Thursday, March 31, 2016

Sorry Peter, But Yes, Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism

...The fact that some Jews are ready to join forces with those urging the destruction of the Jewish state is not evidence that its attitude toward Jews is benign. Part of the psychosis of the Jewish existence in the Diaspora has always been a willingness to believe that all other peoples and faiths have rights to particularity that Jews should not have or exercise. But when applied to the battle for the existence of the state of Israel, the desire of some Jews to treat Israel as the one illegitimate ethnoreligious state on a planet that has so many other similarly constituted nations is a testament to dysfunction on the part of this small minority of Jews. It tells us nothing about the toxic nature of the vile cause for which they serve as useful idiots.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
31 March '16..

The recent willingness of both the Board of Regents of the University of California and the New York State Legislature to consider action relating to the troubling growth of anti-Semitism marked an important step forward in recognizing the corrosive effect the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement has had on the culture of higher education in this country. As I wrote earlier this week, at the heart of this debate is the connection between anti-Zionist activity and anti-Semitic incidents that are creating a hostile atmosphere for Jewish students at some institutions. In particular, the willingness of the Board of Regents in California to speak out against “anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism” angered many on the left who promoted the cause of BDS on college campuses and did not want to be identified as promoting hate.

The shift in the discussion from the BDS movement’s attempt to single out Israel for opprobrium and destruction to the anti-Semitic nature of their rhetoric and goals is an unexpected setback for the left. That’s because they were operating under the assumption that in an era where all sorts of opinions are repressed because they might conceivably offend some fragile student, Jews are the one minority group that are generally denied “safe space.” By focusing on the Jew-hatred that is inextricably linked to BDS activism, anti-Zionists are being stripped of their pose as defenders of human rights and correctly lumped in with hate groups.

The fight against BDS and anti-Semitism is one that ought to unite all supporters of Israel, whether they are supporters of the current government or its fiercest critics. But for some on the left, the pushback against a BDS movement that they claim, at least in some instances to oppose, makes them uncomfortable. Having made common cause in some cases with BDS activists, they find labeling their fellow leftists as anti-Semites to be a bridge too far for them. Thus, so-called “liberal Zionists,” such as writer Peter Beinart, have now stepped into the breach to denounce the effort to categorize anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

Writing in Haaretz, Beinart claims that the argument in favor of this link is bogus.

Beinart first claims that it is wrong to assert, as I have done, that anti-Zionism is a form of discrimination because opposition to the Jewish right to a homeland and self-defense is unique. He says that opposition to statehood for the Kurds or the Basques is not assumed to be a form of hate against those peoples. For the same reasons, he also says that opposing a state just because Jews might need one in order to protect themselves is also not bias because no one would consider critics of Kurdish or Basque secession from other nations is based on hatred.

Next, he claims it is a misnomer to assume that all anti-Zionists want to abuse Jews because BDS groups welcome both individual Jews and anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voices for Peace as allies.

Third, he says that just because anti-Zionists want to dismantle Israel — as distinct from opposing states that have not yet been created — isn’t discriminatory because of the precedent of destroying the Afrikaner-dominated Republic of South Africa.

Most importantly, he says that Israel’s policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians are inherently discriminatory, thus making at least some of the arguments of the Jewish state’s foes understandable if not justified. According to Beinart, who believes that Israel should be forced to give up the West Bank and Jerusalem to the Palestinians, it is the actions of the Netanyahu government that are justifying BDS and undermining the rationale for a Jewish and democratic state.

He’s wrong on all counts.

BBC's ‘Children of the Gaza War’ with mistranslated Arabic nominated for award - Hadar Sela

...Complaints from members of the public concerning Doucet’s programme were similarly dismissed – even though the BBC had shown that it was capable of providing audiences with an accurate translation of the same word in different circumstances. Mistranslation was however not the only issue arising from Doucet’s programme.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
31 March '16..

Courtesy of the Jewish Chronicle we learn that Lyse Doucet’s programme ‘Children of the Gaza War’ which was broadcast by the BBC last summer has been nominated for a BAFTA award.

“A BBC documentary which substituted the word “Israeli” for “Jews” in its translation of interviews with Palestinians has been nominated for a Bafta.

Children of the Gaza War, which aired on BBC2 in July, followed journalist Lyse Doucet as she spoke to children in Israel and Gaza in the wake of the 50-day war. […]

At the time of its airing, Ms Doucet stood by the decision to translate “yahud” as “Israeli” in subtitles on her hour-long documentary.

The correct translation for “yahud” from Arabic to English is “Jew”.

The BBC’s chief international correspondent said that Gazan translators had advised her that Palestinian children interviewed on the programme who refer to “the Jews” actually meant Israelis.”

As readers may recall that mistranslation of the Arabic word ‘Yahud’ was not the first to be broadcast – and defended – by the BBC.

(Go to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

How Not to Be Silenced by ‘Breaking the Silence’ on Campus - by Gerald Steinberg

...Whether or not the proposed Israeli legislation is passed, or instead, European governments negotiate guidelines with the government, this will not end the debate on American college campuses. In these cases, one option would be to demand that all such appearances and events with BtS and similar groups include an Israeli who served in the IDF and can present a very different picture. If necessary, the sponsoring organization will have to pay for the costs of ensuring a fair discussion. In that way, BtS will not be given the privileged position it currently enjoys, based on its $1 million budget, and instead of propaganda, college campus and other audiences will be able to hear different perspectives and decide for themselves.

Gerald Steinberg..
Algemeiner.com..
30 March '16..

JNS.org – For some, the members of the Israeli NGO calling itself Breaking the Silence (BtS) are “whistleblowers” and human rights activists; for others, they are a tiny group of dangerous messianists who tour the world promoting anonymous and false allegations of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) war crimes. The recent exposé on Israel’s Channel 2 showing how they gather sensitive and potentially classified information on IDF tactics and equipment — far removed from any human rights claims — increased the suspicion and hostility with which they are viewed by many Israelis.

This debate is important, particularly when some college students in the US are trying to push the BtS activists into Jewish and pro-Israel frameworks such as Hillel. In response, critics note that although BtS is a fringe group with a handful of activists, unfounded accusations against Israel feed BDS (the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions movement), demonization and other forms of political warfare. BtS speakers’ allegations seem persuasive simply because they are Israelis, have served in the military, and look the part of righteous whistleblowers.

In these controversies, the details appear to get lost, while vague ideological perceptions take over. BtS supporters —including the CEO of the New Israel Fund (NIF), a BtS core funder — use shut-down techniques, arguing that valid criticism of the group is a “smear campaign.”

