Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Islamic Jihad also has a "political wing"

Jihad organizations rarely have a purely military focus. They always have used charities and created Islamist schools to recruit new members, and those "wings" require their own procedures and people. Similarly, the larger ones also need to speak to the media and negotiate with other groups, and those people become the "political wings" of the organizations.

The critical point is that the political and social-service wings are not separate - their entire existence is to support the terrorist goals of the organization. They are subservient to the military goals, not independent of them.

For example, here are some pictures from Palestine Today showing a leader of the "political wing" of Islamic Jihad, Sheikh Nafez Azzam, greeting the backbone of the terror organization:

He reiterated that armed "resistance" is the only way to "defend" their people.

Hamas' non-military wings have grown the same way; out of a necessity to do some non-military tasks as necessary to continue the major focus, which remains jihad. For example, Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan's role was to bridge the military and non-military wings of Hamas - a purely practical role that indicates the primacy of jihad in Hamas.

Westerners stricken with a particularly extreme case of wishful thinking disease like to seize on these different "wings" as evidence that there is a huge separation of duties and goals between them. In Hamas' case. the fact that separate "security forces" report to the same "ministry" indicates that the separation is practical, not doctrinal. Add this to the fact that a majority of Palestinian Arab police killed in Gaza also belonged to Hamas' armed wing and it is clear that no real distinction can be made between the two, just as no practical distinction can be made between the fighters and the people who procure weapons within the Al Aqsa Brigades who are not directly involved.

Bostrom expands blood libel against Israel

Donald Bostrom, the "journalist" who wrote the infamous blood libel for Swedish magazine Aftonbladet claiming that Israel kills Palestinian Arabs for their organs, expanded his charges in a press conference in Algeria held by invitation of the National Federation of Algerian Journalists. They awarded him with an "Excellence in Journalism" award; it does not appear to be in th "fiction" category.

Palestine Press Agency reports that Bostrom has gone way beyond his initial feverish fantasies of Jewish evil and fills in the lies with additional details:

* The organ thefts started in 1960.
* Israel didn't only steal Palestinian Arab organs but also those of "martyrs of other nationalities."
* More than a thousand bodies were harvested.

Bostrom also called for "serious international action by competent international bodies to consider these inhumane practices against a defenseless people."

As far as I can tell, he provided not an iota of evidence for these additional charges, as he didn't for the initial ones (outside pointing to stitches on a body.)

PalPress goes on to say that Bostrom met with major Algerian ministers and a representative of the Algerian president, who praised him for his courage in the face of the all-powerful Zionist lobby.

UPDATE: English report here. And Al Arabiya reports that Bostrom's award included a payment of $5000.

Egypt sends aid through Rafah!!!!

Palestine Today reports that Egypt sent humanitarian aid through the Rafah crossing on Wednesday. 11 trucks filled with 135 tons of aid were sent through.

It is very nice that Egyptians have decided to help their Palestinian Arab brethren, and it deserves to be reported.

Lesser known is that Israel sends through ten to twenty times those amounts of aid every weekday. For example, last week Israel sent though 563 truckloads -14,562 tons -of humanitarian aid.

All of a sudden, 135 tons sent as a one-off doesn't sound quite as impressive. Yet for some reason, when the people who Gazans consider to be their enemies give huge amounts of aid, Palestine Today doesn't mention it. Perhaps Jews helping Arabs is a dog-bites-man story while Arabs helping PalArabs is a bit more unusual.

Or there is a more likely explanation for PalToday's omission....

PalArabs: Zionist Pigs now protected by Israelis

Palestine Today has another article about the hordes of wild boars that sometimes descend on PalArab villages, We have already seen many of these articles, where villagers invariably accuse Israeli settlers of raising these boars and letting them loose to devour, exclusively, Palestinian Arab-own crops.

This story adds an interesting twist, though. According to "experts" interviewed, Israel introduced a new law to fine and imprison any Palestinian Arab who kills these animals, with a prison sentence of 1.5 years. (Of course we also have the PalArab fears of catching swine flu from the boars.)

How evil the Israelis are! Imagine, a fine and a prison sentence! The only thing that could make the Israelis look worse would be if the story had a shred of truth!

Never a dull moment open thread

I will be on the web only intermittently between now and Rosh Hashanah, so that means it's time for everyone's favorite game show: Open Thread!

To start things going, I need to mention this amazing article at Arutz-7 that says that Judge Goldstone fell asleep during a video presentation on Sderot rockets.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 9: Gaza Police

The Goldstone report spends a lot of space (paragraphs 414-421) trying to justify its contention that the Hamas police force was a civilian force, and that Israel was not justified in attacking it. I believe that this analysis is flawed and that the conflicting evidence is weighted with a clear bias towards declaring the policemen to be civilian.

410. In order to shed some light on where the truth might lie between these two conflicting descriptions of the police, the Mission finds it necessary to examine the development of the security forces linked to Hamas after its election victory in January 2006. When Mr. Said Seyam, a senior Hamas representative,269 took office as the Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Interior in April 2006, he found that he had little or no control over the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, which were put under the control of the President of the Palestinian Authority and of officials loyal to him.270 On 20 April 2006, he announced the formation of a new security force
reporting directly to him. This was the Security Forces Support Unit, also known as the Executive Force (al-Quwwa al-Tanfiziyya). The new security force appears to have had a double function as both a law-enforcement agency and, at least potentially, a military force. It was officially charged with enforcing public security and protecting property. At the same time, he appointed Mr. Jamal Abu Samhadana, commander of the Popular Resistance Committees, as the head of the Executive Force271 and announced that it would be composed of 3,000 new recruits from various Palestinian armed groups, including al-Qassam Brigades.272 The newly appointed commander reportedly declared: “[The Executive Force] will be the nucleus of the future Palestinian army. The resistance must continue. We have only one enemy. … I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people. We are also a force against corruption. We are against thieves, corrupt officials and law breakers.” 273

This paragraph seems to set the tone that, at least originally, Hamas did not distinguish between civil and military functions for its Executive Force.

411. In August 2007, following the June 2007 Hamas seizure of full control over Gaza, the current Director of the Gaza authorities’ civil police, then head of the Executive Force, Gen. Abu Obeidah, described the planned reorganization of the security services in Gaza. Executive Force members were to be integrated into the civil police. He reportedly stated that Hamas was “working hard to retrain Executive Force members to perform police duties” and that the “Force will be in charge of chasing drug dealers and lawless residents”. At the same time, he stated that
“members of the Force are religious, and are resistance fighters.”274

At this point, when Hamas took over Gaza, it was obvious to all that Hamas would need to take over the police duties. Fatah clearly was not going to be tolerated in that role. The question is, did Hamas intend that the police would be a purely civil police force, or simply that they had to fulfill that role in order to maintain law and order but they would still be considered resistance fighters (and moonlight as such)? At this point, as of 2007, the answer seems to be the latter, according to Goldstone's evidence.

412. In October 2007, the security services operating in Gaza were reorganized. The previous Palestinian Authority’s police agencies in Gaza were merged with the Executive Force.275 The security forces under the control of the Ministry of Interior emerging from this reorganization comprise the Civil Police, the Civil Defence, the Internal Security (an intelligence agency) and the National Security. Their mandates, according to the Gaza authorities’ Ministry of Interior’s website,276 are differentiated.

413. The National Security force is given specific military tasks, such as “the protection of the State from any foreign aggression” and “responsibility for the defence of the Palestinian homeland in the face of external and internal threats”. It is thus plainly a military force whose members are, under international humanitarian law, combatants.277 The functions of the police have been outlined above.

The website shows that there are six security services under the Interior Ministry: Police, Civil Defense, Security and Protection, Homeland Security, National Security Forces and Military Medical Services. Keep in mind that they all report to the same ministry, meaning that they are much closer related than traditional military and police duties are in most nations.

I maintain that there is essentially no distinction between these groups.

To give an example, the "Security and Protection" group lists 12 "martyrs" from the Gaza war on its website. It is not the police division; it seems to be mostly serving a function of bodyguards. However, of the 12 killed, PCHR listed 2 of them as "militants" and 9 of them as "police." (One I could not find.) Of the 9 "police," 6 of them were listed as Al Qassam Brigades members on the Al Qassam website itself, and two were listed as Al Qassam Brigades members in other sources.

414. On 1 January 2009, during the Israeli military operations in Gaza, the police
spokesperson, Mr. Islam Shahwan, informed the media that the police commanders had managed to hold three meetings at secret locations since the beginning of the armed operations. He added that “an action plan has been put forward, and we have conducted an assessment of the situation and a general alert has been declared by the police and among the security forces in case of any emergency or a ground invasion. Police officers received clear orders from the leadership to face the enemy, if the Gaza Strip were to be invaded.”278 Confirming to the Mission that he had been correctly quoted, Mr. Shahwan stated that the instructions given at that meeting were to the effect that in the event of a ground invasion, and particularly if the Israeli armed forces were to enter urban settlements in Gaza, the police was to continue its work of ensuring that basic food stuffs reached the population, of directing the population to safe places, and of upholding public order in the face of the invasion. Mr. Shahwan further stated that not a single policeman had been killed in combat during the armed operations, proving that the instructions had been strictly obeyed by the policemen.

This is a critical paragraph, and it highlights Goldstone's credulity. There is a clear statement from the police spokesman saying that the police were instructed to face the enemy, which is not a very ambiguous statement. Months later, when he is reached by commission members to explain this problematic statement, he seizes the opportunity to "clarify" that he only meant that they should be doing normal police duties.

And Goldstone believes him.

Not only that, his "proof" is an absurd statement that no policemen were killed in combat (presumably during the ground invasion.) This is a lie. According to PCHR and my research, 16 policemen were killed from January 4th and on, 34 policemen were killed, and my research indicates that at least 16 of them were members of terror organizations.

Here is a most obvious case where Goldstone's members are willing to believe what they are told by Hamas without any followup.

415. The Mission notes that there are no allegations that the police as an organized force took
part in combat during the armed operations. On the basis of the information provided by the
Gaza authorities and of the above-mentioned study of the Orient Research Group Ltd., it would
appear that 75 per cent of its members killed in the course of the military operations died as a
result of the air strikes carried out during the first minutes of the Israeli attack. These men had
not engaged in combat with the Israeli armed forces.279

If one assumes that the commission is accurate in defining the police as a separate, purely civil institution, this would seem to be the case. If one believes that it is a facade to make human rights organizations happy, then it is a bit less clear.

416. The Mission also notes that while the then commander of the Executive Forces and now
Director of Police did reportedly say in August 2007 that members of the Executive Force were
“resistance fighters”, he stressed in the same interview the authorities’ intention to develop it into
a law enforcement force. The Mission notes that a situation in which a recently constituted
civilian police force integrates former members of armed groups would not be unique to Gaza.
That prior membership in itself would not be sufficient to establish that the police in Gaza is a
part of al-Qassam Brigades or other armed groups.

Nor does it disprove it. However, other evidence might cause one to tilt that way. For example, if the vast majority of Gaza's police force were also members of terror organizations, wouldn't that indicate that Hamas is quite happy with freely mixing the civil and militant duties of its members?

417. Except for the statements of the police spokesperson, the Israel Government has
presented no other basis on which a presumption can be made against the overall civilian nature
of the police in Gaza. It is true that the police and the security forces created by Hamas in Gaza
may have their origins in the Executive Force. However, while the Mission would not rule out
the possibility that there might be individuals in the police force who retain their links to the
armed groups, it believes that the assertion on the part of the Government of Israel that “an
overwhelming majority of the police forces were also members of the Hamas military wing or
activists of Hamas or other terrorist organizations”,280 appears to be an overstatement that has
led to prejudicial presumptions against the nature of the police force that may not be justified.

While we have established that Goldstone believes, without reservation, the assertions of the Hamas police spokesman, it gives no such credit to the IDF. Where does it gain its skepticism from? Skipping a little...

420. The Mission further notes that the study conducted by the Orient Research Group Ltd.
names policemen killed during the attack, whom it identifies as members of Hamas, al-Qassam
Brigades, other armed Palestinian groups or “terror operatives” whose affiliation is not known.
In 78 out of 178 cases the policemen are alleged to be members of al-Qassam Brigades on the
sole basis that they were allegedly Hamas members.

I do not know the methodology of the Halevi report referenced here, but my research (using similar methods) has determined that at least 206 of the 242 policemen killed in Gaza were members of terrorist organizations or "military" groups. That is about 74%.

At least 83 of them were explicitly listed as members on the official Al Qassam Brigades website. Many others were listed as "militants" by Al Mezan, in Al Qassam Brigades forums, and in PFLP and Islamic Jihad websites. And ten of them were recognized as militants by the PCHR.

(About 15 of my count came from ICT and I have not corroborated yet on any militant website. Even so, it still leaves a vast majority of Palestinian Arab police as being actively affiliated with terror groups.

This is the key fact: a police force that (at the very least) tolerates its members as also being terrorists loses its status as being worthy of protection. Perhaps not according to a strict interpretation of international law, but for all practical purposes the fact that the police also did traffic duties does not make them any less militant, any more than an army doing police duties would be immune from attack.

Goldstone however copies an argument against this logic from the Al Mezan Center:

421. Furthermore, it appears from the response to the Mission from the Orient Research Group
Ltd. describing its methodology that its information on police members’ alleged affiliation with
armed groups was based to a large extent on the websites of the armed groups. In this respect,
the Mission is mindful of a recent report by a Palestinian human rights NGO drawing attention to
the “issue of the ‘adoption’ of killed persons by resistance groups; i.e. declaration by a political
or armed group that the person killed was one of their members. Often, when persons, including
children, are killed by actions of the Israeli armed forces , political and/or armed groups ‘adopt’
them as ‘martyrs’ placing their photographs on their websites and commending their contribution
to resisting occupation. This does not mean that those persons killed were involved in resistance
activities in any way. The families accept this ‘adoption’ of deceased family members for
various reasons including the willingness of resistance groups to provide financial support to the
families and pay for funeral costs of the persons killed.” As the NGO concludes, “these cases
require in-depth investigation on a case-by-case basis in order to determine every person’s status
according to his actual affiliation”.283

It is true that some websites use the word "martyrs" when referring to women and children. However, my group's original research was careful to ignore any sources that did this practice. I did not see a single women or child (less than 16 years old) being mentioned as a member of any armed group. Moreover, we were careful not to count people listed only as "shahids" and made sure that those we counted were called "mujahid" or similar terms, if not explicitly members of specific brigades.

In other words, Goldstone accepted the poor argument of Al Mezan without checking it against the specific entries mentioned. It also ignored my email to the Commission that listed my data and methodology. Its logic of throwing out any evidence that proved the police to be a sham front for terrorists, and accepting any evidence that claimed otherwise, is problematic indeed.

Gazans smuggle a Volkswagen through a tunnel

Palestine Press Agency reports that a 2009 Volkswagen was smuggled through a Rafah tunnel into Gaza. It was divided into four pieces and is being welded together on the Gaza side.

Unfortunately, no photos yet.

Goldstone Commission problems, part 8

This is not an inaccuracy per se, but it is more than troubling.

One of the major sources that the Goldstone Commission heavily relied on in testimonies was TAWTHEQ. TAWTHEQ is quoted in the context of the Gaza war more often than HRW and seems to be mentioned in the report body about as often as PCHR (although PCHR is mentioned more in footnotes.) In other words, it seems that Goldstone put a lot of emphasis on TAWTHEQ's direct testimony to the Commission.

Who is TAWTHEQ? It is not an NGO - it is Hamas!

The organization is an Arabic acronym for the "Central Commission for Documentation and Pursuit of Israeli War Criminals." The possible objectivity of such an organization seems remote. Its webpage describes it as

TAWTHEQ " The Central Commission for documentation and pursuit of Israeli war criminals" is an independent governmental organization dedicated to monitoring and documenting the Israeli aggression crimes that targeted individuals, buildings, private and public property by the Israeli occupation forces, and particularly crimes that occurred during the last aggression on the Gaza Strip on 27 / 12/2008 until 19/1/2009 and pursuit war criminals and follow-up submitting lawsuits against them via the national and the international courts without any political affiliation to any party.

TWATHEQ [sic] is considered the only official commission to deal with the files of documenting aggressions and criminal acts of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and follow-up submitting lawsuits against the Israeli officials.

It was established by the Gaza Ministry of Justice, which is Hamas.

While there are serious problems with relying on biased NGOs like PCHR (who refuses to call the Israeli army the IDF, instead using the term IOF consistently,) TAWTHEQ is single-mindedly created by Hamas not to be objective at all. Its mandate isn't to determine the existence of war crimes - it is to maximize the number of such "crimes."

So, for example, Goldstone quotes TAWTHEQ as saying that "341 of those killed were children. " It also quotes the PCHR and B'Tselem (314 and 320, respectively.) It is probable that TAWTHEQ (as well as DCI) is including children who were combatants in their list of victims.

The entire purpose of TAWTHEQ is to accuse Israel of war crimes and provide "evidence" to credulous NGOs. The fact that Goldstone gave it as much weight as it did seems to be a reflection of Goldstone's general bias towards those who testified in person, something that appears to be consistent throughout the report. As in the case of Addameer, Goldstone seems far less likely to question Gazan facts and figures than Israel's, even when the Arab organizations themselves have an explicitly anti-Israel mandate.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 7

493. The reports received by the Mission suggest that it is likely that the Palestinian armed
groups did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population among
whom the hostilities were being conducted. Their failure to distinguish themselves from the
civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would
have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants. What international law
demands, however, is that those engaged in combat take all feasible precautions to protect
civilians in the conduct of their hostilities. The Mission found no evidence that members of
Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. It can, therefore, not find a
violation of the obligation not to endanger the civilian population in this respect.

I already dealt with some of the claim that they found no evidence of Hamas and PIJ masquerading as civilians, and there is more where that came from. But it is curious that Goldstone says that disguising themselves as civilians is not a violation of international law.

Geneva protocol I article 37 paragraph 1 states:

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

Unless I'm misreading it, it sounds like the very act of a combatant pretending to be a civilian is prohibited under international law.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 6

495. Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques
for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might
have occurred in other cases. As far as hospitals and United Nations facilities are concerned, the
Mission found that it could not exclude that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat
activities in the vicinity of these protected sites. The Mission wishes to emphasize that the
launching of attacks from or in the vicinity of civilian buildings and protected areas are serious
violations of the obligation on the armed groups to take constant care to protect civilians from
the inherent dangers created by military operations.

496. The Mission asked the Gaza authorities to provide information on the sites from where
the Palestinian armed groups had launched attacks against Israel and against the Israeli armed
forces in Gaza. The Mission similarly asked whether, to their knowledge, civilian buildings and
mosques had been used to store weapons. In their response, the Gaza authorities stated that they
had no information on the activities of the Palestinian armed groups or about the storage of
weapons in mosques and civilian buildings. The Mission does not find this response to be
entirely plausible. The Mission notes, more importantly, that, whether the answer reflects the
reality or not, the Gaza authorities are obliged under international law to control the activities of
armed groups operating on the territory under their control.346 If they failed to take the necessary
measures to prevent the Palestinian armed groups from endangering the civilian population by
conducting hostilities in a manner incompatible with international humanitarian law, they would
bear responsibility for the damage done to the civilians living in Gaza.

The basic assumption that somehow the Gaza "authorities" are not exactly the same as the "armed groups" is bizarre. It is almost like the UN needs to hold onto the fiction that Hamas is somehow a respected civilian authority in order to jam their ideas of human rights into a neat category and ignore the reality.

At any rate, the idea that Goldstone could find no "proof" that mosques were used for weapons is ridiculous. This seems like proof to me:

And so does this, unless Korans have particularly flammable qualities:

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 5

493. The reports received by the Mission suggest that it is likely that the Palestinian armed
groups did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population among
whom the hostilities were being conducted. Their failure to distinguish themselves from the
civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would
have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants. What international law
demands, however, is that those engaged in combat take all feasible precautions to protect
civilians in the conduct of their hostilities. The Mission found no evidence that members of
Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. It can, therefore, not find a
violation of the obligation not to endanger the civilian population in this respect.

This video, showing Palestinian Arab militants disguised as civilians shooting a 120mm mortar from a street in Jabalya, shows otherwise. it is astonishing to think that the Commission couldn't find it.

Beyond that, Islamic Jihad bragged about its hiding among civilians:

There is no visibility of the men of the resistance in the streets of the [Gaza] strip. No one sees their means of transportation, and even light weapons can no longer be seen with people publicly in the Gaza Strip. The resistance completely disappeared. Anti-aircraft artillery fires on the aircraft without them knowing the location. The whereabouts of rockets launched from the heart of the strip cannot be seen or known.

According to medical sources, the number of martyrs and wounded of the elements of the Palestinian resistance are few in comparison to the number of civilian martyrs who were killed since the start of the Israeli war on Gaza, except for the large number of Palestinian policemen who were martyred on the first day of the war in Gaza.

Abu Mohammed - one of the field commanders in the Jerusalem Brigades, the military wing of Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine - said: "The goal is to take the "energy of concealment," to mislead the occupation aircraft and its agents [collaborators.]

And here's a link to a video from German TV that clearly shows Palestinian Arabs hiding weapons under civilian clothing in a crowded Gaza street.

How could the Goldstone Commission not have known about these?

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 4

273. The legal framework applicable to situations of occupation includes provisions contained
in the Hague Regulations (especially articles 42–56), the Fourth Geneva Convention (especially
articles 47–78) and Additional Protocol I, and customary international law. The successive steps
in the development of that legal framework represent attempts by the international community to
protect human beings better from the effects of war while giving due account to military
necessity.

274. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, regarded as customary international law,158
prescribes that “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of
the hostile army”. The occupying authority so established shall take all measures in its power “to
restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety” in the occupied area (art. 43).
These provisions call for an examination of whether there was exercise of authority by Israel in
the Gaza Strip during the period under investigation.

276. Israel has without doubt at all times relevant to the mandate of the Mission exercised
effective control over the Gaza Strip. The Mission is of the view that the circumstances of this
control establish that the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The provisions of the Fourth
Geneva Convention therefore apply at all relevant times with regard to the obligations of Israel
towards the population of the Gaza Strip.

277. Despite Israel’s declared intention to relinquish its position as an occupying Power by
evacuating troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip during its 2005 “disengagement”,162 the
international community continues to regard it as the occupying Power.163

278. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel
exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip.
Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to
Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access164) and decides what and
who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip....

279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under
the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary
administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although
it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.165 In fact,
as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place
an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for
itself the ultimate authority.

Goldstone spends a bit of time trying to justify Gaza's status as being legally occupied. The report doesn't address the many arguments that show otherwise, and uses an expansive definition of "occupation" that goes beyond any other. The Denmark precedent is a perfect example: during World War II, the Danish government cooperated with Germany and allowed Nazi troops in its territory, and while most citizens weren't thrilled with it, they accepted it, which made this occupation much easier. When the situation became untenable and the Danes more restless, Germany dissolved the Danish government - a move that proves that Germany did have effective authority of Denmark, far beyond what Israel has with Gaza.

As we have seen in the past, the UN's legal justification for calling Gaza "occupied" is a stretch at best, a lie at worst. Goldstone does not address the main legal issues that many respected law experts have as to whether Gaza is occupied, even though they are readily available. For example:

there is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of another "High Contracting Party" (i.e., a state party to the convention) and the occupier "exercises the functions of government" in the occupied territory. The Gaza Strip is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government-or, indeed, any significant functions-in the territory. It is clear to all that the elected Hamas government is the de facto sovereign of the Gaza Strip and does not take direction from Israel, or from any other state.
Some have argued that states can be considered occupiers even of areas where they do not declare themselves in control so long as the putative occupiers have effective control. For instance, in 2005, the International Court of Justice opined that Uganda could be considered the occupier of Congolese territory over which it had "substituted [its] own authority for that of the Congolese Government" even in the absence of a formal military administration. Some have argued that this shows that occupation may occur even in the absence of a full-scale military presence and claimed that this renders Israel an occupier under the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, these claims are clearly without merit. First, Israel does not otherwise fulfill the conditions of being an occupier; in particular, Israel does not exercise the functions of government in Gaza, and it has not substituted its authority for the de facto Hamas government. Second, Israel cannot project effective control in Gaza. Indeed, Israelis and Palestinians well know that projecting such control would require an extensive military operation amounting to the armed conquest of Gaza. Military superiority over a neighbor, and the ability to conquer a neighbor in an extensive military operation, does not itself constitute occupation. If it did, the United States would have to be considered the occupier of Mexico, Egypt the occupier of Libya and Gaza, and China the occupier of North Korea.

Moreover, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that foes of Israel claiming that Israel has legal duties as the "occupier" of Gaza are insincere in their legal analysis. If Israel were indeed properly considered an occupier, under Article 43 of the regulations attached to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, it would be required to take "all the measures in [its] power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety." Thus, those who contend that Israel is in legal occupation of Gaza must also support and even demand Israeli military operations in order to disarm Palestinian terror groups and militias. Additionally, claims of occupation necessarily rely upon a belief that the occupying power is not the true sovereign of the occupied territory. For that reason, those who claim that Israel occupies Gaza must believe that the border between Israel and Gaza is an international border between separate sovereignties. Yet, many of those claiming that Gaza is occupied, like John Dugard, also simultaneously and inconsistently claim that Israel is legally obliged to open the borders between Israel and Gaza. No state is required to leave its international borders open.

The Goldstone Commission is making a flawed legal argument, and in fact extending the definition of "occupied" way beyond the Hague and Geneva definitions, in ways that are a mockery of law. It appears that Goldstone, along with the previous ICJ ruling it also relies on, has a "gut feeling" that Gaza is occupied and will find whatever flimsy legal justifications they can find to support it after the fact.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 3

264. On 22 December 2008, a 24-hour ceasefire was declared at Egypt’s request. Three rockets and one mortar were launched from Gaza that day. Israel opened the border to allow a limited amount of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.149

265. By 23 December 2008, rocket and mortar fire was again increasing significantly; 30 rockets and 30 mortars were fired into Israel on 24 December 2008. 150 The Israeli armed forces continued to conduct air strikes on positions inside Gaza and the crossings into Israel remained closed. On 26 December 2008, a rocket launched from Gaza fell short and hit a house in northern Gaza killing two girls, aged 5 and 12.151

266. The intensified closure regime on the Gaza crossings which began in November continued in December, with imports restricted to very basic food items and limited amounts of fuel, animal feed and medical supplies. According to OCHA, many basic food items were no longer available and negligible amounts of fuel were allowed to enter Gaza. This resulted in the health sector in Gaza deteriorating further into a critical condition, with hospitals continuing to face problems as a result of power cuts, low stocks of fuel to operate back-up generators, lack of spare parts for medical equipment and shortages of consumables and medical supplies.152 On 18 December 2008, UNRWA once again suspended its food distribution programme for the rest of the month, owing to shortages.153

267. On 27 December 2008, Israel started its military operations in Gaza.154

The report goes into great detail on everything that happened between the beginning of the truce and Israel's response, but it skips an important fact: that the Hamas al-Qassam Brigades declared "Operation Oil Stain" on December 24th concurrent with their huge increase of rocket attacks. The Brigades continued to boast about this operation until well after Israel's response. In a very real sense, they declared the war. Also, Goldstone spends much space on the humanitarian situation in Gaza at that time. From reading the report one would get the impression that Gazans were to the point of starvation. Yet as this video shows, they didn't seem to be in such bad shape:

Although my version is satirical, the video is real, and was taken during this exact time period of December 2008. It isn't a place one might choose to live but it is a far cry from many places - including much poorer areas of Egypt right across the border.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 2

227. The first incident relevant to the ceasefire reportedly took place on 23 June 2008, when a 67-year-old Palestinian civilian was injured when the Israeli military stationed at the border north-west of Beit Lahia opened fire on a group of Palestinians trying to collect fire wood near the border. Also on 23 June, two mortar shells were reportedly fired from central Gaza. One landed near the Nahal Oz crossing and the other in the Negev desert; no injuries were reported. YNet reports a mortar shot "early Monday morning" while Ma'an reports that the Palestinian Arab man was injured on Monday afternoon. So which was the first incident? Apparently, the Goldstone Commission can't figure that out. Interestingly, when Islamic Jihad shot three rockets to Israel on June 24th, they didn't claim it was in reaction to any Israeli actions in Gaza, rather for something the IDF did in Nablus. So it is entirely possible that the report of the 67-year old man is less than accurate.

Goldstone report inaccuracies part 1

The Goldstone Report on Gaza just came out. I will be listing inaccuracies as I find them; it is a huge report and I am skipping around to areas I am interested in. 209. Since 1967, about 750,000 Palestinians have been detained at some point by the Government of Israel, according to Palestinian human rights organizations. As I demonstrated here, these numbers are completely made up by a Palestinian Arab group called Addameer. The figures are absurd and are based on no real figures. Moreover, Addameer has increased these numbers by 100,000 since 2004 or so, and we have accurate statistics on Israeli arrests in the past couple of years - they are off by orders of magnitude. In other words, Addameer lies with impunity, testifies before the Goldstone commission, and Goldstone believes them.

A million hits

Woo-hoo! And nearly half of them (477,000) came in 2009 alone...

Horrid rumor of friendship with an Israeli

Palestine Today reports that in an interview with London-based Middle East newspaper, Israeli ambassador to Egypt Shalom Cohen mentioned that he did not feel isolated and said that he was friendly with a number of leading Egyptian intellectuals and politicians.

This is, of course, scandalous.

Egyptian media interviewed all of the supposed friends and they all denied the heinous accusations that they were friendly with an Israeli.

HRW's Garlasco suspended

From the NYT:

A leading human rights group has suspended its senior military analyst following revelations that he is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia.

The group, Human Rights Watch, had initially thrown its full support behind the analyst, Marc Garlasco, when the news of his hobby came out last week. On Monday night, the group shifted course and suspended him with pay, “pending an investigation,” said Carroll Bogert, the group’s associate director.

“We have questions about whether we have learned everything we need to know,” she said.
The suspension comes at a time of heightened tension between, on one side, the new Israeli government and its allies on the right, and the other side, human rights organizations that have been critical of Israel. In recent months, the government has pledged an aggressive approach toward the groups to discredit what they argue is bias and error.
Injected suddenly into that heated conflict, word of Mr. Garlasco’s interest seemed startling to many. The disclosure ricocheted across the Internet: Mr. Garlasco, an American, was not only a collector, he has written a book, more than 400 pages long, about Nazi-era medals. His hobby, inspired he said by a German grandfather conscripted into Hitler’s army, was revealed on a pro-Israel blog, Mere Rhetoric Mere Rhetoric, which quoted his enthusiastic postings on collector sites under the pseudonym “Flak88” — including, “That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!”
It was a Rorschach moment in the conflict between Israel and its critics. The revelations were, depending on who is talking, either incontrovertible proof of bias or an irrelevant smear.
The Mere Rhetoric posting said Mr. Garlasco’s interests explained “anti-Israel biases.”
Ms. Bogert called the attacks on Mr. Garlasco and her group “a distraction from the real issue, which is the Israeli government’s behavior.”
But some who firmly support Human Rights Watch were left unsettled by the researcher’s extracurricular activities.
Helena Cobban, a blogger and activist who is on the group’s Middle East advisory committee, asked on her blog, Just World News, if Mr. Garlasco’s activities were “something an employer like Human Rights Watch ought to be worried about? After consideration, I say Yes.”

Garlasco's hobby cannot be hermetically sealed off from his work at HRW. Whether or not it shows any pre-existing bias, his obsession - and HRW's reaction for the past week - show an immaturity that is incompatible with the role they claim for themselves. I would argue that this same immaturity is often seen in their anti-Israel reports as well; comparing their assumptions and legal positions on Operation Cast Lead with the IDF report appears to me at least like HRW is filled with people who do not know anything about how wars are fought and who interpret international law with a bias that makes it literally impossible to effectively fight terror without endangering the citizens of any free country.

Moreover, their reports on Israel make the assumption that Israel is identical in its own human rights posture as third-world dictatorships. The reason that Israel no longer cooperates with these organizations isn't because Israel has no interest in human rights (which seems to be the petulant conclusion drawn by the egotistical "human rights" community) but because Israel knows that they will not be given a fair shake. She's been burned too many times.

The inescapable fact is that for the most part, the IDF and the Israeli people themselves have no interest in violating the rights of anyone - as long as their own rights to living in peace and security are not violated as well. Palestinian Arab human rights are no more important than those of Israelis taking a bus. Not only that, but the primary responsibility of any government is protecting its own citizens. These facts are self-evident yet ignored in the multitude of reports that come out against Israel - in HRW's case, about every month.

It is comparatively easy to judge Israel against strict interpretations of international humanitarian law, especially when the interpreters frame each report to look at the human rights of only one side. The issue gets messier when real-world Israel needs to balance its own obligations to protect her own people against the human rights of her sworn enemies. Invariably, some of the decisions that will be made will value the lives of IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens in rocket range above those of terrorists, their supporters and the people who are purposefully used by terrorists as cover.

Israel has every interest in waging as moral a war as possible, and Gaza - by any objective measure - was such a war. Hamas has incentive to endanger its citizens, the IDF has disincentive to kill them. If human rights groups would work with Israel to find a way to improve the IDF's methodology to help save enemy lives while not jeopardizing Israelis, I am certain that the IDF would be happy to cooperate. That is not what these groups do, though, and from reading the IDF report and various Israeli legal treatises, Israelis are far ahead of HRW in applying international law to real conflicts anyway.

Garlasco, from what I can tell, has a lack of real military experience. Working at the Pentagon does not make one a forensics expert. But HRW, in its seeming immaturity, gave him that job more because of his resume than because of his knowledge. This is the problem. For all of HRW's laudatory goals, they have no ability to be as critical of themselves as they are of anyone they set their sights on. To my mind, this is what was exposed here - not a sickening hobby from one of their more visible figureheads, but HRW's tone-deafness and immaturity.

Israel saving the world, again

It's been a while since I looked at the latest Israeli inventions.

From Israel21c:

Israeli researchers have created a miniature robotic fly that can crawl through your arteries and veins to diagnose and treat what ails you.
A snake-shaped robot sent in through a small incision so you don't have to have open-heart surgery. Robotic marching ants that you can send in to inspect water pipes for leaks. And now the latest research from the Robotics Laboratory at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa: Creepy and crawly fly-like robots that get under your skin for very good medical reasons.

Prof. Moshe Shaham, head of the Robotics Laboratory, and his team have developed a miniature robotic fly, about 0.04 inches in diameter, that can enter the body to diagnose diseases and conditions like blocked arteries and deliver drugs like a bomb to infected tumors.

Based on Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology, the tiny robot crawls through arteries and veins. It is steered by a magnet that's moved over the body from the outside. Its miniscule outstretched arms grip the sides of the vessel walls as it zeroes in on its targeted location.

Currently in the early prototype stages, the researchers plan on scaling down the robot to a 10th of its current diameter - about 100 microns. That will bring it a step closer to much less invasive diagnosis and treatment.

Read the whole thing. It's pretty cool.

Open thread (UPDATED)

It's been a busy time, online and off. You guys can take over for a while.

But if you want a topic, check out the unbridled hate that is printed virtually every day by someone named Jihad el-Khazen in the pan-Arab daily Dar al-Hayat. (And he is a "moderate" in the Western MSM definition of the term, as he opposes terror.)

UPDATE: The Washington Times blog picks up on my posting about HRW's sockpuppetry. Which means that sometime tonight I can expect to get my 1,000,000th recorded blog-hit.

Islamic fashion news: Magnetic veils, halal cosmetics, a male "burkini"

All stories from Al-Arabiya:

An Indonesian entrepreneur is stitching magnets into the headscarves worn by some Muslim women, aiming to cure ailments ranging from headaches to fatigue.

Herawati Widodo churns out "healthy" hijabs, or headscarves, from her factory in Central Java, exporting them to Malaysia, Singapore and the Middle East.

Widodo came up with the idea after reading research that said magnetic devices could reduce body aches and boost blood flow.
Although there is no direct medical evidence, the scarves are selling very well, especially during the fasting month of Ramadan when many Muslims become more observant of Islamic rites.

The scarves are priced at between 60,000 to 150,000 rupiah ($6 to $15), and some customers have found them beneficial.

"I suffer from migraine headaches and it has stopped since I wore this," said Ari Istiani, buying her fourth magnetic scarf.

For Muslim women who feel they are violating Islam's teachings by using skin creams with alcohol and pig residues, Layla Mandi has the answer: religiously-correct "halal" cosmetics.

The Canadian makeup artist who converted to Islam is marketing cosmetics called OnePure, which she says have the luxury feel of international brands minus the elements banned under Islamic law.

"There are pork derivatives and alcohol in most cosmetics products, so Muslims should really use something else," Mandi said.

A Lebanese-Australian designer, who claims to have created six years ago what is now known as the controversial "burkini," says that despite the controversy she is designing a similar one for men.

Ahiida Massoud Zanetti, 41, who owns a company that specializes in Islamic swimwear and sportswear, says she first designed the Islamic swim suit while she was working as a hairdresser and added it was only meant to be for personal use.

" I wanted to swim, but since I am Muslim I can't be half naked on the beach "
Designer Zanetti

"I wanted to swim, but since I am Muslim I can't be half naked on the beach," Zanetti told Al Arabiya. "So, I decided to design a bathing suit that preserves Muslim modesty."

Since she started exporting burkinis two years ago, Zanetti said she has been getting ordered from countries across Europe and the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Morocco.

The only country Zanetti has refused to sell her burkinis to is Israel.

"I do not want to deal with anyone in Israel even though I know that Muslim women there will be using the burkinis," she said with no further explanation.

Zanetti said that after the huge success of the burkini she is now working on designing a similar one for men so they can look "more decent" on the beach.

"All men's bathing suits, regardless of their type, are revealing. A conservative woman with a burkini would most likely be embarrassed to see men's bodies in that way."

The male bathing suit Zanetti is designing will cover what other suits reveal thus making men look more modest and women feel more comfortable on the beach.

Bin Laden, pacifist

The latest "Bin Laden" tape calls for US citizens to pressure the White House to cease the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who knew he was such a pacifist?

He also asked the American people to stop supporting Israel, now claiming that this was the main reason he attacked America on 9/11. Of course, this only proves that the tape is an elaborate fake by the Mossad, as everyone knows that it was Seventh Day Adventists who attacked on 9/11.

Interestingly, while Al-Quds writes that Bin Laden attacks neocons and the "Jewish lobby" in the audiotape, the MSM articles don't mention anything about the Jewish lobby. We'll have to wait for the MEMRI translation to see how watered down the MSM version is.

Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood urges release of mass murderer

In 1997, a group of Israeli schoolgirls visited what was known as "Peace Island" between Jordan and Israel. A Jordanian soldier opened fire on them, massacring seven 11-year old girls.

Al Arabiya reports that the Muslim Brotherhood of Jordan, fresh off of its more extremist turn, is now urging Jordan's king to pardon the murderer, Ahmad Daqamseh.

But before you think that this is just a fringe extremist group that can be ignored, it is worth recalling that last year a much more heterogeneous group of Jordanians demanded the exact same thing. And they included the president of the Arab Human Rights Organization and the head of the Jordan Bar Association. They justified their demand by saying that "pardoning Daqamseh will have a great effect on people."

As I wrote then, let's hope that King Abdullah will remain as aghast at this crime as his father was and let the killer rot. At the time, King Hussein went to Israel to pay his condolences to the families and truly condemned this act, not like the fake "condemnations" that we are used to hearing from Palestinian Arab leaders.

Who started the Gaza war?

Amnesty International, in its report on the Gaza war, introduces the topic this way:

At 11.30am on 27 December 2008, without warning, Israeli forces began a devastating bombing campaign on the Gaza Strip codenamed Operation “Cast Lead”. Its stated aim was to end rocket attacks into Israel by armed groups affiliated with Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

The name of the report is "ISRAEL/GAZA: OPERATION ‘CAST LEAD’: 22 DAYS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION."

This is a pretty typical description of how the war began. People know that Hamas and other groups had been sending rockets into southern Israel but the conventional wisdom is that Israel started the real war.

It just so happens that Hamas declared war a full three days before Israel did. And this little fact has all but disappeared.

On Wednesday, December 24th, a full three days before Israel's response, Hamas announced "Operation Oil Stain" (or, "Oil Slick" in some translations.)

On that day, they shot over 40 Qassam rockets and over 80 projectiles altogether towards civilians in Israel. It was by far the biggest barrage that Israel had seen since February.

I can only find a single reference to "Operation Oil Stain" in English-language Palestinian Arab media, but Hamas press releases continued to call it by this name even well after the Israeli response started. They never considered it a one-time operation. Hamas looked at Israel's response as being a part of a war it started. For example, here is their press release from December 28th, and this one from January 1st.

A couple of days later Hamas changed its tune, using both the "Oil Slick" term as well as the new term "Battle of Discord" on January 3, and using the new term exclusively on January 4th.

In other words, for about a week after Israel's counterattack, Hamas took credit for starting the war. Once it became clear that Hamas could gain more political points by claiming to be victims of Israeli aggression, they abandoned their earlier boasting about Operation Oil Slick and the media and human rights groups ignored Hamas' declaration of war in every single report to date.

This is a typical case of meta-bias, where the very framing of the description of the war is designed to make it appear like Israel was the aggressor (look at using Amnesty's phrase, "without warning, Israeli forces began...") While of course Israel's response was indeed devastating, Amnesty and other groups ignore that it was a response to a very specific, planned and declared attack from three days before. And by framing the conversation this way, they force any counterarguments to be within this erroneous framework and take Hamas off the hook.

It will be interesting to see if the UN's Goldstone report due out this month will look at things any differently. But given its mandate, that possibility is remote.

12-year old Yemeni girl dies - in labor

From AP:

A 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labor to give birth, a local human rights organization said Saturday.
Fawziya Abdullah Youssef died of severe bleeding on Friday while giving birth to a stillborn in the al-Zahra district hospital of Hodeida province, 140 miles (223 kilometers) west of the capital San'a.
Child marriages are widespread in Yemen, the Arab world's poorest country, where tribal customs dominate society. More than a quarter of the country's females marry before age 15, according to a recent report by the Social Affairs Ministry.
Youssef was only 11 when her father married her to a 24-year-old man who works as a farmer in Saudi Arabia, said Ahmed al-Quraishi, chairman of Siyaj human rights organization, which promotes the rights of children in Yemen.
Impoverished parents in Yemen sometimes give away their young daughters in return for hefty dowries. There is also a long-standing tribal custom in which infant daughters and sons are promised to cousins in hopes it will protect them from illicit relationships, he said.
In February, parliament passed a law setting the minimum marriage age at 17. But some lawmakers are trying to kill the measure, calling it un-Islamic. Before it could be ratified by Yemen's president, they forced it to be sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review.

Garlasco responds, poorly

Marc Garlasco finally responds to the story about his obsession with collecting Nazi-era German paraphernalia. And, as could be expected, he twists the facts around a bit:

Now I've achieved some blogosphere fame, not for the hours I've spent sifting through the detritus of war, visiting hospitals, interviewing victims and witnesses and soldiers, but for my hobby (unusual and disturbing to some, I realize) of collecting Second World War memorabilia associated with my German grandfather and my American great-uncle. I'm a military geek, with an abiding interest not only in the medals I collect but in the weapons that I study and the shrapnel I analyze. I think this makes me a better investigator and analyst. And to suggest it shows Nazi tendencies is defamatory nonsense, spread maliciously by people with an interest in trying to undermine Human Rights Watch's reporting.

Actually, he had achieved some blogosphere fame previously, for his poor analyses blaming Israel for various things that he didn't have adequate evidence for.

Secondly, his hobby is not "Second World War memorabilia associated with my German grandfather and my American great-uncle." Unless he has another handle he keeps secret, his obsession - it is difficult to call it anything else - has been specifically with German memorabilia, and specifically with WWII-era German memorabilia (although I saw a few awards from the earlier part of the century.) His book was on specifically German medals.

Thirdly, collecting medals has zero in common with military analysis. To imply that somehow his creepy hobby makes him a better analyst is laughable.

Fourthly, there are serious questions as to how good an analyst he is to begin with. I am not one who can judge, but I would love to hear from military people who have read his analyses. Clearly he has screwed up in the past. And as far as I can tell, his Pentagon career had nothing to do with "analyzing shrapnel."

I've never hidden my hobby, because there's nothing shameful in it, however weird it might seem to those who aren't fascinated by military history. Precisely because it's so obvious that the Nazis were evil, I never realized that other people, including friends and colleagues, might wonder why I care about these things.

If this is true, then why did he agonize in one of his forums as to whether he should use his real name on his book? He was concerned because he sometimes gets quoted on the news, and being associated with this enterprise might hurt his career. That indicates an awareness that he knew that his hobby was potentially offensive to some. He knew quite well that people "might wonder." Yet, like all obsessives, he justified it rather than take up collecting stamps or pink flamingos.

The question he has yet to satisfactorily answer is why his obsession was almost exclusive to Nazi-era German memorabilia. He has simply denied that (as has HRW) and there has been little evidence that he spent even 1% of his collecting time on non-Nazi-era German war materials.

I deeply regret causing pain and offense with a handful of juvenile and tasteless postings I made on two websites that study Second World War artifacts (including American, British, German, Japanese and Russian items). Other comments there might seem strange and even distasteful, but they reflect the enthusiasm of the collector, such as gloating about getting my hands on an American pilot's uniform.

Here he is simply lying. The websites were both specifically geared towards German Nazi-era collections, one named GermanCombatAwards.com and the other was Wehrmacht-Awards.com. I didn't see any post about getting his hands on an American pilot's uniform, but I did see the one on his enthusiasm about seeing an SS jacket:

That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!

Marc

It makes my blood go cold, as well, but for completely different reasons.

Which points up to the major problem with Garlasco's non-apology: it is an excuse, with the trappings of some apologetic words, probably forced by his bosses at HRW who are trying desperately to shut this story down.

And the problem is not specifically Garlasco. It is HRW. Garlasco is always trotted out as their "senior military analyst" but we do not know what his areas of expertise really are, and one gets the impression that he is overreaching in his analyses to get to a conclusion that was already decided before he entered the scene. Now he looks a lot flakier, and so does HRW's credibility; their defense of him indicates that they just don't get it.

Ancient synagogue unearthed in the Galilee

This handout file photo provided on September 11, 2009 by the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) shows a large carved stone found during excavations of a recently uncovered synagogue at Migdal on the north-western end of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel. The synagogue, dated to the 2nd Temple period (50BC - 100AD) is one of the oldest ever found, and was unearthed at Migdal.... Archaeologists were particularly excited by the discovery of the stone depicting the menorah -- a seven-branched candelabrum -- from the Jewish Second Temple which was destroyed in 70 AD during the Roman siege of Jerusalem. (Getty Images)

In the middle of the 120 square meter main hall of the synagogue archaeologists discovered an unusual stone carved with a seven branched menorah . "We are dealing with an exciting and unique find," said excavation director and Israeli Antiquities Authority archaeologist Dina Avshalom-Gorni.

The menorah engraving is the first of its kind to be discovered from the Early Roman period according Avshalom-Gorni who said the site joins just six synagogue locations that are know to date from the same time.

Avshalom-Gorni posited that the engraved menorah was done by an artist who had visited the main synagogue in Jerusalem known as the Second Temple where the actual menorah was believed to be kept.

3 Katyushas hit Israel from Lebanon

From Ha'aretz:

Three Katyusha rockets struck open fields near Nahariya on Friday. There have been no reports of casualties.

The rockets were fired from southern Lebanon and Israel Radio has reported that the Israel Defense Forces have launched retaliatory artillery into southern Lebanon.

Perhaps if Israel would just withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories, these sorts of incidents would stop. Hezbollah wouldn't have any incentive any more to attack Israelis.

Oh, sorry...Israel already withdrew some nine years ago.

Well, for sure, there must be some sort of valid reason for Hezbollah or their like-minded Islamist buddies to fire rockets at Israel, right? We just have to identify the just cause that Islamists are fighting for and then pressure Israel to give in, because it is an article of faith on this September 11th that people don't just attack civilians without good cause. They're hungry, they're stateless, they're disillusioned, they have poor self-esteem...if we just look hard enough I'm sure we can identify a good, defensible reason that we can blame Israel for.

Pure hatred cannot be the reason, because that is irrational, and everyone is fundamentally rational. To say otherwise makes you a bigot.

Some of my best friends are Zionists...ummm....

A comment at Solomonia by Neurodoc caught my eye:

Now, at the risk of denying Marc Garlasco any of the attention he deserves, might I point out something I have not seen mentioned about another HRW stalwart, Sarah Whitman [sic]? Am I the only one to think it noteworthy that Ms. Whitman's Facebook page identifies as a special friend of hers Adam Shapiro, the same Adam Shapiro who was a founder of International Solidarity Movement, buddy of Yassir Arafat, etc.? I don't see anyone among her friends that I recognize as an ardent supporter of Israel, matching the very much anti-Israel Shapiro.

Indeed, Sarah Leah Whitson's Facebook page includes Shapiro.

Now, I am not a big user of Facebook, so I don't know whether "friends" is meaningful at all in this context. But it may be a useful exercise to see if any of the "objective" members of NGOs like HRW have as many unabashed supporters of Israel as friends as they have unabashed haters.

This is a picture I took on the morning of September 11, 2006 from Jersey City, showing the downtown Manhattan skyline and superimposing the WTC. It is still jarring in its absence eight years later.

(My original photo disappeared from Imageshack, so I am indebted to Seraphic Secret for copying it last year.)

Two more murders in Gaza, and other news

Ramadan is such a peaceful time...

In the Ashanti camp in Gaza, gunmen shot and killed a 37-year old man and seriously wounded another as the victims prepared to eat their Iftar meal Wednesday night. Commenters in PalPress claim that this was a result of an old feud; the victim had apparently murdered another guy four years ago.

In that same camp, a family feud erupted in the murder of a 23-year old.

(I'm pretty sure these are two separate incidents. Firas Press reports them separately, although every other paper reports one or the other.)

The 2009 PalArab self-death count is now at 186.

In other news, Palestine Today headlines a story that China provides 30% of Gaza's electricity. That would be a really stunning technological feat, but what the article means is that 30% of Gaza's electricity comes from generators made in China. Of course, that means that the fuel for the generators comes from Israel, but they aren't going to mention that part...

HRW sends out the sockpuppets (UPDATE)

Earlier this evening I received a comment from "Dash F.", about the Garlasco story, saying:

This is total nonsense. It's malicious and defamatory and borderline libelous, to be honest. The mere fact that someone collects a certain kind of military artifact does not make them loyal to what those artifacts represent. Saying Garlasco is a Nazi b/c he owns Nazi medals is like saying someone interested in cave paintings is a neanderthal. It simply makes no sense! Instead of dragging this man's name through the mud, perhaps it would be better to consider his record, his position at a leading Human Rights NGO (which, despite claims to the contrary, is not anti-Israel since they criticize Israeli and Palestinian tactics alike when either cross the line of legality), and the fact that he COLLECTS stuff. That's as far as it goes. People study and write about and read about and are interested in every evil figure and vile empire that ever existed, Nero, Ghengis Khan, Sadam Hussein, Stalin, Hitler. This interest does not equal acceptance or agreement or support in any way and to argue otherwise is totally illogical!

Five minutes later, on a different thread, I received another missive from "Tom K." who pasted HRW's press-release defense of Marc Garlasco.

Both of them happen to have the same IP address.

And that IP address happens to resolve to ....HRW.org!

Is this HRW's idea of how to win friends and influence people in the new media? Because, to my mind, they just did the opposite. Sock-puppet messages are considered a gross breach of netiquette, and it indicates a certain dishonesty, not to mention puerility.

HRW? Dishonest? Juvenile? Non-professional? Perish the thought!

UPDATE: Commenter Max notices that "Dash F."'s comment was repeated, verbatim, at Solomonia under the name "Sue." I wonder how many other blogs got visits from our pals at Human Rights Watch under different handles?

Meanwhile, Helena Cobban, who is on the HRW Middle East advisory committee, seems as disgusted with Garlasco as the rest of us are.

UPDATE 2: "Sara" wrote an identical message at the Z-Word blog. When it was mentioned, a person who answered her wrote, "Yay, I was debating with CTRL-C + CTRL-V!"

Saudi religious leader bans swine flu pamphlets

This story is just weird:

The Director of Endowments and Mosques (Auqaf) in Jeddah, Sheikh Fuhaid Bin Muhammad Al-Barqi, has announced that swine flu information leaflets containing images of living creatures have been banned inside mosques for conflicting with the Shariah.

“These images are impermissible inside people’s houses, let alone in the houses of Allah,” Al-Barqi said.

The Endowments and Mosques Department is, according to Al-Barqi, taking part in spreading awareness of the dangers of swine flu, with Imams having been instructed to cooperate in that regard.

“There is no objection to distributing swine flu awareness leaflets inside mosques as long as they do not have images of living beings. The ones with pictures can be distributed outside the mosque after prayer,” Al-Barqi said.

Former editor of Al-Watan newspaper, Qainan Al-Ghamdi, wrote of the prohibition of the leaflets Wednesday saying they were an “attack on the ministry volunteers handing out the leaflets, which will move on to the Ministry of Health itself and later the State.”

Al-Ghamdi compared this “attack” to the “takfeeri fatwas” (edicts accusing Muslims of infidelity) of two decades ago.

“When there are warnings of the danger of these sort of things, there is always someone who will justify it and one ends up in a tangle of fiqh [jurisprudential] arguments,” Al-Ghamdi wrote. “In the end, the Ministry of Health might well back down in the face of this stronger current of thought.”

I can sort of understand a Sharia rule against images of living beings. Weird, yes; extreme, yes; but at least it is a rule that probably has some sort of Quranic basis.

But what I cannot understand is the contradiction between the two bolded statements: if the pictures are forbidden, even in houses, why are they allowed to be distributed outside mosques?

Moreover, if pictures of living beings is forbidden in Sharia, why do Saudi newspapers have such pictures? Are newspapers forbidden to be read at home?

And notice the last paragraph. Saudi society - even a person who one would expect would fight the hardest for freedom of expression - has apparently surrendered to the veto power of the most extreme versions of Islam.

Latest Garlasco update

I'm trying to find time to post on other topics, but this one keeps getting more interesting...

Daled Amos uncovers some stuff that Garlasco has said in the past that seems somewhat, um, inconsistent with his attitude towards Israel:

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the U.S. military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians," Garlasco points out.

"If so much care is being taken why are so many civilians getting killed?" Pelley asks.

"Because the Taliban are violating international law,” says Garlasco, “and because the U.S. just doesn't have enough troops on the ground. You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

Daled Amos finds another quote from Garlasco in that same interview concerning his previous life working with the US military:

Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets -- Iraqi officials.

But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, "a couple of hundred civilians at least" were killed.

Let see, that's a ratio of, very roughly, zero percent of the dead that were the intended targets. The worst you can say about the IDF in Gaza is about 45% with equally tough circumstances. (Is this sorry record what makes him a military expert?)

Perhaps we should ask HRW to investigate whether Garlasco should be charged with war crimes.

Read the whole thing.

Meanwhile, The Guardian has picked up on the story, even mentioning little ol' me:

Several of the websites that have been running with the Garlasco story, Human Rights Watch says, are the same websites that have been attacking its reporting of the Gaza war. They include Elder of Ziyon, NGO Monitor and Mere Rhetoric.

Sounds vaguely conspiratorial, no?

HRW/Garlasco roundup from NGO Monitor

NGO Monitor does a nice job rounding up all the latest findings about Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco and his fetish for WWII German memorabilia.

Hamas leader brags about weapons smuggling

Palestine Press Agency quotes Khaled Meshal, on a trip to see his buddies in the Sudan, bragging that Hamas still managed to smuggle weapons into Gaza despite the Israeli blockade:

"Despite the siege and closure, harassment, and conspiracies of the East and West to prevent us from getting weapons, we thank God we buy weapons and smuggle arms and make weapons [ourselves]"

It is telling that this is Hamas' priority - smuggling weapons. Not food, not paper, not clothing - but explosives and arms. The fact that their obsession with killing Jews is hurting a million Gazans doesn't bother them at all; on the contrary, it provides the opportunity for their pals in the media to do their part and pretend the tunnels are merely for toys:

Yesterday, a Hamas terrorist was killed, and others injured, in a smuggling tunnel under Rafah on what they called a "jihad mission." That doesn't make the news, only pictures like this one.

This is something the media misses when they talk about Gaza. Hamas is not a government in the sense that they try to protect and serve their people. On the contrary, Hamas is concerned with only two things: staying in power and building a terror infrastructure. To them, Gazans are pawns to be used as needed, and sometimes that means they like to see the people killed for propaganda purposes.