Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, January 24, 2011

Did Livni say she is against int'l law? Another AJ lie.

It was business as usual at the United Nations in New York on November 13, 2007 when yet another discussion took place in the General Assembly about Israel's dealings with the Palestinians.

The UN Special Observer for Palestine cited from a report in which Israel was portrayed as an "extraordinary violator of human rights" and called upon the international community to hold Israel accountable.

On the same day, halfway around the world, Tzipi Livni, the then-Israeli foreign minister, told Saeb Erekat, the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Ahmed Qurei, the former PA prime minister, that she is "against international law".

In one of the most candid statements that Livni made during the meeting about the framework of the negotiations at the upcoming Annapolis summit, she told the Palestinian negotiators what she really thought of the subject:

Livni: I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer… But I am against law - international law in particular. Law in general.

Given the imbalance of power between the occupied and the occupier, international law and concepts of justice are the last refuges for Palestinians. However, in that November 2007 meeting Livni made clear she values neither.

Livni, who is often perceived as more "moderate" than the current Israeli government, was by that time the preferred interlocutor for the Palestinians. But during the negotiations in the following months, Livni’s propositions clearly reflected her stated disregard for concepts of justice.

Did Livni really say that?

Let's look at the memo, which was entirely about what issues should be included in a joint statement at the Annapolis summit (and remember - this is the Palestinian Arab version of the minutes of the meeting):

Livni opens the meeting: I would like to suggest that we will continue according to what I tried to at the beginning of the session yesterday, but unfortunately while doing so we ended up in some sort of a discussion. At the end of today’s meeting the minimum that is required is some sense of the six or seven points that you stated that need to be in the document. Just [a] list [of] what is agreed or not agreed. Put aside the core issues for now, just have a list of agreed and not agreed, in points. If we have this agreement… let’s not include the areas of disagreement now.

...

Ahmed Qurei: We can finish tonight the subjects – the preamble. What are the components. Not the language or the nice words etc. We should focus on three things in the preamble. One is the terms of reference [“TOR”]. The three core elements in addition to the [nice] language. One is the TOR. Second is the 2 state solution. Third is the Roadmap [“RM”]. Is there anything to be added to the preamble?

Livni: No – it’s ok. And what we called before some good words. The basic idea of where we are going. End of conflict, [the goal is] to find a way to do so… something like this.

So if you want to summarize the positions, this is something we did in our former conversation. When it comes to the TOR we want reference to 242, 338, the RM and other agreements agreed between the two sides. You added, and this is the problem, the API [Arab Peace Initiative], international law, 1515, 1397, and 194. And we wanted the three principles of the Quartet.

[more discussion of what should be included in the Terms of Reference and Preamble for the document]

Qurei: International law?

Livni: NO. I was the Minister of Justice. I am a lawyer…But I am against law -- international law in particular. Law in general.

If we want to make the agreement smaller, can we just drop some of these issues? Like international law, this will make the agreements easier.

When Livni says "I am against law" she is saying she does not want any reference to legal issues, or international law, in the joint statement. Just like the Arab side did not want the three principles of the Quartet.

That's it. She is not saying she is against international law, the notes are just a shorthand for her saying she doesn't want it mentioned in this largely ceremonial statement.

Al Jazeera is, once again, lying. And they assume that their readers are too stupid to look at the actual paper.

Unfortunately, for 99% of their readers - they are right.

More Guardian lies about "Palestine Papers"

The Guardian writes:

Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal

But did they?

Read on:

Palestinian negotiators privately accepted Israel's demand that it define itself as a Jewish state, the leaked papers reveal, while Israeli leaders pressed for the highly controversial transfer of some of their own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal.

[B]ehind closed doors in November 2007, Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want," comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia's definition of themselves as Islamic or Arab.

Erekat's quote continues on in the actual memo, "This is their issue, not mine."

The Guardian is purposefully mischaracterizing what Erekat said. He's even said the exact same thing in public! Israel, he says, can define itself as it wishes, but the Palestinian Arabs will not accept it.

So he was not in any way accepting Israel as a Jewish state, unlike how the Guardian phrases it.

The Guardian also tries to spin Livni as wanting to "transfer" Arabs:

The-then Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, repeatedly pressed in 2007-08 for the "transfer" of some of Israel's own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal that would exchange Palestinian villages now in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank

What did the Israelis really say?

Tzipi Livni: We have this problem with Raja in Lebanon. Terje Larsen put the blue line to cut the village in two. [This needs to be addressed.] We decided not to cut the village. It was a mistake. The problem now – those living on Lebanese soil are Israeli citizens.

Udi Dekel: Barka, Barta il Sharqiya, Barta il [Garbiya], Betil, Beit Safafa…

Ahmed Qurei: This will be difficult. All Arabs in Israel will be against us.

Tal Becker: We will need to address it some how. Divided. All Palestinian. All Israeli.

Tzipi Livni: We will need to address it one way or another.

Ahmed Qurei: Of course – it is in borders and territory.

Livni was saying that it is unacceptable to have villages divided arbitrarily, and what a nightmare it is for Ghajar in Lebanon. She, and Tal Becker, are saying that the villages should be in one state or another, not to continue to be divided. She is not advocating "transfer" in the way that the term is used, as ethnic cleansing. Since there would be land swaps anyway, this was an idea she floated, and that the PLO rejected out of hand. (Which indicates how much they want "Palestine" to be the state of "Palestinians.")

Al Jazeera is even worse.

From reading the memos it is clear that both sides were just floating ideas, looking for reactions, trying to get an idea of how the other side thinks about a variety of issues. The talks are very informal. To characterize them on either side as saying that "one side offered this" and "one side rejected that" is ridiculous; the memos reveal (from the Palestinian Arab perspective) the mindset of the players and which "red lines"are pinker than others, but one cannot conclude from them that anything was really up for grabs.

Arab protests intensify. Must be Israel's fault.

Over the weekend, there were more violent protests in Algeria (where a second person died from putting himself on fire,) Yemen, Jordan, (and Albania.)

Today there were protests in Tunisia and Lebanon.

And Egypt is bracing for a major protest tomorrow.

Those damn Israelis!

UPDATE: No, I have no idea why HuffPo chose this old post of mine to link to. I have stuff about the protests from, like today.

Palestinian Arabs really mad at Al Jazeera for "Palestine Papers"

The fallout from Palileaks continues....

Besides Yasser Abed Rabbo's attack on the Emir of Qatar this morning for supposedly being behind the "Palestine Papers," we have...

A mob - no doubt "spontaneous" - attacked the Al Jazeera offices in the West Bank. They broke in and vandalized the office.

Hani al-Qawasmi of Fatah said that Al Jazeera was working to create discord among Palestinian Arabs. He questioned the timing of the news, at the same time that the PLO is trying to get a Security Council resolution to condemn Israeli communities across the Green Line. He then went on a general rant about Al Jazeera's supposed Zionist bias, by interviewing Israelis, and saying that the channel was dedicated to "destroying the social fabric of the Arab nation."

