorize him to negotiate trade deals with so-called “fast-track authority,” but ten days ago House Democrats turned on the president and defeated a key portion of the trade deal package.
After quick legislative maneuvering last week, House Republicans passed the authorization part of the bill – the part that the president needed most urgently and that Republicans tend to support – and then passed the revised House version back to the Senate for approval. On Wednesday afternoon, the Senate gave the controversial legislation its final approval, sending trade authorization to the president’s desk to be signed into law.

Roskam: If you want free trade with the U.S., you can't boycott Israel

Summer appeal to support EoZ! (plus a mazel tov...)

(This post will remain on top for the next several hours, scroll down for newer posts)

This past Monday I achieved something that I highly doubt that any writer in any medium has ever accomplished.

My book review of Michael Oren's "Ally" was reproduced in The Jewish Press.

My original analysis of the UNHRC report was reproduced in The Algemeiner.

My scoop that the UNHRC report lied about the definition of occupation was reproduced in The Tower.

Three different, original articles were each independently considered by three different news editors to be valuable enough to be reproduced in three separate media outlets in a single day.

On that same day I also published a graphic that succinctly describes the differences between UNHCR and UNRWA which has been shared hundreds of times on Twitter.

This would make any writer proud if it happened in the course of a month - yet it all happened on Monday.

While that day isn't typical, it gives you an idea of the astonishing amount of original, valuable information that gets created and published on EoZ every single day, six days a week.

Besides EoZ's original articles, posters, cartoons and videos, we have increased the number of columnists, now featuring Daphne Anson. Mike Lumish, PreOccupied Territory and Vic Rosenthal.

Not to mention Ian's daily linkdumps, which are the best single source for all important Israel-related news available - not to disrespect the excellent job done by JCPA.

Some of the funds raised here go to these contributors (for those who accept being remunerated.)

It takes a lot of time and money to keep things going. If you think that this work is valuable, please consider donating - or, better yet, becoming a monthly subscriber - using the PayPal buttons on the top-right column of my main webpage. Or, if you prefer, you can help by sending me an Amazon gift card.

Thanks again for your readership and for your support through the years. I do appreciate it.

By the way, Junior Elder is iy"h getting married next month. He has contributed to a number of posts through the years.

If you want to earmark your donation to be given to him and his lovely bride as a wedding present, please add 18 cents to the amount donated so I can distinguish it from other donations.

I haven't decided what to call the future Mrs. Junior Elder on the blog, but tentatively I'll call her Junior Elder Wife, or JEW for short. :)

Thanks again!

An absurd UNHRC commission story and the games that will result

The UNHRC report released this week includes some clearly ridiculous allegations from Gaza "eyewitnesses." Here is one of them:

An eyewitness, Raghad Qdeih, told the commission that, on 25 July around 1 p.m., Israeli forces occupied the home of her uncle, Mohamed Tawfiq Qdeih, in Khuza’a. At the time of the attack, the witness, together with her uncle’s extended family and friends were taking shelter on the ground floor. Most of the approximately 30 persons who had sought refuge in that house were women, children and elderly persons, including a man who was over 70 years old. Both witnesses interviewed by the commission in relation to this incident insisted that these people were all civilians, and that none of them were affiliated to armed groups. When the soldiers entered the house, Mohamed Tawfiq Qdeih was holding a white flag with one hand and his other hand was raised to show the soldiers that he was unarmed. He reportedly spoke to the soldiers in Hebrew, telling them that they were all civilians. Mohamed Tawfiq Qdeih was approaching the soldiers and, when he was about two meters away, the soldiers shot him twice and killed him. The women and children - among them the witness's daughter - were then ordered to leave the house, whereas all six men present were directed to stay in the building. The women and children went to the house of the witness’s father, Ramadan Qdeih, next door.

Ramadan Qdeih

The father of Raghad, Ramadan Qdeih, described to the commission that he witnessed the forces arriving at the house of his brother, Mohamed Qdeih, at around 1 p.m., in the process of which they demolished parts of it. About an hour later Israeli soldiers came to his own house. They ordered the people in the house to return to the place where they had previously sheltered, where the women stayed on the first floor. The owner of the house was taken to the second floor. From the window there, Ramadan Qdeih saw the men who had been held at his brother's house with Israeli soldiers standing behind them. The witness said that the men were naked with black plastic bags over their heads, handcuffed and positioned in front of the windows facing outwards. The soldiers then started shooting from behind the naked men, using them as human shields. This went on from about 1.30 to 6 pm. The men were later told by the soldiers that they were placed by the window in order to deter Hamas fighters from returning fire.

