Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

04/06 Links Pt1: Bernie Slanders is seven times worse than Hamas; Abbas: All of Israel is an "occupation"

From Ian:

David Horovitz: Seven times worse than Hamas: Bernie Sanders by the numbers

Bernie Sanders exacerbated his shockingly under-informed address on Israel from late last month with an interview to the New York Daily News this week in which he casually traduced Israel.
In his March speech — which he said he would have delivered at AIPAC’s Washington policy conference if only they’d let him read it out over satellite — he demanded that Israel remove its blockade from Gaza while simultaneously professing to support Israelis’ “right to live in peace and security.” Needless to say — or rather, evidently, needful to say to Sanders — backing Israelis’ right to live in peace and security entails working to ensure that terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction are not allowed to import the weaponry they need to achieve that goal. Demanding that Israel end the Gaza blockade is tantamount to demanding that Hamas be enabled to freely bring in rockets, missiles and all manner of other military equipment to expedite Israel’s demise. Only a politician who supports Hamas — such as Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan — or one with a grossly inadequate understanding of Israel and its challenges could possibly endorse such a position.
In his New York Daily News interview, Sanders dismally reconfirmed that he falls into the latter category. The would-be president castigated Israel for an ostensibly “indiscriminate” war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and, while admitting that he didn’t really know the facts, asserted, twice, that Israel killed over 10,000 innocent civilians in the course of that conflict.
Over 10,000 innocent civilians? That’s seven times the self-serving figure asserted by Hamas, the terror group that runs Gaza, and gleefully adopted by the UN Human Rights Council, the sham body that obsessively loathes Israel. According to Hamas, 1,462 civilians were killed. The Israeli authorities believe the true figure was far lower, both because Hamas inflated the overall numbers of combatants and noncombatants killed, and because Hamas deliberately misrepresents many of its own dead gunmen, who often fought out of uniform, as civilians — to demonize Israel, and to minimize its own losses. Israel also stresses that Hamas deliberately placed Gazans in harm’s way by putting its rocket launchers and terror tunnel openings in and around their homes. Finally, Israeli officials note that no civilians whatsoever would have been killed had Hamas not chosen to maintain its violent hostility to Israel, which since 2005 has had no civilian presence and no military presence whatsoever in the Gaza Strip. In Gaza, Israel did what much of the world — including Bernie Sanders — would have it do in the West Bank: It left. And war followed.

Why Bernie Exaggerates About Gaza

Had Sanders bothered to think more deeply about the issue, he would have understood that without taking the care that it did, casualties in Gaza would have been as high as 10,000 or even more than that because of Hamas embedding its rocket launchers and fighters in and among civilians, including using hospitals as bases and UN schools as ammo dumps. And while he may regard Israel’s need to take out these targets as optional, Israel’s leaders had the responsibility to defend their people against truly indiscriminate attacks in the form of Hamas rockets and terror tunnels.
But the problem here, as with the entire “progressive” critique of Israel, is that Sanders’ beliefs about the Gaza war are rooted in his misconceptions about the continuing cause of the conflict. He seems to think it’s about Israel having to “improve its relationship with the Palestinians.” But not once in his lengthy comments about the Middle East in the Daily News interview does he note that Israel has repeatedly offered the Palestinians far-reaching territorial concessions in exchange for peace and has been turned down every time. Nor does he care to notice that even Palestinian moderates refuse to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders may be drawn. Pushing for more unilateral Israeli withdrawals, as President Obama has done and Sanders seems to indicate he would also advocate, merely encourages the Palestinians to continue to believe that continued intransigence will eventually isolate the Jewish state. It also gives the Palestinian leadership a pass for fomenting hatred against Israel and Jews that has set off a bloody third “stabbing” intifada.
Sanders doesn’t oppose Israel’s existence, and he can claim both to have lived there briefly and to have relations with Israelis. But his policies do not encourage peace, nor do they do Palestinians held hostage by Hamas in their independent state in all but name in Gaza much good either.
More importantly, he reflects a blame Israel first mindset of the left wing of his party that is as divorced from reality as anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth. While he isn’t likely to become president, Sanders’ mindless repetition of canards about Israel probably sounded like the truth to many of his fans. If, as the age demographics would seem to indicate, those young voters are the future of the Democrats, the party’s divorce from the pro-Israel movement seems to be accelerating. (h/t Yenta Press)

The Mottle Wolfe Show: Israel Gets Berned

[gets good about the 13 min mark] Still feeling the Bern? Bernie Sanders radically over estimates the death toll in Gaza. Is it from ignorance or lack of interest in foreign policy? Also Brian of London joins Mottle to talk about Dubai’s winner of the ‘Best Teacher of the the Year’ award in the married to a terrorist category.

In March, I reported on EoZTV that the Palestinian Red Crescent hosted a Fatah celebration of mass murderer Dalal Mughrabi. The next day Palestinian Media Watch also reported the story with more details.

At the time PMW noted that this isn't the first time that the Red Crescent was involced in glorifying terror, and they had previously complained to the ICRC about how their funds are being used. The responses from the ICRC from previous occasions were outrageous:

In the past, the International Red Cross (ICRC) responded that they don't tell the Palestinian Red Crescent how to spend the money given to it by the ICRC. When the Palestinian Red Crescent together with the ICRC glorified terrorists by planting 150 trees bearing the names of "veteran prisoners," the ICRC defended the Palestinian Red Crescent's right to do so, arguing that each branch has the right "to define [its] own priorities and activities and to allocate funds accordingly."

The official position of the ICRC is that, if their branches believe in murdering Jews, then that is perfectly OK with them.

The official purpose of the ICRC is in complete contradiction to this position:

Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

PMW has written another complaint to the ICRC over this latest repulsive incident:

We'll see if the most prestigious humanitarian organization in the world will again defend funding those who celebrate mass murderers.

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.

The new Halabi home paid for by supporters of murderers

Mahmoud Abbas said in his interview with Channel 2 in Israel:

When a child goes and takes a knife, he does not consult with anyone. Even with his parents, nor his brother. He doesn't say: "I'm taking a knife and going out". No sensible person would allow his son to come to him and tell him: "I want to take a knife and kill", and he will answer him: "you are wise." It is not possible. It is not possible. He will take away the knife and lock him inside. Parents do not want it....Ask yourself why this boy, 15, takes a knife and knew he was going to die, and still going. Ask yourself why. This is because there is no hope for him.

