Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

04/30 Links Pt2: Despite everything, Zionism won; Admit J-Street? May as well let in PLO and Fatah

From Ian:

The days between Holocaust Remembrance Day and Israeli Independence Day tend to reveal the true faces of the many who oppose the modern era's biggest humanist endeavor: the movement to bring Jews back to Israel. The Jewish people have returned home after many years in exile, but our ship, which constantly navigates the tempestuous sea, nearly drowned forever in history's biggest massacre.
The gates of Israel were shut when the survivors came knocking, but the gates did not shut themselves. The British, and their friends, made sure those gates were locked tight. The U.S. did not lag far behind in the race to win over the hearts of the Arab states, be it out of greed for oil or a fundamental lack of understanding of the global order, and more specifically, of the Middle East. Immigration ships were ejected back into the stormy sea as they tried to enter the land of freedom and equality.

MEMRI: Arab Writers Praise Israel's Technological Superiority, Morality And Democracy, Call To Learn From It And Mimic Its Success

Arab media is known to be unsympathetic towards Israel. It even avoids using the country's name, usually using terms such as "the Zionist entity" or "the Hebrew state" instead. Furthermore, reports and editorials in Arab press are rife with expressions of hatred and hostility towards Israel. However, the Arab press occasionally features articles by Arab intellectuals and pundits praising Israel, listing its achievements – mainly in hi-tech – and urging Arab countries to learn from the Israelis in order to better their own global standing.
This report will include excerpts from recent articles praising Israel.

Greetings from Apartheidia
We just need some help here getting with the Apartheid program. This place looks too much like one of those Benetton ads.

So, as that master of diplomatic acrobatics John Kerry so aptly pointed out, there is nothing left for us to do but to come out of the Apartheid closet.
There is just one problem we are all grappling with. Who are we exactly “apartheiding,” if I can put it that way. There have been numerous concerned citizen meetings in our town and others trying to get answers to this.
We asked our Ethiopian gardener about it and he said that he is saving up for an apartment, so if the country goes to hell, it should drive down the price of real estate. Our Arab family GP said no more antibiotics, get out and get some fresh air, even if it meant rubbing elbows with the apartheided.
Our Druze contractor did say that many of his family were being apartheided to death across the border in Syria, but he admitted that this didn’t have much to do with events on this side of the Golan.

Israel’s Navy Transforms Itself

A neat overview of the history and future of Israel's navy, from Ehud Eiran in World Politics Review:

Last month, the Israeli navy took control of a Panamanian ship off the coast of Sudan that was carrying Iranian munitions to Gaza. The Red Sea operation underscored the growth of the navy’s role in Israel’s power projection, which has accelerated in the 21st century after many decades in which maritime strategy was something of an afterthought for Israel’s military.

A maritime perspective was central in pre-state Zionist strategic thinking, because the seas were the gateway for Jewish immigration into Palestine. However, once the state of Israel was created in 1948, the seas and the navy lost their significance in the eyes of Israel's security establishment. The wars that followed featured mostly challenges and responses on the ground and in the air.

In these early years, Israel's military leadership defined five goals for the navy: to guard the coast, to protect ports, to "take action" against a possible naval blockade by Arab states, to "land from the sea, against enemy targets," and to secure Israeli "maritime transportation." With these rather minimalist goals, the navy possessed until the early 1970s a small number of platforms, mostly destroyers. The force reflected a haphazard approach to planning and procurement, rather than a clear vision.

This period also set the contours of the major internal debates the navy would have for decades to come, mostly between the supporters of a surface fleet and the supporters of a force that would focus on maritime sabotage by frogman. These debates were part of what led to the navy’s ethos of maximum utilization of the naval force with an emphasis on technology, an offensive approach, forward deployment of commanders, operational flexibility and a significant investment in training.

One other legacy the navy has retained from these early days is that of viewing the Mediterranean as the main area of operations. This view is also a result of geography: Israel has a 120-mile Mediterranean shore dotted with more than 10 ports serving the nation's major population centers. On the Red Sea, Israel has only a 9-mile shore, serving the underpopulated southern end of the country, with only one port.

The Israeli navy's performance in its early decades was mixed. Alongside achievements such as the capture of an Egyptian destroyer in the 1956 Suez crisis, the Israeli navy suffered a number of major failures: poor performance in the 1967 War and the loss (in action) of a destroyer and a submarine (probably in an accident), both in 1968. In part due to these failures, by the mid-1970s Israel’s navy had transformed itself into a missile-boat based force, supplemented with advanced electronic warfare systems. These changes contributed to the navy's successful performance in the 1973 War.

Also during the 1970s, the navy began to participate in the armed conflict between Israel and the Palestinian national movement. The latter's armed elements then operated mostly from Lebanon. Israel’s navy SEALs conducted dozens of raids on Palestinian targets in Lebanon. Other elements of the navy tried to prevent penetrations of Palestinian combatants from the sea into Israel. The 1982 Israeli-Palestinian War saw Israel’s navy conduct the only large-scale amphibious assault in its history, when it transported Israeli ground forces to northern Lebanon.

The 1990s marked the next phase of change in the Israeli navy. An era of peace talks between Israel and its immediate neighbors contributed to the further decommissioning of the navy’s surface fleet. By the 2000s, Israel’s navy operated only 13 missile boats, down from 24 in the 1980s.

The more significant change, however, occurred under the surface, with the 1990s launch of an ambitious expansion plan for the submarine fleet. The 1991 barrage of Iraqi ballistic missiles on Israel ushered in a greater awareness of the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. In response, the navy was reshaped to meet Israel's most fundamental threat. Though the reports have never been officially recognized, according to the foreign media the six Dolphin- and Dolphin 2-class submarines that Germany is supplying to Israel will be able to carry nuclear warheads, thus providing Israel with a second-strike nuclear capability. If true, this would mark the first time that the navy will play a central role in Israeli deterrence. Moreover, given that Israel does not share a border with Iran, the submarines can also serve as an instrument for other forms of Israeli power projection directed at Iran.

The 2000s brought with them three more changes that are bound to shape Israel’s navy in the coming decades. First, since 2004 Israel has been exploiting massive gas deposits in its exclusive economic zone in the Mediterranean. The centrality of the deposits for its economy led Israel to commit to defending the gas production facilities at sea. The navy will lead this effort and has already requested to expand its surface force. The gas issue has also led to some maritime tension between Israel and Lebanon, as the two countries disagree over the demarcation of their respective exclusive economic zones. American mediation has not resolved the issue, for now.

Second, during the 2000s Israel began to operate militarily in a more pronounced way over the horizon. This was both a response to the rise of the Iranian threat, but also in an effort to thwart the supply of rockets to Palestinian-controlled Gaza. The navy became an important actor in this form of power projection, as illustrated by the March 2014 Red Sea operation to interdict the shipment of munitions to Gaza. Finally, during the 2000s the navy began deploying an unmanned naval combat system, the Protector, perhaps marking the future direction for some of its platforms.

As the Israeli navy moves into the 21st century, it is in the process of transforming itself. From a secondary service operating within a military that saw "an Israeli war fleet as an unnecessary expense," in the words of Vice Adm. Yedidia Yaari, commander of the navy from 2000 to 2004, it is becoming a strategic arm that is entrusted with dealing with Israel's most significant threats.

"Erdogan abandoning Gaza for a few Zionist dollars"

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday:

Turkey and Israel could move towards reconciliation within days or weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview aired Tuesday.

Erdogan told PBS’s Charlie Rose that the issue of the amount of compensation Israel will pay the families of the nine Turks killed on the Mavi Marmara in 2010 as they tried to break the blockade of Gaza has been resolved.

He said that the “other step of the negotiations,” was the issue of sending humanitarian aid to Palestinians through Turkey.

“With the completion of that phase we can move towards a process of normalization,” he said. “I think we’re talking about days, weeks.”

In Jerusalem, however, officials – who have heard Turkish leaders talk for the last five months about an imminent agreement – were more skeptical.

“We have yet to hear that this is concluded,” one source said.

Another official pointed out that while Erdogan in the past spoke about the need for Israel to remove the naval blockade of Gaza before there would be a reconciliation, in this interview he only talked about “sending humanitarian aid to Palestinians through Turkey.”

The official said this may indicate that Erdogan is no longer demanding that Israel lift the naval blockade as a condition for resuming full ties, something that would make an agreement easier.

An editorial in Firas Press shows that this news, whether it is true or not, is being received with dismay by Palestinian Arabs.

Seemingly overnight the tone of [Erdogan] changed. Before he was demanding a written pledge in which the Occupying Power would lift the siege on the Gaza Strip, as a prerequisite for the normalization relations with the state of the occupation and the restoration of diplomatic ties...

The remarks of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proves that he is a man without principles who abandoned his previous demands to break the siege on Gaza, after being hailed by the Palestinian people as their savior and as a "Superman for this day and age," capable of ending the siege and stopping the military machine of Zionism.

Now his words have been proven to be the promises of a clown. He is selling the issue of Gaza for a fistful of dollars and decided to restore relations with the occupation. Are there enough of those dollars to erase the shame that will be attached to the man and throw him into the dustbin of history?

04/30 Links Pt1: Prosor: PA Funds Will Go to Hamas; Syrian dissident 'Israel is our last hope'

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Abbas Pumps New Life Into Hamas

Chief PLO Negotiator Saeb Erekat this week went as far as arguing that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. "We might agree or differ with Hamas," Erekat said. "But Hamas is not a terrorist organization. The occupation, according to international law, is the worst form of terrorism."
Abbas's "reconciliation" accord with Hamas is most probably aimed at exerting pressure on Israel to make far-reaching concessions at the negotiating table.
But Abbas's move will soon prove to be counterproductive. Hamas's goal is to seize control over the Palestinian Authority and replace Israel with an Islamic empire. Abbas is deceiving himself and others when he says that a unity government with Hamas would recognize Israel and renounce violence. Hamas has already made it clear that the deal with Abbas does not mean that it would change its ideology or renounce terrorism.

Bibi Reminds Al Beeb's Bowen of the Core of the Conflict (video)

With hectoring naivety, the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen interviews Bibi Netanyahu:
And is reminded of the hard facts.
"The core of the conflict is the persistent Arab refusal decade upon decade ... to recognise the Jewish State in any boundary" ...

Benjamin Netanyahu interview - In full

'Palestinians have a pattern: Demand, delay and desert'

"When I think about the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a predictable pattern on the part of the Palestinians -- demand, delay and desert," Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor told the Security Council on Tuesday, the same day that the nine-month period allotted for the latest round of peace talks elapsed.
"While Israel makes tangible concessions to advance peace, the Palestinian leadership has let every window of opportunity fly out the window. This goes to the very heart of the problem. The Palestinians pledge dialogue while fermenting hatred. They promise tolerance while celebrating terrorists. And they make commitments almost as quickly as they break them.
"As we speak, millions of dollars are being channeled to the Palestinian Authority. Now that the Palestinians have signed a unity agreement, that funding will be at the disposal of Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
"I wonder how taxpayers in London, Luxembourg and Paris would feel knowing that they will enable Hamas to launch more rockets into Israel, kidnap more Israelis, and send more suicide bombers into our cafés."

Hamas Al Qassam websites very different in English and Arabic

Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades terrorist organization has two separate websites for English and Arabic.

The English-language website highlights topics like human rights:

But its Arabic site shows its real priorities with lots of photos of masked terrorists, "martyrs" and violence that they celebrate:

They are more similar that you might think. Both of them are advocating using the most convenient weapons they have against Israel - suicide bombs and rockets on one hand, and useful Western idiots on the other.

It is amazing how many people get fooled by soothing statements meant for Western consumption and are willing - or anxious - to ignore reality.

Israel secretly hands over body of Sbarro's suicide bomber, Arabs celebrate

Arutz-7 reports:

Israel has returned to the Palestinian Authority (PA) the bodies of four terrorists who carried out deadly terrorist attacks against Israelis, including the body of the terrorist who blew himself up in the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001.

The PA-based Safa news agency reported on Tuesday that the terrorists whose bodies were returned include brothers Adel and Imad Osallah, Hamas terrorists who planned attacks against Israel and who were eliminated near Hevron by IDF soldiers in 1998.

In addition to Izz al-Din al-Masri, the Sbarro suicide bomber, Israel also reportedly handed the body of suicide bomber Tawfiq Mahamid, who carried out a suicide attack west of Umm al-Fahm and who belonged to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the so-called “military wing” of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party.

The attack at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in August of 2001 was one of the deadliest terror attacks in Israel’s history.

15 people were killed in the Sbarro attack, including five members of the Schijveschuurder family from the community of Neria in Binyamin.

The ever so peaceful Palestinian Authority gave these terrorists an honorable military welcome.

Arnold and Frimet Roth are the parents of one of the Sbarro's attack victims, their daughter Malki. They write:

For the record, the Israeli decision to hand over the body of Al-Masri, the human bomb whose explosion caused so much devastation, grief and ongoing pain to so many Israelis, was made on the basis of zero consultation with the families of his victims. There was also no pre-hand-over official notification to the news media or to the judicial system as far as we know. The Arab media are the sole source of the news.

...Stand by for more of the same as the Palestinian Authority, probably with its new business partner Hamas (who long ago claimed al-Masri as one of its heroes), prepares to celebrate the life and death of the human bomb who murdered 15 innocents. In fact, it's begun...

(And this side question: Will the world's most important organization of Protestant churches take part in the celebration? Will they condemn it? Or sit on the fence? Does their theology teach that "freedom with justice and dignity" applies to people like our daughter's cold-blooded killers and those who stand proudly with them? But not to the victims?)

And prepare - as we will - to scour the news reports for expressions of disgust and rejection from within the Arabic-speaking world for this upcoming latest chapter in the orgy of hate and bloodshed. But be ready to wait a long, long time.

The PLO's lawyer whitewashes Hamas terror

John V. Whitbeck, an international lawyer who advises the PLO, is now defending Hamas. You know...unity.

In a laughable "analysis" in Ma'an, Whitbeck shows that he can ignore the most elementary rules of logic and the English language itself in order to defend terrorists:

When, in response to the threat of potential Palestinian reconciliation and unity, the Israeli government suspended "negotiations" with the Palestine Liberation Organization on April 24 (five days before they were due to terminate in any event), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office issued a statement asserting: "Instead of choosing peace, Abu Mazen formed an alliance with a murderous terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel."

...The extreme subjectivity of the epithet "terrorist" has been highlighted by two recent absurdities -- the Egyptian military regime's labeling of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has won all Egyptian elections since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as a "terrorist" organization and the labeling by the de facto Ukrainian authorities, who came to power through illegally occupying government buildings in Kiev, of those opposing them by illegally occupying government buildings in eastern Ukraine as "terrorists."

In both cases, those who have overthrown democratically elected governments are labeling those who object to their coups as "terrorists."

It is increasingly understood that the word "terrorist," which has no agreed-upon definition, is so subjective as to be devoid of any inherent meaning and that it is commonly abused by governments and others who apply it to whomever or whatever they hate in the hope of demonizing their adversaries, thereby discouraging and avoiding rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own illegal and immoral behavior.

Check out how deceptive Whitbeck is. He is claiming that since some people may misuse the word "terrorist" and since the word has no "agreed upon definition" then the word becomes meaningless when Israel uses it.

However, there are generally agreed upon definitions of terrorism. For example, the draft UN definition:

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities, or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

The FBI says that international terrorism involves violent acts that "appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."

There are plenty of other definitions. While the definitions may not be identical and they may not be 100% perfect, it is clear that - for example - the 9/11 attacks fall under all definitions of terror. (Although Whitbeck says 9/11 is a hoax. Really.)

Whitbeck is trying to say that the word "terrorism" is meaningless, but it isn't. Just because boundary cases aren't defined doesn't mean that some acts aren't clearly cases of terrorism.

Suicide bombings, rocket attacks aimed at civilians and other acts meant to intimidate and instill fear in a population for political purposes all fit in under every single serious definition of terrorism from both a legal and dictionary perspective. Which makes Hamas, by definition, a terrorist organization.

Indeed, Whitbeck is using a silly semantic argument to whitewash Hamas acts which fall under every single definition of terrorism.

He continues in the same vein:

Netanyahu's assertion that Hamas "calls for the destruction of Israel" requires rational analysis as well.

He is not the only guilty party in this regard. The mainstream media in the West habitually attaches the phrase "pledged to the destruction of Israel" to each first mention of Hamas, almost as though it were part of Hamas' name.

In the real world, what does the "destruction of Israel" actually mean? The land? The people? The ethno-religious-supremacist regime?

There can be no doubt that virtually all Palestinians -- and probably still a significant number of Native Americans -- wish that foreign colonists had never arrived in their homelands to ethnically cleanse them and take away their land and that some may even lay awake at night dreaming that they might, somehow, be able to turn back the clock or reverse history.

However, in the real world, Hamas is not remotely close to being in a position to cause Israel's territory to sink beneath the Mediterranean or to wipe out its population or even to compel the Israeli regime to transform itself into a fully democratic state pledged to equal rights and dignity for all who live there. It is presumably the latter threat -- the dreaded "bi-national state" -- that Netanyahu has in mind when he speaks of the "destruction of Israel."

For propaganda purposes, "destruction" sounds much less reasonable and desirable than "democracy" even when one is speaking about the same thing.

...In the real world, the Hamas vision (like the Fatah vision) of peaceful coexistence in Israel-Palestine is much closer to the "international consensus" on what a permanent peace should look like, as well as to international law and relevant UN resolutions, than the Israeli vision.

You see? In Whitbeck's conception of "the real world," Hamas isn't calling for the destruction of Israel - Hamas is calling for democracy and peaceful coexistence!

Unfortunately for Whitbeck, Hamas leaders' own words show a slightly different story. They say quite clearly and explicitly that they don't quite esubscribe to Whitbeck's fantasies as to what they believe and what they want to do to all Jews in the area. (And Whitbeck knows this very well.)

"The armed resistance and the armed struggle are the path and the strategic choice for liberating the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river, and for the expulsion of the invaders and usurpers [Israel]... We won't relinquish one inch of the land of Palestine."

Expulsion of all Jews from Israel. Hmm. It sounds so peaceful and democratic!

Here a Hamas commander calls on Israeli Arabs to destroy Israel from the inside.

Congratulations to our people of 1948 [Israeli Arabs] on the liberation of Gaza. You wish to destroy them [the Israelis] from their inside...

He must mean by voting in elections.

Here's another example of how Hamas cannot possibly mean anything offensive:

"Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah"

Only a fanatical right wing Zionist could possibly interpret that as anything but puppies and flowers and rainbows, right, John?

There are many Israel haters that would read this ridiculous article and sagely nod their heads as if it makes perfect sense.

But that is because they want to justify Arabs killing Jews.

Just like John V. Whitbeck.

Why J-Street should not be admitted to the Conference of Presidents

The Forward writes:

Several large, mainstream Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, have to decided to vote in favor of admitting the dovish Israel lobby J Street into organized Jewry’s primary umbrella group on Israel. Others, like the Jewish Federations of North America, are leaning towards voting that way, according to informed sources.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which is scheduled to vote Wednesday on J Street’s request for admission, is conducting its process under a shroud of secrecy. The decision will be made in a closed-envelope ballot, and most of the member organizations remained tight-lipped regarding their expected vote.

There is no problem with "dovish" organizations being members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

There is a problem with admitting a member that consistently misrepresents itself as being "pro-Israel."

J-Street pretends that it is being vilified because it supports a two-state solution, and that is its constant refrain, in its press releases and on its website.

But the State of Israel also accepts a two-state solution.

Yet on every substantive issue where there is a disagreement between Israel and the PLO, J-Street sides with the PLO. In no universe can that be considered "pro-Israel."

As if that weren't bad enough, J-Street demands that Americans lobby their elected representatives to pressure Israel, and only Israel, to make concessions - to those who happily admit that they consider Israel their enemy.

J-Street has no respect for Israeli democracy. It wants third parties to force a solution on Israel that most Israelis have proven - with their votes - that they do not support.

The only reason that J-Street has any traction is its deception in pretending that it is merely interested in two states. But the two states it wants would involve the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews, it would create a situation where Jewish holy places are off limits to Jews, it would create borders that are indefensible. And it would empower people who brag in Arabic that their state is merely a stage to destroying Israel.

If that is what Israelis want, that would be fine. But they don't.

Why would the Conference of Presidents want to admit a deceptive, anti-Israel organization?

Even though Americans for Peace Now is already a member, and they also lobby US officials to pressure Israel, at least their parent organization tries to work within Israel's democracy to some extent. J-Street is beyond the pale.

Although the vote will be secret (which is outrageous - members of the organizations deserve to know how their leaders vote!) you can still write to the member organizations of the Conference and let them know why they should vote against J-Street's admission on Wednesday.

And demand that they make their vote public.

04/29 Links Pt2: Juan Cole Definitely Uninformed; NYT: Abbas ‘Vilified’ for Questioning the Holocaust

From Ian:

New York Times Says Abbas ‘Vilified’ for Challenging Number of Holocaust Victims

In an article today about Abbas’ statement condemning the Holocaust, Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren writes: “Mr. Abbas has been vilified as a Holocaust denier because in his doctoral dissertation, published as a book in 1983, he challenged the number of Jewish victims and argued that Zionists had collaborated with Nazis to propel more people to what would become Israel.”
This passage is characteristic Times treatment of Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinian claims, no matter how specious or unfounded, are treated with neutrality at best, and afforded credibility, at worst. Abbas had written in his dissertation: “it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached 6 million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller – below one million.”
In stating that Abbas “challenged” the fact that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, The Times journalist falsely implies that there may actually have been substance to his claim.

How did the BBC frame Mahmoud Abbas’ remarks on the Holocaust?

Although it once again downplays Hamas’ terror designation by numerous countries, the BBC article notes correctly that:
“Hamas officials have made statements denying the Holocaust, and in 2009 objected to a UN proposal to teach children about it in UN-run schools in Gaza.”
It goes on to state:
“Mr Abbas’s comments were the strongest that he has made publicly on the Holocaust and appear to be an attempt to reach out to a mistrustful Israeli public, the BBC’s Yolande Knell reports from Jerusalem.”
In fact, Abbas has made numerous public remarks in the past regarding the Holocaust, which Knell’s adjective “strongest” might also be used to describe – though in a decidedly different sense. The Israeli public is of course aware of the fact that Mahmoud Abbas’ PhD dissertation was based on a form of Holocaust denial.

PMW: Abbas' and other PA officials' acknowledgement of the Holocaust

Mahmoud Abbas' recent acknowledgement that "what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust is the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era" [Wafa (the official PA news agency), April 27, 2014] is a very rare example of official PA acknowledgement of the Holocaust and that its crimes were directed principally at Jews.
Studying Palestinian Authority officials' statements and PA events publicized in the official PA media, Palestinian Media Watch has found very few other examples of explicit official PA acknowledgement of the Holocaust and its crimes against the Jews and others.

Juan Cole… Definitely Uninformed and Often Wrong

Juan Cole of “Ahmadinejhad really didn’t say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map” fame is at it once again. When it comes to Israel, Cole spends so much time twisting himself and distorting positions that it seems that the man would have to screw his pants on (h/t to Hunter S. Thompson) to get dressed in the morning. On his page “Informed Consent” (a misnomer if there ever was one) Cole writes: John Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid; and 5 Ways he is Understating It. In this article Cole gives us an fact free screed as to how Israel is an “Apartheid State” beginning with his inaccurate headline.
Unless one has the reading comprehension of a small child, it is clear that Secretary Kerry is saying that should there be One State solution (which there is not); Israel would run the risk of becoming an Apartheid type state. What he did not say was “Israel is an Apartheid State”. So, from the very headline this article fails.
From here it simply gets more ridiculous. The entire premise of the article states that there is already a One State solution in place and that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are in fact Israeli Citizens who are treated as “second class citizens”. NOW, if Israel did annex the West Bank and Gaza and did not offer the right of franchise amongst other civil rights to all of its citizens one could make that argument but the Israelis have not done this. AND even if they wanted to ignore all of the security concerns and everything else exactly to whom would they be handing this land over too (but never mind that I guess)? So with that the entire analogy of conflating Israel to South Africa fails miserably.

The saga of Christy Anastas, Palestinian defender of Israel, continues

Christy Anastas is a young woman who, during an al Jazeera program, was promised by Saeb Erekat that "Palestine" would have full human rights, freedom of speech and women's rights, among other things.

As a result, she publicly defended Israel in a remarkable lecture at Uppsala University in Sweden.

And all of that talk about freedom of speech went out the window.

This video shows her giving background information, the Al Jazeera segment and her lecture in Sweden.

Her family reacted viciously, as Ma'an reported:

A Bethlehem father whose daughter recently released a pro-Israel video has condemned the move, saying that the family "rejects and distances" themselves from the content in a statement made to Bethlehem's Radio Mawwal.

The Anastas family also denied claims that their daughter had been forced to flee, saying that they feared she had been the victim of "entrapment" and was under "pressure" from sponsors who had promised to pay her enrollment fees and housing costs for university in the United Kingdom.

The statement comes after a video featuring their daughter Christy was released on the internet in which she spoke of her belief that "God has given this land to the Jews as an everlasting covenant," and claimed that she was forced to flee Palestine because of persecution for her beliefs.

The Anastas family expressed their "surprise" at the video, "deploring and condemning" her words, denying that she was ever forced to "flee" but instead that they she had left of her own free will to study abroad.

They added that the video "was a result of direct pressure that Christy is currently experiencing."

The usual "blame Israel" crowd, including this liar I exposed recently, are convinced that Christy is being coerced by some nefarious crowd to say these awful things.

Here's the latest on the story from CAMERA:

Christy Anastas, the 26-year-old woman who has fled the West Bank (where a journalist was recently sentenced to a year in prison for mocking Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on Facebook) will present herself for inspection at a police station in England on the morning of April 29, 2014.

Why?

Because a self-styled “peace and justice” activist has called the police in England, informing the authorities that she may be a “missing person.” Consequently, Christy will present herself at a police station somewhere in England this morning to assure them that she is not being held against her will.

That’s the report from Howard Stern, who along with Christy, is a co-founder of the Emmaus Group, an activist organization that promotes awareness of the mistreatment of Christians in Muslim-majority environments. Stern reports the following:

Christy has lived with my wife and I and our other two grown up kids for two years. We are family. We love her dearly. She is totally part of the family, free to come and go as she pleases. She has friends, drives a car and enjoys church where she helps at youth club. As a family we are all upset by his actions and words as Christy has, is and never will be coerced and forced to do anything she does not want to. We are a Christian household. We are all protective of her and I do chaperone her a lot and speak with her where appropriate but she is strong-minded kid and knows what she wants and what she believes in - taken after her mother in that dept!! [Christy’s mother, Claire Anastas, is an ardent anti-Zionist activist. More about this below.]

When the dust settles, Stern hopes to obtain a formal apology from the self-styled “peace and human rights’ activist who called the police in an attempt to “help” Christy.

In the meantime, Stern writes, “We have reported the matter of his reporting to MPs, our lawyers and senior church officials who we liaise with. Christy will attend a local police station in the morning to confirm all is ok and well.”

One has to wonder why so-called “human rights” activists have not expressed any concern over the possibility that Christy’s mother, Claire, has been testifying under duress on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

It’s a real possibility. Claire has been pretty energetic – if not frantic – in her efforts to focus attention on Israel and legitimize the Palestinian Authority. If she has ever said anything critical of the PA or Hamas – two institutions clearly worthy of criticism – it hasn’t gotten much attention.

In addition to being a favorite of the “peace and justice” types on Twitter, Claire Anastas was a centerpiece in the now notorious 60 Minutes episode that demonized Israel in 2012 and was a prominent source in Yasmine Perni’s 2013 movie, "The Stones Cry Out," which offers a distorted view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Claire has also spoken at a number of conferences in the U.S. where she has condemned Israel.

Given the dependence of Palestinian Christians on the Palestinian Authority for their safety, why isn’t anyone asking if maybe Claire’s testimony is being coerced or offered under duress?

The reason is simple. Christy Anastas’s testimony is a threat to the narrative of Western “human rights” activists who have been serving the interests of a combine of theocrats and kleptocrats in their fight against a self-critical democracy, Israel, for the past few decades.

Claire’s testimony is exactly what these activists want to hear. Christy’s testimony, by way of comparison, raises the possibility that maybe they have picked the wrong horse in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

No doubt about it, the different treatment received by Christy and Claire Anastas reveals an interesting dichotomy. Palestinian Christian testimony, when it cuts against Israel, is immediately accepted as reliable.

But now that Christy Anastas, a Palestinian Christian, has done the unthinkable by calling out for the PA for its corruption, violence and ineptitude – which no one really doubts – so-called human rights activists question her mental competence and treats her like she’s a modern-day incarnation of Patty Hearst.

In the minds of the pro-Palestinian activists who want to "help" her and in the minds of the Palestinian Christians who denounce her, it's just unthinkable that a sane and rational person could honestly believe what Christy says. And so they describe her testimony as "dodgy." They imply she has been kidnapped and is being held against her will by evil manipulative Zionists. And if these explanations don't work, Palestinian Christians come right out and say she has been bought and paid for.

It’s a form of hysteria, actually. This hysteria is patently evident on the Facebook page of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, where EAPPI's “peace and justice” activists have shown they have bought hook line and sinker, the story offered by news outlets in the West Bank. The story told in these outlets is that Christy Anastas was spirited away by operatives working on behalf of a vast Zionist conspiracy who have corrupted her mind and soul.

It is funny that no one is surprised when scores of young Jews, pretending to be brave, decide to publicly attack Israel, using their purported Judaism as a club to give their lies authenticity.

Yet when Palestinian Arabs like Christy or Zeina Barakat show true bravery for speaking obvious truths it is a major story and they are attacked relentlessly.

It is clear that Saeb Erekat's promises of free speech and freedom in his quasi-state are simply more of his many lies.

"Recognizing the Holocaust more dangerous than calling Israel a Jewish State"

The inevitable Arab backlash against Mahmoud Abbas' cynical but explicit recognition of the Holocaust has begun.

Naturally, it is starting in an Egyptian newspaper but from a Jordanian writer.

Dr. Ibrahim Alloush (a high percentage of Arab antisemites have advanced degrees, it seems) writes in El Badil that for Arabs to recognize the Holocaust is even more dangerous than having them recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Alloush, after describing how Israel manipulates the Holocaust to force the world to accede to its evil plots, then stages a full, sickening example of Holocaust denial. He says that there was no Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, that there were not six million Jews even living in Europe under Nazi rule, and that not a single Jew died in a gas chamber - only a few hundred thousand from starvation and disease, at most.

He ends off saying that the words "Israel" and "Holocaust" must always be placed in quotes, since neither of them are real.

Alloush has written for, and been interviewed by, many media outlets. He has a website called Free Arab Voice and another called NoZion as well as a Twitter account where he spouts his hate and posts links to his articles.

This guy teaches at a Jordanian university.

But I don't think that any academic organizations in the US or Europe will be upset about what Alloush is presumably teaching his students. No, professors spouting Holocaust denial is fine, especially if they are Arab, because, you know, freedom of speech trumps unimportant things like truth. You will find no condemnations from Lisa Duggan or Judith Butler or anyone else involved in progressive, liberal academic associations who say that Israeli Jews building houses are the worst violations of human rights imaginable.

04/29 Links Pt1: Krauthammer: Kerry Should Resign; EU Doublethink on the Palestinians

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: John Kerry's Jewish best friends

Anti-Semitism is not a simple bigotry. It is a complex neurosis. It involves assigning malign intent to Jews where none exists on the one hand, and rejecting reason as a basis for understanding the world and operating within it on the other hand.
John Kerry’s recent use of the term “Apartheid” in reference to Israel’s future was an anti-Semitic act.
In remarks before the Trilateral Commission a few days after PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas signed a unity deal with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, Kerry said that if Israel doesn’t cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it will either cease to be a Jewish state or it will become “an apartheid state.”
Leave aside the fact that Kerry’s scenarios are based on phony demographic data. As I demonstrate in my book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, Israel will maintain a strong and growing Jewish majority in a “unitary state” that includes the territory within the 1949 armistice lines and Judea and Samaria. But even if Kerry’s fictional data were correct, the only “Apartheid state” that has any chance of emerging is the Palestinian state that Kerry claims Israel’s survival depends on. The Palestinians demand that the territory that would comprise their state must be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence before they will agree to accept sovereign responsibility for it.

Isi Leibler: Candidly speaking: Proposed PA-Hamas union based on common objectives

This is the time for the government to launch a passionate global campaign to disseminate the truth. The PA-Hamas union is still far from implementation.
The personal hatred between the leaders remains intense and the negotiations could fall apart at any time. Israel would again face renewed pressures to make further concessions to the “moderate” Palestinians. As of now, our case can be presented in absolute black-and-white terms and we should maximize this opportunity.
The government must rally all the resources of the Jewish people including the Foreign Ministry, the Jewish Agency, global and national Jewish organizations and Jewish personalities and all friends of Israel.
The prime minister should consider convening a global conference, along the lines of the successful gathering inaugurated by the Shamir-Peres national unity government which invited Jewish and non-Jewish friends of Israel to Jerusalem to demonstrate solidarity with the Jewish state. Ideally, this should precede the UN General Assembly convening in New York in October – which the Palestinians will undoubtedly seek to transform into a bigger-than-normal hate fest against us.