If things like these events happened, I would hope that IDF soldiers would be testifying about them.

But the stories are absurd.

The story about the IDF shooting a man at point blank range while he held a white flag and was speaking to them in Hebrew is just one version of the story, as the anti-Israel Euro-Mid Observer described this incident from the perspective of multiple "witnesses."

Ramadan Qdeih says that the soldiers first entered the house, and that Mohamed was shot afterwards.
Raghdad Qdeih says that he was shot on the steps leading to the house, not inside.
Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmad Al-Qara said that Mohammed was killed immediately upon opening the door to his house, not mentioning a conversation at all.

What about the IDF supposedly taking off the clothes of the Arab men and forcing them to stand in the window while they shot around them? It is even more absurd.

First of all, Hamas wouldn't be deterred from shooting at fellow Gazans.

Secondly, while the "witness" told the UNHRC that the "human shields" were "naked with black plastic bags over their heads," one told the Euro-Mid NGO that they were blindfolded. It is hard to mistake one for the other.

Thirdly, the most lurid detail from the UNHRC's "testimony" that the "human shields" were stripped naked is not corroborated by a single witness - or even "victim" - interviewed by Euro-Mid.

Even the Euro-Mid report acknowledges that the testimonies regarding this are inconsistent, but concludes "The contradictions were not important to lead the observers to doubt the truthfulness of statements in general."

But there is no downside to lying to the UNHRC. They will publish whatever people are willing to say. They won't try to corroborate it in the least.

And then, when the Military Advocate General is forced to investigate these obviously bogus claims and concludes after many months that almost all the stories are fiction, the headlines will be that the MAG cannot possibly be objective because of the high percentage of accusations that were dismissed. Even well-meaning Western observers will look at those statistics and conclude that something must be fishy, not even considering that Gazans are conditioned to - and instructed to - lie to NGOs. .

And NGOs like Euro-Mid are coaching their "witnesses" to say what they want to hear.

It is a win-win for the terrorists and their supporters, all because the UNHRC does not want to report what human rights groups know very well: that "eyewitnesses" often lie to Western NGOs. As a rare honest Amnesty researcher noted, "Players and interested parties go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate or manufacture 'evidence' for both internal and external consumption."

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column:

When I heard about the terrorist mass murder in the South Carolina church, I had a familiar feeling. It was the same feeling I had one morning last November, when I learned of the massacre at the Kehillat Bnei Torah Synagogue in Jerusalem. In fact, it was the same feeling I have had countless times in recent years, including twice more in the past week.

It is a combination of emotions. Sorrow, anger and a desire for justice, but also an assertion that “this time is enough. We won’t take it anymore.” Of course, most likely we won’t stop ‘taking it’, any more than blacks in America will be able to stop being the victims of racially-motivated hate crimes.

There are similarities and differences between our situation and theirs. One of the similarities is that incitement fuels the fury of the vicious or unstable individuals that become perpetrators of terrorism. In America, it’s underground. It isn’t socially acceptable to express race-hatred, but there is plenty of it in private discussions and, above all, on internet sites and social media. Among Palestinian Arabs, incitement to hate and kill Jews is taught in schools, broadcast on official PLO and Hamas media, and preached in mosques.

So when a Palestinian Arab speaks pleasantly to a Jew, smiles and shoots him dead (as happened last week), it isn’t a random act, even if the victim is chosen at random. The killer learned to hate in school in a carefully planned system of education set up by Yasser Arafat when he was allowed to return in 1993, and he heard murder glorified every day by his political and religious leaders.

Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people in Charleston, did not study to be a white supremacist in school, and he probably wasn’t told to go out and kill black people in church. He learned on the internet: Here is what he wrote in his manifesto:

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) is the heir of the White Citizens’ Council of the 1960s, which in turn was the more polished version of the KKK. While the CofCC also espouses traditional conservative political positions, racist themes predominate.

The Charleston terrorist thus has his roots directly in the violent racist tradition that grew out of southern opposition to Reconstruction after the Civil War, which was expressed by segregation, lynching, denial of suffrage, etc., and spawned the KKK and similar organizations.