PLO executive committee member Ahmed Qurei called for an emergency meeting of the movement to condemn the "organized and directed campaign" of Al Jazeera against the Palestinian Arab people. He reiterated that the network is only serving Israeli interests.

A spokesman for the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades also slammed Al Jazeera, noting the draft Security Council resolution and saying that just when the Palestinian Arabs had the Us and Israel on the ropes, along comes the "Palestine papers" to royally screw everything up.

Schadenfreude!

The Guardian, the PalArabs, Israel and the truth

The divergence between how the Guardian is spinning the Palestine Papers release and how the actual leaders of the Palestinian Arabs are reacting teaches us volumes.

So while the Guardian decries supposed Palestinian Arab weakness in recognizing what every sane person does, that Israel will never give up the major Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem...

Palestinian concessions roll on. The Israeli settlements around East Jerusalem? Sold, two years ago...

..the Palestinian Arabs are decrying the idea that they would even consider compromise. Erekat:

In the past few hours, a number of reports have surfaced regarding our positions in our negotiations with Israel, many of which have misrepresented our positions, taking statements and facts out of context.

Other allegations circulated in the media have been patently false. But any accurate representation of our positions will show that we have consistently stood by our people’s basic rights and international legal principles.

Indeed, our position has been the same for the past 19 years of negotiations: We seek to establish a sovereign and independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and to reach a just solution to the refugee issue based on their international legal rights, including those set out in UNGA 194.

Even though many ideas have been discussed by the two sides as part of the normal negotiations process, including some we could never agree to, we have consistently said any proposed agreement would have to gain popular support through a national referendum.

No agreement will be signed without the approval of the Palestinian people.

And Mahmoud Abbas is even saying that any hint of flexibility in the leaked documents actually reflect Israeli positions, not PalArab positions!

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday that leaked Palestinian negotiation documents deliberately confuse the positions of either side, according to Reuters.

"There was an intentional mix-up. I have seen them [Al-Jazeera] present things as Palestinian but in fact they were Israeli... This is therefore intentional," Abbas said in Cairo.

PLO executive committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo, who was in the negotiations, echoes his pride at Palestinian Arab intransigence:

We did not agree to any proposal regarding east Jerusalem. The only position to which we adhere is Abbas' position that east Jerusalem, according to the 67 borders, belongs to us.

So we are left with two possibilities. Either the Palestinian Arabs were the flexible parties and Israel the intransigent ones, which means that Abbas, Abed Rabbo and Erekat are lying now, or Israel was always the more flexible party and the Guardian is lying now.

We also see from the Guardian's screed that the newspaper is not interested in a real peace, but in forcing Israel to make all the concessions and rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their decades of terror and refusal to accept Israel as a reality.

Of course, while some details about what Tzipi Livni offered might raise an eyebrow or two, everything Israel has said about the negotiations has been very consistent through the years, and consistent with what the leaks say. The Israeli leadership has repeated the mantra often enough: "We will have to make painful compromises for peace."

Those words about compromise were never uttered by any Palestinian Arab leader or negotiator, because the entire idea of compromise is foreign to them. Especially when they have cheerleaders like the Guardian ready to support their intransigence (and insult the very idea of compromise.) Behind closed doors, perhaps, they float an idea or two, but they can rest assured that their people who they themselves have indoctrinated to hate will reject any plans they pretended to accept to make the US happy.

Israel's position towards compromise has been vindicated. The Abbas regime's intransigence has been verified. And the only side that has nothing to hide is Israel.

Not that the Guardian would ever admit that.

Elliott Abrams on "Palestine Papers"

It is always nice to see some analysis from someone who was there....

First, some of the papers seem inaccurate to me, going solely by memory. They put into people’s mouths words I do not recall them saying in meetings I attended. This is not shocking: written records of meetings can be inaccurate even when there’s a serious effort at accuracy. Moreover, Palestinian officials reviewing the documents after the meetings may have “improved” them, putting words in their own mouths (rather in the way our own members of Congress can “revise and extend” their remarks to improve them) or with less friendly objectives putting words in the mouths of others. Or, I may have missed parts of meetings or simply not be recalling accurately. But I would not take every one of these documents as necessarily 100% accurate.

Second, these negotiations over possible compromises will surprise no American and no Israeli. In the United States and in Israel there have been twenty years of discussions of the compromises needed for a final status agreement. This has not been the case among Palestinians, where the debate has been far less free. There are still constant calls among Palestinians and in Arab capitals for a complete return to the 1967 “borders,” which are in fact the 1949 armistice lines and to which there will never be a return. Palestinians may be surprised to learn that their negotiators understood this quite well and that the negotiations were actually about how far from the 1949 lines a final deal might go.

Third, what some newspapers are calling “offers” or “agreements” made in the 2007-2008 negotiations are far less than that–are in fact most often preliminary probes or efforts to smoke out the other side. The Israelis and Palestinians never reached an agreement and in many areas, as the papers so far published show, were very far apart. It is often said that “everyone knows what a final status agreement will look like” but these documents powerfully undermine that conclusion; a good example here is the Palestinian refusal to accept that Maale Adumim, a “settlement” with a population just short of 40,000 that is actually a suburb of Jerusalem, will remain part of Israel. It may be true that the range of options is limited, but the negotiators never concluded on agreement and the proposal made by then-prime minister Olmert in 2008 was not accepted.

The release of these “Palestine Papers” may be healthy. Anything that helps Palestinian public opinion move toward greater realism about the compromises needed for peace is useful. The impact on specific individuals is a different matter, one to be played out in the coming days.

Israeli diplomat strike over

From YNet:

After four weeks of disruptions, strikes and protests – the Foreign Ministry employees committee has put an end to the diplomats' strike.

Chairman of the Professional Union Department in the Histadrut Avi Nisankorn said: "The Foreign Ministry employees stand at the forefront of the international stage and as representatives of Israel carrying out essential work, they are entitled to fair and suitable salary provisions.

"Among other things, the agreement creates incentives for employees to take on positions in difficult countries and to serve with excellence. This is an important step in strengthening and promoting the Foreign Service in Israel."

The employees are set to resume work immediately. The visit of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel is set to go ahead as planned in spite of previous concerns.

This is the best news of the day.

While it is easy to deride Israel's outreach efforts, the Wikileaks cables tells us that there is a lot that diplomats do behind the scenes. They are the eyes and ears of the nation abroad and they are relied upon to make the correct recommendations and speak with the right people at the right times.

It may not be coincidental that it was during this strike that many of the South American countries recognized "Palestine." This is something that the Foreign Ministry might have been able to forestall or at limit damage from.

Welcome back.

Egyptian man confesses to role in church bombings

From Al Arabiya:

Egypt’s Interior Ministry announced Sunday that an Egyptian man helped the Palestinian Army of Islam group in the bombing of Alexandria church on New Year’s Eve.

According to a statement issued by the Egyptian Interior Ministry during the ceremony to mark Police Day, the man the group recruited is called Ahmed Lofti Ibrahim, born in 1984 in Alexandria and a graduate of the Faculty of Arts, Library Science Department.
Lotfi, who was arrested and is currently in detention, admitted in writing that he sneaked in to the Gaza Strip in 2008 after subscribing to the ideologies of al-Qaeda and deciding to take part in Jihad, or holy war, for which the group calls.

During his stay in Gaza, Ibrahim got in touch with the Palestinian Army of Islam and its members convinced him that targeting Christian and Jewish places of worship is part of the Jihad he is seeking to take part in.

After returning to Egypt, the statement added, Ibrahim stayed in contact with members of the Palestinian Army of Islam and in 2010, they asked him to watch several churches and synagogues in preparation for carrying out terrorist attacks.

In October, Ibrahim suggested to members of the group two churches next to where he lives, one of them was the Two Saints Church that was targeted on New Year’s Eve. He also suggested a synagogue, also in Alexandria and took several pictures of the Two Saints Church, which he sent to the group.

According to the statement, the group asked Ibrahim to find accommodation for members of the group who would come to Alexandria to carry out the operation and to provide them with a car.

Ibrahim, the statement said, was the one who suggested that the operation be suicidal. Then he left the country to undergo a surgery in his ear.

In December, the group contacted Ibrahim and told him the militants who were to carry out the operation were ready. The head of operations in the Palestinian Army of Islam later called him and congratulated him after the bombing took place and thanked him for the role he played.

I find this part interesting:

Hamas denied the presence of any link between al-Qaeda and resistance fighters in the Gaza Strip and called upon Egypt to provide proof of the involvement of the Palestinian Army of Islam in the Alexandria church bombing.

Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nounou told Reuters earlier that al-Qaeda has no operatives in the Gaza Strip and that all Palestinian groups only direct their attacks against Israel.

The Palestinian Army of Islam also issued a statement denying the group’s involvement in the bombing and its spokesman Abu Muthana accused the Mossad of planning the attack in a statement to AFP.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the Palestinian Army of Islam directly reports to Osama Bin laden, just that they subscribe to the same jihadist philosophy as Al Qaeda.

So why is Hamas so adamant to insist that a group, supposedly not associated with Hamas, is not aligned with Al Qaeda?

The reason can be found in the other part of Hamas' statement: "all Palestinian groups only direct their attacks against Israel." If Egypt considers Gaza a source of terror (which, of course, it already did, blaming Gaza groups for the rockets in Aqaba and other attacks) then Hamas' problems are doubled. They need to maintain relatively friendly relations with Egypt, the ability for their members to travel there, and the ability to smuggle in goods and weapons while maintaining deniability. Hamas certainly does not want the Rafah border crossing to be hostile.

But Hamas does have close ties to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, which would love to see a Tunisia-type uprising in Egypt. In fact, the Hamas takeover of Gaza gave the Brotherhood hope for something similar in Egypt. The Egyptian leadership is, of course, quite sensitive to that possibility.

This being Al Arabiya, of course the idea that this is all an Israeli plot cannot be dismissed:

According to Dr. Samir Ghattas, expert on al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, the Interior Ministry statement clarifies that the involvement the Palestinian Army of Islam is a fact and argued that the group has a presence in Egypt as well as other countries.

“The fact that the group recruited someone from Egypt means that it managed to infiltrate the country and form terrorist cells there,” he said. “The minister said Egyptian authorities have proof of that and we will know about this proof within a few days.”

Ghattas added that the group carried out this operation for other regional powers like Iran, Hamas or perhaps Israel.

“The Palestinian Army of Islam is just a tool in the hands of these powers.”

Iranian conference on "Hollywoodism"

From Tehran Times:

Foreign guests invited to Fajr film festival will be discussing the impact of Hollywood in the world of cinema.

Organizers of the Fajr International Film Festival are holding a conference entitled “Hollywoodism and Cinema” on the sidelines of the event on February 6 and 7, Culture Ministry official Gholamreza Montazemi said in a press conference held on Sunday.

French actor and political activist famous for his anti-Zionist attitudes Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, American documentary filmmaker Abdullah Hashem, and French director and screenwriter Mathieu Kassovitz are among the invited guests who will be taking part in the conference, he added.

The conference will be held on different themes including Zionism and Hollywood, terrorism and Hollywood, Hollywood and Satanism and the American lifestyle in Hollywood.

Isn't "Hollywood and Zionism" and "Hollywood and Satanism" redundant?

I hope they give out transcripts. There would be enough blog material for a month!

Palestine Papers, day 2: PLO reactions

It is a new day and there are a lot more reactions to the publication of the so-called "Palestine Papers" by Al Jazeera.

I will not go so far as some are to dismiss them as forgeries. There are too many details and too many documents. The Guardian claims that they have been authenticated, and while I am no fan of the Guardian they have incentive to validate them - newspapers do not want to be known to fall for hoaxes like the fake Howard Hughes diaries. The downside for the Guardian is simply too great to think that they did not make a good effort to prove that they are really minutes of meetings from the Palestinian Arab side.

I do believe that the papers reflect the PLO viewpoint of the negotiations, and in many details they might be at odds with the Israeli or American interpretations of those same meetings. We have seen many times that the two sides simply speak different languages.

Another important point to remember is that the PLO knows its own political roadblocks far better than the Israelis or Americans do. While America will push the PLO to make concessions - and the PLO cannot stand up to the US in private the way they proudly do in public - the Arabs know very well that some of the concessions will simply not fly; not for their people and not for the Arab League. They could pretend to put forth supposed peace plans secure in the knowledge that there is no real political way to push them through,and then they can go back to the Americans and say that the "Palestinian street" has tied their hands; they must ask for a few dozen more concessions and put the ball back in Israel's court.

While every Israeli leader across the political spectrum has been relatively honest with the people about the needs for "painful compromises for peace," the PA and PLO never did that. So it is really amusing to see how they are reacting to the release.

Saeb Erekat says that "Al-Jazeera's information is full of distortions and fraud."

Ahmed Qureia, one of the PLO leaders who was involved in the negotiations, said that these were "fabrications" and that Al Jazeera was working for Zionist interests by releasing them.

Qureia is quoted in one of the papers as discussing the Kadima primaries with Tzipi Livni, and telling her "I would vote for you." It can't be good for his career to say nice things to the person who was foreign minister during Operation Cast Lead!

Yasser Abed Rabbo, another member of the PLO Executive Committee, is going further and slamming Qatar (al-Jazeera's home) for being behind the leaks. He is demanding that the Emir of Qatar come clean on his own contacts with Israel and Iran, and says that Al Jazeera would never have done this without the Emir's pushing them to.

Abed Rabbo's statements, incidentally, indicate that the Palestinian Arab (West Bank) media wouldn't publish anything big without the approval of the PA and PLO!

Finally, one can expect that the leakers will be looking over their shoulders for quite a while, hoping that no bullets are heading their way. They are the ones that had the real agenda, and there are only so many people who should have had access to these documents.

(See also Noah Pollak's analysis. Also in Commentary, a good piece by Emanuele Ottolenghi.)

The medicine wars between Hamas and the PA

From Ma'an:

The Palestinian Authority Health Ministry on Sunday released the names of employees who it claimed were dismissed by security forces in Gaza.

The Ramallah ministry demanded that the employees were reinstated to their positions in medicine warehouses in the Gaza Strip to facilitate the provision of medicine to residents.

The PA ministry also demanded that the Gaza government placed all medical aid from international donors under the administration of the main warehouses in Gaza.

It further accused the Hamas-led government of charging patients for medicines provided for free by the PA. President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree exempting Gaza residents from paying for medicine, the ministry noted.

The two ministries regularly trade accusations in an ongoing spat. The Gaza government has accused the PA of failing to meet its responsibilities to the Strip, warning several times that the health sector was on the verge of collapse.

The PA responded that Hamas was stockpiling donated medicine for use by party members, and accused Gaza security forces of dismissing Fatah-affiliated staff.

Fatah-associated media has gone further, saying that Hamas diverts the medicines away from hospitals and towards Hamas-affiliated pharmacies, where hospital patients' families are forced to buy medicine not available in hospitals.

The implication is that Hamas, by demanding more medicine from Ramallah and claiming that the medical system is on the verge of collapse, is actually using those medicines as a means to get cash to finance its own infrastructure.

Anti-semitism as a tool of Arab regimes (Mudar Zahran)

Mudar Zahran is a London-based Jordanian writer who I have previously reported was the object of public death threats from people in his home country. This article in Hudson-NY shows one reason why.

For more than sixty years of conflict, the carefully government-channeled hatred revolved around Zionism and Israel, rather than around Judaism and Jews.

Since 2008, however, the Jordanian printed media has been launching a fierce attack on almost everything Jewish.

Why would the supposedly-moderate Jordan adopt a strong anti-Semitic agenda?

The answer to this question is simple; Jordan's oppressed Palestinian majority has been seeking more civil rights in the last few years. Therefore, the Jordanian government has to distract them by igniting anti-Semitic rhetoric.

Arab regimes apparently needed a new method to direct their own people's anger towards someone else. The US and Europe were, of course, out of the question, and the communist "infidel" states were no longer in existence. Again, Arab regimes were stuck with Israel as "the source of all evil" with no way for regimes to revive that notion: their people have become fed up after decades of propaganda. The Arab regimes' "Plan B" was to ignite an even larger religious zeal by constantly reminding their people that the Israelis are "a part of a larger Jewish scheme of controlling the world."

Today, the message has dramatically changed; media language and definitions have been surgically altered by many Arab governments. The term "Zionist" has turned into "Jews," and, for the more moderate Arab media, "Peace talks" into "Jewish opposition to peace…or world peace."

The growing trend of anti-Semitism on Arab TV shows has been vigorously picking up momentum the last few years. Anti-Semitic-themed shows have become common on many of the 300-plus Arab satellite networks, including TV Channels and media outlets owned by theoretically pro-Western Arab governments are no exception -- crossing the line from anti-Semitism to open support for terrorism.

Read the whole thing.

Turkel excerpt on specifics of Mavi Marmara shots

Here is more from the Turkel Report that demolishes the idea that it is a whitewash. In addition, it destroys the assumption of the IHH and "activists" that people who were shot in the top of their heads were shot from the helicopter.

Estimating the number of shots fired that actually hit their target is very difficult. From the military debriefings, it appears that, during the course of the operation on the Mavi Marmara, the Israeli forces discharged 308 rounds (from the soldiers' testimonies, it appears that 110 rounds were shot aimed at persons; an estimated 39 hits were identified by the soldiers; out of which an estimated 16 participants were injured by shots to the center of mass), 87 bean bags, and 264 paint ball rounds. The number of rounds fired does not in and of itself imply that the use of force was excessive. From the soldiers’ testimonies, it appears that a significant number of rounds were not fired directly at IHH activists. The IDF applied a graduated use of force, including the use of warning shots and deterring fire.

When appropriate to limit the chance of causing death or serious injury, the Israeli military's graduated use of force also provides for firing at the legs and feet of a person. This use of force appears to have resulted in the wounding of a number of the IHH activists. In determining whether such disabling fire is excessive, it must be weighed against the alternative of shooting at the center of visible mass of the target, with increased likelihood of death or serious injury.

The evidence shows that the IDF soldiers made considerable use of graduated force during the operation, with soldiers switching repeatedly between less-lethal and lethal weapons, depending upon the threat being posed.

The Commission has reached the conclusion that the Israeli army did not fire any rounds from the helicopter. The only force that was used on the helicopters were 3-4 “flash bang” grenades that were deployed from the first helicopter in the initial stages of the fast roping to attempt to stop IHH activists from interfering with the ropes. The accurate use of firearms from a helicopter requires both specific equipment and specially trained personnel, with which the helicopters were not equipped.

A high angle of the trajectory of wounds in some deceased IHH activists could have been the result of a number of factors. First, some firing took place under circumstances where IHH activists were on top of or bent over one Israeli soldier who was lying on the deck while they were assaulting him. Secondly, firing also took place from the roof down towards the IHH activists who were threatening the IDF soldiers on a lower deck. Finally, in some instances, numerous rounds were fired either by one soldier or by more than one soldier to stop an IHH activist who was a threat to the lives of themselves or other soldiers. It cannot be discounted that some rounds impacted when the person had already started to fall.

The specific testimonies of soldiers are footnoted but that annex has not yet been released. The commission recommended that the annex be released as well.

Vote for Round 1 of the Pro-Israel Blog-Off!

Round One of the Pro-Israel Blog-Off is underway!

You can vote for my entry or for my competition, Liberty's Spirit or Life Through My Eyes.

The entire point is to promote pro-Israel blogs, so definitely look at the other entries, this week and all the weeks of the competition.

The winner, chosen by a combination of reader votes and the esteemed judges, gets an iPad. I wouldn't mind winning :)

Go to this page at IsraellyCool to vote!

The Palestine Papers

I have not had the time to go through the seeming bombshell of Al Jazeera releasing as many as 1600 documents about negotiations between the PA and Israel.

You can read about it here.

At this time it appears to be the Palestinian Arab version of events, so whether they will be corroborated is an open question. They certainly seems to indicate that PLO negotiators have gone beyond their public statements in their offers. They appear to show that the issue of Jerusalem is essentially not solvable. For example, while the Palestinian Arabs think that their offer of letting most Jewish areas of Jerusalem stay in Israel's hands was most generous, even the most left wing Israeli government cannot consider evicting Jews from Maaleh Adumim or even Har Homa.

The Arab backlash that is likely to occur against the PA/PLO from these documents' release may be significant. JPost has more. Someone in the PLO obviously leaked them so this indicates a severe fissure within their ranks, despite (or more likely because of) Mahmoud Abbas' political strengthening of his leadership.

The Israeli backlash may be significant as well, although Olmert and Livni will be able to deny details since it is not their version of events.

A'jad whines, threatens about Zionists. Again.

From PressTV:

A day after multifaceted talks between Iran and the P5+1, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad advises the six major world powers to stop following up the path of Israel.

Addressing thousands of enthusiastic people in the northern city of Rasht on Sunday, the Iranian president said certain arrogant Western powers, including the US, are not interested in resolving issues with Iran.

He added that Iran repeats to the officials of the P5+1 (Russia, China, France, Britain and the US plus Germany) to get rid of pressure by certain "narrow minded" Zionist individuals “if you wants talks to bear fruit.”

“In that case, grounds will be prepared for further interaction,” Ahmadinejad stressed.

The Iranian chief executive emphasized that talks should be based on justice and respect, saying, “Negotiations should lead to the recognition of legal rights of the Iranian people and other nations.”

He warned that animosity with Iran and the Iranian nation would be to the detriment of Western interests and noted that the Islamic Republic welcomes “cooperation and interaction.”

The Iranian president further cautioned the P5+1 against the continuation of their previous path and said, "Now that Iranians have become a nuclear nation, hundreds of (countries) like you will not be able to force them to retreat one iota from their positions."

The comments are fun to read as well.

Open thread

Going on a short day trip with Mrs. Elder, so carry on without me....

Kuwaiti paper extols the benefits of camel milk plus urine

A Kuwaiti newspaper describes a vacation in the desert, and then says:

Camel herders brought fresh [camel] milk directly to us, and when we were reluctant to drink, [they told us that] the research conducted on camel milk has proven that it cures diseases, suxh as autoimmune blood disorders, ascites, hepatitis, tuberculosis, ulcers, colitis and skin cancer, and recommended a cup of camel milk mixed with a cup of urine to recover from these diseases.

The comments section adds many more diseases that camel milk and urine cures, including dandruff, baldness, gangrene, cancer and a penis disease.

Bottoms up!

Turkel on whether Gaza is "occupied"

Here is a section of the Turkel report that discusses whether the Gaza Strip is legally "occupied" by Israel, as Amnesty and other organizations continue to bizarrely insist:

In Al-Bassiouni v. Prime Minister, the Supreme Court of Israel held that since the disengagement in 2005, Israel does not have ‘effective control’ over the Gaza Strip. Because of the importance of this conclusion, the actual wording of the Supreme Court is cited below:

‘… since September 2005 Israel no longer has effective control over what happens in the Gaza Strip. Military rule that applied in the past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory on a permanent basis, nor are they in charge of what happens there. In these circumstances, the State of Israel does not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip or to maintain public order in the Gaza Strip according to the laws of belligerent occupation in international law. Neither does Israel have any effective capability, in its present position, of enforcing order and managing civilian life in the Gaza Strip.’
In its judgment, the Supreme Court further held that the main obligations imposed on the State of Israel vis-à-vis the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip derive from the existence of an armed conflict between Israel and the Hamas organization; the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel over the border crossings between it and the Gaza Strip; and the relationship of dependency that was created - at least in certain spheres, such as the electricity supply to the Gaza Strip - during the long period of military rule in the Gaza Strip.

The court also held, in accordance with the position presented by the State, that Israel is subject to the rules of customary international law that apply in armed conflict, including the requirement to permit the passage of ‘food and basic humanitarian supplies necessary for the survival of the civilian population.’

As previously noted, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding, several organizations have adopted the position that despite the disengagement, the Gaza Strip continues to be under Israeli occupation. This position is mainly based on the claim that although Israel no longer has a permanent military presence in the Gaza strip, Israel’s control of several areas that effect the fabric of life in the Gaza Strip amount to ‘effective control’ of the Gaza Strip. For example, the organization Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement presented before the Commission its position that Israel effectively continues to control the Gaza Strip for six reasons: (i) Israel controls movement to and from the Gaza Strip via land crossings; (ii) Israel exercises complete control over Gaza's airspace and territorial waters; (iii) Israel controls movement within Gaza through periodic incursions and a "no-go zone"; (iv) Israel controls the Palestinian population registry; (v) Israel exercises control over Gaza's tax system and fiscal policy; (vi) Israel exercises control over the Palestinian Authority and its ability to provide services to Gaza residents. A similar position was also presented by the representatives of the B’Tselem organization in their testimony before the Commission.

Indeed, academics have diverging opinions as to whether Israel has ‘effective control’ over the Gaza Strip. Certainly, the adoption of the position that Israel continues to be an occupying power in the Gaza strip requires an unjustifiably flexible and novel interpretation of the term ‘effective control.’ In other words, this interpretation would have to be based on the understanding that two different opposing powers can exercise ‘effective control’ in a territory at the same time: the Hamas and Israel. Moreover, the interpretation of the term ‘effective control’ needs to be assessed against the currently accepted approach in international law
that ‘occupation’ does not merely require military forces to be stationed in a certain territory, but also that the occupying power performs the functions of an existing government.

Indeed, during the long period that Israel had the Gaza Strip under effective control, the Gaza Strip did become dependent on Israel in certain spheres. However, as the Supreme Court of Israel held in Al-Bassiouni v. Prime Minister, this dependency is insufficient to establish ‘effective control.’ It should also be stated, inter alia, that insofar as the conclusion that Israel is an occupying power in the Gaza Strip derives from Israel’s control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, there is no support in international law for the proposition that the control of airspace amounts to ‘effective control.’

With regard to land access to the Gaza Strip, it should be noted that the Gaza Strip also has a border crossing with Egypt (the Rafah crossing), even though Egypt, for its own reasons, also exercises control of the crossing from its territory into the Gaza Strip. Similarly, the imposition of a naval blockade does not create a situation in which the laws of occupation come into effect. It should be emphasized that the very lack of ‘control’ over the land territory in the Gaza Strip in the traditional sense of this term is what makes an external naval blockade necessary to control access to and egress from that territory. As a comparison, a land siege does not automatically result in the besieged city being held under occupation. States, and particularly those that might employ navies or air forces, either unilaterally or within the framework of a coalition, will
likely be wary of accepting the argument that the mere imposition of a naval blockade or influence over events on the shore of a State by the use of military power automatically creates a situation of occupation.

If Israel did indeed have effective control over the Gaza Strip, then it would have the power to act as the authority responsible for maintaining order in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli forces would then be able to wait on the coast of the Gaza Strip and intercept the vessels there. In practice, however, Israel does not control the coast of the Gaza Strip. This area is under the ‘effective control’ of the Hamas. The lack of effective control

over the Gaza Strip, including the ability to impose order there, and the security threat that the Hamas presents to the naval forces operating near the coast of the Gaza Strip, clearly indicate the underlying logic of international law that permits the enforcement of a naval blockade at some distance from the coast. Similarly, it is difficult to see how the Gaza situation differs in a practical sense from Lebanon in 2006, when the blockading Israeli warship INS Hanit was hit by a missile launched by Hezbollah from the Lebanese coast.

In light of the fact that the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip contain mainly small vessels that are capable of moving at high speeds, Israel’s naval forces are confronted with a significant risk. Examples such as the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the attack on the French supertanker Limburg in 2002 highlight both the threat presented by small vessels and the difficulty in stopping them.

An examination of the arguments, both individually and cumulatively, therefore leads to the conclusion that Israel does not have ‘effective control’ in the Gaza Strip. Therefore, in alignment with the Supreme Court of Israel, the Commission takes the position that Israel’s effective control of the Gaza Strip ended when the disengagement was completed in 2005.

BBC's "whitewash"

Here is the entire BBC report on the results of the Turkel Commission:

An Israeli inquiry has found the country's army acted legally in a deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships trying to reach Gaza last May.
The raid, in which nine Turkish activists were killed, attracted widespread international condemnation.
A separate UN inquiry last year said the navy had shown an "unacceptable level of brutality".
But Israel's inquiry found the actions of its navy "to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law".
There was widespread international criticism of Israel's actions, which severely strained relations with its long-time Muslim ally, Turkey.
The inquiry also found that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was legal.
Whitewash

The Free Gaza Flotilla, which had over 600 pro-Palestinian activists on board, was trying to break Israel's blockade of the territory when it was intercepted by Israeli navy commandos on 31 May.
Israel says its commandos used live fire only after being attacked with clubs, knives and gunfire by activists.
But activists on board the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, where all the killings took place, say the commandos started shooting as soon as they boarded the vessel.
In June, Israel set up a panel of inquiry headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Yaakov Turkel, with five Israeli members and two international observers.
It had a mandate to look into the legality of the raid, but critics attacked this remit as too narrow.
One of the inquiry's members died aged 93 during its hearings.
Correspondents say that for Israel's critics, the internal investigation had little credibility and has been written off as a whitewash.
'Four shots in head'

The inquiry heard testimony from high-ranking Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and army chief General Gabi Ashkenazi.
None of the soldiers involved in the raid was authorised to provide testimony.
In August, Mr Netanyahu told the inquiry that Israel "acted under international law" when it intercepted the flotilla.
He said the Gaza blockade was legal and that Israeli troops only used force when their lives were in danger.
Turkey has described the attack - which took place in international waters, about 80 miles from the Israeli coast - as a violation of international law, "tantamount to banditry and piracy" and described the killings as "state-sponsored terrorism".
Results of Turkish post-mortem examinations have suggested that a total of 30 bullets were found in the bodies of the nine dead activists, including one who had been shot four times in the head.
After criticism from its allies over the flotilla incident, Israel considerably eased its blockade of Gaza - allowing in more food and humanitarian goods.
Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade on the coastal territory when the Islamist militant group, Hamas, seized control of it in 2007.
Israel says it is intended to stop militants in Gaza from obtaining rockets to fire at Israel.
The restrictions have been widely described as collective punishment of the population of Gaza, resulting in a humanitarian crisis.

I italicized the biased part of the report. But that's not the worst part, by far.

Part One of the Turkel Commission report is online, and it is 295 pages long. One only needs to read it for a couple of minutes to see that it is far from a whitewash and it takes its mandate seriously. It goes into great detail on the events of May 31, 2010 as well as background information on the history and legality of the blockade, whether Israel is legally occupying Gaza, what happened on the Mavi Marmara as well as the other ships, and much more. It specifically addresses the critics of the naval action in great detail.

But the BBC dismisses the entire report with one word :"Whitewash." And the only other subhead it uses in this report is the (unconfirmed) charge of "four shots in the head."

Astonishingly, the BBC does not mention the name "IHH" once in its report. It also does not mention that there is a second UN inquiry underway, only referring to the hopelessly biased and ridiculously fast UNHRC inquiry.

Nothing is quoted from the Turkel report.

Even worse, although the BBC itself documented that Israel's claims were essentially all true and the activists were caught lying, this report ignores the facts uncovered by this same news organization to give credence to unnamed "critics" of Israel and giving them more space and attention than the actual subject of the report.

To BBC readers, this is par for the course. But it is unconscionable for an organization as supposedly prestigious as the BBC to write such a tilted, uninformed report that summarily dismisses the serious work of many people over many months. The BBC in this article gives more space to the the unnamed Israel-bashing "critics" than to the supposed subject of the article!

(h/t T34)

UPDATE: The BBC has changed the story a bit, and changed the subheads as well. However, they added a new, very similar article on the Turkish reaction. (h/t Biased BBC)

Egypt says Gaza's "Army of Islam" behind Alexandria bombings

From Al Masry al Youm:

An Al-Qaida-linked group in Gaza was behind the New Year's Day suicide bombing that killed at least 21 Christians and wounded about a hundred outside a church in the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria, the country's interior minister Habib al-Adly announced Sunday.

Al-Adly said "conclusive evidence" showed that the shadowy, Gaza-based Army of Islam was behind the planning and execution of the attack, which sparked three days of Coptic rioting in Cairo and several other cities. It was the deadliest attack against Copts in Egypt in more than a decade.

He also suggested that the group recruited Egyptians in the planning and execution of the attack, but that this could not conceal the role it played in the "callous and terrorist" act.

The state-run media said al-Adli briefed President Hosni Mubarak on the evidence and the suspects' confessions before the start of the Police Day celebrations.

Army of Islam was responsible for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

The group denies its involvement, although it praised the bombing.

Jed in the comments points out that the media is careful not to say "Palestinians" but rather "militants from Gaza."

Abbas pardons and forgives female Hamas terrorist

From JPost:

How can you not forgive this face?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday ordered the release of a Hamas woman who had been arrested by the PA security forces in the West Bank on suspicion of planning attacks on senior Palestinian officials.

The woman, Tamam Abu Saud, was part of a Hamas cell that allegedly planned to assassinate the PA governor of Nablus and attack various Fatah-affiliated institutions in the West Bank.

PA security sources said that Abbas decided to release Abu Saud after she appealed to him and asked for forgiveness.

The sources claimed that Abbas accepted her appeal although she had previously confessed to the charges against her.

“The release of the woman is a humanitarian gesture by President Mahmoud Abbas, who is the caring and passionate father of all Palestinians, including those who commit mistakes,” the sources said.

See? Abbas is a moderate! He can compromise with vicious terrorist organizations whenever he wants to!

Palestinian Soft-core Terrorist Theatre

Just for fun...

Work accident!

A Palestinian Arab worker was killed in a Gaza blast, and the Hamas medical authorities immediately blamed it in an Israeli mortar or tank shell.

The only problem is that Israel didn't do anything.

Chances are it was a misfired rocket or Hamas bomb.

Either way, it will be interesting to see how PCHR categorizes this in their next weekly report. (They already said that Jawaher Abu Rahma was killed by Israel.)

Who are the Palestinians? (video)

A decent Xtranormal animation.

(h/t Darcy)

Saddam Hussein's handwritten order to shoot rockets at Israel

An Egyptian newspaper has uncovered the original, handwritten order by Saddam Hussein to shoot Scud missiles at Israel, and the article is getting a bit of play in Arab newspapers and message board forums - often with great praise.

Fatah forums are praising Saddam as well, one person wishing that Saddam's Iraq had a direct border with Israel back then.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Mercy-giving.

To Staff Brigadier General Hazim Abd ar-Razzaq,

Peace be upon you [as-Salam ‘alaykum!],

Go ahead with God’s blessings and strike targets inside the criminal Zionist entity with the heaviest possible fire, making sure to be careful about the possibility that you might be spotted. And carry out the strikes with the usual conventional warheads on the missiles. Let the launching continue until further notice.

Saddam Hussein,

[Signature]

17 January 1991

Zionist plots of the past month (updated)

Here is a list of Zionist plots mentioned in the media within the past month.

Probably not a complete list...

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon
...and the Hariri assassination
Vulture spies in Saudi Arabia
Harry Potter
Referendum on independence for southern Sudan
...and using the Nile River to blackmail nations into doing its bidding
Israeli doctors treating eye diseases in the Maldives
Anti-hijab law in Azerbaijan
9/11
Purim
Wikileaks
Alexandria Coptic church blast
The proposed Islamic center in Manhattan
Everything happening in Iraq
The supposed death of a former Iranian general in Israeli prison
Control of UK politics
Fierce, orchestrated attacks on Goldstone
The film "V"
The Holocaust
The Tea Party movement
People in Egypt putting themselves on fire (h/t Folderol)
The taking down of Hamas' Facebook pafe (h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

Israel's "Miss Fat and Beautiful" winner crowned

From AFP:

A group of women primp and preen in front of the mirrors, adjusting their outfits as they prepare for a beauty contest with a difference: Israel's annual "Miss Fat & Beautiful."

In a cultural centre in the southern desert city of Beersheva, the contestants tweak their hair and apply makeup, laughing together as they sing in Hebrew: "We are the most beautiful women in the world. We are Miss World!"

To qualify for the contest, hopefuls must weigh at least 80 kilograms (176 pounds), and 2011's contest includes several who weigh in at around 120 kilograms (264 pounds).

Unlike your average beauty pageant, which tends to conform to a strict lean-and-lithe standard, here curves are queen.

Ahead of the show, the atmosphere backstage is one of excitement.

"I'm very beautiful and I'm going to win," 23-year-old Tanya Fayman confidently tells AFP.

"I'm very proud of myself and my body and my beauty, and no one has the right to dictate my weight, so why should I be skinny?"

For the evening wear section, Fayman sports a skin-tight strappy dress, high heels and strings of necklaces, her dark hair falling pin-straight to her shoulders.

Proud of her figure, she shows no sign of embarrassment when the side of her top splits open slightly as she talks, simply grabbing a needle and thread to stitch up the tear.

The Russian-born beauty's confidence was well-founded. After two rounds in which the 20 contestants strut their stuff in ball gowns, and a trouser-and-top ensemble, Fayman was crowned the winner.

Better than camels.

Weekend links

Michael Oren on what is needed for peace.

A YNet op-ed on bringing back an Israeli Left that is actually proud of the country.

Hamas is razing 180 houses in Gaza to build an Islamic center, forcing many families to live in tents. But Reuters is not likely to be interested. (h/t Zach via Facebook)

One of the people that wrote the critique of the PA's state-building also co-wrote a very good essay on Gaza's economy. (h/t Silke)

An analysis of the Labor Party implosion, by Barry Rubin.

Israel as the victim of "mobbing"

There has been a growing awareness in recent years of the phenomenon of workplace bullying, known as "mobbing."

Commenter Mario noticed that the attributes of mobbing mirror almost exactly what Israel is forced to endure on a daily basis.

Here is one list of mobbing indicators and some links that show examples:

By standard criteria of job performance, the target is at least average, probably above average.
Rumours and gossip circulate about the target's misdeeds: "Did you hear what she did last week?"
The target is not invited to meetings or voted onto committees, is excluded or excludes self.
Collective focus on a critical incident that "shows what kind of man he really is".
Shared conviction that the target needs some kind of formal punishment, "to be taught a lesson".
Unusual timing of the decision to punish, e.g., apart from the annual performance review.
Emotion-laden, defamatory rhetoric about the target in oral and written communications.
Formal expressions of collective negative sentiment toward the target, e.g., a vote of censure, signatures on a petition, meeting to discuss what to do about the target.
High value on secrecy, confidentiality, and collegial solidarity among the mobbers.
Loss of diversity of argument, so that it becomes dangerous to "speak up for" or defend the target.
The adding up of the target's real or imagined venial sins to make a mortal sin that cries for action.
The target is seen as personally abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities; stigmatizing, exclusionary labels are applied.
Disregard of established procedures, as mobbers take matters into their own hands.
Resistance to independent, outside review of sanctions imposed on the target.
Outraged response to any appeals for outside help the target may make.
Mobbers' fear of violence from target, target’s fear of violence from mobbers, or both.

While the analogy is not perfect - Israel does have one strong friend at this time, and the country is not cowed by the hypocrites - the behavior of the mobbers is eerily similar to the behavior of the Israel-haters.

It is notable that all of these behaviors also fit in excellently with traditional anti-semitism.

Bullies are, by nature, insecure, and easily threatened by someone they perceive as being different or better. Israel fits that role. Combined with the omnipresent threat of terrorism for those who associate with Israel, it is very easy for even third parties who are otherwise sympathetic to be forced into silence when confronted by the bullies.

This idea deserves a much longer treatment.

The all-encompassing Zionist lobby in Azerbaijan

From Armenian website Panorama.am:

Iran’s Parliament deputy Hamid Rasain has deeply condemned Azerbaijan’s ban on wearing hijab at schools.

Azerbaijani faktxeber.com reports that Rasain has declared that the interference of Zionist lobby is obvious on the decision to ban wearing of hijab.

He said: “US has a military base in Azerbaijan. Thus, they manage to have certain impact on Baku’s decisions. The ban of hijab in the educational institutions is planned by US and Zionists, since the Islamic scarf dangers the interests of both USA and Israel. Official Baku is always guided by messages and wish of those lobbies.”

I haven't visited the Azerbaijan section of the Elder compound for a few years, I really must go over and congratulate them!

PA continues to make terrorists into heroes

PMW once again documents how PA TV - controlled by the government - has shown music videos praising Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of one of the deadliest terror attacks in Israel ever. Both of these were shown within the past month.

This is the textbook definition of incitement to terror.

Latest Latma (1/21/11)

Most of the humor is at the expense of Labor and Ehud Barak.

Palestinian Arabs snubbed at Arab League Economic Summit

Asharq al Awsat reports that the Palestinian Authority is frustrated at the refusal of the Arab nations to give some $430 million it requested for projects in Jerusalem.

The PA delegation, headed by Riyad al Maliki, said it regretted that the summit ignored the Jerusalem issue. The economic ministers decided to table the idea until the next summit in March in Baghdad.

Maliki said "we tried to re-focus on the issue of Jerusalem, and to remind Arab leaders that Jerusalem was waiting for them...alas, they rejected it."

Maliki said that the summit in Sirte last year resulted in pledges of $500 million to support the Arab claim to Jerusalem - and only 7% of those pledges were actually paid.

We have seen this happen before. As the West has been accelerating their throwing cash at Palestinian Arabs in the cause of "peace," the Arabs have written off the Palestinian Arabs as a waste of money and time. They will make statements of support - and there were statements in support of Jerusalem at the summit as well - but they will no longer put their money where their mouths are.

This trend accelerated dramatically after the Fatah/Hamas split, as Arab nations asked themselves why they should support an entity that couldn't even keep itself together.

Perhaps the West should look more carefully at the Arab calculus to write off the Palestinian Arab cause.

Two small potential martyrs

From Ma'an:

Families of prisoners gathered in protest on Friday, throwing shoes and eggs at the car of French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie as she arrived in Gaza via the Erez crossing in the north.

Carrying signs reading "Get out of Gaza" they stopped her car shortly after it passed through a Hamas checkpoint in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, surrounding it and hammering on the sides with their fists.

The protest was over a statement which was mistakenly attributed to the French minister when she met with the parents of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in Jerusalem a day earlier.

Here's a telling detail that didn't make it into the wire-service version of the story:

As the demonstrators shoved toward the car, two children, terrified and crying, were flung to the ground floor in front of the wheels of the lead vehicle convoy of white 4x4 jeeps, and stayed there for several minutes before being hauled away by their families.

More photos here.

Several minutes???

Doesn't it seem like perhaps the crowd wanted the jeeps to run over the children?

In fact, PalPress mentions that some protesters lied down on the road in front of the convoy.

I'm sure it was chaotic, but it seems a pretty good bet that at least some of the protesters were trying to get the kids killed.

We can learn from how Arabs and Israelis treat former leaders (Zvi)

From Zvi, in a comment to this post on Mahmoud Abbas quashing a pro-Tunisian demonstration:

In Asharq al-Awsat, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed laments the fact that with the possible partial exception of the shaky Iraqi government, the Arab way of governing is one that fosters dictatorships, making coups and violent conflagrations the only ways in which a society can retire its ruler. He contrasts this way of doing things with the method pursued today in the west, in which the broadly respected institutions of the state are designed to permit the replacement of governments without violence.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is Israel. Eretz Nehederet has a humorous take on the life of a former Israeli prime minister.

The typical Arab ruler - including the typical Palestinian ruler - operates constantly in a frame of reference in which he must intimidate detractors and dissidents within his own population - anyone who would oppose him or simply seek a different way - wielding the threat of state violence like a machete. The typical Arab ruler thinks that he cannot afford to allow dissent, difference or opposition to grow, because this could literally bring him to his death.

Is it any wonder, then, that the typical Arab ruler habitually turns to the same violent or underhanded tools when considering the presence of a country that has been painted as his enemy for several generations?

The typical Israeli leader has a very different political makeup. He often finds himself forging coalitions with his opponents, often including people with strongly opposed viewpoints on important issues. Debates in the Knesset sometimes resemble a shouting match, and he cannot count even on members of his own party. Using violence to keep his supporters in line and punish his opponents is a completely alien concept, which he encounters only when dealing with the neighboring regimes and their terrorist flacks.

Israeli leaders carry their experience to the negotiating table, just as Arab leaders do.

And it shows.

When political correctness turns into the A-word (updated)

Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post this weekattended a panel discussion entitled “Exposing Israeli Apartheid and the Violation of Palestinian Rights: A public forum on the second anniversary of the Gaza massacre.”

It is a great article, one that effectively shows what these fanatic Israel haters are all about.

He notes

Perhaps more interesting than the speakers themselves was the crowd — which was disproportionately female, almost entirely white, and (by my casual observation of whose arm was wrapped around whom) heavily populated by lesbians.

This was not entirely surprising to me: Anti-Israeli activism has attained a sort of cult following among Toronto gay activists, who otherwise would be twiddling their activists thumbs in a country where gay marriage is legal and uncontroversial.

From which will now segue to the end of his terrific article:

The most bizarre part of last night’s meeting was when the moderator announced that in the Q&A session, she would be enforcing an “equity policy” in her selection of who was permitted to ask questions — with preference given to women, visible minorities and gays (which was kind of ironic given the composition of the room). Sure enough, when the Q&A began, a white man aged about 60 was first to the microphone. But the moderator made a great show of instead picking a black man sitting in one of the back rows and asked him to come to the mic. So we all waited while this affirmative action pick ambled over to the microphone to toss Peto a softball “question” about how she had “inspired” other academics.

Then a woman said she wanted to ask a question, and the mortifying process was repeated. Finally, the man at the mic — who had been patient thus far — shouted out “Am I invisible?” Even some members of the crowd declared “Let him speak!” and the moderator looked unsure of what to do — before (naturally!) threatening the man with expulsion from the room for his impudence. (Eventually, he was allowed to ask his question.)

The fact that this man had to wait there at the mic, merely because of the colour of the skin, while others got to speak before him — why it reminded me of that thing they once had in South Africa … Apar… Aparth …

What’s that word I’m looking for?

(h/t Challah Hu Akbar, who is easily the best new pro-Israel blogger around.)

UPDATE: Joel comments:

I wonder if the attenders know these facts about Israel:

1. Gays were accepted in the Israeli army BEFORE they were accepted in the US army.

2. There was even an Israeli film about gays in the army called "Yossi And Jagger" that was a huge hit over here.

3. Israel is the only country that had a lesbian on the Dancing With Stars show

4. Israel was the only country who had a transsexual represent it in the Eurovision.

Freedom of expression, PA-style

From The Lede:

The Palestinian Authority refused to grant permission for a rally to celebrate the overthrow of Tunisia’s authoritarian president on Wednesday in Ramallah, the administrative capital of the West Bank.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported that a few dozen Palestinians who defied the ban arrived in the square in Ramallah where the rally was to take place only to find that they were outnumbered by members of the ruling Fatah party, who chose the same time and place to stage a demonstration in support of Palestinians held in Israeli jails.

A correspondent for Le Monde, Benjamin Barthe, observed that a police cordon around the square and “the presence among the demonstrators of many mukhabarat (secret police) officers left little doubt about the Palestinian Authority’s intention to prevent any expression of solidarity with the ‘jasmine revolution’ ” in Tunisia, which led the president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, to flee into exile.

The reporter added that just as one young Palestinian began to wave a Tunisian flag, an officer grabbed it, on the grounds that it was disturbing the demonstration in honor of the prisoners.

Omar Barghouti, a leading Palestinian human rights activist who was present at the thwarted celebration told the French newspaper, “It’s unbelievable. … The police are in the process of confirming the charge that the Palestinian Authority is on the side of Ben Ali and that it also fears the people and the street.”

The column also links to this Foreign Policy article from earlier this week, which effectively blames Israel for creating the conditions that cause the PA to act as a police state, andfor placing it in an impossible situation where it cannot do real democratic state-building. I don't have time to go through the details now, but let's just say that Israel somehow managed to do its own state-building in the 1940s under much more trying conditions than the PA is under today.

(h/t dm)