Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Video: Anne Bayefsky, at the UN, says that the UN is ‘the leading global purveyor of anti-semitism’

A leading human rights advocate accused the United Nations and its member nations of being “the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism” and “inciting murderous intolerance towards” Jewish people during an unprecedented speech Monday at the international body’s headquarters in New York City.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust (IHRH), stood before the U.N. and lambasted it for fanning the flames of global anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel, according to a copy of her remarks.

Bayefsky delivered her rebuke during an informal briefing on the threat anti-Semitism poses to international peace and security that was organized on the sidelines of the U.N. by the permanent mission of Palau.

While the briefing took place within the U.N.’s walls—and was attended mainly by members of the public and outside organizations—it was not formally sponsored by the international organization, leading Bayefsky to launch a scathing criticism.

“The U.N. is not having a conference on the threat that global anti-Semitism poses to international peace and security,” she said. “This is lunch-time. The courageous organizer, assisted by the principled representatives of the small state of Palau, is independent of the U.N. The facilities are not free.”

“But why couldn’t the U.N., founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and presently witnessing a widespread resurgence in anti-Semitism, sponsor a conference on combating global anti-Semitism?” Bayefsky asked. “The answer is clear: Because the United Nations itself is the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism.”

A very solid speech.

I did a Google News search for mentions of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" during the past month.

In English, it was mentioned about 25 times, with one op-ed that took it seriously - in Pravda.

Another article about a local school board issue mentioned, without comment, that an outsider at the meeting urged members to research the Protocols.

All other mentions noted that the work was an antisemitic forgery.

I could find no French media to say that the Protocols were legitimate. However, this Spanish article clearly believes in them while pretending to be objective about it and asking people to do their own research.

In Arabic, however, things are quite different.

Out of 25 articles that mentioned the book, only 3 said that it was a forgery. One quoted an analyst saying that the same mentality that goes into saying that the US is behind ISIS is the one that keeps pushing the Protocols. Two others were book reviews of Umberto Eco's The Prague Cemetery, which was recently translated to Arabic, where the Protocols is a major plot point.

Most of the rest were just crazy antisemitism.

An article in Egypt's Al Ahram said that an idea of teaching Egyptian girls how to belly dance via a satellite TV channel is essentially a fulfillment of a Jewish plot foreseen in the Protocols.

This Saudi writer described how the Protocols are being implemented now, in detail.

An Al Hayat column mentioned the Protocols while saying that Allah promised the inevitable destruction of Israel.

This Al Ahram column is critical of conspiracy theories but seems to accept the legitimacy of the Protocols, even if he is skeptical that they can be implemented.

This article invokes the protocols to explain why ISIS (which is, naturally, Jewish) is targeting Christians.

Al Ayam "quotes" Henry Kissinger to prove how Jews are hellbent on taking over the entire Middle East.

Jordan's Addustour says that the Protocols prove the Jewish desire to control the entire world.

Rassd creates a plan of action to help defeat the imperialistic and Zionist forces. They include studying antisemitic sections of the Koran, the Protocols and various antisemitic Arab books.

09/09 Links Pt1: President Sisi’s gift; "Hamas" by Ari lesser; India warns of terror attacks on Israelis

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: President Sisi’s gift

Sisi’s offer, even with Abbas’s rejection of it is a gift to Israel. And Israel’s challenge in the weeks and months ahead is to make the most of it.
If the Americans force Abbas to accept Sisi’s offer, Israel and the Palestinian people will benefit.
And if Abbas successfully scuttles it, Sisi’s offer will show that Israel is correct that it cannot satisfy Palestinian demands on its own, and indeed, it demonstrates how unreasonable those demands are.
Sisi’s offer demonstrates that for non-jihadist Sunnis, not only is Israel not the problem in the Middle East, a strong Israel is a prerequisite for solving the region’s troubles. Here is a major Arab leader willing to stand with Israel even if it means discrediting the PLO .
As a consequence, Sisi’s offer is a challenge to the US and Europe.
Sisi’s offer shows Washington and Brussels that to solve the Palestinian conflict with Israel, they need to stand with Israel, even if this means abandoning Abbas.
If they do so, they can take credit for achieving their beloved two-state solution. If they fail to do so, they will signal that their primary goal is not peace, but something far less constructive.

JPost Editorial: The Sisi solution

Of course, Sisi’s motives are not altruistic. Egypt has been battling Salafist forces in the Sinai for years. The breakdown of law and order on the peninsula is a major strategic threat to Egypt. The creation of a stable sovereign state in this anarchic region could be a stabilizing factor. Ensuring that the PA controls the enlarged Gaza Strip would neutralize Hamas, whose connections with the Muslim Brotherhood make it an enemy of the present Egyptian government.
We must not delude ourselves. Egyptian society remains deeply antagonistic to Israel. And an enlarged Gaza will not solve the underlying cause of the conflict: Palestinians’ refusal to reconcile themselves to the existence of a Jewish state. Nevertheless, Egypt and Israel share common interests which include a desire to weaken Hamas, stabilize Sinai and see Egypt and other “moderate” Sunni nations take a more active role in confronting Islamic extremism. Sisi’s Gaza initiative could lead to a major breakthrough in what has become an atrophied Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process, provided the Palestinian political leadership gives it a chance.

"Hamas" by Ari lesser

PART 4

(Part 1, part 2, part 3)

Continuing our series of Ken Roth's many lies he tweeted during Operation Protective Edge.

August 4 Do you want to know what "human shields" really are beyond ritualistic sloganeering? Read @HRW's Q&A on the law: http://trib.al/l8wdv4t

Truth: This is sort of amazing. Here are Roth's previous tweets defining human shields:

Jul 19 Much confusion about "human shields" which generally require coercion. Different from unnecessarily endangering civilians, tho both illegal.
Jul 24 #Hamas is putting civilians at risk but "no evidence" it forces them to stay--definition of human shields: @NYTimes. http://trib.al/61iwSoM
Jul 25 Hamas must as feasible not fight in populated areas http://trib.al/CA94avT but no human shield unless coerced to stay http://trib.al/YQwIIau

Yet when you read the official HRW Q&A that Roth tweeted here, you see a completely different definition - one that is actually accurate!

Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives – including fighters, ammunition and weapons -- in or near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.

There is nothing here about coercion.

HRW's definition is completely at odds with the definition their own executive director gave three separate times! The HRW definition simply says that using civilians to shield military objectives is what makes one a human shield.

Roth's tweet, by invoking "ritualistic sloganeering," of his critics, gave the impression that HRW's definition was agreeing with his multiple tweets, but amazingly it proves him wrong.

Roth never corrected his earlier tweets, though, nor did he acknowledge that his critics were correct all along.

August 4 Family homes of Hamas officials are not legitimate military targets; familes are not human shields: Michael Walzer. http://trib.al/wfhnrBC

Truth: Roth completely and knowingly misrepresents this article. Here is what Walzer said, in context:

Except when they are being used for some military purpose, houses where people live are not legitimate targets—even if the people who live there include Hamas officials. These attacks are wrong because the officials live with their families, who can't be called human shields.

Walzer adds the caveat "Except when they are being used for some military purpose" which Roth ignores.

Now, Walzer's statement is arguable, because Hamas terrorists are not policemen who work in shifts - they are always acting as militants during a war and are probably always considered legitimate targets. But even if you don't believe that, Walzer's caveat is true in most cases of senior Hamas officials: Hamas family homes are where meetings are held, command centers are built, tunnel entrances are hidden and weapons are stashed, and where that is the case they are valid military targets. Roth assumes that their family homes are completely free of military activity, which is naive to the extreme if not knowingly deceptive.

But this was not the point of Walzer's article. While Walzer urges Israeli soldiers to take risks to their own lives to ensure that civilian casualties are at a minimum - something that is not at all written in international law - he makes clear that the ultimate responsibility for civilian casualties rests with the terrorists who place them at risk to begin with:

Along with many others, I have argued for another rule: that the attacking forces must make positive efforts, including asking their own soldiers to take risks, in order to minimize the risks they impose on enemy civilians. How much risk has to be accepted? There is no precise answer to that question. But some risk is necessary, and if it is taken, then I think that the major responsibility for civilian deaths falls on the insurgents who are fighting from homes and schools and crowded streets. And if responsibility is understood and assigned in that way by the global public, it will be possible to fight and win an asymmetric war....

It is always necessary to figure out who is there, in the house, in the school, in the yard, before an attack begins—and that will often require the attacking soldiers to take risks. I suspect that some Israeli soldiers are doing that, and some are not. That's the way it is in every war; a lot depends on the intelligence and moral competence of the junior officers who make the most critical decisions on the ground. Judging these issues from a distance is especially difficult. But I would strongly advise anyone contemplating the loss of life in Gaza to think carefully about who is responsible, or primarily responsible, for putting civilians at risk. The high-tech army, for all its claims to precision, is often callous and clumsy. But it is the insurgents who decide that the death of civilians will advance their cause. We should do what we can to ensure that it doesn't.

Roth ignores Walzer's main assignment of responsibility to Hamas for civilian deaths and implies that Israel is the only party responsible.

This is pure mendacity.

I have not been closely following the problems of illegal African migrants to Israel. But the very first paragraph of HRW's press release touting a new report slamming Israel's treatment of them shows bias:

Israeli authorities have unlawfully coerced almost 7,000 Eritrean and Sudanese nationals into returning to their home countries where they risk serious abuse, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Some returning Sudanese have faced torture, arbitrary detention, and treason charges in Sudan for setting foot in Israel, while returning Eritreans also face a serious risk of abuse.

Sudan and Israel are enemies. HRW expects Israel to roll out the welcome mat for thousands of members of enemy states.

But when Israel pays them to return to their home country, HRW blames Israel for putting them in danger because Sudan treats them as if they came from an enemy country.

In the entire Human Rights Watch site, while there is plenty of criticism of Sudan's human rights abuses, not one word is said about how Sudan tortures people who sought refuge in Israel.

Why is HRW more concerned over Israel's paying people $1500 to return to their homeland than they are over the torture that they may receive merely for having set foot in Israel?

By the bizarre logic of HRW, once anyone enters Israel from a country that considers it an enemy, Israel must give them asylum because the very fact that they illegally entered Israel puts them in danger back home. The home country has no responsibility to end the torture itself, judging from HRW's website's lack of condemnation of the practice.

If this is the bias in the very first paragraph of the press release, one can only imagine how absurd the entire report is.

Just for a little perspective, this report about how terribly Israel treats African migrants is 83 pages long. The last two HRW reports on the Sudan, detailing how government murdered people and raped women, are both less than 50 pages long.

From AFP:

Leaving home for the first time in weeks, Abu Jihad was hit by a hail of bullets. His crime? Breaking the house arrest order imposed on him by Hamas.

Abu Jihad is a 27-year-old member of Fatah, the Palestinian nationalist movement headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, whose power base is in the West Bank.

But he lives in the Gaza Strip, which is under the de facto control of Hamas, Fatah’s Islamist rival.

After nine bullets raked his leg, Abu Jihad was transferred for medical treatment to the West Bank and it was from his hospital bed there that he told his story, using a pseudonym to conceal his identity.

“Never in my life did I think I would be attacked by Hamas or by any other Palestinian group,” he said. “I never thought I would be attacked just because I belong to Fatah.”

Back in Gaza, which Hamas began running in 2007 after ousting its Fatah rivals, he and others would never have dared to speak out.

From people on the streets to senior officials, no one allied with Fatah will agree to speak on the record, fearing the consequences after 300 of their number were placed under house arrest by Hamas.

Dozens who failed to respect the order were shot and wounded, among them Abu Jihad.

Such is the fear that many Fatah members have even sought to protect themselves by signing up to become members of Islamic Jihad, Hamas’s smaller, armed rival.

“To avoid being attacked by Hamas, a large number of party members have joined Islamic Jihad,” said a man calling himself Abu Iyyad, explaining that Hamas would never attack an Islamic Jihad member.

On the second day of the 50-day war with Israel, July 9, four armed men dressed in black, their faces masked, turned up at Ibrahim’s house. “My 12-year-old daughter was terrified. She wet herself because she was so panicked when the fighters came in,” he recalled, visibly upset.

Refusing to identify themselves, the men handed over a paper bearing the official emblem of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ armed wing, on which was written: “For your own security, you are asked not to leave your home for the duration of the war.”

There was no other allegation or explanation. “Our only crime is belonging to Fatah,” he snapped.

Abu Ahmed, 23, also believes he was targeted because of his membership of Fatah.

He was shot 19 times in the legs.

“They held me up against a wall, started shooting and shouted: ‘This is our present to Fatah,’” he told AFP from his hospital bed in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

...But the threats have gone beyond individuals, creating a culture of fear which has affected entire families living in the Gaza Strip.

“In our society, where reputation counts for everything, entire families are now living in fear,” said a senior Fatah official in Gaza who also refused to use his real name.

“ Hamas is undermining the dignity and the patriotism of our activists, some of whom were involved in the fighting, and lost family members in the war,” he said, clearly furious.

Questioned by AFP, Hamas insisted the house arrest orders had “no political significance,” saying they were legal procedures aimed at certain people, “some of whom happened to belong to Fatah.”

AFP doesn't mention that by putting hundreds of its political rivals under "house arrest" during a war, Hamas was also forcing them to be human shields.

Do you think any of this will be mentioned in the UNHRC "fact finding" mission report?

The children of Gaza (photos)

Abdullah Murtaja was a journalist for Hamas TV when he was killed in an airstrike.

Here he is striking a pose:

While I don't think he was an actual fighter for Hamas, he certainly was no journalist. His Facebook page was pure Hamas propaganda.

His cousin Suhaib also works at Al Aqsa TV. One of his favorite subjects for photos is children.

Here are some of the children of Gaza, as captured by Suhaib Murtaja:

(Correction: I originally wrote that Suhaib was killed, not his cousin Abdullah.)

(h/t Bob Knot)

09/08 Links Pt2: Everything You Need to Know about International Law and the Gaza War

From Ian:

Everything You Need to Know about International Law and the Gaza War

War crimes. Disproportionate response. Collective punishment. Targeting civilians. Throughout Operation Protective Edge, these terms have been fired off at Israel with the same intensity and frequency as Hamas’ rockets. Arab government spokesmen constantly refer to Israel’s actions as “aggression.” In extreme cases, Israel is accused of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.”
When politicians, pundits, or the public misuse these terms, one can only think of a quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” But when a respected jurist like Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, calls Israel’s military campaign “disproportionate,” claims the IDF’s “disregard for international humanitarian law and for the right to life was shockingly evident” in many of its attacks, and says that Israel is insufficiently protecting Gaza’s civilians “in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” the accusations cannot be so easily dismissed. At the same time that Israel is exercising its right to self-defense against terrorists who violate and shamelessly exploit international law, human rights lawyers and UN officials aim to manipulate the laws of war to reduce its ability to lawfully use military force.

How Hamas Destroys Its People, as Seen Through the Eyes of IDF Soldiers

Since the beginning of the Gaza War, Israelis have insisted that Hamas uses its own civilians as “human shields.” Hamas denies it, and certain international voices take their side. Now some of those who saw it with their own eyes are speaking out.
Below is a collection of personal stories gathered from soldiers who saw with their own eyes Palestinian civilians being used as strategic elements of Hamas’ fight against Israel. In some cases, only first names have been used in order to protect identities, as some were still in the midst of the operation when interviewed.
While they all served in different units, and fought different battles, some from the sky and some from the ground, all of them spoke of their painstaking efforts to protect the lives of Palestinian civilians at the risk of their own lives. Each soldier interviewed for this story had his own personal account, sometimes several accounts, of trying to avoid civilian casualties in the face of Hamas efforts to exploit them. And all of the soldiers shared the same frustration that despite all of their painstaking efforts, the world continues to view Israel’s war in Gaza as a war against humanity, when in their eyes, it is very much a war against a terrorist organization that has taken its own people hostage.

On Those "Spontaneous" Pro-Hamas Demonstrations

To what extent were Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations involved in the many, sometimes violent, anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrations we saw throughout Europe during the recent war?
“Let’s look at the country which is the most important hub for all of this - the UK. There is absolutely no doubt that the Brotherhood is the prime mover behind the demonstrations, because the coalitions, they are always the same people, the same organizers. Primarily, they are the British Muslim Initiative, Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Palestine Forum in Britain - those are all Brotherhood/Hamas groups. They’ve been behind the demonstrations for years, together with far-left coalition partners such as Stop the War Coalition and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Every time there’s a problem with Gaza, it’s the same sponsors, same groups, same signs. […] Some people would then say that these organizations are not the same as the Brotherhood, but they are part of the larger Global Muslim Brotherhood (GMB), that is, something more than these individual groups but less than a structured, hierarchical organization. In other words, a network. In general, the Brotherhood plays a big role in the demonstrations in Europe, but in terms of sheer political agitation and as a country serving as the command and control node.

There have been tons of faked quotes attributed to Zionist leaders over the decades.

But it is not often that you can witness the birth of a new lie.

So far, at least three Arab newspapers - the Arab Times, Al Majd and Al Watan Voice - have quoted Naftali Bennett as saying, on September 1, that "The killing of Palestinians brings life to the Jews."

Of course, Bennett never said anything like that, nor would he. The main quote he gave on September 1 was ""What we did yesterday was a display of Zionism. Building is our answer to murder."

To be sure, there are a lot of people for whom the preliminary paperwork that could maybe possibly in two decades result in Jews building houses is considered far worse than, say, an Arab blowing up ten Jews. But even if you have such a perverted view of morality, the quote is still completely bogus.

From Ma'an:

For the first time ever, Palestinian Muslims who live in Israel will be able to travel to Saudi Arabia for hajj pilgrimage by air instead of having to make the journey by bus.

Owner of the Ramla-based Milad Aviation Company Ibrahim Milad told Ma'an Sunday that flights would be organized from Ben Gurion Airport to Amman and then onward to Jeddah Airport in Saudi Arabia.

"We have contacted the Israeli and Jordanian civil aviation authorities and obtained all the needed permission to organize flights for hajj pilgrims," he said.

In the past, he said, it used to take pilgrims about 24 hours to travel from Israel to Amman due to the situation at the Israeli-controlled Allenby Bridge into Jordan, but the journey has now been reduced to a 20-minute plan ride.

An initial group of 766 hajj pilgrims will fly Sept. 23-26, and the flight will cost about $600.

Those Israeli Islamophobes!

Of course, this being Ma'an, it has to throw in some anti-Israel lies as background information:

Although the majority of Palestinians were expelled from their homes inside Israel during the 1948 ethnic cleansing that led to the creation of the State of Israel, some Palestinians managed to remain in their villages.

There are no credible historians who claim that the majority of Arabs in Palestine were expelled in 1948. The vast majority fled out of fear of war, the crumbling of Arab infrastructure from the initial panicked flight and some at the behest of Arab leaders.

The ones who stayed didn't "manage to remain," implying that despite Israeli efforts they managed to hang on to their homes. They simply didn't flee and no one bothered them.

But the Arabs know very well Goebbel's rule "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." It is pretty much the basis of Palestinian Arab nationalism.

PART 3

(Part 1, part 2)

Continuing my series of lies that were tweeted by Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch over the past two months.

July 29: 1st Gulf War showed devastating cascading effects on public health of attacking electricity, yet #Israel just did it. http://trib.al/sZWbwib

Truth: Israel immediately flatly denied targeting Gaza's power plant, although it allowed that it was possible that it was hit accidentally.

“The State of Israel did not attack Gaza’s power plant,” said Brig. Gen. Yaron Rosen, the commander of IAF Air Support and Helicopter Air Division.

“It has no interest (in that),” he added. “We transfer to them the electricity, we transfer in the gas, we transfer in the food in order to prevent a humanitarian disaster. So we attacked the power plant?”

The general said it was possible the plant had been hit by Israel by mistake.

Munitions, he said, can sometimes “skip,” and strike targets unintentionally, as occurred during 2008-9′s Operation Cast Lead.

“The matter is under investigation,” he added.

Later on, Israel flatly denied that it had done anything in that area that day: altogether

An Israeli military spokeswoman said after checking with ground, air and naval forces in the area of the power plant that there was "no indication that (Israel Defense Forces) were involved in the strike. ... The area surrounding the plant was also not struck in recent days."

The IDF simply doesn't lie about things like that.

Which means that the power plant was hit by a terrorist rocket, or was otherwise sabotaged from within Gaza.

It is much more likely that Hamas attacked its own power plant deliberately. Besides information that Hamas aimed rockets at its own population, it has many times created an artificial crisis around fuel shortages in order to garner world sympathy and prompt more free aid from Qatar.

A reporter who would say something this inaccurate would be forced to correct him or herself. Why should the head of a human rights organization have lower ethical standards?

July 29: More #Gaza women & kids killed (342) than militants (182). 4.5 as many civilians as militants. http://trib.al/qyLp5s5 pic.twitter.com/hfxhxP1UWX

Truth: Once again, Roth uses sources poorly. This was apparently a Haaretz infographic.

Yet on the previous day, the Meir Amit ITIC had already released the first of its findings - with names - that there were far more terrorists being killed in Gaza than was being reported.

At this point it was also well known that Hamas had instructed Gazans to call everyone an "innocent civilian" and it was clear that Hamas was not releasing the full number of its casualties.

Roth was clearly following the war not only closely, but obsessively. It seems unlikely that he was not aware of these facts. Yet even so, he had no problem using the fig leaf of selectively quoting as fact only the media he trusts, and ignoring the ones that contradict his pre-determined position.

July 29: Tunnels used to attack or capture civilians is a rights violation. Tunnels used to attack or capture soldiers isn't. http://trib.al/v8CCCj6

Truth: If Hamas acted according to the rules of war and was a regular army, this would be correct in a very narrow sense. But the reality is that it is a lie and Roth knows it.

Hamas has said explicitly many times that it wants to kidnap soldiers to hold them hostage, not to hold them as POWs according to the Geneva Conventions. Hostage taking is a war crime, period. Roth is going out of his way to excuse Hamas' admitted attempts to perform a grave breach of international law.

One has to wonder why the head of a human rights organization is so callous towards the human rights of Israeli soldiers that Hamas wants to take hostage. B'Tselem calls it a war crime, but Ken Roth refuses to.

August 4: (Retweeted by Kenneth Roth) Nicholas Kristof @NickKristof · One principle of int'l law is proportionality of response. But so far, Israel has lost 3 civilians; Gaza (by UN count) 1,033 civilians.

Truth: This is not what proportionality means under international law.

There are two definitions: One is that the expected civilian casualties from a specific attack must be proportional to the military value of the target. As we've shown, the bar for passing that test is much lower than Ken Roth claims, and Israel is adhering to the principle of proportionality. This is the jus in bello definition - how to act once a war already starts.

The other definition, which is probably what Kristof is referring to since he calls it "proportionality of response," is jus ad bellum, to take proportionality into account when deciding on the right to go to war initially. It is sometimes called macro-proportionality. In brief, it says that "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms."

By definition, macro-proportionality can only be defined before a war starts. Given that Israel was responding to rocket attacks and was acting in self defense, the decision to go to war was clearly legal; the question is whether their initial choice of how to go about the war - how many airplanes, how many drones, how many gunships - would be proportionate to what they were trying to accomplish.

It is certain that the test of jus ad bellum proportionality cannot be taken by doing a simple count of civilian victims after the war starts. That falls under jus in bello. To violate macro-proportionality, it would have to be proven that Israel was acting in ways that were completely overkill for the original goal of stopping rockets. Given that the rockets didn't stop until the current cease fire, it is obvious that Israel's response was less than that allowed by this proportionality test. It has nothing to do with body counts.

Roth's retweet of Kristof's bad definition is especially egregious given Roth's supposed expertise in international law.

09/08 Links Pt1: Hamas: Give Us West Bank So We Can Destroy Israel; Brussels shooter planned Paris attack

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Hamas: Give Us West Bank So We Can Destroy Israel

Abbas's initiative envisages the establishment of a Palestinian state within three years either through negotiations or by having the UN Security Council impose a solution on Israel.
Abbas's initiative, however, ignores the threat from Hamas and Iran to use the West Bank as a launching pad for destroying Israel. It also ignores that Hamas could easily seize control over a future Palestinian state by force or through the promised free and democratic elections, as assured by a recent public opinion poll published by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.
Abbas is demanding a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines (including the border with Jordan). But he cannot offer any assurances that Hamas and Iran would not use this border to smuggle weapons into the West Bank.
In fact, Abbas is demanding from the Israelis and Americans something that would bring about his own demise. His only option for now is to hold onto power in the West Bank and continue to work with Israel against the common enemy – Hamas. The day Hamas agrees to lay down its weapons and abandon its dream of destroying Israel, he will then be able to go to the U.S. and Security Council and ask for an independent state next to Israel. (h/t IronyDome)

Why a Palestinian state is not the answer

Every once in a while I feel the need to write some form of this post to explain to Americans yet again why a Palestinian state is a bad idea.
This is not a big issue in Israel, despite the impression you may get from reading Ha’aretz’s English website. Most Israelis understand that a peaceful Palestinian state is not on offer, and that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would create a security nightmare. But a large number of Americans still think that the moderate answer to the Israel-Arab conflict is a “two-state solution.”
They think this because they hear it from liberal Jewish leaders, and because they hear it from the President, whom they by and large respect. And they hear it from the Israeli Left, which has a voice in the media that is far out of proportion to its numbers.
After all, Americans are not here in Israel to see for themselves, so they depend on ‘experts’. And who is a bigger expert than the head of the Union for Reform Judaism or the President of the US? Those who oppose the two-state idea are called ‘extremists’ or worse, and nobody wants to be an extremist.
So here are the reasons against creating a Palestinian state. See if you think I am an extremist.

‘Brussels shooter planned massive attack in Paris’

Mehdi Nemmouche, the man who allegedly shot up the Brussels Jewish Museum earlier this year, killing four, reportedly plotted a large attack during Paris’s Bastille Day celebrations.
Based on the testimony of four French reporters who were kidnapped by the Islamic State and held captive by Nemmouche, French daily Liberation reported Monday that the returned IS fighter planned “at least one attack in France, in the heart of Paris, which would be at least five times bigger than the attacks in Toulouse.” The attack would allegedly have taken place on Paris’s iconic Champs Elysees boulevard on July 14, the French national holiday marking the beginning of the revolution.
The March 2012 Toulouse attacks targeting Jews and soldiers in the southern French city left seven dead and five injured, and the suspected perpetrator, Mohammed Merah, killed himself after a 30-hour siege.