But it wasn't an Israeli missile. It was a missile from a Gaza terror group, almost certainly the one in this video:
Video from the @Reuters livestream via @RelicHq showing the errant Palestinian rocket falling short and hitting the Palestinian Independent Commission For Human Rights building in Gaza. Not an Israeli airstrike. pic.twitter.com/P76Dx0RyIU
Even the ICHR website deleted its original accusation that it was an Israeli missile strike, although it stops short of even implying it might be from Islamic Jihad.
When the evidence that Amnesty was wrong became overwhelming, it tweeted this:
Isn't that something? An unfounded accusation that Israel bombed a human rights group gets tweeted with no caveats whatsoever, but when it is discovered that a Gaza terror group shot the rocket, now Amnesty wants an "investigation" - one that it had no desire to do at first when Israel could be blamed. And Amnesty wants the world to know that it still could have been from Israel, even though Israel denies it and Palestinian media stopped all reporting on the incident, following Hamas orders.
Back in March, the ICHR offices and staff were indeed attacked deliberately. By Hamas.
The Ramallah-based Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR) said Hamas forces attacked its staff in Gaza because they were doing their job of monitoring and reporting Hamas crackdown on the street protests.
ICHR director Ammar Dweik said that Hamas forces attacked and severely beat the director of its Gaza branch, Jamil Sarhan, and its attorney, Baker Turkman, and seized their cellular phones.
Back then, Amnesty did not say a word.
No wonder that Hamas media is happily publishing Amnesty's anti-Israel statements. Hamas and other terror groups in Gaza accurately see Amnesty International as their allies. (This particular article was taken down in the past hour for some reason.)
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.
Ken Roth, the leader of of Human Rights Watch tweets - a lot.
For a man who makes over $630,000 a year, it is amazing that the HRW board has no problem with his prolific tweeting.
His obsession is tweeting about Israel. While the percentage of tweets slamming Israel has gone down in recent years as his biases were revealed, he has maintained a consistent habit of practically never going more than 24 hours without tweeting something about Israel, nearly always negative.
Until this week, that is.
His last tweet about Israel was a typically absurd - and anti-peace - comment:
The Israel-Jordan peace agreement included Jordan's leasing back land that Israel owned and in which Israelis had farms. The lease was for 25 years and intended to be renewed automatically every 25 years as a symbol of peace and cooperation. Yet Jordan decided to not lease the land, symbolically telling Israel, screw you - we have the land and you have no rights to it. A land for peace deal turned into an opportunity for Jordan to show how much it hates Israel.
But Roth twisted Jordan's hate into, somehow, being about Palestinians. No Palestinians live anywhere near this plot of land. It isn't even in the West Bank. Roth took Jordan's side in their symbolic move against peace with Israel, which is a strange position for a supposed human rights organization.
Hours after that tweet, Israel assassinated an Islamic Jihad terrorist who was planning major terror attacks on behalf of Iran. HRW is on the record as saying that such attacks are legal under international law
Since then, over 200 rockets were shot towards Israel. Every single rocket is a war crime since they are being aimed at civilians.
And Ken Roth has not tweeted a word.
As always, he wants to tweet anti-Israel lies and vitriol, but suggesting that Israelis are victims of human rights abuses by a recognized jihadist terror group supported by Iran is simply not something Ken Roth can tweet about.
So he is silent.
He is waiting for an Israeli attack that accidentally kills a child or family - something nearly unavoidable when terrorists and terror groups purposely plot and plan in civilian areas. Then he'll tweet against Israel, and mention the rockets as an aside so he can claim to be "objective."
No, Ken Roth isn't objective. His silence while a million Israelis seek shelter under fire shows that he effectively supports terrorism - when it is directed against Israel.
UPDATE: Roth tweeted about the EU wanting Israel to renew the visa of HRW BDS activist Omar Shakir - but nothing about the rockets. So his anti-Israel streak of 36 hours is over but still nothing about Gaza terrorism.
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.
Labour’s candidate for the Conservative-held marginal seat of St Ives has defended her band’s song accused of calling for Israel’s destruction from charges of antisemitism.
Alana Bates, who is standing in next month’s general election, is a bassist in The Tribunes, a self-described “radical-political alternative rock four-piece band” formed in 2015.
The song, uploaded to Spotify in 2018, is entitled From the River to the Sea, a controversial phrase often used at anti-Israel demonstrations to call for the country’s destruction.
“With no justice, there’s no peace / troops out of the middle east / with no justice, there’s no peace / get out of the middle east,” the song states.
“Justice should not have to wait / Israel’s an apartheid state / Justice should not have to wait / Israel is a racist state,” it continues.
Later, the song calls on listeners to support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement, saying “ethnic cleaning and the rest, support BDS.”
Independent Cornwall councillor Tim Dwelly said the song was “repulsive racism” and called for Bates’ immediate expulsion from Labour.
Dwelly, a former member of Labour, tweeted: “Her band sings that Palestine should be ‘one state’. Israel should be ‘out of the Middle East’, is a ‘racist state’. Repulsive racism. She should be expelled by Labour immediately.”
Bates told Jewish News the song had been removed from online platforms on the advice of the Labour Party.
British Jews,
The next month is our Cable Street.
On 12 December an antisemitic party could be elected into government.
We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing, we must take action and do everything we can to stop Corbyn.
A Liberal Democrat candidate has apologised over a tweet sent in 2014 comparing Gaza to “Nazi ghettos in which Jews were trapped”.
Wera Hobhouse, 59, most recently served as the Lib Dems’ climate change spokesperson. Elected to represent Bath in 2017, she is standing in next month’s general election.
She told Jewish News: “I abhor antisemitism with every fibre of my being. My mother’s brothers and sisters had to flee the Holocaust because they were Jewish, and it destroyed their families. I had an uncle imprisoned in Dachau, and a great uncle murdered because he was mentally ill.
“This was the reality for my family in Nazi Germany, and we still live with the trauma. However, I apologise unreservedly for any offence I have caused. Looking back at these tweets I realise that trying to discuss hugely serious issues via 140 characters is a mistake.”
She tweeted in 2014 that “#gaza seems to remind terribly of Nazi ghettos in which Jews were trapped during Holocaust. For what reason do we remember Holocaust?”
Another tweet sent the following year read: “‘Israel cynically using memory of the Holocaust’. ‘Never again this suffering to anybody not just Jews’ #bbcthebigquestion.”
Ahead of the Council of American-Islamic Relations’ 25th Anniversary Gala event last Saturday, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization boasted that “120+” members of Congress had sent them letters of support.
We never saw those letters, however, thanks to Clarion reader Viola Rose, we were directed to a list of 100 members of Congress who voiced their support of CAIR in 2018. The list was published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, along with the letters of support.
You can see the list and the letter by clicking here
The list includes Democrat presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. Ninety-seven out of the 100 names on the list were Democrats; three were Republican.
CAIR’s gala event took place November 9, 2019, at the Grand Hyatt hotel in Washington, D.C., and featured Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Islamist activist and sharia-apologist Linda Sarsour.
CAIR describes itself as “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group,” but in 2007, the U.S. government labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing the Hamas terrorist group.
In November 2014, CAIR was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates along with a host of other Muslim Brotherhood entities.
CAIR was listed among “individuals/entities who are/were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The Palestine Committee is a secret body set up to advance the Brotherhood/Hamas agenda in the U.S.
The FBI subsequently severed official contacts with the group, saying it “does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
Yet members of Congress – either ignorantly or intentionally — continue to endorse CAIR.
Mordecai Manuel Noah was the United States Consul to the Kingdom of Tunis from 1813-1815, where he rescued American citizens kept as slaves by Moroccan slave owners. He was the first Jewish diplomat for the US. In 1815, US Secretary of State James Monroe fired him from that position, saying his religion was "an obstacle to the exercise of [his] Consular function."
Noah wrote a book about his travels in northern Africa. His description of the Jews in the area is interesting. He notes that Muslims would treat Jews like dirt in public, but they were very important in running the governments behind the scenes so they could get what they needed.
The Israelites banished from Spain and Portugal by the bigotry of their monarchs, and for which these kingdoms have long since languished and decayed, sought refuge in the Barbary States, in which there were originally but 200,000. They found in Fez, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, an immense number of their brethren, originally from Judea and Egypt, many who had descended from the Canaanites that fled from Joshua and settled in Mauritania Tingitania. Such was the fate and the fortune of these proscribed and unhappy people. They wandered with no other king but their God, no other law than his precepts and ordinances ; they bent under persecutions, yet, wherever the intolerance of the times compelled them to go, they found their brethren, with admirable constancy, ready to share with them their fortunes, and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives for each other. In the Barbary States they found a refuge from the inquisition, from torture and from the auto de fe ; they were compelled to abandon their splendid dwellings and the luxury of wealth, they met from Mussulmen insult and oppression, yet they were tolerated, and they sought consolation in that religion which teaches them to have but one God, to obey his commandments and rely on his protection. They were taught, by the doctrines of their law, to suffer patiently the penance of a loss of national liberty \, for a disregard in early periods to the principles of that law, they were dispersed according to the word of God, and in conformity to his promise, they patiently bend to the intolerance of the times, and await the certain period of their deliverance, satisfied, from the well-known and admitted fact, that they have been preserved pure and unalloyed, amidst the wreck of worlds amid the ruins of nature, and that this miraculous preservation must eventuate in their restoration to their ancient rights.— From the most correct data which 1 could obtain, I have reason to believe, that the number of Jews in the Barbary States exceed 700,000, of which nearly 100,000 are capable of bearing arms.
Much has been said of the severe and cruel treatment of the Jews by-Mussulmen, this 1 did not observe ; that they are treated with indignity and insult there is no doubt ; they are compelled to wear a black dress, they are not permitted to pass a Mosque with their shoes on, they pay a heavy capitation tax, and minor insults growing out of a general system and customs long observed. These were predicated on policy : the Moors found an immense and increasing people professing a different faith—active, enterprising, and rich—fearful then of an increase of a confederacy, composed of materials capable of revolutionizing and governing the country, they united to oppress, insult, and yet tolerated them.
An erroneous impression prevails, that the religion of the Jews is an object of hatred to Mussulmen, and the cause of this oppression. This is not the case, because the Mahomedan faith does not materially differ from the Jewish, and their hatred towards Christians is yet more fierce and irreconcilable ; but the Jews have no protectors, they are considered by Mussulmen as abandoned by all nations, because they will not renounce their ancient faith, and yet, with all this apparent oppression, the Jews are the leading men, they are in Barbary the principal mechanics, they are at the head of the custom-house, they farm the revenues, the exportation of various articles, and the monopoly of various merchandise, are secured to them by purchase, they control the mint and regulate the coinage of money, they keep the Bey's jewels and valuable articles, and are his treasurers, secretaries, and interpreters ; the little known of arts, science, and medicine, is confined to the Jews, there are many who are possessed of immense wealth, many who are poor.
How then is it that these people, so important and so necessary, should be so oppressed ! The fact is, this oppression is in a great measure imaginary. A Turk strikes a Jew, who dares not return the blow, but he complains to the Bey and has justice done him. If a Jew commits a crime, if the punishment affects his life, these people, so national, always purchase his pardon ; the disgrace of one affects the whole community j they are ever in the presence of the Bey, every minister has two or three Jewish agents, and when they unite to attain an object, it cannot be prevented.
Noah had a later initiative of interest to Jews, but that deserves its own post.
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 evolution of the law of targeted assassinations is interesting. While traditional assassinations have generally not been considered legal under international law, spy agencies have always done them but without admitting it.
When quasi-wars are being fought between nations and terror groups, the circumstances are different - do the laws of war apply? Is it considered a police action? How about when terrorists are not near the war zone? This is all a relatively new scenario in international law, and the answers are bitterly contested.
Israel pioneered the thinking in these circumstances in the 1990s. The IDF's International Law Department, or ILD, was asked to answer these sorts of questions during the second Intifada. And sometimes, they had to innovate in the legal thinking to be able to deal with these new circumstances.
Gabriella Blum is one of the people who helped the IDF come up with answers at the ILD, while Daniel Reisner was the head of the group. They were interviewed for The Intercept:
The discussions were animated, but in Blum’s recollection, always professional. The politics of those in the room ran the spectrum. But these were lawyers, at the end of the day, and they worked for an army. The soundest legal arguments, not the most humane, would win.
“You had to make stuff up as you went along,” Blum said. “Not in a manipulative way. Not, ‘OK, let’s come up with a story that justifies everything we do.’ But we did feel like we were in a different reality. This blending of combatants and civilians in an occupied territory — this was not something that the history of the regulation of war had fully anticipated.”
