Wednesday, October 24, 2018



What is an earthship? From Wikipedia:

An Earthship is a type of passive solar house that is made of both natural and upcycled materials such as earth-packed tires, pioneered by architect Michael Reynolds.

An Earthship addresses six principles or human needs:

Thermo-solar heating and cooling
solar and wind electricity
self-contained sewage treatment
building with natural and recycled materials
water harvesting and long term storage
some internal food production capability
Earthship structures are intended to be "off-the-grid-ready" homes, with minimal reliance on public utilities and fossil fuels. They are constructed to use available natural resources, especially energy from the sun and rain water.

They are designed with thermal mass construction and natural cross-ventilation to regulate indoor temperature.

The designs are intentionally uncomplicated and mainly single-story, so that people with little building knowledge can construct them.
Doesn't this sound like an ideal home for people in Gaza? These homes can reduce the need for power, sewage treatment, and even water.

Given that the people who claim to be so pro-Palestinian are often also the people who claim to care about saving the planet, why have we not seen anyone working to help Gazans build inexpensive, energy-independent homes?

For some reason, no one seems upset that instead of using earth-filled tires to build homes, Gazans are using their tires in a completely different and environmentally damaging way, to burn them during riots:


Once again, we see that being "pro-Palestinian" means attacking Israel, not helping Gazans in any meaningful way. Or else we'd be seeing lots of organizations working to help Gazans build these homes that can actually help everyone.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Wednesday, October 24, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
A couple of weeks ago, Aisha al-Rabi was killed from a stone being thrown at her car, and her husband claimed in various contradictory interviews that the stone was hurled by Jewish settlers.

 Rami Mahdawi at Al Watan Voice goes through a a thought experiment of thinking what would have happened if she was a Jewish woman killed by Palestinian stones.

His story reveals how disconnected from reality the Arab world is.

In his story, the Israeli Foreign Ministry would organize an international tour for the victim's family family,  launched from the UN headquarters in New York.  They would visit to international and human rights NGOs.

The fantasy continues where (Jewish) Hollywood will produce a movie about her, and the Zionist lobby will push the movie to become a megahit.  The film would receive an Oscar, and so the world will know who about the Israeli woman killed by the Palestinians.

Of course, in reality quite a few Jews have been killed by Palestinian stones. These include Esther Ohana, 21.

Ohana was going to be married a week later.

No Hollywood movies were produced about Ohana's life.

Nor were movies made about Adele Biton or Yonatan Palmer or Yehuda Shoham, all of them killed when they were babies.

But Arabs seem to know that Hollywood creates films at the pleasure of the Israeli government.






We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Wednesday, October 24, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
From Ma'an:

Israeli forces and police assaulted several Coptic Orthodox priests in front of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the Old City of occupied East Jerusalem, and forcefully detained one of them on Wednesday morning.

Prior to the assault, the Coptic Orthodox Church organized a peaceful protest near Deir al-Sultan Monastery, located on the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, against an Israeli decision denying the church the right to conduct the needed renovation work inside the holy site.

It is noteworthy that the Israeli municipality of Jerusalem continues to conduct unauthorized renovation work for the Ethiopian Coptic Church section without the approval of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Eyewitnesses said that Israeli soldiers and police officers surrounded the priests who were protesting, before assaulting and pushing them with excessive use of force, causing them several injuries.

Witnesses added that the Israeli police forcibly removed the priests and detained one of them, before allowing the Israeli municipality workers into the holy site.

The Islamic Christian Committee to Defend Jerusalem and Holy Sites condemned the assault on the Coptic Orthodox priests and denounced the intervention of Israeli authorities in the renovation works of the holy site.

Looks and sounds bad, doesn't it? Especially this photo:


So why is Israel insisting on renovating the church? Why are the Copts opposed? How did this get violent?

Part of the answer comes from this article last year in ESAT, an Ethiopian news site:
The St. Michael Church at the Ethiopian quarter of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem has been closed by Israeli authorities after its roof had collapsed due to construction on the roof top monastery by the Greek Church.

There is a long-running dispute among Christian sects as to the ownership of the Deir al-Sultan monastery, on the roof of the Holy Sepulchre. The Ethiopian Orthodox and the Egyptian Coptic Churches both claim ownership of the site.

The monastery is badly in need of renovation but dispute between the Churches got in the way of Israeli government efforts to move forward with the reconstruction.

On September 22, 2017, the roof of the St. Michael church collapsed due to construction by the Greek Church on the Monastery on the top that has been going on for 6 years.

Chair of the Ethiopian Community in Israel, Tesfahun Eshetu, told ESAT that the collapse had damaged relics and paintings in the Church. He said no one was hurt as it happened after services were done and everyone had left the church.
It isn't Israel vs. Copts. It is Christians vs. Christians, and because they hate each other so much, no one can fix a roof.

The ESAT story is biased towards the Ethiopian claim to the monastery. This article seems to be a bit more fair. Israel has wanted the area to be safe and since neither the Copts or Ethiopians want to allow the other to repair the roof, Israel decided to do it itself. Last year, when Israel tries, the Copts stopped them (and got the Egyptian embassy to intervene on their behalf.)

The groups have been bitterly fighting for centuries. This Telegraph article in 2002 shows how much they hate each other:
Eleven monks were treated in hospital after a fight broke out for control of the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the traditional site of Jesus's crucifixion, burial and resurrection.

The fracas involved monks from the Ethiopian Orthodox church and the Coptic church of Egypt, who have been vying for control of the rooftop for centuries.

It is not the first time monks have come to blows at Christendom's most holy place, but it is one of the most serious in recent times.


As black-clad monks threw stones and iron bars at each other, the Israeli police were called to restore order. Seven Ethiopian monks and four Egyptians were hurt and one of the Ethiopians was reported to be unconscious in hospital.

The fight erupted over the position of a chair used by an Egyptian monk near the entrance to the roof.

He sits there to assert the Copts' claim to the rooftop, which is mainly occupied by a few African-style huts which the Ethiopians, who have been evicted from the main church over the centuries, use as their monastery.

On a hot day, the Egyptian monk decided to move his chair out of the sun. This was seen by the Ethiopians as violating the "status quo" in the church, set out in a 1757 document which defines the ownership of every chapel, lamp and flagstone.

After several days of rising tension, the fists began to fly on Sunday. The Egyptians said their monk was teased and poked and, in a final insult, pinched by a woman.
Israel is responsible for the safety of Jerusalem, whether you consider parts of it occupied or not. One sect welcomes Israel's repairs. Israel is trying to save the church despite the infighting, not to attack it. But the Palestinians are using this as a pretext to say that Israel violates holy Christian sites, and the PLO issued a statement of condemnation calling Israel a "rogue state."

There is very little religion in this story. It is all politics.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

From Ian:

Why Does The Left Give Louis Farrakhan A Pass?
Recall Barack Obama grinning alongside Farrakhan in a photo that was intentionally suppressed so it wouldn’t harm Obama’s reelection chances.

Recall Snoop Dogg, Dave Chappelle, Puff Daddy and other celebrities at Farrakhan’s 25th anniversary of the Million Man March. Will and Jada Pinkett Smith made a $150,000 donation to the march.

Think of the leaders of the Women’s March, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour, openly celebrating Farrakhan.

These people can’t have never heard his anti-Semitic comments. They must ultimately just not care.

In March, Rep. Danny K. Davis of Illinois said of Farrakhan, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth.”

The “Jewish question,” of course is what Adolf Hitler attempted to answer with the Holocaust and it didn’t get much bigger than that for Jews.

Davis’ comments prompted the New York Times to run a piece titled “Why Louis Farrakhan Is Back in the News” as if he had ever really left.

The piece quoted Farrakhan’s fans and gave them a chance to explain and repent. Mallory was quoted explaining she is warm toward Farrakhan because the Nation of Islam was there for her during difficult moments of her life.

No similar piece will ever be written about the lost boy who finds the white nationalist movement when things in his life have fallen apart, and then doesn’t abandon it after hearing the full noxiousness of the comments they make.

And that’s a good thing! It’s correct and moral not to focus on whatever good is accidentally done by hateful people like David Duke or Richard Spencer, on whatever lives they helped or communities they might have aided.

Duke and Spencer are rightly shunned by the mainstream. Why isn’t Farrakhan?

Al Dura Season II on France's Channel 2
A report broadcast on the program "Envoyé spécial" recently, is angering Israel and French Jews.

Elise Lucet, a journalist at France 2 presented "Gaza, a crippled youth," a documentary by Yvan Martinet.

Yvan Martinet is a great admirer of the propagandist Charles Enderlin, author of the Al Dura hoax, proven to have been a staged lie, and of Paul Moreira.

Paul Moreira with his anti-Israeli activist friends of the NGO Reporters Without Borders has turned to the International Criminal Court (ICC) concerning "war crimes committed by the Israeli army against Palestinian journalists", (Seen on RSF website ).

Yvan Martinet tweeted "Thanks" to Charles Enderlin who congratulated him.

On Wednesday, the eve of the broadcast, the ambassador of Israel in France Aliza Bin Noun asked the presidency of France Televisions to "reconsider the dissemination of the report," expressing concern "about the harmful and dangerous repercussions that it could engender on the Jewish community of France ".

Denouncing an "unbalanced point of view" on the situation in Gaza and the "very negative" vision of Israel, the diplomat asserts that "such content is likely to incite hatred against Israel" and by extension to the Jews of France, "because of a frequent and distressing amalgam between Jews and Israel".

  • Tuesday, October 23, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
This 1999 memo by then-ambassador David Hale, published in Wikileaks, has a lot of resonance today as well. It shows how endemic discrimination is against Palestinian citizens of Jordan and how the fictional "right of return" is used to keep that discrimination in place.


_______________________________


1.  (C) Summary: The right of return for Palestinians is one of the issues at the heart of the debate over what it means to be Jordanian.  Though our GOJ interlocutors insist that the theoretical option of return remains, they are now more engaged with the issue of compensation, both for individual Palestinians and for Jordan itself.  For Jordanians of Palestinian origin, the right of return is either an empty (if cherished) slogan or a legitimate aspiration.  For East Bankers, the right of return is often held up as the panacea which will recreate Jordan's bedouin or Hashemite identity. 

The issue is inextricably linked with governmental and societal discrimination toward the Palestinian-origin community, and poses a challenge to Jordan's political reforms.  Jordanians of Palestinian origin (and many, but not all, of the East Bankers we speak to) assume that an end to 
the question of the right of return will lead to equal treatment and full political inclusion within Jordan.  Yet neither East Bankers nor Palestinians are willing to make the first move toward publicly acknowledging this "grand bargain."  In the absence of public debate -- which would be both highly sensitive and taboo-breaking -- or government action, the issues surrounding the right of return will continue to fester.  In the absence of a viable and functioning Palestinian state, those who are charged with protecting the current identity of the Jordanian state will be loath to consider measures that they firmly believe could end up bringing to fruition the nightmare scenario of "Jordan is Palestine."  End Summary.

Government Strategy:  Compensation Trumps Return
--------------------------------------------- ---

2.  (C) The Jordanian government's official stance on the right of return has changed very little over the years.  The MFA's current position paper on the matter notes that "refugees who have Jordanian citizenship expect the State to protect their basic right of return and compensation in accordance with international law."  As recently as January 23, the King reiterated the standard line in an interview with the Al-Dustour newspaper:  "As for the Palestinian refugees in Jordan, we stress once again that their Jordanian citizenship does not deprive them of the right to return and compensation."

....
4.  (C) Deputy Director of the Department of Palestinian Affairs Mahmoud Agrabawi, whose agency works closely with UNRWA in the refugee camps, told us that the most important thing is that Palestinians be given the choice of whether to go back or not.  He declined to estimate how many would want to exercise that right, but he did raise a point about internal differences of status among the refugee population in Jordan.  Those who are most likely to want to leave are the impoverished residents of refugee camps in Jordan - most of whom are Palestinians (or their descendants) who fled in 1948 from what became the State of Israel. (Note: Roughly 330,000 of the 1.9 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan live in camps.  About half of those living in camps originated from Gaza and, therefore, do not hold Jordanian citizenship.  End note.)   They will not, however, want to return to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza because they would be unable to reclaim their ancestral homes inside Israel, and thus would in a sense (albeit not a legal one) merely become refugees in a new country, said Agrabawi.


Palestinian Expectations: The Dream and the Reality
--------------------------------------------- ------

7.  (C) When it comes to thinking about the right of return, Palestinians in Jordan fall into roughly two camps.  In the first are those who align themselves with the government approach, keeping up the rhetoric for the sake of appearances, but behind closed doors quickly abandoning return as a political and logistical impossibility.  This group is more concerned about personal compensation (and doubts that Jordan would ever have the chutzpah to ask for "structural" compensation).  In the second camp are those who cling to the principle.  For the most part, this latter view is probably most prevalent among refugee camp residents who hope to be plucked out of landless poverty by a peace agreement and the compensation that may come with it.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the breakdown of how many people are in each group.  Note:  As noted in Ref B, polling on Palestinian-origin versus East Banker political preferences in Jordan is taboo, because it acknowledges uncomfortable truths about the divide within Jordan's national identity.  End Note.

....9.  (C) As noted, however, the principle of the right of return still holds considerable sway among others.  "There is no question about the right of return.  It is a sacred right," contends Palestinian-origin parliamentarian Mohammed Al-Kouz.  During a meeting with Amman-resident PNC members, one contact said:  "The right of return is my personal right, and my humanitarian right."  Indeed, this is how many Palestinian-origin contacts in Jordan think about the right of return - as something they are owed as part of a de facto social contract supported by Arab politicians and enshrined in UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions for 60 years.


East Banker Expectations: Waiting for Their Country Back?
--------------------------------------------- ------------

11.  (C) East Bankers have an entirely different approach to thinking about the right of return.  At their most benign, our East Banker contacts tend to count on the right of return as a solution to Jordan's social, political, and economic woes.  But underlying many conversations with East Bankers is the theory that once the Palestinians leave, "real" Jordanians can have their country back.  They hope for a solution that will validate their current control of Jordan's government and military, and allow for an expansion into the realm of business, which is currently dominated by
Palestinians.

12.  (C) Palestinian-origin contacts certainly have their suspicions about East Banker intentions.  "If the right of return happens, East Bankers assume that all of the Palestinians will leave," says parliamentarian Mohammed Al-Kouz.  Other Palestinian-origin contacts offered similar observations, including Adel Irsheid and Raja'i Dajani, who was one of the founding members of the GID, and later served as Interior Minister at the time of Jordan's administrative separation from the West Bank in 1988.  Dajani cited the rise of what he called "Likudnik" East Bankers, who hold out hope that the right of return will lead to an "exodus" of Palestinians.

13.  (C) In fact, many of our East Banker contacts do seem more excited about the return (read: departure) of Palestinian refugees than the Palestinians themselves. Mejhem Al-Khraish, an East Banker parliamentarian from the central bedouin district, says outright that the reason he strongly supports the right of return is so the Palestinians will quit Jordan.  East Banker Mohammed Al-Ghazo, Secretary General at the Ministry of Justice, says that Palestinians have no investment in the Jordanian political system - "they aren't interested in jobs in the government or the military" - and are therefore signaling their intent to return to a Palestinian state.

14.  (C) When East Bankers talk about the possibility of Palestinians staying in Jordan permanently, they use the language of political threat and economic instability.  Talal
Al-Damen, a politician in Um Qais near the confluence of Jordan, the Golan Heights and Israel, worries that without the right of return, Jordan will have to face up to the political challenges of a state which is not united demographically.  For his part, Damen is counting on a mass exodus of Palestinians to make room for East Bankers in the world of business, and to change Jordan's political landscape.  This sentiment was echoed in a meeting with university students, when self-identified "pure Jordanians" in the group noted that "opportunities" are less available because there are so many Palestinians.

The Nexus Between the Right of Return and Discrimination
--------------------------------------------- -----------

17.  (C) The right of return in Jordan is inextricably linked with the problem of semi-official discrimination toward the Palestinian-origin community.  Braizat claims it is "the major reason that keeps the Jordanian political system the way it is."  As long as the right of return is touted as a real solution, East Bankers will continue to see Palestinians as temporary residents in "their" country.  This provides the justification to minimize the role of Palestinian-origin Jordanians in public life, since they are "foreigners" whose loyalty is suspect and who could in theory pack up and leave at any time.  Note:  The suspicion of disloyalty is deeply rooted in Black September, when Palestinian militants attempted to wrest political control from the Hashemite regime.  Since then, Palestinians have been progressively excluded from the Jordanian security forces and civil service (Ref D).  End Note.  The suggestion that Palestinians should be granted full political representation in Jordan is often met with accusations that doing so would "cancel" or "prejudge" the right of return.  For their part, many Palestinian-origin Jordanians are less concerned with "prejudging" the right of return, and more concerned with fulfilling their roles as Jordanian citizens who are eligible for the full range of political and social rights guaranteed by law.

18.  (C) Al-Quds Center for Political Studies Director Oraib Rantawi, whose institute has been organizing refugee camp focus groups, cites widespread discrimination that is semi-officially promoted by the government.  In his estimation, the prospect of a "return" to Palestine is linked to the sense that Palestinian-origin Jordanians are "not Jordanian enough to be full citizens."  He asserts that this sentiment on the part of the ruling elite is increasingly trumping the idea of right of return as the primary political concern among Palestinian-origin Jordanians.  According to Rantawi (and many other contacts), the sense of alienation is most widespread among the poorer, more disenfranchised Palestinians of the refugee camps, but he cited growing alienation among the more integrated and successful Palestinians in Jordan.  "Palestinians feel that something is wrong, whether they live in a refugee camp or (the upscale Amman district of) Abdoun.  We have to take Palestinians out of this environment," says former minister Irsheid.  This tracks with the conventional wisdom which theorizes that an integrated Palestinian-origin community would have a stake in what happens in Jordan, and therefore less reason to be perceived as a threat.

20.  (C) While Jordanians of Palestinian origin are not shy about their origins, many stress just as strongly their strong connections and loyalty to Jordan.  Jemal Refai says, "I consider myself Jordanian.  Nobody can tell me otherwise."  Mohammed Abu Baker, who represents the PLO in Amman, says, "if you tell me to go back to Jenin, I won't go.  This is a fact - Palestinian refugees in Jordan have better living conditions."  PNC member Isa Al-Shuaibi simply notes that "Palestinians in Jordan are not refugees.  They are citizens." 

21.  ....Many of our contacts resent the "Palestinian-origin" label that appears on their passports
and national identity cards. ....

A Grand Bargain?
----------------

22.  (C) A common theme that emerges from discussions with Palestinian-origin contacts and some government officials (although not necessarily East Bankers as a group) is a "grand bargain" whereby Palestinians give up their aspirations to return in exchange for integration into Jordan's political system.  For East Bank politicians and regime supporters, this deal could help solve the assumed dual loyalty of Palestinians in Jordan.  For Palestinian-origin citizens, the compact would, ideally, close the book on their antagonistic relationship with the state and open up new opportunities for government employment and involvement in the political process.

23.  (C) "If we give up our right of return, they have to give us our political rights," says Refai.  "In order for Jordan to become a real state, we have to become one people."  ...

24.  (C) If a peace agreement fails to secure political rights for Palestinian-origin Jordanians as they define those rights, many of our contacts see the right of return as an insurance policy through which Palestinians would vote with their feet.  Refai asks: "If we aren't getting our political rights, then how can we be convinced to give up our right of return?"  Palestinian-Jordanian Fuad Muammar, editor of Al-Siyasa Al-Arabiyya weekly, noted that in the past few years there has been a proliferation of "right of return committees" in Palestinian refugee camps.  This phenomenon, he said, reflected growing dissatisfaction with Jordanian government steps to improve their lot here and an increased focus on Palestine.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
From Ian:

Abbas to Shin Bet Chief: If You Deduct Terrorists’ Salaries We’ll Cut Security Coordination
“The moment Israel cuts the salaries of the terrorists, we will cancel the security coordination,” Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Shin Bet Director Nadav Argaman, Kan, Israel’s Public Broadcasting Corporation, reported on Monday.

According to the report, the two met last week in Abbas’s home, a day or two before a Grad rocket from Gaza hit a home in Beersheba.

The talks dealt with the need for calm, but also the PLO conference next week, which is expected to yield resolutions against Hamas, Israel and the US.

Argaman reportedly sought to soften Abbas’s position and make sure he did not go too far with anti-Israel actions, including the cancellation of the Paris Economic Agreement, the security coordination and the recognition of Israel.

“The Palestinians claim that ‘we are 25 years after Oslo, on what base do the IDF forces enter the Palestinian cities in Area A?,” Argaman explained, suggesting the other side is complaining, “Whom do you coordinate with when you enter Area A and Area B? You enter whenever you want and do not ask permission.”

Last month, Abbas said in a meeting with Peace Now officials that he met regularly with the Shin Bet chief, and that they agree on 99% of the issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Paying to slay Jews is “social welfare” (says Palestinian UN rep)


Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinian 'Support' for Saudi Arabia
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did not wait for Saudi Arabia to admit that Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in its consulate in Turkey. Days before the Saudi announcement, Abbas decided that he and the Palestinians have "absolute confidence" in King Salman bin Abdel Aziz and this son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

As Abbas was busy praising the Saudis for their "justice, values and principles," the London-based Action Group for Palestinians of Syria issued a statement in which it accused the Saudi authorities of preventing Palestinian refugees from entering the kingdom.

"Palestinian refugees fleeing war-ravaged Syria have been denied access into Saudi territories," the group said. It pointed out that the Saudi ban excluded Palestinians heading to the kingdom to perform the Islamic hajj, or pilgrimage. The group also pointed out that Palestinians who fled Syria to Saudi Arabia "have been shorn of their right to visas, education, and health care, among other vital services." Saudi Arabia, the group added, "continues to opt for a closed-door immigration policy regarding Palestinian refugees seeking asylum in its territories."

This is only one example of Saudi discrimination against the Palestinians. The group's announcement was published on the same day that Abbas was heaping praise on the Saudi leaders.

In a statement issued by his office on October 14, Abbas, who described himself as the "President of the State of Palestine," said he "appreciated the positions of Saudi Arabia, a country that has always stood, and continued to do so, on the side of our just cause and the rights of our people." The statement quoted Abbas as expressing "absolute confidence" in the Saudi monarch and his son and said that "Palestine has always stood next to Saudi Arabia, and will continue to do so."

This announcement of blind support for the Saudi king and crown prince came as the international community was still demanding answers from the Saudi government concerning the disappearance of Khashoggi.


PMW: PA: North Korea and Palestinians are victims of US
According to the Palestinian Authority, both the Palestinian people and North Korea are victims of the United States. PA Minister of Foreign Affairs Riyad Al-Malki brought a letter of greetings for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un from PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, when he held high level meetings recently with North Korean leaders. Al-Malki said the letter expressed:

"A message of solidarity with the North Korean people in similar circumstances, in which international pressure is being applied to our two peoples by the US."
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2018]

The Korean leader added in turn that the connection between North Korean leaders and the PA leaders is "a connection between comrades in arms":

"[Kim Yong Dae] emphasized that the connection between the two states is a historical connection, which the eternal presidents [of North Korea] Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il established with Martyr [PA] President Yasser Arafat and with His Honor [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas. He added that on this firm basis the connection has developed uninterrupted over the years, as this is a connection between comrades in arms, who have shared experience over the years."

The PA reaffirmed its historical friendship a few weeks ago with the human rights violating North Korean leader, when Abbas again initiated contact with Kim Jong-un and congratulated him on the anniversary of the establishment of the Korean Workers' Party:

  • Tuesday, October 23, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon


Lots of fun in an article in Egyptian news site Elmwatin.

The article talks about the New World Order and who is behind all major world events.

It includes these gems:

The new world order, through the invisible government, aims to spread the political movements in order to encircle the world according to the curriculum that they can controls the world's sovereignty, such as the Zionist movement which demanded a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. But the Israelis in Arab Palestine are not Jews but they are Zionists who have no religion Belonging to the group of the devil worshipers, who exploited the Jewish religion with the aim of colonizing the Arab countries as a whole and the proof of this after their occupation of Palestine in 1948, they occupied the Sinai in 1967....
...The Templars found the thing they wanted when they traveled to Palestine: the Kabbalah, which is meant to be used for controlling the jinn and witchcraft. They use magic and demons to achieve their goals. The slaves of Satan are considered to be the elite among them.








We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Tuesday, October 23, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
Human Rights Watch issued one of their rare full reports on human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

The Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas authorities in Gaza routinely arrest and torture peaceful critics and opponents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. As the Palestinian Authority-Hamas feud has deepened, each has targeted the other’s supporters.

The 149-page report, “‘Two Authorities, One Way, Zero Dissent:’ Arbitrary Arrest and Torture Under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas,” evaluates patterns of arrest and detention conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, 25 years after the Oslo Accords granted Palestinians a degree of self-rule over these areas and more than a decade after Hamas seized effective control over the Gaza Strip. Human Rights Watch detailed more than two dozen cases of people detained for no clear reason beyond writing a critical article or Facebook post or belonging to the wrong student group or political movement.

“Twenty-five years after Oslo, Palestinian authorities have gained only limited power in the West Bank and Gaza, but yet, where they have autonomy, they have developed parallel police states,” said Tom Porteous, deputy program director at Human Rights Watch. “Calls by Palestinian officials to safeguard Palestinian rights ring hollow as they crush dissent.”
I find it interesting that they didn't quote one of their Middle East directors like Sarah Leah Whitson, but Tom Porteus, who works in Washington. It gives the impression that there was a push from the non-MENA sections of HRW to stop being so obviously and obsessively anti-Israel.

The head researcher, Omar Shakir, is indeed very anti-Israel but this report is generally not bad. Research that should be done by journalists is suppressed exactly because the PA and Hamas will arrest and beat journalists who don't toe the party line, so this is a rare case where HRW can actually do some good in the region.

The level of silencing by the Palestinian leaders is something that simply does not get reported enough, except that Hamas will report on PA abuses and vice versa. But it goes beyond that - ordinary people are silenced and threatened for complaining about their government, even to protest against electricity cuts or the like.

And the things that the West accuses Israel of are all things done routinely by the PA and Hamas - without any outrage. Here's only a tiny example of how the PA and Hamas routinely monitor and arrest students:

Palestinian authorities closely monitor criticism of the PA at universities. In January 2017, PA forces detained Fares Jbour, an electrical engineering student in Hebron, and questioned him about his participation in a book drive organized by the Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc on campus. Jbour told Human Rights Watch that PA forces had arrested him five previous times over his peaceful activities with the bloc, and said that prosecutors charged him with “weapons possession,” “forming militias,” “heading an armed gang,” and “money laundering,” but released him without referring him to court. In February 2017, Hamas police held Youssef Omar, who teaches history at Al-Aqsa University in Gaza, along with four other professors, apparently over their activism with the union of university employees, which opposed Hamas’ attempt to appoint a new university president without consulting the PA. 
Even so, HRW cannot resist adding in lines like "Israeli authorities have also incarcerated hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, the majority after trials in military courts, which have a near-100 percent conviction rate." The source for "hundreds of thousands" of prisoners is not given, because it is probably fiction - Palestinian sources regularly mention 800,000 or a million prisoners without any source whatsoever, and those numbers have been repeated as truth without a single NGO actually checking the numbers, even though Israel only arrests hundreds a year, not tens of thousands.

HRW also peripherally accuses Israel of torture in this report.

There was a curious parenthetical comment praising Hamas activities in Israeli prisons:

The Israeli army arrested Osama al-Nabrisi in the early 2000s and an Israeli military court sentenced him to 12 years in prison on what he said were charges of placing Molotov cocktails near an Israeli settlement. During his time in detention, he joined the Hamas political wing—Palestinians in Israeli prisons affiliate themselves with political factions, which look after the needs of its members and serve a key social role for detainees. 
Even so, the report does shed light in English on activities in the territories that are largely silenced, and that is to be commended. It will be interesting to see Hamas and PA responses.



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
  • Tuesday, October 23, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon


Of the many mitzvot (commandments) given to Jews in the Torah, quite a few can only be done in Israel. Examples include "terumot and maasarot" (setting aside some of the produce of the land), "shmitta" (letting the land lie fallow once every seven years,) "leket" (leaving some of the harvest for the poor,) and others.

An interesting initiative named Kinyan Eretz Yisrael allows ordinary Jews worldwide to lease a small plot of land that is either part of a wheat field or a vineyard (there are different mitzvot that apply to either type of field) and to ask the farmers to act as a proxy to perform these mitzvot on their behalf.

Up to 28 mitzvot can be fulfilled in this way.

Many Jews love to have the opportunity to perform more mitzvot, and this initiative also allows Jews to have a personal stake in the Land of Israel, literally. Anything that ties Diaspora Jews to Israel is a good thing!

The plans range in price from $98 to $590, depending on what land is leased and how long the lease applies.

Full disclosure: joining this initiative through this link will also benefit EoZ.







We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, October 22, 2018

From Ian:

Haaretz: Palestinians' Refusal to Accept the Jewish National Movement Has Been Disastrous for Them
Palestinians commonly describe their conflict with Zionism and Israel as an anti-colonialist struggle. According to the rules of postcolonial discourse, those who fight against colonialism are in the right by definition and are never responsible for anything.

But the Palestinians' ongoing refusal to accept that they are confronting a people and a rival national movement has been disastrous for them.

The anti-colonialist struggles of the 20th century succeeded even though the colonial powers were always much stronger than those who fought them. The colonialist power ultimately gave up the fight and retreated.

But Zionism was a national movement of a persecuted people whose ties to the land have been part of their identity and culture. The people who came here left behind them not a colonial mother country under whose auspices they were acting, but rather Czarist Russia, anti-Semitic Poland or Nazi Germany. Applying the term "colonialism" to such a situation empties this term of most of its moral and analytical significance.

It's a pity that the leaders of the Arab national movement in Palestine did not make an effort to understand how the Jews perceived themselves, their situation and their connection to this land. They assumed that the founding of the Jewish national home was a luxury of sorts for the Jews, and that they could be made to give up their state, just as Britain and France were once "persuaded" to give up their overseas colonies.

Someone who displays such a degree of blindness toward the other side's fundamental character is likely to bring disaster on his own people. The "anti-colonialist" blindness in relation to Israel fostered an expectation that Israel would crumble from within. After all, this wasn't a real people and a real nation-state, but some "invented" artificial entity.
Dennis Ross: Did Camp David Doom the Palestinians?
Seth Anziska's new book, Preventing Palestine: A Political History From Camp David to Oslo, portrays the Camp David Accords as largely responsible for denying the Palestinians self-determination and statehood. But I was present at the meeting between Yasser Arafat and President Bill Clinton in December 2000 when Arafat said no to Clinton's parameters, which went well beyond what then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak proposed at the summit in July.

The Clinton parameters offered the Palestinians a viable state with 97% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, and a guaranteed corridor connecting the two; this would have been an independent state. Arafat's rejection and the resort to violence in the Second Intifada, in which 1,100 Israelis were killed, left the Israeli public believing that there was no Palestinian partner for peace.

Anziska blames the Camp David Accords, but those of us negotiating the agreements did not see them as denying Palestinian rights. Not only would the Clinton parameters have undone the autonomy noted in the Camp David Accords, had the Palestinians said yes or offered a serious counterproposal. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer in 2008 and the Obama/Kerry principles in March 2014 would have done the same.

Yet there was no serious Palestinian response to these proposals. The sad truth is that at critical junctures, Palestinian leaders chose to say no and the Palestinian people have paid the price for their leaders' rejection.

Netanyahu Hails Former PM Rabin as ‘Patriot of the First Rank’ at Knesset Session Marking 1995 Assassination
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin as a “Zionist patriot of the first rank” in a special Knesset session on Sunday marking the leader’s 1995 assassination.

His comments came soon after Rabin’s granddaughter issued a ferocious condemnation of the Israeli right at a ceremony marking the 23rd anniversary of the tragic event.

According to Israel’s Channel 2, at the official commemoration of Rabin’s death on Mount Herzl, his granddaughter Noa Rothman said, “Many of the officials in this country participate in fanning the flames of the bonfire of incitement.”

Speaking of the current situation in Israel, Rothman asserted, “Criticism of Israel is considered treason. If you don’t stop the march of incitement and the deepening of the divisions between us and the inflammatory rhetoric, there will be another spilling of blood here. For my grandfather, it is already too late.”

She also asserted that an official in Netanyahu’s office had published a social media post with a picture of Rabin’s 1993 handshake with Yasser Arafat in the White House under the headline “traitor.”

Denying he ever encouraged the idea that Rabin was a traitor, Netanyahu remarked, “It never happened. This, to my sorrow, is an example of the fact that sometimes, alongside the dialogue on moderation and fighting incitement, they say things that are hurtful and baseless. Not only about me, but about an entire public, that have no basis in reality.”

“I said he was mistaken, not a traitor,” Netanyahu said at the Knesset session. “Rabin was not a traitor, he was a Zionist patriot of the first rank.”




I tend to see a difference between the controversies that arise whenever a major event (such as wars in Gaza or Lebanon) break out in the Middle East, and ones that are more typically triggered by a BDS initiative, such as a campus divestment or retail boycott conflict.

While both types of protests usually involve the same people and slogans, in the case of reaction to a Gaza War (for example), protestors against Israel are taking to the streets in reaction to an actual controversial event.  And while those who rally to support Israel might disagree with their opponent’s characterization of the situation (for example, highlighting Hamas rocket attacks that Israel’s critics ignore), both sides are engaged in real politics about genuine, impossible-to-ignore crises.

But when a divestment battle breaks out on a university, for example, it is always the result of a BDS group first deciding to drag the Middle East conflict onto campus, then finding the pretext to do so. 

Remember that one of the primary goals of BDS is to get their message that Israel is an Apartheid state, alone in the world at deserving economic punishment, to come out of the mouth of a well-known and respected organization.  And, if they can’t accomplish that by actually convincing a college or other institution to divest (which they never have), at least they can brag that hostile accusations against the Jewish state are now part of the fabric of campus life.

Under this formulation, almost anything can be used as a hook to hang a controversy that will immediately divide an institution into armed camps, a dynamic that only serves to heighten tensions still further and make the Arab-Israeli conflict the Alpha and Omega of political/human-rights debate within a community.

Now BDS advocates will claim that a school’s ownership of this share of Caterpillar, for example, or that share of Motorola means they are currently “taking sides” in the conflict, and thus BDS is a proper response to an institution that is already making a political statement by holding such equities in their portfolio.  But couldn’t that same argument be made to turn any investing organization of any size into a warzone?

After all, for every dollar these institutions invest in companies that in some way benefit the Jewish state, they invariably invest ten, twenty or even a hundred dollars in energy stocks such as Exxon that (by BDS logic) could be construed as a school or other organization “investing” in the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 

So why are protests not breaking out on campus to get schools to “divest from Saudi/Arab/Islamic Apartheid,” with posters littering the campus of Islamic slave traders in Sudan buying and selling black Africans, women being stoned to death in Iran or homosexuals being hung in Egypt?  Simply because those of us who stand against BDS refuse to ruin the communities to which we belong just so we can score points against our political foes. 

It’s the same reason we are not hounding artists to cancel tours to countries hostile to Israel, or placing photos of broken bodies on the sides of public busses, or inviting partisan speakers to present on the perfidy of Israel’s political foes to elementary school classes.  For even the most aggressive campaigners on our side, this kind of invasion of public spaces is impossible to sustain for the simple reasons that: (1) we are not ready to make the lives of our neighbors miserable for our own political gain and (2) ultimately, our goal is for Israel to live in peace with its neighbors, which means we don’t want to spend morning, noon and night portraying those neighbors as demons.


BDS advocates take a completely opposite position.  For them, setting members of a once-friendly community at each other’s throats is a small price to pay for their own political aggrandizement.  And as for “peace” being their end goal, their behavior highlights the fact that just as organizations whose names included “The People” usually involves the smallest number of them, organizations that proclaim themselves “peace groups” while endlessly demonizing their political opponents look suspiciously like the propaganda arm of a war effort.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
From Ian:

Jordan terminating peace treaty annexes start of a process, not the end
Jordan's announcement on Sunday that it wanted to opt out of annexes from its 1994 peace treaty with Israel that leased two border areas that historically were difficult to delineate to Israel is a sign that not all is well in ties between the two countries. .

More precisely, not all is well in ties between Israel and the Jordanian people.

The government to government ties between Jerusalem and Amman are strong, with both sides recognizing that while the other might not always do what they want, both their interests are supremely served by peace and cooperation. Where there is a problem is at the people to people level, or, more precisely, at the Jordanian people.

In very general terms, it's fair to say that the 1994 peace agreement did not filter down to Jordanian masses. The Jordanians might already be drinking Israeli water, are scheduled to be heating their homes with Israeli natural gas in 2020, and benefit in numerous ways from security cooperation with Israel, but, for the most part, they don't like Israel.

And this is something that King Abdullah II has to take into account.

Jordan's announcement on Sunday regarding the Naharayim (Baqura) area near the Kinneret and part of Zofar (al Ghamar), in the Arava, did not knock anyone off their chair in Jerusalem. There has been talk for months inside Jordan of the need to regain those two areas. There have been debates in parliament, and even protests on the streets – much of it led by Islamic elements inside the Hashemite Kingdom.

Abdullah is in vice. While he needs the peace treaty with Israel for the security of his regime, he has domestic Islamic elements to deal with and at times placate. He is also dealing with Syrian crisis, which has not only inundated his country with refugees, but also put Iran perilously close.

The language Abdullah used in announcing the move – Jordanian land, Jordanian interests– is a bone thrown to the Islamists.

A move that spells weakness
The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin saw the 1994 peace ‎treaty with Jordan as one of his most important ‎diplomatic achievements, if not the most important ‎one. Unlike the skepticism he expressed over the ‎Oslo Accords and then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's commitment to them, ‎Rabin was sure that King Hussein would live up to his ‎word. ‎

There is something symbolic in the ‎fact that on the anniversary of Rabin's assassination according to the Hebrew calendar, King Abdullah ‎announced that he would not renew one of the annexes ‎his father signed 24 years ago, leasing agricultural ‎borderlands to Israel.‎

The Jordanian announcement is neither a big surprise ‎nor a move that has far-reaching strategic ‎significance. After all, these are Jordanian ‎lands and it stands to reason that Jordan would have ‎reimposed its sovereignty over them at some point, ‎as no country in the Middle East would ever agree to ‎relinquish territories over time. ‎

Saudi Arabia did the same with respect to Tiran ‎and Sanafir islands, which were administered by ‎Egypt for years before Riyadh reimposed its ‎sovereignty over them ‎in 2017.‎

The problem, therefore, is not in the move per se, ‎but in the manner and timing in which the Jordanians ‎chose to declare they were essentially disavowing ‎the spirit of the 1994 peace agreement and turning ‎their backs on the partnership forged between Rabin ‎and Hussein.‎
Jordan nixing of land leases could sow distrust, but some see hope for reversal
Several analysts said that while the king’s decision was likely the result of heavy lobbying by opponents of the peace agreement with Israel, it was still possible for Israel to maintain its access to Naharayim and Tzofar.

“I think that the negotiations between the two sides may result in a different situation whereby the two governments may agree to continue, to extend the validity of this annex concerning to these two pieces of land between them,” said Oded Eran, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies and former Israeli ambassador to Jordan.

“We have leverage. There are so many interests that we have with Jordan,” said Robbie Sabel, a former legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry who was involved in the Israeli-Jordanian peace negotiations.

Water and security are just two of the main areas where Jerusalem and Amman cooperate very closely, he noted.

“What we want to do is solve this issue quietly. We’re not going to threaten Jordan; that would not be in our interest. It is in Israel’s interest to have a secure and stable Jordan. Jordan is a strategic ally, though it’s not an ally based on friendship.”

Alan Baker, another former Foreign Ministry legal adviser who played an important role in drafting the 1994 peace treaty, said there was fifty-fifty chance that Israel could get Jordan to rethink its decision to terminate the annex about Naharayim and Tzofar.

While the Hashemite kingdom was perfectly in its right to reclaim these areas, Israel has “sovereign prerogatives of our own that Jordanians enjoy,” such as the right to fly over Israeli airspace.

“This is not a one-way street,” he said. “There are two sides. The Jordanian government, public and security establishment all enjoy various aspects of the peaceful relationship, and they want to continue to enjoy it and even enhance it. Hence, there’s plenty of room to discuss the nature of the bilateral relationship.”


AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive