Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Hamas claims to have captured Israeli insect drones

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas have seized electronic insects that were flying the skies of the Gaza Strip, according to Al-Majd, a security website close to Hamas.

Al-Majd reports that the devices are used by the Israeli authorities for spying and monitoring the positions and bases of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

It is also believed they are being used to search for Israeli soldiers reportedly kidnapped during the latest Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

An informed source told Al-Majd that Hamas electronic security units disassembled these insects and found pictures of the soldiers kidnapped during the war stored in their memories. They also revealed that they are being run and monitored via satellites.

"The electronic insects are the size of small birds and look as birds from far distances," the informed source said. "They can easily fly and enter into buildings and other facilities through very small holes and fly easily inside them."

The Al Majd article adds that the insect drones have GPS capabilities.

The illustration it uses is from a news story from 2011 on US research.

It was very smart of Mossad to deploy these larger mini-drones, in order to distract Hamas from the nano-drones, which are small enough to enter the noses of the Islamist leaders, burrow to their brains and then explode.

Whoa, sorry, I wasn't supposed to reveal that!

Of course, the story is bogus.

It is true that the US and Israel are working on insect-like drones. However, they are nowhere near production.

Gaza woman defends women's rights in Islam by showing her mastery of math

This is just too funny, from MEMRI:

In a recent TV interview, Tahani Abu Jazar, lecturer on Islamic law at the Islamic University in Gaza, defended the status of women in Islam, saying: "The woman does not have the same needs as the man." The man, she said, "uses the left hemisphere of the brain," whereas the woman "uses both parts of her brain." According to Abu Jazar, "this proves that the testimony of a man equals that of two women." The interview aired on the Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV channel on March 8, 2015 to mark International Woman's Day.

She should be happy that men are so tolerant of her:

In a Friday sermon delivered in the Aicha Mosque in Montpellier, France, Imam Mohamed Khattabi said: "No matter how much good you bestow upon a woman... Her selfishness drives her to deny it." The sermon was delivered on March 8 and posted on the Internet.

03/24 Links Pt2: NIF Given $1 Mil+ From State Dept; Hirsi Ali Confronts Jon Stewart About Islam

From Ian:

Edwin Black: Controversial ‘New Israel Fund’ Received More Than $1 Million From US State Department

The controversial New Israel Fund and its social change and political lobbying organization – known as SHATIL – have received more than $1 million from the State Department under a program designed to create political change, reform, and activism in the Middle East. The government program, Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), has extended more than $600 million in grants to political and social activists and reformers in 18 Middle East countries, mainly with unstable or challenged political environments in need of democratic improvement. “
MEPI supports organizations and individuals in their efforts to promote political, economic, and social reform in the Middle East and North Africa,” according to the agency’s official self-description.
The list of nations in which MEPI operates includes such countries as Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, and Yemen.
However, MEPI’s sphere of engagement also includes Israel – ironically the only pluralistic, stable, and democratic nation in the Mideast. Among the leading recipients for MEPI grants in Israel is the New Israel Fund and its SHATIL organization. The NIF is an international, US-based 501(c)(3) charitable organization that has generated intense acrimony within the Jewish community and Israeli establishment for its highly politicized activities.

JCPA: World Vision: Strategies for Fund-Raising and Support for Hamas

WORLD VISION AND HAMAS
The overall effect of World Vision’s media appearances and publicity regarding the fighting in Gaza in 2014 obscures the fact that, on four separate occasions over the past decade (2006, 2008–2009, 2012 and 2014), Hamas initiated wars that it could not win against a country that cannot afford to lose. During these armed conflicts, Hamas has endangered the lives of Palestinians, especially children, by launching rockets from schoolyards and by using hospitals as command centers for its leaders. As we have noted above, Hamas summoned civilians to the rooftops of buildings after a warning that these buildings would soon be under attack. Moreover, Hamas launched rockets at civilian populations. A Palestinian Authority official in the West Bank has called this a crime against humanity.10 Furthermore, during the war in 2008–2009, Hamas diverted food and fuel from their intended recipients as part of its policy of increasing the suffering in the Gaza Strip in order to make Israel look bad.11 It has used cement and other building materials allowed into the Gaza Strip—ostensibly for the benefit of Palestinian civilians—in order to construct tunnels that can penetrate Israel and serve as a means to kidnap Israeli soldiers and civilians.
The policies of Hamas are intended to create a humanitarian crisis. It has succeeded in doing so. As an “advocacy” organization, World Vision is obliged to point this out and to hold Hamas accountable. However, WV contributes to the propaganda war against the Jewish state conducted by Hamas by directing almost all of its criticism against Israel and by protecting Hamas from condemnation. Thus, World Vision helps Hamas in its use of what Alan Dershowitz refers to as “the dead baby strategy.” To be sure, World Vision occasionally criticizes Palestinian elites, but it does so cautiously and even-handedly. During the fighting in 2014, Kevin Jenkins, president of World Vision International, criticized Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. His comments, however, often were followed by a condemnation of Israel, thereby effectively minimizing his critique of Palestinian leaders, as follows: “If we are to keep our moral compass, the world must make it clear that those firing rockets into Israel and bombing homes in Gaza are doing wrong.” The above statement presents a false moral equivalence between Israel, which acts in self-defense, and Hamas, which initiates the attacks on Israel and seeks the destruction of the Jewish state.

Hirsi Ali Confronts Jon Stewart About Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose new book Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now was released this week, was interviewed by Jon Stewart on his Daily Show Monday night, and proceeded to educate the host as to the need for Islam to be reformed. The interview began with Stewart mocking the title, asking, “Why does Islam need a reformation …now?”
Hirsi Ali replied, “Because too many people are dying in the name of Islam, too many women live under oppression, too many Jews are being demonized, too many gays are being killed in the name of Islam, too many Christians are being killed in the name of Islam. I think it really has … the answer is to have the reformation now.”
Stewart, unsatisfied with the world-wide killing of non-Muslims as a reason to reform Islam, retorted, “Aren’t we having the reformation now?” asserting that Martin Luther wanted a “purer form of Christianity.”
Hirsi Ali pointed out that there are a growing number of people wanting to reform Islam, and said bluntly to Stewart, “I hope you stand with them.”
Stewart, cornered, struck back by asserting, “I think people single out Islam as though there is something inherently wrong with it that wasn’t wrong with other religions … If Christianity went through almost the exact same process … I get the sense that you think Islam is different from other religions.”
Hirsi Ali had a ready response: “Christianity went through that process of reformation and enlightenment and came to a place where the mass of Christians, at least in the Western world, have accepted tolerance and the secular state, the separate of church and state, respect for women, respect for gays.”

A walk down J-Street, part 2

Messy57 is continuing his report from the J-Street Conference.

With dozens of panels to choose from, it was difficult to choose which ones to go to, and as with a lot of these things, there were scheduling conflicts galore. So I decided to go to the major ones (and those I could find). But first, I needed a cup of coffee…

There was a buffet with bagels and cream cheese. Grabbing some of that and a cup, I went down to the lobby where they had the “huckster room” as these areas are generally known, and looked at the booths set up by various groups.

What I found was mostly innocuous, but what really piqued my interest were all the maps….

Now I love maps, I’ve got a huge collection and there in front of me was a gold mine. Most countries have at least two sets, one for the tourists and international community and one for the nationalists and internal use. Such is the case with Israel.

From Jewschool

J Street itself was giving out maps. These were big and were relatively detailed and had the green line easily visible in, what else?, green. Now Israeli maps don’t show the green line. While most showed the Gaza strip and some showed “Areas A and B”, not a single one shows the Green line. J Street was giving these out to be posted in synagogues and Hillels and the like because it’s important to understanding what the situation is. Maps are good for things like that.

Other groups were also giving out maps. For example The New Israel fund had one showing all it’s current projects, such as promoting healthcare for the poor and the rights of Reform and Conservative Rabbis, fighting growing inequality between rich and poor in the land of the Kibbutz and the like, and the most interesting was their blurb supporting “the women of the wall” movement. I say it’s strange because they show the Old City in Israel and don’t mention, as the BDS movement (which NIF claims to be very much against) likes to, that the Kotel is in “illegally occupied Palestinian territory”.

(On a side note, when I asked them about their participation in the lawsuit against the PLO, they said the their witness for the terrorists, Michael Sfard, was actually a ringer who’s testimony deliberately helped the plaintiff.)

“Americans for Peace Now” has a slick, two-sided map with “East Jerusalem“ on one side and the West Bank on the other, which shows the where all the “settlements” are. It also shows the Barrier wall. The Jerusalem side attacks “Ideological tourism projects” that threaten to transform the conflict into a religious conflict where no compromise is possible” I thought that was pretty funny.

The best of the bunch (on a technical level at least) was B’Tselem’s. It was detailed and easily color-coded. You can see the facts on the ground much better than on the other maps. They weren’t there,

Only the “Open Hillel” table seemed to be genuinely pro-BDS. The guy was really defensive. So was one fellow who said that Hamas was merely elected to the “municipal administration” of the district and wasn’t really the government. (You can’t really argue with these people without being tempted to punch them in the face).

The “Kumbaya” people were promoting neighborliness and understanding between Jewish and Muslim Israelis for the most part and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. However they generally make excuses for the Palestinians, such as Bikom, which does some amazing maps, who tried to explain why the Arab Jerusalemites, who can vote, don’t (they don’t want to look like they accept Israeli sovereignty).

After filling up my knapsack with give-aways and my face with food and coffee, I went to listen to the speeches….

The two-state straw men

From J-Street to Haaretz to Washington, you keep hearing the same refrain: Israel's right wing does not want a two state solution, and without a two-state solution Israel is doomed.

A recent example comes from Amos Oz in Haaretz:

We’ll begin with the most important thing, with a matter of life-and-death for the State of Israel: If there will not be two states here, and fast, there will be one state here. If there will be one state here, it will be an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. If there will be an Arab state here, I don’t envy my children and my grandchildren.

I said an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. I did not say a binational state: With the exception of Switzerland, all the existing binational and multinational states are creaking badly (Belgium, Spain) or have already collapsed into a bloodbath (Lebanon, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union).

If there are not two states here, and fast, it’s very possible that, in order to avert the emergence of an Arab state from the sea to the Jordan River, a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand.

Such a dictatorship will be short-lived. Hardly any dictatorship of a minority that suppresses the majority has survived long in the modern era. At the end of that road, too, an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River awaits us, and before that perhaps also an international boycott, or a bloodbath, or both.

I have news for Mr. Oz and J-Street and President Obama: Practically everyone on the right wants to divide the land into Israeli and Palestinian parts. Practically everyone wants the Arab side to have the fullest autonomy possible, and many if not most even would accept statehood under the right circumstances.

The only differences are the exact borders and the ability of the Palestinian Arab state to wreak havoc on the Jewish state..

Pretending that the ultra-right is the only component of Israel's Right is a straw man, and one that it is way past its due date. But Amoz Oz fully subscribes to it with his frankly absurd yarn of "a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand." I know he is a novelist, but I didn't know that adding fiction to one's argument augments it.

Oz' article is filled with similar straw men that have no basis in reality:

A great many Israelis, too many Israelis, believe – or are being brainwashed into believing – that if we only take a very big stick and beat the Arabs with it just one more time, very hard, they will take fright and once and for all let us be, and everything will be fine.

Really? What major figure, with a serious following, says this? Perhaps Oz gets his impression of the right wing from anonymous Facebook posts..

The right wing and the settlers tell us that we have a right to the whole Land of Israel. That we have a right to the Temple Mount. But what, actually, do they mean by the word “right”? A right is not what I want badly and also feel very strongly that I deserve: It is what others recognize as my right. If others do not recognize my right, or if only some of them recognize my right, then what I have is not a right but a demand.

That is precisely the difference between Ramle and Ramallah, between Haifa and Nablus, between Be’er Sheva and Hebron: The whole world, including most of the Arab and Muslim world (apart from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran), recognizes today that Haifa and Be’er Sheva are ours. But no one in the world, other than the settlers and their supporters in the American far right, recognizes that Nablus and Ramallah belong to us. And that is the difference between a right and a demand.

What? American Jews want to take over Ramallah and Nablus? Outside of the right to worship at Josephs' Tomb, I certainly haven't heard anyone say they want to take over those areas again.

It is just another straw man.

But let's look at what Oz says about rights.

Perhaps in his narrow viewpoint, Jews do not have the "right" to the Temple Mount or to live in Gush Etzion. But neither do Palestinians.

Their demands for the holy places of Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria are not rights either - but demands. Oz doesn't explain how Palestinian demands are any more valid than Jewish demands, except for "the whole world says so so it must be true."

If there are competing demands on these areas, then the Israeli side must do its utmost to ensure that traditional holy sites and existing Jewish communities are protected and kept as part of Israel. That is not an option - that is what states do. They assert their claims vigorously to protect their heritage and their people.

But to people like Amoz Oz and the rest of the Haaretz crowd and the J-Streeters getting high on their hate of Likud this past weekend and the Peter Beinarts of the world believe that Palestinian demands are the same as a Palestinian veto on what the final borders would be.

All these people who claim to be "pro-Israel" are in fact doing everything they can to sabotage Israel's bargaining position and to tell the enemy (and, yes, they are and will remain the enemy) that they only have to wait long enough for these supposedly pro-Israel Jews to give them everything they demand eventually.

This isn't about having two states. It is about abject surrender to the enemy's maximal demands. It is the height of stupidity.

If you want straw men, here's one for you: A Palestinian state whose borders are exactly in Areas A and B.

But, I hear everyone sputter, that's impossible! They'd never accept that!

And here is the difference between the leftists who pretend that they are the only ones who accept the concept of two states and reality. The leftists are willing to accept all Palestinian Arab demands as if they are rights. But this minimal Palestine solution also solves the demography problem that everyone says is the biggest issue and a sure-fire bet for future Israeli apartheid.

If both solutions solve the demographic problem, which is apparently the key concern of Israelis worried about their future as a Jewish state, then why are so many of them demanding the maximal Palestine solution?

The reason is, very simply, because the Palestinians would never accept that solution.

Let's go beyond that glib answer, though. Why won't they accept that solution? Mostly because so many Israelis like Oz already are willing to give them so much more for free! If all Israeli Jews were as adamant about the lands of their ancestors as Palestinians are about wresting them from Jews, then the two-state solution would be much closer to reality.

If these supposed lovers of Israel really cared about the Jewish state as much as they pretend, they they would be in the forefront of fighting for the best possible outcome, not the worst.

You don't hear anyone from J-Street or Haaretz lamenting that Palestinians rejected previous peace offers - offers that would have solved the demographic problem very well, thank you. No, they still blame Israel for not going far enough. Which proves that, for these hypocrites, they don't give a damn about "apartheid" or the population issue - if they really did, they'd be the first ones to be writing articles about how Palestinian Arabs have blown their opportunities for peace, not how right-wing Jews are the bogeymen. They would be the first to insist that Palestinians for once make historic compromises, not that Jews keep doing that over and over under the everlasting threat of another Palestinian veto.