The real problem with BtS is the money they have, provided by irresponsible donors, including European governments and the NIF. Together, these funders give over $1 million every year to BtS under the official façade of promoting human rights and international law among Israelis. These donations enable a handful of activists to buy influence completely disproportionate to their size in Israeli society. With this money, BtS holds events in churches, parliaments, and universities, promoting specious allegations of Israeli “war crimes” and other immoral acts. To make their arguments seem reasonable, BtS activists and their supporters systematically strip away the context of Palestinian terror and thousands of rocket attacks, leaving only a highly exaggerated and fictitious version of Israeli responses.

For the European governments, the “kosher certificate” provided by the NIF to BtS is enough to justify much larger grants, which go unsupervised and are renewed year after year. NGOs in general are a big business in Israel, and external funding for the radical political groups is very controversial. Due to its central role, the NIF is seen by many Israelis as a self-selected and externally based alternative government to Israel’s elected leadership, operating outside any of the democratic checks and balances. A small group of NIF officials meeting in total secrecy provide seed money, and help their NGOs file applications and gain access to the European state funders, which then increase the existing budget many times over.

Actually, ISIS Makes the EU More Anti-Israel - by Evelyn Gordon

...The usual problem with appeasement is that the aggressor, after gobbling up the prey the appeaser threw him, then goes after the appeaser from an even stronger position, since one enemy is already out of the way. That, for instance, is what happened when Europe gave Hitler first the Sudetenland and then the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39, only to see him turn around and gobble up the rest of Europe a year later. But Israel, against all odds, showed no sign of collapsing; it kept getting stronger despite decades of unrelenting attacks. So to Europe, it must have seemed the perfect solution: The crocodile could keep attacking Israel forever, and Europeans would be permanently safe. All they had to do was make sure the beast remained fixated on Israel by maintaining a steady drumbeat of anti-Israel outrage.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
30 March '16..

Like every major Islamist attack in Europe, last week’s terror attacks in Brussels left many Israelis wondering whether Europeans will finally understand what Israel faces. Unfortunately, such attacks are more likely to intensify anti-Israel activity in Europe. To understand why, it’s worth reading an article from the Islamic State magazine Al-Naba that propounds a surprising thesis: Jihad against Israel doesn’t take precedence over jihad anywhere else.

The article, translated by MEMRI, argued that the “Palestine first” slogan, which has reigned supreme for almost seven decades, has led good Muslims to ignore all the other places where jihad is no less necessary, or even more so. Indeed, it said, Muslims’ top priority should be purifying lands already under Islamic control, for both religious and practical reasons. Religiously speaking, “The apostate [tyrants] who rule the lands of Islam are graver infidels than [the Jews].” And practically speaking, defeating Israel won’t be possible without first destroying neighboring Arab regimes that are its “first line of defense.” Consequently, “Waging jihad with the aim of replacing the rule of the Jews with a regime like that of those who currently rule Gaza and the West Bank is jihad that is null and void,” because it would just replace infidel Jews with infidel Muslims.

But fighting Jews also doesn’t take precedence over “fighting the Crusaders and all the polytheists in the world,” the article stressed. In fact, “Muslims everywhere should fight the infidels nearest to them,” since that’s where they have the best chance of succeeding.

That last sentence sums up why Islamic State’s approach is Europe’s worst nightmare. For decades, Europe had a cushy arrangement: All the world’s jihadists were so fixated on Israel that they were willing to overlook longstanding hatreds against “Crusader” Europe, as long as Europe would help them wage war on Israel. As Manfred Gerstenfeld pointed out this week, many European countries — including Switzerland, Germany, France and Italy — tried to take advantage of this offer: They sought deals under which Palestinian terrorists could operate freely in their countries – usually without fear of arrest, but with swift release guaranteed if arrests were necessitated by American pressure – and in exchange, the terrorists wouldn’t attack those countries.

Not only did this largely protect Europe from jihadist terror, but it even seemed to avoid the main pitfall of most appeasement deals. The usual problem with appeasement is that the aggressor, after gobbling up the prey the appeaser threw him, then goes after the appeaser from an even stronger position, since one enemy is already out of the way. That, for instance, is what happened when Europe gave Hitler first the Sudetenland and then the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39, only to see him turn around and gobble up the rest of Europe a year later.

But Israel, against all odds, showed no sign of collapsing; it kept getting stronger despite decades of unrelenting attacks. So to Europe, it must have seemed the perfect solution: The crocodile could keep attacking Israel forever, and Europeans would be permanently safe. All they had to do was make sure the beast remained fixated on Israel by maintaining a steady drumbeat of anti-Israel outrage.

Yet now, suddenly, that tactic no longer works – and like any weakling confronted with a bully, Europe is cravenly trying to divert the bully’s attention back to his former victim.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

New York Times, Palestinian Assailants and Suspect Journalism - by Tamar Sternthall

Most Palestinians killed in recent months wounded or killed others, or died trying to do so. So why does The New York Times ignore the successful assailants, and characterize the majority of fatalities as having "attempted" attacks or as being "suspected" of trying?

Tamar Sternthal..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
27 March '16..

The vast majority of Palestinians killed in recent months were assailants who successfully wounded or killed their victims, or who were stopped while trying to do so. As reported by Meir Amit Terrorism and Intelligence Information Center, from March 1 through March 22, for example, out of the 17 Palestinians killed in Jerusalem and the West Bank as they carried out attacks, attempted to carry out attacks, or were suspected of carrying out attacks, 14 had managed to attack their victims. Another three were killed as they "tried" to carry out attacks. None were killed merely for being "suspected" of attempting to attack.

(See the Weekly Reports of the Meir Amit Terrorism and Intelligence Information Center for details about each incident, including attacks versus attempted attacks, Feb. 24 - March 1, March 2 - March 8, March 9 -15, March 16 -22.)

Yet, two New York Times stories in recent days downplay Palestinian violence and mischaracterize most Palestinians killed in the last several months as "either attempting attacks or were suspected of doing so" (emphasis added). The stories ignore Palestinians killed as they succeeded in carrying out attacks.

Thus Diaa Hadid's story today ("Israel Begins Murder Investigation of Soldier Who Shot Palestinian") misleads: "Israeli forces or civilians have shot dead 180 Palestinians during the same period. Most were either attempting attacks or were suspected of doing so" emphasis added.)

Likewise, Isabel Kershner's March 25 article also completely ignores the vast number of killed Palestinians who had actually carried out attacks. She wrote: "Israeli forces or civilians have shot dead 180 Palestinians during the same period, most of whom were either attempting attacks or were suspected of doing so" ("Israeli Soldier Held in Shooting of Palestinian Captured in Video," emphasis added.)

