Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Today's UNRWA teacher advocating hate and violence

This series could go on forever...

Nidal Abu Ghneim has taught at UNRWA schools in Jordan since 2002.

On his Facebook page, he features this graphic:

The map of British mandate Palestine and the AK-47 make up part of the number "67" for the number of years of Israel's existence.

The caption says ""What was taken by force will only be regained by force. The 67th anniversary of the Nakba."

Note that the gun is also a key, the symbol of "return." Which shows that when the Palestinian Arabs say they want to "return" to homes in Israel, they mean they intend to do it by force.

And this is what UNRWA teachers openly advocate, in explicit contradiction to UNRWA's stated policies. But they know that they won't be disciplined, so they have no fear of espousing their hate in public.

I have documented scores of these sorts of postings, and UNRWA refuses to do anything about it in a transparent fashion. But they claim that they take it very seriously.

09/27 Links: Jews against Themselves; Israel's biggest fears are materializing; UN bias

From Ian:

Jews against Themselves

J Street is an organization that describes itself as “pro-Israel” and proclaims itself “devoted and committed to Israel’s future.” Yet, as Edward Alexander observes in an important new book, J Street “misses no opportunities to blacken Israel’s reputation and very few opportunities to encourage campaigns to delegitimize it.”
And J Street is not alone. Similar Jewish organizations, some without J Street’s pretensions to Zionist commitment, have been proliferating in recent years both here and abroad. In the United States, they include, among others, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews against the Occupation, Jews for Free Palestine, Jews for Justice in the Middle East, and a multitude of local chapters, offshoots, and branches.
In Jews against Themselves, Alexander takes up the curious and disturbing phenomenon of his volume’s title. A professor emeritus at the University of Washington, Alexander is a distinguished student of American and English literature and an essayist whose erudition is ornamented by a coruscating wit. Among his highly regarded books is The Jewish Idea and Its Enemies (1988), an examination of the various intellectual strands—liberalism, rationalism, relativism—that, emerging from the Enlightenment, have long been in tension with, or in outright opposition to, central tenets of the Jewish tradition.
In Jews against Themselves, Alexander engages in a related project but one that entails turning over a rock. His inquiry examines the disfiguring yet critical subject of Jews who defame their own people. Over the centuries, Alexander writes, there has been “fruitful interaction” between Jewish apostates and the world’s anti-Semites, making for a distinctive Jewish contribution to “the politics and ideology of anti-Semitism” itself.

Ben-Dror Yemini: The treachery of the free world

Global jihad and terrible diseases plague the third world, but cameras only seem to capture little girls biting IDF soldiers.
This outcome is one of the biggest frauds of international opinion. The outcome is a hate campaign against Israel. The outcome is the ignoring of the genuine suffering in the world. The responsibility belongs to "B'Tselem" and to the abundance of inciting articles. The manipulation is winning. And because of this distortion of morality millions continue to be wretched. They are the victims of global jihad, from Syria to Somalia, from Libya to Iran, from Afghanistan to Cameroon.
And instead of fighting a murderous ideology, Žižek and Judith Butler and Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of the "forces of progress" concern themselves with the supply of girls and justifications and empathy for an ideology that inflicts destruction, oppression, ruin and bloodshed. They send aid packages to the terror regime of Hamas, and Noam Chomsky even rose to honor Nasrallah. All in the name of progress. And they sling mud on the only country in the world that is fighting jihad.
The global left will continue to cleanse its conscience with boycotts and demonstrations against Israel. B'Tselem will continue to provide video clips in order to pour oil on the fire. Preferably with a little blonde girl, loud and cute. This is how one can distort the reality. This is how one can ignore the monster that creates millions of refugees. See you at the next demonstration against Israel, in London or San Francisco. And don't forget the Hamas and Hezbollah flags.

