Love of the Land: January 2018

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Not Letting the ‘What Ifs’ Scare Us - by Douglas Altabef‏

...As we approach our auspicious anniversary of freedom, let us embrace the willingness to make our own destiny, to seize opportunities designed to advance our interests, and to act with the conviction that our success should not be a source of embarrassment nor doubt.

Douglas Altabef‏..
Algemeiner.com..
30 January '18..

These are exciting times in Israel — economically, militarily and diplomatically. Yet, no matter how successful we might be on a certain front, there will be those want to ignore the good things, and point to the inevitable negative consequences that will come of that success.

Two current examples of life in Israel exemplify this syndrome. The first is the, “okay so Trump likes us, but who knows what will come after him” anxiety condition. The second is the widespread fear that “all those Christian Evangelical Zionists are really just out to convert us.”

In the first case, we are warned that identifying with the supportive policies of a polarizing US president could be held against us by his successor.

This, of course, presupposes that we know his successor will seek to reverse whatever support the Trump administration has provided to Israel. It also makes the mistake of thinking we can predict the future.

In the second case, there is a focus on the possible downside of what is currently and foreseeably a highly beneficial posture and very supportive behavior.

What are we to do with this mindset? To me, it is one of those residuals of the galut (exile) mentality. The presumption is that things are destined to go badly, and so why bring that upon ourselves? Better to keep our heads down, not attract too much attention (or support for that matter), and just hope that everything passes us by without too much impact.

(Continue 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.

Expelling Illegal Infiltrators from Israel – Both Legal and Moral - by Dr. Refael Minnes

Israel, like any sovereign country in the world, has the right to determine who may enter its borders and is authorized to remove unwanted violators of its borders from its territory

Dr. Refael Minnes..
MiDA..
30 January '18..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/01/30/expelling-illegal-infiltrators-israel-legal-moral/

The problem of infiltration from Africa to Israel has been on the public agenda for more than a decade, yet the main preoccupation and public debate on the subject is suffering from a considerable amount of misinformation.

The infiltration of Israel’s borders began as a trickle already at the end of the 1990s. The floodgates opened in 2007 and was halted only in 2012 when construction of the fence along the Egyptian border was completed.

According to publications of the Population and Immigration Authority, as of October 2017, there are approximately 38,000 registered infiltrators in Israel, not including children of infiltrators who were born in Israel. 99% of them are African citizens, of whom 72% are Eritreans and 20% are Sudanese.

While the Israeli government invested heavily in building the fence on the southern border, very little was done to solve the problem of the infiltrators who had already entered the country.

The government of Israel struggled for years with the High Court of Justice over ways to deal with the infiltrators. This included, inter alia, the disqualification of the Knesset’s primary legislation by the Supreme Court. The government then reached agreements with African countries who would absorb the infiltrators after they left Israel.

Following this decision, several petitions were published calling for the deportation to be prevented, with the main argument being that the deportation is immoral. In all the petitions, the parallel to the situation of the Jewish refugees during World War II also appears.

Before examining the moral aspect of the removal of the infiltrators, lets review the legal aspect.

An infiltrator is defined as anyone who enters the borders of the state illegally. For our purposes, we will refer only to infiltrators through the Egyptian border.

An infiltrator can apply for asylum in Israel and his status will then change to an asylum seeker. As long as he has not submitted such a request, he is officially defined as an infiltrator.

The Israeli authorities are supposed to discuss the asylum application and if it is accepted, the status of the refugee will change. This is only in accordance with the state’s decision, which grants the status of the refugee. The status of a refugee is not granted to any person without an official decision of the state. In any case, no person is entitled to such status under any other definition.

A refugee is defined in Article I of the 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees as a person who is an alien from his country and “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

However, the Convention does not establish procedures for regulating the status of refugee and leaves this for the determination of the signatory states.

In other words, according to the Convention, the State of Israel alone has the power to determine the legal status of asylum seekers, and who among asylum seekers meets the definition of a refugee.

In any case, it is clear by definition that those who emigrate for economic reasons – as severe as they may be – are not entitled to refugee status. This is true as well for those who emigrate due to deprivation of liberty suffered by all citizens of their country, such as forced military service.

Moreover, according to international law, the Refugee Convention does not impose on the signatory countries the absorption of refugees, and the most important principle is the prohibition against expelling them to the state from which they fled.

It is therefore important to note that the vast majority of infiltrators from Africa to Israel are migrant workers and not refugees.

The UN Agency that Creates Palestinian Refugees - by Pierre Rehov

...In seven decades, the small humanitarian agency has become a monster. UNRWA now has responsibility for more than five million souls, of which only some 20,000 should be considered refugees according to the definition of the UN, which applies to millions of exiles around the world... with the intriguing exception of Palestinians.

Pierre Rehov..
Gatestone Institute..
29 January '18..

In the context of announced budget cuts, the US administration recently announced that it will drastically reduce its financial support of UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley wanted the outright cancellation of the $364 million allocated each year to the UN agency, as long as it did not implement reforms and transparency, but US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was for the time being content to halve the first tranche of aid, originally set at $125 million.

At the heart of this case is the desire of US President Donald Trump to stop financing any agency or international organization that does not reflect American interests. There is also, however, a 180-degree turn on the US position in the Arab-Israeli conflict by the new administration. It seems determined not to make the same mistakes -- and fall into the same traps -- as previous administrations.

First, what is UNRWA?

(Continue to Full Post)

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Visited the rest of Hebron? Two messages for Michelle Goldberg @michelleinbklyn, @NYTimes writer - by Elder of Ziyon

Goldberg's knowledge of the facts is not based on first hand knowledge, but on anti-Israel propaganda that she uses to choose her facts. Which is pretty much how the New York Times works to begin with.

Elder of Ziyon..
29 January '18..

Recently, Bill Maher had on his program defended Donald Trump's acceptance of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. A freewheeling discussion followed, and Maher's main detractor was Michelle Goldberg, a writer for the New York Times.

Here is one part:

BILL MAHER, HBO: Okay, while we're near the Middle East let me ask about a big story that happened while we were off in December. Donald Trump: 'Today we finally acknowledge the obvious that Jerusalem is Israel's capital.' He said that Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like any other sovereign nation to determine its own capital.

I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but it doesn't happen often, but I do. I don't know why Israel -- it has been their capital since 1949, it is where their government is. They've won all the wars thrown against them. I don't understand why they don't get to have their capital where they want.

MICHELLE GOLDBERG, NEW YORK TIMES: Really, you don't understand that?

MAHER: I understand there are repercussions.

GOLDBERG: First of all, when you win a war you don't get to take the other side's land.

RICK WILSON: Actually, you do.

MAHER: Actually, you do.

GOLDBERG: Under international law, you can't.

MAHER: Especially because they were attacked.

Maher is mostly correct. Professor Eugene Konotorovich has looked at international law manuals written before 1967 and found that at least half of them said that acquisition of territory in a defensive war is legal.

The idea is logical - if it was illegal to acquire territory in self-defense, then attackers who don't care about international law have no disincentive to attack another nation again and again until they defeat them. Especially a nation that has no defensive depth to speak of.

While Goldberg might be able to find a legal interpretation that says that it is illegal, she would have a hard time finding places where such a law has actually been applied.

(Continue to Full Post)

Freeing unrepentant terrorists and the horrors it has brought - by Arnold Roth

Shragai doesn't mention her but Ahlam Tamimi deserves a place in the gallery of monsters...The strikingly undeserved peace and quiet she has found in Jordan despite (thanks to the Hashemite regime...) being on the run from the FBI is one of the many reasons we hold, and will continue to express, strongly critical opinions about the process that handed her freedom back to her and to many hundreds of additional loathsome murderers.

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
29 January '18..

We haven't been shy about expressing the deeply negative feelings we have for the catastrophic 2011 Shalit Deal and for the decision-making and consultation with members of the community of victims of terror (of which there was none) that led Israel's government to enter into it.

Before the October 2011 mass release, we said this:

“This deal is a disaster,” he [Arnold Roth] said of the exchange for the Israeli soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit, as he sat with his wife, Frimet, on the balcony of their Jerusalem apartment. “Some of these people will go back to murdering. They pose an existential threat to all of us” ... “This is not a political issue for us,” he said. “I am not some raving right-winger. We too share the joy of the Shalit family. But the victims are being marginalized. We object on principle. We see ourselves as agents of the children who will be killed by the graduates of this release.” ["In Israel, Swap Touches Old Wounds", Ethan Broner in the New York Times, October 14, 2011]

and

"...She's got a life [referring to Ahlam Tamimi, mastermind of the Sbarro massacre] that's being handed back to her as a result of this transaction... Many hundreds of convicted murderers are going to be released for no other reason that the Government of Israel saw no alternative. Obviously, everyone in this country is delighted if this is going to produce a healthy and well Gilad Shalit, but that's not the whole deal - and the parts of the deal that involve allowing terrorists back on the streets are a recipe for a terrible outcome." [Arnold Roth interviewed on Lateline/Australia's ABC, October 13, 2011]

and

(Continue to Full Post)

Europe’s “Human Rights” Persecution of Israel - by Daniel Krygier

The Holocaust made it impossible for Europeans to associate with antisemitism. Instead, much of post-colonial Europe embraces Jew-hatred in the name of anti-Zionism and “human rights”.

Daniel Krygier..
MiDA..
29 January '18..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/01/29/europes-human-rights-persecution-israel/

The Council of Europe sees itself as a beacon of democracy and human rights. However, when it comes to the Jewish state of Israel, it systematically sides with totalitarian and genocidal Middle Eastern forces that seek to extinguish those fundamental rights for the Jewish people.

The Council of Europe’s rejection of President Trump’s recognition of Israel’s capital Jerusalem is not merely a policy disagreement. It is a rejection of the reborn Jewish state’s fundamental right to choose its capital like any other independent nation. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish nation long before the emergence of European states and is today the thriving capital of modern Israel. It is not Europe’s business to meddle regarding the location of Israel’s capital and where the United States decides to move its embassy.

The Council of Europe had the audacity to state that “….Jerusalem could well become the capital of both the State of Israel and the future Palestinian State, as a result of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.”

This statement brings this key European body to Orwellian territory by creating a false symmetry between reality and fiction, between a reborn Jewish state of Israel that exists and an Arab state that never existed and still does not exist. It also ignores the fact that Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other nation than the Jewish people.

Israel’s late liberal Foreign minister Abba Eban would not have felt at home among today’s self-appointed European “liberals”:

“Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist’…..There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ‘right to exist’ a favor, or a negotiable concession.”

This also applies to Israel’s capital. Any European diplomat visiting Israel wishing to meet its leadership, travels to Jerusalem, the seat of Israel’s government, parliament, Supreme Court and most ministries.

This key European assembly’s hypocrisy against Israel knows no boundaries.

“It also regrets the ongoing building of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, thus undermining the feasibility of the two-State solution.”

This European neo-colonial statement reprimands the indigenous Jews for living in their ancient capital Jerusalem while unilaterally declaring “East Jerusalem” as “occupied”. “Occupied” from whom? From Jordan that illegally occupied Jerusalem’s old city from 1948 until 1967? From PLO that never controlled any part of Jerusalem and was busy “liberating” the Jewish state within the green line with numerous terror attacks from Tel Aviv to Haifa and beyond?

Monday, January 29, 2018

Question: Should African migrants be allowed to stay in Israel? - by Vic Rosenthal

Life isn’t easy in Africa, but lately it isn’t so easy in South Tel Aviv either. The latter is Israel’s responsibility. The former isn’t.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
28 January '18..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2018/01/should-african-migrants-be-allowed-to-stay-in-israel/

The subject of illegal African migrants in Israel has become a hot-button issue, with every imaginable group from human-rights organizations to the rabbis of the Conservative movement in America weighing in with advice for how Israel should deal with them.

I’ve chosen ‘migrants’ as the most neutral word. They are called everything from ‘infiltrators’ to ‘asylum-seekers’ to ‘refugees’, depending on the attitude the speaker has toward them.

First, here are some facts:

- There are 37,885 individuals considered ‘infiltrators’ living in Israel (Hebrew link to Israel Population and Immigration Authority). ‘Infiltrator’ in this context is defined as “a foreigner who entered Israel illegally via the Egyptian border.”
- 27,018 came from Eritrea, 7731 from Sudan, 2651 from various other African countries, and 485 from the rest of the world. They are mostly Christian and Muslim (I don’t know the breakdown among those in Israel, but about 63% of Eritreans are Christian).
- They began coming in the early 2000s, but since the completion of the border fence between Israel and Egypt, the flow decreased to a trickle. In 2017, the number was essentially zero.
Israel has diplomatic relations with Eritrea, but not with Sudan. Both countries have extremely poor human rights records.
- There are approximately 74,000 tourists who have overstayed their visas in Israel, 69% of whom are from the former Soviet Union, and the rest from various other places. This post is not concerned with them.
- Most of the migrants live in South Tel Aviv, although some of them can be found in Eilat, Bat Yam, Jerusalem and other places. Many work in menial jobs in restaurants, etc.

The Eritean and Sudanese migrants cannot be deported to their home countries, because – among other things – they could be conscripted into the military, prosecuted for visiting Israel (considered a belligerent country in Sudan), and so forth. Israel has made agreements with several third countries, presumably Rwanda and Uganda, to accept those migrants who agree to go there “of their free will.” Israel will pay each of the migrants who leave $3500, and will also pay something to the countries to which they go. The latest version of Israel’s law governing illegal migrants makes it difficult to work and even allows them to be jailed if they don’t agree to leave, making the “free will” stipulation somewhat moot.

Many of the migrants and the NGOs and other groups that support them say that they are refugees and have a right to asylum in Israel. By international law, a refugee is

…an individual who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

If a person enters another country, he or she may seek to be recognized as a refugee and to receive asylum, that is, permission for that person and immediate relatives to reside in the country. The decision to grant asylum or not is up to each country, and may depend on other factors than refugee status; for example, a criminal or a person who represents a security threat may not receive asylum. Even if asylum isn’t granted, the asylum-seeker may have other rights, such as not to be deported to a country where he or she would be tortured.

Those who leave a country to seek economic opportunity or for any reason other than “a well-founded fear of persecution” are not considered refugees. The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) refers to the African migration to Israel as a “mixed migration,” i.e., of economic migrants and true refugees.

Two vice presidential visits to Israel, but as different as night and day. - by Stephen M. Flatow

Watching Pence’s address, I could not help but recall the very different actions of the last vice president who visited Israel.

Stephen M. Flatow..
JNS.org..
28 January '18..

Anybody who watched Vice President Mike Pence’s address to the Knesset had to be deeply impressed by his heartfelt solidarity with Israel. His repeated pledges of support for the Jewish state were authentic and unwavering.

On Nov. 10, 2016, Vice President Joe Biden (left) meets with then Vice President-elect Mike Pence at the White House. Credit: Office of the Vice President of the United States.
Unlike the previous president, who seemed to think the Jews took an interest in Eretz Yisrael only because of the Holocaust, Pence did not shy away from affirming the Jewish people’s ancient ties to the land of Israel.

“It was the faith of the Jewish people that gathered the scattered fragments of a people and made them whole again, that took the language of the Bible and the landscape of the Psalms and made them live again,” Pence said. “And it was faith that rebuilt the ruins of Jerusalem and made them strong again. The miracle of Israel is an inspiration to the world. And the United States of America is proud to stand with Israel and her people, as allies and cherished friends.”

Watching Pence’s address, I could not help but recall the very different actions of the last vice president who visited Israel.

Joe Biden visited Israel in March 2010. Almost exactly at the moment Biden was speaking at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “somebody” leaked to the press that the Israeli government supposedly had just announced plans to build 1,600 Jewish homes in “occupied East Jerusalem.”

(Continue to Full Post)

Stephen M. Flatow, a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, is an attorney in New Jersey. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

The EU’s Most Precious Terrorist - by Judith Bergman

While moral narcissism might make Europe feel good about itself, continuing to side with Abbas against Israel and the US places it solidly on the wrong side of history as usual

Judith Bergman..
MiDA..
28 January '18..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/01/28/eus-precious-terrorist/

When US Vice President Mike Pence visited Israel last week, PA President Mahmoud Abbas chose to flee to Brussels to be with the European leadership that continues to stand by its favorite Arab terrorist in the manner of the sea captain, who refuses to abandon his beloved ship, even as it is sinking fast.

In the parallel reality that the leaders of the EU inhabit, Abbas was received as a grand statesman, instead of the utterly corrupt arch-terrorist parading as president of a state that does not exist and never has.

The EU foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, planted tender kisses of affection on the aging terrorist criminal’s cheeks, before she went straight to the podium to reassure the professional Holocaust denier of the EU’s completely committed and continued support, including financial support. Mogherini continued to brag that, “the EU and its member states are collectively by far the largest donor, the largest supporter of the Palestinians and our support will continue, including to UNRWA…” Despite this massive support, she announced that the EU is looking into ways to strengthen its support even more. Mogherini also stressed the opposition of the EU to Israeli “settlement activity”, which the EU considers “illegal under international law”.

She never mentioned the lethal terrorism that Abbas continues to instigate and richly reward with the EU funds that Mogherini is so proud of pouring into the black hole of terrorism and corruption that is the PA and UNRWA on behalf of European citizens, who continue to put up with the misappropriation of their tax money. It seems that the EU views Abbas’s jihadist terrorism as legal under international law, because it is seen as legitimate ‘resistance’ against the Jews.

For over a decade, this kind of ‘resistance’ has ricocheted right back into Europe in the form of first Al Qaeda terrorist attacks and later ISIS atrocities. Because when you choose to kiss a terrorist frog, as Mogherini seems to enjoy doing, instead of turning into a prince, it just might detonate in your face instead.

Nevertheless, political figures such as Mogherini, cushioned as they are from reality by private chauffeurs and rosters of bodyguards, appear entirely unfazed by the surge of jihadist terrorism in Europe.

In fact, less than a year before jihad struck at the very heart of the EU with the ISIS attacks on Brussels airport and the Brussels Maalbeek metro station in March 2016, Mogherini opined that, “The idea of a clash between Islam and ‘the West’… has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.”

Actually, as willfully blind and hopelessly politically correct, as that statement was, the way things are going in Europe, in the foreseeable future it will be far more correct to claim that Europe belongs to Islam.

Despite the very direct way in which the EU continues to support Abbas’s enduring struggle to destroy the Jewish state, the EU sanctimoniously continues to wallow in commemorations of the Jews that Europe killed in the Holocaust on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. There is a very nauseating aspect to the International Holocaust Remembrance Day commemorations in Europe, when that same continent is by far the greatest sponsor of the terrorist entity of the PA. Why bother to commemorate the dead Jews of the Shoah, when you are sponsoring Arab terrorists to perform the same job?

Sunday, January 28, 2018

Question - Will Israel Be Like Rosie The Riveter Or Harold Schultz? - by Sheri Oz

...We in Israel are very familiar with the Woozle effect. We may not have called it that. But we know it well.

Sheri Oz..
Israel Diaries..
25 January '18..

Identity replacement, whether individual or national, can be accidental or purposeful. Sometimes it can be corrected in time. Sometimes it may be too late.

Geraldine Hoff Doyle, who many believed to have been the woman featured in J. Howard Miller’s famous historic poster, did not know she was not the real Rosie the Riveter. However, the real Rosie, Naomi Parker Fraley, did know the truth, and nobody would listen to her.

Harold Schultz was the Marine in the famous Iwo Jima photo by Joe Rosenthal, and not James Bradley. The Marines knew of their error. Many history buffs knew of the error. But the truth was not officially acknowledged until 20 years after Schultz’s death.

I am sure that it does not matter to very many people whether the name behind the face and muscular arm is Geraldine or Naomi. But it did matter to Naomi. And it mattered enough to one investigative journalist — James J. Kimble spent six years following a hunch. He uncovered the truth, in his eulogy to Fraley he reflected on the dangers of journalism that no longer investigates, and news consumers who swallow stories whole without question:

The story of Fraley’s discovery is a valuable but cautionary tale. It can tell us much about the 24-hour news cycle, our culture’s need to feed the media beast and what happens to the people behind the stories we consume without questioning.

Birth of an instance of Identity Replacement

Let us see how this is relevant regarding contemporary Israel. Kimble writes:

Most people thought they already knew who that face belonged to: a Michigan woman named Geraldine Hoff Doyle. Her proof was a familiar wire service photograph.

And I think we can safely say that most people think they know to whom the land of Israel, or at least the so-called West Bank (Judea & Samaria) really belongs: to a so-called Palestinian people. This oft-used map that totally distorts the truth is one kind of “proof” offered; but who bothers to read the arguments against this propaganda sleight of hand?

(Continue to Full Post)

Surprise? New poll shows Palestinian Arabs don't want peace, under ANY circumstances - by Elder of Ziyon

...These polls dance around the real feelings of the Palestinians because the answers would far more explicitly show that they have no desire for a real, permanent peace with Israel. Yet one only has to look at these (unpublicized) results from the poll to see that this is exactly what they feel. Don't expect the media to notice, though.

Elder of Ziyon..
26 January '18..

A joint poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research (TSC), Tel Aviv University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that Palestinians are against any possible solution to the conflict.

Their press release doesn't say it, but the poll itself does.

A series of options are given to Palestinians:

Mutual recognition of Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples. The agreement will mark the end of conflict, Israel will fight terror against Palestinians, and no further claims will be made by either side. 56.9% oppose.

The independent Palestinian state which will be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will be demilitarized (no heavy weaponry) 77.4% oppose

A multinational force will be established and deployed in the Palestinian state to ensure the security and safety of both sides. Support or oppose? 60.5% oppose

The Palestinian state will have sovereignty over its air space, its land, and its water resources, but...

(Continue to Full Post)

NY Times Editorial Condemning Pence Israel Trip Tells Its Own Sad Tale - by Ira Stoll

Not much has changed in the warmth of the US-Israel relationship, as the remarkable similarities and consistencies between the Gore and Pence speeches demonstrate. What has changed is the Times. The newspaper is, alas, more hostile than ever to that special relationship, more determined to rip asunder what Gore called eternal ties and what Pence called “an unshakeable bond between our people.”

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
25 January '18..

The American vice president flies to Israel, meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and gives a speech speaking of the parallels between Israel and America. The speech is full of Hebrew and biblical references.

Vice President Mike Pence this week? Well, yes. But Vice President Al Gore did pretty much the same thing in 1998.

The big difference is how The New York Times covered the two events.

The Times greeted Vice President Pence’s trip with a sharply critical editorial headlined “Mike Pence’s Self-Serving Trip to the Holy Land.”

The Times editorial complained that Pence’s address “was replete with biblical references to Jewish ties to the Holy Land. He referred to God’s promise to the Jews that ‘he would gather and bring you back to the land which your fathers possessed’ and to ‘the Jewish people’s unbreakable bond to’ Jerusalem.”

The Times editorial went on, “Even more striking was what Mr. Pence didn’t say. He mostly chose to ignore Israelis’ shared history with the Palestinians, only reaffirming support for a two-state solution ‘if both sides agree.’”

In fact a careful reading of Pence’s speech discloses that, contrary to the false claim by the Times, the vice president did not ignore, or even “mostly chose to ignore,” the Palestinians.

(Continue to Full Post)

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Van Esveld, Human Rights Watch and Superficiality in the Service of Violence - by Maurice Hirsch

...HRW has long exploited the issue of child rights to bash Israel, deliberately misleading its readers about the Israeli justice system and ignoring Palestinian incitement and the weaponization of children. Van Esveld should be well aware that promoting this HRW campaign is no way to treat a child.

Maurice Hirsch..
Blog/Times of Israel..
17 January '18..
Link: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/human-rights-watch-superficiality-in-the-service-of-violence/

Should a 16-year old minor, indicted for three counts of assault, slingshotting stones at law enforcement officers, and calling for the commission of terrorist attacks including suicide bombings, be released on bail?

A blog published by Bill Van Esveld, Senior Researcher in the Children’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch (HRW), does just that (Israeli Prosecutors Throw Book at Palestinian Child Protestor, HRW Dispatches, January 14, 2018). Van Esveld throws the full weight of this NGO superpower behind a violent child offender, filmed by her mother and streamed live on social media, engaging in assault and incitement.

In the blog, he argues that the only possible outcome of the bail hearing regarding Ahed Tamimi, a 16-year old Palestinian, is to release her. By his account, any other decision would merely point to the inherent discrimination of the Israeli justice system.

In order to reach this outrageous conclusion, Van Esveld attempts to employ legalese that perverts reality and morality, and relies on his presumed ignorance of his readers. This is the same HRW employee who told Al Jazeera, “There’s really no reason why you have to arrest a young child in the first place and detain them,” apparently oblivious to the numerous incidents of minors committing murders and other acts of violent terrorism.

Importantly, Van Esveld conveniently omits that the court was prepared to conduct a bail hearing immediately after the submission of the indictment on January 1, 2018, but it was Tamimi’s own attorney, Gaby Lasky, who twice asked for delays resulting in the postponement of the hearing until January 15.

Van Esveld argues that “the military court should base its decision on one criterion: whether the further detention of Ahed Tamimi, a child, is necessary as a measure of last resort, the standard international law requires.” He adds, “The reasons to grant bail are straightforward. Ahed has never been indicted before, and hardly poses a serious security or flight risk.”

In these two statements, Van Esveld, completely misrepresents the way juvenile justice works in all Western countries.

Friday, January 26, 2018

The Atlantic Breaks the Media Silence on Abbas - by Gilead Ini

...It shouldn't take The Atlantic to lead the way, certainly not this late in the game. News reporters should have understood, from the day President Abbas began his four year term thirteen years ago, that their job is not to protect the Palestinian leader, nor to promote the idea that, through his unvarnished moderation, Abbas is walking evidence of Israeli responsibility for the continuation of the conflict. Coverage of Abbas's role in fomenting hate has been all too scarce. But if a venerated American magazine can do it, there may be hope for the rest.

Gilead Ini..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
24 January '18..

So it is possible. There's no cosmic force, no unbreachable journalistic rule, preventing mainstream American publications from focusing on Mahmoud Abbas's indiscretions. We know it because The Atlantic did just that, and nothing happened, other than the expected: Readers were told what the Palestinian president said, and ended up more fully informed about the man and the conflict he has failed to resolve.

Forthright reporting on Abbas shouldn't be so hard. But too many in the media have struggled with the task. The ugliest of utterances from his mouth have been concealed by those tasked with reporting on them — those same journalists who otherwise seem to believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is the epicenter of world news. So when Abbas recently said, in reference to Jews, that there is "no one better at falsifying history or religion than them," citing God himself to substantiate the anti-Semitic libel, the media silence was deafening.

The New York Times covered the Dec. 13, 2017 meeting at which Abbas made the statement, but decided the anti-Semitism by a head of state wasn't news fit to print.

The Times wasn't alone. The Washington Post, Associated Press, NPR, Reuters, and BBC, were likewise mum about Abbas's recitation of anti-Jewish verses from the Koran, which he used to make the point that Jews falsify the scriptures and history.

A month later, the news media powerhouses were given a second chance. On Jan. 14, 2018, Abbas again took the podium, and again spewed vitriol about his Jewish neighbors in Israel. Aside from pronouncing the death of the Oslo peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, he rejected the Jewish connection to Israel — “it has nothing to do with Judaism” — and denied the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in the country, offering wild conspiracy theories to explain to his Palestinian audience why the Jews are there in the first place.

Among the fabrications: Abbas claimed that Oliver Cromwell, a 17th century English leader who was sympathetic to the idea of readmitting Jews to England, in fact hatched a conspiracy to ship European Jews to the Middle East. He maintained that Jews weren't persecuted in Europe because their religion, but rather due to their “social function.” He insisted early Zionist leader Theodor Herzl coined the slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land” to convey his supposed desire to “erase the Palestinians from Palestine.” He described a “secret meeting” of European leaders in the early 1900s who, fearing the Arab world was poised to inherit European civilization, devised a plan to sow infighting to prevent the dreaded inheritance. The expulsion and flight of Jews from the Arab world, Abbas insisted, was all part of a scheme by Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion.

(Continue to Full Post)

Yes - Abbas Does Support Anyone Who Uses Weapons! - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

...There's a dispute among Arabists if Abbas' remark that "If you have weapons, go ahead. I'm with you, and I will help you. Anyone who has weapons can go ahead" was a cynical remark rather than a serious statement. They note that in the same remarks, Abbas said he supports only "peaceful popular resistance" - which is Arabic for trying to murder people "only" with fire bombs and rocks.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
25 January '18..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73063

"Whoever has [weapons] - go ahead and do it. I say this out in the open. If you have weapons, go ahead. I'm with you, and I will help you. Anyone who has weapons can go ahead."

...The Americans are always telling us that we must stop paying salaries to the families of the martyrs and the prisoners. We categorically reject this demand. Under no circumstances will we allow the families of the martyrs, the wounded, and the prisoners to be harmed. These are our children, our families. We are proud of them, and we will pay them before we pay the living.
Mahmoud Abbas to the PLO Central Council, January 14, 2018
[Thanks to MEMRI for the translation]

There's a dispute among Arabists if Abbas' remark that "If you have weapons, go ahead. I'm with you, and I will help you. Anyone who has weapons can go ahead" was a cynical remark rather than a serious statement.

They note that in the same remarks, Abbas said he supports only "peaceful popular resistance" - which is Arabic for trying to murder people "only" with fire bombs and rocks.

But that's not the point.

Actually the stats defy the BBC’s repeated portrayal of a ‘siege’ on Gaza - by Hadar Sela

...in 2017 there was a rise of 15% in the amount of goods transported and in the number of people using the various crossings to the Gaza Strip and Judea & Samaria administered by the authority, with 15 million crossings by Palestinians recorded. Obviously a media organisation seriously committed to accurate and impartial reporting would not portray, or facilitate portrayal of, 160,000 truckloads of supplies in one year as a “siege”. The BBC, however, continues to do just that.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
25 January '18..

When, in the summer of 2014, the BBC began describing the counter-terrorism measures employed by Israel along its border with the Gaza Strip as a “siege” we noted that the definition of that term is “a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender” and commented:

“A besieging army does not ensure and facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid including food and medical supplies to those it surrounds. It does not supply them with 50% of their electricity supply, with oil and diesel or with cooking gas. It does not help them export their produce and give their farmers agricultural training. It does not evacuate their sick and treat them […] in its own hospitals.”

The use of that inaccurate terminology is however still evident in BBC content – both by unchallenged interviewees and by BBC journalists. For example:

(Continue to Full Post)

Thursday, January 25, 2018

The “Palestinians” are not the victims of colonialism. They are its perpetrators. - by Daniel Greenfield

...“Palestine” is a twisted colonial fiction. The name reflects Greek colonization of the region. And its use by the modern Islamic colonists shows their lack of any actual historical connection to Israel. After all the agonized wailing about the deeply meaningful “Palestinian” connection to “Palestine”, they still haven’t come up with their own name for the place.

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
24 January '18..

Palestinian boss Mahmoud Abbas recently declared that Israel is "a colonial enterprise that has nothing to do with Jewishness". Moses, King David and thousands of years of Jewish history would disagree. Israel and the Jews are part of the story of human civilization. Over 50% of the human race has a holy book that tells of the Jewish journey to Israel. That includes Mohammed’s own copy of the Koran.

Israel isn’t a “colonial enterprise”. Palestine is.

Anyone who wants to find out where the name Israel comes from can open the Book of Genesis 32:29. The story even appears in Islamic hadiths. But where does “Palestine” really come from?

Palestine isn’t a Hebrew or Arabic word. The Greeks used it to describe the area. And when the Romans and their Arab mercenaries repressed the indigenous Jewish population, they renamed it all Palestine.

Palestine, after the Philistines: but why did the Greeks and Romans name the area after the Philistines?

The Philistines were one of the Greek origin sea peoples who had originally invaded and colonized the area. The Jewish resistance to Philistine colonialism is chronicled in the histories of Samson, King Saul and King David. It was natural for the Greek and Roman colonies that the Jews of the Second Temple era clashed with to use “Palestine”, the name associated with earlier colonies, to refer to their new colonies.

That latest phase of Greek colonialism led to an extended conflict between the Persian Empire and Greco-Roman civilization. The Romans made extended use of Arab mercenaries and rulers to secure their dominions. One such ruler was Herod, the son of an Idumean father and a Nabatean Arab mother, (according to the Greek historian Strabo they were both Arabic peoples), who repressed the Jews.

The eventual decline and fall of the Roman and Persian empires made way for the Islamic conquests of the region. But the Islamic bandit hordes had no original ideas. Their religion was a hodgepodge of Judaism, Christianity, assorted pagan beliefs and Mohammed’s violent fantasies. The rest of their culture they took wholesale from the Greeks. This game of historical Idiocracy ended with a collection of Arab colonists who call themselves “Palestinians” and claim to be descended from… somebody.

(Continue to Full Post)

CNN's serious error in relying on a congenital propagandist for commentary about Israel - by Dexter Van Zile

...The problem is not just with CNN, but with Catholic leaders who failed to hold him to account over the years. The fact that he served seven years as International President of Pax Christi and as Patriarch of the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem from 1987 to 2008 is, in light of his public statements, a shock.

Dexter Van Zile..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
23 January '18..

Vice President Mike Pence's recent visit to Jerusalem provided an opportunity for the anti-Israel Christians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to run for the cameras and tell everyone how bad Israel is.

In a now all-too-predictable turn of events, a Christian “leader” who has little, if any influence on life in Palestinian society, was recently portrayed as a credible source of information about the Arab-Israeli conflict by journalists in the United States.

The Christian in question is the former Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, who has made a career of demonizing Israel and downplaying Muslim violence against Israel — and Christians. In a segment that aired on Monday January 22, 2018, he told a reporter, "Our fear is not from our people, from Muslims,” Sabbah said. “Our fear is from America.”

H.B. Sabbah's message fit in neatly with the thrust of CNN reporter Ian Lee's report — that “U.S. foreign policy is hurting the local Christian community” in the Holy Land. The problem for that narrative is that Israel's local Christian population has increased from 34,000 in 1949 to 130,000 today, an increase of 282 percent.

This increase did not stop H.B. Sabbah from chiding the U.S. for its support of Israel, declaring that it is bad for Palestinian Christians. “American policy must change in the Middle East," he told CNN. "If truly the American administration is Christian, go back to the commandment of love. You love Israel. That's very good. But you [should also] love the Palestinians if you're Christian. Jesus said, love everyone.”

It is hard to believe that after recent events, Christians in the Middle East fear American policy more than they do the prospect of jihadist violence, but His Beatitude Sabbah is a former Catholic Patriarch — in Jerusalem no less — so who are outsiders to argue?

And not only is he the former Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, H.B. Sabbah served as International President of Pax Christi, a Catholic charity organization for eight years, from 1999 to 2007. (The fact that he was able to hold onto this position in light of what he said during the Second Intifada — documented below — is a shock.)

The problem is that Sabbah is simply not the type of person CNN should rely on as a source for information about the Middle East.

(Continue to Full Post)

What did you hear when Mike Pence spoke to the Knesset? - by Jonathan S. Tobin

For those who can’t listen to anything coming out of this administration without re-interpreting it through the lens of the resistance, Pence’s moving comments about the ties between America and Israel may seem like a creepy conservative plot against liberal values. But if that’s how you heard it, the problem isn’t in Pence’s rhetoric, but in a rejection of a belief that the overwhelming majority of American still rightly view as a consensus issue.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
JNS.org..
22 January '18..

In Monday’s New York Times, columnist Max Fisher treated Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to Israel as just another expression of what he considers the divisive policies of the Trump administration. Even before Pence gave a rousing speech to the Knesset, Fisher wrote that Trump’s approach to the Middle East conveyed what he called “a particularly American notion of being ‘pro-Israel.’” Trump and Pence’s stances on Jerusalem and the peace process were, he wrote, rooted in the “us versus them” American identity politics of evangelicals that liberals view with disdain.

To this way of thinking, Pence’s instinctive identification with America’s only democratic ally in the region, his robust support for Israel’s right to exist, its claim on its ancient capital Jerusalem and the need for its opponents to come to terms with these facts is just another version of the Trump administration’s immigration policies or its views on abortion.

But what Trump and Pence’s critics get wrong is not so much their critique of the details of their policies as it is their resistance to the notion that America’s love for Israel is rooted in its religious heritage as well as its national interests.

(Continue to Full Post)

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Tired of the man who raised an "armed generation" that dodged military service - by Dr. Reuven Berko

...The tranquility of the green island holds the cries of the paratrooper Szenes, who left her safe home in Kibbutz Sdot Yam and was dropped into Yugoslavia, from where she infiltrated Hungary, risking certain death, to save Jews. She was tortured, executed, and all that remains of her anguish is a memorial and a Hungarian exoneration of the charge of "treason" that appeases the consciences of the murderers of our people as well as Geffen, who is besmirching her memory.

Dr. Reuven Berko..
Israel Hayom..
24 January '18..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/real-heroes-risk-everything/

As I was reading the thoughts of poet Yehonatan Geffen, in which he sang a song of praise for Ahed Tamimi, who assaulted an IDF officer, giving her equal status to Anne Frank, Hannah Szenes, or Joan of Arc, I felt tired of the man who raised an "armed generation" that dodged military service. The forgotten poet, who once wrote poems and songs for our children, is now parading around his garden naked, wrapped in a "literary" cloak and provocatively – as an exhibitionist – showing his intellectual nether regions in a desperate attempt to scrape up some relevancy.

Geffen trampled the dead symbols of our people – part of an attempt by some of the twisted members of the pantheon of the Left, who feel that if they are not in charge, we are all doomed.

Although I tried, I could find no similarities between Ahed Tamimi (a member of the same family as the murderer Ahlam Tamimi, who was an accessory in the suicide bombing at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem – who are apparently converts to Islam with Jewish ancestry), who made sure she was caught on camera hitting IDF soldiers, knowing that she win popularity among her people and the perverts in Israel, and Anne Frank, the Jewish girl who hid from the Nazi threat until she was caught and died a miserable death in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, leaving behind her famous diary.

I had to overcome my gag reflex at Geffen's comparison of Ahed, who "nobly" exploited the soldier and the IDF regulations that required him to exercise restraint, to the red-headed King David, who risked his life to kill Goliath. With a stroke of his pen, Geffen turned the blonde Ahed into a redhead simply for the sake of the idiotic comparison. David put his life on the line, but Ahed knew that in prison she would receive everything from bandages to groceries, dental care, family visits, and possibly even a college degree.

Geffen, the author of the famous children's book "The Sixteenth Sheep," is weak on history. Any comparison between Miss Nabi Saleh and Joan of Arc – the "virgin of Orleans," is baseless. Joan heard "holy voices," undertook to lead an army in the battles between two feudal houses in France and England, and was burned on the cross at the orders of the church as a devil worshipper; whereas Ahed, who is sitting safely in an Israeli prison, was acting as a minor provocateur serving the terrorist machine: no sword, no horse, and no heroic acts. Just a camera as she slapped and clawed at an Israeli officer who was acting correctly.

Israeli Diplomacy, Ghetto Mentality and the Need to Respect Oneself in the Diplomatic World - by Daniel Krygier

In the Middle East, where respect is everything, Israel’s submissive diplomacy puts it at a disadvantage, while mediocre PR efforts seriously erode its international standing

Daniel Krygier..
MiDA..
23 January '18..
Link: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/01/23/ghetto-mentality-israeli-diplomacy/

Israel’s relationship with Jordan and Jerusalem’s recent apology for the embassy crisis in Amman, exemplifies the reborn Jewish state’s contradictory nature: a successful powerhouse with a dhimmi style diplomacy. Reborn Israel might have left exile 70 years ago but the exile mentality has still not left Israeli diplomacy.

On May 10 1948, four days before Israel’s rebirth, Israel’s future Prime Minister Golda Meir secretly met king Abdullah of Transjordan in Amman. The purpose of Mrs. Meir’s travel was to plead with the king to refrain from joining the impending Arab attack on the embryonic Jewish state. This kind of diplomacy made sense when Israel was weak and fragile. It makes no sense today when the Jewish state is a technological and economic powerhouse with one of the strongest defense forces in the world.

At the center of the recent crisis between Jordan and Israel, is an Israeli embassy security guard who killed a Jordanian citizen in self-defense after being attacked with a screwdriver. After the attack, the Israeli embassy in Amman was under siege and threatened by Jordanian authorities. Jordan should have apologized to Israel. By apologizing to a weak and hostile Jordan, Israeli diplomacy signaled to the Muslim world that the powerful Jewish state can be diplomatically abused with impunity.

Jordan is not doing Israel any favors by having official ties with Jerusalem. Israel provides Jordan with water and numerous technologies. Israel safeguarded Jordan’ sovereignty long before the countries established official ties in 1994. When Syria invaded Jordan in 1970 during the Black September war with PLO, the Israeli air force forced the Syrians to retreat from Jordan.

Unlike his father who finally made peace with Israel, the current king of Jordan, Abdullah II has been at the forefront of the international diplomatic aggression against Israel. Jerusalem should have put Jordan in place long time ago. However, in a Middle East where respect is everything, Israel’s submissive diplomacy is only pushing genuine peace even further away.

The strained relations between Turkey and Israel are mainly a result of the Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s aggressive neo-Ottoman and anti-Semitic policies. However, Israel’s meek diplomacy has only made the situation worse.

In Jenin, Terrorists Get What They Deserve. In Gaza, They Don’t - by Prof. Hillel Frisch

The night of January 17, 2018, we were witness to another reminder of the success of the hard-hitting strategy adopted by the IDF towards the Arabs in the West Bank – and the failure of containment in Gaza. In Jenin, the murderer of Rabbi Raziel Shevah was killed and at least one other terrorist apprehended eight days after the crime. Gilad Shalit’s abductors were never punished and his abduction led to the release of over 1,000 terrorists. The lesson: peacemaking must be from the ground up.

Prof. Hillel Frisch..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 722..
23 January '18..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-counterterrorism-jenin/

In 2002, Israel, after considerable procrastination in the face of unprecedented terrorist attacks, finally adopted an offensive hard-hitting strategy against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and local terrorist factions when it reconquered the major towns in the West Bank that had become sanctuaries from which Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah terrorists launched sophisticated suicide and hit-and-run attacks.

The IDF has been engaged in relentless nightly penetrations ever since. Terrorist acts, and the number of victims of terrorist acts, duly plummeted.

By contrast, in Gaza, Israel withdrew entirely in 2005, dismantled all the settlements, and adopted a policy of containment. Hamas turned all of Gaza into a sanctuary in which it could train fighting forces, build up a militia that could effectively coordinate company-level attacks, and develop missile and tunneling capabilities.

Thousands of missiles were launched, numerous attack tunnels into Israel were built, and three rounds of costly fighting between Hamas and Islamic Jihad took place subsequent to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.

The night of January 17, 2018, we were witness to another reminder of the success of the hard-hitting strategy adopted towards the Arabs in the West Bank – and the failure of containment in Gaza.

One need only compare the firefight in Jenin, which led to the death of Hamas terrorist Ahmad Jarrar, who had participated in the killing of Rabbi Raziel Shevah eight days before, and the ambush and abduction of Gilad Shalit on the Gaza border by Hamas terrorists in 2006.

In the January 17 firefight, not only was Jarrar killed by the police anti-terrorist unit together with other IDF forces, but another member of the cell was apprehended. He will no doubt reveal information leading to the apprehension of the rest of those involved in the attack. The operation was hardly costless; two members of the anti-terrorist unit were wounded, one seriously.

The ambush of an IDF tank, the killing of two crew members, and the abduction of Gilad Shalit in the summer of 2006 led to an entirely different outcome. Not only did the IDF fail to extricate Gilad or kill the cell members who had participated in the attack and fled back into Gaza, but Shalit’s subsequent release came at a considerable cost – over 1,000 terrorists were freed in 2011, many of whom had been sentenced for multiple murders and some of whom have committed further terrorist acts since their release.

A spurious comparison? Hardly. One of those released to Gaza was reportedly the mastermind behind the killing of Rabbi Raziel Shevah, so there is very much a connection between the two events.

These events are related in another important way. Both were planned and perpetrated by terrorists who belong to Hamas, an organization that calls for Israel’s destruction.