All of this is contradicted by the case of Muhannad Halabi.

Halabi was the teenager who murdered Nehemia Lavi and Aharon Bennett on October 3, also stabbing Bennett's wife in the neck and shooting and injuring their 2 year old son. As Odel Bennett begged for help, Arabs in the shuk spat at her and laughed.

Halabi didn't say he was going to stab Jews to death because of "no hope." Rather he said that he was angry at supposed attacks on the Al Aqsa Mosque and he posted on Facebook that he wanted to start a revolution.

He showed this post to his parents before his murder spree who agreed with his sentiments. “I will always be proud that my son sacrificed his life for the liberation of his homeland,” said his mother Suhair.

He is universally regarded as a hero in Palestinian society, even though his victims included a rabbi, a woman and a child. Everything that Abbas claims about the murderers and their families is proven wrong by Halabi.

When Israel demolished his family home to deter future murders, Palestinians immediately raised a large amount of money to build or buy the family of the "martyr" a new house and to blunt any deterrent for encouraging children to murder Jews.

Now, the family has purchased a 360 square meter, $175,000 villa near Ramallah with the funds raised from fellow supporters of terrorism.

It doesn't appear that Abbas' alleged policy of discouraging terror attacks is successful. Unfortunately, his policy of making "martyrs" into heroes is working very well.

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.

Jordan lodges official complaint to Israel over Yehuda Glick's visits to Temple Mount

From the official Jordanian Petra News Agency:

Jordan protests rabbi storming of Jerusalem mosque

Jordan Tuesday strongly protested a raid into Jerusalem's Al Aqsa Mosque compound, led by ultranationalist rabbi Yehuda Glick of the ruling Likud party, and urged Israel, as the occupation power, to stop such provocations.

State Minister for Media Affairs, official government spokesman, Mohammad Momani, said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Affairs, through its close monitoring of the Israeli violations of Al Aqsa Mosque/Haram al Sharif (holy sanctuary), which it considers a red line, today lodged an official protest to the Israeli embassy in Amman.

The memo, he said, held Israel, the power of occupation, fully responsible for the safety of Al Aqsa Mosque, and reiterated Jordan's condemnation and rejection of recurrent raids by Glick, an extremist Israeli rabbi who campaigns for expanding Jewish access to the mosque compound.

Momani said the foreign and Awqaf (religious affairs) ministries were monitoring the situation at Al Aqsa Mosque, adding that Jordan would pursue its efforts through diplomacy and legal means to deter Israel and bring the breaches to a stop. He urged the world community and international organisations to help in this endeavour.

Here is a photo of Rabbi Glick's "storming" of the Temple Mount on Monday, along with 12 other Jews. This is the incident that prompted Jordan's complaint.

Glick said on Facebook that there was very little Muslim protest and shouting at his group, and he expressed hope that the idea of Jews visiting their holiest site is now considered normal among Arabs now that the violent protesters from the Islamic Movement have been banned from the site.

YNet reported last week that Arab media were circulating a photo of Glick seemingly targeted with a red circle.

Glick - who advocates equal access to the Temple Mount for Jews, Muslims and Christians - is often demonized by Arab media

He was shot four times in the chest in 2014 in Jerusalem for his message of equality.

The Government of Jordan apparently agrees with the would-be assassin that Glick is a danger that must be eliminated.

The idea that Jordan is lodging official complaints over the peaceful visit of a Jew to the Temple Mount is one of the absurdities of the Middle East that are considered normal.

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.

State Department responds to EoZ expose of antisemitism on display at Saudi book fair that US backed

US Cultural Attaché David Edginton at the opening ceremony of Riyadh Book Fair

Matt Lee of AP asked State Department spokesperson Mark Toner about the antisemitic booth at the Riyadh International Book Fair that I reported on Monday.

The State Department was ready with some talking points and materials, meaning that either Matt had told them ahead of time that the question was coming...or they read EoZ.

Here is the video of the exchange. I added some photos illustrating the offensive booth and the US participation at the fair.

Toner downplayed US statements supporting the fair and he made it look like the US merely had a booth, without saying that officials participated in the ceremonies as honored guests.

The real question is whether the US will attend next year's even without assurances that the Saudis would ban all hate materials. Only last December the US was part of the Jeddah Book Fair in Saudi Arabia which also included hate materials. And we've seen similar displays in books fairs in Cairo, the UAE and Casablanca.

Here's the video, followed by the transcript.

Here is the transcript:

QUESTION: My question, which is semi-related to this, has to do – well, doesn’t have to do with the UN. It doesn’t – but it does have to do with the U.S. diplomatic mission in Saudi.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And this book fair.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: I meant to ask about this yesterday, but we were running short of time.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So were you guys aware of the content of what was in all of the stalls at this book fair? And if so, why was that okay?
MR TONER: So, first of all, this is a – actually, first of all, we condemn anti-Semitism in all of its forms, as well as any other hate speech. Second is representatives of the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh have participated in the International Riyadh Book Fair for multiple years as part of an effort to essentially distribute books to Saudi citizens that include books about democracy, tolerance, diversity, human rights, et cetera. The book fair itself is run by the Saudi Government’s Ministry of Culture and Information. So what I want to clearly state is we were just a participant. We weren’t aware that these books were going to be featured in this book fair. So we’re not a partner, we’re not a funder, we’re not a sponsor. We’re just simply a participant and we obviously, as I said, condemn any kind of anti-Semitic literature.
QUESTION: Well, do you know if there was any complaint made to the organizers – to the Saudis about this?
MR TONER: That I don’t know. You mean on our part? I don't know that. I’ll check. I mean, I just did, but --
QUESTION: Yeah. Or if you even regard this as something that is – well, yeah, but you --
MR TONER: Sure. No, I understand. I’m not trying to be facetious.
QUESTION: You said you condemn it in general, but I mean --
MR TONER: Yeah. No, no, no.
QUESTION: -- this has been – and I remember that --
MR TONER: Well, I get --
QUESTION: -- this has been a problem in the past --
MR TONER: But --
QUESTION: -- or an issue in the past.
MR TONER: But – sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.
QUESTION: And as you say that you participated in this event for multiple years. I can remember this happening before. I mean, does – do you think that this is something that the U.S. Government, through the State Department, should make an issue of, make – take it to the Saudis?
MR TONER: Well, I do. And I can say that – I can – just to further clarify, we condemn any anti-Semitic literature that may have been present at this event, as I said, just as we would broadly condemn any anti-Semitic literature or anti-Semitism in all its forms around the world. Again, I’m not aware of the history here. My understanding is that we were not aware that these books were going to be featured at the fair. And I can also check on whether we raised this directly, our concerns, with the Saudi Government.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Will you return to the fair next year?
MR TONER: I think we would weigh this very heavily, considering this incident.
QUESTION: Well, okay, but I mean, I –
MR TONER: I mean, look, this is – yeah.
QUESTION: I get that answer, but I can remember asking this question in previous years, because it seems to be something that happens like every single --
MR TONER: Was it last year?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: I’m not – sorry.
QUESTION: I mean, it’s not something that has just popped up out of the blue. It seems to be --
MR TONER: No, I understand. I understand that. I would --
QUESTION: -- a recurrent theme here.
MR TONER: Yeah. No, I understand that. Again, our intention – the embassy’s intention for participating in this was to use it as a venue to --
QUESTION: I -- do you believe, other than these books or this literature that you condemn that, in fact, the fair does bring books about democracy and pluralism and --
MR TONER: Well, sure, because we bring them.
QUESTION: Oh, you bring them.
MR TONER: I can’t speak to the broader --
QUESTION: What are the sales of that, I wonder.
MR TONER: No, I really can’t speak to the broader content. I’d have to check on that as well.
QUESTION: Do people buy them?
MR TONER: I’d have to check on that as well. I mean, I think, yes. I mean, I – look, we wouldn’t do it if we weren’t – if it wasn’t a productive engagement with Saudi society.
QUESTION: So that’s --
MR TONER: There was no return, frankly --
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: -- to our investment of time, whatever. We probably wouldn’t do it, so – yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. I don’t want to dwell on this, but when you say, “You bring those kinds of books,” does that mean that the embassy has its own stall that it’s also --
MR TONER: Well, we do have – that’s – again, we have participated in the Riyadh book fair --
QUESTION: Yeah, right.
MR TONER: -- and I believe that includes --
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: So we do have --
QUESTION: So you bring the books on, say --
MR TONER: We have a booth at the fair, sell a wide assortment of American books, biography, children books, other materials, study in the U.S., and we do pay a fee for just that space.
QUESTION: Right. Guides to women’s rights; that kind of thing?
MR TONER: I can imagine all those things. Matt, I – that’s all I got.
QUESTION: Now, in terms of (inaudible) --
QUESTION: It would be interesting to – it would actually be interesting to see what kind of a sample of what it is that the U.S. --
MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.
QUESTION: -- Embassy promotes --
MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.
QUESTION: -- what kind of books they promote and so on.
MR TONER: We can try to get that for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.

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.

04/05 Links Pt2: Sanders' slander: "Israel killed ‘over 10,000 innocents’ in Gaza"; The shameful anti-Semitism in the British Left

From Ian:

Massively inflating toll, Sanders suggests Israel killed ‘over 10,000 innocents’ in Gaza

Massively amplifying even Hamas’s own figures, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders suggested Israel had killed “over 10,000 innocent” Palestinian civilians in Gaza during the war there in the summer of 2014, and said the high casualties were the result of an “indiscriminate” military offensive.
In an interview with the New York Daily News editorial board published on Monday, the Vermont senator acknowledged that he did not have the exact figures memorized, but twice said he believed that the Palestinian civilian death count surpassed 10,000, and excoriated Israel for what he deemed its disproportionate use of force.
“Anybody help me out here, because I don’t remember the figures, but my recollection is over 10,000 innocent people were killed in Gaza. Does that sound right?” he said first. Told that the number was “probably high,” Sanders responded: “I don’t have it in my number.. .but I think it’s over 10,000. My understanding is that a whole lot of apartment houses were leveled,” he went on. “Hospitals, I think, were bombed. So yeah, I do believe and I don’t think I’m alone in believing that Israel’s force was more indiscriminate than it should have been.”

Why Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Talk About Being Jewish

From its inception as a working political doctrine, socialism was bad for the Jews. Indeed, the long arm of the world’s first socialist state killed off its most prominent Jewish founder with an ice pick. Why, then, would Jews like Bernie Sanders be socialists? Well, with Sanders’s now-undeniable popularity on the left, the new spin is that he isn’t really a socialist at all.
Diane Rehm-aged doyenne of public radio and recipient of the Peabody, the National Humanities Medal, and sundry other status markers—had a question for Bernie Sanders. The date was June 10, 2015. The Vermont senator and self-identified socialist had just announced his candidacy for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton. Sanders’s loyalties to the party he sought to lead but had only just officially joined had become a subject of some concern to Democrats. But Rehm wanted to talk about a different kind of loyalty.
Rehm: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.
Sanders: No, I do not have dual citizenship with Israel, I’m an American. Don’t know where that question came from. I’m an American citizen. I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I’m an American citizen, period.
Rehm: I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list. Forgive me if that…
Sanders: No, that’s some of the nonsense that goes on in the Internet. But that is absolutely not true.
Rehm: Interesting. Are there members of Congress who do have dual citizenship, or is that part of the fable?
So: A Jewish public figure was simply assumed by NPR’s most celebrated chat-show host to have dual citizenship with Israel. After he corrected the host, the Jew was told that his name was on “a list.” When he denied it a second time, he was asked to fork over some names of those who do have suspect loyalties to America.
As Sanders suggested, the “list” she had cited was gleaned from an anti-Semitic Facebook page. Rehm later apologized. That was the end of that. But it was only the beginning for Sanders when it came to questions about his Jewishness.

Interesting cartoon going around Arab social media

Here is the translation of a cartoon that is going around Arabic Twitter and Google accounts.

It appears to have been modified from an original cartoon, seen on the right, that was more specific, comparing the number of Arabs killed in sixty years of wars with Israel against the number killed in two years of war in Syria.

(h/t Trip Gor, 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.

A tale, that is, of two ethnic minority citizens, one a nineteenth-century Jew, the other a twenty-first century Muslim. What links these two individuals across the centuries is the fact that each was the first member of their respective creeds elected to metropolitan office in Portsmouth, England, a town in the nineteenth century and a city since the early twentieth century. Their attitudes, it will be seen, are apparently a study in contrasts.

Portsmouth, for anyone unfamiliar with the Hampshire city, is Britain’s premier naval port, and has been for many centuries inextricably associated with the Royal Navy. It was from Portsmouth that Admiral Lord Nelson disembarked to fight at Trafalgar, and his flagship, the Victory, can be visited today in dry dock at Portsmouth’s great historic Dockyard. There are, indeed, numerous sites of historic and nautical interest in the city, including the house where, in 1812, Charles Dickens was born. (Other famous literary men associated with the Portsmouth include Conan Doyle and H.G. Wells.)

Being a naval history buff I know Portsmouth very well indeed, and I say without hesitation that, all in all, Portsmouth, along with the popular seaside resort of Southsea (that lies within the municipal boundaries) can be considered a very pleasant place in which to live. From the Guildhall Square a brisk walker, setting off in any direction, can cover a great deal of the sights in less than an hour; there’s a great deal to see and do; it’s well-supplied with public parks and green spaces, and, with the Isle of Wight on the horizon, and a fascinating harbour vista, it has coastal scenery that makes Brighton and Bognor seem boring in comparison.

And to whom does Portsmouth owe so many of the amenities and civic improvements that make it, along with Southsea, such a pleasant venue today? To one of the most beloved citizens in its history, the first Jew elected to its Council, the London-born son of a Bavarian immigrant, that’s who. His name was Emanuel Emanuel (d. 29 December 1888), and this, briefly told, is his tale.

He arrived in Portsmouth at the age of eleven and was in business with his father before he became, with his brother Ezekiel, a prominent jeweller and goldsmith in town. Among the items the brothers manufactured was the Portsmouth Corporation’s regalia. Emanuel was first elected to the town council in 1841. At that time (and until 1845) English town councillors were required to swear an oath “on the true faith of a Christian” in order to take their seats, but Emanuel sat despite refusing so to swear. He was thus liable for a hefty fine for every vote he cast as a councillor – but there was nobody in Portsmouth mean enough to tell on him. In 1843 he unexpectedly lost his seat, but to popular acclaim was re-elected in 1844, the bells of St Thomas’s Church (now Portsmouth Cathedral) ringing out in joy. In 1862 he became an alderman and in 1867 was elected Mayor. It was owing to his vision and activity that Southsea, then a polluted swampy wasteland, was developed into a residential watering-place with an esplanade and piers. He raised three-quarters of the requisite funds himself, and liaised tirelessly with Whitehall regarding this and other schemes benefitting Portsmouth, and almost always succeeded in those negotiations.

A faithful Jew, known for his “cheery, good nature,” as a fellow alderman paying tribute recalled (Portsmouth Evening News, 1 January 1889), he was involved in both Jewish and general charities, and as a member of the Portsmouth School Board was a doughty champion of non-sectarian education. He was responsible for the acquisition of two parks for Portsmouth, one in east Southsea that consisted of leasehold land and one that exists to this day as a large handsome public space in the city centre, Victoria Park (remember that name: it will be met with later in this post!), originally called the People’s Park. In 1885 he was presented by his fellow magistrates with a portrait of himself, which depicted him seated in an easy chair, holding a copy of The Times in one hand and a cigar in the other, and with his habitual happy expression (Portsmouth Evening News, 8 May 1885). He died rich in years and in reputation, a large crowd of Jews and non-Jews attending his funeral at Portsmouth’s Jewish burial ground in Fawcett Road. A local road is named after him.

Present-day Portsmouth’s a medium-sized city that during the 1960s became twinned with Haifa, a linkage that I’m glad to note continues, despite the growth of an anti-Israel movement composed of the usual suspects that appears to be centred in elements at the local university, an institution of fairly recent foundation that was formerly the local municipal college.

During the 1960s the Sultan of Zanzibar and his family made their home in the city. People in Portsmouth were flattered that the Sultan had chosen to settle amongst them; a friend of mine proudly recalled being served at the Portsmouth General Post Office on a general basis by no less a personage than one of the Sultan’s sons. It must be remembered that many sailors were living in Portsmouth, perhaps more than today, when the Royal Navy is smaller than it was then: these were people who had sailed the seven seas and for whom non-white people were hardly a novelty. Small numbers of Indian and Chinese people opened shops and restaurants in the city, though it remains predominantly white.

Now, it seems, there are some 4000 people of Bangladeshi background in Portsmouth. Shockingly, no less than five Jihadists from that community flew together to Syria in 2013 with the intention of fighting for Islamic State. They were Mashudur Choudhury (who’s now serving a four-year prison term back in Britain), Muhammad Mehdi Hassan, Mamunur Mohammed Roshid, Muhammad Hamidur Rahman, and Assad Uzzaman (all of whom are now dead, as is a sixth Portsmouth man, Uzzaman’s cousin Ifthekar Jaman, one of the earliest British recruits to Islamic State.)

Some weeks ago I read in the Portsmouth paper online something that had me wondering whether April Fool’s Day had come early this year. But, alas, it had not. The item in question concerned complaints voiced by the first Muslim elected to the Portsmouth City Council, Mr Yahiya Chowdhury, Labour councillor for Charles Dickens ward. He’s resided in the city since 1995.

“Muslim Labour councillor Yahiya Chowdhury said people have come to him with concerns over how they don’t feel included. And he blamed the council for not doing enough to help,” the item informed us. [http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/politics/portsmouth-muslims-are-suffering-with-depression-warns-labour-councillor-1-7159752#ixzz44jL0oNSR]

‘Cllr Chowdhury said: “People need support. A lot of the Muslim community do not tend to understand what is going on in the city. They are just suffering. There are a lot of people in the Muslim community suffering with depression. Women feel they have no place to go and socialise and simply have coffee with their friends. They can’t express their feelings. They know they can’t take their hijabs off around non-Muslim people.” Cllr Chowdhury said he has appealed for a weekend Bangladeshi school to be set up, but the council has only committed to include teachings on the culture in the existing school curriculum. Cllr Chowdhury also said negotiations had stalled over plans to put up a memorial to those who died in the Bangladesh Liberation War – though Muslim officials say they are moving forward.’

The report added that ‘Muslim leaders – including the head of the Jami Mosque [the largest mosque in the city] – agree more could be done. But they have played down talk of any major problems … Syed Aminul Haque, chair of Bangladesh Welfare Association Portsmouth, said: “The city council is doing its best, but it can do more for the whole community, as well as the Bangladeshi community. We have had Bangladeshi classes for the past 35 years in Portsmouth, for our youngsters, in a private school, as well as at Mayfield School [a local state school] for the past few years. For whatever reason, that has been taken off now, although we have been fighting with the council over that…We have asked the council, for the past 10 years or so, for a Bangladesh Liberation War monument. The former leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, and the former MP, Mike Hancock, verbally agreed to provide us a place in Victoria Park. But because of the change in administration, it has been delayed for whatever reason. But we are still negotiating with the council over how it can help us….”

The brazen, unacceptable, divisive conviction that Portsmouth City Council is obliged to provide local Muslims with their own amenities – let alone a war memorial to Bangladesh’s war with Pakistan (the West Pakistan/East Pakistan conflict of 1971) – has not surprisingly angered many Portsmouth residents, as a number of intemperate comments regarding the report at site attest.

Councillor Chowdhury and anyone supporting his nonsense should heed the tale of the first Jew elected to what was at the time the Portsmouth Town Council. Emanuel Emanuel was a proud and professing Jew. But in common with the usual integrationist Jewish outlook and practice he did not demand any special treatment for Jews in the city. If the Jewish community required facilities for its members it raised the revenue itself – it did not expect the metropolitan authorities to provide it out of civic funds. Neither has any other religious group made such demands. Nor do Jews, Sikhs and the rest attempt to proseytise, as members of the local Muslim community do regularly at public venues.

Is it any wonder that “Islamophobia” flourishes when Councillor Chowdhury, as reported, voices outrageous demands and depicts his community as victims of the Council’s neglect?

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.

04/05 Links Pt1: 6 Months of Terror in Israel; UN rebukes Hamas for stealing cement; Hamas threatens an ‘explosion’

From Ian:

Israel suspends cement deliveries to Gaza’s private sector

Israel this week temporarily suspended the delivery of cement to Gaza’s private sector after it discovered that Hamas was siphoning the material, which is intended to rebuild destroyed houses.
The Office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) monitors the flow of cement into Gaza to ensure that Hamas has not used it to construct tunnels to attack Israel. On Friday COGAT posted on its Arabic Facebook page that it suspended the transfer of cement to Gaza because some deliveries had been diverted by Imad Elbaz, the deputy director-general for Hamas’s economics office.
“This is a blatant violation of agreements for the rehabilitation mechanism,” COGAT said in its Facebook post.
COGAT head Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai temporarily halted the shipments until the matter is fully investigated, COGAT said. adding that it regretted that Hamas continues to pursue its own personal agenda at the expense of Gaza’s residents.
The UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Nickolay Mladenov, issued an unusually sharp response on Monday, accusing Hamas of theft.
“Those who seek to gain through the deviation of materials are stealing from their own people and adding to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza,” Mladenov said.

Hamas official denies stealing cement, warns of ‘explosion’

A Hamas official on Tuesday denied Israeli charges of siphoning off cement imports to Gaza and warned of a potential “explosion” unless a cement ban is lifted.
Israel on Monday announced it had stopped private imports of cement to the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave, accusing Imad al-Baz, deputy director of the economy ministry, of diverting supplies.
But Baz denied any offense, saying the imports were in line with a UN-brokered Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, aimed at allowing for reconstruction following a devastating 2014 war with Israel.
“We don’t interfere with the cement mechanism,” he told AFP, adding that all cement distribution sites in Gaza are monitored by Israeli cameras.
He warned that Israel’s decision would have “dire consequences” including “stopping the wheels of reconstruction, destroying the economy and increasing unemployment with adverse repercussions for tens of thousands of citizens.”

6 Months of Terror in Israel

I had mentioned that the official Palestinian news agency Wafa was silent about Abbas' interview with Israel's Channel 2 when he denounced knife attacks. He wants to appear to be against violence to Israelis, but he cannot say that to his own people, so even his own media will not report on his supposed stance against terror.

But it turns out that another part of that interview may be more embarrassing to him than his purported condemnation of knife attacks.

During the interview, there was this exchange:

Ilana Dayan: If [Bibi] invites you to a meeting tomorrow, would you come?

Abbas : I'll meet him.

Ilana Dayan: Anywhere?

Abbas: And any time.

Netanyahu called Abbas' bluff yesterday, saying that he has cleared his schedule for the week and Abbas is welcome to meet with him whenever he wants.

And while some Palestinian media reported on this invitation, the official PA news agency and newspaper have not said a word about either the interview or the invitation.

Which just goes to show that Abbas is happy to lie to Israeli and Western media. Unfortunately, Western media is not keen to call him on his lies.

Hopefully Bibi will reiterate the invitation every day this week, saying "I was disappointed that Mr. Abbas did not respond to my invitation yesterday but he is still welcome to come today." Eventually Abbas will be forced to respond in one way or another. If he meets with Netanyahu, he will lose all respect in the Arab street because he preaches no "normalization;" if he refuses then the Western media may get a small clue that he is simply a liar.

And his wishes for peace are as hollow as his promises to meet with Israeli leaders.

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.

The anti-Jewish Jewish "peace" tour of the West Bank

You know how there are lots of articles out there complaining that Birthright trips are not offered for free to people who want to use them to bash Israel? This 2006 article whines that "Potential candidates who are discovered to have a 'hidden agenda' are not allowed onto the trips." Others complain that Birthright was "manipulating our experience" and not offering both sides of the story. 972 Magazine, in an article pleading with parents not to allow their kids to go on Birthright, describes it as "a political project, with militant and militaristic undertones. Think about it, would you send your teenage child to summer camp, if it was run by acting military officers inside an army facility? I am guessing that most of you would be rather suspicious of the aims of such a camp – quite justifiably so."

In fact, there has been a virtual cottage industry in the past few years of former Birthrighters writing cynical pieces about how the program is a right-wing, brainwashing operation.

So if Birthright is awful for politicizing the conflict and for not being open-minded enough to handle criticism, what does the other, supposedly open-minded other side do?

Let's look at the application form for the Center for Jewish Nonviolence trip being planned for this summer to the Hebron area.

The application form itself says that it will not allow anyone to participate unless they agree with everything on this checklist:

VALUES CHECKLIST We are convening a group of individuals whose core values align with the Center for Jewish Nonviolence. Participants in this delegation should agree with the following three basic principles. Please check the following 3 boxes to indicate your alignment with the core values of this project:

A belief in the end of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza

A commitment to nonviolence in all forms, including refraining from violence in speech and action, as well as the use of proactive nonviolence and noncooperation with unjust laws that violate international law.

A belief in the equality and shared humanity of Palestinians and Israelis alike

So if you believe that Israel should not give up control of the Western Wall or Rachel's Tomb, then you are not allowed to go on this trip.

If you believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against rockets and suicide bombs, then you are not allowed to go on this trip.

If you believe that people who want peace and security are morally superior to people who (according to recent polls) generally support stabbing Jews, then you are not allowed to go on this trip.

Very open-minded, right?

Now, how about the Jews who run this trip? What do they think about like-minded religious Jews going on the trip?

They remain open-minded - in one direction:

Cultural Adaptability and Sensitivity As international activists, we are entering a place and a culture that are not our own. Mindful of the fact that we will be entering into Palestinian communities with their own culture, we believe that sensitivity and adaptability are crucial to engaging in our work respectfully and responsibly. This may range from dressing modestly (shoulders, knees covered, even in the heat) to refraining from intense public displays of affection. Moreover, it is vitally important to the success of our work that we be understood to be a solidarity rather than a settler presence. Many external markers of Jewish observance -- kippot, tzitzit, jewish stars, etc -- are viewed as symbols of settler presence. We ask all participants to refrain from publicly displaying external signs of Jewish observance while we are in the Occupied Territories.

Sorry! Your Jewish star necklace and yarmulke are symbols not of Judaism but of "settler presence." Never mind that tens of thousands of Palestinians work in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria for people wearing yarmulkas, or that they go to Jewish medical clinics where people wear such terrible symbols. Never mind that they many attend a "settler university" in Ariel, and even sleep in its dormitory.

No, the quasi-Jews of the Center for Jewish Nonviolence says that these Arabs can never live together with proud Jews because they are, deep down, raging antisemites!

All of a sudden, the desire to be open and inclusive stops where people who are actually proud of being publicly Jewish are not welcome on this trip! And not only are these so-called liberals disparaging of proud members of their own religion - they are insulting the Palestinians they are pretending to support by saying that they are too immature to be able to deal with very presence of Jewish religious symbols!

The late Rabbi Menachem Froman, while I hardly agreed with his political views, managed to meet with Yasir Arafat and Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin in his efforts to use spirituality to help bring peace to the region. Somehow his brand of being a proud Jew who openly believed that Jews have the absolute right to live anywhere in Eretz Yisrael (albeit some of it under Arab control) still managed to visit Israel's enemies without shaving his beard or removing his yarmulka.

But Froman would not be welcome on the Center for Jewish Nonviolence trip, even though he was Jewish and even though he believed in every one of the three principles they list. Because the dhimmi Jews who run the trip think that peace comes from having no self-respect and no pride.

In fact, the truth is the opposite.

Look at this from another angle: Would these people who espouse full equality among all humans insist that Palestinians who want to speak in the West to them about peace remove their keffiyehs - because it might offend people with relatives in Israel who were terror victims? Would they tell them to make sure they don't say "Allahu Akbar" because that is what terrorists say before killing people?

No, to these hypocrites who claim that they solemnly support the "equality and shared humanity of Palestinians and Israelis alike" will never, ever make the same demands of Muslims that they do of Jews.

If any truly open-minded Jews manage to get past these roadblocks on attending this trip, I am sure that they would find that the trip itself has nothing bad to say about Arab violence, except in a perfunctory "of course we are against terror but we can understand it" way. But it will have a lot to say about the "fanatic" Jews who dare to wear kippot and tzitzit.

This group is comprised of members of "the entire spectrum of the anti-occupation left" including Jewish Voice for Peace, J Street, Open Hillel, If Not Now, Students for Justice in Palestine, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, T’ruah, Hashomer Hatzair and others. "We expect participants to come with various understandings of the causes of and solutions to the occupation. This diversity is welcome."

They also offer special scholarships to Jews of Mizrahi origin because, well, they mostly attract "white" Jews and really want to appear to be more diverse than they are.

But they really don't support diversity. Their own application form proves it.

(h/t Messy)

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 the Evening Standard:

An anti-Semitic protest attended by just 12 far-right supporters in north London has been branded “pathetic” and “sad” by leading Jewish groups.

A handful of people turned up for Saturday’s protest at the war memorial in Golders Green, an area with a large Jewish population, and held up a banner with the slogan “This is London not Tel Aviv”.

Another banner labelled the Shomrim, a north London Jewish neighbourhood watch group, “police impersonators”.

To occasional boos and jeers speaker Jeremy Bedford-Turner made a long, rambling speech telling people “the future is white”.

Footage was later uploaded to YouTube, with the description claiming it had been held “deep inside The Jewish Republic of North London”. The video culminated in Mr Bedford-Turner waving a pork pie in the air before taking a bite.

Their protest came less than a year after a previous anti-Shomrim march planned for the area was moved to central London after a coalition of campaigners called for it be relocated.

Mark Gardner from the Community Safety Trust, who helped get that event moved, said: “The demonstration was quite pathetic.

“But it’s still disturbing that they wanted to come to Golders Green and quite sickening to think of these people defiling a war memorial by their presence.”

Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, branded the demonstrators “a handful of sad people”.

He said: “I saw on the organisers’ video one of them ranting away for 25 minutes while one of his mates was trying to get him to shut up.

“The ranting man ate a pork pie which he seemed to think would cause Jews offence. Well, I’ve got news for him. We have no problem at all with anyone eating pork, it’s just that we don’t.”

You can see the racists' video of the event here. It is mostly a long, boring and rambling speech. "Pathetic" is a pretty good summary.

(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.

According to reports in Palestinian media, the Tunisia Human Rights League has given its most prestigious prize, the "Peace Prize," to murderer Marwan Barghouti.

Barghouti is serving five life terms for his organizing terror attacks as leader of Fatah's Tanzim, including one attack at a seafood restaurant in Tel Aviv in 2002.

The so-called Human Rights League gave the award to his wife Fadwa, according to numerous Palestinian reports.

The ceremony was attended by major Palestinian figures including Issa Qaraqe, Minister of Prisoners' Affairs. Arab ambassadors also attended, according to the Palestinian media.

Tunisia Human Rights League president Fadhel Moussa spoke about how there can be no peace in the world without peace in Palestine.

None of the coverage I've read shows that anyone said a word about what Marwan Barghouti ever did to create or promote peace. In fact, based on news coverage of the event, no one seems to have spoken about his life at all; the award appears to have been given to him as a means to express support for Palestinian opponents of Israel where Barghouti is merely a symbol of resistance.

However, it appears that this story is made up. The ceremony was not to award Barghouti a prize.

What really happened was that the National Union of Tunisian Journalists said that they would officially nominate Barghouti to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The call came in a press conference organized by the union in partnership with the Palestinian embassy in Tunisia on the occasion of the celebration of Land Day and the Prisoners Day.

Apparently the president of the Human Rights League spoke at the press conference but that was its only involvement.

Anyone can nominate anyone for a Nobel prize; it is meaningless. The idea that a journalists union can affect who wins the Nobel is laughable.

But it shows very well how Tunisian civil society thinks about the word "peace."

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.

Israeli trolls Arab reporter. She then calls Jews "filth" and "thieves" (video)

This video of a Jew making fun of an Arab reporter while she covers the weekly Nabi Saleh protests is going viral on Arab media.

The reporter's name is Nebal Farsakh.

As he makes fun of her, she tells the viewers that Jewish settlers are "filth," and that the filth of Jewish settlers inevitably will be forced to leave Palestine, and the Arabs will see the light of freedom, and no matter how much the Jews try to hide the facts from the world, the world must know that the conflict is between the owners of the land and the thieves.

Farsakh is being celebrated for "teaching the Israeli a lesson." The real lesson is that she is not very professional - there are trollers who jump in front of cameras all over the world.

By the way, Farsakh is the same reporter that was hit by a rubber bullet while covering some stone throwing last year.

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.

04/04 Links Pt2: Eugene Kontorovich challenges EU envoy to debate; French court upholds BDS is racist ruling

From Ian:

Legal expert challenges EU envoy to debate on Judea and Samaria

The EU Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, participated last week in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper's anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) conference where he reiterated the EU's stance that Israeli “settlements” are “illegal under international law” and are “a hindrance to the peace process.”
Faaborg-Andersen additionally termed the 1949 armistice line an "internationally recognized border” even though the 1949 line is neither internationally recognized, nor is it a border.
Legal Grounds, a grassroots initiative established to inform about and promote Israel’s legal land rights, called on the Ambassador to publicly debate Professor Eugene Kontorovich, a renowned expert on international law at Northwestern University and senior legal think tank fellow in Israel.
Legal Grounds claim the EU's stance contravenes the officially recognized rightful presence of the State of Israel in Judea and Samaria according to international law: “These rights were recognized unequivocally by the League of Nations, and reaffirmed in Chapter 80 of the UN Charter. Moreover, the EU stance runs contrary to its previous commitment implicit in its having witnessed and signed Oslo II, an agreement based on stipulations by UN resolutions 242 and 338 that Israel is entitled to ‘secure and recognized’ borders.”
Legal Grounds believe that Faaborg-Andersen should be held accountable for his inaccurate statement regarding legal facts. (h/t Yenta Press)

NGO Monitor: An Important First Step: British Gov't Ends Funding for War on Want

The end of UK government funding for a radical anti-Israel group and accompanying disclosures of antisemitism at its events highlight the urgent need for due diligence, transparency and accountability in all NGO funding frameworks, stated NGO Monitor. According to media reports, War on Want, which is leader of boycott campaigns against Israel and companies that do business with the Jewish state, is no longer being funded by the British government.
“This is an important, albeit belated, step by the British government,” said Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor. “Other institutional donors, in particular the European Union, should follow suit and immediately end their funding for this anti-human right organization.”
NGO Monitor research shows that the British government, via the Department of International Development, had provided War on Want with almost £500,000 in 2012-2015. The EU provided an additional £211,000.
For more than a decade, NGO Monitor has been tracking the crude anti-Israel campaigns of War on Want, in direct violation of requirements for a UK-registered charity. Documentation containing such information was submitted to the DFID and presented to Members of Parliament.

Edgar Davidson: Story that Government has stopped funding War on Want is a lie*

I am sorry to have to break this news to everybody celebrating the Telegraph story that the Government has stopped funding the antisemitic 'charity' War on Jews Want as a result of its anti-Israel incitement. The above is a screenshot from War on Want's website today, which gives you a pretty good indication of how un-bothered they are by the Telegraph story (War on Want essentially does nothing other than campaign against Israel so, as far as they are concerned, the Telegraph is simply advertising what they do best). The Press release from War on Want that is referred to in the highlighted section is reproduced below. They claim they have not been criticised by the Government and that they have not sought Government support for years.
For once War on Want is more or less telling the truth (it's incredible how many Jews continue to delude themselves that David Cameron's government would ever actually take real action against Israel haters). War on Want no longer asks for direct funding from the British government** for the simple reason that it gets it indirectly from the EU and Comic Relief (which of course is run by the government funded BBC). As I pointed out only last month, Comic Relief recently awarded War on Want its largest grant ever £590,719 (in 2013 it got £139,407 from Comic Relief and in 2014 it only got £27,790). But it is the EU that continues to be their main financier** - which, of course, is also partly funded by British taxpayers.
As my many previous reports on War on Want confirm, Cameron's government and the Charities Commission know all about War on Want's activities and refused to do anything about it - publicly at least. Maybe behind the scenes they were sufficiently embarrassed to suggest discreetly to War on Want that they should stop applying for direct Government funding. Either way, Gilligan's Telegraph report will make no difference at all except almost certainly lead to increased funding from Comic Relief and the EU and some additional Israel haters who have now been alerted to what they do.

Clinton Confidante's Son: Palestinians Recover Their 'Dignity' In Violence Against Israelis

Work accident! Hamas guy accidentally shoots himself

From Ma'an:

Hamas' military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades, said Monday that one of its members had died in an accident during a "Jihadi mission" in the northern Gaza Strip.

The brigades said in a statement that 24-year-old Musab Muhammad al-Sheikh, from Jabaliya in northern Gaza, was accidentally shot dead by a bullet from his own gun.

Further details on the circumstances of his death and the nature of the "mission" were not provided.

Al-Sheikh's funeral was scheduled for Monday at 12 p.m. in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Members of the al-Qassam Brigades are regularly killed during training exercises or in Gaza's notoriously dangerous tunnel networks in the north and south of the blockaded coastal enclave.

Hamas still refers to him as a "martyr."

Here is Mr. al-Sheikh posing for the photo that only is released when he dies:

And here he is in a pose I like a bit better:

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.

Latest NYT anti-Israel op-ed proves yet again its bias

Daniel Patrick Moynihan is famous for saying "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

This goes doubly so for New York Times op-eds.

Today's case in point is an op-ed written by Omar Zahzah, "a Ph.D. student in comparative literature at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is on Twitter." (It is part of an online debate about whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism, which really is not the question.)

The NYT doesn't bother to mention that Zahzah is also a former president of the Students for Justice in Palestine UCLA. His activism on behalf of an organization that is dedicated to destroying the Jewish state may be more relevant.

Now, what does this graduate student have to say that is so critical for NYT readers to know?

It is a collection of straw men, half-truths and lies.

When the University of California Regents recently passed a statement condemning “anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism,” it avoided a broader proposal to equate anti-Zionism with bigotry. But this and similar efforts around the country to condemn anti-Zionism are part of a well documented, politically motivated national campaign to shut down speech critical of Israeli policies and deny the experiences of more than 750,000 Palestinians who were made refugees by ethnic cleansing at the creation of Israel.

His links to "prove" a "well documented, politically motivated national campaign" to shut down free speech come from ridiculusly biased sources. Of course no one is trying to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel - they are against the absurd, one-sided demonization and de-legitimization of Israel that applies rules to the Jewish state that to no other country on Earth has to live up to.

The New York Times allows the use of the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the flight of Arabs from a war zone, the vast majority of whom were not forced out of their homes.

My relatives were among the Palestinians displaced. They did not deserve to be expelled from their homes, nor do any of the Palestinians who are still being uprooted because of Israeli government policies.

Without knowing where his relatives were from, we cannot know if they were "expelled." Chances are pretty slight. And to say that people who build illegal houses or raise terrorists do not deserve to have their homes taken away from them is hardly a true statement.

Anti-Zionism is a principled anti-racist position.

Actually, it is always a bigoted position meant to deny the Jewish people, alone among all peoples, the right to self-determination. (And when called on it, they deny that the Jewish people exist - which is antisemitism, too.)

The notion that there should be freedom and self-determination for Palestinians leads me to call on Israel to respect the United Nations mandated right of return for forcibly displaced refugees and their families.

Here he links to UN resolution 194 which is not law, nor is it a "mandate," nor is it a "right" - even according to its own language.

It is my conviction of equality that compels me to speak out against Israeli apartheid, with over 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel and render them second-class citizens.

Clearly Zahzah has no "conviction of equality" because he says that the Palestinian Arabs, who have only been recognized as a people in the past fifty years (and even that is debatable), have the right to self-determination - but the Jewish people do not.

Who is the racist?

Worse, the NYT allows the use of the false term "apartheid" as if it is fact. And the "50 discriminatory laws" is another false canard.

By allowing these statements to be included in an op-ed, the New York Times is complicit in spreading lies. In a way it is more insidious, because the incidental mention of these false anti-Israel talking points like "ethnic cleansing," "apartheid" and "right of return" gives the casual reader the impression that these statements must be true since the NYT allowed them to be published.

Fact checking should be at least as important in op-eds as in news articles. And the NYT has failed yet again.

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.

04/04 Links Pt1: Netanyahu: I'll meet Abbas any time; Sen. Leahy is Siding with the Terrorists

From Ian:

Netanyahu: 'I'll clear my schedule this week to meet Abbas'

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once again invited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Jerusalem for talks, four days after Abbas said in a Channel 2 interview that he was waiting for such an invitation.
“A few days ago on Israeli television, I heard President Abbas say that if I'd invited him to meet, he'd come,” Netanyahu said before a meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek. “So, as I said this morning to an American Congressional delegation, I'm inviting him again. I'm clearing my schedule this week. Any day he can come, I'll be here.”
Netanyahu said that he and Abbas have “a lot of things to discuss, but the first time is ending the Palestinian campaign of incitement to murder Israelis.” Netanyahu said his door “is always open to those who want to pursue peace with Israel.”
During Thursday’s Channel 2 interview, Abbas said that he had offered to meet Netanyahu. “I will meet with him, at any time. And I suggested, by the way, for him to meet,” he said in English. Asked what became of that overture, Abbas said: “No, no - it’s a secret. He can tell you about it.”

Rivlin calls for talks with Palestinians, says he would meet Abbas

President Reuven Rivlin spoke on Monday of the need for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and said he was willing to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to further this goal.
"Without mutual trust between the sides there won't be negotiations and there won't be a solution," Rivlin said during a statement in the presence of visiting Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek
The president said that he listened to Abbas' recent address, calling the Palestinian leader's words a "little more promising."

Abbas Rejects Peace and Palestinian Statehood, U.S. Media Rejects Coverage

This is the third known occasion in which Abbas has rejected a potential opportunity to gain a new Palestinian Arab state. (Jordan, with a majority Palestinian Arab population, at least until the current Syria refugee influx, occupies a majority of the land originally designated for the post-World War I Palestine Mandate.) The Palestinian leader—currently in the tenth year of a single, elected four-year term—dismissed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposal to restart negotiations for peace with Israel and a Palestinian state in 2014 and an Israeli offer in 2008 after the Annapolis conference, which he acknowledged was refused “out of hand” (“Abbas admits for the first time that he turned down peace offer in 2008,” The Tower, Nov. 17, 2015). Abbas’ predecessor, Yasser Arafat, also rejected statehood and peace with Israel in 2000 at Camp David and 2001 at Taba.
Major U.S. news outlets failed to report Abbas’ rejection of Biden’s offer. According to a Lexis-Nexis search, not a single article appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times or USA Today, among others, on the latest Palestinian rejection of statehood and peace.
This is not to say that there wasn’t any coverage of Israel in the days following Biden’s visit. In a March 14 editorial entitled “Mr. Netanyahu’s Lost Opportunities,” The New York Times blamed the Israeli prime minister for the lack of a “two-state solution” while excusing Abbas as “a weak and aging leader.” The “newspaper of record” failed to specifically note any of Abbas’ refusals of statehood and peace.