The new technologies complicated things further. “It was kind of freaky that you’re using this thing,” Blum said. “Drones? It’s a machine? And nobody can surrender to that machine?”
Eventually, the ILD established principles to guide the IDF’s targeted killings. The aim was to define the practice as an exception to the norm — a means of last resort.
Their first rule was that targeted killings were not to be used against just any member of an armed group, but only against those who took direct and active roles in hostilities. (Practically speaking, that meant that the commander who ordered the suicide bombing was a valid target, but that the technician who built the bomb itself was not.) Where arrest was a feasible alternative, targeted killings were not to be used. (“That had zero precedent,” Reisner said. “A total invention. It sounds like law enforcement, right?”) And finally, every effort had to be made to avoid civilian injury and death.
Here is a brief description of IDF rules written by Blum in this academic paper:
The process for approving targeted killing operations in Israel
involves an intelligence “incrimination” of the target, which identifies the
target as a person actively involved in acts of terrorism; a plan for the time,
place, and means of the attack (most commonly, an airstrike); consideration
of the danger of collateral damage; and a review of potential political
ramifications. The complete plan must receive the approval of a top-level
political official. There is no external review process, judicial or other.
The stated Israeli policy is that only members of a terrorist
organization who are actively involved in an ongoing and direct manner in
launching, planning, preparing, or executing terrorist attacks are lawful
targets. In addition, targeted killing operations will not be carried out where
there is a reasonable possibility of capturing the terrorist alive.
The guidelines were accepted by Israel's High Court with an additional caveat:
A military committee would be formed to review targeted killings that resulted in civilian casualties; that committee would be tasked with determining consequences and possible reparations. (The committee exists to this day, but its decisions are not made public.)
The US policy was very much against this Israeli policy of allowing targeted killings - until September 11, 2001. Then the US realized that things are not as simple as it claimed they were, and over the next decade the US policy on targeted killings has been largely taken from the IDF's International Law Division.
Lethal force will be used outside areas of active hostilities only when the following preconditions are met: First, there must be a legal basis for using lethal force, whether it is against a senior operational leader of a terrorist organization or the forces that organization is using or intends to use to conduct terrorist attacks. Second, the United States will use lethal force only against a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons. It is simply not the case that all terrorists pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons; if a terrorist does not pose such a threat, the United States will not use lethal force. Third, the following criteria must be met before lethal action may be taken: 1) Near certainty that the terrorist target is present; 2) Near certainty that non-combatants1 will not be injured or killed; 3) An assessment that capture is not feasible at the time of the operation; 4) An assessment that the relevant governmental authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not effectively address the threat to U.S. persons; and 5) An assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.
International legal scholars disagree as to the legality of these policies. A synopsis of the viewpoints can be seen here. However, international law evolves based on actual practice and written armed forces policies. It is worthwhile to see how Human Rights Watch looks at the issue, whether in context of a war or as a police action:
The laws of war permit attacks only against military objectives, such as enemy fighters or weapons and ammunition. Civilians are immune from attack, except those individuals “directly participating in the hostilities.” While the phrase “directly participating in hostilities” has various interpretations, it is generally accepted to include not only persons currently engaged in fighting, but also individuals actively planning or directing future military operations. For a specific attack on a military objective to be lawful, it must discriminate between combatants and civilians, and the expected loss of civilian life or property cannot be disproportionate to the anticipated military gain of the attack. Therefore, not all attacks that cause civilian deaths violate the laws of war, only those that target civilians, are indiscriminate or cause disproportionate civilian loss.
...International human rights law permits the use of lethal force outside of armed conflict situations if it is strictly and directly necessary to save human life. In particular, the use of lethal force is lawful if the targeted individual presents an imminent threat to life and less extreme means, such as capture or non-lethal incapacitation, are insufficient to address that threat. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials provides that the “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” This standard permits using firearms only in self-defense or defense of others “against the imminent threat of death or serious injury” or “to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life” and “only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives.” Under this standard, individuals cannot be targeted for lethal attack merely because of past unlawful behavior, but only for imminent or other grave threats to life when arrest is not a reasonable possibility.
Any way you look at it, the laws of targeted assassinations in a scenario where there is a terror group that attacks at times but not in an active war would fall somewhere in between these two scenarios.
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.
Israel killed a top commander from Iran-backed Islamic Jihad in a rare targeted strike in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, and terrorists responded by firing rockets at Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv.
In the most serious escalation in months, an Israeli missile attack also targeted the home of an Islamic Jihad official in Damascus, killing two people including one of his sons, Syrian state media said. Israel declined any comment on that incident.
“Israel executed two coordinated attacks, in Syria and in Gaza, in a declaration of war,” Islamic Jihad leader Khaled Al-Batsh said at the Gaza funeral of Baha Abu Al-Atta.
Israeli officials described Al-Atta as “ticking bomb” who was responsible for a string of recent cross-border rocket, drone and sniper attacks and was suspected of planning more.
“We conducted the attack (on Al-Atta) because there was no other choice,” Israeli military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Jonathan Conricus said. “I want to emphasize that we are not looking to further escalate the situation.”
Al-Atta’s slaying, in his home along with his wife, looked likely to pose a new challenge for Gaza’s ruling Hamas faction, which has mostly pursued truces with Israel since a 2014 war.
Islamic Jihad said that the Damascus home of one of its top officials was attacked by Israel early Tuesday morning. The bombing came minutes after Islamic Jihad commander Bahaa Abu Al-Ata was assassinated by Israel in the Gaza Strip in a targeted killing operation carried out jointly by the IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).
Syrian state news agency SANA said that two people were killed dead and six others injured after the bombing of the building near the Lebanese Embassy in western Mezzeh, Damascus.
An Islamic Jihad official confirmed that the target was the home of the group's deputy leader, Akram Al-Ajouri. In a statement, Islamic Jihad blamed the attack on "the Zionist criminal enemy." It was not immediately clear if Al-Ajouri was among the dead or the wounded.
Al-Ajouri was said to be Abu Al-Ata's primary contact in the top echelons of Islamic Jihad. The bombing on Tuesday made it seem like Israel was launching a coordinated assault against the Iranian-backed terrorist organization that is mostly based in Gaza but also has headquarters in the Syrian capital.
Israel was preparing for several days of fighting after over 170 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into the Jewish state Tuesday following the targeted assassination of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Leader Bahaa Abu Al-Ata in a precision Israeli airstrike.
In the afternoon, the IDF launched a new wave of attacks against Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip, hitting training bases and the openings to tunnels the terror group had been digging into Israel. The IDF also announced that it was calling up a limited number of reservists to man Iron Dome missile defense batteries as well as to beef up the Home Front Command.
As of 4:30 p.m. Israel time, the IDF was reporting more than 160 rocket launches and over 50 interceptions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after a security cabinet meeting in Tel Aviv: "Terrorists think they can hit civilians and hide behind civilians. We showed that we can hit the terrorist with minimal damage to civilians. Anyone who thinks they can hit our civilians and get away with it is wrong. If you hit us we will hit you."
IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi said that Al-Ata was the person who tried to undermine Israel's efforts to reach a ceasefire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. "In recent days he was working to perpetrate attacks against Israel," he said. "We tried to thwart his efforts in different ways without success and we then recommended a targeted killing."
Kochavi added: "We are not interested in an escalation but we are ready - on the ground, in the air and at sea."
The IDF's Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories closed the Erez and Kerem HaShalom crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip, and restricted the fishing zone Palestinians can enter off the coast of Gaza.
Palestine Today, an Islamic Jihad news site, has an exclusive interview with Baha Abu al-Ata published posthumously. Al-Ata was assassinated by Israel this morning.
It is not clear when the interview was done, but it shows that al-Ata was planning many large terror attacks against Israel.
Abu Al-Ata said that the capabilities of the Al-Quds Brigades, the military wing of Islamic Jihad, more than doubled compared to during the Gaza war in 2014.
He said that Al-Quds Brigades are "waiting for the next battle to teach the enemy a hard lesson."
"God willing, the next battle will be a decisive battle, where we will teach the enemy cruel lessons in very capital of the enemy," he said.
The martyr leader said: We will teach the Israeli enemy a very tough lesson, and the next battle will be much stronger than the battle of the pitted Al-Bunyan, and will be a battle to break the bone hurts the occupation.
The article calls Abu al-Ata "a great jihadist with an honorable career."
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.
This morning, PA president Mahmoud Abbas commented on Israel's assassination of major Islamic Jihad terrorist Baha Abu al-Ata.
The Palestinian presidency condemned today the Israeli military escalation against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip following what it described as the “hideous crime” committed by the Israeli occupation against a man and his wife in an airstrike at their home in Gaza City.
The "moderate" Fatah movement blamed the Israeli government for the "martyrdom" of Baha Abu Ata and his 20-year old wife.
Media darling and Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee Saeb Erekat condemned the assassination and called it a "crime."
Every time, in every incident, Palestinian leaders choose to side with the most extreme jihadists and terrorists against Israel.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
On Monday we discussed a pending European Court of Justice ruling that Israeli goods created in settlements must be labeled as such.
The ruling this morning confirmed the earlier logic that consumers have the right to know that food comes from settlements because of "ethical considerations" listed in Regulation No 1169/2011. This press release discusses the ruling:
In addition, as regards the issue whether the indication ‘Israeli settlement’ is mandatory, the Court
first of all underlined that the settlements established in some of the territories occupied by the
State of Israel are characterised by the fact that they give concrete expression to a policy of
population transfer conducted by that State outside its territory, in violation of the rules of general
international humanitarian law. The Court then held that the omission of that indication, with the
result that only the territory of origin is indicated, might mislead consumers. Consumers have no
way of knowing, in the absence of any information capable of enlightening them in that respect,
that a foodstuff comes from a locality or a set of localities constituting a settlement established in
one of those territories in breach of the rules of international humanitarian law. The Court noted
that, under Regulation No 1169/2011, the provision of information to consumers must enable
them to make informed choices, with regard not only to health, economic, environmental and social
considerations, but also to ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of
international law. The Court underlined in that respect that such considerations could influence
consumers’ purchasing decisions.
The lawsuit that prompted this came from the Psagot winery.
But Regulation 1169/2011 specifically excludes alcoholic beverages from its domain! For some strange historic reason, the only mandatory information for alcoholic beverages under EU regulations is the percentage of alcohol content. Health issues, while addressed in many European states' own rules, are not mandatory across the EU.
This absurd situation is illustrated in this 2018 slide from Eurocare that urges alcoholic beverages to be forced to have minimum health label information:
The court rulings are (seemingly) being applied to Psagot based on the wording in a regulation that does not currently apply to Psagot wines!
Which means that the ECJ says that it is more important to include the phrase "Israeli settlements" on wine bottles than "don't drink and drive" and all the other health warnings about alcohol listed here in a document that discusses potential EU policies on labeling alcoholic goods:
Until the full ruling comes out, I don't know if it addresses the issue of "ethical considerations" being applied in a discriminatory manner only to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and not for foodstuffs that come from any number of countries with questionable policies on ethical issues. But saying that consumers of wine need to know more about the political situation of the place it is produced than about the health implications of consuming it is seriously messed up.
(h/t Irene)
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 latest news as of this writing is that not only did Israel assassinate the head of the northern Gaza branch of Islamic Jihad’s military wing, Baha Abu al Ata, but that at nearly the same time Israel also bombed and nearly killed another major Islamic Jihad leader, Akram al-Ajouri, in Syria.
There is lots of speculation on the timing of these strikes. The IDF says that al-Ata was planning some very serious operations, and even Islamic Jihad says that he was in the midst of a "heroic act." But it is also possible that Israel is sending a message to Iran.
Al-Ata seems to have directly reported to Iran and took instructions from them to disrupt the uneasy detente that has been in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Hamas has shown irritation at groups attacking Israel without going through them.
Al-Ajouri almost certainly was close to Iran as well, working with the regime in Syria.
The intelligence to know where these terrorists are sleeping is quite impressive. If al-Ata was planning a major attack, chances are the planning and timing came from Iran.Israel is sending a message to Iran that their plots to attack Israel are being foiled because someone on the inside is revealing them, making Iran wonder who they can trust and alowing down the pace of what they can accomplish if everyone suspects everyone else of being a Zionist spy.
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 term “Zionist” has been stripped of its true meaning and instead become a term of infamy and curse, Alex Ryvchin says.
This distortion is the motivation behind the Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO’s just released second book, Zionism – The Concise History, which tells the history of the Jewish people from their origins in biblical Israel to their exile and the formation of the national movement that led to their return nearly two millennia later.
It examines the leaders who shaped the Zionist movement and events that impacted on it, including Chaim Weizmann’s wartime service to the British, the Dreyfus Affair, the emergence of Jerusalem mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini and the impact of the pogroms and the Holocaust.
“It is vital that our young people understand the story of Zionism, which is not only inspiring, but is inextricably linked to every phase of Jewish history, and as such, forms a fundamental part of Jewish identity,” Ryvchin said.
“It is an organic expression of two core aspects of the Jewish people – our peoplehood and our connection to our ancestral lands.”
He said the consequence of allowing deliberate distortions of the meaning of Zionism to go unchallenged is that new generations “will only know of Zionism and Zionists as an evil to be fought”.
“The movement to liberate or at least shelter the Jewish people from antisemitism, the movement that seeks nothing more than to give the Jews a scrap of land to call their own, to ensure that the Jewish people and their contributions to humanity shall not vanish from this earth – somehow this has become akin to racism, to Nazism, to colonialism, to white supremacism, and every other popular conception of evil known today,” he said.
“These are lies that cannot be allowed to be laundered into truth.”
Last week, my organization, the World Values Network, hosted a discussion with Yair Netanyahu, son of the Israeli prime minister, and one of Israel’s best-known young social media influences.
I’m a free speech absolutist and consider the First Amendment to be inviolate. I am so proud of countries like the United States and Israel for ensuring that people can speak their mind without fear of government censorship or arrest.
I allowed Ariel Gold, National Co-Director of Code Pink, to attend our event. As she entered the talk, someone spotted her and a spirited debate ensued between our organizers and security as to whether she would remain. Everyone was sure she would try and destroy the event.
So I walked up to her, and asked if she planned to disrespect our speaker and destroy the talk. She told me, and other organizers, that her sole desire was to listen and take notes. I asked her again for her commitment to not disrupt. She looked me in the eye and gave me her word. And I took her at her word. She, however, did not keep her word — and tried to ruin our event.
It turns out that in addition to Ariel Gold’s repulsive views on Israel and role as an apologist for Iran, she is also an inveterate liar who has the nerve to look people right in the eye and lie. Even after I spoke to her privately, I extracted a public commitment from her — only to witness Gold get up with scores of other protesters to try and destroy a free speech event because they disagreed with the views of our guest.
Gold would later say on her Twitter feed that she protested alone and did not lead the others. But she’s a confirmed liar, as we all saw. So why believe anything she says?
As a religious man, I have debated some of the world’s most famous atheists, like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. As a pro-Israel activist, I have debated some of the world’s leading Palestinian apologists, including Peter Beinart and Hussein Ibish. All of these debates have been respectful, and we did not try to shut each other up.
It was mid-September 1988, and while shuffling through the mail in my Budapest apartment, I came upon an oversize envelope inviting me, as a journalist, to cover the events of the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht on Nov. 9 in Berlin. That was not unusual since the city of West Berlin and the rest of the Federal Republic—West Germany—marked the event in scores of towns, villages and cities. As well they should, of course.
I did a double take. This envelope came from the press office of the East German government, the German Democratic Republic, and after a few phone calls to friends in the press corps in West Germany, they were as surprised as I was.
When did the GDR start commemorating Kristallnacht, I asked a friend at Reuters in Budapest, who called his bureau in West Berlin.
“You mean in its entire 38-year history?”
“Yes,” I said.
“Never.”
Word was that Erich Honecker, head of East Germany’s Communist Party, was trying to secure legitimacy for his country, and since Romania’s dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, had managed to secure Most Favored Nation Trading status from the United States—mostly because he allowed the Jewish community to function and receive financial support from America—Honecker was keen to deal a Jewish card he’d never played before.
And did he ever play it. Over a two-day period in East Berlin there would be an exhibition on the history of Jews in Berlin (the first in East Germany’s history), a special session of the East German parliament, a rededication of the giant, ruined synagogue on Oranienburgerstrasse, which was going to be rebuilt as a Jewish museum, and an evening performance by the Berlin Symphony Orchestra.
Honecker would never see a return on his investment, because exactly one year later, on Nove. 9, 1989, Berliners would be tearing away at the Berlin Wall, and he himself would be sitting at home, watching history unfold on TV. Having been fired a few weeks earlier, he would soon be on trial and the German Democratic Republic would be erased from the map.
But that lay in the future. It was fall, 1988, I had my permission, an official invitation, and a few weeks later I drove up from my home in Budapest to East Berlin, arriving on Nov. 9.
It is the 15th anniversary of the timely death of arch terrorist Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian media is asking once again, "who killed Abu Ammar?" - Arafat's nom de guerre
Member of the Fatah Central Committee, Tawfiq Tirawi, affirmed that Fatah is working hard to reach results regarding the "assassination of Abu Ammar" and will one day reach a result that satisfies all the Palestinian people. He notes that the people are in a hurry to know the answer - but, hey, its only been 15 years. These things take time!
Member of the Executive Committees of the PLO Azzam al-Ahmad said, "It is not easy to reach the precise details regarding the assassination of martyr President Yasser Arafat ...The decisive issue is that Israel has poisoned him, but how? We are looking for a solution for this mystery, but all the great leaders who preceded Abu Ammar were assassinated in the same manner, including Nasser." He knows it was Israel but they just need a little more evidence!
The perennial mystery is also fodder for Hamas/Fatah infighting. A Hamas website stated flatly that current Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas was the person behind a huge conspiracy to poison Arafat, listing lots of supposed circumstantial evidence like Abbas sabotaging investigations and the movements of some people close to Arafat to Israel at the time.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
As usual, it downplays left-wing antisemitism and completely ignores Arab and Muslim antisemitism.
The essay also brings up the straw man that the Right considers legitimate criticism of Israel as being antisemitic: "We should be very clear that it is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the Israeli government. " Literally no one disagrees.
Sanders then goes on to acknowledge a tiny amount of antisemitism on the Left. "It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews, or when it plays into conspiracy theories about outsized Jewish power. "
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.... Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Bernie Sanders' allies, like Linda Sarsour and Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, falsely claim that this definition includes legitimate criticism of Israel. I have yet to see a single progressive critic of the IHRA working definition point out the specific wording that they disagree with. Either they disagree with the definition or they can say their specific concerns so it can be discussed.
No one does.
Bernie Sanders, if he is as honest as he claims to be, seems to be agreeing with the IHRA definition. If he is truly serious about fighting against antisemitism, and he is really interested in fighting antisemitism wherever it may be found whether from the Right, the Left or the Muslim world he ignores, then he should explicitly embrace the IHRA working definition of antisemitism - or tell us exactly which parts he disagrees with.
If Sanders is as honest and brave as he presents himself to be, he will address this issue forthrightly.
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.
Ridding the world of its one Jewish state to create a state of Palestine “from the river to the sea” is a supposedly “progressive” ambition for the anti-Israel crowd.
But the idea that the Palestinians are in any way interested in establishing a progressive paradise is downright preposterous, since extensive opinion surveys document that extremist and fundamentalist views are mainstream in Palestinian society.
It’s only to be expected that fringe sites like the Electronic Intifada or Mondoweiss hide this evidence from the anti-Israel activists they cater to. But unfortunately, the prestigious magazine Foreign Affairs has recently also promoted the myth of a one-state solution as a model of peaceful co-existence and equal rights for all its citizens. By giving a platform to Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, the magazine published a professional propagandist whose job is to demonize Israel while marketing the idea that Palestinian “rights” include the elimination of the Jewish state.
“One-state” proponents like Munayyer can’t really afford to be honest about the kind of state Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza want, because that would endanger the widespread illusion that the Palestinian cause deserves uncritical support from progressives.
As documented in a Pew survey from 2013 that included almost 40,000 Muslims in 39 countries, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were often among the Muslim populations with the most extremist views about the role of Islam in society: 89 percent of Palestinians said they wanted Sharia law; 66 percent endorsed the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion; 76 percent supported mutilation as a punishment for theft; and a shocking 84 percent wanted adulterers stoned to death.
When asked how much political influence religious leaders should have, 29 percent of Palestinians said religious leaders should have a lot of political influence, and another 43 percent wanted religious leaders to have at least some political influence. These views are reflected in the Palestinian draft constitution, which stipulates that the “principles of the Islamic shari’a are a main source for legislation.”
In one sentence, the US Secretary of State managed Nov. 7 to define the ultimate nightmare of diplomatic and security decision-makers in Israel and bring all the demons out into the open: “Members of the international community who are rightly concerned with Iran's latest attacks and provocations should imagine how Iran would behave with a nuclear weapon,” Mike Pompeo said, following the Iranian declaration of the start of phase 4 in its slow withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. He confirmed the estimate of Israeli intelligence that was published here a year ago, according to which the Iranians will violate the agreement gradually, in slow steps, that will gradually grow, until they reach a range from which they could break through to a military nuclear program within a few months.
In the end, so estimated Israeli intelligence officers after the United States left the nuclear agreement, Iran would be ready for a quick “breakthrough” toward the first military nuclear facility. This is, exactly, the situation Israel fears more than anything else on earth. Pompeo also discussed this possibility, saying that the United States will not let it happen; but these words convinced no one in Jerusalem, nor in Tel Aviv (the location of the Israel Defense Forces and intelligence agencies’ headquarters).
“Unfortunately, experience teaches us,” a former high-ranking Israeli intelligence official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “that not all of the Trump administration’s declarations are translated into deeds. The thing is that this time we are reaching an existential crossroad that might force us to choose an independent path. This time this isn’t North Korea, but Iran, whose declared intention is to erase Israel from the map of the world.”
Israeli intelligence predicted with astonishing accuracy all that has happened in the year and a half since President Donald Trump declared the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, in May 2018. In conversation with Al-Monitor in mid-2018, a senior intelligence source, speaking on condition of anonymity, sketched the full scenario: The Iranians would respond to the American exit from the agreement with violations that would grow in severity, it was said in that conversation. At first, they will start enriching uranium again to the 3.5% level, then they will increase the number of centrifuges. Later, they will increase the enriched uranium supply they hold in their territory, then they will operate the enrichment facility at Fordow and start using their sophisticated, fast centrifuges.
Argentina has asked Azerbaijan to arrest a high-level Iranian adviser to the country’s supreme leader in connection with the bombing in 1994 of the Buenos Aires AMIA Jewish center
Alí Akbar Velayati was scheduled to attend the Second Summit of religious world leaders in the Azerbaijani capital Baku, Nov. 14-15.
Velayati, who was Iran’s foreign minister at the time of the terrorist attack and has been implicated in ordering the bombing, is now an adviser on international affairs to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Under existing Argentine law, an accused person must have the opportunity to defend himself before a judge. Since the Iranians accused in the attack, many from the upper political echelons, have not set foot on Argentine soil, it has been impossible to move the judicial process forward.
The Argentine Foreign Minister summoned the ambassador of Azerbaijan in Buenos Aires on Friday and expressed the “deep concern” of Argentina’s government about Velayati’s presence in Baku and asked for Azerbaijan’s cooperation “in order to carry out the detention for extradition purposes.”
Iran also is believed to be behind the 1992 car bombing that destroyed the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29 and injuring 242.
Nuclear physicist Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul said in a November 5, 2019 interview on Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) that what the West really fears is Iran's technological and medical development. Dr. Dalloul said that the University of Tehran is on the verge of producing an alternative medicine for cancer that "will make Jewish companies that invest in chemotherapy and spread cancer go bankrupt."
Nuclear Physicist Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul: Tehran University on the Verge of Producing Cancer Treatment that Will Make Cancer-Spreading Jewish Companies Go Bankrupt pic.twitter.com/8jcomAx0d9
Dalloul's Facebook page says he was born in Ramallah but now lives in Isfhahan, Iran. His LinkedIn page says he lives in the UAE. His Twitter bio says he lives in the UK.
So I'm not altogether convinced that this guy is the nuclear scientist/British nuclear inspector he claims he is.
But that doesn't stop him from regularly appearing on Arabic language TV, as his YouTube page attests.
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 Times of Israel reports that some Israeli officials are warning that a private lawsuit brought by the Psagot winery to the European Court of Justice against a French policy of labeling goods made by Jews in Judea and Samaria as being made in "Israeli settlements."
Israeli officials are concerned that the lawsuit will backfire, Psagot will lose, and world headlines will again be screaming about settlements.
The Psagot winery argues otherwise. It hired some serious lawyers to argue that adding "Israeli settlements"to the labels adds a political commentary to consumer goods, something that would become a nightmare if enforced equally across all imports from countries with problematic political policies.
Psagot's questions for the ECJ are:
Does EU law, and in particular Regulation No 1169/2011 …, where indication of the origin of a product falling within the scope of that regulation is mandatory, require, for a product from a territory occupied by Israel since 1967, indication of that territory and an indication that the product comes from an Israeli settlement if that is the case? If not, do the provisions of [Regulation No 1169/2011], in particular those in Chapter VI thereof, allow a Member State to require those indications?’
The decision wlll be handed down Tuesday.
Experts consulted by Times of Israel think that this lawsuit does not stand a chance. The major reason is that ECJ’s Advocate General Gerard Hogan already expressed a non-binding opinion on the matter and he is rarely overruled by the court.
In order to achieve a high level of health protection for consumers and to guarantee their right to information, it should be ensured that consumers are appropriately informed as regards the food they consume. Consumers’ choices can be influenced by, inter alia, health, economic, environmental, social and ethical considerations.
Hogan's ruling concentrates on the "ethical considerations" part, saying that the territories are occupied and therefore consumers who base their purchases on information like that need to know this.
In my view, the reference to ‘ethical considerations’ in the context of country of origin labelling is plainly a reference to those wider ethical considerations which may inform the thinking of certain consumers prior to purchase. Just as many European consumers objected to the purchase of South African goods in the pre-1994 apartheid era, present day consumers may object on similar grounds to the purchase of goods from a particular country because, for example, it is not a democracy or because it pursues particular political or social policies which that consumer happens to find objectionable or even repugnant. In the context of the Israeli policies vis-à-vis the Occupied Territories and the settlements, there may be some consumers who object to the purchase of products emanating from the territories, precisely because of the fact that the occupation and the settlements clearly amount to a violation of international law. It is not, of course, the task of this Court to approve or to disapprove of such a choice on the part of the consumer: it is rather sufficient to say that a violation of international law constitutes the kind of ethical consideration which the Union legislature acknowledged as legitimate in the context of requiring country of origin information.
Psagot's argument against this is that if the consumer information required is so broad then the labeling for all countries must include political information about that country.
TOI:
“The court will not rule in favor of labeling, because I am confident the judges are more farsighted than that,” [lawyer Brooke] Goldstein told The Times of Israel.
“Either way, I do not think that EU member states will be able to enforce any EU regulation that requires it to label only Israeli products. Since most EU member states have robust anti-discrimination laws, it will require any EU regulation to apply in a non-discriminatory fashion, to any products imported into the EU that come from either disputed territories or territories engaged in human rights violations.”
In other words, if Europe’s top court decides that West Bank products must be labeled, “that means Styrofoam cups from China, wine from Turkey, oil from Iran, will all be mandated to have labels indicating the particular political circumstances of each country. That will obviously be an economic nightmare for Europe and totally unenforceable.”
Hogan's ruling subtly shows his own anti-Israel bias because he simply doesn't even consider that "occupation" is only one of thousands of possible "ethical" considerations that consumers would have the right to know. Does the country of origin discriminate against gays? Does it have laws against abortion? If one "ethical" consideration is important enough to be considered important for the labeling, then why aren't the others? According to his logic, every country of origin should have a laundry list of possible ethical violations listed, from its stance on abortion to its gun control laws and whether it allows kosher slaughter. Yet Hogan rules only that the purported illegality of the settlements is the only consideration important enough for consumers to be told explicitly, so much so that it should be mandatory to label the goods that way!
Interestingly, he seems to undercut his own argument a bit when he says that other legal rulings assume that consumers are "well-informed" about the issues of importance to them. He argues that such a consumer needs to be told that the provenance of the goods come from "Israeli settlements" even though if they really are "well informed" they wold know that wine that is clearly labeled as coming from the Golan Heights or Judean Hills are obviously made by Jews and not Muslims who do not drink wine.
Unfortunately, as his ruling shows, the ECJ is likely to have its own biases against Israel just as Hogan does.
Hogan's ruling does not address the EU states' non-discrimination laws, apparently because they are up to each member state. So while Psagot's argument against Hogan might not help in the ECJ, it might be useful in terms of fighting it in individual countries - and, from the other side, to fight for the ECJ to apply its reasoning to every problematic country that goods are imported from.
I spoke to Yaakov Berg, the owner of Psagot Winery, a number of years ago, where he briefly addressed the labeling issue. "It's very funny, because for example, if I would sell my winery tomorrow morning to a German guy, to an English guy, so what is going to be written on the bottle? Nothing! In other words, only if a Jew will have a winery or a factory in his own land, only then will it be written on a bottle a 'warning,'"Berg said.
Berg told TOI, "This court decision is just the beginning of the fight we’re preparing to put up. We won’t agree to a double standard. It cannot be that products from Tibet are considered ‘Made in China’ while I am labeled. I — who am working the field where my ancestors were already making wine during the Second Temple period. There is no historical debate over this; all historians agree that this was the homeland of the Jewish people.”
“My grandmother escaped the Nazis; they labeled her as a Jew. I grew up in Russia, where they labeled us as Jews. They shall not stick special labels on us,” Berg declared. “It just won’t happen, certainly not in Europe. We won’t accept it.”
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Plans have just been unveiled for a new massive interfaith complex in Abu Dhabi, encompassing a mosque, a church and a synagogue.
The facility, to be known as the Abrahamic Family House, will be located on Saadiyat Island in the United Arab Emirates' capital city, right next to the new Louvre Abu Dhabi. Abraham of the Old Testament is considered a holy prophet in all three religions.
The compound is expected to be completed in 2022. Sheik Mohammed and Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, ruler of Dubai, have already signed the foundation stone.
On September 20, the initial designs for the complex were presented at an event at the New York Public Library in midtown Manhattan. British firm Adjaye Associates won the contract to design the center, which will consist of three large buildings arranged around a central garden, under which will sit a museum and education center.
All three buildings appear to be the same height, which is symbolically important - each religion has rules, formal or informal, that its own house of worship be the highest building in the area. It would be interesting to find out if the mosque is a couple of inches taller than the others.
Here's what the synagogue is going to look like:
The synagogue interior is supposed to look like this:
This artist's rendering does not show a bima (lectern for the Torah and prayer leader) nor an Aron (Torah ark.) It appears to have a raised women's section.
Given the things we've been hearing from the UAE, it seems quite possible that there could be regular services there with a minyan, as more and more Jewish businesspeople and Israelis visit the Emirates.
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.
Hizbullah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Qassem on Friday said his part is “effectively taking part in the consultations with the heads of the parliamentary blocs and the relevant officials with the aim of forming the (new) government.”
“We hope the final format for the premier and the government will emerge soon,” Qassem added.
Stressing that Hizbullah “will maintain its role in carrying people’s concerns and working for reform and combating corruption,” Qassem said his party’s “presence and representation will be effective in the government that will be formed.”