Reconstruction was in part an attempt to punish the South, but it also was intended to rebuild its shattered economy and obtain human and political rights for the newly freed southern blacks. It failed in these latter tasks, and ultimately what emerged was the poor, Democratic-dominated Jim Crow South that existed until the 1960s. The status quo was strictly enforced by the deadly violence of the KKK and other racist groups.

I am indebted to “Sar Shalom” for pointing out to me the analogy between the reactionary southern opposition to Reconstruction, one of whose goals was to keep freed blacks from realizing the rights they should have gained after the Civil War, and the reactionary ‘Palestinian’ movement, which aims to return the region to its pre-WWI Muslim-dominated condition — and to prevent the Jewish people from obtaining its legitimate rights.

Thus Dylann Roof and Arab terrorists are not only driven by similar racist incitement, their ideological goals are also similar: to oppose a progressive change that granted an oppressed people their rights.

Palestinian inversion of reality tries to make it appear that their struggle is intended to gain rights for Arabs. But this interpretation is belied by their rejection of offers of statehood on numerous occasions, their insistence on ‘right of return’ and their refusal to accept the definition of Israel as a Jewish state within any borders. Their movement is not about creating an Arab state, but rather opposing the Jewish one.

And the white supremacists? Their movement isn’t about the rights of “the white race” either. But I don’t think anyone needs to be told that.

06/25 Links Pt1: Kemp: The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous; Pal teams named after terrorists

From Ian:

Col. Richard Kemp: The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous

Judge Davis suggests that the I.D.F.’s use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime and recommends further international legal restrictions on their use. Yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies.
The I.D.F. is not perfect. In the heat of battle and under stress its commanders and soldiers undoubtedly made mistakes. Weapons malfunctioned, intelligence was sometimes wrong and, as with all armies, it has some bad soldiers. Unnecessary deaths resulted, and these should be investigated and the individuals brought to trial if criminal culpability is suspected.
The reason so many civilians died in Gaza last summer was not Israeli tactics or policy. It was Hamas’s strategy. Hamas deliberately positioned its fighters and munitions in civilian areas, knowing that Israel would have no choice but to attack them and that civilian casualties would result. Unable to inflict existential harm on Israel by military means, Hamas sought to cause large numbers of casualties among its own people in order to bring international condemnation and unbearable diplomatic pressure against Israel.
Judge Davis’s report is rife with contradictions. She acknowledges that Israeli military precautions saved lives, yet without foundation accuses “decision makers at the highest levels of the government of Israel” of a policy of deliberately killing civilians. Incredibly, she “regrets” that her commission was unable to verify the use of civilian buildings by “Palestinian armed groups,” yet elsewhere acknowledges Hamas’s widespread use of protected locations, including United Nations schools.
Most worrying, Judge Davis claims to be “fully aware of the need for Israel to address its security concerns” while demanding that it “lift, immediately and unconditionally, the blockade on Gaza.” Along with the report’s endorsement of Hamas’s anti-Israel narrative, this dangerous recommendation would undoubtedly lead to further bloodshed in both Israel and Gaza.

Even when faced with criminal tactics, Israel abided by the laws of armed conflict

In fact, the IDF’s efforts to mitigate civilian casualties went beyond the legal requirements, as attested to by two separate reports of high ranking military experts from democratic countries around the globe, who came to Israel to investigate the last operation. For example, Israel surpassed the practices of militaries of democratic states, in warning Gaza citizens in the vicinity of military targets, and encouraging them to vacate the area prior to its attack. During the conflict, Israel also made extensive humanitarian efforts to alleviate hardship in Gaza, such as delivering humanitarian supplies (food and medical supplies, blankets, fuel and more) and providing medical treatment to wounded Gaza civilians.
The fact that military conflicts involve errors, as well as collateral damage (unintentional harm to civilians who were in the vicinity of legitimate military targets) is sad and regrettable, but nonetheless recognized and accepted in international law.
Israel has established an investigative mechanism in order to scrutinize its activities during the recent operation. As an open democracy, Israel is capable of investigating incidents of concern to determine whether they involved errors, collateral damage, or war crimes. Currently, Israel is examining over 100 incidents and the MAG has opened 19 criminal investigations.
It is important to illuminate the disparity between the reality, and what is often reported. The constant, biased treatment of Israel at the UN does not contribute toward a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It serves only to embolden Hamas and other terrorist groups to intensify their unlawful methods.

Richard Behar: Analysis: New York Times Editorial is Another Hit Job on Israel

Does the New York Times editorial board want Israel to take it seriously? Is the board’s distaste for the country so strong that it has no interest in using the newspaper’s well-earned power and influence to make a real impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Take Tuesday’s editorial, which is among the kinds of low-hanging fruit that Gary Weiss and I will be picking and exposing once the funds are in place for our Mideast Reporter—a multimedia, multilingual investigative reporting enterprise. For now, some batting practice…
The Times editorial concludes: “…Israel has a duty, and should have the desire, to adjust its military policies to avoid civilian casualties and hold those who failed to do so accountable.”
“Should have the desire… to adjust…” Think about that for a moment. What they are saying is that Israel does not have such a desire, and that Israel has not, and does not, adjust its policies.
The editorial was written in support of the recent UN Human Rights Council report that concluded that Israel and Hamas may have committed war crimes during their war last summer. But here is what the editors decided to omit from the editorial:

An article in Jordan's Ad-Dustour on Tuesday praised terror attacks against Israeli Jews and encourages Palestinian Arabs to do more of it.

The article, by Yaser Azaatreh, calls these "heroic operations." The author is especially enamored that the terrorists are incited to hate in schools and universities and mosques to act alone, so that the PA security forces aren't aware of them and might frustrate their desire to kill more Jews. He calls the people behind these attacks "the future Palestinian leadership."

Azaatreh encourages "all factions to make greater efforts in promoting a culture of resistance and uprising in the West Bank."

The Israel Embassy in Amman issued a condemnation, which was spurned by the newspaper and other Jordanian media:

Jordanian journalists angrily rebuked Israel’s enemy embassy in Amman on Thursday after the Israeli mission in the Hashemite kingdom protested the media’s praise of Palestinian attacks.

The row was triggered by a June 24 article in the daily newspaper Al-Dustur glorifying the Palestinian attacks which left one Israeli dead in the West Bank and another Border Police officer wounded by stabbing in Jerusalem’s Old City.

The Israeli embassy protested the article, deeming it “ugly and shameful...incitement to kill Israelis.”

Al-Dustur rejected the embassy’s protestations, calling the Palestinian actions “martyrdom operations in heroic defense of their land and rights.”

This is what peace between Israel and Arab nations looks like, in case you were wondering.

Did Omar Barghouti add a clause to BDS rules to except himself?

Ma'an has an article by Anna Kokko that is, of course, very sympathetic to BDS while saying how difficult it is for Palestinian Arabs to adhere to the boycott fully.

One section, though, is notable:

According to [Omar] Barghouti, a full-scale boycott of everything Israeli is not possible under occupation -- much in the same way that Black South Africans were not able to completely boycott the apartheid regime themselves.

“We can still call on the world to fully isolate Israel,” he says.

Barghouti himself studied at Tel Aviv University, where he was also enrolled as a doctoral student.

In 2009, PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) of whom Barghouti is a founding member, stated that Palestinian citizens of Israel or Palestinians carrying Israeli ID cards have no other possibility than to study in Israeli institutions and as such cannot be asked to join the academic boycott.

The activist declined to give further comments on his choice of university, saying that his personal life was “entirely irrelevant” for the interview.

Barghouti, born in Qatar and raised in Egypt, is no Israeli citizen. There are a number of universities in the West Bank (Al Quds, An Najah, Birzeit) that he could have attended. Of course he had a choice. But his desire to attend Tel Aviv University, despite his insistence that others boycott it, apparently made him put in an exception to the BDS rules just for himself!.

So principled!

I have a feeling that even other BDSers are unhappy at their leader's hypocrisy.

Confederate flag banned from Amazon - but Hamas and Nazi flags still for sale

CNN reported:

America's leading merchants have spoken: The Confederate flag is coming off the shelves.

Walmart, Amazon, eBay and Sears all announced bans on the sale of Confederate flag merchandise, amid an intensifying national debate over the use of the controversial flag.

The announcements are the latest indication that the flag, a symbol of the slave-holding South, has become toxic in the aftermath of a shooting last week at a historic African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina. Gov. Nikki Haley announced in a Monday afternoon news conference that she supports removing the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds.

But guess what's still for sale on Amazon?