Following communication with CAMERA's Israel office, last December Times editors commendably corrected a similar error by Hadid which wrongly alleged referred to "15 women who have tried, or are accused of trying, to stab Israeli soldiers or civilians," as if none had actually succeeded.

The Paris/Brussels question for Jerusalem rarely, if ever, gets asked - by Douglas Murray

...The enemies of Israel and the enemies of the rest of the civilized world have some minor differences, but there is far more that they have in common. They are both driven not only by the same jihadist ideologies but by the insistence that their political and religious view of the world is relevant not just for them, but needs to be implemented against all of the rest of us.

Douglas Murray..
Gatestone Institute..
30 March '16..

The day after the Brussels terror attack, landmarks in the UK were lit up in the colors of the Belgian flag. Portions of the press in Britain excoriated the country on this. Why, they asked, had the now-traditional, mawkish ceremony occurred the day after the attacks rather than on the evening of the attacks themselves? Why were we a day late with our lights when other cities had managed to do their "solidarity" gesture straightaway? Such are our times. And such are our questions.

If there is a question in all this, it is not why it took more than 24 hours for the UK to find its Belgian-colored lights, but why after 67 years of terror, it still has not found the simple blue and white lights it would need to project the flag of Israel onto any public place.

It is not as though there haven't been plenty of opportunities. Israel's enemies have provided us with even more opportunities for light displays than have now been offered to the light-infatuated by the followers of ISIS.

You could argue that in the last seven decades, public attitudes have changed; that today futile gestures of "solidarity" are all the rage, but in generations past they were not. It might have been unheard of for any British institution to beam the colors of the Israeli flag into buildings in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973. But when sentimentalism came to Britain, it came in a big way. If it had not struck us by the time of the first intifada (1987-1993), it certainly had by the time of the second one (2000-2005).

During that period, thousands of Israelis were killed and wounded by Palestinian terrorists. Yet there were no projections of the Israeli flag onto public buildings. Again, during the 2006 Hezbollah War, landmarks went unlit -- the same as after each salvo of rockets launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip, freshly evacuated by Israel to allow the Arabs there to create the Singapore or Côte d'Azure of the Middle East.

Surprise! UN names democratic Israel as world’s top human rights violator

In New York’s UN Headquarters, 8,100 NGO representatives gathered from all corners of the globe, in addition to government delegates, and watched the weight of the entire world of women’s rights descended on only one country. On the ground, Palestinian women are murdered and subjugated for the sake of male honor, Saudi women can’t drive, Iranian women are stoned to death for so-called “adultery,” Egyptian women have their genitals mutilated, Sudanese women give birth in prison with their legs shackled for being Christian. Isn’t it about time that people stopped calling the UN a harmless international salon or a bad joke?

Haifa Al-Agha, UN Commission on
Status of Women, Palestinian Minister
of Women's Affairs, March 16, 2016
Anne Bayefsky..
Human Rights Voices..
29 March '16..

According to the United Nations, the most evil country in the world today is Israel.

On March 24, 2016, the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) wrapped up its annual meeting in New York by condemning only one country for violating women’s rights anywhere on the planet – Israel, for violating the rights of Palestinian women.

On the same day, the UN Human Rights Council concluded its month-long session in Geneva by condemning Israel five times more than any other of the 192 UN member states.

There were five Council resolutions on Israel. One each on the likes of hellish Syria, North Korea and Iran. Libya got an offer of “technical assistance.” And countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and China were among the 95% of states that were never mentioned.

No slander is deemed too vile for the UN rights bodies that routinely listen to highly orchestrated Palestinian versions of the ancient blood libel against the Jews.

In Geneva, Palestinian representative Ibrahim Khraishi told the Council on March 24, 2016: “Israeli soldiers and settlers kill Palestinian children. They shoot them dead. They will leave them to bleed to death.” And in New York, Palestinian representative Haifa Al-Agha told CSW on March 16, 2016: “Israel…is directing its military machinery against women and girls. They are killing them, injuring them, and leaving them bleeding to death.”

Operating hand-in-glove with governments and the UN secretariat are the unelected, sanctimonious NGOs, to which the UN offers free facilities and daily advertisement of “side-events.” In theory “materials containing abusive or offensive language or images are not permitted on United Nations premises.”

In practice, in Geneva the UN permitted handouts that claimed Israel “saw ethnic cleansing as a necessary precondition for its existence.” A film accused Israel of sexual violence against children and “trying to exterminate an entire Palestinian generation.” Speeches focused on the 1948 “catastrophe” in which a “settler colonial state” was established on Palestinian land.

The New York CSW-NGO scene included a film set in in the context of Israeli “oppression” and the “tear gas of my childhood,” and statements analogizing the experiences of Palestinians to today’s Syrian refugees.

Picture these real-life scenes:

In Geneva’s grand UN “human rights” Council chamber, 750 people assembled, pounced on the Jewish state, broadcast the spectacle online, and produced hundreds of articles and interviews in dozens of languages championing the results.

On the ground, Israelis are being hacked to death on the streets, stabbed in buses, slaughtered in synagogues, mowed down with automobiles, and shot in front of their children.

In New York’s UN Headquarters, 8,100 NGO representatives gathered from all corners of the globe, in addition to government delegates, and watched the weight of the entire world of women’s rights descended on only one country.

On the ground, Palestinian women are murdered and subjugated for the sake of male honor, Saudi women can’t drive, Iranian women are stoned to death for so-called “adultery,” Egyptian women have their genitals mutilated, Sudanese women give birth in prison with their legs shackled for being Christian.

Isn’t it about time that people stopped calling the UN a harmless international salon or a bad joke?

Suggestion? The European Union Can Go Straight to Hell - by Michael Lumish

...And this from the EU Ambassador to Israel? I do not think that the Jewish people, nor the Jewish state, are much in need of Europe. Europe is killing itself and we have better friends elsewhere.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
28 March '16..

{Also published at Jews Down Under.}

Raphael Ahren, writing in the Times of Israel, tells us:

Without the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there would be no Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, the European Union’s envoy to Israel said Monday, arguing that the best way to fight BDS is to take steps to advance a two-state solution.

“The most effective antidote against the BDS movement is to solve the Palestinian issue. If there were no Palestinian issue, there would be no BDS movement,” Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Andersen said at a conference in Jerusalem.

The EU does not expect Israel to be able to solve the conflict unilaterally, the ambassador stressed. “It takes two to tango. It takes the Palestinians also.” But it is important for Israel not to be seen as undermining a two-state solution, he said. “If more effort is put into showing a will to move forward and to obtain progress in this process, it would greatly weaken the BDS movement.”

More effort?

The Jewish people have not put sufficient effort into opposing ongoing violence against ourselves by not being sufficiently compliant toward our aggressors?

Is that the idea?

We have to put an end to this nonsense.

Who is Lars Faaborg-Andersen to tell the Jewish people how best to live in this world?

As far as I am concerned the EU can go straight to hell.

They are not our allies. They are not our friends. They are not our partners.

They are sometimes our customers, but what they really are is a hypocritical pain in the ass that promotes terrorism against Jews while self-righteously complaining about it at home. Ultimately, the EU funds and supports Jihadi violence toward the Jewish people of the Middle East, through organizations like B'Tselem that defames Israel, and then blames that violence on those Jews, even as they decry it against themselves.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

What a Shooting Says About Israel - by Jonathan Tobin

...Having said that, no one should take the complaints of the Palestinians about this or any other incident in which terrorists are killed seriously. Whether or not the shooting was lawful, the intent of the slain man was to kill any Jew, soldier, or civilian, he found. This was not a case of self-defense unless you think, as Israel’s enemies do, that any Arab has the right to try to kill any Jew anywhere in the country. The Palestinian Authority, which praises and subsidizes terrorists, is in no position to judge a Jewish state that is willing to treat the death of a terrorist as a crime.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
29 March '16..

Call it a modern-day Rashomon story set in the Middle East. Two Palestinians attacked a group of soldiers in the city of Hebron where tensions are always on edge. The Arabs stab and wound one soldier, but are themselves shot in the attempt. Then, several minutes after one of the assailants is wounded and lying motionless on the ground, an Israeli soldier allegedly said the man should be killed, cocked his rifle and fired a bullet into his head. This incident, which was filmed by the left-wing B’Tselem group that monitors army actions, provoked three different reactions.

The Israeli army judged the action to be an act of murder and charged the soldier with the crime, which is condemned by both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon. They say killing a defenseless person, even one who was apprehended committing a violent crime, contravenes the ethics of both the army and Israeli society and must be punished if proved in court.

But much of the Israeli public, including some members of the Knesset, think the army is wrongly judging the soldier and believe his claim that he thought the wounded Palestinian was still a danger and might have been wearing a suicide bomb vest. They say the government and the army are judging a soldier that was in a life and death situation too harshly. They think that when an act of terrorism has occurred, soldiers must be given full latitude to defend themselves and their comrades against a deadly threat.

Lastly, Palestinians are claiming that the death of the stabber is a typical example of extrajudicial executions of Palestinians who are guilty of nothing more than protest or acts of justified resistance. They say the killer will never get justice and that, even if he is tried and convicted of something, it’s just the exception that proves the rule in which Israelis get away with murder when it comes to dealing with oppressed Palestinians.

Who is right? The impulse from most people in such a complicated situation may be to revert to the classic Akira Kurosawa film and to believe there is some truth in all of the narratives. The death of the Palestinian may feed the narrative of Israeli misdeeds and insensitivity to the plight of Arabs. But if taken in context, the truth that is to be culled from these varying reactions actually tells us a great deal about both sides of the conflict. There is a reason why people facing terrorist attacks are ready to believe in the possibility of a ticking bomb, even when it concerns a seemingly subdued suspect, during the course of such a confrontation. But even if the soldier’s actions are judged to have been wrong, far from showing the Israelis to have lost their moral compass, the willingness of the army and the government to prosecute shows that the nation hasn’t lost its soul in the West Bank as its critics assert.

Let’s start any examination of this story by admitting that, even if you view the B’Tselem video, you can’t really know everything that happened or what was in the mind of the soldier who fired the fatal shot. The reason why so many Israelis instinctively back him is because they understand the trauma of being under constant attack from people who want to kill you. They also are aware that when it comes to people who commit terrorist acts knowing they are courting death in doing so, it’s not unreasonable to suspect the worst at all times.

Some thoughts concerning Yediot Ahronot’s boycott festival

...In short, BDS is a problem but it remains a mosquito size movement, while Israel is a scientific, academic, business and cultural juggernaut. Consequently, the specter of Israel’s sequestration and boycott by the world is overblown. So what is going on here? Why are the Israeli political and media sectors suddenly so seized by panic over BDS? Why are influential public sector actors like Yediot Ahronot feeding the monster, and creating self-fulfilling prophesies about Israel’s “isolation”?

David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
29 March '16..

Along with too-many thousands of other Israelis, yesterday I attended Yediot Ahronot’s much hyped mega-conference in Jerusalem on “fighting BDS.” I returned from the conference more concerned about the hype than the threat of boycott against Israel.

Yediot has been riding the boycott “threat” for more than a year, with intensive, sometimes obsessive, coverage of the BDS phenomenon worldwide, and a broad, pithy selection of commentary on how to tackle the “existential threat” to Israel.

The reasons for Yediot’s laser-like focus on the BDS issue are clear. Firstly, it sells newspapers; a lot of newspapers. Israelis are interested in, and duly concerned about, BDS attacks on Israel and Zionism. BDS is good business for Yediot.

Secondly, Yediot’s take on the BDS phenomena is heavily colored by the paper’s anti-Netanyahu agenda.

Many of the speakers at the conference yesterday bemoaned the Netanyahu’s government’s purported “pro-settlement” and supposed “anti-peace” policies, pointing to them as a key spur to the BDS movement. If only Israel were to cut a two-state deal with the Palestinians, the wind would be taken out of the sails of the movement!

Several foreign envoys who spoke at the conference made this argument explicitly too.
How politically convenient for Yediot.

The truth is that each for their own and opposite reasons, the Israeli political Left and the Right are deliberately inflating the threat to Israel from BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions.

In fact, the “threat” of a global boycott against Israel is so obsessively being talked about these days that you would think it a greater threat than, say, the danger of the Obama administration’s capitulation to Iran on the nuclear issue, or the Hezbollah-ISIS confrontation brewing on Israel’s northern border.

There are many reasons why the nightmare scenarios of BDS are inaccurate, ranging from the weakness of the Arab world, the declining clout of Europe, the resilience of Israel’s reputation amongst democratic elites in North America, to the robustness Israel’s structural ties to Western and Eastern technology and business hubs.

The fact is that far more global companies buy from Israel than boycott Israel; far more universities and scientists collaborate with their Israeli counterparts than shun them; far more churches support Israel than condemn Israel; far more entertainers perform in Israel than avoid Israel, and so on.

In short, BDS is a problem but it remains a mosquito size movement, while Israel is a scientific, academic, business and cultural juggernaut. Consequently, the specter of Israel’s sequestration and boycott by the world is overblown.

So what is going on here? Why are the Israeli political and media sectors suddenly so seized by panic over BDS? Why are influential public sector actors like Yediot Ahronot feeding the monster, and creating self-fulfilling prophesies about Israel’s “isolation”?

The court’s authority and Israel’s democratic collapse - by Caroline Glick

...If Netanyahu acts, he can restore Israeli democracy. If he fails to act, he will go down in history as a full accomplice in the legal fraternity’s destruction of freedom in the Jewish state.



Caroline Glick..
Our World/JPost..
29 March '16..

Israeli democracy is in critical condition.

Sunday, the High Court of Justice ruled that the government’s natural gas policy is unlawful. The policy, which was negotiated with foreign energy companies, was to be the basis for developing the massive offshore Leviathan gas field. It was supposed to anchor future gas prices, ensure gas revenues for the government and energy security for the country in the coming decades. On the basis of this policy outline, the government negotiated deals to supply natural gas to Egypt, Turkey and Jordan.

Given the enormous cost of developing offshore gas fields, the policy, which was determined in close consultations with legal experts and regulators, determined a base price for natural gas that would be frozen for 10 years. The point of the price freeze was to encourage investors to take the financial risk of exploring and developing Israeli fields. The price freeze guaranteed them a minimal profit on their investment.

In a healthy democracy, the court would never have agreed to adjudicate the populist petition against the government’s gas policy submitted by a consortium of radical NGOs.

Under normal rules of standing that apply in every other mature democracy in the world, the petitioners would have had no right to submit their petition.

In states not controlled by a legal junta, as the people’s elected representative it is the government’s sole prerogative to determine the state’s energy policy and to sign deals with foreign governments and investors.

But in Israel, the court gives standing to whoever it wants. Given the radical pedigree of our justices – who have engineered a process where they appoint themselves – it was not surprising that the court permitted a group of unelected radicals to petition to destroy Israel’s energy sector, and to cause the loss of hundreds of billions of shekels in future revenue to Israeli society.

Recognizing what was at stake, last month Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the unprecedented step of testifying before the High Court of Justice in defense of his government’s gas policy.

Rather than rise to the occasion, led by Justice Elyakim Rubinstein the justices acted like spoiled teenagers.

After Netanyahu finished speaking, Rubinstein whined that the justices already knew Netanyahu’s arguments by heart. Netanyahu, he clearly implied, was wasting their time defending a policy it had taken him months to negotiate and to which Israel’s economic future is tied.

Although the justices intimated a month ago that they would reject the price freeze clause and so scupper the entire policy outline, many refused to take their threat seriously. The notion that the court would reject the government’s right to determine Israel’s energy policy and rule in a manner that endangered energy supply agreements the government negotiated with three foreign governments was so mindboggling that commentators assumed that the justices were bluffing.

But they weren’t. In response to Sunday’s ruling, Netanyahu said, “The Supreme Court’s decision is a grave threat to the development of Israel’s gas reserves.” Netanyahu noted, “Israel is seen as a country with exaggerated judicial involvement in which it is difficult to do business. Certainly, no one should celebrate that the gas may remain deep under the sea and that hundreds of billions of dollars will not reach Israel’s citizens.”

Will the UK's foreign aid office come clean yet on their part in funding Palestinian Arab terror?

...We noted a while back that there was one aspect of the European/UK saga of PA-centred corruption and dishonesty that was truly beyond our comprehension. It still is, and it's this: how can the members of the news media who cover the EU and the Middle East conflict have allowed this decade-plus financial scandal (one that everyone knows about and that few will discuss in public) to get so little media coverage? How much of the conspiracy of silence is based on intimidation? Perhaps we're finally going to find. Or perhaps not.

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
28 March '16..

A couple of years back, we wrote ["9-Sep-13: Snouts and troughs"] that there has been an active EU cover-up since 2003 to conceal the hideous things done with European foreign aid funds delivered to the Arafat- and Abbas-controlled PLO/PA regimes in Ramallah.

During the years since then, torrents of European funding, billions of Euros, were channeled to the terrorism-addicted Palestinian Authority. Throughout that time, the Eurocrats managed to avoid carrying out even a single financial audit until the one whose results were published in December 2013 [full text here].

The astounding policy of hands-off "see no evil", mismanagement happened while the EU "provides 20% of the direct financial support for the PA", making it "the biggest multilateral donor to the Occupied Palestinian Territories".

So what did that audit find?

(Go to Full Post. Please Share.)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Monday, March 28, 2016

The Always Reliable United Nations (when it comes to hating Israel)

...Now, in the U.N., these hate-Israel jobs are important. You cannot take the risk that a selectee will be fair or balanced or unbiased. So you go for someone like Lynk.

Elliot Abrams..
The National Review..
28 March '16..

The United Nations, always fully reliable when it comes to hating Israel, has done it again. On March 14, I wrote at National Review Online about the coming selection at the U.N. Human Rights Council of a new “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” The selection has now been made, and the honor — as it were — goes to a Canadian named Michael Lynk.

Now, in the U.N., these hate-Israel jobs are important. You cannot take the risk that a selectee will be fair or balanced or unbiased. So you go for someone like Lynk.

For example, Lynk is a member of the advisory board of the “Canadian–Palestinian Education Exchange” (CEPAL), which promotes the “Annual Israeli Apartheid Week.” Three days after 9/11, he blamed the attacks on “global inequalities” and “disregard by Western nations for the international rule of law.” He signed a 2009 statement condemning Israel for alleged “war crimes” in Gaza. At the Group of 78’s annual policy conference in 2009, he said, as summarized in the group’s report, that he “used to think the critical date in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict was 1967, the start of the occupation.” Now he thinks that “the solution to the problem must go back to 1948, the date of partition and the start of ethnic cleansing.” In other words, Israel should not exist and its mere existence is a harbinger of ethnic cleansing and other crimes.

U.N. Watch’s director correctly said last week that “the U.N.’s selection of a manifestly partisan candidate — someone who three days after 9/11 blamed the West for provoking the attacks on the World Trade Center — constitutes a travesty of justice and a breach of the world body’s own rules.”

Surprise? Teen terrorist is praised by Haaretz because his martyrdom note wasn't monstrous

...I'd say that despite his idea that repaying a few shekels of debt is more important than life itself, Amar was closer to being a monster than a misunderstood moral actor....Ahmad Amer woke up on March 9 intending to kill. The soldier who killed him did not. And that is a world of difference.

Elder of Ziyon..
27 March '16..

The bar for how little Palestinians have to do to be considered saintly keeps getting lower.

From David Sarna Galdi at Haaretz:

[O]n March 9th, as live television broadcasts jumped between different scenes of attempted attacks, one news report caught my eye. Mid-morning at the Zawiya checkpoint in the West Bank, a 16-year-old boy, Ahmad Amer, from the neighboring village of Mas’ha, approached Israeli soldiers with a knife and was immediately killed. Nobody else was injured.

While the troubling details of the attack otherwise fit the familiar pattern, a Haaretz report mentioned that Amer had left a suicide note – an unusual detail. Driven by curiosity, I found a full copy of his letter.

(Go to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

The PA's "Rewards for Terror" scheme and the lies that keep the pounds flowing in

...What makes them work is that the European insiders want to be duped. They know they are being duped, and they play along. Win, win. Meanwhile the terror they fund keeps relentlessly grinding away, destroying what remains of their society's moral fibre, dooming yet another generation of their children, embittering Israeli lives and increasing the world's stock of misery.

Look closely at the backdrop. Issa Qaraqe/Karake was
Palestinian Minister for Prisoners 
until - poof - overnight,
 he turned into the head of an 
invented body with the
same job. But now outside the PA government. 
Only
someone forgot to tell the people who published 

this photo in May 2015 [Source: archived here
Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
28 March '16..

We're in the midst of one of those rare, very brief moments when the massive flow of cash into the grubby hands of the terrorism-addicted Palestinian Arab leadership is getting a public airing. The reason why is in our post ["27-Mar-16: In UK, facing up to UKaid's scandalous ongoing financing of Palestinian Arab jihad"] of earlier this morning.

At the heart of the revelations published in today's Mail on Sunday is the ongoing fraud perpetrated by the conniving Palestinian Authority to hide its Reward for Terror scheme, and the active involvement of hundreds (maybe more) of European politicians and bureaucrats - many of them British - in funneling the indispensable cash without which it could not happen.

Did we say active involvement? Yes, and about a year ago we outlined how it's done.

(Go to Full Post. Please Share)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Why Anti-Israel Becomes Anti-Jew - Jonathan Tobin

...we don’t really have to dig too deep into the files of incidents because we already know why it is so easy for BDS and pro-Palestinian advocates to slip into overt anti-Semitism. That is because, contrary to the University of California statement that was hoping to mollify some of the Israel-haters, there is no such thing as an anti-Semitic form of anti-Zionism. All forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic, no matter the identity of the speaker because to single out the one Jewish state and to deny its people the right to self-determination and self-defense in their ancient homeland is, in principle, anti-Semitic...

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
27 March '16..

This past week, on both ends of the country, the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement against Israel received a stern rebuke. Several states around the country are passing laws that would bar their governments from doing business with companies that comply with boycotts of Israel. But in New York and California, the current debate is not about implementation of this economic war against the Jewish state but rather the way college campuses — including state-run universities like the University of California or the City University of New York or CUNY — have allowed the debate about Israel to turn into acquiescence for open expressions of anti-Semitism. In New York, the legislature has cut funding for CUNY, though BDS was not the sole motivation. But in California, the regents of the state university system voted last Thursday to take a stand against what they termed “anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism, and other forms of discrimination.”

The measure was long overdue but pro-Palestinian and other leftist groups are blasting it as an attempt to stifle freedom of expression. They claim this simple sentence will make it impossible to criticize Israel and its policies. They are wrong about that. Israel is a democracy and, just like Israelis, those on campus can opine all they want about its government and all it does. But what is at stake here is whether those whose purpose is to destroy the one Jewish state on the planet can pose as advocates for human rights while in engaging in hate speech against Jews.

In an era where the preservation of “safe space” for students against anything they might find objectionable, including subtle slights labeled “micro-aggressions,” political advocacy, or actual hate speech, there is one group that hasn’t gotten much protection: Jews. The reason for this isn’t much of a mystery. In the context of academia, Jews are treated as the 21st century moral equivalent of WASPS and are therefore too secure and/or powerful to merit any concern for their rights, let alone their sensibilities. To some extent, such complacency is justified. Unlike in Europe or most other parts of the world, the rising global tide of anti-Semitism hasn’t made much of an impact in the United States. American exceptionalism and the lack of a history of state-sanctioned anti-Semitism in this country has left Jews free to rise on their own merits finding acceptance in virtually every sphere of American society. Jew hatred has largely been confined to the fever swamps of the far right and left. But there is one glaring exception to this rule: college campuses.

Anti-Semitism in academia has become an issue because the BDS movement against Israel has made it one. The efforts of pro-Palestinian students to delegitimize Israel have effortlessly slipped into a campaign to stigmatize and intimidate Jewish students and organizations. As the numbers of incidents of hate speech and intimidation grow, some Jewish groups and other fair-minded people are pushing back.

Groups like the AMCHA initiative and the Zionist Organization of America have documented many of the anti-Semitic incidents and cases of incitement against Jews associated with anti-Israel agitation. Jews have subjected to every kind of insult and threat by those whose goal it is to wipe out Israel, often by promoting egregious lies about atrocity stories.

But we don’t really have to dig too deep into the files of incidents because we already know why it is so easy for BDS and pro-Palestinian advocates to slip into overt anti-Semitism. That is because, contrary to the University of California statement that was hoping to mollify some of the Israel-haters, there is no such thing as an anti-Semitic form of anti-Zionism. All forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic, no matter the identity of the speaker because to single out the one Jewish state and to deny its people the right to self-determination and self-defense in their ancient homeland is, in principle, anti-Semitic. Put simply, denying Jews these rights that no one would think of challenging for any other people, is an act of bias. Acts of bias against Jews are called anti-Semitic.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Even before the bodies of Israeli victims were carried to their homeland - by Burak Bekdil

...Her mistake was probably to express publicly what millions of Turks only thought, but did not say, in the face of a suicide bomb attack.

Burak Bekdil..
Gatestone Institute..
27 March '16..

The bomb attack in Istanbul on the morning of March 19 was the fifth similar act of terror targeting two of Turkey's biggest -- Istanbul and Ankara -- since October.

The suicide bomber, a 24-year-old with links to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), detonated his explosives on Istiklal Avenue, one of Istanbul's busiest streets and a popular tourist attraction. Three Israeli tourists (two of them also carrying U.S. passports) and one Iranian were killed. Dozens of wounded people were rushed to nearby hospitals. The death toll since October was now at nearly 200, including 14 tourists.

At first this author thought that his initial instinct to expect something "out of line" because the victims were now Israeli citizens was wrong. The official, diplomatic way Turkey and Israel were handling the tragedy looked impressively civilized. Even before the bomb attack, there were unusually nice Turkish gestures. A few days before the Istanbul bombing, a senior Turkish official, Ahmet Aydin, deputy speaker of parliament (from the ruling AKP party), had praised historical ties between the peoples of Turkey and Jewish citizens of the country. He described their relationship as "a unity of destiny," and underlined "Jewish citizens' contribution in founding the Republic of Turkey." Such language is too rare in Turkey, and even more rare when it comes from an official from the ruling [Islamist] Justice and Development Party (AKP).

After the suicide bombing in Istanbul, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan -- surprisingly -- did what any other president of a country hosting a terrorist attack would do. He conveyed his messages of condolences to Turkey's Jewish community and religious leaders. In a similar gesture, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "expressing his condolences to the people of Israel on behalf of the Turkish people."

In return, Israel hailed the "sincere and very helpful cooperation it has received from Turkish officials in the immediate aftermath of the deadly Istanbul attack in which its three citizens have been killed and envisaged this good as a way to help talks for the normalization of relations."

Dore Gold, Director-General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, arrived in Istanbul to meet with Istanbul's governor, Vasip Sahin, for talks on the details of the bombing; and then with his Turkish counterpart, Feridun Sinirlioglu, possibly for talks on the normalization of diplomatic ties between Ankara and Jerusalem.

So far, so good. It is not unusual in diplomacy to use tragic events as a pretext to bolster problematic ties and as an excuse to further refine any effort for reconciliation. The Turkish niceties were the "make-up," partly driven by pragmatism and designed to hide the anti-Semitic sentiments the AKP has worked hard to cultivate in the Turkish society. Before the bodies of Israeli victims were carried to their homeland, the Turkish make-up showed signs of falling apart and the ugly reality emerged.

Free speech, Palestinian websites and Mr Abunimah

...Abunimah posted the following tweet thanking the thousands who had petitioned the Australian Government supporting the grant of his visa: “I’m so grateful to every person who stood up for free speech. Delighted that I just received my visa for Australia. See you Down Under!”
4:44 AM – 16 Mar 2016

Perhaps my comment inadvertently slipped through the cracks as Mr Abunimah was busy packing his bags for his visit to Australia. Free speech means free speech for all Mr Abunimah. Stand up, be counted, publish my comment.


David Singer..
J-Wire..
27 March '16..
H/T Daphne Anson..

Many Palestinian websites are stifling free speech by refusing to publish comments answering anti-Israel articles published on their sites. The latest example is an article written by Rania Khalek on Electronic Intifada

Responding to the decision by McGraw Hill Education to destroy all copies of its text-book Global Politics: engaging a complex world – containing the accompanying maps – Khalek claimed:

“The maps, which appear in chronological succession on page 123, show Palestinian land loss from 1946, one year before Zionist militias initiated the displacement of more than 750,000 indigenous Palestinians from historic Palestine, to the year 2000, by which point Palestinian land had been reduced to a handful of tiny non-contiguous enclaves in the occupied West Bank and a sliver of Gaza.”

I endeavoured to post the following comment in response on 21 March pointing out the misleading nature of these maps:

“Map 1:

The heading – “Palestinian and Jewish Land 1946“ – is misleading for the following reasons:

(i) The map excludes Transjordan which in 1946 still comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine until granted independence by Great Britain in May 1946.

(ii) The land described as “Palestinian land” misleadingly implies legal ownership by the Palestinian Arabs of that land when in fact about 90% of it was State land under British Mandatory control and legal power of disposition.

Map 2:

The legend “Palestinian land” is misleading.

The legend should have said “proposed Jewish State” and “proposed Arab State” – the terms used in the UN Partition Plan.

Map 3:

The heading “1949-1967” is misleading.

The map should have shown the unification of the West Bank with Transjordan between 1949 and 1967 and the change of name of Transjordan to Jordan in 1950.

It should also have designated the Gaza Strip as being under Egyptian military administration between 1948-1967.

Facing up to UK aid's scandalous ongoing financing of Palestinian Arab jihad

...As part of the expose, there is a sharp taking-apart of how British money is fueling what we have often called here the blood-lust that animates the Palestinian Arab leadership. Written by Ian Birrell, who won the UK's Foreign Reporter of the Year award last week, it is headed in plain language: "UK Aid pays terrorists".


Amjad Awad (pictured) and his cousin Hakim Awad
killed Ehud and Ruth Fogel and their three children
in their West Bank home in 2011. They have been
getting foreign aid since they were convicted for life 


Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
27 March '16..

For years, the scandalous funding of Palestinian Arab terrorism by European politicians has been one of the main enablers of the huge human price paid by its victims. Since the murder of our daughter and the growing realization that her killers and their support network are major beneficiaries of this insane abuse of power, we have done what ordinary people can do: write and talk about it, try to raise awareness and give a hand to others doing it more effectively than we can.

The sad reality is that the madness continues right up until this morning, and is going to continue until political leaders feel the pain - in the customary political way - of doing immoral things that other people, usually unwittingly, are paying for.

At one of the world's largest-circulating newspapers, they published a major story today (Sunday) which is central to a public campaign of their creating. They introduce it today in these words:

The scandal of how Britain fritters away billions in foreign aid – including paying salaries to convicted terrorists who have murdered hundreds of innocent people – is exposed today by a major MoS investigation. The shocking revelation that thousands of Palestinian terrorists, including men who have masterminded suicide bombings and murdered children, are given cash handouts from aid money will cause anger and disbelief, particularly in the wake of the Brussels massacres. Our probe exposed how huge amounts of taxpayers’ cash, that critics say should be spent in Britain, is being ‘squandered’ on wasteful schemes elsewhere by the Department For International Development (DFID) and Foreign Office. Despite claims of astonishing waste, the Government maintains a dogged adherence to the commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of the nation’s income on foreign aid – the highest proportion of any of the world’s major economies – even though last year it had to borrow £70 billion. [Mail on Sunday UK, via the Daily Mail website, March 27, 2016]

(Read Full Post. Please Share)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Question. Was Meir Dagan Right About Iran? - by Jonathan Tobin

...Dagan, the man who was the loudest in opposing an Israeli attack, was a genuine hero who deserves to always be remembered as such, despite his bitter and often unseemly bickering with Netanyahu during his final years. But if Iran does ultimately obtain a weapon with which it could fulfill its threats to wipe Israel from the map — recently reiterated during its illegal ballistic missile tests — and launch a second Holocaust, then Dagan’s opposition to the prime minister will not look quite so wise.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
25 March '16..

When former Mossad chief Meir Dagan died last week, the well-deserved tributes from his comrades in arms, admirers, as well as others with whom he feuded, all noted with praise his service to Israel. Dagan was a military hero who turned to intelligence work after leaving the army but began life as a child of Jews who had fled the Holocaust in Poland. All of the obituaries noted the fact that in his office hung a photo of his grandfather taken by Nazi soldiers moments before they murdered him. He spent his life seeking to preserve Israel against those who would seek to further the work of the Nazis by destroying the Jewish state. But it was not that lifetime of battles against Israel’s enemies for which he was best remembered. Rather, it was his battles with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how best to counter the Iranian nuclear threat, as well as differences about the Palestinians that marked his last years and made him known far beyond Israel.

Dagan was a fervent opponent of a proposed Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and did his best to frustrate any move by Netanyahu in that direction while he was at the Mossad. After leaving the spy agency, he came out of the shadows to become a public foe of the prime minister. Netanyahu has won re-election twice since Dagan left the agency and seems firmly ensconced in office despite the former spy chief’s withering criticisms. Now that the West has signed a deal with Iran that gives Tehran’s nuclear program international recognition, such an operation is out of the question for as long as the accord lasts. Thus, in the eyes of many observers, such as the New York Times’ David Sanger, Dagan won the argument with Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

As is the case with the nuclear deal, history will be the final judge as to whether Netanyahu or Dagan were right about how best to deal with Iran. But while there were good reasons for Israel striking Iran on its own, the assumption held by many in the media and Netanyahu’s left-wing critics that Dagan was the wise counselor locked in a struggle with a cynical politician interested only in his own survival is a distorted version of a complex political and security puzzle. If, as is as likely as not, Iran eventually emerges from the aftermath of a nuclear pact that will expire in a decade with a bomb, then the accolades being heaped on Dagan for thwarting the prime minister may not look so smart.

Dagan’s views were entitled to respect. But there are a few important facts about Dagan’s position about Iran that are often overlooked in the discussion about his arguments with Netanyahu.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Europe and the consequences of anti-Zionism - by Caroline Glick

With ISIS now capable of attacking at will in almost every city in Europe, will they realize that the time has come to stop funding Palestinian jihadists and Israeli subversives? Or is it too late for them to change course? Will they cling to the bitter end to their anti-Semitic delusion that by feeding the Jewish state to the jihadist tiger, he will not come for them? For Israel, the path is clear regardless of what Europe decides. Our law enforcement bodies need to investigate and prosecute left-wing criminals with the same seriousness they investigate and prosecute all other criminals, regardless of the support they receive from their European funders. And our government needs to pointedly and consistently explain to the leaders of Europe that their assault on Israel will not convince the jihadists to spare them. So far all the Europeans have for their efforts are massacred civilians and shattered defenses.

Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
25 March '16..

What do radical Israeli groups have in common with their European funders?

Last Thursday, Channel 2 broadcast candid camera footage of Breaking the Silence members gathering classified information on IDF operations. The footage was taken by Ad Kan activists.

Breaking the Silence claims to be an organization dedicated to collecting testimonies from IDF soldiers documenting ill-treatment of Palestinians. Posing as soldiers with information to share, Ad Kan activists were interrogated by Breaking the Silence investigators.

Yet rather than question them about how their units treated Palestinians, Breaking the Silence members asked them about troop movements, weapons platforms, IDF cooperation with foreign militaries. The investigators asked what sort of guns an unmanned combat vehicle carried, who controlled the vehicle and whether it was in operational use.

They wanted to know how the IDF discovers Hamas tunnels. They wanted to know when tanks were used in battles and how.

Breaking the Silence’s intelligence operations didn’t stop with post-operational debriefs.


A Breaking the Silence employee named Frima Bobis is filmed telling Ad Kan activists how when she was still in high school, a Breaking the Silence worker advised her where to serve during her military service.

She followed his advice, served in the civil administration’s office in Nablus, and upon her discharge, was able to give Breaking the Silence useful information.

Breaking the Silence hired her shortly after her return to civilian life.

Julia Novak, Breaking the Silence’s executive director, did not dispute Ad Kan’s findings. In her response to the broadcast she gave three defenses for her group’s activities.

First, she said, Ad Kan’s findings are unworthy of attention because it is a “settler” organization.

Second, she said that her group’s noble goal of “ending the occupation” gives it the right to collect and hold classified information. In other words, just as Ad Kan’s support for Israeli control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem makes it illegitimate, so Breaking the Silence’s support for ending “the occupation” renders it immune from criticism.

These claims ring familiar. Similar claims were made in January by her comrades after Channel 2’s investigative magazine Uvda broadcast another Ad Kan, report. That report showed members of Breaking the Silence engaging in what appeared to be various forms of criminal activities with members of Ta’ayush. Those activities included tax evasion and unlawfully interfering with military operations as well as assaulting soldiers.

The January report also showed senior Ta’ayush and B’Tselem operatives Ezra Nawi and Nasser Nawaja apparently plotting to turn a Palestinian interested in selling his land to Jews over to Palestinian security services with the full knowledge that they would torture and murder him.

B’Tselem’s response to the January report was first to dismiss its legitimacy. Uvda, the group insisted, was wrong to broadcast the report because it was filmed by Ad Kan investigators rather than Uvda reporters.

B’Tselem’s claim was particularly rich given that Channel 2 makes liberal use of footage B’Tselem provides its reporters.

Just as Novak doubled down on Breaking the Silence’s spying operations, insisting they were legitimate without explaining why, so B’Tselem justified Nawaja’s actions insisting that handing Palestinian land sellers over to the PA is “the only legitimate path available to Palestinians.”

B’Tselem didn’t explain why Nawaja didn’t just get his donor friends to buy the land. The self-proclaimed human rights group didn’t explain why its senior employee couldn’t accept the human right of Palestinians to sell their land to Jews or the human right of Jews to buy land from a willing Palestinian seller.

B’Tselem didn’t explain why it’s legitimate to turn over innocents to PA henchmen with the full knowledge that doing so will lead to their torture and murder.

It isn’t that the radical Left’s goal of expelling all Jews and IDF units from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is inherently illegitimate — that is, illegal. It is arguably just as legal as the late Meir Kahane’s goal of expelling all Arabs from Judea and Samaria.

But the fact that your goal is legal doesn’t give you the right to break the law. In other words, Breaking the Silence is legitimate. Breaking the law is not.

Ad Kan’s revelations are startling not because they call into question the legitimacy of the radical Left’s goal. They are startling because they show that in advancing that goal, radical leftist groups have a distressing comfort level with criminal activities.

And this brings us to Novak’s third justification for her group’s intelligence operations.

Novak said that Breaking the Silence’s activities are permissible because it always gets the Military Censor’s permission before it publishes its reports. But that merely exacerbates suspicions.

If it isn’t publishing the classified information it gathers, why is it gathering it? Whom is it gathering it for? Which brings us to Europe. According to NGO Monitor, in 2014, 61 percent of Breaking the Silence’s budget came from European governments.

After Uvda broadcast Ad Kan’s footage of Nawi and Nawaja apparently plotting the murder of an innocent Palestinian in January, British legislators demanded that the Foreign Office justify government funding of B’Tselem.

The same parliamentarians could just as easily have asked why their government funds the Palestinian Authority, which murders innocent Palestinians.