Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, April 13, 2015

NYT implies Israel insulted Pope by starting a war after he called for peace

Good Pope. Evil Israel.

Since becoming pope in March 2013, Francis has made a habit of inserting himself into delicate foreign policy issues, usually in the role of broker. Last June, after visiting the Holy Land, he played host to the Israeli and Palestinian presidents at a “prayer summit” at the Vatican. However, that failed to produce a diplomatic breakthrough, and soon afterward, Israeli troops began an assault against the Hamas militant group in the Gaza Strip.

Even sooner afterwards, Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers. And Hamas shot scores of rockets towards Israeli civilians.

But the New York Times just can't help itself in portraying Israel as an aggressor, spitting in the face of Pope Francis with its violent response to his efforts to bring peace to the region.

(h/t Ronald G)

NGOs insist that Israel help Hamas build tunnels

The Association of International Development Agencies is a consortium of dozens of NGOs, including CARE International , BBC Media Action, Oxfam GB, Diakonia, Save the Children and The Carter Center.

It just released a report urging the international community to step up efforts to rebuild Gaza. But, naturally, it slams Israel.

The report pretends to be even-handed. For example:

All parties should immediately resume negotiations for a long-term ceasefire that addresses the need for sustainable reconstruction, tackles the root causes of the conflict and can deliver long-lasting security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Negotiations should include all concerned parties, particularly women, in keeping with UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

Both the Government of Israel and Palestinian armed groups, including Hamas, must abide by international humanitarian and human rights law in the conduct of hostilities.

The international community must demand an end to violations of international law, and push for greater accountability of all parties, including guarantees of non-repetition.³

Sounds like it includes Hamas, right?

But that tiny footnote 3 refers to:

Articles 30–37 of the International Law Commission Draft Article on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001. http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf, read with Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions Elaborated at p. 12 below, “Accountability For IHL Violations”

A draft article, never ratified into law, that only applies to states - and not Hamas!

The draft document says that states that illegally attack others must pay restitution, so AIDA is saying that israel's defending itself from Hamas rockets is against international law.

This sort of bias pervades the document. But one more example will do.

AIDA's recommendations include Israel giving Hamas the unlimited ability to build bunkers in Gaza and terror tunnels into Israel.

The report says:

To date, the international community has failed to put forth a plan of action that effectively pressures Israel to lift the blockade; choosing instead to work around it.

The clearest example of "working around the blockade‟ is the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism (GRM). Introduced just before the Cairo conference, the GRM was presented as away to address Israel‟s security concerns while allowing the import of cement and other construction materials.

Israel has often stated that the enforcement of the blockade is necessary for controlling the import of cement and other items that they label as "dual use‟. It should be noted that, under the Wassenaar Arrangement,82 dual-use items are defined based on clearly agreed criteria, in particular, their inclusion in the globally accepted munitions list and "the ability to make a clear and objective specification of the item‟ for military purposes. Aggregate, steel bars and cement (ABCs), which are essential for largescale reconstruction, are not listed as prohibited materials, yet Israel continues to define these and many other essential goods as "dual-use‟ in order to restrict their entry into Gaza.83

Since the materials that Hamas uses to build tunnels meant to kidnap Israelis and hide weapons caches underneath civilian structures are the same materials used to build buildings, AIDA is recommending that there be no restrictions on those materials.

Not surprisingly, the entire report does not mention tunnels once - even though they were a major military objective of Operation Protective Edge. And even though the entire purpose of those tunnels is to commit war crimes.

Instead of embracing a mechanism that allows Israel to restrict materials to terror groups, or even attempting to improve that mechanism, AIDA says that all restrictions of materials to Hamas be lifted.

Israeli civilians are not worthy of protection, except maybe from rockets as long as Israel doesn't target rockets that are launched near civilian buildings, which is why Hamas does exactly that with impunity.

AIDA also includes spurious research in its demand that Israel open up all crossings to and from Gaza:

Even if the GRM is able to keep up with the demand for ABCs, it is not clear if Kerem Shalom, the sole crossing for goods between Israel and Gaza, has the capacity to meet supply. According to one senior UN source, „Even if GRM works perfectly, the Kerem Shalom is not enough, even if it operates 24/7‟.⁸⁷

The source?

AIDA interview with UN official conducted in Jerusalem, 26 March 2014

No statistics, no numbers, no name. Some UN official makes a statement and it is accepted as fact.

Of course, one reason Israel has created the huge Kerem Shalom complex was to ensure its security while making it large enough to supply all of Gaza's needs should it need to. But AIDA didn't ask Israeli officials to give them any statistics on its capacity and growth potential, instead relying on an anonymous UN official. Which they footnoted as if there was any credibility to his opinion.

This is what the entire report is like. It pretends to be fair but its bias is obvious if you scratch the surface.

Haaretz columnist praises obscure anti-Israel conference - without revealing his conflict of interest

From Gideon Levy at Haaretz:

...A completely unusual event was taking place at the National Press Club. At a conference on Friday titled “The Israel Lobby: Is It Good for the U.S.? Is It Good for Israel?,” cosponsored by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, remarks the likes of which are rarely heard in the United States were made.

Attendees included members of the U.S. Congress, former diplomats and intelligence officials, Palestinian student leaders, Jewish activists from the left and academics. This was not the Saban Forum, nor the AIPAC Policy Conference: This was the other America. “Welcome to another Israeli-occupied territory: Washington,” someone on the stage half-joked. At a time of a new zenith in Israeli interference in the U.S. capital and a new and inconceivable nadir in American groveling before Israel, the anger, the insistence, the fear and perhaps also the hatred of the few was heard clearly at the conference. If their voice is set to grow, then Israelis should be aware of it.

...Paul Findley, 93, a Republican U.S. Representative from Illinois (from 1961-1983), mentioned a senior diplomat friend of his who knew it was impossible to criticize Israel to the secretary of state through the usual channels, only in one-on-one conversations. There are hundreds of people in the Administration whose salaries are paid by the U.S. taxpayer and who believe their sole mission is to defend Israel, even by destroying freedom of expression, Findley added. His voice shook when he said the conference was a rare opportunity to express such ideas. He spoke of the paralyzing fear of criticizing Israel, lest one be labeled an anti-Semite. It’s not the politicians who run this country; it’s the lobbyists, including the Jewish lobby, Findley said. His remarks were echoed by Nick Rahall, who served as a Democratic U.S. Representative from West Virginia for 38 years and who said American democracy had been hijacked by wealthy businessmen like Sheldon Adelson.

Paul R. Pillar, formerly a senior member of the U.S. intelligence community, explained in a brilliant lecture the advantages of the nuclear agreement with Iran, and argued that Israel’s opposition to it stemmed from the fear that, in its wake, the occupation would become the main issue.

There is, as far as I can tell, there was no English-language* news coverage of this conference anywhere except in this column by Levy in Haaretz. The videos of the conference do not show the size of the crowd so we don't know how many people actually showed up; I would be surprised if more than fifty people attended based on the sound of the applause on the videos and the size of the venue.

But Levy didn't mention a salient fact:

Levy was one of the honored speakers at this anti-Israel hatefest.

Yes, Levy's effusive praise was for a conference which highlighted his own speech there!

This conflict of interest would be required to be revealed in any normal journalistic outlet. But - this is Ha'aretz, where the normal rules for journalism do not apply.

Ha'aretz' ethical standards are as high as their editorial standards.

*While there wasn't any English-language coverage, Arab newspapers gleefully quoted Levy's column "reporting" that former members of Congress say that the Jewish lobby controls America.

Once again, Haaretz has contributed to worldwide antisemitism.

Jews respond to "Allah hu Akbar" taunts with dancing

This video was originally shown on the Al Himna News Facebook page, where they said that "settlers" were taunting the women who scream "Allah Hu Akbar:" at passing Jews.