And this:

(h/t Reuben)

06/24 Links Pt2: UNRWA causes more damage than good; US ready to offer Iran nuclear equipment

From Ian:

Israeli NGO: ‘UNRWA causes more damage than good’

According to a position paper published recently by an Israeli non-partisan NGO, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), is “actively being counterproductive to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The paper which was published by the independent political think-tank, the Institute for Zionist Strategies (IZS), argues that UNRWA facilities have been used for terrorist activity against civilians, UNRWA employees often are members themselves in terrorist groups, raising sever doubt on UNRWA’s neutrality.
Additionally, the paper claims that UNRWA is financially and politically dependent on the continuation of the status-quo in the conflict and therefore is not motivated by an actual desire to solve the problems of refugees.
The paper was composed and researched by Lt. Col. Nir Naaman, currently a Doctoral Student at Bar-Illan University, for IZS. He cites news articles from the last decade, UN resolutions, national and governmental databases and related academic literature as resources.
Citing instances in which UNRWA was allegedly “caught” turning a blind eye to terrorist activities or even being fully involved in such activities, dating as far back as 1968, when an UNRWA camp was used as a training base for the PLO, then still an official terrorist organization.

US, allies ready to offer Iran nuclear equipment, document reveals

The United States and its allies are willing to offer Iran state-of-the-art nuclear equipment if Tehran agrees to pare down its atomic weapons program as part of a final nuclear agreement, a draft document has revealed.
The confidential paper, obtained by the Associated Press, has dozens of bracketed text where disagreements remain. Technical cooperation is the least controversial issue at the talks, and the number of brackets suggest the sides have a ways to go, not only on that topic but also more contentious disputes, with less than a week until the June 30 deadline for a deal.
However, the scope of the help now being offered in the draft may displease U.S. congressional critics who already argue that Washington has offered too many concessions at the negotiations.
The draft, titled "Civil Nuclear Cooperation," promises to supply Iran with light-water nuclear reactors instead of its nearly completed heavy-water facility at Arak, which would produce enough plutonium for several bombs a year if completed as planned.
Reducing the Arak reactor's plutonium output was one of the main aims of the U.S. and its negotiating partners, along with paring down Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium -- like plutonium, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

WikiLeaks Saudi cable: Iran sent nuclear equipment to Sudan

Saudi diplomats in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, believed Iran shipped advanced nuclear equipment including centrifuges to Sudan in 2012, according to a document revealed last week by WikiLeaks and said to be a cable from the embassy.
"The embassy's sources advised that Iranian containers arrived this week at Khartoum airport containing sensitive technical equipment in the form of fast centrifuges for enriching uranium, and a second shipment is expected to arrive this week," said the document, dated February 2012 and marked "very secret."
WikiLeaks last week released more than 60,000 cables and documents which it says are official Saudi communications, and plans to release half a million in total. Saudi Arabia said the documents might be faked and has not commented on specific documents.
If the cable is authentic, it does not provide details on the source of the embassy's information or any further evidence of the shipment.
There have been no previous reports of Iran sending nuclear equipment to Sudan, which has no known nuclear program.

During last summer's Gaza war, Hamas took credit for attacking, and threatened to further attack, Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona:

Hamas remained defiant Thursday, claiming rockets fired at the southern city of Dimona by its military wing the Ezzeddin al-Qassam Brigades showed Israel's weakness.

"It [the rockets fired at Dimona] shows the weakness and vulnerability of the Israeli occupation," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in an early Thursday statement. "Our responses [to Israeli strikes] are still in their early stages."

The Israeli army said Wednesday that three rockets had been fired from the Gaza Strip at Dimona. No casualties were reported.

Ezzeddin al-Qassam Brigades claimed responsibility for striking Dimona, which houses Israel's nuclear reactor, for the first time.

In a statement, the group said it had fired three M75 rockets at Dimona, which is located nearly 65 kilometers from Gaza.

This is nuclear terrorism.

The 2005 UN International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism defines acts that fall under that designation, Article 2:

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally:
...
(b) Uses in any way radioactive material or a device, or uses or damages a nuclear facility in a manner which releases or risks the release of radioactive material:
(i) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
(ii) With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; or
(iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act.
2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:
(a) Threatens, under circumstances which indicate the credibility of the threat, to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 (b) of the present article...

Just another international law that Hamas violated that the UNHRC couldn't mention.

UPDATE: Here's Hamas' video of the rockets aimed at Dimona:

(h/t Bob K)