That is how people who are truly pro-Israel would act.

Instead, they cling to their straw men and hate.

One must wonder why that is.

03/24 Links Pt1: PA libel: Israel spreads drugs; WH official calls for end to ‘50-year occupation’

From Ian:

PA libel: Israel spreads drugs to Palestinian youth

As policy, the Palestinian Authority demonizes Israel, libeling Jews and Israelis as evil whose goal is to harm Palestinians, destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque, abuse Palestinian prisoners and rule the world by allying themselves with terror organizations like Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Earlier this month, a newsreader on official PA TV News reiterated one of the libels used by the PA to slander Israel, accusing Israel of intentionally spreading drugs among Palestinians to destroy the young generation:
PA TV newsreader: “PA TV has exposed that the occupation is using all means to destroy our people and perhaps the most striking one is the drowning of our youth in the swamp of [drug] addiction, after facilitating the entry of all kinds of drugs for our youth.” [Official PA TV, March 1, 2015]
Last year, on an official PA TV program for youth that discussed the drug problem in Palestinian society, the Commander of the Narcotics Division in the Jerusalem District Yasser Izzat denied any Palestinian responsibility, instead blaming Israel for causing the drug problem, stating that “the occupation has stolen the people... it is stealing the people by destroying them with drugs”:

PA TV libel: Israel causes drug addiction among Palestinian youth

Top White House official calls for end to ‘50-year occupation’

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough called for the end of Israel’s “50-year occupation” and doubled down on the Obama administration’s critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a warmly received speech to the lobbying group J Street in Washington Monday.
Speaking to the dovish group’s national conference, McDonough became the latest in a series of Washington officials to highlight the administration’s displeasure with Netanyahu, while also talking up the permanence of US-Israel ties, repeating Washington’s commitment to continued military, security and intelligence cooperation.
“No matter who leads Israel, America’s commitment to Israel’s security will never waiver,” McDonough said.
At the same time, McDonough said later, “an occupation that has lasted for 50 years must end,” referring to Israel’s 48-year hold on the West Bank. (h/t Yenta Press)

J Street Delegation Defaces Hillel International Headquarters

A delegation of college students attending J Street’s annual conference held a demonstration this afternoon outside the headquarters of Hillel International, the largest organization devoted to Jewish life on university campuses, to protest the decision by Eric Fingerhut, Hillel International’s CEO and President, to decline attending the conference.
Fingerhut withdrew from participating in the J Street convention because of “concerns regarding [his] participation amongst other speakers who have made highly inflammatory statements against the Jewish state,” as he said in a statement on March 9. Among those controversial figures named by Hillel International include Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator who has compared Israel to ISIS.
More than 1,000 students are attending the conference; around 200 of them attended the protest. The students listened as leaders from J Street U, J Street’s campus arm, spoke on a megaphone about the “massive failure of Jewish communal leadership” that Fingerhut’s declined attendance symbolized. Benjy Cannon, the president of J Street U, alleged that “right-wing donors” are constraining student voices. Cannon has been published in Haaretz and The Forward.
Cannon concluded his speech by demanding that the Hillel International board of directors hold an on-the-record meeting with J Street U representatives to explain their decision not to attend the J Street conference.

Here are some statistics that most "pro-Palestinian" groups won't bother to mention, from the Action Group of Palestinians in Syria's Facebook page:

At least 45 Palestinians were recently tortured to death, the number who have been tortured to death in Syrian prisons is now at 333.

Jordan had as many as 15,000 Palestinian refugees from Syria but that number has declined to a little over 10,000; many of them had been deported back to the country that they were fleeing. Many of the refugees go to Jordan pretending to be native Syrians so they won't be treated as badly as Jordan treats Palestinians.

At least 27,933 Syrian Palestinians have managed to sneak into Europe since the war started. I don't have the numbers of the scores who have drowned trying to reach Europe.

51,000 are in Lebanon and 6,000 in Egypt, where they are also in danger of being detained and deported.

172 have died so far from the siege of the Yarmouk camp in Syria, where there is no water or electricity.

ISM? Silent.

Free Gaza? Silent.

SJP? Silent.

Fatah's homepage? Silent.

An "analysis" from AP:

Is Israel a democracy? The answer is not so straightforward, and it increasingly matters given the diplomatic fallout over hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election last week.

The displeasure felt in some quarters over his win has placed front and center the world community's unwritten obligation to accept the results of a truly democratic vote.

In other words, the people who can't stand that Israelis democratically elected a party they loathe want to pretend that the votes don't matter.

For Israel, the argument is especially piquant, because its claim to be the only true democracy in the Middle East has been key to its branding and its vitally important claim on U.S. military, diplomatic and financial support. Israel's elections, from campaign rules to vote counts, are indeed not suspect.

Gee, thanks.

But with the occupation of the West Bank grinding on toward the half-century mark, and with Netanyahu's election-week suggestion that no change is imminent, hard questions arise.

But among Israelis themselves, there is increasing angst over the fact that their country of 8 million people also controls some 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians who have no voting rights for its parliament.

Who are these Israelis? The Ha'aretz crowd who are in a distinct minority! "

If the 2 million Palestinians of Gaza — a territory dominated indirectly by Israel — were added to the equation, then together with the 2 million Arab citizens of "Israel proper" the Holy Land would be home to a population of some 12 million, equally divided between Arabs and Jews.

Of the Arabs, only a third have voting rights. These are the "Israeli Arabs" who live in the areas that became Israel in the 1948-49 war, which established the country's borders.

OK, now we know the AP's rules of democracy: anyone who is "occupied" and anyone who is "dominated indirectly" must have voting rights or else the democracy is suspect.

Obviously, these new criteria for democracy apply to Israel and only Israel. Because in the past century the US has occupied Japan, the Philippines, parts of Germany and Austria, much of Iraq, Haiti and many other territories. That's over a hundred million people who were disenfranchised from voting in American elections at one time or another.

The US economically dominates Canada.

How come none of those countries were allowed to vote in US elections?

It is even worse, because as I have shown, some 10 million US citizens are not allowed to vote in national elections. In Israel, every citizen can vote.

If we apply consistent rules to AP's formulation of "democracy" then the US is anything but a democracy.

But the point of AP's "analysis" is not to define democracy. it is to delegitimize Israel. And as with so many criticisms of Israel, it applies rules to Israel that simply don't apply anywhere else in the world. Unsuspecting readers do not know enough to compare Israel with other democracies who have controlled unincorporated territories and AP sure isn't going to mention it, because it is not interested in "analysis."

The double standard towards the Jewish state is blatant. Too bad no AP reporters will analyze their own racism.

(h/t Anne, Bob K)

From the WSJ's Bret Stephens:

The humiliating denouement to America’s involvement in Yemen came over the weekend, when U.S. Special Forces were forced to evacuate a base from which they had operated against the local branch of al Qaeda. This is the same branch that claimed responsibility for the January attack on Charlie Hebdo and has long been considered to pose the most direct threat to Europe and the United States.

So who should Barack Obama be declaring war on in the Middle East other than the state of Israel?

There is an upside-down quality to this president’s world view. His administration is now on better terms with Iran—whose Houthi proxies, with the slogan “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, damn the Jews, power to Islam,” just deposed Yemen’s legitimate president—than it is with Israel. He claims we are winning the war against Islamic State even as the group continues to extend its reach into Libya, Yemen and Nigeria.

He treats Republicans in the Senate as an enemy when it comes to the Iranian nuclear negotiations, while treating the Russian foreign ministry as a diplomatic partner. He favors the moral legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council to that of the U.S. Congress. He is facilitating Bashar Assad’s war on his own people by targeting ISIS so the Syrian dictator can train his fire on our ostensible allies in the Free Syrian Army.

He was prepared to embrace a Muslim Brother as president of Egypt but maintains an arm’s-length relationship with his popular pro-American successor. He has no problem keeping company with Al Sharpton and tagging an American police department as comprehensively racist but is nothing if not adamant that the words “Islamic” and “terrorism” must on no account ever be conjoined. The deeper that Russian forces advance into Ukraine, the more they violate cease-fires, the weaker the Kiev government becomes, the more insistent he is that his response to Russia is working.

To adapt George Orwell’s motto for Oceania: Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory.

The current victim of Mr. Obama’s moral inversions is the recently re-elected Israeli prime minister. Normally a sweeping democratic mandate reflects legitimacy, but not for Mr. Obama. Now we are treated to the astonishing spectacle in which Benjamin Netanyahu has become persona non grata for his comments doubting the current feasibility of a two-state solution. This, while his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term, without a murmur of protest from the White House.

It is true that Mr. Netanyahu made an ugly election-day remark about Israeli-Arab voters “coming out in droves to the polls,” thereby putting “the right-wing government in danger.” For this he has apologized, in person, to leaders of the Israeli-Arab community.

That’s more than can be said for Mr. Abbas, who last year threatened Israel with a global religious war if Jews were allowed to pray in the Temple Mount’s Al Aqsa mosque. “We will not allow our holy places to be contaminated,” the Palestinian Authority president said. The Obama administration insists that Mr. Abbas is “the best interlocutor Israel is ever going to have.”

Maybe that’s true, but if so it only underscores the point Mr. Netanyahu was making in the first place—and for which Mr. Obama now threatens a fundamental reassessment of U.S. relations with Israel. In 2014 Mr. Abbas agreed to a power-sharing agreement with Hamas, a deal breaker for any Israeli interested in peace. In 2010 he used the expiration of a 10-month Israeli settlement freeze as an excuse to abandon bilateral peace efforts. In 2008 he walked away from a statehood offer from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In 2000 he was with Yasser Arafat at Camp David when the Palestinians turned down a deal from Israel’s Ehud Barak.

And so on. For continuously rejecting good-faith Israeli offers, Mr. Abbas may be about to get his wish: a U.S. vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. For tiring of constant Palestinian bad faith—and noting the fact—Israel will now be treated to pariah-nation status by Mr. Obama.
***

Here is my advice to the Israeli government, along with every other country being treated disdainfully by this crass administration: Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit back.

The Saudis figured that out in 2013, after Mr. Obama failed to honor his promises on Syria; they turned down a seat on the Security Council, spoke openly about acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan and tanked the price of oil, mainly as a weapon against Iran. Now Mr. Obama is nothing if not solicitous of the Saudi highnesses.

The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance. On the Iranian nuclear deal, they may have to go rogue: Let’s hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.

Jew-hating Arabs freak out over hasidim dancing in Jordan's airport (video)

This video, taken at Jordan's Queen Alia Airport, is causing an uproar in the Arab world:

Al Jazeera (Arabic) reports that this video has raised the ire of Arabs on social media. Some are saying that they are performing "Talmudic rituals."

Many Arabs attacked the airport management and the Jordanian government on Twitter for not taking punitive action against what they call a "settler group" which had been waiting for their plane to take-off.

Others asked if Israel would allow "Palestinian resistance activists" to dance in Ben Gurion airport.

Yet others expressed their general disgust at this video of celebrating Jews. One said "Jordanians support Hamas, and the Zionists are dancing on our dignity."

Another wrote, "They did not carry knives and a weapon, they are only carrying the blood of the Palestinian people." Another said, "The Al-Aqsa Mosque is desecrated every day, the while the Arabs are asleep." One more said "they killed our beloved and then danced on our land."

Airport officials were more sanguine. Queen Alia airport management downplayed the video, saying, "The video was very short, and no travelers complained.,...the management of the airport has not received a single complaint from any passenger on the Incident that took place." It also denied that the dances mentioned are "an expression of Jewish religious ritual." Because, of course, that would be terrible.

The spokeswoman stressed that the authorities asked them not to dance or create chaos inside the airport.

Many Breslov hasidim travel to Uman, Ukraine through Jordan's airport for pilgrimages to the gravesite of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov.

Every single song being sung is a wedding song, indicating that one of the passengers recently became engaged or married. There was nothing remotely Zionist or Israeli in these dances. But the idea of Jews dancing in Jordan is nothing less than horrible to many Arabs.

No black MKs from Meretz or the Zionist Union or Kulanu.

Only Likud.

Who are the racists again?

Spring appeal: Donate to EoZ!

(This post will be pasted on the top of the page for the day, scroll down to see newer articles.)

Throughout the quarter I received appeals for funds from other organizations.

One of them asked for money because they had helped to get people to complain to Amazon and Google to remove a violent anti-Israel videogame from their app stores.

I was the first one to report about that video game.

Similarly, I saw an appeal based on an organization debunking the Hamas lie that an Israeli dam had been opened to flood Gaza.

I was not only the first to debunk that myth this year, but I had debunked similar stories years ago.

When you read EoZ, you get many of these stories first, way before the mainstream media - stories that, in some ways, end up making a real difference.

This quarter was no exception:

EoZ was a major factor in the Jim Clancy meltdown that led to his being let go from CNN.
I prompted a New York Times (silent) correction where they used the nonsensical phrase "Israel's 1967 borders with Palestine."
I exposed some truly idiotic BDSers who thought that Sabra hummus was named after the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon, forcing them to remove their accusations.
I embarrassed left-wing NGO Gisha into reluctantly mentioning for the first time that Hamas was stopping people from leaving Gaza - supposedly the raison d'etre of the organization.
I exposed Fatah's poster that showed a pile of skulls with Stars of David, a story that did reach the mainstream media and forced Fatah to distance itself from the image - not very convincingly.

If you can find a paid reporter that has done that much in three months, please let me know.

But that isn't all.

I made posters:

I made cartoons:

I critiqued the media. I wrote original analyses, I pointed out hypocrisy, I exposed NGO bias. I explored history. My articles appeared or were linked to from Algemeiner, Jewish Press, TheBlaze and elsewhere. I was interviewed on Voice of Israel. My twitter follower count went past 14,000.

In three months I posted about 500 articles.

And this was a typical quarter for me.

This is besides the daily linkdumps by Ian, which are, hands down, the best daily round-up of stories about Israel and the Arab world that you can find anywhere.

EoZ is also now blessed with three regular weekly columnists: Mike Lumish, Vic Rosenthal and PreOccupied Territory.

If you think that this work is valuable, please consider donating - or, better yet, becoming a monthly subscriber - , using the PayPal buttons on the top-right column of my main webpage. Or, if you prefer, you can help by sending me an Amazon gift card.

Thanks again for your readership and for your support through the years. I do appreciate it.

03/23 Links Pt2: Red Cross at Hamas Uni; Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian; LATMA Ep7

From Ian:

Ryan Bellerose: Why I Am Pro-Palestinian

We need more people to start using their brains. If there was a Palestinian state declared tomorrow, do you honestly believe the PEOPLE in “Palestine” would gain anything? Has the PA ever done anything that suggest competent governance? Do you think Hamas has? If they were to be GIVEN a State without being held to some accountability, we would be looking at a corrupt inept state for decades, with no chance at representative government, and damn sure no chance of real peace without violence. This is fact not opinion. Fact based on careful analysis of previous situations like this one.
There is hope. There are now Palestinans who are speaking up and while they may not be “Pro-Israel,” they are not ANTI Israel which until now has been the truth behind this pro-Palestinian movement. By speaking up they risk a lot of persecution and even murder. The thing is, without them speaking up, I would assume that Palestinians are OK with Hamas and Fatah speaking for them, OK with the rife corruption that is endemic in the Palestinian government and OK with trying to kill Jews constantly.
I believe that Palestinians will eventually find a leader who doesn’t want to perpetuate the conflict to fatten his own wallet with the skimming of aid money. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean we cannot hope. But my support of the PEOPLE in Palestine is based on what I think is best for them long term and I believe that they will need to be part of Israel eventually, but must show that they belong and they understand they belong before that can even be discussed.
Israel is a singular place, a place where people are allowed to worship God as they see fit, where women are respected and where gay rights are not just words but actions. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East and most importantly the people have demonstrated their moral clarity on several occasions. That alone should be enough for us to be very careful about lecturing Israelis on doing what we want them to do. Most of them understand that what’s best for the Arabs in Judeah and Samaria will also be what’s best for Israel and that’s not just giving it up but building it up, making it into a thriving region that is part of a vibrant and peaceful nation. Most Arabs seem to want that, at least the ones not living outside of those borders who just want to see dead Jews.

Ryan Bellerose discusses the parallels between the indigenous struggles in North America and Israel.
Video: Ryan Bellerose at CIJR full discussion 110min

Ryan Bellerose CIJR Highlights

Red Cross Cooperating with Hamas-Affiliated University

The faculty of Sharia (Islamic law) at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University in Gaza is preparing to hold an international conference in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross on the subject of international humanitarian law in light of Islamic Sharia.
The conference is scheduled to take place on October 13 and 14 this year, according to a joint ad of the Red Cross and the Islamic University, which appeared in the Hamas-affiliated Palestine newspaper on Sunday.
According to the ad, the first session of the conference will deal with humanitarian issues. The second session will discuss the basic principles in the management of armed conflicts, the third session will deal with victims’ rights and measures for their protection during armed conflict, and the fourth session will deal with guarantees for the implementation of the principles of the management of armed conflict and modern challenges.
All the sessions will examine these issues according to Sharia law and international humanitarian law, the ad states.
The cooperation with the Red Cross is puzzling given that the Islamic University is considered a stronghold of Hamas and, according to Israeli intelligence, Hamas uses it to develop its rocket arsenal.

LATMA: We'll be the Judge, Episode 7

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

JTA has a very interesting article today about how traditional Christian sculptures, still visible in Europe, show antisemitic motifs.

One of the examples they give is very instructive:

Notre Dame Cathedral in the heart of Paris is among the most visited sites on the planet and a splendid example of Gothic architecture

Each year, millions flock to admire and photograph its flying buttresses and statuary, yet few take any real notice of two prominent female statues on either side of the main entrance. The one on the left is dressed in fine clothing and bathed in light, while the one on the right is disheveled, with a large snake draped over her eyes like a blindfold.

The statues, known as Ecclesia and Sinagoga, respectively, and generally found in juxtaposition, are a common motif in medieval art and represent the Christian theological concept known as supercessionism, whereby the Church is triumphant and the Synagogue defeated.

Sinagoga is depicted here with head bowed, broken staff, the tablets of the law slipping from her hand and a fallen crown at her feet. Ecclesia stands upright with crowned head and carries a chalice and a staff adorned with the cross.

Wikipedia adds:

The figures reflect the Christian belief, sometimes called Supersessionism, that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and that Judaism as a religion was therefore made unnecessary, by its own tenets, once Christianity was established, and that all Jews should convert. Today opposed by dual-covenant theology, this belief was universal in the medieval church. Synagoga's blindfold reflected the refusal of medieval Jews to "see" this point, which was regarded as stubborn.

The sculpted portal figures are generally found on the cathedrals of larger cities in northern Europe that had significant Jewish communities, especially in Germany, and apart from their theological significance, were certainly also intended to remind Jews of their place in a Christian society, by projecting "an ideal of Jewish submission within an ideally ordered Christian realm.

The point of Synagoga is not to assert the Church's superiority - its presence in cities with large Jewish populations prove that the intent is to prove Judaism's inferiority, to humiliate Jews.

Humiliating others is certain indicator of low self-esteem.

Supersessionism holds that the continued existence of Jews is an anomaly. Jews were already second class citizens, but that wasn't enough. This artwork indicates not only that Jews should be subjugated, but that they are mentally ill for not embracing the obvious truth that their belief system has no legitimacy.

The very existence of vibrant Jewish communities in Christian Europe disproved the basis of supersessionism, and these elaborate sculptures and paintings and stained glass windows were meant to make Christians feel better by putting down Jews who somehow managed not to disappear as supersessionism would predict.

It is hardly surprising that the most antisemitic and anti-Zionist churches of today are the ones who still cling to supercessionism. Nor is it surprising that supersessionism is a keystone of the Palestinian Christian community, which embraced this philosophy in the Kairos document.

This attitude is more extreme than traditional dhimmitude. Muslims think that Jews have a place in society, but that society is run by Muslims and Jews must mind their second-class status. It isn't that they don't belong in society, they just have to know their place.

The proper analogy isn't between Christian xupersessionist theology and dhimmitude; it is between supersessionist attitudes towards Jews and Muslim attitudes towards Israel.

The existence of a Jewish state is the same challenge to the Muslim worldview that the existence of Jews is to Christian supersessionists. In both cases the very sight of the offending entity - Israel or Jews - is an intense source of shame, because it cuts to the heart of the belief systems. In both cases, they must be defeated in order to restore self-esteem and prove that their beliefs have validity.

One can say the same about how the existence of the Jewish people is a challenge to universalist ideology that cannot abide that different groups of people are really different, and no one symbolizes that better than the Jews.

Greater minds than mine have spent countless years pondering the nature of Jew-hatred. I think that the inability to reconcile one's own belief system with the very existence of Jews, or the existence of a Jewish nation, is a very good first step.to understanding the roots of antisemitism.

Walking down J-Street, part 1 (guest post)

EoZ reader Messy57 is at the J-Street conference in Washington. Here is his report from Saturday night:

I got an email a couple of weeks back informing me that the J Street “Progressive Zionist” organization, sort of like AIPAC’s evil twin (or good, depending on how you view things) was having it’s annual jamboree at the Walter Washington convention center in DC, and would I like to pay a ton of money to go?

I would not.( Pay the ton of money that is.)
.
So, as I do on occasion, I filled out the press form and sent a bunch of digital clippings. They gave me a ticket. Even better, KAYAK was able to get me a $150 round trip flight to DC. Another sixty bucks for two nights at the youth hostel next to the Convention center and off I went….

Day One

“Do you have a card” she asked.

“No,” I replied, “why?”

“If you’re a journalist I need to see your business card in order to talk to you.”

She was a student, you see. She had taken a training course before she came here and was told to be suspicious of skeevy old men with press badges and was told to get the business card and give it to the secret police (or whatever J street calls them). I said there was no reason, because I was only making conversation.

She gave me a very dirty look. I could understand, sort of. Netanyahu had just won the election and everyone was to some extent angry and depressed. However they did try to look cheerful. The opening ceremonies were starting soon and I headed up to take my seat.

The first two rows of seats in the grand ballroom were in fact circular tables. I searched around for a while and got a seat with a decent view. The rest of the people around my table were middle aged, behind us were the kids, allegedly there were about a thousand of them from all around the country, and Toronto, Canada, and tonight, they were the stars of the show. Lights! Music!!!!! Here we go….

Onstage comes J-Street Morton Halperin, who gets a standing ovation. He thanks the crowd, and starts on a short and forgettable speech. He then starts talking about “J Street U”, which is their version of Hillel. There’s a fanfare and football music, a bunch of squeaky clean college students enter stage right looking like something out of the Brady Bunch, and in their peppiest voices they start the roll call of the universities. I’m not sure if it’s more of a high school pep rally or a political convention. Clearly this was the latter and goes on and on and on. . Then they announce the Hillels who decided to attend. Apparently the BDSers have somehow managed to split the movement, and the two organizations are actively feuding.

J Street, no matter what else you may have heard, is currently anti-BDS, they think it makes Bibi and his ilk look like victims and it leads to anti-Semitism., both of which are true.

There’s more football music and cheering as President Jeremy Ben Ami is introduced. He’s a thin and wiry gent, with a crooked smile and glasses, kind of nerdy. He starts thanking people like in an awards show, all the kids in general, and the senior staff in particular before he sheds his kindly persona and starts attacking Bibi before going after the rest of Likud, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a whole bunch of other people and organizations.

The crowd loved it.

Then there was the “Kumbaya” story of two grandmas, one Jewish and one Palestinian, and how they called each other by phone as their governments bombed each other. Very sweet.

Finally there was Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union Reform Judaism. who gave an astoundingly good speech. He hit all the right points, wasn’t radical at all, and was almost thrilling. The crowd loved that too. Then came the cake.

We’d get to the really important stuff the following day.

03/23 Links Pt1: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu; US boycotts UNHRC

From Ian:

Isi Leibler: Vindictive Obama punishing Israel for reelecting Netanyahu

Prior to the election, US President Barack Obama had already signaled his malicious intent by appointing Robert Malley, known for his hostility to Israel, as White House coordinator for the Middle East, and designated White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough as keynote speaker at the anti-Israel J Street Conference. Still smarting over Netanyahu’s address to Congress and having failed to bring about his downfall, Obama was clearly devastated by his spectacular electoral victory.
But in light of the fact that the electorate in the only democratic country in the region extended a clear vote of confidence in Netanyahu, it is anticipated that Israel’s long-standing ally – which purports to support democracy – will accept the will of the people in good faith.
Besides, an analysis of the votes indicates Netanyahu’s victory was anything but a lurch to the far Right. It was a vindication of the center-right, with the most radical party failing to meet the threshold and the other two more conservative parties being reduced from 25 to 13 seats.
Nevertheless, the US administration effectively declared war against Netanyahu. Obama grasped two remarks made by Netanyahu, somewhat out of context at the height of the election fever, to justify a veiled threat that the US would “reassess” relations with Israel, hinting that the US would punish Israel by failing to exercise its veto to protect Israel at the UN Security Council.
Netanyahu was condemned as a racist because, in an effort to jolt his supporters to vote, he drew attention to the massive effort funded from overseas to transport Arab voters to vote for the Joint Arab List, which includes supporters of Hamas and terrorism.

The Religious Dogma of Palestinian Statehood

In an unintentional but significant slip of the tongue, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that “it has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal…”
Actually, the first U.S. president to endorse a Palestinian state was George W. Bush, in 2002 -that is, thirteen years ago. So what does Earnest have in mind when he says “more than 20 years”? Apparently he’s referring to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, which was 22 years ago.
But wait a minute – the Oslo Accords said nothing about a Palestinian state. In fact, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin went out of his way at the time to emphasize that the accords did not create a Palestinian state, but rather would create an experimental period in which we would see whether or not the Palestinians were genuinely ready to live in peace with Israel.
Now Josh Earnest appears to be confirming what many of us suspected all along: that the White House and the State Department were never really interested in testing the Palestinian Arabs, but wanted to use the Oslo process as a way to bring about a Palestinian state no matter what.
The Oslo process proved to be a complete failure, because the Palestinian Authority violated it with impunity. The PA sponsored mass violence against Israel (anybody remember the Second Intifada?). The PA organized massive arms smuggling operations (anybody remember the tons of weapons aboard the Palestinian ship, the Karine A, that Israel captured in 2002?). The PA sheltered fugitive terrorists, failed to disarm or outlaw terrorist groups, and refused to extradite terrorists to Israel. It educated an entire generation of Palestinian school children to hate Israel and glorify terrorism, and it relentlessly promoted anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement.

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

While at the same time not recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Mansour pushed for a two-state solution.
"We are seeking peaceful, legal methods to seek accountability, to address these issues, and to fight for the right for the causes of the Palestinian people," Mansour insisted. He added, "Whether through the security council, which we have been blocked often, or through legitimate International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice."
Mansour believes that Palestine is being "punished" for seeking a resolution and feels the message received is "go and fight." But, he assures, "We don't want to fight."
"We don't want to be like other states around us," Mansour charged.
Todd interjected, "If you don't want to do that, then are you going to renounce your partnership with Hamas?" Here is the rest of the conversation:

UN Palestinian Diplomat Refuses to Renounce Hamas

"The Pharaohs discovered Australia"

Never ending amusement in Muslim media.

During a recent TV debate on the destruction of antiquities by ISIS, Syrian political analyst Yahya Badr said that the Egyptian people was entitled to claim legal rights in Australia, since inscriptions in ancient hieroglyphics had been found near Sydney, indicating that the grandson of a pharoah had landed there. On the show, which aired on the Turkish TRT TV channel on March 6, Badr was introduced as owning the patent to mummy technology.

It sounds like Egyptians discovered America, too.

Australian media describe the hieroglyphics as fake.

ACADEMICS, archaeologists and other authorities believe Dr Hans-Dieter von Senff crosses the line from fact to fantasy in claiming Egyptians lived in the hills overlooking Woy Woy about 5000 years ago.

Despite precious little scholarly or government support from anywhere between Cairo and Sydney, the self-described ‘‘amateur Egyptologist’’ from Swansea is sticking to his theory.

The 72-year-old issued a media release nationally this week announcing the discovery of a mysterious stone chamber in a bushland setting at Kariong.

The site is already notorious due to about 100 hieroglyphic-style carvings on two sandstone walls.

About 15 metres long, the parallel walls feature depictions of owls, chickens, dogs, boats and stick men, among other things.

The NSW government doesn’t subscribe to any walk or talk like Egyptians.

Taking advice from Professor Nageeb Kanawati of Macquarie University and rock art conservation specialist David Lambert, the National Parks and Wildlife Service ‘‘believes that the hieroglyphs are not genuine and were constructed in the early 1980s’’.

Dr von Senff, a bus driver, graduated from the University of Newcastle with a PhD in 2006.

His doctoral thesis dealt with the problems of German reunification from a historical and literary perspective.

#WordsMatter: White House equally skeptical of Bibi's and Khamenei's words

As we've mentioned, the White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed skepticism about Netanyahu's desire for a two-state solution by misunderstanding his remarks during his campaign and then dismissing his statement afterwards in favor of a two-state solution that ensures Israel's security as not being believable. "Words matter," the White House lectured Bibi.

It is often good advice to be skeptical of statements by politicians when they seem to contradict themselves, although in this case Bibi's words did not.

But is it wise to be skeptical when the dictator of a nation building nuclear weapons and ICBM's say "Death to America"?

In an address in Tehran on March 21, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the crowds' chants of "Death to America" by saying: "Death to America, of course, because America is the principal element behind this pressure [i.e., the economic sanctions]." Khamenei said that Obama had said "some dishonest things" in his Nowruz address and that the American goal was "to turn the [Iranian] people against the system." The address was broadcast on the Iranian news channel IRINN.

It is not even worth mentioning when Khamenei's top aide says "We shall not rest until we raise the flag of Islam over the White House.”

The White House is skeptical of a democratic ally's peaceful intentions but equally skeptical of an avowed enemy's vow to destroy America.

In other words, the White House only believes that "words matter" when the skepticism fits their agenda. In this case, their viewpoint is that peaceful statements from Israel must be insulted and warmongering from Iran must be coddled.

(Bibi explained his words, and why they weren't contradictory, on NPR.)

How progressive!

A Sydney theatre has refused to rent its premises to a Jewish group on the grounds that their policy “does not support colonialism/Zionism”.

redrattler400In a brief email response to Shailee Mendelevich who wrote requesting to book the Red Rattler Theatre in Marrickville, ‘Red Rattler Team’ responded: “Our policy does not support colonialism/Zionism. Therefore we do not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine.”

Mendelevich wrote to the theatre in her capacity as assistant director of Hillel at Sydney’s Shalom Institute. She told them in her letter that Hillel is not for profit organisation telling them “we have created a live storytelling series that features poetry, musicians and actors on stage, creating meaningful performances to educate the audience on the theme of the evening”.

She explained that Hillel “supports Jewish students and young adults.”

The matter was referred to The New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies whose CEO Vic Alhadeff wrote to Red Rattler.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” I wrote a respectful letter to the theatre, saying I would like to discuss the matter in order to resolve misconceptions on the part of their team – about the organisation which had approached them and about the position of the Jewish community in regard to Palestine and about Israel itself. ”

He added in his communication to the theatre: “To categorically reject an approach by a Jewish organisation to hire your premises because of a political position that your team holds in relation to an overseas conflict is at best ill-informed and at worst racist and discriminatory.

Alhadeff told J-Wire: ” Despite several calls to the theatre with a request to discuss and resolve the matter and explain Hillel’s and the community’s position on these issues, I have received no response either to my letter or to several calls to the theatre.”

He added: “It’s sad to see an artistic group practise outright discrimination and worse, importing divisiveness based on conflicts taking place far from Australia. We ought to be able to get along and work with each respectfully, despite political views or differences of opinion.”

Nowhere in that Hillel's vision or mission statement is Israel even mentioned.

The subject of the performance was to understand what it means to be a third generation Holocaust survivor and how it impacts future generations.

Here is The Red Rattler's performer policy:

The Red Rattler was set up as a space where racism, homophobia, transphobia and sexism are not welcome on stage, in the audience, at the door, and at the bar.

We ask you to join us in efforts to make this space welcoming, stimulating, and happiness producing to people regardless of their ethnicity, sexuality or gender.

Sadly, it has become apparent that we need to be more explicit about what it means not to be racist.

Racism includes things such as blackface performance or being derogatory towards people on the basis of their race. Blackface performance is not permitted at The Red Rattler.

Taking a self reflexive approach to our own practices is part of anti-racist strategy. One way of testing our performances can be to ask ourselves - if the room is all persons of that ethnicity, am I confident that my show is not racist?

There you go! Since Palestinians are largely Holocaust-deniers, and Hamas sympathizers are very upset at the very mention of the murder of millions of Jewish people, they would be uncomfortable sitting in the audience of such a performance and therefore it violates the Red Rattler's expansive definition of racism!

It all makes perfect sense if you are a sickening, disgusting Jew-hater pretending to be liberal.

The people behind the theatre are proud to describe themselves as "rats." That moniker is richly deserved.

UPDATE: Of course, after this story hit the world media, the Rats decided that this didn't look good and now say they have no problem with Jews.

Under heavy mortar fire in Gaza, IDF waited 50 minutes to respond (MAG report part 3)

On July 30, 2014, artillery shells hit a marketplace in Shujaiyya, Gaza, killing at least 17 people. Reports said as many as 35 were killed.

Israel was accused of violating a humanitarian ceasefire:

Despite a four-hour humanitarian ceasefire that began at 3:00 p.m., Israeli forces on Wednesday afternoon shelled a market in Shujaiyya as well as number of homes across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 35.

Gaza Ministry of Health spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra said around 6 p.m. that an Israeli airstrike had hit Shujaiyya market, killing at least 17, including a journalist, and injuring 200, including many seriously.

Gruesome (but edited) video shows one of the attacks:

What really happened?

The Military Advocate General report shows that the IDF did not violate any ceasefire and if anything, it put its soldiers in serious danger for 50 minutes before responding to heavy mortar fire:

According to the factual findings collated by the FFA Mechanism and presented to the MAG, the events associated with the incident started at approximately 16:10, when an anti-tank (AT) missile was fired at IDF forces operating in an open area on the outskirts of the Shuja'iyya neighborhood. Immediately after the anti-tank missile was fired, there commenced an intense and ongoing burst of mortar fire, emanating from a built-up area in the neighborhood, targeting the forces. As a result of this fire an IDF soldier was injured and the rest of the soldiers at the scene were placed in real danger. Further, in light of this use of fire, and the situation in which the forces found themselves (including a tank that could not move due to malfunction), the conclusion drawn by the commanders in the field was that this fire could provide cover for an attempt to abduct a soldier. During this episode of mortar fire, five sites in a built-up area were identified as points from which shells had been fired at IDF forces. Nevertheless, IDF forces did not return fire towards the sources of this fire, because of their proximity to "sensitive sites" (in the IDF, "sensitive sites" are civilian sites that receive special protection from attack under the law of armed conflict (such as medical facilities), as well as other civilian sites that warrant special consideration for policy reasons, even when there is no legal obligation (such as schools); such sites are identified in advance by the IDF and integrated into IDF's operational systems).

In other words, IDF forces were sitting ducks and in real danger because they go beyond the letter of the Laws of armed Conflict in order to reduce the possibility of hitting schools or hospitals that are nearby where terrorists are firing.

At approximately 16:40, when the mortar fire had not yet ceased, IDF forces fired a number of rounds of smoke-screening shells, in order to screen the troops, and frustrate the enemy fire. At approximately 17:00, as the mortar fire upon the troops from the built-up area continued, and in light of the ongoing threat to the lives of the troops, the forces were able to identify two additional sources of fire, from which most of the fire towards them was originating at that time. After it was concluded that one of these points was sufficiently distant from sensitive sites, it was decided to return a limited amount of fire, of five mortar shells, with the aim of suppressing the fire targeted at IDF forces. The IDF fire was carried out using mortars, since there was no available alternative for carrying out the strike, including aerial alternatives, which would allow the necessary operational effect to be achieved. In this context, the possibility of using 155 mm high-explosive artillery shells was also considered, in order to address the danger faced by the forces. This possibility was dismissed for the reason that the collateral damage expected from mortar shells was more limited.

Approximately 18 minutes after the initial mortar fire was carried out by the forces, towards the source of the fire, and after the fire emanating from that site had not ceased, it was decided to fire an additional ten mortars towards it. After this round of fire, the mortar fire on IDF forces ceased. Only around 40 minutes after the execution of the above-mentioned fire were reports received by the IDF regarding the hit on civilians in this area.

The FFA Mechanism's findings further revealed that at the time of the incident, the forces had believed that the likelihood of civilians being harmed as a result of the fire was low. Before the start of the ground incursion in Shuja'iyya, a widespread warning to evacuate had been provided, which, according to the information in the force's possession, had resulted in the evacuation of the vast majority of the civilian population in the neighborhood? An additional warning to evacuate was made two days prior to the incident, on 28 July, in order to keep the civilian population at a distance from the area of hostilities. Moreover, during the ongoing aerial surveillance carried out in the area in the period leading up to the incident, no civilian presence was identified on the roads and in the open areas of the neighborhood – which are the areas in which the danger posed by mortar shells is generally greater than the danger to those inside a building. In real time, no aerial surveillance capabilities were available to the forces. Thus, even if the possibility of civilian presence in the area had not been entirely ruled out, in consideration of the assessment that most of the population had evacuated and that no civilian presence was identified in the area prior to the incident, the understanding was that the risk of harm as a result of the limited fire was low.

After the event, by comparing the actions taken by IDF forces with the allegations contained in the complaint received by the MAG Corps, it can be concluded that one of the shells from the first round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the roof of the Al-Salak family, at a time when the family was on the roof, and killed seven family members; and that two shells from the second round of fire carried out by IDF forces apparently struck the crowd which had gathered next to the Al-Salak house in the wake of the first strike. At the same time, the possibility that the harm to civilians during this incident resulted from a misfire by a Palestinian terror organization has not been ruled out, in light of the extensive enemy mortar fire emanating from the area at the time.

But what about the return fire? Did it hit its intended target? The answer seems to be yes.

In addition to the above, intelligence information indicated that six of the deceased in this incident appear to have been militants, and thus the total civilian fatalities is lower than that alleged in the complaint.

This means that the video above was edited to as not to show/play the sounds of the outgoing mortars from the area of the market that continued after the first Israeli response.

What about that cease-fire?

The FFA Mechanism's findings further concluded that the incident in question did not take place during a ceasefire in Shuja'iyya. The IDF announced a unilateral humanitarian ceasefire between the hours of 15:00 and 19:00 on that day, but clarified that this would not apply in a number of specific areas in which IDF forces were operating at that time, including Shuja'iyya (along with a number of other areas). This was transmitted in the media and in messages that were passed to the Palestinian side.

This is corroborated by The Independent:

The Israeli military has declared a limited four-hour humanitarian ceasefire in some parts of Gaza ...

However, the four-hour ceasefire will not take place in areas where operations are already underway and residents are being warned not to return to evacuated areas.

Lt Col Peter Lerner of the Israel Defence Forces told the BBC he hoped Hamas hold their fire during the brief lull in fighting as well, "because otherwise things are going to get messier".

This incident is maddening, because it shows that the IDF ia more concerned about civilians whose collateral deaths would be perfectly legal under international law than they are about their own troops, the exact opposite of how an army should act. It also shows that Hamas is eagerly taking advantage of that weakness, apparently firing mortars from nearby or within a crowded marketplace as well as schools and medical facilities, literally shielding themselves with children and injured.

Moreover, it proves, yet again, how far out of their depth NGOs that criticize Israel are. Without knowing what goes into military decisions, they cannot begin to come to any conclusion about the legality of any specific incident; yet they sprinkle around "war crimes" accusations like candy. They know literally nothing about military matters yet they self-righteously proclaim that the IDF is violating international law - laws that were written deliberately to allow military leaders to make exactly these kinds of decisions based on the best information they have at the time without fearing to be labeled war criminals.

Don't take my word for it - read the actual sources. There is a lot of protection for military decisions that are aimed at a valid target even if there would be civilian deaths, based on the value of the target. NGO's don't know the targets, don't know their value, don't know what the commanders know at the time, and yet pretend that they know all three.

Jizya tax receipt for Christians published

Arab media have published a photo of a receipt given by ISIS to a Christian for paying the jizya tax.

The receipt, from December, was given to a Syrian Armenian Christian in the city of Raqqa.

ISIS is enforcing Islamic law by requiring Christians (and, theoretically, Jews) to pay a poll tax to their Muslim masters. If they refuse then they are branded as enemies and given a "choice" of exile or death.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their homes when ISIS took over.

The Islamic law states that the second-class dhimmis must pay on a graded scale: wealthy ones pay the value of 13 grams of gold, average people half that amount and poor people a quarter of the amount. This Armenian, Sargis Araklian, was poor so he only paid the equivalent of $136.

While there is no love of ISIS in much of the Arab world, the articles seem to be written with a sense of pride, as if this was a historic occasion. The articles are proudly showing the first photographic proof in recent history of a Christian paying the jizya tax that most Muslims believe is their due for "protecting" them.

03/22 Links: Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders; The Guardian's new anti-Israel Editor

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders

In the most educated and progressive circles, who is considered to be the archfiend of the Middle East, the person who most imperils life and freedom and the safety of the world?
Bashar Assad, perhaps, the butcher of Syria? Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the psychotic Islamic State terrorist group? Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who threatens a second genocide against the Jewish people? None of the above. Among progressives, the accolade from hell is bestowed instead on the prime minister of the only democracy in the Middle East, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Shocked and appalled by their failure to finish him off politically – only to see him reelected stronger than ever – the Left immediately intensified its campaign of distortion and demonization against him. Its “aha” moment was that he was said to have reversed himself and come out against a two-state solution.
The Obama administration pounced and started hurling threats. It let it be known that, now that Netanyahu had opposed the creation of a separate Palestinian state, it would need to “reevaluate” the best way of bringing that about. It suggested the US might now fail to oppose the Palestinian initiative to get the UN Security Council to declare the establishment of such a state.

The Guardian appoints anti-Israel propagandist Katharine Viner as new editor-in-chief

The decision was not a surprise to those following the media group’s search for a new chief editor.
In December, I was asked by Josh Jackman of the The Jewish Chronicle to share my thoughts on the announcement that Alan Rusbridger was stepping down as the newspaper’s editor-in-chief after more than 20 years at the helm, and how the appointment of a new editor may affect their Middle East coverage. I told Jackman that the Guardian was institutionally biased against Israel and I wasn’t optimistic that a new editor will have a positive effect.
Specifically, I noted that Viner, one of the top early contenders for the job, could possibly even push the media group to adopt an even more pronounced pro-Palestinian stance.
My concerns were largely based on the fact that Viner was the co-creator of an anti-Israel play called ‘My Name is Rachel Corrie’, a piece of theatrical agitprop about the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist killed in March 2003 while attempting to stop an IDF anti-terror operation in Gaza.
In a review in 2005, Times of London culture critic Clive Davis characterized the play as “an element of unvarnished propaganda…with no attempt to set the violence in context”. “We are left”, he complained, “with the impression of unarmed civilians being crushed by faceless militarists.” At one point in the play, Corrie declares, “The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance.” As Davis noted, “Even the late Yasser Arafat might have blushed at that one.”

Jews are behind all bad in the world, says preacher on PA TV

The Jews are behind all that is wrong in the world, according to the host of a weekly Palestinian Authority TV program on Islam. Even when fish fight in the sea, "the Jews are behind it," said the Muslim preacher and professor of Quranic Studies, Imad Hamato. To back up this Antisemitic hate speech, Hamato went on to say that the Quran teaches that humanity will never "live in comfort... peace or fortune or tranquility" as long as "the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land." The solution for Muslims, according to the professor, is to fight Jews: "Our real Jihad is to take revenge."
"Humanity will never live in comfort as long as the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land. Humanity will never live in peace or fortune or tranquility as long as they are corrupting the land. An old man told me: If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are behind it. As Allah says: ''Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. They strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters'' (Sura 5:64)." [Official PA TV, Feb. 27, 2015]
Only a month prior to Hamato's statement, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a cleric on official PA TV who taught that Jews are "apes and pigs" whose "hearts were sealed by Allah."