JPost Editorial: UN bias

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas vowed to prevent Jews from “defiling Al-Aksa Mosque with their filthy feet.” Was there no-nonsense condemnation of such incitement from the UN? Not a hint thereof.
The UN never ceases to blow our minds although the organization’s barefaced bias shouldn’t surprise any reasonable Israeli. Yet somehow we compulsively continue to assume that abundant, incontrovertible evidence before all eyes would finally even the skewed international scales.
Invariably, however, we are shown that no absurdity is too absurd for the UN.
The UN Security Council for instance managed in one outlandish statement to ignore the in-your-face aggression by Muslims on the Temple Mount while inter alia also expunging all trace of Jewish links to Judaism’s holiest site.
It was a fantastic feat of obliterating the truth and propping up the lie.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, for those of you who may not know, is US representative to Florida’s 23rd congressional district and chair of the Democratic National Committee. This would make her not only among the most powerful Jewish women in the United States Congress, but among the most important people in national politics, period.

Shmuley Boteach has a piece published in the Jerusalem Post concerning Representative Wasserman-Schultz.

Boteach notes that although Wasserman-Schultz supports the Iran deal, she nonetheless cried about it on national television. Her heart was torn. Boteach writes:

She cares deeply about her Jewish family and relatives and would never want any harm to come to the Jewish people...

And yet she chose to support the deal but cried while doing so. A friend of mine who is a financial supporter of hers told me she did the same at a private meeting a few weeks before the vote.

But while tears are nice, resisting the barbarity of Iran is nicer.

Indeed. Everyone agrees that even if Iran does not cheat on Obama's non-treaty, the deal paves the way for Iran to get the bomb in ten to fifteen years, just in time for your children or grandchildren to have to cope with the possible consequences.

Boteach compares Wasserman-Schultz's stance on the deal with the action of two American presidents vis-à-vis Israel, neither of whom were crazy about Jews, Harry Truman and Richard Nixon. Truman, you may be unaware, despite his longstanding friendship with his old Jewish partner at the haberdashery, Edward Jacobson, clearly had a low opinion of Jews.

He wrote in his diary that Jews “...when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.”

Yet, Truman recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, the very day that Ben Gurion declared it to be. He did so over the strenuous objections of his popular Secretary of State, George Marshall, and others within his government.

We, also, have Nixon on his famous White House taping-system claiming, “You know, it’s a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana are Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists.”

The "Bob," of course, might refer to Nixon White House Chief of Staff, Bob Haldeman.

Boteach goes easier on Truman's anti-Jewish racism than Nixon's who he says "expressed constant anti-Semitic beliefs." Nonetheless, during the hair-raising 1973 Yom Kippur War, despite significant opposition from Congress, Nixon airlifted the weaponry and supplies that the Jews of the Middle East needed to prevent themselves from being driven into the Mediterranean Sea by Arabs armies.

At the end of the day, Boteach tells us that he would rather:

...take the anti-Semitism of a leader like Truman or Nixon who nonetheless stands up with courage to save Israel over the river of tears shed by a proud Jewish woman who fails in her responsibility to stop an Iranian nuclear holocaust. It is ironic when a non-Jew with prejudiced opinions is in touch with the Jewish principles of action and responsibility more than a prominent Jewish leader who forgets that saving life overrides every other consideration.

Along with Boteach I do not doubt the sincerity and depth of Wasserman-Schultz's feelings for the State of Israel or for the Jewish people. Of course, I also could hardly care less about Wasserman-Schultz's feelings for the State of Israel or for the Jewish people.

Wasserman-Schultz knows as well as anyone else that the Iran non-treaty does not prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but paves the way for Iran to get the bomb... just not this Tuesday. It will be a number of Tuesdays hence, but it is coming and Wasserman-Schultz is doing her part to see that it happens.

She seems to represent a good example of the kind of left-leaning American Jew who thinks that Judaism - or, at least, being Jewish - is more or less synonymous with support for the Democratic Party. Harvard scholar of Yiddish literature, Ruth Wisse, has discussed this tendency with great insight. The broad idea is that Judaism is fundamentally a religion grounded in ethics. Islam is about submission. Christianity, despite the behavior of many Christians, is about peace. Judaism is about ethics and justice, and thus, law.

The tradition of Tikkun Olam, a medieval mystical notion which translates as "repairing the world," was an obscure idea within the Kabbalistic tradition until yanked from that obscurity toward the end of the twentieth-century among well-meaning Jewish liberals. Tikkun Olam, we were told, means social justice and universal human rights and that this is the very heart of the Jewish tradition. To be Jewish, we were to understand, means to fight for social justice and, within the United States, the political party doing most to stand up for social justice is the Democratic Party. Thus in order to be a good American Jew, one must be a Democrat. It is, in fact, considered a moral imperative by very many Jews in the United States to this day.

From the 1930s until now, the tendency among Jews to support the Democrats has become embedded within the American Jewish soul. This is at least part of the reason why, despite Barack Obama's support for the Muslim Brotherhood, he received 70 percent of the Jewish vote his second time at bat.

Many American Jews would prefer to gnaw off their right arm and beat themselves silly with it rather than vote for a Republican.

The problem with this kind of long-term consistent devotion to a political party is, obviously, that political parties change and evolve over time. What may have been a barely noticed, or entirely unnoticed, malicious trend within the party might at some point come to the fore. This is what we are seeing with the increasingly obnoxious presence of anti-Zionists and BDSers within the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. It is not a coincidence that Democrats are trending away from Israel. The party leadership may denounce BDS, as they should, but this does not prevent anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, as a political ideology, from having an influence on how regular Democrats view the Jewish state as time goes by.

This is the broader context that Wasserman-Schultz is operating within and it puts her in a very tough spot. Whether she realizes it or not as an American Jewish progressive her own political movement has forced her into a choice between supporting Israel and the Jewish people or supporting the progressive-left and the Democratic Party.

I made this choice quite consciously only a few years ago and my choice could not have been easier.

But, then, I was not chair of the DNC, now was I?

Ultimately, though, I wonder if Wasserman-Schultz, in her heart, knows the difference between what it means to be Jewish - whatever that might be for the individual - and what it means to be a Democrat. In the meantime, she has attacked fellow Floridian, presidential candidate Marco Rubio because Rubio dared to visit the home of Harlan Crow, a wealthy supporter and collector who includes among his holdings an Isaac Newton first edition book, a Benjamin Franklin first edition book, and, along with other items of historical interest, a pair of paintings by Adolph Hitler.

Wasserman-Schultz said:

There's really no excuse for such a gross act of disrespect... It is astounding that the presence of these items that represent horror for millions of Jews the world over would not stop Rubio or anyone on his team in their tracks when planning this event.

This is nonsense, particularly on such a flimsy and cynical charge, and I would peruse Mr. Crow's holding with much gratitude if given the opportunity. What there really is no excuse for is using the Holocaust as a political club against one's partisan opponents. It is, in fact, disgraceful. But, again, the question is, does she understand that being Jewish is not in any essential way the same as being a Democrat?

The two are synonymous for untold numbers of American Jews, including perhaps the chair of the Democratic National Committee.

No wonder she cried.


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.

Amazing holiday message of peace from an Egyptian

From Egyptian peace activist Ahmed Meligy:

(The music in the background is a very interesting version of a Hebrew song from Sabbath prayers, El Adon.)

Meligy has a similar video created with terror victim Kay Wilson:

There are surprisingly few views on YouTube of these videos. They need to be shared widely, and Egyptians like Meligy who support peace must be honored.

Chag sameach!

(h/t Yoel)

The PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department recently issued a pamphlet supporting the right to "popular resistance." In that pamphlet, Saeb Erekat writes a short essay that begins this way:

A few days after Israel occupied my hometown of Jericho in 1967, I was arrested by Israeli soldiers while writing graffiti:“down with the occupation, free Palestine.” This act of peaceful resistance sent a 13-years old boy to prison. From the very beginning of Israel’s occupation, a zero tolerance policy was adopted by the new conquerors and the love that an armless teenager had for his country had no place under Israel’s military control. Our message was too much for the occupying army to handle or fathom.

Was Erekat arrested a few days after the Six Day War for writing graffiti saying "Down with the occupation, Free Palestine"?

The story falls apart in pieces.

First of all, he wasn't 13 in the days after the Six Day War - he was 12.

According to an online biography:

Israeli occupation began when he was twelve; first jailed at thirteen; usual childhood offences, stone-throwing, cutting wires, fighting with soldiers, PLO graffiti etc.

So he was doing a bit more than just writing graffiti, it seems.

In fact, he admitted it himself in this interview from 2000:

I was 12 years old when Israeli troops occupied my town, my country. I went to jail for my first time when I was 13 years old. I had no choice but to post flyers and throw stones to stand up for our freedoms and rights that were taken away.

But it is not like this is the first time we have caught Saeb Erekat lying.

And not the last, as his next paragraph indicates:

Since 1967, around 900,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned and confined including a large number of children.

We've disproved this statistic back when it was "only" 750,000.

It is astounding, and very revealing, that Western media has no time for the slightest bit of critical thinking when it comes to the lies spouted daily by the leaders of the Palestinian Authority.

Egyptian Nour party chairman says Zionism is only about destroying Al Aqsa

Arab media is reporting that Dr. Younes Makhioun, Chairman of Egypt's Nour Party, has a new theory of what Zionism is all about.

The salafist said that the Jews did not come to Palestine as a place to live, but they came using the doctrine of Zionism and biblical prophecy seeking to achieve control of Jerusalem, which the Zionists called the Promised Land, according to him. Then their goal was to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build the Temple of Solomon in its place.

He did not explain why Israel didn't do this yet.

Makhioun the Islamist added that Jews do not accept debate or bargaining or negotiation, which is a doctrine inherent in Jews, to "torpedo all peace dreams and peaceful co-existence".

09/26 Links: Bassam Tawil: Palestinians: We Are the New Nazis; Seal Refutes Jewish History Deniers

From Ian:

Bassam Tawil: Palestinians: We Are the New Nazis

The campaign on social media against the singer and the TV show also provides proof of increasingly racist sentiments among our people. We automatically dismiss anyone wearing a kippa because we assume he is a "settler" who hates Arabs and Muslims. It is embarrassing to read many of the comments posted by Palestinian activists concerning the singer's religion and kippa.
With such attitudes, how can we ever make peace with Israel? If hosting a Jewish singer on a Palestinian TV talk show has drawn such fierce opposition and denunciations, what will happen the day any Palestinian leader signs a peace treaty with our Jewish neighbors?
How many times have Palestinians appeared in the Israeli media during the past few decades? Has anyone ever heard of such protests by Israeli Jews? Israeli media outlets have even been conducting interviews with some of Israel's worst enemies, including Palestinians who mercilessly killed innocent Jews. Still, we never saw disgusting and racist reactions like the ones posted on social media after the interview with the Jewish singer.
Over the years, we have taught our people to hate not only Israel, but Jews as well -- as is already cemented in the Hamas charter. We have done this through incitement in mosques, media outlets and public rhetoric. We have now reached the same stage as Germany's Nazis -- the same thing, ironically, we falsely accuse the Jews of being -- where our people consider the appearance of a Jew on a Palestinian TV show an act of "treason" and a "crime." In reality, it is we who are the New Nazis.
The case of the Jewish singer shows that the BDS and "anti-normalization" folks are nothing but a group of racist brown-shirts working to destroy any chance of peace and coexistence between Palestinians and Israel. Their hysterical reaction to the TV interview with Yehezkel proves that our people are continuing to march backward, toward more extremism, racism and Nazism.

David Collier: My Yom Kippur with Max Blumenthal

Having spent a July evening listening to Max Blumenthal at his book launch for his written account of last year’s conflict between Gaza and Israel, it then became a struggle to find an opportunity to read the book itself. I engage anything and everything on the Israel / Arab conflict and usually it is critical to do so with internet access close at hand as a way of gauging the veracity of source material.
Blumenthal is not an experienced historian or military or political commentator and having read the first few pages, the book appeared to be little more than the type of rabid anti-Zionist and unsupported opinion piece that can be found daily on any Islamic web site. So reading Blumenthal is a different type of challenge, and digesting his latest work could only be undertaken with no distractions. Yom Kippur provided the perfect opportunity, Max had my undivided attention; I became the perfect captive audience.
I had discussed Blumenthal’s tale of the cause of the conflict after the talk, so I won’t dwell on it here, and it is represented in the book in a haphazard fashion. Apparently, Israel simply wanted the war because it makes them a profit, shows off their latest weapons and keeps Gaza’s population down by killing children. In his desperation to blame the build-up itself on Israel, Blumenthal creates a scenario in which 2 terrorists spontaneously celebrate the absolute failure of a mission. I call it ‘Blumenlogic’. The entire tale is venomous nonsense.
But in the book, Blumenthal quickly blames Israel for the conflict and moves on, so apart from a single Dayan quote from 1956 that suits his purpose, there is no backdrop to the post 2005 conflicts. If Blumenthal knew history, he would understand Israel had offered to take Gaza and *all* its refugees in an attempt to solve the problem in 1949. He would know also that in 2005 Israel presented the Arabs all of Gaza as a first-step opportunity, and received a terror enclave in return. Gaza today is the result of the persistent Arab rejection of Israel’s existence.

Seal Refutes Jewish History Deniers

In this context the battle over archeology isn’t merely a scholarly debate but a vital part of the effort to deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. By trashing an area that was loaded with precious artifacts buried over 30 centuries, the Palestinians hope to convince the world that Jews have no claim to Jerusalem, let alone any part of Israel, including the areas inside the 1967 lines.
The significance of the seal is that it shows the level of activity that is consistent with it serving as the site of the capital of ancient Israel. Since denying the existence of David’s Kingdom might hurt the case for Zionism’s legitimacy, destroying evidence of that history is key to their agenda. That’s why they trashed the Temple Mount and also why the volunteers of the Temple Mount Sifting Project that is painstakingly going through the material they removed from the historical site is so important.
As with the startling archeological work at the City of David site just outside the current Old City walls that has been supported by New York philanthropists Daniel Mintz and Meredith Berkman, the stone seal refutes the deniers of Jewish history. Try as they might to call the Old City “traditionally Palestinian” or “Arab East Jerusalem,” all you need to do to confirm Jerusalem’s Jewish roots is to start digging.
The only just solution to the problem of the Temple Mount is to preserve the mosques and the right of Muslims to pray there (which is not in question) while also protecting the right of Jews to visit their sacred place. While Israel is falsely accused of undermining the fragile peace of Jerusalem by the United Nations, the only ones who are guilty of fomenting violence are those Palestinians that are engaged in an effort to deny Jewish history and Jewish rights.

09/25 Links Pt2: The ghost of the Grand Mufti lives on; When Israel Was One Large Refugee Camp

From Ian:

The ghost of the Grand Mufti lives on

The ghost of Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who broadcast Nazi antisemitism into the Middle East from Germany during World War, II is alive and well. The ghost’s last known sighting was on a TV show hosted by Tamer Amin, a well-known and popular media personality in Egypt.
I'd use the word "journalist", but very few people are going to mistake Amin for a responsible journalist.
When an Egyptian woman was sexually assaulted at Cairo University and the event caught on video in March 2014, Amin told his audience that she asked for the assault by dressing provocatively. “She was dressed like a hooker,” Amin said, adding that while her attackers should be punished for violating Islamic law, he blamed the victim for the way she dressed and her parents for letting her out of the house dressed as she was.
If a television personality in the West talked like this, it would probably be the end of their career, but not for Amin, who hosts a show called Men Al Ahar (“From the Other,”) on Misreah Network in Egypt.
On September 5, 2015, Amin hosted a long interview with two commentators, one a former soldier and another an academic who spoke of a world-wide conspiracy of Jews who seek to oppress and conquer Egypt through the use of “fifth generation” technology that includes controlling the weather, causing earthquakes, floods and meteors from outer space to assault the land of the Nile.

Thomas Friedman’s Hectoring Yom Kippur Sermon

Friedman, whose teen-age summer romance with Israeli kibbutzim morphed into affiliation with the J Street antecedent organization Breira while he was a Brandeis undergraduate, seldom misses an opportunity to seize the opportunity to flagellate Israel. Especially, it now seems, on Yom Kippur. This time, however, it was merely a prelude to his warning against “the divisive, bigoted campaigns of Donald Trump and Ben Carson,” thereby enabling him to kill two Republican birds with the stone of Israeli extremism.
The day after Friedman committed his first journalistic sin for atonement next year, Times editors added their own epilogue to the Iran deal. They focused on “what America must do to reassure Israel and its American supporters that the agreement will not harm Israel’s security.” The obvious answer might be repeal. But the Times believes in soft power: “Increased cooperation between America and its regional partners, including the Arab gulf states as well as Israel.” Having found its mantra of linkage between Israel and the “Arab gulf states,” it twice repeated it. Linkage was crucial. The Times could not bring itself to support Israeli security alone – with, for example, the “dubious proposal” for a massive penetrator bomb that could damage Iran’s buried nuclear enrichment facility. That would be “provocative and dangerous.” It might even work.
For Times editors, “What’s most important for Israel’s security is the relationship with the United States,” which was “put at risk” by – guess what — Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to “polarize” the debate over the Iran deal. “A crucial sense of trust needs to be rebuilt.” That admonition expresses the determination of the Times to preserve its editorial embrace of the official American position on anything to do with Israel lest it be accused of divided loyalty.
Thomas Friedman found his true home, warning lest “a whole faith community [Islam] gets delegitimized,” while touting the cinematic delegitimization of rabbis, settlers and Prime Minister Netanyahu – by, of course, an Israeli filmmaker.

When Israeli volunteers help Syrian, Iraqi and Pakistani refugees

While IsraAID has plenty of experience in disaster relief and assistance in 31 countries — from the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa — this mission presents a unique challenge: The beneficiaries come from countries that are traditionally hostile, or even officially still at war, with Israel.
But for Shaltiel, that’s unimportant.
“You are meeting fellow human beings,” she said. “You see agony and pain, you see a need, then what does it matter where the person is from.
“In the end you hope that the human contact will bring us forward,” added Shaltiel, who also volunteered for the IsraAID mission in South Sudan.
But she does acknowledge that for the Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis — who make up the vast majority of those arriving — having Israelis as a first contact in Europe can be unexpected and unnerving.

More UNRWA teachers promoting violence on Facebook (updated)

Khaled Abu Walid Kadous is an UNRWA teacher in Nablus.

Even though he lives in the area of British Mandate Palestine spends a lot of time posting about "return" to destroy Israel.

And he is not talking about a peaceful process, either.

He may be a wee bit biased. Which is supposedly grounds for disciplinary action by UNRWA, we are told.

Riiiight.

UPDATE: It turns out that he did not post these images but was tagged on them by someone else.

Kamal Zuhairi is an UNRWA teacher in Irbid, Jordan. He also likes to teach his kids to fight Israeli soldiers.

The caption calls for a third intifada.

This caption calls for bloody revenge.

These are UNRWA teachers, inciting violence under the UN name.

Amnesty says soldiers shouldn't shoot someone actively attacking them with a knife

A couple of days ago Israeli forces shot a woman at a checkpoint that they say was attacking them with a knife.

"The perpetrator approached the checkpoint and the metal detector was activated, alerting the troops' suspicion," an army spokesman said in an accompanying statement.

"Forces at the scene asked her to stop, at which point she approached the forces, disregarding the instructions and raising further suspicion.

"Forces called for her to halt, which she ignored, and she continued moving while also pulling out a knife. At this point, forces fired at the ground, then at her lower extremities in attempts to stop her advancement. The perpetrator continued and at this point, recognising a clear and present danger to their safety, the forces fired towards her."

Arabs are disputing the story, saying that she had no knife. Israeli police released a photo of the knife.

Amnesty researcher Jacob Burns tweeted this with a photo of the knife:

This pic claims to show knife Hadil Hashlamoun dropped after being shot. Unsourced but seems to match other pics. pic.twitter.com/FM9EM9oqHQ
— Jacob Burns (@JacobTBurns) September 23, 2015

But then he wrote this:

#PT source: http://t.co/2nMmGk78j3 Must stress that EVEN if she did have this knife, use of live fire is totally disproportionate+excessive
— Jacob Burns (@JacobTBurns) September 23, 2015

Really? People cannot defend themselves with a gun against someone coming at them with a knife?

Is this Amnesty's definition of proportionate - that only knives may be used against knives? Does every Israeli soldier and policeman need to be equipped with stones of various sizes, slingshots, knives, small caliber and large caliber weapons in order to assess everyone trying to kill them and respond with the "proportionate" weapon?

YKutner on Twitter asked Burns about this, and he pointed to the "Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials," a non-binding UN guideline for the use of firearms. But even that says:

9. Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.

Someone approaching you with a knife who does not stop even when warning shots are fired is an imminent danger to life by any definition. But according to this Amnesty researcher, it is not.

What Burns is saying is that Israel is obligated to deploy only non-lethal means available at checkpoints, which is absurd - because checkpoints are a popular place for suicide bombs and shooting incidents. Security staff must have the proper weapons to defend their and other's lives, and neither tasers nor teargas would make sense.

Again, I am not arguing the details of what actually happened. (Amnesty of course interviewed "eyewitnesses" and issued their own condemnation (even though one of the witnesses admitted that she had a knife, but claims that no one saw it until after she was already shot in the leg and then she dropped it from under her niqab, an amazing coincidence that Israeli soldiers shot her at random without knowing she had a knife according to the "eyewitnesses!")

I am showing that an Amnesty researcher was willing to make up his own interpretation of international law against Israel before he had any actual evidence one way or the other, saying that live fire is "totally disproportionate+excessive" in the face of a knife wielding attacker.

This is not international law. This is not what "proportionate" means. Amnesty is once again making up rules as it goes along.

At least when it comes to Israel.

09/25 Links Pt1: UN marks 70 years of ineffectiveness; How’s That Iran Détente Working?

From Ian:

Patronage and paralysis: UN marks 70 years of ineffectiveness

The worsening war in Syria, allegations of child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers and the mishandling of the Ebola epidemic cast a spotlight on the inadequacies of the United Nations in a globalized world, operating with a power structure that hasn’t changed since 1945.
With age, the organization has grown bloated, say many who know it well. It is also underfunded and overwhelmed by the tasks it faces.
The world body is trying to deal with almost 60 million global refugees, displaced people and asylum seekers — the greatest number since World War II. It is seeking to provide emergency supplies to keep 100 million people alive but has received less than 30 percent of the $20 billion it needs this year.
Beyond Syria, where more than 250,000 people have been killed since 2011, conflicts escalate from Yemen and Iraq to South Sudan and Mali, forcing tens of thousands to flee hoping for a better life in Europe.
Since the UN was born after World War II, it has grown from 51 members to 193.
As it celebrates its 70th anniversary this year, the UN is hobbled by bureaucracy, politics and an inability among its five most powerful members to agree on much, including how to end Syria’s conflict.

How’s That Iran Détente Working?

Abandoning all of the West’s previous positions and bribing Iran enabled Obama to get the Islamist regime to sign a nuclear accord. But Iran détente with hasn’t defeated ISIS or stopped the Iranians from doubling down on its efforts to threaten Israel from both the north and the south.
Hamas is already benefiting from Iran’s largesse as it uses desperately needed cash to prop up its bankrupt government in Gaza and to build new terror tunnels and other fortifications that will enable it renew hostilities against Israel. Yet the real danger to Israel is the possibility that Hamas and Hezbollah can act in concert to place intolerable pressure via rocket attacks that will place the entire Jewish state under fire. Iran’s adventure in Syria makes such a scenario even more possible.
Hezbollah’s goal in Syria is not just to do Iran’s bidding to help Assad. They seek to establish the ability to fire rockets from Syrian soil into Israel. Their reasoning is that shooting at the Jewish state from Lebanon will invite massive Israeli retaliation and undermine support there for Hezbollah’s activities. But if such fire is coming from Syrian territory it will make it harder for Israel to retaliate in such a way as to hurt Hezbollah politically.
The result of this activity is to show that from moderating Iran, the nuclear negotiations have only encouraged it to increase their already considerable backing for terror groups. Even if we assume that Iran will observe the terms of the deal that enable it to build a bomb once it expires, recent events show that in the meantime it will use its growing financial muscle to strengthen its grip on regional power. That is a recipe for more bloodshed in the region as well as a deadly threat to Israel. Détente with Iran never made much sense even if the discussion was limited to nuclear concerns. But the administration’s adamant refusal to bring the question of terrorism and threats to Israel into the negotiations has paid off for the ayatollahs. The regime is flexing its muscles in a way that has already vindicated Arab fears of Iran using the nuclear deal to pursue regional hegemony.

You Won’t Believe The Latest Revelations About The Flaws In The Nuclear Agreement With Iran

Even if the administration should want to give in to Iran on this issue, there are serious obstacles that make such a concession unlikely.
The first obstacle is that in order to lift sanctions now, UNSC Resolution 2231 would have to be canceled, which is very unlikely. The second obstacle the administration would face is that Congress must OK sanction relief, something that is even more unlikely than the cancellation of UNSCR 2231.
No doubt the Iranians will come with new demands at the UNGA meeting, and immediate sanction relief is probably one of them. The Iranians always conduct negotiations in this way, and they will do so this time too because they know Obama sees this deal as the foreign policy achievement of his presidency, and because they want to buy time.
In a worst case scenario for President Obama, Khamenei will make good on his threat that there will be no agreement if the administration and the other negotiation partners do not cave in. In this respect, it is important to remember that the JCPOA has not yet been signed by Iran and a number of experts have already said that Iran won’t sign the deal at all. Among those experts are Michael Ledeen of Pajamas Media and Jennifer Dyer who writes for Liberty Unyielding.
Dyer told Western Journalism that Iran won’t announce that they will not sign the deal, but instead will come up with new demands. She said the reason for this behavior has to do with Israel.
“By keeping the negotiation process open-ended, Iran keeps Israel perpetually just short of being justified in taking decisive action. The sense is kept alive that the world is still waiting for a finite resolution on the Iran nuclear problem. The Western nations are allowed to perceive that they’re ‘making progress.’ But in fact, Iran is just buying time – which requires keeping alive that perception of the political problem still being unresolved,” Dyer said
“The day Iran signs something real, that game is over. Hence, all the incessant signals that the basis for a “sign-able” agreement doesn’t exist yet,” she added.

Sickening UNRWA trying to take lion's share of Syria refugee relief funds

The Guardian's Harriet Grant reported on September 6:

The UN’s humanitarian agencies are on the verge of bankruptcy and unable to meet the basic needs of millions of people because of the size of the refugee crisis in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, senior figures within the UN have told the Guardian.

The deteriorating conditions in Lebanon and Jordan, particularly the lack of food and healthcare, have become intolerable for many of the 4 million people who have fled Syria, driving fresh waves of refugees north-west towards Europe and aggravating the current crisis.

This article upset UNRWA's Chris Gunness:

Odd that @harrietgrant doesn't mention @UNRWA's cash crisis piece re refugee flows 2 Europe & need 2 fully fund cash-strapped UN agencies RT
— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) September 7, 2015

So Gunness decided to do some serious research. On Twitter.

Do any colleagues in #UNHCR @LDUNHCR @melissarfleming or peeps know how many #Palestinians r among those arriving in Europe & elsewhere ? RT
— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) September 11, 2015

He didn't get an answer. But he tweeted:

UNRWA's #Syria Appeal for US$ 415 million is just 37% funded. No wonder people are flocking 2 Europe RT pic.twitter.com/w3DVafEtmy
— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) September 9, 2015

UNRWA #Syria Crisis Appeal just 34% funded. No wonder #refugees are pouring into #Europe RT pic.twitter.com/muB3E83aiK
— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) September 22, 2015

I don't know how the funding went from 37% to 34% either.

But let's look at the numbers.

Before the Syrian war, there were about 500,000 Arabs of Palestinian ancestry in Syria, out of a population of about 23 million, or about 2%.

Of the 220,000 killed in the Syrian civil war, about 3000 are Palestinian, about 1.3%.

So of the 4 million who have fled Syria, how many are Palestinian? Even if every single Palestinian Arab left Syria that would only be 10% of the total!

But UNRWA is asking for $415 million, and trying to say that if only those tightwad Europeans would pay more to UNRWA, then they wouldn't have so many refugees beating on their doors!

By any math, this simply is a lie.

This is besides the fact that Gunness is claiming that the reasons Syrians are fleeing is because they don't have support. That may be part of it, but if barrel bombs are dropping on your town, you would flee away no matter how well-funded the local UNRWA program is.

There are scores of agencies raising money for victims of the Syrian war. UNRWA is trying to take the money that would go to help everyone and redirect it to its own operations which may be important but would barely make a dent in the larger set of fundraising for Syria.

In other words, UNRWA's Chris Gunness is cynically taking advantage of a true humanitarian crisis by inflating UNRWA's importance and acting like a baby when the media rightly doesn't place UNRWA on the top of its list of agencies helping Syrians, a list that is quite long: