An Appreciation of the Miracle of Israel

...We knew many cared about the plight of the Syrian people Assad and ISIS are killing with total abandon, but who would have thought Israel, Syria’s pronounced enemy, would care enough to reconstruct the face of an unknown Syrian. Who would have thought, given the hate spread against Jews, their empathy towards people who hate them would deliver such humanity. This is the miracle of Israel in our midst, and the face of Mohammad reconstructed denies the haters the spread of their lies.

Farid Ghadry..
Times of Israel..
17 February '15..

I read a BBC story about an Israeli medical team headed by Dr. Yoav Leiser who reconstructed the face of an injured Syrian at the Rambam hospital in Haifa. Against a background of savage killings, beheadings, and barrel bombs, it is hard to describe the hope such an act of compassion injects into Syria’s theater of death and destruction.

We knew many cared about the plight of the Syrian people Assad and ISIS are killing with total abandon, but who would have thought Israel, Syria’s pronounced enemy, would care enough to reconstruct the face of an unknown Syrian. Who would have thought, given the hate spread against Jews, their empathy towards people who hate them would deliver such humanity. This is the miracle of Israel in our midst, and the face of Mohammad reconstructed denies the haters the spread of their lies.

I doubt if Mohammad, the pseudo name of the injured Syrian patient, wrote the hospital or Dr. Leiser and his brave team asking for a new face. I doubt even more that Mohammad could have foreseen living a normal life if he remained untreated. The fact the hospital offered to reconstruct his face is testimony to how lucky Syria and Syrians are to find Israel as their neighbor to the south. A blessing Assad has done his utmost to keep Syrians from that knowledge.

In defeating the terrorists, condemnation is essential but never enough

...To win in war, you must know who the enemy is, and the steps that need to be taken to prevent further losses and to achieve the other side's defeat. Defending freedom of expression is part of this - among numerous human rights that our societies absolutely must safeguard. But no right takes greater precedence than the right to not be murdered - the right to live.

Mass protest rally in Copenhagen 
February 16, 2015 [Image Source]

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
17 February '15..

As parents of a child murdered in a terrorist outrage, we have received a great many letters and cards (and their electronic equivalents) expressing sympathy and support. Coming from places and people not always known to us personally, they provided comfort especially in the earliest part of our experience of loss. We learned to appreciate the bonds of humanity and shared decency that sometimes get overlooked in ordinary life.

Dealing with grief's multi-layered impact on our lives, we have also grown familiar with expressions of Solidarity (with a capital S) directed at us by politicians and government officials... and the disappointment they can bring on.

Everyone knows, of course, that people in public positions tend to express themselves in formulaic ways. Most of us accept there are limits to how sincere and creative a busy person can be. But it's also because what they say sometimes reflects a superficial, even wrong, understanding of what it means to lose a loved one to violent hatred. But if you have no personal experience of it, how can you know? And it’s a hard subject about which to learn from books. Far too little has been written, or even said, about coping with the death of a child or partner at the hands of terrorists.

The most disturbing aspect however has been the chasm between the clichéd slogans offered to terror victims like us in the immediate aftermath of the attack and the little/nothing that is done later. No public figure wants to sound indecisive on something as headline-grabbing as terror. Our experience is it’s rare for them to back up those supportive statements with policy decisions and actions later. And later, in public life, is when it really counts.

(Continue)

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, 
.

Israel, Anti-Semitism and the Descent into Moral Madness of Academic Progressivism

...There is no other explanation for why educated, well-intentioned and humane individuals, experiencing paroxysms of moral self-righteousness in which they are compelled to speak out for the perennial victim, can loudly and publicly advocate for a movement that promotes and condones the murder of Jews—who already have created and live in a viable sovereign state—on behalf a group of genocidal enemies of Israel whose tragic condition may well be their own doing, and, at any rate, is the not the sole fault of Israel’s. That these campus activists are willing, and ready, to sacrifice the Jewish state, and Jewish lives, in the name of social justice and a specious campaign of self-determination by Palestinian Arabs, shows how morally corrupt and deadly the conversation about human rights has become.

Richard L. Cravatts..
Frontpagemag.com..
16 February '15..

In the campus war against Israel, the all too familiar refrain from anti-Israel activists, many of whom form the loose coalition of groups and individuals spearheading the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, is that their quarrel is only with Israelis and their government’s policies, not with Jews themselves. But that specious defense has fallen away of late, revealing some caustic and base anti-Semitism, representing a seismic shift in the way that Jews now are being indicted not just for supporting Israel, but merely for being Jewish.

It was not without some historical irony, then, when student council leaders at Durban University of Technology (DUT) in South Africa in early February floated a proposal that suggested, apparently without shame, that Jewish students should be expelled from the institution, that, as the student body’s secretary, Mqondisi Duma, put it, “We took the decision that Jewish students, especially those who do not support the Palestinian struggle, should deregister.” This is, one would think, a rather shocking sentiment from students who themselves benefited from a world-wide campaign in the 1970s and 1980s to end South Africa’s racist apartheid system.

Also in February at UCLA, several councilmembers on the USAC Judicial Board, UCLA student government’s highest judicial body, grilled Rachel Beyda, a second-year economics student, when she sought a seat on the board. The focus on her candidacy was not her qualifications for the position (which no one seemed to doubt), but on the fact that she was Jewish and how her “affiliation with Jewish organizations at UCLA . . . might affect her ability to rule fairly on cases in which the Jewish community has a vested interest in the outcome, such as cases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” as the student newspaper described it. “Ruling fairly” in this case, of course, meant that she was likely not to support the increasingly virulent anti-Israel campaign on the UCLA campus, so she failed to pass the political litmus test that so-called progressive students see as their default position: namely, being pro-Palestinian. It was the same thinking that inspired a similarly discriminatory proposal last May by two members of UCLA’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine which attempted to bar Jewish candidates for filling council positions if they had taken trips to Israel subsidized by the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, or other organizations, which, according to the brazen SJP students, “have openly campaigned against divestment from corporations that profit from Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights.”

Of course, there was no mention in this debate of trips paid for to send students to Israel or the territories on propaganda excursions designed to malign Israel and teach visitors an alternate, anti-Israel narrative. Once again, in addition to trying to stack the deck against the pro-Israel argument, this grotesque and inequitable proposal took as a given that anyone not committed to the anti-Israel Palestinian cause was by default not to be trusted, morally compromised, and unworthy of even having pro-Israel opinions.

Self-identified progressive students on campus are also enthralled by pursing “social justice” on the part of the Palestinians precisely because Third-world victimism parallels the identity politics of the same student groups who fuel the promiscuous BDS resolutions being proposed on campuses around the country. Thus, African-American student groups frequently rally in support of divestment when they are attracted to the narrative in which Israel is positioned as a racist, apartheid regime that suppresses an indigenous colored people and deprives them of human rights. And it is similarly manifested in such Orwellian-named groups as the anti-Israel “Queers for Palestine,” whose very name is so ironic—given the treatment that homosexuals receive in the Middle East anywhere except Israel—that it is difficult to believe the group’s own members can keep a straight face while parading with signs in support of the Palestinian cause.

Can You Imagine? The EU Causes Peace Process And Quartet Meltdown

...It is hard to conceive any action more likely to undermine trust or prejudge final status issues than the Quartet’s failure to condemn the EU’s own aberrant behaviour and call for an immediate halt to its illegal activities in the West Bank.

David Singer..
Jwire.com..
17 February '15..

Revelations that the European Union (EU) has been acting illegally in funding and facilitating the construction of more than 400 unauthorised buildings in areas in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) under exclusive Israeli control – signals the end of:

- negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation under the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2003 Bush Roadmap and
- the role of the Quartet – America, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union – as mediator in those negotiations

The Daily Mail – in exposing the EU’s bizarre behaviour – reported on 6 February that:

“Official EU documentation reveals that the building project is intended to ‘pave the way for development and more authority of the PA over Area C (the Israeli area)’, which some experts say is an attempt to unilaterally affect facts on the ground. Locally, the villages are known as the ‘EU Settlements’, and can be found in 17 locations around the West Bank. They proudly fly the EU flag, and display hundreds of EU stickers and signs. Some also bear the logos of Oxfam and other NGOs, which have assisted in the projects.”

The EU through its spokesman- Shadi Othman – attempted to justify such conduct by reiterating the EU’s unilateral opinion as to the final outcome of the currently stalled negotiations:

”We support the Palestinian presence in Area C. Palestinian presence should not be limited Areas A and B. Area C is part of the occupied Palestinian territory which eventually will be Palestinian land.”

Why Israel’s approval was not first sought before the EU surreptitiously undertook such activity – remains unexplained.

New information further challenges the BBC mantra on Gaza casualties

...the BBC’s continued blind promotion of unverified statistics is clearly not only an issue in terms of accuracy but, as time goes on and the BBC continues to stubbornly and inexplicably ignore later work done on this topic, it also obviously becomes a growing issue of impartiality.”

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
16 February '15..

Readers cannot have failed to notice that the standard insertion into any BBC report relating however circumspectly to last summer’s conflict in Israel and the Gaza Strip goes along the following lines:

“The war left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead, the majority civilians, according to the UN.”

As has been noted here on numerous occasions over the past few months, the BBC continues to promote those problematic UN supplied figures to its audiences without having carried out any independent verification of civilian/combatant casualty ratios and whilst concurrently ignoring the fact that investigation into the lists of casualties provided by Hamas and other Palestinian sources carried out by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center indicates a different picture.

On February 11th the Center published an additional report relating to the subject of seventeen casualties classified by Hamas’ Information Office as ‘journalists’ – and therefore categorized as civilians.

(Continue)

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 Palestinians' European Union-Funded Campaign Against Israel

...The EU leaders who met with Abbas last week are either unaware of the anti-Israel incitement by his Fatah faction or simply prefer to bury their heads in the sand. In both cases, the EU is not helping advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. On the contrary, the EU continues to turn a blind eye to this anti-Israel campaign, and is generously funding it through dozens of NGOs in the Palestinian territories.

EU leaders, such as European Commission
Jean-Claude Juncker (right), who met with
Mahmoud Abbas (left) last week, are either
unaware of anti-Israel incitement by his Fatah
faction or simply prefer to bury their heads
in the sand. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
16 February '15..

Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank is trying to divert attention from its problems at home by further inciting Palestinians and the international community against Israel.

In recent weeks, Fatah gunmen and Palestinian Authority [PA] policemen have been clashing almost on a daily basis in the Balata and Jenin refugee camps in the northern West Bank. Meanwhile, Fatah leaders have been busy badmouthing each other -- a sign of deepening divisions among the faction's top brass.

This incitement, which includes reviving the old disproven claim that Israel was behind the 2004 death of Yasser Arafat and calls for boycotting Israeli companies, is playing into the hands of Hamas and other Palestinians who are opposed to any peace process with Israelis.

During his recent visit to Sweden, Abbas announced that he would work to revive the peace talks with Israel. But while Abbas was talking in Stockholm about his intention to resume peace talks, leaders of his Fatah faction in the West Bank were sending a completely different message to Palestinians.

Unlike Abbas, these leaders were not talking about any peace process with Israel. Instead, they were making statements that would only radicalize Palestinians and give them reason to hate Israel even more.

Not surprisingly, the voices of the Fatah leaders, closely associated with the Palestinian Authority president, did not reach the government officials in Sweden, who went out of their way to roll out the red carpet for Abbas.

So while Abbas was inaugurating the Palestinian Embassy in central Stockholm, the first-ever Palestinian embassy in Western Europe, his officials held a press conference in Ramallah to announce a boycott of Israeli companies.

I Don’t Trust the AP’s Report on Civilian Deaths in Gaza and Neither Should You

...Back to AP itself, I’m not asking the wire service to like Israel. (Articles by former AP correspondents such as Matti Friedman make it pretty clear that the wire service is biased against the country). I’m not asking that Fares Akram like or even respect Israel. I doubt that can ever happen. But what I am expecting—indeed what the hundreds of media outlets that own AP must expect—is fair reporting. That’s how I was raised as a journalism student, and as a practitioner of investigative reporting for three decades. It would have taken just a few sentences to be fair in this one article, but that didn’t come to pass.

The Algemeiner..
14 February '15..

Below is a devastating critique of the AP’s recent “report” on civilian deaths during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza last summer, posted by investigative journalist Richard Behar on Facebook. It was for good reason that famed columnist Jack Anderson called Behar “one of the most dogged of our watchdogs”!

The Israel-hostile Associated Press is at it again. Note this article from Friday alleging that IDF air strikes on Gazan houses killed mostly civilians during last summer’s war against Hamas. The article—entitled “AP Exclusive: Israeli house strikes killed mostly civilians”—was penned by Karin Laub, Fares Akram and Mohammed Daraghmeh.

Have a read, and then consider this:

1. First, given what I revealed about AP’s civilian casualty reporting DURING the war—in my “Media Intifada exposé at Forbes.com—I simply have no faith in their examination now of these 247 airstrikes. I simply don’t trust them, and nor should you. They violated their responsibilities to readers during the war, and have never come forward to acknowledge that their prior journalism was sloppy and improper (or worse). In that prior reporting, AP and other major media outlets (including the New York Times and Reuters) simply parroted the Hamas claim that most of the war dead were civilians. Sometimes they attributed it to the UN, which received its figures from Hamas. Why did this matter? Because every time a major media outlet reported that “a majority” or “a vast majority” or the “overwhelming number” of casualties were civilians, it reverberated around the globe like a missile—fueling anti-Israel and general anti-Semitic sentiment (and violence against Jews in Europe and elsewhere).

So what was AP’s methodology for its current “examination” of the 247 airstrikes on houses? We’ll never know, because the wire service doesn’t tell us. What specific problems did they encounter that might have skewed or affected their research? We’ll never know, because AP doesn’t tell us those anecdotes.

2. Last month, the highly-regarded Meir Amit Intelligence and Information Center released its latest report on the subject of civilian casualties. Their experts are taking the time to go through the deaths, one by one, and their final tally won’t be available for months—if not years. Indeed, after Operation Cast Lead [2008-9], as I’d reported, “nearly two years passed before a Palestinian minister inadvertently let slip that the IDF figures then were correct,” according to Eado Hecht, an independent defense analyst who has taught military theory and history at the IDF Command and General Staff College. (Hecht currently works with the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, one of Israel’s leading think tanks.)

However, in the Meir Amit center’s January report, they announced that 1,600 of the 2,140 Gazans who were killed have been identified as such: 55% are combatants, and 45% non-combatants. For the other 540 people, they do not yet know which category to put them in. The center also says that Hamas is obfuscating the actual lists and affiliations, partly because of objective technical difficulties (poor paperwork and a lack of access to some of the bodies), and partly deliberately as part of its propaganda campaign against Israel.

The article in AP is focused on “a particular subset of the fatalities—those killed while inside houses ostensibly targeted by the Israelis,” defense analyst Hecht told me on Friday. “I write ‘ostensibly’ targeted by Israelis because something in the order of 2,600(+) Palestinian rockets and mortar bombs were fired deliberately (most of them) or by mistake into Palestinian residential areas. The deliberate fire being against Israeli soldiers in that area—but without warning local civilians to move out. So of the 247 houses struck, how many were clearly struck by Israel and how many by Palestinian fire.”

3. You won’t read what I have in my Point #2 in the AP story. Perhaps their reporters and editors felt it would take away some of the thunder from their angle? They DO cite Meir Amit this time around—but only on the center’s confirmation that they have no evidence of female fighters, as well as the center’s questioning of the reliability of Gaza witnesses (a few words only). AP then credits “preliminary” UN figures that at least 66% of the total dead were civilians. Really? And where did the UN get that number? We know the answer. And why didn’t AP do their readers a service by at least including the 45% figure from the Meir Amit center that contradicts the UN/Hamas?

Thoughts Concerning the Copenhagen Attacks and Zionism

...It would be nice to believe that in the enlightened Western Europe of our own day the fears about mobs crying “Death to the Jews” that motivated Theodor Herzl to write The Jewish State and found modern Zionism would no longer apply. But a Europe where the Jew-hatred of the Arab and Muslim world that was imported by Middle Eastern immigrants mixes with the contempt for Jewish identity and Israel that has become conventional wisdom among European intellectual elites is not a place where Jews can live safely.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
15 February '15..

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the attack on a Copenhagen synagogue last night (Saturday night) by placing it the context of a rising tide of violent anti-Semitism. But, as he did after last month’s attacks in Paris, he said European Jews should draw conclusions from these events when he called on them to “come home” to Israel. In response the chief rabbi of Denmark criticized the prime minister saying that the statement was irresponsible and that terrorism wasn’t a reason to move to Israel. Some, especially Netanyahu’s many critics, view this exchange as yet another example of his seeking to take advantage of tragedies for the sake of boosting his poll ratings in a tight election race. But whatever you may think of Netanyahu, these attacks are both unfair and inaccurate. As the nation state of the Jewish people in their ancient homeland, Israel doesn’t exist solely as a refuge for Jews under attack. But the latest string of attacks on Jews in Europe, as the editors of this magazine wrote in our editorial in the February issue of COMMENTARY, do once again prove “the existential necessity of Zionism.”

Part of the pushback against Netanyahu’s statements and actions after both the Paris attacks and last night’s fatal shooting of a Jew guarding a Copenhagen synagogue stems from personal resentment of the prime minister who happens to be in the fight for his political life in the Knesset election that will be held next month. Here in the United States, supporters of President Obama and his effort to appease Iran have been bashing him relentlessly. In particular, the left-wing J Street lobby has initiated a campaign seeking to delegitimize Netanyahu, urging Jews to say that he “doesn’t speak” for them. Their stand is not only misguided on the issue of Iran; it also seeks to undermine the ability of the democratically-elected leader of the Jewish state to voice concerns about Jewish security in a way that only the person who holds that office can (something they won’t tolerate from the right if Netanyahu is replaced by someone from the left).

But Danish Chief Rabbi Yair Melchior was not engaging in that sort of attack. Rather, he seemed to view Netanyahu’s statement about the need for Jews to leave Europe as an attack on his community. As others said after the Hyper Cacher attack in Paris, the rabbi seems to believe that if Jews flee, the terrorists as well as the growing ranks of European anti-Semites win.

As the Times of Israel reported:

Rabbi Yair Melchior said, in response: “People from Denmark move to Israel because they love Israel, because of Zionism. But not because of terrorism.”

“If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island,” Melchior said.

There is some truth to Melchior’s argument. Certainly Jews who immigrate to Israel from the United States are not fleeing injustice but are rather embracing Israel and Zionism. But does he really think the decline in the population of European Jews and the vast increase in aliyah in recent years is a statistical anomaly? As the Pew Research Center’s latest data reports, Jews are fleeing Europe. That is not just because of the alarming increase in violence against Jews but a product of the way anti-Semitism has once again become mainstream in European culture after decades of being marginalized, or at least kept under wraps, after the Holocaust.

What unites the Arabs? This editor knows - and brotherhood and goodwill have little to do with it

...At various times, we have republished here various offensive, racist and/or hate-based statements attributed to Atwan over a period of years. The problem, naturally, is not that a loathsome man with hateful views exists, or even that he is active in London and Europe, or that people want to hear him. It's that those noxious views of his continue to be aired via public platforms and in respectable places as commentary, as if he were some sort of objective voice, free of passionate involvement on one side of the conflict he interprets. We're baffled by that.

September 2013: Atwan, the strategic
commentator, bemoaning a reversal
 in a strategic Arab position [Image Source]

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
15 February '15..

To put the quote below into a meaningful context, readers ought to take a quick look at "18-Oct-12: This is not an attack on Abdel Bari Atwan", a post we published here after a string of earlier reflections on Atwan and his output. And perhaps this too: "4-Dec-10: Should this man be accorded the respect due to an objective, professional journalist?"

He is quoted again today by the good people at MEMRI who provide an invaluable service translating Arabic media content into English and thereby helping people who wish things were different to understand how things actually are.

Speaking on the Lebanese Mayadeen TV channel on January 31, 2015, Abd Al-Bari Atwan, recently-retired editor-in-chief of the London-based newspaper "Al-Quds Al Arabi," said:

In my view, Jihad must be directed, first and foremost, against the Israeli enemy. This is the enemy about which there is a consensus. Arabs who do not think that Israel is an enemy are neither Arabs nor Muslims. Our compass must point toward that enemy. All our guns must be turned toward that enemy, regardless of our differences, because this is the only thing that unites us. [Transcript here; Arabic-language video source here]

(Continue) 

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, 
.

Obama, the Iranian Threat and Israels Elections

...Obama does not want Netanyahu as prime minister of Israel even after a deal is signed with Iran. He ‎has no desire to be exposed to Netanyahu's continued criticism, realizing as he does that the ‎proposed deal has many loopholes, and that Iranian violations of the agreement are probable. He also ‎takes seriously Netanyahu's statement that Israel is not bound by America's unilateral agreements. In ‎Obama's view, a paranoid Netanyahu may still utilize the military option, and thereby destroy his only ‎foreign policy "success."‎ And Obama is probably right on this point. Among the candidates for prime minister in the upcoming ‎elections, only Netanyahu is passionate about Iran, and only Netanyahu would consider ordering the ‎Israel Defense Forces to attack Iranian nuclear installations in defiance of the United States.

Prof. Efraim Inbar..
Israel Hayom..
15 February '15..

Unfortunately, there are many sources of tension between the Obama administration and ‎Netanyahu's government. The main issue of discord is, of course Iran. Obama seeks an agreement ‎with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its nuclear program that will ensure that, under his watch at least, ‎Tehran does not get the bomb. The fact that Iran will maintain the capability to enrich uranium, and will ‎not dismantle any of its nuclear installations, is simply swept under the rug as insignificant. Moreover, ‎it seems that Obama considers Iran, as strange as it sounds, to be a strategic partner in the attempt to ‎bring stability to a region beleaguered by chaos. ‎

Consequently, the United States capitulates on the nuclear issue, and accepts a nuclear agreement ‎with no conditions that might curtail Iran's freedom of action. Taking over Yemen (and throwing ‎American diplomats out of the country); carving a sphere of influence in Iraq; providing continuous ‎support to the butcher in Damascus and strengthening Hezbollah‎'s grip over Lebanon; engaging in ‎subversion in Central Asia; and maintaining its terrorist apparatus: All these are now overlooked. In the ‎Grand Bargain between the U.S. and Iran, Tehran gets all it wants, while Washington gets an Iranian ‎promise not to go nuclear as long as Obama is in the White House. Having made no foreign policy ‎achievements throughout his presidency, Obama, perhaps obsessively, now wants the relationship ‎with Iran to serve as his foreign policy legacy. ‎

This foolish behavior negatively affects America's own position in the Middle East, as well as the ‎national interests of its closest ally, Israel. Although Israel has never been close to his heart, Obama ‎understands that Israeli concerns strike a sensitive chord with the American public. And this is precisely ‎why he does not want Netanyahu to speak in the U.S. Congress. Obama fears that Netanyahu's speech ‎could become a catalyst for a public debate about his own dangerous policy toward Iran, publicity ‎which can only be damaging for him. The last thing he needs is a gifted orator such as Netanyahu ‎pointing out the glaring deficiencies in the American approach toward Iran. ‎

And this is precisely why Netanyahu is determined to defy Obama's wishes. The gravity of the Iranian ‎threat is accepted by most Israelis, of varying political hues. As long as there is a chance, however ‎slight, that an address to Congress will reinvigorate the public debate in the U.S. on Iran, and obstruct ‎the administration's attempt to sign a deal, Netanyahu feels compelled to make a heroic stand, against ‎all odds, in an attempt to thwart the Iranian nuclear threat. Paradoxically, Obama's efforts to prevent ‎Netanyahu from visiting Washington, and to convince Congress members to boycott the session, only ‎increase the interest in what Israel's prime minister has to say. ‎

Any Surprise? BDS Youth Speak Out: “Expel the Jews”

...So far, I haven’t seen any coverage of this incident from those who favor BDS. That makes sense. It wouldn’t do to criticize the moral center of one’s movement.

Jonathan Marks..
Commentary Magazine..
12 February '15..

The campus boycott, divestment, sanctions movement depends on two myths of purity. One concerns South Africa. Ignoring South Africa’s alliance with human-rights violators like Russia and China, the BDS movement draws at every opportunity on statements of support from South Africa to demonstrate its bona fides: these people know a little something about apartheid, they suggest, so our assertions that Israel is an apartheid state must also be taken seriously.

The second concerns students. Ignoring signs that young people are at least as capable of prejudice and stupidity as their elders, the BDS movement suggests that the young are on “the right side of history” and that, consequently, BDS’s occasional successes at colleges and universities demonstrate the essential rightness of their cause. As the anti-Israel activist Anna Balzer has put it, BDS will benefit from “a generational shift, driven by young people, who have become allies to the cause even as their parents repeat the same tired arguments.”

Promoting Illegal Construction in the West Bank - Can the EU fool all the people all the time?

....The EU is entitled, of course, to take sides (as it copiously does) in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But why be devious? The EU has no problem defying international law when doing so serves its political agenda, yet it is in the name of the law that it lectures Israel. The EU funds NGOs supposedly for the promotion of human rights, when in fact those NGOs act as PR stooges. Abraham Lincoln famously quipped that "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." His optimism, no doubt, would have been tempered had he lived to encounter the European Commission.

Dr. Emmanuel Navon..
i24 News..
11 February '15..

The letter recently sent by Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) to Israel's Prime Minister about the intended demolition of illegal Arab constructions is generally presented in the media as a bona fide petition by human rights activists against "the destruction of Palestinian homes." Behind this façade of innocence and legality, however, lies the grimmer reality of a deceitful and illegal European attempt to undermine Israeli sovereignty.

A report recently published by the Israeli NGO Regavim shows that the European Union (EU), while admonishing Israel not to "establish facts on the ground" by building in disputed areas, encourages and even funds the Palestinian Authority (PA) to do just that. In September 2012, for instance, the EU announced the allocation of €100 million for exclusive Arab construction in Area C (the portion of the West Bank that was maintained under Israeli jurisdiction by the Oslo Accords). A report of the European Commission from October 2012 emphasizes "the importance of aid (including humanitarian aid), particularly in areas in which [the PA] does not have authority or influence."

A report of the European Commission from September 2014 openly states that "the European Union and Palestinian Authority are actively promoting planning and construction in Area C, which, if successful, will pave the way for development and expansion of the Palestinian Authority's control over Area C." Lately, the EU's effort has been concentrated in the area known as "E1" (itself located in Area C), i.e. the mostly bare land between Jerusalem and the West Bank (Jewish) city of Ma'ale Adumim.

While successive Israeli governments have intended to build in E1 so as to create territorial continuity between Jerusalem and Ma'ale Adumin, the plan has been shelved for years due to US pressure. Not content with that pressure, however, the EU is now funding the construction of pre-fabricated structures for the Arab population in order to "establish facts on the ground." According to Regavim, the EU has been funding the illegal construction of hundreds of pre-fabricated homes in E1, as well as other parts of Area C. Pictures taken by Regavim clearly show the European flag and logo displayed on those buildings. According to international law and to the Oslo Accords, construction in Area C (whether temporary or permanent) requires permission from Israel – a rule openly flouted by the EU.

Sisi's war on terror in Sinai, a daily reminder of why Israel shouldn’t leave the West Bank

...Thus Sisi’s war on both the Sinai jihadists and Hamas is a constant and none-too-subtle reminder that far from being stabilizing, an Israeli pullout from the West Bank would be deeply destabilizing. Yet after years of declaring such a pullout to be a top foreign policy priority, Western leaders don’t want to face this unpleasant truth. So instead, they’ve taken the easier route: simply shunning the man whose policies keep bringing it to mind.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
10 February '15..

Why Sisi is the West’s least favorite Arab autocrat

On January 31, Egypt became the first Arab country to declare Hamas’s armed wing a terrorist organization. In so doing, Egypt aligned itself with America and the European Union, both of which have long deemed Hamas a terrorist group (the EU is currently appealing a December court ruling overturning its designation). Cairo is also fully engaged in the West’s battle against the Islamic State, though it’s focusing on the group’s Sinai-based affiliate, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. All this begs an obvious question: Why does Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi seem to be the West’s least favorite Arab leader?

Granted, he’s an autocrat who brutally suppresses dissent, but so is every other Arab leader – and the West seems prepared to overlook their repression as long as it deems them sufficiently opposed to Islamist terror. Thus Western leaders flocked to Saudi King Abdullah’s funeral last month, though Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s most repressive countries, where women are forbidden to drive and bloggers can be sentenced to 1,000 lashes. And Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is feted in every Western capital, though he’s now in the eleventh year of his four-year term and his security forces routinely arrest and intimidate journalists.

Sisi, in contrast, has long received a cold shoulder. Congress froze American aid to Egypt after he took power in2013, finally lifting this ban only two months ago; thus he’s had to rely on the Gulf States and Russia for desperately needed military and financial aid. He has yet to visit Washington, though he did meet President Barack Obama at the UN in New York in September; in contrast, the State Department recently hosted officials from the Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi’s bitterest opponent. And his European trip in November didn’t include the key European capitals of Berlin and London.

So here’s my theory: The West dislikes Sisi’s war on terror because, unlike that of other Arab countries, it threatens the logic of one of the West’s most cherished policy goals – an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

Hamas has abetted Sinai jihadists since long before Sisi took power; after a deadly attack in August 2012, for instance, Cairo accused three Hamas members of involvement and demanded their extradition from Gaza. But Sisi escalated the battle against Gaza-based terror dramatically. Last March, an Egyptian court banned Hamas activities in Egypt; in October, Egypt began razing hundreds of houses along the Gaza border to create a buffer zone to stem cross-border traffic in weapons and terrorists; and now, it has declared Hamas a terrorist organization.

Yet while Western countries also ostensibly oppose Hamas, Sisi’s war poses two problems for them. First, it refutes their fond fantasy that Palestinian terrorists are merely anti-Israel, and would abandon terror if Israel just “ended the occupation.” A group that’s been exporting mayhem to a neighboring Arab country for years won’t stop just because Israel cedes more territory.

More importantly, however, it refutes the very idea that further Israeli withdrawals would promote Mideast stability – because in fact, Israel’s 2005 pullout from Gaza was the direct cause of Sinai’s radicalization.

Netanyahu and Obama - The true rift is about policy, not politesse

...So here, again, are the facts: John Boehner invited Bibi to speak on an issue of national importance to both the United States and to Israel, and Bibi accepted. The White House was informed of the invitation in advance, as is proper. Democrats were not consulted. Tzipi Livni, Buji Herzog, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the editorial board of the New York Times were not consulted either. This is all according to custom and according to precedent. Any other reading of this story is a violation of protocol.

Liel Leibovitz..
TabletMag.com..
12 February '15..

Last week, I had some unkind words for the New York Times, whose account of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress had to be amended to reflect the fact that Bibi accepted the invitation after the White House was informed, not before. No sooner had the piece run than friends, colleagues, and assorted observers began to frantically assail me with the idea that while the Times had issued a correction, the question of whether Bibi accepted the invitation before or after wasn’t important after all. The real issue, they scolded me, in increasingly exasperated and acrimonious language, was and remains Bibi’s flauting of the established rules of respectful behavior.

In the Calvin and Hobbes comics, Calvin enjoyed playing a very special game called Calvinball, in which he made up the rules as he went along to make sure he was always winning. Reading the continuous coverage of Bibi’s visit in the last few days makes you feel that the White House and its supporters are now playing their own version of Calvinball; let’s call it “protocol,” which is the official-sounding scare-word they use to imply that Bibi’s behavior was thoroughly out-of-bounds.

So, what precise point of “protocol” did Bibi outrageously violate? Well, went the original version, he accepted an invitation to address Congress without the White House being informed that he was coming—which is certainly no way to behave. Once the New York Times admitted that this story, which it printed, was 100 percent wrong—and that the White House had in fact been properly informed—the conversation about protocol miraculously morphed. Keeping the all-important word “protocol” in play, the discussion now revolves around President Barack Obama’s statement that he would not meet with Bibi so close to the Israeli elections in March; that, Obama said, would be a violation of “protocol.” Which is a fine point, except for the fact that Bibi never asked for such a meeting. Instead, he was invited to address Congress by the speaker of the House of Representatives, who is the leader of a coequal branch of government—just as he had been invited in 2011 by the very same man to address the very same branch of government without anyone mentioning the word “protocol.”

Why all the fuss right now? There are two useful ways to approach the question. The first is to try and imagine what would not have been a violation of the shifting rules of “protocol.” Indulge me here. Imagine John Boehner coming up with the idea to invite the prime minister of Israel to speak. Singularly committed to the sanctity of bipartisanship—the idea, that is, that no decision in Washington should be made without the benign approval of both parties—Boehner then calls the White House. “I have this crazy idea,” he says. “How about a speech from Bibi?” On the other end of the line, crickets. “The thing is, John,” say the Democrats, “we don’t really like Bibi, and his Iran policy is not really the one we’re trying to promote. Mind scrapping the whole thing?” Fighting back a tear, Boehner agrees. “Sure thing, guys,” he says. “Sorry for bringing it up. See you later at the congressional gym.”

This scenario, of course, is idiotic—yet it’s precisely the one so many Obama supporters have been strongly promoting in tones of heavy outrage this past week. Which leads me to the second, more useful way of thinking about the conflict, namely asking why Bibi is so intent on making a speech that was bound to piss off the White House and its itchy-fingered defenders.

Thoughts on Israel, Jordan, and the 'Disproportionate Response' Response

...For many it seems that the definition of disproportionate is any action taken by the Jewish state that might limit its enemy’s abilities to eventually destroy it.

Tom Wilson..
Commentary Magazine..
12 February '15..

In the wake of the brutal execution of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh by ISIS, Jordan has unleashed a barrage of air attacks on the Islamist rebels. Over three days the Hashemite kingdom boasted of having hit some 56 targets and of killing 7,000 ISIS fighters. Whatever the actual figures, there can be no doubt that Jordan has massively increased its action against the jihadists, and now, with Jordanian television endlessly broadcasting images of King Abdullah in camouflage uniform strategizing alongside his generals, it is being reported that the Jordanians are moving a large force to the country’s Iraqi border. To be clear, there is nothing disproportionate about any of this. ISIS represents a very real threat to what is generally thought of as one of the weaker Arab states and the Jordanians are now using the kind of force warranted to seriously combat ISIS. But imagine if instead of ISIS it was Hamas, and if instead of Jordan boasting of 7,000 killed, it was Israel.

Of course Jordan had been participating in strikes against ISIS long before the kidnapping and murder of al-Kasasbeh. Back in September Jordan had joined with the Gulf states as part of the U.S.-led effort against ISIS. But since al-Kasasbeh’s horrific murder Jordan has begun to seriously flex what military muscle it has. Indeed, it is doing so in an open display of revenge against ISIS. Quite apart from the fact that many will consider such revenge a just response, it is also fully in Jordan’s national interest to push back ISIS before the rebels are able to cross the country’s porous desert border. No doubt many in the region will simply be grateful to see someone displaying the will to take serious action against ISIS and the terrible prospect that its rapid expansion represents.

Yet, watching all of this unfold one can’t help but think of the war that took place this summer shortly before allied strikes on ISIS began. The world was indeed shocked, albeit momentarily, by the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers while on their way home from school. But as Israel launched Operation Brother’s Keeper in an attempt to find the boys and to round up Hamas operatives in the West Bank, there were already the first mutterings that Israel needed to show restraint. Concerns were expressed that Israel’s operation in the West Bank might “destabilize” the situation.

Then when a desperate Hamas short on friends and money used these events as an excuse to unleash an unprecedented wave of rocket and tunnel warfare against Israeli civilians, Israel’s allies formed a chorus calling on the Israeli government to show maximum restraint. That phrase was so chilling in its moral redundancy and yet so commonly heard that it became inspiration for a remarkably apt song by Peter Himmelman.

Fortunately, Israel ignored the calls coming from Washington and the European capitals, and acting in its national interest hit Hamas hard. But for doing so the Israelis were now subjected to another allegation; that this was a disproportionate response. Even John Kerry was unwittingly caught on camera discussing the matter in angry and condescending tones; “it’s a hell of a pinpoint operation, it’s a hell of a pinpoint operation!” the secretary of state was heard saying.

The discussion around the escalation in Jordan’s war against ISIS has been unrecognizable in comparison. Even if the claim that 7,000 ISIS fighters have been killed in airstrikes is true, how many civilians have been killed alongside those fighters? Today the question of civilian casualties goes virtually unmentioned, whereas during Israel’s war with Hamas every news screen seemed to keep a running tally of the numbers killed in Gaza, always with an emphasis on the claim that these were mostly civilians, often accompanied by sneering remarks by journalists about how few Israeli casualties there had been. Not enough for the liking of those in Europe such as Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, that was for sure.

Actually, The Crusades Aren’t Our Problem

...Indeed, why single out Islamists when Crusaders also butchered Jews? Why should contemporary Muslims be prohibited from doing what Crusaders so excelled at a millennium ago? Throughout the ages Jews were accused of being too inherently intransigent for their own good. We still apparently are. Even today we stubbornly will not acquiesce in our own mass-murder by Muslims just because the Crusaders attempted it first. Egotistically we refuse to appreciate the wisdom of getting nuked out of existence by Islamic zealots just because their Christian counterparts strove to eradicate us beforehand. Obama’s edifying equivalency fails to overcome our parochial tunnel vision.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
12 February '15..

Last week, at Washington’s annual National Prayer Breakfast, US President Barak Obama admonished us all lest “we get on our high horse and think that this [religious fanaticism] is unique to some other place – remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ … So, it is not unique to one group or one religion.”

This presidential platitude looks innocuous enough except that it’s deceptively simplistic. For one thing it casually glosses over the fact that the crimes it alludes to aren’t contemporaneous.

I am the last who’d seek to whitewash the Christian record. I hazard a guess that my family line was affected way more by Christian brutality than were any of Barack Obama’s ancestors. (Even if we accept his thesis that slavery in the American South and its Jim Crow laws were imposed in the name of Christ, none of Obama’s forebears suffered therefrom).

But one quick glance at my uniquely long genealogical chart will show many names accompanied by the notation “killed for Kiddush Hashem” – the sanctification of the Holy Name – Jewish euphemism for martyrdom.

Some of my ancestors were executed by Christian persecutors because they resisted attempts to convert them forcibly. Others were massacred by their frenzied Christian neighbors and rampaging Crusaders who hacked them to death in their own homes. The most seminal early mega-trauma registered on our family tree occurred during the First Crusade of 1096, when the Rhineland Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz were destroyed in a homicidal tempest.

Peter the Hermit of Amiens and Count Emich of Leiningen exhorted the masses to slaughter the Jews as an extension of their Christian mission. They vilified the Jews as the crucifers of Christ and these helpless heretics were available for immediate retribution – in contrast to the hardly vulnerable, hardly peace-loving, hardly non-aggressive, hardly blameless and more distant Muslims. Besides, robbing the Jews also served to fill Christian coffers and finance the onward march to Jerusalem.

Godfrey of Bouillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade and first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, left no doubt when he vowed that he would embark for the Holy Land “only after avenging the blood of the Crucified One by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name ‘Jew,’ thus assuaging His own burning wrath.”

All this, conveniently ignored by today’s educators, was but a prelude to many centuries more of massacres of Jews, expulsions and noxious religious preaching that eventually and inexorably culminated in the Holocaust. Christian clerics implanted in the European mind a deep-seated aversion to Jews that endured even when the hate no longer necessarily relied on religious pretexts.

“Completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name Jew,” became a slogan shouted loudly and clearly on European soil in the 20th century and millions of ecstatic Germans and their numerous avid collaborators hoarsely shrieked “heil” in approval.

So, if anyone should bear a grudge against the Crusaders, it’s us Jews. We, here today largely descend from survivors of murderous Christian predations. We are also the children of those who escaped the death warrant issued against every single Jew anywhere by Godfrey’s ideological torchbearer, Adolf Hitler.

Our most compelling historical lesson is inscribed in one phrase of our Passover Hagada: “in each generation they rise against us to destroy us.” In each generation, the guise of the would-be destroyer may change and his idiom mutates, but he is no less dedicated to our annihilation.

Our would-be destroyer at this point in time isn’t burning us at the stake under the sign of the cross and he doesn’t speak Old German or proto-French, or even later Russian and Ukrainian. He speaks Arabic and Farsi. He quotes the Koran, esoteric instructions from the Hadith and fiery sermons by imams and ayatollahs – Sunni, Shiite and all other rival variations.

For that reason, without belittling or exonerating the dark history of Christendom, the Crusaders aren’t our problem today. Neither are the Crusaders the problem of the rest of the West. Obama knows that full well.

Red Hand Day and the sacrificing of the lives of an entire generation of adolescents

...Many Americans will know that certain television channels down through the sixties, seventies and even today, broadcast a public service announcement late at night (it's described here), intended as a reminder to parents to worry about the younger generation. Times change, children are now agents of death in large parts of the world, and it's right (as Red Hand Day today reminds us) to think about what the despots and fanatics in charge of various jihad-addicted parts of the world, including the cities where many of us live, have done:

Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
12 February '15..

We first mentioned Red Hand Day here two years ago ["24-Jan-13: Sacrificing the lives of an entire generation of adolescents..."] which is marked on February 12 of each year. That's of course today's date. It's a day that serves as an occasion to encourage political leaders to be aware of the fate of children forced to serve as soldiers in wars and armed conflicts. Wikipedia says

The aim of Red Hand Day is to call for action against this practice, and support for children who are affected by it. Children have been used repeatedly as soldiers in recent years including armed conflicts... A number of international organizations are active against the use of children as soldiers. These organizations include, for example, the United Nations Child Fund (UNICEF), Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

As memorable events go, Red Hand Day isn't, frankly. It's hugely overshadowed by commemorations that have a stronger following at this time of year: Valentines Day, for instance, which has the enthusiastic backing of shop-keepers and gift manufacturers. There isn't much enthusiastic backing from the people whose mandate ought to include generating awareness of Red Hand Day, and in particular the egregious ways its message is trampled in Gaza,

(Continue)

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, 
.

NYT Correction Undermines NY Times Anti-Netanyahu Narrative. So Where's the Coverage?

...Where are the journalistic ethics? Where’s the fact-based reporting? And, at the very least, when it comes to the correction of the record on the issue of Netanyahu’s upcoming speech… Where’s the coverage?

Sarit Catz..
CAMERA Snapshots..
11 February '15..





The Tower Magazine reported:

A correction published in The New York Times on Friday shows that a key report was mistaken in earlier reporting on Israeli Prime Minister’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of House Speaker John Boehner’s (R – Ohio) invitation to address a joint session of Congress in March. This, despite the fact that Boehner’s office released a detailed timeline two days earlier. The report played a central role in the widespread controversy that ensued about the propriety of Netanyahu’s acceptance of the invitation.

The original article reported that Netanyahu had explained why he accepted the invitation from Boehner “without first notifying the White House.”

The correction states that the White House had indeed been informed prior to Netanyahu’s acceptance.

Indeed, here is the correction in The Times:

Correction: January 30, 2015 An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

American Thinker notes that the protocol followed in arranging Netanyahu’s speech this year is no different than protocol followed in 2011:

Actually, European Anti-Semitism Starts from the Top

...In short, modern anti-Semitism can’t be fought without addressing a problem that too many members of Europe’s educated elites refuse to see: The propagators of today’s anti-Semitism come primarily from their own Israel-obsessed ranks, not from the far-right fringes. And one can’t help wondering whether Jews were left off Germany’s blue-ribbon panel precisely because they might have the temerity to point this out.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
11 February '15..

The Obama administration’s inexplicable denial that last month’s attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris could possibly be anti-Semitic overshadowed yesterday’s other interesting tidbit from the anti-Semitism front: German Jewish organizations are furious because a blue-ribbon panel set up by the German government to advise it on fighting anti-Semitism doesn’t include a single Jew. It’s hard to imagine that a panel on, say, prejudice against Muslims or blacks would exclude representatives of the targeted community. But the more serious concern is that a panel without Jews will ignore one of the main manifestations of modern anti-Semitism, as exemplified by another German decision just last week: a judicial ruling that there’s nothing anti-Semitic about torching a synagogue to protest Israeli actions in Gaza.

The case involved two German-Palestinian adults who threw Molotov cocktails at the Wuppertal synagogue in July, causing 800 euros worth of damage. The court decided the attack wasn’t anti-Semitic and therefore let them off with suspended jail sentences and community service. And why wasn’t it anti-Semitic? Because, said the court, the perpetrators were simply trying to bring “attention to the Gaza conflict” then raging between Hamas and Israel. And of course there’s nothing anti-Semitic about attacking Jews in one country to “bring attention” to acts by other Jews in another country; they’re all Jews, aren’t they? Doubtless the court would be equally understanding if Israelis torched a German church to “bring attention to” this abhorrent ruling.

Nor is the ruling an aberration; it’s quite representative of elite German thought. Last year, Prof. Monika Schwarz-Friesel of the Technical University of Berlin published a study that analyzed 10 years’ worth of hate mail sent to the Central Council of Jews in Germany and the Israeli embassy in Berlin. To her surprise, only 3 percent came from right-wing extremists, while over 60 percent came from educated members of “the social mainstream.” And these letters weren’t mere “Israel criticism”; they contained classic anti-Semitic statements like “It is possible that the murder of innocent children suits your long tradition” or “For the last 2,000 years, you’ve been stealing land and committing genocide.”

A Month After the Paris Attacks - The French Dilemma

...Why would any Jew choose to live in a country wherein the hatred toward them is so great from the ten times larger French Muslim community that they need armed guards on a daily basis to protect themselves and their children? The truth is, there is probably precious little that the French government can do, beyond the heavy-handed use of the military, to protect French Jewry from Islamist violence. Ultimately French Jewry has three options.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
11 February '15..

Record numbers of Jews are emigrating out of France this year. The French government is therefore taking measures to secure the safety of its Jewish citizenry after the anti-Semitic Islamist attack on the Hyper Cacher kosher market... which the Obama administration now insists was merely a "random" attack by some generalized human beings against other generalized human beings for reasons unknown.

The Jerusalem Post tells us:

The French government has decided to delegate the safe-guarding of Jewish institutions to the army for the time being, while beefing up police presence in all Jewish neighborhoods.

I have little reason to doubt that when French governmental authorities claimed that they would do their best to protect the tiny Jewish minority in that country that they were largely sincere. The fact that they have actually dispatched the French army to guard Jewish day schools and synagogues speaks to that fact.

The problem is that while guarding Jewish institutions with the army may prevent future Islamist attacks, it is simply no way to live. Who would want to raise their children in an environment so dangerous as to require armed guards?

Why would any Jew choose to live in a country wherein the hatred toward them is so great from the ten times larger French Muslim community that they need armed guards on a daily basis to protect themselves and their children?

The truth is, there is probably precious little that the French government can do, beyond the heavy-handed use of the military, to protect French Jewry from Islamist violence.

Ultimately French Jewry has three options.

1) It can put its head down and simply hope for the best... which is the traditional strategy that has worked out so well in the past.