Wednesday, February 25, 2015

  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
I had missed this speech that Ron Dermer gave to an Israel Bonds dinner on January 25, but it is worth saving and reading:

Ladies and Gentlemen,
As purchasers of Israel Bonds, you have been true partners in building Israel.
And in the nearly 67 years of Israel’s independence, we should be grateful for many things.
We should be grateful that we have signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan that have endured decades of challenges.
We should be grateful that Israel has transformed itself from an agriculturally based economy to a global technological power.
We should be grateful that Israel is a world leader in medicine and science, and can boast of a dozen Nobel Prize Winners.
We should be grateful that Israel has world class museums, first rate restaurants, European League Basketball Championships and a country so exciting that Israelis actually have to go to Manhattan to unwind.
But above all else, the birth of the Jewish state should make the Jewish people grateful for three things: First, Israel gave us a voice. Second, Israel provided a refuge. Third, and most important, Israel enabled us to defend ourselves.
Now, everyone can appreciate the significance of having a refuge. For nearly seven decades, Jews fleeing oppression have found a home in Israel. They came from the killing fields of Europe, were driven out of hostile states in North Africa and the Middle East, were rescued from Ethiopia and arrived en masse when the iron curtain fell.
Today, it is the Jewish community of France that is flocking to Israel. Three years ago, 1900 French Jews made Aliyah. Two years ago, 3500 came. Last year, 7,000 came. This year, we expect 15,000 to come.
That’s nearly 3% of the French Jewish community – the equivalent of some 200,000 American Jews moving to Israel in a single year.
French Jews are coming because like Jews elsewhere in Europe, they live with a fear they have not experienced since the 1940s.
Their cemeteries and synagogues are desecrated, their schools are attacked, and their fellow Jews are murdered for being Jews.
For a few decades after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism in Europe was politically incorrect. But time has shown that this proved to be a notable exception rather than a new norm.
Anti-Semitism has once again become as European as Croissants.
And it is not just militant Muslims in Europe, who with their grotesque chants of Gas the Jews, spread the old poison. It also includes many European intellectuals -- only they mask the old hatred of the Jewish people behind a new hatred of the Jewish state.
When Nobel Laureates compare Gaza to Auschwitz, when the Middle East’s only democracy is singled out for boycotts, and when European governments fall over themselves to embrace a Palestinian government which is backed by a genocidal, terror organization, it’s not legitimate criticism of Israel. It’s anti-Semitism.
When 60% of the Human Rights Council’s resolutions are directed against Israel as hundreds of thousands are being butchered in Syria, gays are being hanged from cranes in Tehran, and scores of journalists rot in Turkish prisons, it’s not legitimate criticism of Israel. It’s anti-semitism.
A few weeks ago, the signatories of the Geneva Conventions convened for only the third time in their history to condemn a county - and guess what, all three times they have met was to condemn Israel.
They didn’t meet to condemn the Khmer Rouge for killing two million Cambodians. They didn’t meet to condemn the genocides in Rwanda or in Darfur. They didn’t meet to condemn the giant concentration camp that it called North Korea.
They met to condemn Israel, the most beleaguered democracy on Earth - where there is free speech, freedom of religion, independent courts, genuine elections and where the rights of women, gays and all minorities are protected.
And one more thing: When the International Criminal Court – a court that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust to be a permanent Nuremberg that would ensure that mass murderers are brought to justice – when that court goes after Israel for defending itself against a terror organization that fires thousands of rockets at its cities and uses its own people as human shields, it’s not legitimate criticism of Israel. It’s anti-Semitism.
But amidst all this hatred, and the threats to Jews living in Europe, one thing has changed.
Despite all the concerns regarding the future of French Jewry, one set of questions is not being asked today: Where will the Jews go? Who will take them in? Where can they find refuge?
Those questions are not being asked because Israel is the answer. And I am proud that my Prime Minister made clear to all French Jews that while they have the right to be protected in France, they will be welcomed with open arms in Israel.
And if they decide to come to Israel, they will not be treated as visitors from a foreign land but as family members who have come home.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
If people can appreciate the significance of Israel as a refuge, they can appreciate even more the significance of the Jewish people restoring our capability to defend ourselves.
They appreciate it because they know what happened to our people when we lacked that capability. They know that a defenseless Jewish people was once subjected to calamities of a scope and scale that is unprecedented in the history of nations -- centuries of persecution and blood libels, expulsions and countless massacres, and of course the most horrific calamity of all – the Holocaust.
They appreciate that the simple truth remains that if Israel’s enemies laid down their arms, there would be peace, but if Israel laid down its arms, there would be no Israel.
They appreciate that without the capacity to defend ourselves, Israel would not have survived five wars, two conflicts in Lebanon, 3 conflicts in Gaza, decades of terrorism and tens of thousands of rockets.
And they appreciate that Israel must have the power to defend itself by itself against the enormous threats we face today – from Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, terror organizations in the Sinai and the Golan, and of course from an Iran determined to develop nuclear weapons.
But if people can appreciate having a refuge and having the ability to defend ourselves, few seem to appreciate what it means for the Jewish people to finally have a voice – a sovereign voice that must be reckoned among the nations.
That became clear to me earlier this month in the debate over whether the Prime Minister of Israel should go to France for the solidarity march in Paris.
To me, his trip there was a no-brainer. After all, Israel constantly asks France to stand with us in our battle against terrorism. It’s only natural that Israel should stand with France in its battle against terrorism.
But there were those in Paris and even some in Jerusalem who thought that Israel’s presence there would divert attention from the united message France was trying to deliver against terror and focus it instead on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Now, those who think that what the French are facing in Paris is fundamentally different than what Israel is facing in Jerusalem simply don’t get it.
And it is precisely because of this wrongheadedness that is was imperative for an Israeli Prime Minister to be there.
He had an obligation to explain that Israel’s fight is their fight. He had an obligation to explain that the fanaticism that is driving Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Al Qaeda throughout the Middle East is the same fanaticism that drives people to attack sentries in Ottawa, shoppers in Sydney, and cartoonists in Paris.
And he has an obligation to explain that this fanaticism is the same fanaticism that drives people to fire thousands of rockets from Gaza, stab passengers on a bus in Tel Aviv and hack worshipers to death in a synagogue in Jerusalem.
This fanaticism is not about this or that grievance. It is not driven by the policies of this or that Israeli government. It is bred by Palestinian leaders who glorify terrorists as heroes, name public squares after killers and who through their media and schools poison children with constant incitement toward Jews and Israel.
Ladies and Genetlemen,
In the battle against militant Islam, Israel is the canary in the coal mine.
Israel is an outpost of Western civilization, tolerance andpluralism in a region poisoned by tyrants and terrorists.
You know when we’ll know that what happened in Paris proves more than a powerful photo-op. You know when we’ll know that Europe has truly woken up to the dangers of militant Islam.
When they stop blaming the canary for the poison. When they stop blaming Israel for militant Islam and start standing with Israel against militant Islam.
But for that to happen, to enable Europe to begin to connect the dots – for our sake and theirs - Israel must not be silent. Israel must speak the truth. Fearlessly and unapologetically.
That is why it was so important for the Prime Minister to go to France. That is why it was so important for him to march in Paris and speak out.
And if was important for the Prime Minister to speak out in Paris about anti-Semitism and the threat from militant Islam, it is even more important for him to speak out in Washington DC about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.
The Prime Minister’s visit here is not intended to show any disrespect for President Obama. Israel deeply appreciates the strong support we have received from President Obama in many areas – the enhanced security cooperation, heightened intelligence sharing, generous military assistance and iron dome funding, and opposition to anti-Israel initiatives at the United Nations.
The Prime Minister’s visit is also not intended to wade into your political debate. Israel deeply appreciates the strong bipartisan support we enjoy in the American Congress -- where Democrats and Republicans come together to support Israel -- Just as Israel appreciates the wide and deep support that itenjoys among the American people.
Rather, the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington is intended for one purpose -- and one purpose only. To speak up while there is still time to speak up. To speak up when there is still time to make a difference.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Iran is the world’s most dangerous regime. It has already devoured four Arab capitals – Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Saana in Yemen – and it is hungry for more.
Iran is the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world, perpetrating or ordering attacks in 25 countries on five continents in the last four years alone.
Iran is responsible for the murder of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of Marines in Lebanon. It is responsible for the bombings of US Embassies in Africa and for the twin bombings two decades ago in Argentina.
This reign of terror and violence has all happened without Iran having a nuclear weapon. Now just imagine how much more dangerous Iran will be with nuclear weapons.
And do not think that America is beyond Iran’s reach.
Today, Iran is building ICBMs - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Now only in cartoons do ICBMS carry TNT. In the real world, they carry nuclear payloads.
And those ICBMS that Iran is building are not designed to hit Israel. Iran already has missiles for that.
Those ICBMs are designed to reach Europe and the United States – to reach New York, Washington and Miami.
For Israel, a nuclear armed Iran would be a clear and present danger.
Iran’s regime threatens Israel with destruction. Its leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, recently tweeted - in English - that Israel must be annihilated.
Iran has used Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other proxies to fire thousands of rockets and threaten Israel from Lebanon, Gaza, the Sinai and the Golan Heights.
Iran’s regime is both committed to Israel’s destruction andworking toward Israel’s destruction.
Today, the international community stands at the precipice of forging an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.
The agreement that is being discussed today is not an agreement that would dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, but rather one that could leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state.
That is an agreement that could endanger the very existence of the State of Israel.
Now there may be some people who believe that the Prime Minister of Israel should have declined an invitation to speak before the most powerful parliament in the world on an issue that concerns the future and survival of Israel.
But we have learned from our history that the world becomes a more dangerous place for the Jewish people when the Jewish people are silent.
That is why the Prime Minister feels the deepest moral obligation to appear before the Congress to speak about an existential issue facing the one and only Jewish state.
This is not just the right of the Prime Minister of Israel. It is his most sacred duty -- to do whatever he can to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons that can be aimed at Israel.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
For nearly two thousand years, the Jewish people were a stateless, voiceless, and powerless people. We had no sovereignty, no voice in international affairs, and no capability to defend ourselves.
As storm clouds gathered against us, the Jews often had nowhere to go. They begged others to speak to Kings and Presidents on their behalf. They begged others to raise the alarm so that people of good will might heed their call.
And when those storms finally raged, the Jewish people pleaded with others to protect us, to give us shelter to survive another day.
Are there any survivors here tonight? Please stand up.
You know what it means to live in a world where the Jewish people had no state. You know what it means for the Jewish people to have no one to speak on their behalf.
You know what it meant to live in a world where the Jewish people have no power to defend themselves.
But today is not 1938.
The Jewish people are no longer stateless. We have restored our sovereignty in our ancestral homeland.
The Jewish people are no longer voiceless. Israeli Prime Ministers can address the United Nations and the American Congress, and Israeli Ambassadors can speak up in the world’s capitals and on CNN.
And most important, the Jewish people no longer beg others to defend us. We can defend ourselves.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Jewish people are a people who have survived all the evil that history has thrown at us.
And we will survive the evil that we face today.
But we will not do it by bowing our heads and by hoping that the storm will pass.
We will do it by standing tall and by confronting the storm with faith and courage.
And I have no doubt that as Israel stands tall, you will all be by our side – standing tall, standing proud, standing with Israel.
From Ian:

Michael Lumish: Americans support Israel, but do Democrats?
Needless to say, western journalists did more than their part in the defamation game as Matti Friedman has so nicely illustrated. It is as if they honestly think that Arabs have every right to try to kill Jews and if Jews fight back, this represents a form of aggression.
Meanwhile, of course, the academics – such as the vile SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, of Race and Resistance Studies fame, who advised the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS) during a period when they were holding up signs calling for the murder of “colonizers” – were telling their students that Israel is a racist, imperialist, colonialist, apartheid, militaristic, racist state… despite the fact that it has far-and-away the best human rights record of any country in the entire region.
In any case, an ongoing campaign of defamation against the Jews painted them as modern monsters or the New Nazis and has succeeded in turning progressives and Democrats against one of the most persecuted people in human history… on moral grounds. The Jews of Israel may believe that they are acting in self-defense, but progressive Democrats know that they really act out of racism and white privilege, or Jewish Supremacism, or the shear lust for violence.
And this, ultimately, is why the Democrats have turned against the Jews.
They honestly think that the Jews of the Middle East richly deserve whatever beating they get.
Dexter Van Zile: How Not to Help Palestinians
Moon’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, also admitted (in 2006) that Israel was held to a higher standard than its adversaries. He said that “supporters of Israel feel it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies – and too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.” Bourke’s book otmits all of this, but portrays concerns about the UN’s bias against Israel.
“Pro, pro, pro” activists justify their intense scrutiny of the Israelis by saying that because they are the more powerful party to the conflict, Israelis must be subjected to more intense scrutiny. But if these activists are going to advocate for the creation of a Palestinian state, they have an obligation to determine whether or not the Palestinian people and their leaders will be able to live in peace with Israel once that state is created. Sadly, while there is ample support to indicate that Palestinians cannot live in peace with a Jewish state, Palestinian Christians and Evangelical activists are loath to confront this evidence.
Leaders in both Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip) and the allegedly more moderate Palestnian Authority, which controls the West Bank, routinely broadcast anti-Semitic imagery in the media outlets they control, inciting hostility on the part of their own citizens toward the people with which they need to make peace. To her credit, Bourke acknowledges that Hamas seeks Israel’s destruction, but she makes no reference in her text to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the man who, despite promoting vicious anti-Semitism in Palestinian society, is regarded as a hero by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Christians cannot be pro-peace if they are not pro-truth. Sadly, this is a lesson that activists in the “pro, pro, pro” movement must learn.
A shattered Palestinian society: Interview with Bassem Eid
I had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Eid after his last publication, which is a blog on Times of Israel that received a great deal of attention and that was the most popular blog for four days running.
In this interview, Mr. Eid provides an insider’s view of a Palestinian society that is divided and full of contradictions. Perhaps the biggest contradiction is that while Palestinians are still pursuing violence and revenge against Israel, they also have strong economic and even friendship ties with Israelis, and their culture has become strongly influenced by and integrated with the Israeli culture.
This interview and Mr. Eid’s work in general provide a view of the conflict that is starkly different from much of what is said by either side. It leads to us to realize that no one has ever really worked towards a feasible long-term solution for the Palestinians, not Israel (which is hardly unexpected considering the long-standing Arab hostility towards Israel), not the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), not the UN itself, not the international community, not the so-called pro-Palestinian activists in the West, not the regional powers, and not even the Palestinians’ own politicians and leaders.

  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Last week, I posted about a nice interview by David Ignatius of the Washington Post of Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz where Israeli objections to an Iranian nuclear deal are spelled out in detail. Ignatius admitted that he had no counter-arguments, but he asserted that he still supported the deal.

Now, Ignatius' job was to find any arguments for what he already admitted he would support even if there weren't any.

Sure enough, he found them:

The administration’s response is that the agreement is better than any realistic alternative. Officials argue it would put the Iranian program in a box, with constraints on all the pathways to making a bomb. Perhaps more important, it would provide strict monitoring and allow intrusive inspection of Iranian facilities — not just its centrifuges but its uranium mines, mills and manufacturing facilities. If Iran seeks a covert path to building a bomb, the deal offers the best hope of detecting it.

If the current talks collapsed, all these safeguards would disappear. The Iranians could resume enrichment and other currently prohibited activities. In such a situation, the United States and Israel would face a stark choice over whether to attack Iranian facilities — with no guarantee that such an attack would set Tehran back more than a few years.
The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran about 6,000 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. The Iranians apparently wouldn’t install IR-2s, which operate twice as fast, and they would limit research on future models, up to IR-8s, that are on the drawing board. How these research limits would be monitored and enforced is a key bargaining issue. Another critical variable is the size of the stockpile Iran could maintain; U.S. officials want a very low number, with additional enriched material shipped out of Iran.
One official argues that the United States would be better off with 9,000 IR-1s and a small stockpile than with 1,000 IR-2s and a large stockpile. Netanyahu probably won’t address this issue in his speech to Congress, since he insists the only acceptable number of centrifuges is zero. 
The entire parameters of the talks are being misrepresented as if the US has no alternative between largely accepting Iranian demands or war. Ignatius is ignoring that the sanctions have been having an effect. Iran's Supreme Leader has said that his goal for the negotiations are the removal of sanctions.

It is far from clear that Iran will go full speed ahead with enrichment activities if the sanctions remain in place or are strengthened.

Which brings up the biggest problem with this article - its revelation that the White House has no idea how to negotiate with Iran.

For administration officials to tell the Washington Post that there is no realistic military action (which they have been saying for years anyway) signals to Iran that there is no threat of military action, ever. Moreover, the public break of the White House with Israel over this issue effectively neutralizes the threat of Israeli military action - an unstated threat that could have improved the US negotiating position significantly. In other words, the US has given up on its major disincentive to Iran without getting anything in return, the exact opposite of how negotiations are supposed to be done.

Kerry tells Israel that they cannot criticize the agreement since it hasn't been finalized, but at the same time says that it will not share the details with Israel. What message does that tell Iran?

It tells them that the US trusts Iran more than Israel!

The unnamed officials who are telling Ignatius that this is the best deal possible are simultaneously telling Iran that the US has no stomach to either threaten military action nor to maintain the sanctions.

As far as the substance of the argument, that Iran could go full speed ahead with its nuclear weapons program without oversight, this is a false assumption as well. There are still IAEA inspections and reports that have been consistently pointing out Iranian violations, which affect how Iran acts to an extent. Those reports (or Iran's rejection of any future inspections) can and should trigger serious warnings of more extreme sanctions and of military action.

Beyond that, the reported agreement does nothing to limit Iran's weaponization program - building rockets whose purpose is solely to carry a nuclear payload, for example. Secret Iranian nuclear facilities will remain secret with or without this framework. But with the framework in place, the world will no longer pay attention to Iranian violations; if the US walks away from a bad deal then there would be more effort made in monitoring Iran through espionage and open-source methods.

Ignatius' piece hurts the US in these negotiations. It shows a fatalistic White House that is not serious about truly addressing the Iranian threat. It shows a desperation for a deal, any deal that Iran would agree to. It shows how no amount of logic or facts will sway the White House and its cheerleaders who would rather craft a bad deal than no deal. And it does not seriously address a single one of Israel's substantive points about the dangers of the deal.

That's pretty bad.

(ht David G)

  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory


Check out their Facebook page.


Actually, Most Israelis Want To See Tel Aviv Nuked Also
By the Rest of Israel

The rhetoric surrounding Bibi Netanyahu's scheduled speech to the US Congress about Iran's nuclear program represents just one more little storm obscuring one important detail: most Israelis want Tel Aviv to get nuked.

Let's just be straightforward about it. The place is a moral train wreck with a stifling inferiority complex. It can't make up its mind whether it wants to be European, American, Mediterranean, Levantine, Jewish, secular, or anything else - and no matter which identity it chooses, it can never fully or effectively embrace it. Just nuke the place and spare the rest of the country all the angst and shame. I promise we'll all be better off as a result, radiation poisoning and all. It'll be worth it just to be rid of the awkwardness of having to witness the wannabe.

"The first Jewish city" - well, yeah, technically that's true, in the sense that it was Jews who founded it - specifically to throw away their Jewishness. It's a place that doesn't know who it is, a city that no matter how hard it tries to look like Maurice Chevalier, always ends up more like Woody Allen. We're talking about a place that got itself designated a UNESCO World Heritage site for its plethora of Bauhaus architecture - really? Bauhaus? That's worth preserving? What's next, an award for high levels of air pollution? For the largest number of major thoroughfares likely to experience flooding when it rains? A good post-detonation crater might do wonders for the Ayalon highway's drainage. Then UNESCO can declare that site a work of art and fund its preservation. It would actually be an upgrade in artistic sensibility.

It would be bad enough if the place weren't so hoity-toity about pretending to be something it's not. Listen, the fact that you're the only city in the Eastern Mediterranean that hosts a Gay Pride Parade does not automatically turn you into San Francisco. Except for the part where the rest of us are kind of waiting to see whether an earthquake will strike you.

All of Tel Aviv's attempts to be like New York - a financial district, a world-renowned philharmonic, you know the drill - have managed to make the city resemble the Big Apple in one respect: everybody else hates and resents the place. Congratulations.

Remember how, after 9/11, all of the US suddenly loved New York? How, after Hurricane Sandy, the hate and resentment seemed to subside? Therein lies the key to getting the remainder of Israel to feel something positive for Tel Aviv: destroy the place.

Come on, Khamenei. We're counting on you.
From Ian:

The US has been Committed to Land for Peace since 1948
As a result of the war, 550,000 Arabs fled the land between the river and the sea. The US and the Arabs were determined to reverse this exodus.
GA Res 194 was passed in Dec ’48. It is today quoted as the basis for the “right of return”.
Israel has usually contested this reading, pointing out that the text merely states that the refugees “should be permitted” to return to their homes at the “earliest practicable date” and this recommendation applies only to those “wishing to… live at peace with their neighbors”. Besides it was a General Assembly resolution and they aren’t binding.
The Arab League has instructed its members to deny citizenship to Palestinian Arab refugees (or their descendants) “to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland.”
The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps.
Even after the Oslo Accords, in the 'West Bank' and Gaza under full jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, the refugees continued to be confined to camps — despite the millions of UNWRA and international relief dollars which poured into PA coffers specifically for this purpose.
Two years after UNGA Res. 194, the GA passed Resolution 393 (Dec. 1950). Article 4 states that “the reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near east, either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the region.” It also called for the creation of a “reintegration fund” in Article 5.
But this resolution would undermine the “right of return” so no one talks about it.
Does Mahmoud Abbas want his legacy to be the third intifada?
If you were President Abbas and you knew that you couldn’t bring peace to your people, would you want to be remembered as the impotent corrupt leader of the PA, or would you erase your past and become known as the leader of the glorious third intifada? All of this may be moot as the Palestinian Authority may not be able to dictate events. As the Jerusalem Post reported: “The army has told the government that at any given moment the Palestinian Authority can collapse...
In one of the scenarios that the IDF presented, a small localized security incident, like an altercation between settlers and Palestinians, or the throwing of a Molotov cocktail could quickly escalate to rioting in the Galilee and the Triangle area. With the weakened Palestinian Authority a situation like this is liable to lead to terrorist organizations taking control of the West Bank.”
What should America do? Understand that the chaos of the Middle East and the weakness of the PA make this an inopportune time for final status negotiations.
America’s goal should be to convince Abbas not to start a third intifada and to help the Palestinians build the foundations of a future democracy, with rule of law, tolerance, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.
In short, America should lead conflict management, not impose solutions where none exist.
EU, Qatar and Turkey
Meanwhile, Qatar's TV channel, Al-Jazeera, regularly incites terrorism against Egyptian President el-Sisi's pro-Western regime. El-Sisi's heroic pro-Western stance is apparently unreciprocated: the U.S. State Department just hosted an official meeting for his arch-enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, father of Hamas, while Al Jazeera -- in Arabic -- encourages terrorist attacks in Egypt and Sinai Peninsula by the Muslim Brotherhood, and preaches the destruction of Israel, non-stop.
It was Al-Jazeera that created the "Arab Spring" by twisting a story about a Tunisian fruit-seller, who set himself on fire because he could not get a work permit, into a story of Tunisian oppression. The station ran the story again and again, whipping up Tunisians to overthrow their secular leaders and bring in Islamist leaders. To the Tunisians' credit, like the Egyptians, after a few years of Islamist rule, they also threw the Islamist leaders out.
Recently, Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting a "documentary" series glorifying Hamas and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, its military-terrorist wing. The entire series is devoted to idealizing Islamist terrorism and encouraging mass-casualty terrorist attacks against Jews, in the name of radical Islamist ideology.
One of the stars of the series is the Palestinian arch-terrorist, Abd al-Karim al-Hanini, who was released from prison in Israel and found a safe haven in Qatar. He explains how to construct explosives from agricultural substances, such as chemical fertilizer and sulfur; how to fill an empty gas balloon with the explosives, and how to detonate the bomb mechanically, electronically or with a suicide-bomber (shaheed), in order to kill as many Israelis as possible.
Al-Hanini boasts about his terrorist activities killing Israeli civilians and soldiers, and details tactics that mujahideen will use in their jihadi "inner struggles," and presumably also their outer ones. These tactics can be used as blueprints by future terrorists. The series can easily be viewed by all intelligence agencies in the world, but so far no one has tried to prevent it from being broadcast -- or has even criticized Qatar for broadcasting it.
No one has even tried to prevent Qatar's participation in a global anti-terrorism forum.

  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
A few weeks ago I counted the number of times various countries were mentioned in HRW's annual report, and showed how ridiculously skewed it was against Israel, placing it only behind Syria as worth the most mentions in a report on human rights.

Now it is Amnesty's turn, and they do the exact same thing:


Yes, anti-Israel sentiment among "human rights" organizations is obsessive.

The report mentions antisemitism and "Islamophobia" once each. Nothing about antisemitism in Muslim or Arab countries.
  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From the "State of Palestine Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2014" (done jointly by UNICEF, the PA and the UNFPA) we see that there are many child marriages in the territories:


91.5% of PalArab kids experienced psychological aggression or physical punishment during the last one month  in the survey.



And how terrible is life under "occupation"?

Stunting in children is about 7%, much lower than almost every Arab country. 95% of households have satellite dishes (94% in Gaza.) 99.9% of houses have electricity, finished roofs and finished floors.

The real problems in the territories get swept under the rug because of the world's obsession with Israel. If people loved Palestinians as much as they pretend, then issues like these would be in the forefront, and not buried in reports that no journalist would ever bother to read.

(h/t Irene)



  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
A couple of days ago, posters appeared at a few university campuses including UCLA:


(It was later revealed that the David Horowitz Freedom Center was behind them.)

SJP has thrown its support behind terrorists like Rasmea Odeh. It has intimidated Jews and Zionists on campuses throughout North America.  Also, as Frontpage notes:
UCLA SJP has hosted Amir Abdel Malik who once brandished a check made out to Hamas, Palestine and called for an anti-Semitic backlash.

It hosted Hatem Bazian, SJP’s co-founder, who raised money for Hamas and trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It hosted Alison Weir who claimed that medieval Jews drank blood. It hosted Taher Herzallah who wrote that “Hamas’ rockets are an oppressed people’s audible cry for help.”

And that was just one year.
The epithet "#JewHaters" does not seem to be far off the mark, since they support antisemites.

But look at how UCLA's SJP reacted:
These posters are a clear example of hate speech directed against Students for Justice in Palestine, as well as supporters of Palestinian freedom and equality. They rely on Islamophobic and anti-Arab tropes to paint Palestinians as terrorists and to misrepresent Students for Justice in Palestine as anti-Semitic. It hardly bears repeating that SJP at UCLA is an organization that prides itself on its opposition to all forms of racism and bigotry, and which is open to and promotes the membership of students from all walks of life. As organizers, we are concerned that these acts are an attempt to delegitimize and slander the work that we have done to pass divestment on our campus. Furthermore, defacing school property and intimidating a specific group of students creates a deeply harmful environment that prevents student learning and community-building. Coupled with the recent uprise in Islamophobia on a national scale, we are concerned for the safety of our fellow students and student organizers.
The people who place fake "eviction notices" on dorms with large Jewish populations are complaining that they are being intimidated! The people who stage checkpoints and die-ins on campus are worried about the "harmful environment" that comes about from putting up posters that point out who they support!

Most of all, they are saying that calling out their affinity with Jew-haters is hate speech!

What a joke.


  • Wednesday, February 25, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon




Tuesday, February 24, 2015

  • Tuesday, February 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
My latest email from J-Street includes this graphic:


How patriotic to want to stand by your president!

But when George Bush was president, J-Street didn't have quite the same patriotic impulses:

George Bush heads to Israel this week for Israel’s 60th birthday bash. And what’s the gift he’s bringing?

More of the same weak leadership and failed policies that have made America, Israel, and the Middle East less safe. Is that the kind of present you bring to a friend’s 60th birthday party? We don’t think so.

Thankfully, Bush is on his way out, and soon a new President will be able to chart a new course for America in the Middle East.
No photos of Bush with the American flag behind him. I wonder why?

Then again, since J-Street has no respect for leaders that Israeli voters choose, why should they have respect for any democratically elected leader? No, J-Street transcends democracy, to even higher ideals: Jeremy Ben Ami-ism.
From Ian:


Zoabi relative, despite threats, makes the decision to join the IDF
Mohammad Zoabi, the Muslim Israeli Arab who has repeatedly come out in support of Israel and has advocated for his fellow Israeli Arabs to do national service, will be joining the IDF soon, according to his personal Facebook page.
Zoabi, a cousin of anti-Zionist Arab Knesset member Hanin Zoabi, just finished "Gadna", the week-long program where future soldiers are given a taste of life in the field.
"Today i feel proud. Proud to be Israeli...proud that i was able to survive a week of living in an army base in the middle of nowhere."
Zoabi relayed some of his experiences via social media, describing some of the joys that "Gadna" entails.
"It was, indeed a difficult week. Sleeping with more than 14 people in the same room, eat army food and worse was, seeing gigantic bugs that i have never believed they existed in a small country like ours."
Mondoweiss and the “Antisemitism Strawman”
I know that Weiss basically thinks I’m a Palestinian baby killer. I know that he and his friends probably think I’m chomping at the bits, waiting for the next war so we can finally demolish Gaza (spoiler alert: I’m not). He blames me for living in a country that isn’t mine to live in. He blames me for enabling an apartheid government, which is insulting to those who actually lived through apartheid.
Guess what else he blames me and my country for?
The rise in attacks against Jews. Yes, ladies, gentlemen and others. Antisemitism is not at play, just like, if Obama is to be believed, radical Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. Jews the world over aren’t being targeted because of their Jewy goodness but because they somehow represent an extension of Israel and her policies.
That is like saying a woman’s rape in Iran is unrelated to mysogyny and in fact has everything to do with women in New York dressing provocatively. The wrongness of this sentence is layered, like an onion. First, it finds fault in a tangentially related group. Secondly, and more importantly, it insidiously implies that a man is justified in committing rape if the female in question is scantily clad.
 Prosor at UNSC: "And the Oscar goes to...."
“If the Oscars for Maintenance of International Peace and Security were given at the UN, I would not be surprised if these candidates were awarded a prize:
In the Best Actor Category – for acting like a peace loving country while developing nuclear capabilities, denying the Holocaust, and threatening the destruction of another member state… the Oscar goes to Iran.
In the category for Best Supporting Actor – for its unrelenting support to the Assad Regime in killing hundreds of thousands civilians… the Oscar goes to Hezbollah.
In the category for Best Visual Effects – for making women disappear from the public sphere, the Oscar goes to… surprise surprise… Saudi Arabia. No competition there.
And finally, for rewriting history, the Oscar for Best Editing goes to… the Palestinian Authority. But the truth is – the Palestinian Authority already received enough prizes from this institution.”
Watch an excerpt of Ambassador Prosor’s speech at a Security Council Session devoted to maintaining international peace and security, marking the UN’s 70th anniversary (h/t Bob Knot)


  • Tuesday, February 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
I'm trying to wrap my head around this TOI report:
The ongoing dispute between the White House and the Prime Minister’s Office over how to tackle Iran’s nuclear program is preventing the two countries from discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal, a source close to Obama Administration told Israel’s Channel 2 Tuesday.

A source in the White House told Israel’s Channel 2 that those tensions could harm the ability of the US to ensure Israel’s security as part of any nuclear deal.

“The dispute with Netanyahu prevents all possibility for discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal,” the source was quoted saying.
Why is that, exactly? Is there such a diplomatic bottleneck that only a single person with limited time can work on both issues?

Once again, this sounds more like how third grade bullies act than world leaders.

Not that I know what "security guarantees" could mean. Does it mean more Patriot batteries? F-35s? Those don't "guarantee" anything if Iran decides to smuggle in a suitcase nuke through a ship to Tel Aviv.

The only guarantee that makes any sense is one where Iran cannot possibly acquire a nuclear weapon, no matter what. And no one is claiming that this is the deal that is being negotiated.

But Iran is being rewarded for treating the US like a trained monkey during years of negotiations - and Israel is being punished for pointing it out.
  • Tuesday, February 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
The PFLP isn't happy:
The appointment of Nikolay Mladenov as United Nations envoy to the so-called “Middle East peace process” is the antithesis of any effort to lead to real peace with justice in the region, said Comrade Kayed al-Ghoul, member of the Political Bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mladenov is known for his statements in support of the Zionist state and justification of its crimes against the Palestinian people since he was foreign minister of Bulgaria.

Palestinian Arabs aren't happy:
The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation) did not object to the appointment of new UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process Nikolay Mladenov, although he was described by Tayseer Khaled, a member of the PLO’s Executive Committee, as “persona non grata” — not trusted by the Palestinians and not qualified for the job.

Although protocol allows the PLO the right to reject diplomatic representatives to the organisation, observers cannot understand why it accepted Mladenov. There is no convincing answer except a futile desire by the PLO to appease the UN and Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, at a time when PA diplomatic efforts are focused on the UN and its agencies.

Mladenov not only failed in a similar mission as UN envoy to Iraq and resigned, he is someone who describes himself — and is described by the leaders of the Israeli occupation — as “a good friend of Israel”. As Bulgarian foreign minister, Mladenov suggested a “military alliance” between Bulgaria and Israel. He has often spoken about his bias towards “Israel’s right to exist” and its right “to defend itself” against Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation. He even admitted to being a Free Mason, served Jewish billionaire George Soros, and publicly advocated the US’s “constructive chaos” policies in the Arab world. In fact, his Jewish origins may be the least controversial aspect of him.
I don't know about whether Mladenov has Jewish ancestry or is a "Free Mason." It is amusing that his saying that Israel has a right to exist, and the right to defend itself, is considered to be "bias."

But, astonishingly enough, he is a reasonable person who really was unanimously chosen by a UN body to act as envoy and as representative to the Quartet.

He spoke at the 2013 Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism in 2013. In this video you can see how normal Mladenov is, and you can understand why Palestinian Arabs hate him. (Yes, it is worth watching the whole thing.)



(h/t Irene for correction)
From Ian:

Latma: We'll be the Judge, episode 3
The third episode of the Israeli satire program "We'll be the Judge," from the creators of Latma's Tribal Update, Israel Channel 1, February 19, 2015.


Phyllis Chesler: Justice for Jews
Jews are commanded to pursue justice—true justice.
“The wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceeding fine”—so said Euripides as did Sun Tzu (“The wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine”) and Longfellow (“The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small”).
When it comes to justice for Jews, we have often received precious little or been forced to wait for thousands of years for it.
Now, a stunning moment is upon us. After a decade of litigation, and after a seven week civil trial in a Manhattan federal court, a jury has found that the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) are liable for the deaths and injuries of ten American families plus the estates of four victims. These attacks took place on an Israeli street, at a crowded Israeli bus stop, inside an Israeli bus, and in a cafeteria at Hebrew University.
This decision, which of course can be appealed, nevertheless makes it crystal clear that the PLO and the PA are not “moderate,” “peaceful” groups but are, in fact, terrorist entities, just like Hamas and Hezbollah.
The 11 families at the heart of the landmark PA terror trial
The families on Monday were awarded $218.5 million in damages, which may be tripled under the US Anti-Terrorism Act. The PA and PLO have vowed to appeal the verdict, which incriminated them in the terror attacks in and around Jerusalem between 2001-2004.
While none of the families of the victims or survivors were present in the courtroom on Monday as the decision was announced, their attorneys were hailed the “historic” verdict.
The Israel Law Center’s Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, who was involved in the case, said that while the verdict would not bring the defendants’ relatives back, it “is an important measure of justice and closure for them after their long years of tragic suffering and pain.”
Here are the stories of the 11 families behind the landmark trial:

  • Tuesday, February 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ma'an reports on the latest innocent teenage "martyr:"
Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian teenager during a predawn arrest raid in Bethlehem's Duheisha refugee camp, locals and medics said.

Jihad Shehada al-Jaafari, 19, was shot under his left shoulder while standing on the roof of his family home near the main road by the camp, witnesses said.

He was hit by a bullet after Israeli forces opened fire in the densely-populated refugee camp following clashes with locals during an arrest raid.

An Israeli soldier was struck by a Molotov cocktail during the clashes and sustained burns.
He was just standing on the roof, minding his own business!

Ma'an doesn't mention that Jaafari was hurling firebombs at the IDF from the roof and was the leader of the riot.

But just in case you think that he was really an innocent, peaceful bystander, here's the photo of him from the Fatah Facebook page (where they say he was 20):


They already made a "martyr poster" for him:



  • Tuesday, February 24, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From New York City Council member David G. Greenfield:








You see, the US officials are very, very sensitive to the feelings of Palestinian Arabs. The sight of a Jew wearing a yarmulka is offensive, and we must bend over backwards to avoid offending our friends who burn American flags and blow up American diplomats.

Offending Jews, of course, is acceptable and entirely appropriate. Because they don't burn American flags or murder American diplomats. As friends, Jews should understand how they should avoid anything that might stoke Arab antisemtism (sorry, "anti-Zionism"), like wearing a yarmulka or praying.

Or living.

(h/t Adam Levick)


The PA and Hamas might disagree on everything, and insult each other regularly, but if a Hamas agency declares that Israel is opening up dams without evidence, then by Allah the PA is going to believe them!

The Palestinian foreign ministry condemned on Monday Israel’s act of pumping large amounts of rainwater into the Gaza Strip, which flooded dozens of homes and caused injuries among Palestinians.

On February 21, the Israeli army opened the floodgates of a canal leading to central Gaza, which resulted in the removal of sand mounds along the border with Israel, said Gaza's Civil Defense Directorate said in a statement.

Civil Defense said about 50 homes sank in the floods, while a number of local residents in eastern Gaza areas were reported injured. There were also reports of deaths of livestock and poultry.

The ministry considered this Israeli action as ‘arbitrary’ and a continuation of Israel’s aggression against the people of Gaza, stressing that this action is a crime against humanity and in violation of all norms and standards.

It expressed surprise at the international community’s silence over this ‘crime’, demanding a prompt move to stop the Israeli siege imposed on the strip, to provide the people of Gaza with the necessary protection, and to prosecute the perpetrators at international courts.
I have a fantasy that in some back rooms at the UN, when the PLO representative starts babbling bizarre accusations to real diplomats, they just tell him to shut the hell up.

Meanwhile, the list of people who are willing to repeat the lie about Israel opening nonexistent dams grows to include fifth-rate academic Juan Cole and Human Rights Watch's Sarah Leah Whitson.

In a sane world, the list of people and news organizations that repeated this lie would instantly lose all credibility. Too bad we live in an insane world.

(h/t Judge Dan)

Monday, February 23, 2015

From Ian:

NY court: PLO, PA to blame for terror attacks a decade ago
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority were the catalysts for a series of terrorist attacks in the early 2000s in Israel that killed or wounded several Americans, a US jury found Monday at a high-stakes civil trial.
In finding the Palestinian authorities liable in the attacks, jurors awarded the victims $218.5 million in damages for the bloodshed. The US Anti-Terrorism Act could allow for that to be tripled.
The case in Manhattan and another in Brooklyn have been viewed as the most notable attempts by American victims of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to use US courts to seek damages that could reach into the billions of dollars. (h/t Bob Knot)
Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Legal Founding
When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, it was done so with the approval of the United Nations. But today, Israel's enemies routinely challenge the legitimacy of its very existence. So, under international law, who's right? Israel? Or its enemies?


Gallup: Americans still love Israel, a lot
In the various speeches I’ve given since the summer Gaza conflict, I’ve predicted that the conflict would not move the public opinion needle much, if at all. That, despite snap surveys over the summer which suggested potential weakening of support.
I also point out that some college campuses are anti-Israel bubbles, not reflective of the nation as a whole. Left-wing anti-Israel faculty in particular are isolated from the public on Israel, as they are on so many other things.
Gallup just released its annual survey of opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Except for a very recent drop in Democrat support, presumably because of the dispute over Bibi Netanyahu’s appearance Congress, American support for Israel is as strong as ever.
There is only one point of weakness, and it is very recent. Democrats have moved away from Israel since the last survey, but support among Democrats traditionally has been weaker, as the chart shows.
Could the world be jealous of Israel's growth?
Only few people know what a leap Israel made in its gross national product (GNP) per capita in the past decade and that it now tops the list of European countries.
While the GNP was $15,600 in 2003, according to figures presented by the economist, it jumped to $40,620 per capita by December 2014, while the overall product jumped from $104 billion to $300 billion during that period.
The numbers per capita could have been even higher, except Israel has the highest birthrate in the West – more than three children per mother, following the Jewish demographic leap in the past decade, which has led to the blessed population explosion in Israel's kindergartens.
And where do we stand compared to the world? In Britain, for example, the GNP per capita reached almost $50,000 in 2008, while in Israel it was about half that number. Today, the Brits are only slightly ahead of us with $44,330. France and Germany (yes, the country from the pudding protest) are slightly ahead of us as well with $43,500 and $47,350, respectively. Behind us are countries like Italy, and Spain and Greece of course. In addition, for the first time this year Israel's GNP passed Japan's, which stands at $39,140.
This leap completely disconnects Israel from our region, with GNP figures standing at $3,700 in Egypt, $4,870 in Jordan and $6,070 in Iran. The only country in the Middle East with better numbers is Saudi Arabia - $26,510. But the Saudi celebration has also come to an end with the collapsing oil prices. Lebanon, meanwhile, is failing to pass the $10,000 threshold.

  • Monday, February 23, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Continuing on our month of Adar theme of jokes about Jews in the 19th century, here's one from 1859:

Not long ago, in one of the obscure streets of a city not far from our own, a son of the Emerald Isle by birth, and a son of the sea by trade, was on his bed to die. The priest had been sent for, and was ready to administer the last rites of the Church to the dying seaman so soon as he should confess his sins. But Patrick had none of that kind of thing to boast of; indeed he said that, to the best of his recollection, he had no sins to confess at all, at all. He had been a sailor, he said, and had done his duty—swearing a little, and drinking his grog as well as the next man ; but he had always come to time in a fight, and was never licked in his life, so that, for his part, he did not believe he had any thing on his mind to be sorry for; and so, please your riverence, let me off easy, and if you can’t let me off easy, let me off as easy as you can.”

“ Bethink thee again, my son,” said the priest. “ Has no man ever lost his life, and perhaps his soul, from thy hand? Be honest now, for death is at the door.”

“ Your riverence is right,” groaned the poor fellow; “ I did once convert a Jew, but I had forgotten it.”

“ Convert a Jew! and sure, Pat, there was no sin in that. But how did you manage the matter, pray! "

“ Well, your riverence must let me tell the story in my own way. I was setting him ashore in the ship’s boat—me and Pete Mullins were—and we got to disputationing like about our religion, for he thought we were no better than pagans, and I knew he was worse, for I had seen the hathun niggers and Indians at home, and they ain’t half as bad as Jews, and I told him so. He got very wrothy like, and when he laped up to give me a clip, the boat went over onto one side, and over he went into the sea. As he came up I caught him by the hair of his head, and it came to me all at once that it would be a good time to convert him; and so says I, as I drew his head out of the water,

“ ‘ Honey dear—for I thought I would spake kindly to him—‘ honey dear, do you believe in the Holy Catholic Church?’ . “‘ Not a bit of it!“ said he, as he cleared his mouth of the sea-water, and so I settled him down into it again. Once more I brought his chin to the top of the brine, and asked him tinderly,
“ ‘ Do you believe in the Holy Catholic Church now?’

“‘I don‘t think I do,‘ he said, but not so decidedly as before, and I ducked him again; and now for the third time I raised him, and said,
"' ‘ Do you believe in the Holy Catholic Church now?’

“His voice was almost gone, but I heard him distinctly but feebly answer, ‘ Yes,I do;’ and so, as these fellows, and especially the Jews, give up their religion so easy after they get it,I thought I would make him sure for the kingdom of heaven, and so I let him go. He never came up, and I hope to meet him in Paradise. That, your riverence, is the way I converted a Jew, and sometimes I feel as if I ought to have taken him into the boat, and let him take his chance of getting into the kingdom.”

The holy father admonished Pat that he did very wrong to let the Jew go to the bottom, and the poor fellow said he was very much of the priest’s opinion. So he repented him sorely of his converting the Jew, received absolution according to the rites of his Church, and in a few minutes breathed his last.
  • Monday, February 23, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon

From Ian:

Michael Lumish: Why is Obama so Afraid of Benjamin Netanyahu?
One has to wonder how it is that Barack Obama, a man who was once president of the Harvard Law Review, could be so afraid of spreading the idea that Iran should not be allowed to gain nuclear weaponry? That is pretty much all Netanyahu is likely to say, after all. Nothing that the man is likely to say to Congress will be earth-shattering or new.
If I am right – and I suspect that I am – all we are going to hear from Netanyahu are reasons why a nuclear-armed Iran is a terrible idea, not the least which reason is that it will lead to Middle Eastern arms race with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to mention Turkey and perhaps even Jordan, scrambling to gain their own nuclear weapons.
Obama is manufacturing hatred toward both Benjamin Netanyahu and the Jewish State of Israel, and thereby Jews more generally, merely because Netanyahu is going to plea to the American people to support Israel in preventing Iranian nuclear break-out capacity.
If Obama believes otherwise, he should allow Netanyahu to speak and then clearly tell the American public just how it is the Netanyahu is mistaken.
If the president of the United States cannot even bring himself to refute such an argument, then how can we possibly trust him to refute Iranian nuclear potential?
Finally, for Barack Obama to snub Netanyahu on the grounds that meeting so close to the Israeli election would amount to interfering with that election is the very height of hypocrisy. Everyone who follows Israel knows that the Obama administration has sent a team into Israel for the purpose of unseating the despised Netanyahu in favor of a US puppet like Herzog or Livni.
Obama likes his Jews soft and malleable.
Is the Era of Euphemism in Washington beginning to end?
Euphemism: The act or example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt or offensive. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992.)
In years to come we may look back on the past week as the beginning of the end of an era of euphemism in American political history. It may be ending because the gap between the language of the government of the United States and the reality of Islamist inspired terror and barbarism has become an abyss. For two decades, various academics and political figures have warned us against committing the sins of Orientalism and then Islamophobia. Yet now millions of people see with their own eyes on television and computer screens that the sins of our error are being committed in the name of a fanaticism born of Islamist ideology. This fact is now so obvious that denying it leads officials into embarrassing linguistic acrobatics that finally make them objects of ridicule. Simply put, the past strategies of avoidance and deflection have ceased to convince because they are being contradicted by facts available to millions.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, two American Presidents, but especially our current one, have spoken a language of euphemism concerning the ideology inspiring the major terrorist organizations and states of our era. They have substituted mild, indirect or vague terms to refer to the causes of global terrorism in place of others considered harsh, blunt or offensive. Those terms held to be offensive and thus taboo in government statements include “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Islamic fundamentalism,” or other such terms that connect interpretation of the religion of Islam to the practice of terrorism. Those who used such terms were held to be either “Islamophobic” or simply politically harmful because doing so was bound to offend over a billion Muslims and thus undermine Western counterterrorism efforts. As a result two famous euphemisms continue to shape the public stance of the United States government.
In the Bush years, the term of art was “the war on terror,” which suggested we were, absurdly, at war with a tactic. In the Obama era, the acceptable term has been a fight against unspecified sources of “violent extremism.”
'Do not hesitate': Terror group calls for 'Westgate-style' attacks on Westfield shopping centres in chilling new threat from militants behind bloody Kenya siege
An al-Qaeda linked terror group has issued a chilling propaganda video threatening Western shopping centres and singling out 'Jewish owned' Westfield malls as targets.
In a 76-minute long message issued overnight, a masked militant purportedly from the al-Shabaab organisation encouraged Islamic fundamentalists to strike at shopping centres around the world.
Dressed in military fatigues, the spokesman named complexes owned by Frank Lowy's Australian group as among potential targets, dwelling on two Westfield malls in East and West London.
'If just a handful of mujahideen fighters could bring Kenya to a complete stand-still for nearly a week, just imagine what the dedicated mujahideen could do in the West to American or Jewish shopping centres across the world,' he said.
‘What if such an attack on the Mall of America in Minnesota or the West Edmonton mall in Canada or in London’s Oxford Street. Or any of the hundred or so of the Jewish owned Westfield shopping centres.
‘Take the Westfield shopping centre in (London's) Stratford or White City for example, what would be the implications of such an attack, one can only imagine.
‘All it takes is a man with firm determination, of which our Muslim ummah (community) has plenty of.
‘So hurry up and hasten to Heaven and do not hesitate.'

  • Monday, February 23, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Last year I noted a couple of times that newspapers in the Arab world would have occasional articles describing the negative qualities of the Jews described in the Quran. (Often the articles are illustrated with this picture.)

One of those articles has been published this past weekend in newspapers in Egypt and Morocco.

This is a recurring theme. In Arabic media, antisemitism is not only mainstream, but widely accepted to be mandated by the Quran. And the West refuses to pay any attention to this (except for rare occasions.)

Here is an English synopsis of a Gaza university research paper on this topic

Jewish recipes as portrayed by the Koran - an objective study of graphic
Abstract: Quran highlighted the many characteristics of the Jews in order to warn the world of them and especially the Arab world and Muslim peoples and leaders, and the research will be remembered most important of these qualities that have had a negative impact on the formation of ideology and mentality, the thought of the Jews perverted, it is these qualities disbelief in Allah and His signs, deception, and hardening of the heart, cunning, and cunning, treachery, betrayal and bloodshed love of this world and hatred of death and eating people's wealth unlawfully, those qualities that are reflected on the behavior of individuals and groups, making them commit the crime of crimes, what on earth who has not committed, because these people do not know the meaning of humanity, so this research to reveal those qualities and those evil intentions and reveal their risk the entire world and especially the Islamic world and the Arab world and to take heed of these and reconsider. 
Nah, not newsworthy.

Yesterday, I pointed out a false Ma'an story claiming that Israel deliberately opened up "dams" to flood Gaza with excess rainwater. As I pointed out, there are no dams near Gaza; there are some reservoirs but no evidence that they released any water.

This is one of those obvious lies that start getting believed by being repeated year after year, and even AFP ended up reporting that Israel opened up dams without doing a modicum of fact checking. ("Journalist" Max Blumenthal repeated the lie as well, as did Radio France International.)

Today, the claims were proven to be lies, as CAMERA reports:

Regarding the claim that Israel opened dams, thereby flooding Gaza, a spokesman for the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) told CAMERA:
The claim is entirely false, and southern Israel does not have any dams. Due to the recent rain, streams were flooded throughout the region with no connection to actions taken by the State of Israel.

Prior to the storm, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories allowed the transfer of four water pumps belonging to the Palestinian Water Authority from Israel into Gaza to supplement the 13 pumps already in the Gaza Strip in dealing with any potential flooding throughout the area.
In addition, Nechemia Shahaf, the head of the Drainage Authority for the Shakma-Besor Region, confirmed to CAMERA that there are no dams which can be opened and closed in southern Israel. Shahaf said, "There is a diverting dam one meter high which directs water to reservoirs. This is a low dam which cannot be opened or closed." He also noted that the singular dam, which cannot be opened, is next to Kibbutz Gvulot, and approximately 20 kilometers away from Gaza.
But that was only one of the false stories claiming that Israel floods Palestinians.

IMEMC and Palestine News Network claimed that somehow Israel managed to flood a "refugee" camp by opening "barrages":
Aida refugee camp north Bethlehem city has drowned after Gilo Israeli settlement opened its barrages, throwing all excess rain and melted snow water onto the camp.

Aida camp is adjacent to the Israeli apartheid wall, which is backed by the Gilo settlement northwest, that opened the barrages to flood the homes of refugees.

The head of water pumps in the camp, Sami Hmedan, said that Israeli occupation authorities opens the barrage water with disregard to the Palestinians and without any official concerns.
Gilo as seen from Aida. Where are the "barrages"?
The only "barrage" between Gilo and Aida is the security barrier. If anything, that protected Aida from excessive flooding.

Or are they saying that those devious Israelis removed the "apartheid wall" to flood Arabs and then quickly put it back?

Who knows what crazy slander they will come up with next. But we do know that a percentage of those lies will end up in AFP and other mainstream media, because if there is something that Palestinian Arabs have learned over the years, it is that repeating their lies gets results.

(h/t Gidon Shaviv, Judge Dan, Bob Knot, Nurit Baytch, Rudi Roth)

  • Monday, February 23, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Colonel Richard Kemp's blog:

This submission to the UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict is based on observations on the ground during the conflict, 29 years’ military experience of conflicts of this type, intelligence work relating to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, knowledge of the IDF and Israeli intelligence services, study of the Israel-Palestine conflict and observations on the ground during the 2012 Gaza conflict. I should add that I have no formal, paid or unpaid, connection with the IDF or with any other organ of the Israeli government.

In my opinion the actions taken by the IDF were necessary to defend the people of Israel from the ongoing, intensive and lethal attacks by Hamas and other groups in Gaza. It is the inalienable duty of every government to use its armed forces to protect its citizens and its terrain from external attack.

...If, as I am asserting, it was necessary for Israel to conduct military action to defend its people against attack from Gaza; and if, as I am also asserting, the IDF conducted, in general terms, the most appropriate form of operations, namely precision air and artillery strikes against the command and control infrastructure and the missile launching infrastructure, and a limited ground incursion to locate and destroy the tunnels; the question then arises as to how these operations were conducted in relation to the Laws of Armed Conflict.

Much of the Hamas military infrastructure was located amongst the civilian population in Gaza. In these circumstances, neutralizing the threat from Hamas made civilian casualties unavoidable. Under the Laws of Armed Conflict this fact does not render such operations illegal assuming they were necessary. However the IDF had a duty to distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilians and to ensure that operations were conducted in accordance with the principle of proportionality as well as necessity.

It is worth emphasizing that proportionality is not, as often believed by critics of Israel, a relationship between the numbers of casualties on either side in a conflict, but a calculation that considers whether the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated in an attack.

From my own research as well as briefings from and discussions with Israeli legal, military and political leaders, I understand and know well the ethos and operating principles of the IDF and I know that their commanders place great emphasis on adherence to the laws of armed conflict. This includes the principle of proportionality, which is set out in Israel’s manual of military law and is recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

...I have frequently questioned senior and junior IDF personnel on these issues and I have found that communication of these directions is effective. In my experience the most junior soldiers in the IDF understand them and the imperative of adhering to them in conflict.

I questioned Israeli commanders and soldiers on the ground on their actions in combat on the Gaza border immediately before and immediately after they were fighting in Gaza and during ceasefire periods. I spoke to soldiers from infantry, tank, artillery and engineer forces.

Many of them expressed frustration at the restrictions imposed upon them by the rules of engagement, in the same way as British, US and other Western soldiers express such frustration. This was generally explained to me as frustration due to the additional risks imposed on their own lives and the lives of their fellow soldiers and also on the reduction in effectiveness against an enemy brought about by adherence to the highly restrictive IDF rules of engagement. The latter relates to restrictions that I was told frequently allowed enemy fighters to escape rather than take the risk that innocent civilians might be killed.

Nevertheless all of the soldiers that I questioned – including those who claimed they were frustrated by these restrictions – accepted and understood the need to adhere to the rules and told me that they and their comrades did adhere to the rules during combat in Gaza. I found this level of acceptance to be higher than would generally be found among soldiers from other Western armies that I have commanded or served alongside. The expressions of frustration also, in my view, tend to confirm adherence to the rules of engagement – even though they didn’t necessarily like the rules they still apparently complied with them.

Many soldiers that I questioned told me about encounters with Palestinian fighters among the civilian population and the steps they had taken to avoid civilian casualties. Soldiers told me that not only were they not permitted to kill, wound or mistreat innocent civilians but also that their own morality would not allow it. For example, one engineer soldier who had recently emerged from a Hamas attack tunnel told me that even while advancing along the tunnel, faced by a wide range of potential threats to his life, uppermost in his mind was the need to avoid killing innocent civilians. He explained that he knew Hamas sometimes used innocent civilians as human shields in the tunnels.

...I previously commented in relation to the 2008-09 Gaza conflict that no army in the history of warfare had taken greater steps than the IDF to minimise harm to civilians in a combat zone. My observations during the 2014 conflict confirmed this. No other army that I have served in or alongside or that I have studied and researched has yet taken such extensive precautions. This includes British and US forces. It is in part due to the specific circumstances of the Gaza conflict, which allow the IDF to go to such lengths whereas other armed forces in other situations may not be able to do so.

However, during some operations in Afghanistan, British and US forces adopted some methods developed by the IDF in Gaza. And in November 2014, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the IDF ‘went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties’ during the 2014 conflict in Gaza. He revealed that he had sent a delegation of US military officers to Israel to learn about the measures that the IDF took to prevent civilian casualties.

...In conclusion, in my opinion the IDF took exceptional measures to adhere to the Laws of Armed Conflict and to minimise civilian casualties in Gaza. During the conflict many politicians, UN leaders, human rights groups and NGOs called on the Israelis to take greater action to minimise civilian casualties in Gaza. Yet none of them suggested any additional ways of doing this. I conclude that this was because Israel was taking all feasible steps. I believe Israel to be world leaders in actions to minimise civilian casualties; and this is borne out by the efforts made by the US Army, the most sophisticated and powerful in the world, to learn from the IDF on this issue.

In my opinion Israel is also making strenuous efforts to investigate incidents where civilians were apparently unlawfully killed, wounded or ill-treated, and where civilian property was unlawfully damaged or stolen. I am not aware of any nation that has conducted more comprehensive or resolute investigations into its own military activities than Israel during and following the 2014 Gaza conflict.

On the other hand, Hamas and other groups in Gaza took the opposite approach to that of the IDF. Their entire strategy was based on flouting the Laws of Armed Conflict, deliberately targeting the Israeli civilian population, using their own civilian population as human shields and seeking to entice the IDF to take military action that would kill large numbers of Gaza civilians for their own propaganda purposes. There was and is of course no accountability or investigation of any allegations against Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza.

..Many people believe that your findings are a foregone conclusion, as the findings of the 2008-09 Commission regrettably proved to be. They believe that you will roundly and without foundation condemn Israel for war crimes while at best making only token criticism of Hamas and other Gaza extremist groups. If you genuinely want to contribute to peace and to improve human rights for the people of Gaza and of Israel then you must have the courage to reject the UN Human Rights Council’s persistent and discriminatory anti-Israel programme and produce a balanced and fair report into these tragic events.
Read the whole thing.

(h/t Anne)

Sunday, February 22, 2015

  • Sunday, February 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon

  • Sunday, February 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
A Twitter thread between me and UNICEF Palestine:









UNICEF repeated their bewildered tweets about it merely being a photo of children playing in Jerusalem a number of times.



At about this point, UNICEF Palestine blocked my tweets.

The idea that Jews have religious rights is utterly foreign to this UN agency - which is orders of magnitude better than many other UN agencies.

Soon afterwards, they did respond, in a manner:

To which CiFWatch responded:




  • Sunday, February 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
Remember how Palestinian Arabs claim that Jews release stray dogs to attack them and their farms?

PA police are now hunting down the dogs and laughing as they toss them into trash compactor trucks. This video was taken in Hebron.

(WARNING: Very disturbing, especially for animal lovers.)



(h/t Bob Knot)

  • Sunday, February 22, 2015
  • Elder of Ziyon
I am going across the country for a few days on a business trip, so blogging will be a little less consistent than usual. .



I have a few things queued up, though.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive