Thanks, but ‘no,’ Joe! by Sarah Honig

...Esteemed tendentious commentators claimed to be shaken to their sensitive cores by the wagging finger and bitchy barbs of the harsh critic who, with that trademark mischievous twinkle ever-present in his eyes, kept declaring his undying love for Israel. But upon cooler reflection, they might have realized that in effect Biden warned that if we don’t rush to slash our own throats our enemies might shortly decapitate us.

US Vice President Joe Biden:  “If you
were attacked and overwhelmed,
we would fight for you.”

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
30 April '15..

How can any Israeli just not be charmed by good ole’ Joe Biden? Time and again, especially when courting Jewish voters or when appearing on behalf of his boss Barack Obama before Jewish audiences, America’s Vice President has ebulliently let us know that some of his best friends are Zionists.

He has even famously stated: “I am a Zionist.” He instantly then added straight-faced: “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” We might never have grasped this elusive truth, had he not enlightened us.

During the 2008 Vice-Presidential debate, Biden announced that “no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.”

Of course, it’s up to the listener to decide whether Obama is as friendly to Israel as Biden says or whether Biden has grown as unfriendly as Obama. One thing is indisputable – Biden has placed himself and Obama in the identical category.

Whatever we may think of it, Biden clearly considers what he hypes as his “Israel’s staunchest ally” status to be a license to tell us off when he deems us deserving of rebuke. After all, bosom buds accrue special privileges. This dates way back to long before his March boycott of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the joint houses of Congress.

Back 1982, Senator Biden (D-Delaware) threatened to cut off aid to Israel. In subsequent years he hotly denied this but Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s late right-hand man Yechiel Kadisha’i unequivocally confirmed Biden’s bullying in many conversations we held.

Biden lost it on June 22, when Begin spoke at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kadisha’i described Biden as behaving “like a meshuggner.” Biden railed against settlements and banged excitedly on his desk to accentuate his verbal admonishments.

More recently, in 2010, Biden warned us (at Tel Aviv University) that “the status quo is not sustainable.” Obviously doubting our abilities to comprehend so weighty a message, he slowly and deliberately reiterated the portentous mantra with extra emphasis on the really important syllables, so that even dim-witted vassals can get the point and get scared.

Our left-leaning media did all it could to amplify the implicit intimidations. Opinion-molders prone to running with the pack and going with the flow were duly aghast with angst.

Considering that, on average, historical memory in our midst isn’t retained beyond two-weeks’ worth, most of us tend to forget how big a deal it was five years ago. Esteemed tendentious commentators claimed to be shaken to their sensitive cores by the wagging finger and bitchy barbs of the harsh critic who, with that trademark mischievous twinkle ever-present in his eyes, kept declaring his undying love for Israel.

But upon cooler reflection, they might have realized that in effect Biden warned that if we don’t rush to slash our own throats our enemies might shortly decapitate us.

Actually, the way Israel decides to appoint judges is none of the EU’s business

...The EU’s unsolicited opinion about what is strictly a domestic Israeli matter stems from both arrogance and ignorance. From arrogance, because the way Israel decides to appoint its judges is none of the EU’s business. From ignorance, because in most European countries and other western democracies, the executive and legislative branches have more influence over the appointment of judges than in Israel.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
29 April '15..

As Israel’s political parties were negotiating the guidelines of the next government coalition, the Likud party raised the issue of judicial reform with the intention of changing the way Supreme Court judges are appointed. While this is a domestic issue and a legitimate matter of debate in an open society, the European Union expressed concern (according to Israel's Channel 2 news) about Likud’s proposal.

The EU’s unsolicited opinion about what is strictly a domestic Israeli matter stems from both arrogance and ignorance. From arrogance, because the way Israel decides to appoint its judges is none of the EU’s business. From ignorance, because in most European countries and other western democracies, the executive and legislative branches have more influence over the appointment of judges than in Israel.

Since Israel lacks a written constitution, the separation of powers between the three branches of government was never clearly delineated. Israel’s Basic Laws outline the powers of the three branches, but since the early 1990s the judicial branch has unilaterally and dramatically expanded its powers by allowing itself to repeal legislation, by turning the legal opinions of the attorney general into instructions which the government must obey, and by granting a de facto veto power to the judiciary over the appointment of Supreme Court judges. As a result, Israel’s judiciary is both overpowered and self-appointed.

In Israel, Supreme Court judges are appointed by a committee composed of three sitting Supreme Court judges, of two representatives of the Israeli Bar Association, of two members of Knesset (one from the opposition and one from the coalition), and of two government ministers (including the Justice Minister). In 2008, the law was amended so as to require the support of all committee members taking part in the vote, minus two. Indeed, a candidate needs the support of seven committee members to be elected. Since the Supreme Court has three representatives on the committee, it has a de facto veto power over the appointment of its new members (especially since the three judges can almost always count on the support of the two representatives from the Bar). On the surface, therefore, the committee is balanced. In effect, Supreme Court judges themselves decide who will join their ranks.

By granting such power to the judiciary over the appointment of Supreme Court judges, Israel is unique among Western democracies. In other Western democracies, the supreme bodies entitled to repeal legislation are appointed by the executive and legislative branches.

Wendy Sherman’s comment on Netanyahu's two-state solution commitment

...Our neighborhood is in terrific turmoil and our Sunni neighbors are profoundly more interested in weathering all the existential challenges WITH Israel than in giving any kind of priority to creating a sovereign Palestinian state. The rest of the world is also not in the best of shape such that a Palestinian state - rhetoric notwithstanding - is not really at the top of anyone’s “do list”. So while it may not be as pleasant a task to back Israel as it would be (at least in the short run) if we were suicidally blind to reality, it is hardly a significantly taxing effort for the most powerful nation in the world.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
29 April '15..

Keep your eye on the phrase “commitment to a two-state solution” when you read the next two paragraphs that are an excerpt from Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s remarks last Monday to the Religious Action Committee of Reform Judaism:

“As we’ve said, it’s true that Prime Minister Netanyahu raised questions about his government’s commitment to a two-state solution… in comments he made right before and right after the Israeli election. Now he’s working to form a government, as we speak, with a deadline approaching and I certainly don’t and won’t want to get ahead of that process. We will be watching very closely to see what happens after a new government is formed on this issue of working towards two states living side by side in peace and security.

If the new Israeli government is seen as stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution, something that all of you and a vast majority of American Jews supports, that makes our job in the international arena a lot tougher. Because our ability to push back on efforts to internationalize efforts to address Israeli-Palestinian issues has depended on our insistence that the best course in achieving a two-[state] solution is through direct negotiation between the parties.”

OK.

Now what did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu ACTUALLY say?

He gave his honest assessment that for the short term and midterm - namely the period of his next administration - that it will not be possible to implement a “two-state solution”.

Again. Mr. Netanyahu didn’t say he OPPOSED “two states living side by side in peace and security”. He just, given current conditions, does not believe that such an arrangement could be achieved in the next four or so years.

And he is hardly alone in this assessment.

I daresay that the overwhelming majority of experts on Arab Israeli affairs - regardless of their political leaning - share this assessment.

It comes down to this: how should a responsible leader of the Jewish State plan for the next four years given that DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND ISRAEL’S
CONTROL “two states living side by side in peace and security” is not in the cards?

Now I can appreciate that Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman would prefer that PM Netanyahu keep this to himself and goes through the motions as if “two states living side by side in peace and security” is just around the corner. But there is also a cost to limiting ourselves to “going through the motions”. We live here and the Palestinians live here and we can't put our collective lives on hold.

OK.

BTW, Those Gaza Casualties? Fault Hamas and UNRWA

...There’s little doubt that a breakdown of each individual incident would be portrayed in a far less negative light in a document prepared by a more neutral party. After all, the UN was largely dependent on UNRWA for the report. But if we were to accept these findings as definitive, what can’t be forgotten is that the only reason there was any firing anywhere near UN facilities is that Hamas routinely used them and other buildings such as schools and hospitals to shield their efforts to shoot at Israelis. The people of Gaza as a whole, and not just those at UN buildings, were used as human shields by the terrorist movement that governs the strip, itself a war crime.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
29 April '15..

On Monday the United Nations issued a report about attacks on their facilities in Gaza during last summer’s fighting between Hamas and Israel. The report’s conclusion was widely reported as finding that the deaths of 44 civilians were the fault of the Israeli military. Strictly speaking that’s true, as there’s little doubt that the casualties at some of their facilities were killed or wounded by Israeli fire. But before the anti-Israel propaganda machine starts cranking up to denounce the Israelis as war criminals—as the Palestinians are preparing to do at the International Criminal Court—a close reading of a document that was prepared by a hostile UN reveals a far more nuanced picture of what happened in Gaza. While some of the shelters in question might have been struck in error in the heat of battle in a confusing environment, even the UN was prepared to admit that many of their institutions in Gaza were being used as arms depots by Hamas and that armed fighters were shooting at Israel in the vicinity of many of the places that were attacked. While Israel’s military can’t be said to be perfect, the real fault for what happened belongs to both the Hamas terrorist overlords of Gaza and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that operated the facilities.

Using their new perch as a member of UN agencies, it’s likely that the Palestinian Authority will seek to get the International Criminal Court to investigate and indict Israel for war crimes in Gaza. This is a dangerous gambit for the PA because even though the UN body is biased against the Jewish state, the evidence of criminal intent or behavior is lacking. Moreover, there is ample proof of Palestinian war crimes. Indeed, every one of the thousands of Hamas missiles fired at Israeli cities and towns was a crime. As were the attempts by the Islamist group to use tunnels dug underneath the international border between Gaza and Israel to commit acts of murder and kidnapping.

The story told in the UN report is not one of callous Israeli behavior. Rather, even this indictment shows that the Israel Defense Forces sought to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible and didn’t fire indiscriminately.

The problem for those wanting to use this document to bash Israel is that it confirms much of what the Israelis said about the use of UNRWA facilities, and specifically the schools designated as shelters. The report admits that several such schools were used for storing Hamas weaponry. Others were, as Israel insists, used as observation posts for Hamas military action. Many were the sites of firing of rockets at Israel and Israeli forces. While UNRWA sought to deflect blame for the use of their buildings for terrorism, even the UN report notes that their security measures to avoid this were inadequate and the agency needs to take the problem more seriously.

Evidently at the BBC not all ‘occupied territories’ are equal

...Can it really be that the BBC has only issued specific guidelines on the ‘correct’ terminology to be used when reporting on one of the world’s many conflicts?

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
29 April '15..

As readers are no doubt well aware the BBC rarely, if ever, passes up on an opportunity to remind its audiences that certain geographical areas appearing in its coverage are “occupied territories” or “occupied Palestinian land” and that “settlements are illegal under international law”. The BBC’s ‘style guide’ on “Israel and the Palestinians” has instructions for its journalists on the topic – including:

“Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967. A law in 1980 formalised an administrative measure tantamount to the annexation of land taken as a result of the 1967 War. The claim to East Jerusalem is not recognised internationally. Instead, under international law, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory. […]

The BBC should say East Jerusalem is ‘occupied’ if it is relevant to the context of the story. For example: “Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1980 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory.””

And:

“The phrase ‘Occupied Territories’ refers to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and strictly speaking the Golan Heights. However, it is common usage for this phrase to refer to the West Bank as a whole and not the Golan Heights (unless it is in a story specifically on the 1967 War or Syrian/Israeli relations).

This is our preferred description. It is advisable to avoid trying to find another formula, although the phrase ‘occupied West Bank’ can also be used. It is, however, also advisable not to overuse the phrase within a single report in case it is seen as expressing support for one side’s view.”

Apparently though, no comparable instructions are available to BBC journalists writing about Cyprus – at least if an article which appeared on the BBC News website on April 26th under the title “Mustafa Akinci wins northern Cyprus presidential election” is anything to go by.

(Continue Reading)

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, 
.

In Malaysia, years of anti-semitic exhortations along the path to anti-Israel terror

...Keep in mind Malaysia currently sits on the UN Security Council, where one of its most senior diplomats sees it having a role he bizarrely calls "constructive" in resolving a certain generations-long confrontation. See "Malaysia wants role in finding UN solution to Palestine-Israel conflict", a Malaysian news report from less than a week ago.

"Glad to be labeled anti-semitic": Malaysia's longest-serving 
political leader Mahathir Mohamad demonstrating characteristic
chumminess in Kuala Lumpur two years ago with Hamas
arch-terrorist Khaled Meshaal [Image Source]

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
28 April '15..

Israel's Shin Bet internal security service is said - according to an expose published today on the Haaretz English-language news site - to have publicly exposed detailed evidence of Hamas terrorism-focused activities in far-off Malaysia. [Source: "Shin Bet: Hamas training Palestinian students in Malaysia" | Haaretz | April 28, 2015]

Among the allegations:

Hamas is taking Palestinian Arabs to Malaysia for training as 'operatives' (meaning terrorists). On their return, these people are to carry out undercover operations on returning to the West Bank.

A Palestinian Arab from Hebron, Waseem Qawasmeh, 24, is on trial in an IDF military court, charged with membership of a banned organization, with having contact with the enemy and receiving money from the enemy. He was arrested on February 13 at the Allenby Bridge (which crosses the Jordan River, providing a road connection between the Hashemite Kingdom and the areas controlled by the Mahmoud Abbas-controlled PA). He had just returned from Malaysia, as well as having spent part of his training period in Hamas-friendly Turkey. The indictment papers were filed with the court on March 18, according to the Haaretz article, and form the basis of its expose.

Senior Hamas officials including Ma'an Hatib and Radwan al-Atrash, live in Malaysia and took part in the facts giving rise to the indictment. The Shin Bet says Hatib is "responsible in Malaysia for the Hamas foreign desk", while the well-named Atrash is "a senior figure" in its Shura Council, a religion-connected body that includes Islamist figures connected with Hamas.

Part of the terrorism prep training involves pushing the Pal Arab jihadism cadets into joining the Malaysian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and getting involved with pro-Palestinian charities active in that country.

Among their missions, these recruits then serve as couriers messengers between the PA-controlled areas and third countries, as well as being involved with clandestine transfers of funds to serve the Hamas terror organization's requirements.

Malaysia has no diplomatic relations with Israel and support for Hamas and its overt embrace of terror has been part of its political figures' public declarations for years. The current prime minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, visited the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip in January 2013.

Malaysia's Jewish population, always a tiny number, has shrunk further in the wake of years of vile, fully-open Jew-hatred spouted from the country's highest political echelons. A 2012 article in Canada's National Post ["Anti-Semitism without Jews in Malaysia"] notes that Malaysia's

politicians and civil servants devote a surprising amount of time to thinking about Israel, 7,612 km away.

(Continue Reading)

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 Pitiable Descent of Amnesty International's Concern for Human Rights

...It is pitiful that Amnesty International should have descended so low in its partiality in Middle Eastern affairs and in its lack of genuine concern for human rights – at least for the human rights of Jews.

Dr. Michael Curtis..
American Thinker..
27 April '15..

In the roster of organizations whose well-meaning objectives have been distorted by bias and prejudicial resolutions, Amnesty International (AI) stands high. For those concerned with human rights, AI is now part of the problem, not part of the solution. It has lost the treasure of a spotless reputation.

The stated objective of AI is to work to protect human rights worldwide, and to mobilize the grassroots power of millions of people to effect change. Yet its members refused to approve a text that called on the U.K. government to monitor anti-Semitism closely and periodically review the security of Britain’s Jewish population.

A majority of members of AI at its annual general meeting in London on April 19, 2015 thought otherwise. The members, by a vote of 468 to 461, rejected a resolution to campaign against anti-Semitism, and to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, whether physical or verbal, online, or in person.

The difference between this action in London and political activities in Paris is telling. The French government has proposed 40 items of legislation aimed at combating expressions and manifestations of anti-Semitism. To this end, it would encourage, among other things, countering the spread of anti-Semitism by training teachers and sports clubs and by setting up social media sites to oppose intolerance. The French government is also proposing that advocacy and action of racial and religious hatred should be regarded as criminal offenses.

To her credit, Marine Le Pen, chair of the National Front (FN), like other French politicians, has been conscious of the increase of anti-Semitism and of attacks on Jews in France. Whether she acted to protect the political interests of her party or for more sincere reasons, on April 12, 2015, she disowned the statements made by her 86-year-old father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded the party in 1972. In an interview on April 7, 2015, in the extreme right-wing anti-Semitic publication Rivarol, the elder Le Pen had repeated his minimization of the Holocaust and his defense of Marshal Petain, the head of the collaborationist Vichy regime during World War II. For him, the Nazi gas chambers were a “mere detail” in the history of the war.

The vote against the resolution at the AI meeting in London was disgraceful and indeed dishonorable for three reasons. First, the resolution had explained the increasing problem. In February 2015, the report of the British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism found that there was a 221-percent increase in hate crimes directed at Jews during the 2014 Gaza conflict when compared with same period in 2013.

Secondly, it was only resolution defeated during the whole conference, and it related only to British Jews, not to the State of Israel. Thirdly, it displayed that for AI, the concern about anti-Semitism was less significant than other human rights issues. One might even conclude that the 468 members voting against condemning anti-Semitism might not disapprove of it or, even more, might believe that Jews have no human rights.

AI officials defended the vote in specious fashion. AIUK condemned all forms of hate crime and discrimination, but “unfortunately we could not campaign on everything.” The officials argued that AIUK could not pass a resolution calling for a campaign with a single focus. This belied the reality that resolutions passed at the 2015 conference were on a number of specific issues: abortion, Guatemala, Colombian activists, torture in the U.K., and asylum detention in the U.K. At its conference the year before, resolutions included subjects of sex work, garment workers in Asian countries, Guantánamo, Guatemala, and Sri Lanka.

A Simple Truth

Dry Bones..
drybonesblog.blogspot.co.il..
28 April '15..

What are Israel's legal grounds for ownership of the Land of Israel?
What are Israel's rights in the matter?
What is the "simple truth"?

Check out a brand new site dedicated to exploring exactly those questions:
click on http://israelrights.com/en/

Link: http://www.drybonesblog.blogspot.co.il/2015/04/a-simple-truth.html

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, 
.

Who Would've Thought? Obama Still Threatening Netanyahu

...Sherman, who holds the title of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, is best known for her work on nuclear non-proliferation in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. But her real claim to fame is as the person who naively gave away the store to the North Koreans that helped them get closer to a bomb in the 1990s and learned nothing from that experience before repeating the exercise in the last few years with Iran. She defended the Iran nuclear deal she helped negotiate and assured the Reform leaders that the pact would make Israel and the world safer. But that highly debatable conclusion is less newsworthy than Sherman’s effort to fire yet another shot over Netanyahu’s bow as he completed negotiations to form his next government.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
27 April '15..

What does the State Department’s Wendy Sherman do with her spare time when not negotiating weak nuclear deals with rogue regimes? The same as the rest of the Obama foreign-policy team: threaten Israel with diplomatic isolation at the United Nations. Sherman issued some thinly veiled threats yesterday in remarks to a gathering of Reform movement leaders in which she made clear that the administration expects the next Israeli government to do its bidding with respect to supporting a two-state solution with the Palestinians. While there’s nothing new about this insistence, Sherman’s language followed the same pattern as other remarks issued by U.S. officials since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was reelected last month. But like all such warnings that have been aimed at Jerusalem from Washington, the most striking aspect of this effort is how divorced these American staffers are from the reality of a peace process that the Palestinians have no interest in pursuing.

Sherman, who holds the title of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, is best known for her work on nuclear non-proliferation in both the Clinton and Obama administrations. But her real claim to fame is as the person who naively gave away the store to the North Koreans that helped them get closer to a bomb in the 1990s and learned nothing from that experience before repeating the exercise in the last few years with Iran. She defended the Iran nuclear deal she helped negotiate and assured the Reform leaders that the pact would make Israel and the world safer. But that highly debatable conclusion is less newsworthy than Sherman’s effort to fire yet another shot over Netanyahu’s bow as he completed negotiations to form his next government.

According to the Times of Israel, Sherman warned that if the new government “is seen as stepping back from its commitment to a two-state solution,” that “makes our job in the international arena that much tougher.” She went on to note that the U.S. had “repeatedly stood up against efforts to delegitimize Israel or single Israel out unfairly” and that this “would continue to be the case.” But then she added that Netanyahu’s pre-election statements about the unlikelihood of a two-state solution happening had “raised questions” about the premise of U.S. support.

While Sherman’s remarks can be read in a sympathetic manner as being basically supportive of Israel—and there’s little doubt that her audience heard it that way—the message to Netanyahu was clear: any more wavering about his dedication to two-state negotiations and all bets are off in the United Nations.

But while Sherman is right when she says that most American Jews are as obsessed with willing a two-state solution into existence as the president and Secretary of State Kerry, Israelis take a different view of things.

From a NYC Highrise on Fifth Avenue, Human Rights Watch’s Disaster Effort

...But the real outrage is his disdain for Israel’s humanitarian efforts that are saving lives after the earthquake and avalanche. Roth sits in the HRW office in a NYC highrise on Fifth Avenue sending out his demeaning tweets. At the same time, Israelis are on the ground in Nepal, treating the wounded and searching for more bodies in the snow and the ice.

Yarden Frankl..
HonestReporting.com..
27 April '15..

One might think from the name that “Human Rights Watch” is an organization dedicated solely to monitoring human rights conditions around the world. But long-time readers may be familiar with a few examples we have documented that show the organization to be obsessed with bashing Israel and employing individuals with very questionable judgement.

There was the human rights “expert” who enjoyed collecting Nazi memorabilia (and bashing Israel.) There was the Human Rights Watch Director who went on a fund-raising trip to Saudi Arabia (with one of the worst human rights records) and returned to pen a piece for CNN trashing Ariel Sharon — within hours of the death of the former Israeli Prime Minister.

And now — when Israel has rushed a medical team to help the victims of the earthquake in Nepal — comes a Tweet from the current Executive Director:

Kenneth Roth @KenRoth · 23h23 hours ago

Kenneth Roth retweeted Israel Foreign Min.

Easier to address a far-away humanitarian disaster than the nearby one of Israel's making in Gaza. End the blockade!

Kenneth Roth added,

Israel Foreign Min. @IsraelMFA

IDF delegation numbering 260 medical & rescue crew members will depart on Sunday night for #Kathmandu. #IsraelinNepal

411 retweets219 favorites

The obvious fact that there is a partial blockade of Gaza (humanitarian goods are allowed in) because of the terrorist group Hamas’ efforts to rearm is completely lost on Roth. Nor is the fact that Gaza is blockaded by Egypt on one border. No, for the Executive Director of this group — in theory dedicated to fighting human rights abuse — the situation can be summed up in a simple, Twitter-friendly slogan: “End the Blockade!”

Israel, China and Membership in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

...Because the United States seems to have lost the courage of its convictions, it is losing the confidence of its allies. Instead of trying to lobby Western countries (including Israel) not to join the AIIB, America should convince its allies that it is reliable and determined. When America displays moral relativism and weakness, there are consequences. China’s success with the AIIB is one of them, and Israel made the right decision by joining this new bank.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
24 April '15..

In October 2014 China established, together with other Asian countries, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The creation of the AIIB was a consequence of China’s exasperation at America’s refusal to reform the Bretton Woods institutions (i.e. the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, and the World Bank) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). For years, China has asked to reform the IMF and the World Bank so as to reflect the global clout of the Chinese economy. But the US Congress is adamant not to yield influence, within institutions dominated by America, to a country it perceives as a threat. As for the ADB, Japan has more voting rights there than China, even though China is Asia’s biggest economy. Since China owns the world’s largest foreign-exchange reserves, it can afford to build alternative institutions and to bypass the United States.

The creation of the AIIB clearly indicates that Asia’s balance of power is swinging to China’s advantage, for this is the first time that America is unable to thwart the creation of a rival Asian financial institution. After the Asian financial crisis of 1997, for example, the United States blocked the creation of a proposed Asian Monetary Fund (AMF). Nearly two decades later, China’s will has prevailed.

Despite its intensive lobbying, America has not been able to convince its allies to stay out of the AIIB. In March 2015, Britain, France, Germany and Italy announced their intention to join the AIIB as founding shareholders. In Asia, major US allies such as South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and Thailand have announced that they will join the AIIB despite Washington’s pressures. Even Japan and Australia, which had originally indicated that they would not become AIIB members, are likely to join soon. In the Middle East, Israel just added its name to the list of “rebels” by submitting its application to the AIIB.

Israel’s decision to join the AIIB is but another indication of a growing Israeli readiness to defy US President Barack Obama. The looming agreement between the Obama administration and Iran raises concerns in Israel about America’s reliability. While China will never replace America as Israel’s strategic ally, Israel is definitely taking some eggs out of the American basket.

Arab Terrorism: The Real Motive

...The horror of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom was a turning point for many Jews, including Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Jew-hatred was finally seen to be implacable and a permanent feature of Diaspora life, and only a complete separation from the haters by the establishment of a Jewish state and the relocation of the Jewish people to it could be a permanent solution....Now there is a Jewish state, but the problem of hatred-spawned violence against Jews has not ended, even here. There is a simple reason for that: we allow it.

The murder weapon in the April 15
killing of Shalom Sherki

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
26 April '15..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/04/the-real-motive-for-arab-terrorism/

On April 15, Khaled Koutineh, a resident of eastern Jerusalem who was angry about having been delayed at a checkpoint drove his car into a bus stop, killing Shalom Yohai Sherki, 25, and seriously injuring Shira Klein, a young woman. Yesterday there was another vehicular attack, in which four police officers were injured, one ‘moderately’. There were also two separate incidents on the same day in which Jews were attacked by knife-wielding Arabs.

There have been at least 5 vehicular attacks on Jews by Arabs since November 2014, and numerous knife and meat-cleaver attacks. Every single day, Jewish cars are bombarded with rocks and firebombs, sometimes resulting in death. Sure, they are always angry and “frustrated,” but there is a deeper ideological reason for what they do.

I want to rerun an article I wrote last year, after a particularly horrible firebombing, and add something to it.

***

My personal Kishinev
Posted on December 27, 2014 by Vic Rosenthal

You probably heard about the 11-year old girl who was critically burned on Thursday when the car she was riding in was struck by a firebomb thrown by an Arab terrorist. And you certainly know about the attack on the Kehilat Bnei Torah synagogue in Jerusalem in which four worshipers and a policeman were brutally murdered. You probably know about the several incidents in which Arabs drove their vehicles into groups of Jews, including one in which a 3-month old baby and a tourist from Ecuador were murdered, and another in which the driver got out and ran back to his not-yet-dead victim and cut her throat.

If you follow these things, you may also know that Jews are afraid to go to the historic Mount of Olives Cemetery in Jerusalem because of continued violent attacks on buses, cars and people. You may also have heard about the daily rock-throwing attacks on the light rail in Jerusalem, against Jewish-driven cars on the roads in Judea and Samaria, the acid thrown on a Jewish family, etc. I could go on. And on.

The horror of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom was a turning point for many Jews, including Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Jew-hatred was finally seen to be implacable and a permanent feature of Diaspora life, and only a complete separation from the haters by the establishment of a Jewish state and the relocation of the Jewish people to it could be a permanent solution.

I think the firebomb incident was my own personal Kishinev experience. Now there is a Jewish state, but the problem of hatred-spawned violence against Jews has not ended, even here.

There is a simple reason for that: we allow it.

Would it have been so difficult? …After Attacking Officers with Knives…

...With just five words, “after attacking officers with knives,” they could have let those who skim headlines know what actually happened. Would it have been so difficult?

Yarden Frankl..
Honest Reporting..
26 April '15..





For millions of people who spend a few seconds scanning the headlines of the New York Times, here is what they saw the other day:

While it is admittedly difficult to boil the essence of a news story into a few words, the Times failed miserably in this case. Did Israeli police officers stroll through a cafe and shoot dead two innocent people sipping coffee? Not at all. As the article points out, the men had attacked the officers with knives. The Israeli police officers were acting as any police officer anywhere in the world would act when attacked with a deadly weapon.

Yet for some inexplicable reason, whomever had the task of attaching a headline to the article decided that the most important thing for people to know was that Israeli police officers had killed Palestinians.

What makes it even stranger, is that the New York Times website also published an earlier version of the story by Reuters that had a similar headline but used the words “knife-wielding” before the word “Palestinians.” A day later the story appears under a Times byline with the words “knife-wielding” removed.

No, Zionism did not begin in the 19th century

...In Israel, too, there are a number of people like Yossi Beilin who cut their ancient roots and justify the existence of the State by much more recent circumstantial reasons. From there, for these people, everything is negotiable and no matter if one gives up places in this country that have made large impacts on our history. The key is to just keep a little corner where we will - perhaps - be safe. Therefore, it is no coincidence that Dr. Beilin was one of the architects of the Oslo Accords. Everything is connected.

Shraga Blum..
i24 News..
23 April '15..

The proximity of Holocaust Remembrance Day and the Day of Remembrance for the Fallen Soldiers of Israel and Victims of Terror attacks is a source of a major misunderstandings.

Dr. Beilin was right to point out that the State of Israel is not a result of the Holocaust, but he is wrong when he says that "the state would not have been created without it." In terms of international law, and only mentioning this, the State of Israel was in the making for several decades, and might have emerged even earlier had the international community not been occupied for more than six years by the 2nd World War.

This connection between the Holocaust and the State of Israel serves the interests of certain specific group, first of all the Palestinian Arabs, who complain of “paying the bill” for the drama that happened in Europe with which they played no role in, or worse, who say that today they are the "victims of the victims" and nazify the State of Israel.

Beilin then falls into the trap of a number of Israelis who have short memories and attribute the creation of the State of Israel to the historical circumstances of the 19th century. Or that the State of Israel would not exist without the will of the United Nations.

To believe and to let others believe that the political renaissance of the Jewish people in this region is due only to anti-Semitism or the failed integration of European Jews is an insult to history and intelligence. If the State of Israel was a response to anti-Semitism, it could have been created anywhere. Beilin himself once wrote that his grandfather, a Russian Zionist delegate to the 6th Zionist Congress in Basel in 1903, had made a mistake by not voting in favor of the creation of the Jewish National Home in Uganda.

Curiously, during this particularly heated Congress, it was the Russian delegates who were the most concerned with the urgency of a solution to anti-Semitism and sat on the ground in a sign of mourning after Herzl's proposal to create a Jewish home, even temporarily, in the middle of Africa.

It is apparent that there was a more important aspect among the delegates than just physical survival: a distant voice telling them that the only place to which the Jews had to return ... was where they came from.

Beilin confuses law and historical circumstances, the former being the foundation, and the latter being only the dangers that allowed the realization at an opportune time. Beilin also demonstrated a singular historical amnesia when he wrote that "the Zionist aspiration to establish a Jewish state in Israel predated the Holocaust by a generation."

San Remo - The Forgotten Milestone

...Last but not least, San Remo marks the end of the longest colonization period in history. After 1,850 years of foreign occupation, oppression and banishment by a succession of foreign powers (Romans, Byzantines, Sassanid Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks and Ottoman Turks), the Nation of Israel was reborn in April 1920, thus paving the way for the proclamation of the State of Israel 28 years later. This liberation from foreign rule should normally be celebrated by all the progressive elites who have traditionally supported every national freedom movement. But it isn’t so, for reasons that defy reason.

Salomon Benzimra..
IsraelNationalNews.com..
26 April '15..

Ninety five years ago, prime ministers, ambassadors and other dignitaries from Europe and America gathered in the Italian Riviera. Journalists from around the world reported on the upcoming San Remo Peace Conference and the great expectations the international community placed on this event, just a year after the Paris Peace Conference had settled the political map of Europe at the end of World War One.

On Sunday, April 25, 1920, after hectic deliberation, the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. acting as an observer) adopted the San Remo Resolution -- a 500 word document which defined the future political landscape of the Middle East out of the defunct Ottoman Empire.

This Resolution led to the granting of three Mandates, as defined in Article 22 of the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations. The future states of Syria-Lebanon and Iraq emerged from two of these Mandates and became exclusively Arab countries. But in the third Mandate, the Supreme Council recognized the “historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” while safeguarding the “civil and religious rights” of the non-Jewish population.

Subsequently, the British limited the Jewish Homeland in Palestine to the area west of the Jordan River and allowed eastern Palestine to be gradually administered by the Hashemites. The territorial expansion to the east eventually gave birth to the Kingdom of Transjordan, later renamed Jordan in 1950.

The importance of the San Remo Conference with regard to Palestine cannot be overstated:

 - For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal and political entity;

 - The Jewish people were recognized as the national beneficiary of the trust granted to Britain in Palestine for the duration of the Mandate -- a “sacred trust of civilization” as per the League Covenant;

 - The Balfour Declaration of 1917 -- which “viewed with favour” the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine -- was now to be “put into effect”and thus became a binding act of international law;

 - The de jure sovereignty of Palestine was vested in the Jewish people, though it was kept in abeyance until the Mandate expired in 1948;

 - The terms of the San Remo Resolution were included in the Treaty of Sèvres and remained unchanged in the finally ratified Treaty of Lausanne of 1923.

 - The Arabs received equivalent national rights in all the remaining parts of the Middle East -- over 96% of the total area formerly governed by the Ottoman Turks).

Surprised? Israel simply isn’t one of the Arab world’s major problems anymore

...What the poll shows, in a nutshell, is that young Arabs have reached the same conclusion Arab leaders made glaringly evident at the last year’s inaugural session of the Abu Dhabi Strategic Debate: Israel simply isn’t one of the Arab world’s major problems anymore, if it ever was. Now all Israel needs is for the West to finally come to the same realization.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
24 April '15..

One of the most positive strategic developments for Israel of the past few years has been its marked improvement in relations with significant parts of the Arab world. Three years ago, for instance, the most cockeyed optimist wouldn’t have predicted a letter like Israel received this week from a senior official of the Free Syrian Army, who congratulated it on its 67th anniversary and voiced hope that next year, Israel’s Independence Day would be celebrated at an Israeli embassy in Damascus.

Yet many analysts have cautioned that even if Arab leaders were quietly cooperating with Israel for reasons of realpolitik, anti-Israel hostility in the “Arab street” hadn’t abated. So a new poll showing that this, too, is changing came as a lovely Independence Day gift.

The ASDA’A Burson-Marsteller Arab Youth Survey, which has been conducted annually for the last seven years, polls 3,500 Arabs aged 18 to 24 from 16 Arab countries in face-to-face interviews. One of the standard questions is “What do you believe is the biggest obstacle facing the Middle East?”

This year, defying a long tradition of blaming all the Arab world’s problems on Israel, only 23 percent of respondents cited the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the region’s main obstacle. In fact, the conflict came in fourth, trailing ISIS (37 percent), terrorism (32 percent) and unemployment (29 percent). Given that respondents were evidently allowed to choose more than one of the 15 options (the total adds up to 235 percent rather than 100), it’s even more noteworthy that only 23 percent thought the conflict worth mentioning.

A comparison to previous surveys shows that this figure has been declining slowly but steadily for the past few years: In 2012, for instance, it was 27 percent, a statistically significant difference given the poll’s margin of error (1.65 percent). But the 2015 decline is particularly remarkable because last summer’s war in Gaza made the past year the conflict’s bloodiest in decades for Palestinians. Hence one would have expected Arab concern about the conflict to increase. Instead, it dropped.

The new government’s greatest tasks by Caroline Glick

...The world has changed since 2009. America has changed. The Middle East has changed. Israel faces an array of challenges and threats it has never faced before. The next government must understand the dynamics of the situation and quickly forge policies based on the world as it is, not as it was or as we would like for it to be.

Caroline Glick..
CarolineGlick.com..
24 April '15..

In testimony last week before the House committee in charge of State Department funding, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power acknowledged that the Obama administration intends to abandon the US’s 50 year policy of supporting Israel at the United Nations.

After going through the tired motions of pledging support for Israel, “when it matters,” Power refused to rule out the possibility that the US would support anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council to limit Israeli sovereignty and control to the lands within the 1949 armistice lines – lines that are indefensible.

Such a move will be taken, she indicated, in order to midwife the establishment of a terrorist-supporting Palestinian state whose supposedly moderate leadership does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, calls daily for its destruction, and uses the UN to delegitimize the Jewish state.

In other words, the Obama administration intends to pin Israel into indefensible borders while establishing a state committed to its destruction.

In about a week, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s new government will be sworn in. The new government will have no grace period before it will be called upon to forge and implement policies to lead Israel through perhaps the most trying time in its history.

Clearly, developing the means to cope with our deteriorating relations with the US is one of the most urgent issues on the agenda. But it is not the only issue requiring the attention of our leaders.

Israel must quickly determine clear strategies for contending with the consequence of US’s strategic shift away from its allies: Iran’s nuclear project. It must also determine the principles that will guide its moves in contending with the regional instability engulfing or threatening to engulf our Arab neighbors.

As tempting as it may be to believe that all we need to do is wait out Obama, the fact is that we have no way of knowing how the US will behave once he has left office.

The Democratic Party has become far more radical under Obama’s leadership than it was before he came into office. Hillary Clinton may very well become the next president, particularly if Jeb Bush is the Republican nominee. And she has evinced no significant interest in moving the party back to the center.

As secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office, Clinton was a full partner in his foreign policy. Although she appears less ideologically driven than Obama, there are many indications that her basic world view is the same as his.

Moreover, the world has changed since 2009. The Middle East is far more volatile and lethal. The US military is far less capable than it was before Obama slashed its budgets, removed its most successful commanders and subjected its troops to morale-destroying mantras of diversity and apologetics for Islamic terrorism.

In light of these changed circumstances, there are in essence two major principles that should guide our leaders today. First, we need to reduce our strategic dependence on the US. Second, we need to expand our policy of openly and unapologetically making the case for our positions to the American public.

On the first score, the need to limit our dependence on US security guarantees became painfully obvious during Operation Protective Edge last summer.

Obama’s interference in military-to-military cooperation between the Defense Ministry and the Pentagon, and his decision to implement an unofficial arms embargo on Israel in the middle of a war, was a shocking rebuke to the powerful voices inside the IDF General Staff and in policy circles that Israel can and must continue to trust the US to back it up in crises.

Our need to limit our dependence on the US to the greatest practicable degree will have consequences on everything from our domestic military production and development industries to intelligence and operational cooperation with the US and other governments.

It is imperative as well that we develop a plan to wean ourselves off of US military aid within the next three-five years.

Netanyahu’s critics continue to attack him for his decision to abandon the longstanding policy of settling disputes with the US administration through quiet diplomacy. They blame Netanyahu’s decision to publicly air Israel’s opposition to Obama’s nuclear diplomacy for the crisis in relations. But they are confusing cause and effect. Netanyahu had no choice.

Obama has made clear through both word and deed that he is completely committed to a policy of reaching a détente with Iran by enabling Iran to join the nuclear club. He will not voluntarily abandon this policy, which his closest aides have acknowledged is the signature policy of his second term.

The Jewish State, Independence and Self-Defense

...No, we aren’t a protectorate. Not yet. But to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, the founders of the State of Israel gave us independence — if we can keep it.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
24 April '15..
http://abuyehuda.com/2015/04/independence-and-self-defense/

Today (Thursday)  is יום העצמאות, Independence Day, and I’m reading lots of articles about the significance of an independent Jewish state. “The meaning of independence in my view is, first of all, the ability to defend yourself,” said PM Netanyahu. On the other hand, left-wing journalist Nehemia Shtrasler doesn’t think that Israel is independent at all. “We are no more than an American protectorate,” he argues, because the US could stop selling us weapons and take steps to wreck our economy.

Shtrasler is wrong, because the fact that the US could destroy any country in the world if it cared to doesn’t mean that there are no independent countries. But he is correct that we are far too dependent on the US, something which is being made clear today as we face an unfriendly — arguably, even antisemitic — administration in Washington.

Netanyahu is right that independence requires the capability of self-defense, but of course that is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. It is also necessary to have the will to use your capabilities, which in turn depends on the conviction that you are morally justified in doing what is necessary to defend yourself.

This is precisely what is being attacked when Israel is delegitimized and demonized by anti-Zionist groups, NGOs and media. They say that Israel stole its land from the rightful “Palestinian” owners, and that it has neither the legal or moral right to possess it. We are told that Israel’s birth was facilitated by the commission of crimes against humanity, that Israel has continued to commit war crimes in its wars, which are portrayed as offensive and genocidal instead of defensive. Recently, even the pretense that it is only Israel’s presence in the territories that is illegitimate is being abandoned. Every inch of our country is contested.

The so-called “Palestinian narrative” is an example of the Big Lie technique, in which facts and history are inverted and the inversions repeated so often that they become conventional wisdom. ‘Inversion’ is a good word, because it really does turn the truth upside down. In fact, it was Arabs who perpetrated ethnic cleansing and massacres during Israel’s war of Independence, and it is the Jewish people who are truly indigenous to the land of Israel. It is the “Palestinians” who wish to establish an apartheid state, and it is they who target noncombatants and particularly children.

Unfortunately these big lies are effective, even — especially — in Israel, where one would expect that the truth would be more likely to prevail. The myths have become deeply ingrained, even in some of our politicians, even if they don’t realize that they are touched by them.

Self-defense sometimes means deterrence, but sometimes it means war. A political leader or officer in time of war must be able to justify extraordinary actions, actions that he knows will kill people. Some of them will be innocent noncombatants, no matter how careful an army is and how restrictive the rules of engagement — and Israel is very, very careful. Some of them will be our own children, husbands or fathers. Can someone who doesn’t truly believe that his cause is just take such actions?

Confidence in one’s moral and legal position is also required in less lethal pursuits, like diplomacy. Consider the negotiations with the PLO. As I think I’ve written before, the idea of land swaps for settlement blocs implies that the land across the Green Line ‘belongs’ to the Arabs. But anyone who knows the history knows that the Palestine Mandate was intended to provide a national home for the Jewish people, and that the Green Line was agreed by both sides to be nothing more than an armistice line with no political significance. So how did we get the idea that it separates Israel from “Arab land?”

One of the things that distinguishes a protectorate or satellite from an independent nation is that an independent nation has an independent foreign policy and doesn’t simply parrot the party line of its patron. I think this is a good starting point for improving relations with the US: we should try to educate the administration, to the extent that it is possible, about the true legal and historical facts about the State of Israel.

In effect, we need to make a ‘diplomatic declaration of independence’ from the US. Such a declaration would be an important step in reducing our overall dependence on it — and also in improving our ability to defend ourselves. Of course, in order to do this we will need to educate ourselves first, to extirpate the crippling guilt complex that our enemies have succeeded in creating.

One concrete step would be to officially adopt the Levy Commission Report of 2012. The commission, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, examined the legal status of the Israeli presence in the territories and concluded that according to international law, Israel is not an occupying power, and the 4th Geneva Convention — the usual basis for the argument that “settlements are illegal” — does not apply. The government took no action on the report. It should.

PM Netanyahu’s statement that there would be no two-state solution in the near future was a breath of fresh air, despite the fact that Obama seized upon it as an excuse to distance the US from Israel. The interminable pointless negotiations with the PLO/PA only served to provide leverage to extract concessions from Israel without any promise of reaching an agreement. As for Obama’s reaction, if Netanyahu hadn’t said it, he would have found another excuse to do what he was determined to do.