Keep in mind that this is not on the Temple Mount, but in a street of the Old City outside the complex.

The song that the Jews sang, Yibaneh Hamikdash, translates to "The Temple will be rebuilt; the City of Zion will be restored." It is one of those Zionist songs that were written in medieval times.

I think that this is a proper reaction to the attempts at intimidating Jews in their capital. In fact, I would recommend adapting one of the "Yibaneh HaMikdash" tunes (such as the one that these Jews sang while dancing) to the lyrics "Allah Hu Akbar" and break out into song and dance every time the chant is heard.

(h/t Michael C)

It wasn't only Obama who has flip-flopped on his red lines on lifting sanctions on Iran.

Here's Hillary Clinton writing in 2007:

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

While Hillary has been mostly silent on the current Iranian negotiations, if she still held by these opinions one would expect that the Democratic frontrunner for president would have spoken up.

04/12 Links: Why the Left Wants Iran to Get the Bomb; Netanyahu: Keep the sanctions in place

From Ian:

Why the Left Wants Iran to Get the Bomb

The left does not believe that nuclear weapons are evil. It did not believe that Soviet nuclear weapons were evil. It does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is evil. It believes that American power is evil.
Iranian nuclear weapons are good because they weaken America. Like Soviet nuclear weapons, they undermine American power. They force the United States to “negotiate” and submit to international law. The more nuclear weapons spread, the more the “hawks” will have to realize that they have no option but to disarm the United States and put their faith in some international order to achieve peace.
That has always been the endgame.
The Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs magazine had already run a piece promising that an Iranian nuclear bomb would bring stability to the region. As usual the word does not mean what you think it might. Stability is yet another euphemism for weakening the American coalition to create a new balance of power through Iranian power.
The same arguments now being deployed in favor of the Iran deal will later be redeployed to argue that Iran’s nuclear weapons will actually create stability. And as a bonus, Iran will be able to drive up the price of oil which means more Green Energy subsidies. For the left, that’s a win-win scenario.
The spy-scientists claimed to be concerned with the “safety of mankind” rather than such petty trifles as the security and freedom of the United States and its allies. Today men and women who think like them run the United States. And they are not concerned with the United States, but with “mankind”.
Obama intends to cut a nuclear deal with Iran on any terms and even on no terms at all. He intends to do it for the same old reasons. It’s not just about Israel, though as with regime change in Egypt, undermining the Jewish State is a nice bonus because it further weakens America.
A stronger Iran means a weaker America. And the left believes that a weaker America means a better world.

Netanyahu calls for Iran deal to keep sanctions in place

In a video statement, Netanyahu criticized Iran for insisting in the wake of the framework agreement on maintaining its nuclear capabilities, refusing to allow nuclear inspections, and continuing its aggression in the region.
“Let me reiterate again the two main components of the alternative to this bad deal: First, instead of allowing Iran to preserve and develop its nuclear capabilities, a better deal would significantly roll back these capabilities – for example, by shutting down the illicit underground facilities that Iran concealed for years from the international community. Second, instead of lifting the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear facilities and program at a fixed date, a better deal would link the lifting of these restrictions to an end of Iran’s aggression in the region, its worldwide terrorism and its threats to annihilate Israel,” Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu’s statement came a day after US President Barack Obama told reporters that the prime minister has not provided any alternatives to the framework agreement signed earlier this month.
“The prime minister of Israel is deeply opposed to it, I think he’s made that very clear,” Obama said Saturday at a news conference at the Americas summit in Panama City. “I have repeatedly asked — what is the alternative that you present that you think makes it less likely for Iran to get a nuclear weapon? And I have yet to obtain a good answer on that.”

Netanyahu: West Must Reassert Original Demands on Iran

Zionist Union: Israel should seek green light to strike Iran if nuclear deal violated

Zionist Union co-leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni on Sunday presented their "alternative plan of action" on how Israel should deal with the P5+1 group of world powers framework nuclear deal with Iran signed earlier this month.
The party suggested that Israel should seek an understanding from the US that, should Iran violate the nuclear deal and threaten Israel's existence, the Jewish state would be authorized to take military action to protect itself.
The party said that some of the parameters presented by the West and the Iranians are "problematic," and they hold within them "real potential dangers for the long term" that must be fixed in the comprehensive agreement to be signed by June 30.
Despite saying in the document that "there is no coalition or opposition" when it comes to Iran, the Zionist Union took a dig at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the Iranian nuclear issue, saying, "Instead of a policy that leaves Israel without a meaningful influence on the world powers' decision-making process, Israel must immediately hold a comprehensive, intimate and deep strategic discussion with the US about all of the relevant issues and to complete the discussion before the completion of the final agreement."

This is a note that I have been meaning to write for quite some time, but little things like Netanyahu's speech to Congress and his re-election as Prime Minister, kept getting in the way. And, of course, there is this never-ending nonsense with Iran which is looking more and more ugly. The EU, the UN, and the US are becoming increasingly hostile to Israel.

And, yet, the Israelis are becoming more and more prolific in their technological and economic productions.

Yosef Hartuv - who Facebook tells me recently had a birthday - is the owner / operator of Love of the Land. Yosef and his wife, Melody, live in Hebron. The pro-Jewish / pro-Israel blogosphere - Judeosphere? - is a small place. If you spend some time talking with people you find that you come to know most everyone within a reasonable short order.

All I want to do on this fine Sunday morning, however, is introduce you guys to Yosef and encourage you to drop by Love of the Land.

I am someone who - after much rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth - came to the conclusion that we must support our brothers and sisters who live in Judea and Samaria. This does not preclude the possibility of an Arab state on some of that small bit of land. What it means is that Jews should be allowed rights to property on the land that Jewish people come from.

And, please, what could be more historically Jewish than Hebron, for Chrissake?

Yosef tells us this:

I visited Hevron in November 2000 after the outbreak of the Rosh Hashanah War to see what could be done to assist in the face of the growing daily attacks on the community. After returning to work for the community in the summer of 2001, a bond and a love was forged that grows to this day. My wife Melody and I merited to be married at Ma'arat HaMachpela and now host visitors from throughout the world every Shabbat as well as during the week. Our goal, "Time to come Home!"

According to Wikipedia, Hebron contains between 175,000 and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs and somewhere between 500 and 850 Jews. Yosef and Melody are two of those Jews.

One mistake that I believe that we have tended to make as a people is in the tendency to scorn the so-called "settlers" who are merely Jewish people living on the very land that Jews come from. Some argue that these people are somehow an impediment to peace, but this only so if we buy into the racist idea, put forward by people like Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama, that Jews should be allowed to live in certain places but not others.

Hebron, of course, is the city of Abraham and this makes it the site of ongoing Jewish habitation stretching into antiquity. There is, in fact, no place on this earth in which Jewish people have more legitimacy for building a community and a home then in the ancient Jewish city of Hebron.

This being the case, all I want to do this morning is wish Yosef and Melody nothing but the best in this world and I very much hope that the Jewish community in Hebron is safe and thriving.

From my perspective, all the land from the river to the sea is Jewish land, just as all the land that comprises France is French land. It is a small bit of land, but certainly no other people have a greater claim to Judea and Samaria then the Jewish people. We need not be greedy, however, and should be willing to share our historical homeland with with the neighbors, if they care to live in peace. But whether they do wish to live in peace, or whether they do not, no one is going to tell me that there are places on that land where Jews should be forbidden from living.

No one is going to tell me that Yosef and Melody have no rights, or should have no rights, to live in Hebron.

The world is a very big place and the Jews are a tiny population, but there are only a few places on the planet where one can live openly as a Jew. I live in northern California and am, therefore, blessed to be living in one of those places. Sure, San Francisco State University might make the unconscionably stupid decision to partner with a university wherein they celebrate the murder of Jews, but it's not as if a Jew would likely get attacked walking through that campus.

Yosef and Melody, however, live in a place where it should be an honor for a Jewish person to live.

I think that they should be proud and that they should have the right to expect some support from the diaspora communities. What we should not be doing, however, is denigrating Jews who choose to live beyond the "green line" any more than we would denigrate, say, Rosicrucians who choose to live in Walla Walla, Washington, or Presbyterians who choose to purchase land in Katmandu, Nepal.

When we do so we are justifying bigotry against our own people and that is never a good idea.

So, it is in that spirit that I wish Yosef a very joyous belated birthday and nothing but happiness and success for both him and Melody.

Greetings from the other side of the planet, my friends.

Peace to you, please.

Michael Lumish is a blogger at the Israel Thrives blog as well as a regular contributor/blogger at Times of Israel and Jews Down Under.

There has been a little media attention paid to Yarmouk recently, after ISIS took over most of the area and reportedly beheaded some Palestinian fighters there. This coverage is of course dwarfed by anything Israel does in Gaza, but there is at least a little..

What is funny, though, is that for the two years before ISIS took over, Syria's regime has put the camp under siege. Over 128 have starved to death as of last May, far more than have been killed by ISIS. Over 150,000 residents have fled the Syrian bombing campaign there. And even after the takeover, Assad's regime has been dropping barrel bombs on the camp.

The only reason there is even a little interest in Yarmouk now is because of ISIS, not because of the victims.

There was also a story today, not verified, that 120 Palestinian kids between 12-15 were kidnapped in Mosul recently. I see no keen interest by anyone to track this down.

No Jews, No News 1: 400 kids killed or injured by Saudi airstrikes

A tweet from the Yemen Post:

More than 400 children have been killed or injured from #Saudi Airstrikes according to #Yemen Health Ministry, #اليمن pic.twitter.com/2Ujnpg2i7n
— Yemen Post Newspaper (@YemenPostNews) April 11, 2015

Did you miss the massive rallies in European capitals against "indiscriminate airstrikes" and "disproportionate response"?

At this time, hundreds of people have been killed in Yemen from airstrikes, including many civilians killed every day, versus 3 Saudis.

I haven't seen any scorecards in the media comparing the two numbers either.

Fatah shows how peaceful it is again

From the Fatah Facebook page:

You are noble, oh Fatah

Fatah is the one that began the journey, and it is the one that will complete it

We're Fatah members and we are proud

It must mean "through negotiations." After all, Yasir Arafat - whose pictures are featured in about 30% of all Fatah Facebook posts - wrote in 1993 that "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators."

And he wouldn't lie, would he?

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Time's Joe Klein paints all opponents to Iran deal as "Likudnik neoconservatives"

This was published on March 30 in the Times of London under the title "A Bad Deal":

The deal is flawed. First, the Fordow plant can be quickly switched back to enriching uranium. Second, Iran has still not come clean to the International Atomic Energy Agency about its past attempts to develop nuclear weapons. This has made it difficult to determine whether secret programmes are continuing. Third, any arrangement hinges on transparency: Iranian readiness to accept snap inspections without let or hindrance. Finally, the supposedly comprehensive deal is set to run only for ten to twelve years.

It is therefore possible that Iran has made a conscious decision to prepare for nuclear “breakout” but not to go fully nuclear until 2025. Sanctions will be lifted.Tehran will prosper and spin an ever wider web of regional alliances that challenge Saudi Arabia and Israel. Its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its backing for the Assad regime and for the Shia militias in Iraq and the rebels in Yemen are only a foretaste of what is to come. Its clout will be increased by the knowledge of its nervous neighbours that it is on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power, and that the US is not willing to slow Iran’s ascent.

The agreement taking shape in Lausanne is based on the most generous possible reading of Iranian intentions, namely that the regime will make genuine concessions because it is desperate to be readmitted to the club of rational, benign states who crave nothing but peace in the Middle East. That is naive. Instead of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, this deal may simply give Tehran carte blanche to plan a future with its own bomb.

This was in the Washington Post, which wrote:

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

TOI reported:

The terms delineated in the framework agreement will leave Iran as “a threshold breakout nuclear state for the next 10 years,” and after that the remaining safeguards against a breakout to the bomb will begin to fall away, former IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen warned.

How would you describe the Times of London and the Washington Post and Olli Heinonen and other mainstream critics of the deal?

If you are an unthinking and uncritical cheerleader for everything Barack Obama does like Time's Joe Klein, this is how:

The weird ideological confluence between Likudnik neoconservatives and the Iranian hard-liners in opposition to the deal is instructive. It is reflexive, uninformed, pessimistic.

Reflexive? Uninformed? Sounds like Klein, with his namecalling response to those who disagree with Obama, is describing himself.

04/11 Links: The Palestinian Statehood Idea Crumbles; Why Palestinians in Yarmouk Are Unlucky

From Ian:

The Palestinian Statehood Idea Begins to Crumble

A sea change began within hours of the Israeli election returns.
Thomas L. Friedman, who has devoted much of his life to promoting Palestinian statehood, declared in his New York Times column that the idea of a Palestinian state is “not possible anymore.” That was followed by his Times colleague David K. Shipler, another longtime advocate of a Palestinian state, announcing that the “the two-state solution looks dead.”
Just a couple of elite, pro-Palestinian journalists venting their frustration?
Don’t bet on it. The American public is losing faith in “Palestine” too. Friedman and Shipler’s declarations merely echo the latest poll numbers on the American public’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll has found that Americans’ support for the idea of creating a Palestinian state has reached its lowest point in 20 years. Just 39 percent of Americans support it; 36 percent are opposed.

Khaled Abu Toameh: Why Palestinians in Yarmouk Are Unlucky

For Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders, the desire to punish Israel is stronger than the will to save the lives of thousands of Palestinians being killed in Syria by the Islamic State and starved by the Syrian army, which has been besieging Yarmouk for 700 days.
Instead of devoting their energies and efforts to stop the massacres in Yarmouk, PA officials were busy preparing a new draft resolution to be submitted to the UN Security Council, establishing a timeline for ending Israeli "occupation."
The Arab foreign ministers who met in Cairo earlier this week to discuss ways of backing the new Palestinian bid, deliberately ignored that, as they were chatting and sipping coffee, Palestinians were being slaughtered and forced to flee their homes in Yarmouk.
For the PA, Jews participating in a marathon seems to be more serious and life-threatening than Islamic State terrorists beheading Palestinians and destroying Palestinian homes in Yarmouk.
"All that is left for us to do is howl, slap and cry." — Ashraf al-Ajrami, former Palestinian Authority minister.

French Activist Praises Retirement of ‘Al Durah Hoax’ Architect Charles Enderlin

With reports that veteran France 2 reporter Charles Enderlin is stepping down from his job, the French-Jewish activist who spearheaded claims he falsely accused Israel in the death of a 12-year-old boy back in 2000 is relieved to see him go.
Phillipe Karsenty spoke to The Algemeiner regarding Enderlin’s departure from the state television network, though he expressed disappointment it was not over ethical issues regarding the infamous report on the death of Mohammed al-Dura.
“This is good news but it has nothing to do with any desire of the French authorities to stop incitement against Israel and the Jews. Enderlin is leaving his job because he is retiring. He will reach 70 years old in October 2015 and he doesn’t have the right to keep on working in a French public company, which France 2 is,” he said.
The 70-year-old Franco-Israeli correspondent will be replaced as France 2‘s bureau chief in Israel by reporter Franck Genauzeau. Karsenty noted that Enderlin’s “replacement by someone who doesn’t have any track record of anti-Israel or antisemitism is good news too,” and could allow the network to prove it doesn’t engage in systematic anti-Israel bias.
“From Genauzeau’s future attitude, we will know if Enderlin’s constant incitement against Israel was his own decision or if it was a state oriented political decision,” he said. (h/t Elder of Lobby)