“It will be part of the coming government because it is part of this people,” he added.
The comments are withering:
You must be kidding, why haven't you fought corruption in the past if you care so much about the people. There will not be any room in the new government for any current or past political players....
No salvation for Lebanon until you remove your arms and don't behave as attack dogs for Iran radicals! This is what scared away investment and caused the exodus of all good paying foreign corporations.
It is a joke right??
so, iow, you are responsible to the non formation of government and you still want the same thing--obviously listening to anyone but iran is not listed as an option to you.
Do the world a favor and hang yourself with your own turban
Stressing that Hizbullah “will maintain its role in carrying people’s concerns and working for reform and combating corruption, looooool where are the Kizb drones out on this site to explain this joke?
Hezbollah (at the direction of Iran) is now wholeheartedly against the protests, and they are still claiming that Lebanon owes them for dragging the country into war:
The head of Hizbullah’s parliamentary bloc MP Mohammed Raad on Sunday stressed that his party “cannot be strong-armed” and that “fabricated battles” linked to the ongoing popular uprising in the country will not deviate Hizbullah’s attention from its main objectives.
“We share the goal of combating corruption, lifting immunity off corrupts and recovering stolen funds… with all the honest people who rose up and took to the streets… but we want others to respect our experience and realize that their movement is within the atmosphere provided to them by our martyrs, mujahideen and heroes,” Raad went on to say.
The Hizbullah lawmaker also warned the protest movement against “launching arbitrary accusations” or “hurling insults against icons, especially those related to the leadership of the purest, most honorable and noblest people.”
Meaning, don't insult Nasrallah or the Iranian mullahs. Or else.
That's how to ingratiate themselves with the people!
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.
There is, however, another reason why so many American Jews disdain Christian support. This is that they themselves have heavily bought into the secular approach to the world, which has replaced religion by mankind-centered ideologies.
This is particularly unfortunate since these universalist ideologies are inimical to Jewish principles, though many American Jews mistakenly think they embody the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, or the “repair of the world.”
They don’t realize, therefore, why intersectionality – the doctrine that links groups that consider themselves victims of the so-called white hetero-normative capitalist patriarchy – has made such an enemy of Israel and the Jewish people.
They don’t realize that through its animus against Jewish religious principles, seen as the basis of the oppressive power structure known as Western civilization, and against Zionism, seen as the ultimate ethnic colonialist enterprise of that civilization, secular liberal universalism entails a fundamental illiberalism, in addition to a deep intolerance towards biblically faithful Jews and Christians.
They don’t realize that this universalist creed they have made into a secular religion is taking an axe to the cultural virtues they themselves take for granted.
In this crisis for Western civilization, the tragedy for these Jews who don’t realize the importance of their own culture to that civilization is that they’re on the wrong side.
Did you think I’d complain that the world is silent in the face of the atrocities perpetuated by a purported refugee agency that acts like a terrorists’ hub? In fact, global silence would be a step up compared to the reality we’re in, because UNRWA has actually been supported by Western countries, along with Arab states. They are guilty by association. For us, this is yet another form of antisemitism, this time concealed under the guise of humanitarianism.
And now we are incensed. Last week it was announced that UNRWA Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl had stepped aside following “allegations of misconduct,” pending investigation. While the nature of these allegations has not been made public, I am confident it is nothing to do with UNRWA’s many decades of supporting – even promoting – hatred, terrorism and violence. So why the outcry now?
When UNRWA support terrorism against Jews, the world is silent. When allegations of corruption come up, countries remove their funding from UNRWA and force the commissioner to step down.
The truth is that no matter what last week’s accusations relate to, it is a slap in the face to Israelis. It confirms what we have suspected all along: Our suffering does not matter. That of Palestinians, yes, but not ours. Misconduct results in consequences – stepping aside, an investigation – only when the victims are not Israeli.
Below is a list of basic changes that must be made in the UNWRA textbooks used in the Palestinian Authority.
2. Avoid Demonization of Israel and Jews
- Schoolbooks should not include pieces which virulently demonize Israel/Jews, or de-humanize them, or any description that goes beyond the presentation of Israel and/or the Jews as an ordinary adversary with its own rights, interests and positions. Jews should not be presented as enemies of Islam, as has been often done.
- It is desirable to add to the books the still non-existent material that deals with Israel and the Jews objectively (for example, pieces that talk about the Israeli government structure, economy, science and technology, the Hebrew culture, Jewish history, etc.), which might balance the enormous anti-Israeli critical material in the books.
- It is crucially important to stress in the books that, in spite of the conflict, the Jewish/Israeli individual is also a human being, apart from being an adversary, and should be treated accordingly.
- While dealing with the conflict, the PA schoolbooks studied at UNRWA schools should include also self-criticism (i.e., the rejection of proposals for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, massacre of unarmed Jewish neighbors, etc.)
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Media Fall Silent on Palestinian Draft Constitution
-
Key Takeaways: PA Draft Constitution Omits Israel: The Palestinian
Authority’s proposed constitution makes no mention of Israel, defines no
borders, and le...
Z-Grade Actor Harry Cook’s Escalating Rhetoric
-
[image: Z-Grade Actor Harry Cook’s Escalating Rhetoric]
Harry Cook escalates his anti-Zionist rhetoric, invoking blood libel tropes
and calling for change ...
Turkish blood libel display gets no condemnation
-
There has been no public condemnation from local authorities in Antalya to
an antisemitic public installation in Antalaya, Turkey. The absence of a
clear...
A Simple Truth
-
Shabbat Shalom. Here is a Dry Bones Cartoon by Yaakov Kirschen from 2015.
Shabbat Shalom!Wishes for health and happiness and prosperity and peace to
a...
Jabotinsky's 1935 'Band Wagon'
-
This is the first of a series of three articles by Vladimir Jabotinsky,
the Revisionist leader, written specially for the Jewish Daily Bulletin.
The secon...
Now What?
-
Today, Jews cannot walk down the street in North America, Europe, or even
Australia without the possibility of being spat on, beaten, or even
murdered. Cou...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
Isn't that something? An unfounded accusation that Israel bombed a human rights group gets tweeted with no caveats whatsoever, but when it is discovered that a Gaza terror group shot the rocket, now Amnesty wants an "investigation" - one that it had no desire to do at first when Israel could be blamed. And Amnesty wants the world to know that it still could have been from Israel, even though Israel denies it and Palestinian media stopped all reporting on the incident, following Hamas orders.
