More fun from that rally, where speakers claimed that Jews put typhus in the water and called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the planet (to applause.)
(h/t Ibn Boutros)
The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) received great satisfaction and high appreciation of Human Rights Watch's report regarding the violations of the occupation against the residents of the Gaza Strip and the demand for the protection of the Palestinians, which revealed the facts that confirm the involvement of the Israeli occupation in what appeared to be war crimes against Palestinian demonstrators As well as the use by the occupation of policies, laws, arguments and pretexts to justify and cover their deliberate killing and harm to Palestinians by using live and lethal bullets.Today, it issued another statement, supporting the barrage of rockets into Israel last night:
The findings of the report reflect a part of the reality of the suffering and injustice inflicted on the Palestinians by the unjust siege imposed on Gaza and its inhabitants twelve years ago. The suffering continues and escalates. As a flagrant form of Israeli violence threatening Palestinian life and rights through a long series of killings, sniping, starvation and siege, which constitute a flagrant and serious violation of international law and international humanitarian law that amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
All praise for the valiant resistance that responded to the Israeli shelling of its positions in Gaza. This is a legitimate right. The message of shelling is to confirm that the resistance is the one who determines the rules of engagement in its own way and will not allow the enemy to unite our people or impose any new equations .On the one hand, Hamas pretends to care about humanitarian issues and to be against violence that targets civilians. On the other, Hamas praises shooting rockets at civilians.
A recently published collection of essays, Anti-Zionism on Campus, examines the clout of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement at American institutions of higher learning, and its successful bullying of its opponents. Both of the volume’s editors, Doron Ben-Atar and Andrew Pessin, are professors whom BDS supporters tried to hound from their respective universities. In his review, Jonathan Marks writes:
Anti-Zionism on Campus consists of 32 essays, 25 by scholars and seven by students, which together make the case that those who speak up for Israel on campus, or merely deny that Zionism is racism, risk “verbal attack, social and professional ostracization,” and “setbacks to their careers.” As an undisguised Zionist [and college professor] who has so far avoided such consequences, I read Anti-Zionism on Campus as a skeptic. By the time I finished the book, I was convinced. . . .
At Northern Michigan State University, in 2011, Gabriel Noah Brahm complained of the lopsidedly anti-Israel character of a university-sponsored visit to Israel. He was soon “up on some kind of charges.” He was cleared, but the cloud that hung over him almost certainly contributed to his English Department colleagues’ hostility to his tenure bid. The resulting tenure denial was overturned by a unanimous vote, but Brahm had been put through the wringer. . . .
Faculty are not guiltless in these transactions. . . . When Shlomo Dubnov, a professor of music at the University of San Diego, opposed, in 2012, an anti-Israel divestment resolution, false and serious charges against him were retailed on the website of the San Diego Faculty Association with the active support of that body’s head. . . .
The SPLC in 2016 included Nawaz, who has spent years peacefully combatting both Islamism and anti-Muslim bigotry in Britain, in its Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, alongside a litany of genuine haters. As evidence, the SPLC cited the fact that Mr. Nawaz had once tweeted a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad “despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous.” Dissidents across the Muslim world and in too many Muslim communities in the West risk beatings, torture, and worse for daring to criticize their religion and its founder. The SPLC in effect lent its liberal, “civil-rights” imprimatur to their mistreatment at the hands of their coreligionists.Southern Poverty Law Center Lists SPLC as ‘Anti-Muslim Hate Group’ (satire)
“Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a statement, “it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.”
Damn right. But Nawaz wasn’t the only victim of SPLC smears. Another was the Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has written for these pages. In the same Field Guide, the SPLC seemed to question Hirsi Ali’s personal story–she suffered genital mutilation in her native land–and accused her of bigotry for emphasizing the religious and ideological dimensions of Islamic terrorism. She, too, deserves a retraction and apology from the SPLC.
As for journalists who regularly rely on SPLC, the religious-liberty law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, another victim of the group’s smears, got it exactly right in its statement on the Nawaz settlement: “SPLC has become a far-left organization that brands its political opponents as ‘haters’ and ‘extremists’ and has lost all credibility as a civil-rights watchdog . . . SPLC’s sloppy mistakes have ruinous, real-world consequences for which they should not be excused.”
Blasting the group as a “bunch of Islamophobic bigots,” the Southern Poverty Law Center has officially classified itself as an anti-Muslim extremist group.
“The Southern Poverty Law Center targets Muslims like Maajid Nawaz – who are most certainly not anti-Muslim extremists– simply for their faith,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said in a recorded statement on Monday. “These folks are using their white privilege to attack innocent Muslims.”
Earlier in the day, SPLC apologized for listing Nawaz in a directory of anti-Muslim extremists and agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement to Nawaz’s organization, Quilliam, which combats Islamophobia and Islamic extremism. But in its later statement, SPLC went a step further, demanding that its followers take to the streets to confront SPLC over its hateful actions.
“We must all fight racial and religious extremism – and in this case, that means standing up to people like me,” Cohen said. “Where is antifa on this one?”
This leads us to the UNHRC’s irredeemable flaw: Its institutional biases are so skewed in favor of murderers, dictators, and bigots that it serves primarily to legitimize the dregs of the earth.The United Nations’ Flawed Condemnation of Israel
The Council has a permanent agenda item—item seven—which obliges it to regularly survey potential abuses committed by Israel in the Palestinian territories. Item seven is such a blatant misuse of the Council’s time that Europe and North America boycott the group when that article is invoked.
In 2008, the commission appointed Richard Falk, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Hamas apologist, to serve a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur for the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories. In 2011, Falk was reprimanded by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon for endorsing the idea that the U.S. was behind the attacks on its own territory.
Jean Ziegler, co-founder of the Muammar Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights—which is a real thing that has been awarded to such paragons as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Louis Farrakhan—currently serves in an elected role on the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The Council’s special rapporteur on “unilateral coercive measures,” Idriss Jazairy, is alleged by UN Watch’s Hillel Neuer in testimony before Congress to have executed an “aggressive campaign of non-democracies to muzzle UN rights experts.” One of Jazairy’s most recent reports to the UNHRC is a typical jeremiad attacking the civilized world for maintaining strict sanctions against Bashar al-Assad’s government as punishment for Damascus’s use of genocidal tactics and chemical weapons on civilian populations.
Despite Haley’s earned hostility toward the United Nations for its biases against both Israel and the general appearance of sanity, she has proven to be a particularly effective ambassador. Last week, amid a rote condemnation of the Jewish State for engaging in targeted self-defense amid a flare up on its border with Gaza, Haley managed to expose something new: cracks in the UN’s anti-Israel consensus.
As a thought experiment, one may consider, “What was Israel to do?” It is a shame that there were innocent civilian casualties and injuries — Palestinians that did not take part in the violence were harmed. It is important, however, to make a clear distinction that Israel did not see these protests as an opportunity to kill as many Palestinians as possible. These protests, especially when they turned violent, thrust Israel into a position to defend its border. Of course, Israel and Palestine have differing stories on the militant status of the protestors killed.Elliott Abrams: More Evidence that the UN's Automatic Majority Against Israel is Fraying
During the protests, the IDF has been running a live twitter feed of their defensive actions with video recordings for reference. In addition to this, the IDF have on several occasions dropped leaflets from aircraft warning protestors not to approach the border fence.
In response to the Israeli defense, Hamas fired approximately 100 rockets toward heavily populated Israeli towns and cities. The Iron Dome Missile defense system was able to prevent the projectiles from causing any civilian casualties. Again, the UN failed to make any mention of this in their latest condemnation towards Israel, even after the United States proposed an amendment enumerating such.
In the UN general assembly chamber, Turkey, Algeria, and Palestine, some of Israel’s most outspoken critics, proposed a resolution condemning Israel for “excessive use of force.” The Palestinians also formally requested heavier security apparatus to defend themselves against the Israelis. A majority of countries also chose to neglect the defensive position Israel maintained or any mention of Hamas’ involvement. The only nations that voted against this measure were Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Solomon Islands, Togo, the United States, and Israel.
The greater community of the United Nations chose to forgo objectivity, and opt for a one-sided narrative.
A few days ago (here) I analyzed the recent UN General Assembly vote on Gaza and concluded that the UN's automatic majority against Israel is fraying.
Now there is an important piece of new evidence. In his first address to the UN Human Rights Council, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said this:
I will say that we share the view that a dedicated agenda item focused solely on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace and unless things change, we shall move next year to vote against all resolutions introduced under Item 7.
Thus the British are now saying they will next year automatically vote against any and every resolution brought under this agenda item, regardless of its content. Britain's move is likely to open the door for others in the EU or the Commonwealth to follow suit, or at least give Israel and the United States a powerful new argument against that agenda item that singles out Israel. There are some good candidates on the Human Rights Council who ought to follow the UK--and, it should be said, Australia, which already takes this position. Among them are Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland in Europe and Japan outside it. They should be the targets of an American and Israeli campaign for some basic standard of fairness. The alternative will be the withdrawal of the United States from the Human Rights Council.
Having criticized the Foreign & Commonwealth Office recently (in this blog post) it is only fair to give credit where it is due. Hat's off to Johnson and the FCO on this one.
Josh Malina, Wikipedia |
Those who watched The West Wing may remember that my character, Will Bailey, played a minor role in brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace.Elder of Ziyon brought this out into the open on Twitter:
The West Wing, alas, is a fictional universe. Here in the real one, our president — unlike Jed Bartlet — is not a Nobel Prize-winning scholar with an unfailing moral compass and an exceptional command of statecraft — or even someone who, you know, reads books.
Nor has our president helped achieve the dream of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
But, like Will Bailey, I am working toward that goal. I’m supporting J Street — and I hope that you will too...
A number of people then joined in, responding to Malina.Disappointed to see @JoshMalina supporting @jstreetdotorg.— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) June 17, 2018
J-Street doesn't just "support two states" as it claims, it is against Israeli democracy and it tries to divide US Jews. Read @AlanDersh, a liberal who understands J-Street's dangerous lies. pic.twitter.com/QmFMJaSgCL
And I continued...@joshmalina On the question of @jstreet:— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018
From the beginning, J Street was less than honest about the involvement of George Soros (not known for his enthusiasm for the State of Israel) as far as his initial funding of J Street.https://t.co/ttUfnTFcaE
J STREET STRONGLY CONDEMNS INCENDIARY, OFFENSIVE REMARKS BY PRESIDENT ABBASBut that was not my question. The question I asked was whether J Street had come out recently in defense of Israel during the riots. Contrary to the narrative the media readily propagates, not all those involved are in fact peaceful, unarmed protesters. Instead, many are rioting and attempting -- and in some cases succeeding -- in infiltrating into Israel.
Malina tweeted back:Fair enough, but you do see the irony if @jstreetdotorg condemns "incendiary" remarks but fails to condemn the "incendiary" kites.— (((daledamos))) (@daledamos) June 18, 2018
I believe they tweeted - and I RT-ed - about terror kites. I am trying to confirm that for you. They are tools of terror and should be called out as such. I have certainly tweeted about them.And that is where things stand.
While there are reports of a small number of Palestinians attempting to breach the fence or otherwise attack Israeli soldiers, the vast majority of those who have gathered appear to be exercising their legitimate and important right to engage in nonviolent protest.Good to know that the people at J Street read The New York Times.
Palestinian security forces used sound grenades, tear gas and violent force to disperse an anti-government protest in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday night, as hundreds demonstrated against the Palestinian Authority's punitive measures against the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
Crowds of protesters in Ramallah chanted and hoisted signs calling for an end to PA sanctions against Gaza before they were quickly cut off as Palestinian National Security Forces threw sound grenades and fired tear gas into the crowd.
Security forces in riot gear also wielded batons and used Taser weapons against protesters, with dozens of people carried away and arrested.
Police yelled at everyone in the street to put their phones away and told them not to take photos – journalists included.
Many of those who did take photos were arrested or at least detained briefly by swarms of police officers who attempted to break or confiscate cameras and erase memory cards.
Those who were arrested, at least 50 as of midnight including two foreign journalists, were carried away by police while being beaten with batons, punched and kicked.
Young girls and women were among those who this reporter saw being carried away, screaming and struggling.
About 10 people were taken to hospital, where they had their identification documents confiscated by police.
At the start of the event called for by the Committee of Prisoners and Liberators, with the participation of a number of factions, writers, dignitaries and liberated prisoners, about 100 people in civilian clothes dressed in kuffiyehs and white hats went in the midst of the demonstrators and began chanting "Down with Abbas." Among the organizers, They attacked the participants with sticks, throwing stones and then sabotaging the stage.
The [Independent Human Rights] Commission documented that members of the General Intelligence and Homeland Security pursued and attacked a number of citizens and journalists, which indicates that these attacks were carried out with the knowledge and protection of the security services in the Gaza Strip, which is contrary to the role entrusted to the security services to protect the participants in the assembly.Just another week with the peaceful Palestinian leadership in Ramallah and Gaza suppressing any protests - and any reporting of the protests when they can.
After the UN General Assembly on June 14, 2018, voted to condemn Israel for its handling of the Gaza border fence violence, It is all the more curious to observe the deliberate disregard of the serious and flagrant international humanitarian, environmental, and ecological crimes committed by Hamas and the Palestinians.
Since the Palestinian Authority is utilizing the events in Gaza to conduct its own political and legal campaign against Israel in international bodies, this renders the Palestinian leadership an accessory to Hamas in the commission of these crimes.
By initiating, encouraging, and supporting mass pollution of the border area through the organized stockpiling and burning of tires, the Palestinian leadership is responsible for repeatedly creating caustic clouds of carbon pollution. This act is damaging to the health of the Palestinian civilian demonstrators themselves, as well as the residents of Israeli communities in the vicinity of the border.
Incendiary kites and balloons have ignited vast swathes of agricultural land in Israel, destroyed crops, and endangered Israeli residents. The International Criminal Court Statute defines as a war crime "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
Weaponizing kites and balloons by attaching explosive devices with the intention that they will explode upon landing or when found by Israeli civilians is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, notably the 1997 Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. Moreover, the 2001 Conventional Weapons Convention prohibits the use of incendiary weapons.
From the viewpoint of international humanitarian law and accepted norms of humanity, placing Palestinian civilians, and especially women and children, at the forefront of violent demonstrations and attacks on the border fence as human shields to conceal the presence of Hamas terrorists is a violation of several international treaties protecting children and prohibiting their involvement in warfare.
The Palestinian leadership must be made to understand that its fixation with joining international treaties is not unidirectional. It involves solemn responsibilities to abide by the obligations included in such treaties. The international community must hold the Palestinian leadership to their commitments and not ignore their violations of the most fundamental norms and principles of international law.
On Monday, Quilliam, a London-based counter-extremism think-tank that battles against Islamic extremism, announced the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) would pay Quilliam almost $4 million after SPLC had included Quilliam in its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.”Antisemitism at the United Nations Cannot Be Ignored
SPLC released a statement, which read:
Today, we entered into a settlement with and offered our sincerest apology to Mr. Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for including them in our publication A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Given our understanding of the views of Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam, it was our opinion at the time that the Field Guide was published that their inclusion was warranted. But after getting a deeper understanding of their views and after hearing from others for whom we have great respect, we realize that we were simply wrong to have included Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam in the Field Guide in the first place.
Then, the acknowledgment of the payment: “As part of our settlement, we have paid $3.375 million to Mr. Nawaz and Quilliam to fund their work to fight anti-Muslim bigotry and extremism.”
And this conclusion: “As we move forward, we are committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure that our work is always carried out with the utmost care and integrity. The stakes in the battle against hate and extremism are simply too great to be satisfied with anything less.”
The SPLC has defended anti-Semite and radical leftist Linda Sarsour; called the late Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum a hate group; named the Family Research Council a hate group, and written that Prager University videos are “indispensable propaganda device for the right.” (h/t jzaik)
Yet even most of us who care about these issues tend to treat the UN’s actions as mere rhetoric. While this is true, we’re wrong to treat days like June 12 as deplorable but not worth getting all that upset about. While what goes on in the United Nations is, in a sense, just talk, it’s far more dangerous than that.
What we forget about these exercises in hypocrisy is that they give official imprimatur to antisemitism. As Obama’s State Department certified, a “rising tide of anti-Semitism” is sweeping across Europe and Southeast Asia. Arab and Islamic hatred for Israel, as well as some Western elites’ belief that the Jews are the one people on the planet who aren’t entitled to a homeland, drive this trend.
If other countries are willing to give Hamas a pass for terror and bash Israel for defending its border in a way no different (if not far more humane) than almost all of the nations condemning it, then this is an act of prejudice against the one Jewish state on the planet.
To note this fact is not to assert that Israel is perfect or above criticism. But when a world body attacks Israel alone and vilifies it for doing what any other nation would do, that is called hate.
The Obama administration treated the United Nations like a sacred multilateral cow. But it’s time for the Trump administration to put even more pressure on the United Nations that it already has done, cutting the US allocations that keep it going.
By regarding everyday hate as ordinary, we are, even if only because of exhaustion and a sense of futility, enabling it. That has to stop. We must never allow ourselves to get used to UN-certified Jew-hatred. The United Nations must be made to understand that decent persons won’t tolerate this practice indefinitely without consequences.
Buy EoZ's book, PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!