Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

LOL: Iran reveals Israel's project "Al Quds 2020"

By apparent policy, the Iranian media refuses to say the word "Jerusalem," instead referring to "Al Quds."

This can result in some interesting pseudo-news stories.

Gaza's religious affairs ministry expressed concern over a project to build 58,000 Jewish settler homes in occupied Al-Quds by 2020.

Meanwhile, Zionist regime is announcing Al-Quds as the capital for Jewish people and allocating funds to attract Jews in a project dubbed Al-Quds 2020, the ministry said in a statement Monday.

Israel would name a project "Al Quds 2020"?

(By the way, the 2009 master plan that was at one time called Jerusalem 2020 included thousands of apartments for Arab residents of the city.)

Fatah accuses Qatar of telling Israel about 2002 weapons ship

Fatah's anger at Qatar for allowing (or encouraging) Al Jazeera to release the "Palestine Papers" is increasing.

Their latest charge is that Qatar was behind Israel's capture of the Karine A weapons ship in 2002.

The Karine A, it will be recalled, was a ship that was purchased by the Palestinian Authority and loaded with weapons they bought from Iran. The cargo included such peaceful, moderate items as Katyusha rockets, anti-tank missiles, anti-tank mines and pure explosives, with a total value of some $15 million. People involved in the shipment were sprinkled through all levels of the Palestinian Authority hierarchy, from Yasir Arafat down to the Palestinian Naval Police.

Fatah leader and member of its Revolutionary Council, Bassam Zakarneh, told a press conference that Qatar had tipped Israel off about the ship - and this paved the way for the "assassination" of Arafat!

Interestingly, Arafat had denied having anything to do with the Karine A, and Zakarneh's statement seems to confirm that the PA really was behind it and that Arafat was lying.

And while the world is misinterpreting the "Palestine Papers" as to how moderate and flexible the PA is, it is worth remembering that the Karine A episode happened after substantive "peace" negotiations with Israel and proved that the PA's desire for peace was nonexistent.

Latest PalPapers lies: Michael Brull, ABC (Australia)

The number of anti-Israel lies in the left-wing media concerning the Palestine Papers is astounding, and they are likely to continue. Here are a few from Michael Brull of "Independent Australian Jewish Voices" writing in ABC Online:

The interesting thing about what the Palestine Papers reveal is also in relation to public relations and private diplomacy. The standard theme of Israeli propaganda after negotiations collapsed after the 2000 Camp David negotiations was that Israel had offered the Palestinians everything, but the intransigent and ungrateful Palestinians had rejected it all, proving that the Israelis had no partner for peace. The Palestinian leadership never bothered with public relations, and it was largely left to academics and left wing Israeli negotiators to reveal that this story was far from the truth. For example, after the Camp David proposals, the two parties negotiated at Taba (negotiations ended unilaterally by Israel). Israel’s chief negotiator at Taba, Shlomo Ben Ami, said if he were a Palestinian he would have rejected the Camp David proposal. The Palestine Papers include maps of the Camp David proposal. They show clearly how Ariel and Maale Adumim are used to dissect the West Bank into three non-contiguous cantons, with settlements dotting the landscape, connected by roads, further dividing Palestinian towns and areas from each other. Perhaps this will finally put an end to the favourite Zionist myth of Israeli generosity, met by Palestinian intransigence and rejectionism.

This is only one part of a longer story that the Palestine Papers reveal.

Here's the map that Brull says that the Palestine Papers reveal:

If you look at the small type on the bottom of the maps, you will see that their source is "Jerusalem Task Force, Orient House". These maps have been public for years, and they were made by a Palestinian Arab organization. They were not "revealed" by the Palestine Papers, and Brull is using Al Jazeera's copying of an old map as a way to bash Israel.

And the maps are a complete lie.

Dennis Ross, who was there, said no map was drawn, but he shows the fake Palestinian Arab version of the map, along with what the Camp David offer really looked like:

The real offer - which was sweetened significantly at Taba - was already for a quite contiguous state.

Now that we see that Brull is not averse to lying, we can find more gems in his screed.

He goes through his Palestinian Arab version of history:

Israeli historians confirmed that the Palestinians who did not flee were driven out of Palestine through a mixture of measures including Zionist terrorism, psychological warfare and outright expulsions.

He of course does not mention the percentages of Arabs who fled versus those who were forced out. No one knows the actual numbers, but the vast majority were not expelled. Most Arabs never saw an Israeli soldier and fled because of wild Arab rumors of atrocities that never happened or that were vastly exaggerated. The wealthier Arabs left almost immediately after the partition vote, as they did in the 1930s, expecting to return after the fighting ended - and leaving their poorer cousins behind without leaders. And some (but not most) were indeed told to leave by Arab leaders themselves.

There is a third category that Brull ignores, though: those that stayed and became citizens of the state. An option that was simply not available for Jews in the Old City or Gush Etzion. Those people prove his claim that those "who did not flee were driven out" to be, again, a lie.

If there was one side that adopted the concept of "ethnic cleansing" from the start and continued throughout the 30 years of Mandate history, it was the Arabs - at Tel Chai, Petah Tikva (failed attempt), Hebron, Gaza, Jenin, Shchem/Nablus, Jerusalem's Old City (beginning in 1936), Atarot, Neveh Yaakov, Bet HaAravah and the 4 Gush Etzion Bloc kibbutzim. [h/t YM]

Israel proceeded to conquer the remaining 22 per cent of historic Palestine in 1967.

Whenever you see the words "historic Palestine" you know that you are dealing with a liar. Historic Palestine includes part of Jordan and Lebanon, parts that today's "Palestinians" have no desire for. For the same reasons they had no desire for a state in the West Bank while Jordan controlled it.

It goes on from there. The article is filled with half-truths and lies. Brull is rabidly anti-Israel and he uses the release of the papers as a reason to get op-ed space that simply uses the papers as a peg to bash Israel.

And Australia's ABC is more than happy to host the lies.

Funniest joke of the day

From Daoud Kuttab writing in The New York Times:

Palestine television, which falls under the president’s powers, was totally revamped and cleaned of anti-Israeli incitement.

Here are examples of the newly cleansed shows.

From November:

December:

And January:

(h/t YM)

A better winter picture

A few weeks ago, I took a photo of a frozen lake near me, trying to match a great picture I took in the autumn of the same spot. At the time I had no idea that this winter would be so snowy so I wanted to grab something to reflect the season.

Luckily, today, I got a better shot.

Here's the autumn shot:

And here is the (probably) definitive matching winter shot. Click to enlarge and see the snowflakes.

Again, all photos are being taken by my camera phone (Nexus One), so I am trying to compensate for lack of quality of the equipment.

The difference between the "peace process" and peace

To me, the biggest surprise in the "Palestine Papers" released so far is that, unless they are a massive hoax (and I don't believe that,) the Palestinian Arab negotiators were much more flexible and forthcoming in the talks than they are in public.

This is not to mean that even their more flexible demands can be accommodated by even the most dovish Israeli government.

The most important memo, so far, is this June 2008 meeting between the two sides and Condoleeza Rice. It is really fascinating. Here are some parts over which Jewish areas east of the Green Line the PA wants :

Livni: I want to understand one thing, since you have come back to 1967 borders. At that time there was no Palestinian state. Today we want part of this land and we think that you deserve to be compensated for what we want. My question is: Do you have a problem because of the area of Ma’ale Adumim or its location?

Abu Ala’: Our problem is not in the kilometers, but the settlement block Jerusalem from the East, and from the south there are Kidar and Jabal Abu Ghneim settlements that block Jerusalem. There is a settlement belt around Jerusalem.

Livni: I think I mentioned in the last meeting on borders that there is a misunderstanding and the idea we have is not to block Jerusalem completely.

Abu Ala’: - We do not want to live in enclaves. We want people to live in peace and to fight against terrorism.

Perhaps Ma’ale Adumim will remain under Palestinian sovereignty and it could be a model for cooperation and coexistence. We may also have international forces and make security arrangements for some time. It is the location of Ma’ale Adumim not its size.
There is also Ariel settlement which was set up on the largest water basin. It was not set up simply to provide Israeli with housing units but rather to control the water basin.

Livni: - The idea behind our desire to annex Ariel settlement was not to get more water but because thousands of people live there. We want to have an answer for those who have lived there for forty years.

Future borders will be complicated but clear. I have seen in Yugoslavia how areas can be connected. The matter is not simply giving a passport to settlers.

Abu Ala’: Having Ariel under our control means also that the water basin will be under our control.

Livni: We have said that even if we agreed to have Ariel under Israeli control, we have to find a solution to the water issue.

Abu Ala’: We find this hard to swallow.

Rice: - Let us put Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel aside. I am not trying to solve them here.
...

Livni: - When we decided on the annexation, we made it clear to the Palestinians that we will not compensate them with land that is part of Israel now.

The issue now is that the Palestinians will not accept that some locations become part of Israel.

Rice: This is exactly what I am saying.

Livni: Are you talking about two locations only?

Abu Ala’: There are more than two locations. There are Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, Ephrat, Giv’at Ze’ev, Jabal Abu Ghneim (Har Homa).

Abu Ala’: Ariel goes for 19 kilometers into the West Bank, and this impedes geographical contiguity and enables Israel to control water resources.

Saeb: Our proposition will allow for the inclusion of 70% of settlers, that is about 310,000 settlers.

Rice: Did you see their proposition?

Livni: We looked at it. There are no Ma’ale Adumim, Ephrat, Ariel, Giv’at Ze’ev or Hara Homa (Jabal Abu Ghneim).

Saeb: Why do I not say the opposite, that there are Zakhron Ya’cov, the French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, Ramot Alon, Ramat Shlomo, Gilo, Tal Piot, and the Jewish Quarter in the old city of Jerusalem.

These show that Livni was pretty much ready to give up on all Jewish towns that were not near the Green Line, except for Ariel. The PA wanted a number of Jewish suburbs of Jerusalem, especially Maale Adumim, which no Israeli leader could possibly consider giving up.

The sections that "everyone knows" would be a part of Israel is represented as a major concession by the PA. Meanwhile, no one is even discussing the dismantling of dozens upon dozens of Jewish communities - with schools, shops, recreation centers, parks, playgrounds, cemeteries - that Livni is so easily giving up.

Even so, the PLO is appearing to be cognizant of Israeli requirements and needs, and to be willing to work with them. This is a far cry from how the PLO acts in public.

And therein lies the problem.

No Israeli is going to be surprised by what Livni is giving up (in fact, her insistence on some security issues is fairly strong even as she is willing to give in on other areas.) But the violent reaction to these leaks in the PA underscores the major issue, the latest elephant in the room to be added to the long list:

The Palestinian Arab leadership has never prepared their people for peace.

While I admit to being initially impressed with what Erekat and Abu Ala have to say in these memos, a little further reflection shows that all of these moves are cosmetic. Even if an agreement would have been reached, the people are not part of the process.

At the exact same time that these two sides were joking and trying to narrow the gaps between them, the official PA media continued to incite its people with TV shows extolling jihad, with schoolbooks that eliminated Israel, and with talk about the "return" of millions to Israel.

Israelis are acclimated to the idea of compromising for peace. Hell, they've done it numerous times, often very painfully.

The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, haven't even been taught the basic concept of compromise. Their leaders have never said a word about the necessity of a middle ground where Jewish parts of Jerusalem and major settlement blocs will remain in Israeli hands, where millions of people will not be moving to Israel, and where - inevitably - Arab nations will need to finally step up and offer to naturalize their Palestinian Arab "guests."

There has been no groundwork to change the process from a theoretical exercise into a concrete reality. There has been no reduction in incitement and no attempt to acclimate people to peace with Israel.

Why not?

Is the "peace process" is a farce, meant solely to appease the US? Is it simple fear on the part of the PalArab leadership not to tell inconvenient truths to their people? Is it fear of Hamas taking advantage of the tumult that would follow?

I can't say for sure. But what is certain is that no peace is viable if the people do not buy in to it.

The official PA incitement and glorification of terror is far more important than what Erekat says behind closed doors with Rice and Livni.

In an open society like Israel's, the leaks are more or less what everyone expected. But to the PA they are a bombshell. And that dissonance between reality and the fantasy that the PalArabs have been fed for decades is the entire problem.

The leaders' reactions to this problem are telling. Rather than stepping up and explaining the context, they have into full blown denial-and-blame mode.

I have yet to see an Arabic op-ed saying, "Duh, what do you think they talk about in the negotiations?" Instead we are seeing full-scale attacks - on the PA if you are aligned with Hamas, on Al Jazeera if you are aligned with Fatah.

All of this proves that real peace is not, and never was, a priority for the Palestinian Arab leaders. If it was, then these leaks would not be a big deal - everyone would have known it already.

If a Palestinian Arab leader starts telling people the truth, that would be impressive. (Ironically, it would also make Israel much more flexible in her demands as well. ) Until then, however, the entire negotiations track is divorced from reality, and doomed.

Video: Anti-government protests in Egypt today

From Al Masry al-Youm:

Around 15,000 protesters have occupied Tahrir Square, Cairo’s biggest square, in one of Egypt’s biggest demonstrations in decades.

Eyewitnesses said protesters chanted anti-Mubarak slogans.

Observers believe the protest is the biggest since the bread revolt in 1977, where Tahrir Square was again the scene of demonstrations scene.

A new venue for my writing

I have started to write original material for the NewsRealBlog site, in a new pro-Israel section they created called "Right To Exist."

My first post there is called "Palestine Papers Show One Way the Anti-Israel Media Sets the Agenda."

Feel free to check it out!

Meanwhile....Iran hangs two protesters

From Naharnet:

Iran hanged on Monday two activists it said were members of an exiled group opposed to the 2009 presidential poll result, despite U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging that they be freed.

The executions were the first reported hangings of protesters who staged demonstrations against the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a poll they said was rigged.

The Tehran prosecutor's office named the pair as Jafar Kazemi and Mohammad Ali Hajaghaei. It did not say where the two men were hanged.

"Two elements of the Monafeghin (hypocrites) cell named Jafar Kazemi... and Mohammad Ali Hajaghaei... were executed early today," the prosecutor's office said on its website, referring to the Iranian exiled opposition group, People's Mujahedeen of Iran (PMOI).

Mid-day links

Raymond Ibrahim on how the media downplays Christian persecution (h/t Daled Amos)

Czech PM tells JPost that Israel's outreach in Europe is "miserable."

A YNet op-ed shows, again, the anti-Israel bias of Human Rights Watch.

Major protests in Egypt today.

Archaeologists finally completed a dig of an ancient tunnel that goes alongside the Temple Mount and to the City of David. it was originally a drainage channel. The tunnel will be open to tourists.

Al Jazeera's show trial (Toameh)

Hamas logic: Palileaks proves Arafat was assassinated

A Hamas leader, Salah al-Bardawil, told a Jordanian newspaper that the "Palestine Papers" prove that Arafat was assassinated.

The weird logic goes like this: Since Arafat refused to negotiate over Jerusalem, and since the documents show that the PLO was negotiating Jerusalem, it proves that Arafat was killed so that others who were more flexible could take his place.

Doesn't it seem that the Arab mind is hardwired to find conspiracy theories?

Burning an Israeli flag with "Al Jazeera" written on it

Here's a nice glimpse into how Arab leaders think.

Egyptian newspaper al-Mesryoon is being quoted as saying that Abbas asked Egypt to intervene with Qatar in order to stop what he considered an attempt to tarnish the image of the Palestinian Authority before Arab public opinion, despite the fact that he has briefed all Arab countries on all developments in negotiations with the Israelis at all stages.

Sources reported that Egypt expressed support for the position of the Palestinian Authority in seeking ways to contain the crisis.

An Egyptian official, Rakha Ahmed Hassan, told the newspaper that Arab parties, including Egypt, might intervene in order to prevent the escalation of tension between Qatar and the PA.

The implication, of course, is that there isn't even a pretext of freedom of the press in the Arab world. It is simply common knowledge that a government can dictate what any newspaper may or may not publish.

But it's a cultural thing. To criticize it betrays Western imperialistic thinking about non-Arab concepts such as "freedom."

Erekat: "If memos are true, why is there no agreement?"

Saeb Erekat gave a rambling, sputtering statement slamming Al Jazeera for publishing the so-called "Palestine Papers" that show an inside look at the negotiations between the PLO and Israel.

Besides his conspiracy theories about Al Jazeera, he rhetorically asked more than once, "If our positions are as they claim, why didn't Israel agree and why we did we not reach an agreement with them?" In other words, Erekat is admitting that Israel would have taken the offers seriously, as opposed to how The Guardian is spinning it!

Most of his rant is aimed at Al Jazeera and the vast conspiracy that is behind the channel.

Some highlights:

Al Jazeera's shame is unprecedented in Arab history....

The Palestinian Authority cannot solve the refugee issue; it is up to the refugee to decide to return to the territories of 1948, or the State of Palestine, or to accept compensation. This is the official Palestinian position, we do not agree with Israel on anything concerning this.

Al Jazeera is part of a terribly serious criminal act, planning to destabilize the Palestinian people, whether in Jordan or Palestine or Lebanon or Saudi Arabia...such incitement is serious.

What is going on is the process of punishment for our steadfastness and our positions, especially after we went to the UN Security Council and our refusal to negotiate with Israel without a halt to settlement activity, which has always been what we insisted and we will continue to uphold our rights as approved by international law.

Everything published so far does not exceed two or three pages that were cherry-picked with malicious intent to destroy the position of the steadfast Palestinian negotiators on our inalienable rights according to international law.

[Al Jazeera's] aim is to topple the Palestinian Authority because we refuse to return to negotiations and refuse to continue the negotiations while there is continued settlement [construction] and we insist on going to the UN Security Council and we wants the world to recognize the state of Palestine.

Al-Jazeera planned this...The selectivity and distortion, alteration, and forgery is apparent in every aspect.

We will reveal all our documents and challenge them to publish them.

A group of lawyers is now considering how to deal with the theft of these documents.

The media machine (referring to Al Jazeera) and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to tarnish our reputation.

If our positions are as they claim, why didn't Israel agree and why we did we not reach an agreement with them?

Al Jazeera calls for a... revolution against the Palestinian Authority to bring down the Palestinian political system.

This region is moving toward a more dangerous situation .. not only in Palestine...there are plans in Washington and elsewhere for this region and this tool (Al Jazeera) has a very large role to play in this direction.

These documents are incitement to murder and assassination, this may lead us to go to what is more than an ordinary court.

What is being done by Al Jazeera is done on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu and Lieberman and Washington as a nasty incitement....

This incitement comes from the administration of Al Jazeera and those who stand behind them. We have lots and lots of documents that will show who is behind this channel .. these documents are not forged, but the truth .. [showing] what is going on between them and the Americans and Israelis.

Et tu, YNet?

I've been showing how Al Jazeera and the Guardian are purposefully misinterpreting the leaked "Palestine Papers" to make Israel look as bad as possible.

Even though they link to the actual memos that prove their distortions, their false spin is what gets into print. And most people dont bother to check the original.

Apparently, "most people" even includes Israeli reporters!

From YNet:

Leaked confidential documents published by Al-Jazeera and the Guardian reveal that during her tenure as Israeli foreign minister in Ehud Olmert's government, Tzipi Livni pressed 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.

Here is the talkback I gave to YNet:

If you actually read the memos, you will see that Livni was asking that villages that straddle the Green Line be unified, one way or the other. She didn't want another Ghajar.

The anti-Israel Guardian and Al Jazeera said she meant "transfer." And now a YNet reporter evidently believed them and didn't bother reading the memo itself and do real reporting.

This could have been a story of anti-Israel distortion in the left-wing media. Instead, it adds to the distortion.

It is very disheartening that an Israeli publication would parrot the lies of those newspapers rather than simply read the memos and see the truth.

Hamas imam: "Please, Allah, kill all the Jews"

Richard Millett watched a new two-hour anti-Israel documentary claiming that Israel targeted children in Gaza. The film is now being shown on college campuses. It included this lovely clip:

Allah is the greatest.

He who thanks Allah will be rewarded.
Oh Allah, loosen your power and strength on the Jews. (Amen.)
Please Allah, kill them all…
And don’t leave any of them alive. (Amen.)
Oh Allah, with your great power. Allah!
We are asking you with your infinite power, dear Allah. Allah!
Please dear Allah, take revenge for our martyrs’ blood. Allah!
Please Allah, get rid of the Jews.
Bring them down.
They are not as powerful as you.
Please Allah, make the earth shake and destroy the pillars of their civilisation.
Please Allah, cast fear and terror into their hearts.
Oh Allah disperse them so they become lost once again.
Oh Allah, show us a sign.
Oh Allah, surprise them in a way they don’t expect.
Oh Allah, cast fear and terror into their hearts.

Wikileaks: Israeli plans to get restitution from Poland, Arab countries

A Wikileaks cable from 2005 discusses German reparations to Israel for the Holocaust:

A GOI working group charged with developing a five-year plan on Holocaust-era reparations, pensions and restitution is considering a recommendation that the GOI ask Germany for about $500 million -- possibly in the form of new German-made submarines -- in compensation for what the GOI says is that portion of the 1953 German-Israeli reparations agreement that had been attributed to East Germany, but never paid.

The end of the cable is intriguing:

Finally, xxxxxxxxxxxx noted that Poland would likely be the next area of focus of the GOI restitution efforts, and that the GOI would work in close coordination with the World
Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO) and the other main survivor and restitution bodies in Israel and abroad. All of the above are in addition to the GOI Ministerial Committee,s continuing research into expanding pursuit of restitution claims for Jewish property and assets from Arab lands.

Peru recognizes "Palestine" - but no mention of borders

Peru has just announced it recognizes "Palestine," but, like Chile, it refused to say that it recognizes the 1949 armistice lines as borders of the state.

After the first set of South American countries made that nonsensical claim, it is significant that the last two steered away from that issue.

UN Sec. General condemns Richard Falk for "truther" statements

From UN Watch:

In reply to UN Watch’s protest, which led to this NY Daily News editorial, we just received the following letter from the U.N., in which — for the first time ever – Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemns U.N. Palestine expert Richard Falk for his denial of the 9/11 terror attacks:
UNITED NATIONS   NATIONS UNIES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL
24 January 2011
Dear Mr. Neuer,
In response to your letter to the Secretary-General dated 20 January 2011 on the subject of a recent blog post by Mr. Richard Falk, the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967:
You are aware, no doubt, that the Special Rapporteurs and other independent experts who represent the Human Rights Council are appointed by the Council, not by the Secretary-General. Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide.
That said, I feel very strongly that these representatives, however eminent they may be in their fields, have a clear responsibility to uphold the high standards of the United Nations and the Council.
You specifically refer to Mr. Falk’s allegations of an “apparent cover-up” related to the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. The Secretary-General condemns these remarks. He has repeatedly stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous — and an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack.
                                                                     Yours sincerely,
                                                                     Vijay Nambiar
                                                                     Chef de Cabinet

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

Al Jazeera writes:

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.