Peace and love and bombing houses of worship, bro.
My main question is whether any students told Ami to go to hell, and if so, how many compared to the ones on the video? It is entertaining and it is bad enough that any students say what they said, but are they the majority?
(h/t Yenta)
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
From Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign chief Mick Napier this past Saturday, a message on Facebook declaring, with regard to his group’s latest picket of a Barclays Bank branch in one of Scotland’s major cities: “Very good response from public today while pointing out Barclays' profiting from Israeli massacres via its investments in arms supplier Raytheon. The suits who profit from Israeli mass murder are even worse than the killers.” And a very good response from Napier’s followers, with numerous “Likes” and a large number of “Shares”. Runs one early comment: “History repeats itself, Barclays were a target of anti-apartheid movement (South Africa). As I recall they were very slow to get the message then.” Napier’s reply: “Exactly. All those who were too young to play a role against Apartheid South Africa by pressurising Barclays to divest have a chance to oppose the much worse Apartheid system in operation on Israel/ Palestine by forcing Barclays to divest from the Israeli arms supply chain.” [Emphasis added]
On the same Saturday, south of the Border, in London, fellow anti-Israel fanatics from the “Football Against Apartheid” group persist with their campaign to have “Apartheid Israel” expelled from FIFA (the Fédération Internationale de Football Association ): see this video:
To quote its maker, anti-Israel activist Alex Seymour (aka Seymour Alexander): “Manchester United playing against Crystal Palace, two teams with Football Against Apartheid supporters amongst their fans. We were at the magnificent stadium at Wembley to leaflet and spread the word amongst football's devotees that Israel, as the only country in the world currently practicing apartheid in both sport and in day to day life, should not be allowed to get away with it and has to be penalized where it will most affect the man in the Tel Aviv street, by being excluded from FIFA, as part of the general BDS campaign to free the people of Palestine from the yoke of Israel's near 50 year occupation.”
Watch the video carefully, and you’ll see the proud sign “The Emirates FA Cup”. Yes, that’s the trophy that the victorious team’s captain (in this case Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney, whose team won the game by two goals to one) got to lift at the end of the match, to the jubilation of Man U’s supporters.
The Emirates Football Association Cup. Think about that for a second. Get the irony? The man with the Irish accent (a fixture of the campaign to have Israel kicked out of FIFA) and the buttonholed interviewees who eagerly join him in frothing about Israeli “apartheid” seem either blissfully unaware of, or blithely indifferent to, human rights abuses in the Emirates. Could that be because the Zionist Entity is not involved? I mean, if it’s an unjust society’s associations with FIFA they want to rant about and demonstrate against, the Emirates would not be unreasonable start.
After all, the Emirates has a legal code based on a strict interpretation of Sharia that involves many offences against modernity and many violations of human rights: flogging and stoning of offenders; incarceration and torture of political dissidents, including agitators for reforms during the so-called Arab Spring; abductions and sinister disappearances of people who incur the state’s displeasure; the inevitable subjugation of women; latter-day slavery and sexual abuse of domestic workers; judicial whippings … Need I go on?
(Heck, unlike traduced little Israel the Emirates don’t even have a free press!)
Here’s another of the “Kick Israel out of FIFA” videos, earlier in this year’sfootball season, courtesy of Alex Seymour.
To quote him: “The local Derby between 2 top London teams (result a 2:2 draw) brought out the crowds on a damp Saturday and our leaflet volunteers were kept busy updating sympathetic soccer fans on the latest murderous activities of the Israel army of occupation in Palestine. Those killers whose favourite sport is not football but the kidnapping, torture and murder of Palestine children, poor innocent victims of the Zionist project that will never even have the chance to kick a football without the fear of an IDF sniper terminating their short life so that the murdering 'sportsman' can the same evening go brag about his brave exploits in the pubs of Tel Aviv.”
Notice how our Irish friend exploits the “apartheid” slur when speaking to the young black woman. Notice how she accepts the validity of the slur without demur. All this, notwithstanding the fact that condemnation of the “apartheid” slur has been made by South African black people, notably Christian Democrat leader Dr Kenneth Meshoe(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v27sNLIEOes), his daughter Esther (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz49wS_oVsM) and more recently Zimbabwe-born University of Witwatersrand law student Leon JamaineMithi (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/05/calling_israel_an_apartheid_st.html). All of those named consider the apartheid analogy an insult to black people who suffered under white minority rule in South Africa. In Mr Meshoe’s words: "The very idea that Israel is an apartheid state cheapens the word apartheid – it's an insult to every South African who endured the inhumanity and pain of it."
As the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, Dr Ephraim Mirvis, who grew up in South Africa, wrote recently (http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/02/i-grew-south-africa-so-believe-me-when-i-say-israel-not-apartheid-state):
‘Under apartheid, a legal structure of racial hierarchy governed all aspects of life. Black South Africans were denied the vote. They were required by law to live, work, study, travel, enjoy leisure activities, receive medical treatment and even go to the lavatory separately from those with a different colour of skin…It was subjugation in its rawest form… I found myself confronted every day by a society that would routinely degrade and demean black South Africans, not just culturally or socially, but also in the eyes of the law… Contrast that with Israel, a country whose Arab, Druze, Bedouin, Ethiopian, Russian, Baha’i, Armenian and other citizens have equal status under the law. Anyone who truly understands what apartheid was cannot possibly look around Israel today and honestly claim there is any kind of parity. They would need only to visit Hand in Hand, an organisation that runs schools where Jewish and Arab pupils learn together, or meet the Israeli-Arab judge Salim Joubran of the Supreme Court of Israel. They might note the appointment last month of Mariam Kabaha as the national commissioner for equal employment opportunities in the economy ministry, or hear that just this month, Jamal Hakrush became the first Muslim Arab to be appointed a deputy commissioner of the Israel Police. Indeed, the difference is so stark that one might argue there is a good case for ignoring the apartheid slur altogether. Yet the tragic reality is that every time the word is used in the context of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the two sides become polarised yet further and peace becomes ever more distant. As the word “apartheid” is an icon for malevolence, it can only be received by Israel with resentment and suspicion. In turn, extremist forces in Palestinian society can only benefit from a reinforcement of the notion that the very existence of Israel is illegitimate. In short, the apartheid slur provides fuel for those who seek to polarise and it obstructs those who seek peace….’
But do those who peddle the slur really seek peace on a two-state basis, or do they seek the end of Israel? One academic pedlar of the slur, and one who maintained that all South African black people agreed with it, was the ghastly (now dead) Dr Patrick Wolfe, a Yorkshire-born (non-Jewish) academic in Australia, who can be found on video telling an Arab interviewer at great length how Israel compares to apartheid-era South Africa; Wolfe made contentious and highly unpleasant comments about Jews (including a blanket denial of the Jewish genetic origins of Mizrahim) and about Zionists, which should not surprise those who recall that in Arena journal during 2012 he wrote an article, dedicated to the memory of Edward Said, called “New Jews for Old” – the new being the Mizrahim who “replaced” the “constituency” of six million (“or however many there were” as he told the above-mentioned interviewer) that the Ashkenazi Zionists lost in the Holocaust. Here’s Wolfe’s abstract:
“For the Western world, as Edward Said pointed out, the final taboo is not our own national narratives but Israel's. Indeed, Said's magisterial output can reasonably be read as an engagement with the West's elementary myopia concerning Zionism. Where my own case of this myopia was concerned, the initial illumination did not come from Said's work, which I had yet to encounter, but from MaximeRodinson'sIsrael - A Colonial-Settler State? When, having read Rodinson's book, I later came across Said, I read him first and foremost as a Palestinian. Accordingly, as I began to think about trying to register my debt to Said for this article, I went back to Rodinson's book. For something like thirty years I had held onto the crystal-clear insight that it had given me. Israel's relationship to Palestinians is like Australia's relationship to Aborigines. In both cases, European intruders have striven to dispossess indigenous peoples and replace them on their land. The name for this relationship is settler colonialism. Since that time, I have recurrently attempted to refine my understanding of the central concept/project of settler colonialism, which, being an exercise in replacement, I have seen as primarily governed by a logic of elimination.”
Clearly Wolfe, like others of his ilk,did not wish long life to the state of Israel.
“…. As more people all around the globe join in the struggle for justice and equal rights for all, they are realising that Israel’s oppression is not confined to occupied Palestine, but reaches into their own lives, wherever they may be. And wherever the crackdown on BDS is happening, people are becoming acutely aware of the fact that Zionism functions as a global apparatus that seeks to shut down the will of the people everywhere, and erode our freedoms, in order to increase the power of politicians, multinational corporations, and the global arms and security trade. The net effect of this crackdown on popular dissent is an increased determination to resist Zionism, and to engage further in the global intifada that BDS represents.Fighting Zionism, then, is a global responsibility, if we cherish our human rights wherever we may be. The alliances that are forming to confront and defeat it - alliances such as Gaza to Ferguson, indigenous rights groups, prison abolition networks, and more - are organic, growing out of a deep conviction that we are fighting a racist ideology and its violent manifestations in various parts of the world. And because of the global reach of Zionism, global solidarity and international alliances are key to our struggle against this oppressive system.”
This repellent sentiment, with its suggested overtones of Israel as “Jew among the nations”, the scapegoat sought out for obloquy to explain the world’s ills, has attracted comments from someone called Anthony Shaker. Whether this is the Dr Anthony F. Shaker who from April 2013 until March this year was a visiting scholar at the Institute of Islamic Studies at McGill University (https://www.mcgill.ca/islamicstudies/people/visiting-scholars) I am unable to say, though a look at some of the latter’s online output such as this http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/18/are-western-policies-evil-or-desperate/suggests that it very well might be.
The commenter called Anthony Shaker says:
[First, in reply to a commenter called “Ribon”]
“You conflate everything into the single point that every Zionist is fixated on: the survival of the Jewish-only race colony. You distort everything with this racist drivel about Muslims, Palestinians and everyone you hate for self-serving reasons.You stand for brutality and murder, and the world will not stand for it anymore.So, you can huff and puff all you want, Sleezy Ribbon [sic], but Zionist Apar[t]heid is the same dead end that Afrikaaner Apartheid was to South Africa. Time to clean up your act or leave. There is no in-between. You are a foreigner in the Middle East and nothing will change this.”
[Secondly, addressing the article’s author, the following ordure]
‘Thank you for this timely article.People have almost forgotten that Zionism is an ideology that predates Nazism, which it has inspired. Hitler homed in on its most exclusivist, most racist features. In Mein Kampf, he openly expressed his admiration for its proponents' "racial consciousness."In short, before WWII Zionism served as a model for one of the most macabre chapters in human history.Both during and after the war, Zionist organizations helped demolish mainstream Jewish identities, above all in United States, taking over one Jewish community after another.So, people also forget that Zionist Jews were a tiny, fanatical minority before World War II.
What happened after WWII has been the tragedy of tragedies for the rest of humanity: Zionism being held up as "the highest aspiration of the Jews," and war after war in the Middle East.No one is supposed to dare say a word against this delusion, even though many Jews despise the suspicions it is bringing upon them.There have always been "Christian" Zionists around. Sadly, today there are too many non-Jewish Zionists pretending to love the Jews, while loathing the very ground they stand on. They don't want Israelis back into their countries as refugees from Israel's Apartheid regime, so they keep harping about the BDS and the threat it poses to Israel's "right to exist." Israelis are leaving in droves. Israel's millions of victims are so many cockroaches to the "friends of Israel."We all have to be say clearly that Zionism is an ideology of racial self-worship. It has to be stamped out, like other pernicious totalitarian ideologies. It has pushed the world to the edge of the abyss, and it is high time that citizens everywhere take a firm stand and try to stop this global menace.’
(Emphasis added.)
In her article Nada Elia wrote, inter alia:
‘The otherwise reputable publishing house, McGraw-Hill, caving in to Zionists, has destroyed textbooks that depicted the “loss of Palestinian land” postcard, apologised to its critics, and offered a refund to customers who bought the book before it was removed from its inventory.’
On my own blog, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer has several recent guest articles pointing out how mendacious the “loss of Palestinian land” map set (referred to above as a “postcard”) is, and how justified and necessary McGraw-Hill’s withdrawal of that particular slur made in the book Global Politics: Engaging a Complex Worldagainst Israel is.
One of the pro-Israel quotations I have on my blog’s sidebar is one by Singer:
”There is a war of lies and deceit on the internet generating unbelievable hate by denigrating and delegitimising the legal rights conferred on the Jewish people by the League of Nations in 1922 and the United Nations in 1945. The idea that there are two narratives on the Arab-Jewish conflict is rubbish. There is only one – the factual truth that details the return of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in its ancient biblical, ancestral and historic homeland after 3500 years of dispersion with the unanimous endorsement of the nation states then comprising the League of Nations. These misleading maps were deliberately prepared to date from 1946 – intentionally papering over the momentous events that had occurred between 1917 and 1945. Attempts to unravel binding precepts of international law established between 1917 and 1945 – and failing to insist on their being upheld and enforced – has a lot to do with the sorry situation the world finds itself in today. Generals can’t fight a war without soldiers. Jews around the world need to join the fight or vacate the internet to the Jew-haters and their lies that repeated often enough eventually become accepted as truth.”
As evidenced not only by the maps, but by the “apartheid” slur and other tropes, never was a truer warning expressed.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
American Jewish filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently took to the lawns of Portland State University in an experiment, to quip at students and see how far he could draw out their anti-Israel, pro-BDS sentiment. Posing as a representative for a faux-organization dubbed "American Friends for Hamas," Horowitz set out to raise donations for the Hamas cause, explicitly stating that donated dollars would be funding violent intentions and promoting the destruction of the state of Israel. "I want to see if these guys are willing to take it to the next level," Horowitz said pre-experiment, set in the "Pacific Northwest: American home of the BDS movement against Israel." Horowitz introduced himself as an activist for the Hamas-linked organization, describing Hamas as "not your fathers terrorist organization." "We've kind of evolved beyond that," he said. "We've rebuilt and re-branded ourselves [as Hamas]," he argued. And yet, his descriptions of what donations would be funding digressed back to the traditional Hamas methodology of striking civilian targets. "We want to fund operations against Israel," Horowitz said. "The type of attacks we're talking about are cafes and schools - you know, soft targets." (h/t Yenta Press)
A Democratic platform fight will leave us with two questions. One is whether the Clinton camp has the strength or the will — despite her status as the certain presidential nominee — to successfully resist Sanders’ pro-Palestinian push. Given the strength and the passion of the left-wingers who will be in Philadelphia fighting for Sanders, that’s far from certain. The second question is, will a Democratic platform that de-emphasizes support for Israel, or the spectacle of a nasty floor fight over this will have any impact on the election? Despite her own checkered past with respect to Israel, Clinton has made her differences with Sanders over Israel clear in the past months. If the platform isn’t what she wants, she’ll ignore it the same way presidential candidates — and presidents once they’re elected — always ignore platforms. Nor would a pro-Palestinian platform have much effect on the votes of most American Jews. The overwhelming majority are liberals and die-hard Democrats. Even those who are not partisans will be less inclined to defect to the GOP in the year of Donald Trump. Clinton’s percentage of the Jewish vote will probably easily exceed the totals won by Barack Obama and move it back into the vicinity of 80 percent after dipping below 70 in 2012. But even though it probably won’t affect the outcome this year, a platform fight about Israel will be a seminal moment in the history of U.S.-Israel relations. It may be that left-wingers like Peter Beinart are right, and the Democrats are moving inexorably toward nominating an anti-Israel presidential candidate whose positions will conform to the opinions of a liberal base that rejects the Jewish state. In past years, Democrats have accused Republicans of using the issue as a political football by claiming that their party was more supportive of Israel. That charge seemed foolish after Congressional Democrats abandoned Israel on the question of the Iran nuclear deal in order to comply with a partisan litmus test exacted by Obama. But after this summer, it may no longer be possible for Democrats to argue that they are just as supportive of Israel as the GOP. Instead of pointing to their own records, Republicans will be able to just point to the Democratic platform.
Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has tapped two major backers of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement to be members of the DNC platform committee after reports emerged that Sanders wants to revamp the platform to highlight the issue of Palestinian rights. Sanders picked James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, and Cornel West, a philosopher and anti-Israel activist, to fill two of his five slots on the 15-member platform as part of his plans to revise the Democratic Party’s stance on relations with Israel. West is a vociferous critic of Israel who has called the Gaza Strip “the ‘hood on steroids” and, in 2014, wrote that the crimes of Hamas “pale in the face of the U.S.-supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians.” On Saturday, Zogby slammed the Obama administration for continuing to “enable [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s] malevolent rule.” In an oped in the Huffington Post, Zogby wrote that even though the administration has “repeatedly expressed displeasure over Netanyahu’s settlement policies and his blatant interference in US internal politics,” it is “now debating whether to reward his government with a 10-year aid package valued at $35 billion—while Netanyahu, supported by allies in Congress, is brazenly holding out for $45 to $50 billion. And so, operating with virtually no restraints, Netanyahu continues to maneuver and to aggressively advance his hardline agenda. He maintains his grip on power. Israeli society continues to become more extreme and intolerant. Palestinians are more despairing and desperate. And peace more remote.” In addition to Zogby and West, Sanders also picked Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn), the first Muslim elected to Congress. For his part, Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win nominating rights.
Senator Bernie Sanders told campaign staff last night that he still has concerns that he had not made his acceptance of Islamic terrorism sufficiently plain to the electorate, campaign sources reported this morning. At a late-night strategy meeting at his campaign headquarters, the senator discussed the difficulties plaguing his continuing effort to secure the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency. Front-runner Hillary Clinton as all but guaranteed victory in that fight, but Sanders and his supporters have vowed to keep campaigning until the party’s national convention, where the official choice will be made by the delegates. In analyzing the yawning gap between Clinton’s delegate count and his own, Sanders wondered aloud whether he should take a less equivocal stand on his tolerance for Muslims who attack civilians in the name of Islam. “Appointing apologists for terrorism to this campaign is all well and good, but how many Americans – especially registered Democrats – know or care that those people have defended or dismissed such attacks?” asked the candidate. “I want everyone to make sure my position on terrorism is crystal clear: it’s fine if directed at Jews, Israel, American interests, and Westerners in general, provided it can be contextualized to make the attacker out as a victim. Have we been consistently on message in that respect?”
On March 8, 2016, Palestinian terrorist Bashar Masalha attacked civilians in Tel Aviv-Jaffa, stabbing to death an American tourist, Taylor Force, and wounding 11 others. The terrorist was shot and killed by Israeli police. The day after the murder, Palestinian Media Watch reported that Abbas’ Fatah praised the murderer as “the heroic Martyr.” Last week, Israel gave his body to the Palestinian Authority. Reporting on the funeral in which hundreds participated, official PA TV glorified the murderer calling him “the Martyr” - “Shahid” - 11 times. Becoming a Martyr in Islam represents the highest religious achievement that can be attained by a Muslim, according to PA teachings, and the Martyr is granted numerous rewards. The PA TV reporter explained that the funeral was “a large national wedding befitting of Martyrs.” The reference is to Islamic belief that a Martyr marries 72 Dark-Eyed Virgins in Paradise: PA TV reporter: “His family, friends, and people of the region took it upon themselves to ensure that this [burial] would be a large national wedding befitting of Martyrs... The Martyr was accompanied to his last resting place in the cemetery for Martyrs in Hajja.” [Official PA TV, May 21, 2016]
Murderer of US tourist glorified as “Martyr” 11 times on official PA TV
On May 22, 2016, Palestinian Presidency Secretary-General Al-Tayeb 'Abd Al-Rahim delivered a speech on behalf of Palestinian President Mahmoud 'Abbas to a group of Palestinian National Security Forces. The speech was part of a ceremony celebrating their second-place win in the international 8th Annual Warrior Competition, which took place in Jordan on May 2-6, 2016. In his speech, 'Abd Al-Rahim condemned attempts to intimidate the Palestinian people and divert it from its path, and called such attempts futile, as "our [Palestinian] people loves death more than life." He added that the National Security Forces victory was a step on the way to establishing an independent Palestinian state, and rejected the notion of establishing a separate independent entity in Gaza, or a state with temporary borders in the West Bank alone.
Speaking at the opening of the "Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade" hosted by the State of Qatar on May 21, 2016, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticized military counter-terrorism operations as "short-sighted," and equated violence in "Palestine" to the Assad regime's murder of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Saudi Arabia's targeting of hospitals and markets in Yemen. In his words: "On one of the major prevention challenges of our times – violent extremism – we must avoid short-sighted policies and heavy-handed approaches that only exacerbate the problem and give terrorists their best recruitment tools... Finally, we must do all we can to end the conflicts and violence that have set this region aflame, from Syria and Yemen to Libya, Iraq and Palestine."
For a long time Israel has been a Western island in a Middle Eastern sea, and it has turned toward universalist Europe and America for most of its cultural and economic intercourse. One of the arguments against Jewish tribalism has always been that our Western allies don’t like it. But now, in part because of weakness in the Western bloc, Israel is finding that it has no choice but to move closer to its more natural partners in the Middle East and the rest of the world. The environment is changing and the cultural organism must change too, if it is to adapt to it. In our new environment, a strongly universalist morality is not an advantage; it constitutes unilateral moral disarmament. Our state won’t survive as a copy of the US or Sweden (indeed, the pressures are such that neither the US nor Sweden may survive in their present form). That doesn’t mean that we need to give up democratic government or adopt all the cultural practices of our neighbors, like their misogyny, religious coercion, or beheadings and barrel bombs. It doesn’t imply that we ought to view ourselves as superior to non-Jews or that we should deny non-Jews that live among us their civil rights. What it does mean is that our objective should be a state that unashamedly prioritizes Jewish people, culture, religion and values. What are the consequences for our relationship with our neighbors, and our conduct of our long war – the one we have been fighting to create and keep our state on and off for close to a century? And what for our soldiers, like Sgt. Azaria? That will be the topic of Part II. Stay tuned.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said repeatedly that "the status quo between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not sustainable." Yet Israelis and Palestinians have their own agendas and concerns, and their rationales and fears of dramatically changing the status quo outweigh the risks of managing it. A conflict that is perceived to be existential in nature isn't just a real estate deal. At the Camp David summit in July 2000, I heard Yasser Arafat say several times that he wouldn't give the Americans the chance to walk behind his coffin. Translation: Don't think I'll sign a deal that will get me killed. He knew that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had been at Camp David, too, in 1978 with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and that despite getting 100% of Sinai back, the Egyptian leader had been murdered. Paradoxically, close proximity helps mitigate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians have a dependency on Israel for water, electricity, access to the outside world, and a range of goods and services - including employment opportunities. At the same time, the continuation of Palestinian violence, a hostile Hamas government in Gaza, a Middle East in meltdown, an Arab world distracted by Iran and the Islamic State, and Israel's growing closeness with Egypt all create very little chance that there will be an intense focus on negotiations to create a Palestinian state.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah dismissed Tuesday an Israeli proposal for direct negotiations instead of a French multilateral peace initiative. “Time is short,” Hamdallah said. “[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is trying to buy time… but this time he will not escape the international community.” Hamdallah made the comments as he met French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who has held talks in Israel and the Palestinian territories this week to push Paris’s peace initiative. The June 3 Paris summit has been welcomed by the Palestinians, who suspended a planned UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements to focus on the French efforts. Israel, however, has consistently argued that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the two sides, rather than in international forums.
An Israeli delegation secretly arrived in Cairo on Sunday afternoon on behalf of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to arrange a meeting with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, according to Palestinian news agency Ma'an. The delegation hopes to enlist the assistance of the Egyptians in organizing a tripartite meeting between Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and Sisi in order to reboot the moribund peace process ahead of a French-initiated peace conference scheduled to take place in Paris in early June. Israel and the Palestinians have not been invited to the Paris meeting. The Palestinians have welcomed the initiative, while Netanyahu has thus far opposed it, fearing it would give the Palestinians an excuse to avoid direct talks with Israel. Netanyahu has said the Palestinians do not need a conference in Paris to open a dialogue between Ramallah and Jerusalem, given that the two cities are located right next to each other.
One thing there’s no shortage of in the Middle East is an ambient body odor level suggestive of a civilization that has yet to discover deodorant. Another is narratives. In this region, where borders are violated more often than a hot apple pie at Jason Biggs’ house, everyone’s got an idea about who did what to who and when. Nowhere is that more true than between the nebulous borders of Israel and the Palestinian Territories – the Middle East’s Jim and Pam. As a result of these discrepant narratives, the warring parties have decided on an alternative to the peace accords that many have been hoping for. As of today, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have officially agreed to disagree about nearly all aspects of the conflict and the 2016 Agree to Disagree Accords outline every fact that the two sides agree they disagree about. These include who started the conflict, who is justified in killing whom, who’s not justified in killing whom, whose fault it is that the conflict is ongoing, who the international community supports, who the media favors, who should just admit their mistakes and give up their various claims, and the biggest one – who is native to the land. It seems that, as TMB has reported before, the only thing the two groups agree on is that not enough Israelis and Palestinians have died yet to make a peace deal. As crazy as this all seems, many think that makes sense. After all, you can’t spell “narrative” without “native.”
Will the addition of Yisrael Beytenu to the government coalition have an impact on the present government’s policy regarding issues of religion and state? It is no secret that Yisrael Beytenu has championed causes such as civil marriage and a more liberal approach to conversions of non-Jewish Israelis. Avigdor Liberman, the party’s chairman, has been a strong supporter of drafting military-age haredi men. This should come as no surprise. Yisrael Beytenu’s constituency consists of a large number of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, many of whom are not considered Jewish according to Halacha, but who nevertheless tend to be highly patriotic and serve in the IDF in high percentages. Unfortunately, Yisrael Beytenu’s leader has reportedly agreed to abandon many of his and his constituency’s demands in exchange for the opportunity to join the government and receive the defense portfolio and immigration and absorption portfolio. One of the conditions reportedly set by United Torah Judaism and Shas for their agreement to allow Yisrael Beytenu to join the coalition is that there will be no attempts to change the status quo. Shas and UTJ have a broad interpretation of what constitutes changing the status quo.
Diplomatically, the trials will have massive consequences for how Israel is viewed by the US and various European countries that vacillate between supporting and criticizing Israel. Is it a vibrant democracy trying its best to balance the rule of law with security threats that other countries could never dream of? Or is the rule of law taking a back seat under massive domestic political pressure to acquit soldiers who allegedly violate the laws of war as long as they are in conflict with Palestinians? Like with the ICC, if the process and results of the trials are viewed as legitimate, Israel will be reinforced as it addresses efforts at the UN and by France to impose parameters on it for the future of the Middle East. It would also gain an upper hand in battling the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign, which it faces in universities and business dealings throughout the West. If the process and verdicts are viewed as whitewashing alleged Israeli violations of the laws of war, they will be ammunition for imposing new diplomatic conditions on Israel and will fire up the BDS movement. The fact that the trials are occurring at the same time is coincidence, and they themselves address a range of very different issues. But at the end of the day, their confluence and the fact that they all involve national security questions about interpreting the rules of engagement are what will make them so compelling in framing Israel’s legal, political and diplomatic narrative.
Border Police officers shot dead a female Palestinian terrorist who attempted a stabbing attack at the Ras Bidu checkpoint north of Jerusalem on Monday. The terrorist approached the Border Police officers at the checkpoint around 2:30 p.m., immediately rousing their suspicion. They warned her to stop, firing shots in the air in accordance with procedure, but she continued to run toward them, pulling out knife from her purse and waving it at them. As she attempted to stab the officers, they shot her, neutralizing the threat. The commander of the checkpoint said that "the combat officers' alertness saved lives." The incident was the latest in the wave of Palestinian terrorism that began last fall and in which 28 Israelis and two Americans have been killed.
Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan ordered a freeze Tuesday on returning the bodies of Palestinian terrorists from East Jerusalem to their families. The decision follows a months-long campaign by the families, including through appeals to the High Court of Justice, to have the bodies returned. Police have said they feared the funerals for the deceased attackers, who were killed as they stabbed, shot or rammed Israelis with cars over the past seven months, would turn into mass rallies in support of further terror attacks. Police agreed to release the bodies after the families committed to hold private subdued funerals that would not include calls for further attacks. On Monday night, the Ynet news site aired footage of a funeral in East Jerusalem that showed a crowd of some 200 residents demonstrating outside the cemetery with cries of “Allahu akbar” and “in spirit and blood we will redeem you, martyr.”
A gated community of villas with well-tended flower gardens near the West Bank town of Ramallah may help explain why Palestinians almost universally believe there is corruption in the government of President Mahmoud Abbas. The secluded "Diplomatic Compound," built for senior Palestinian Authority officials on subsidized land, is one of the symbols of what many Palestinians think is wrong with their leaders - that they are cut off from the people and award themselves special privileges. The breakdown of trust is likely linked to overall dissatisfaction with Abbas' performance after 10 years in power, twice his lawful term. He hasn't delivered on promises to lead Palestinians to statehood, and the prospect of open-ended Israeli military occupation, already in its 50th year, darkens every aspect of life in the West Bank. A recent poll found that almost all Palestinians - 95.5 percent - believe there is corruption in Abbas' government. Nader Said, a veteran pollster, surveyed 1,200 people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip last month. Among Gaza residents scoring the performance of the territory's Hamas rulers, the figure was 82 percent. "This is the highest rate I have ever seen in all the polls I have done," Said, who runs an independent polling agency called AWRAD, told The Associated Press. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.
Hamas swept into power in the Palestinian Authority via the ballot box in 2006 by promising to root out corruption and secure Palestinian rights. A year later, Hamas violently expelled the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, which the terrorist group has illegitimately – and disastrously – ruled since. A decade of Hamas’s aggression and mismanagement has plunged Gazans into misery and hurled the dream of Palestinian statehood backward. But it didn’t have to be this way. Hamas’s entry to Palestinian politics could have been a watershed moment. The Palestine Liberation Organization, begun as an armed revolutionary group dedicated to Israel’s destruction, made the tactical decision to remain relevant by engaging in secret negotiations with Israel that led to the 1993 Oslo Accords and the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Palestinians were closer to statehood than ever before. Hamas won the 2006 elections because the Palestinian people saw the PA as ineffective and corrupt.
When it comes to the security situation at Israel’s borders in recent years, no border has been more perilous for the Jewish state as its southern boundary with the Gaza Strip. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and the Palestinian terror group Hamas seized control of the coastal enclave in 2007. Since then, Gaza has given Israel three wars, thousands of rocket attacks, and a network of cross-border terror tunnels that Hamas is now trying to rebuild. Since the conclusion of the latest Israel-Hamas war in the summer of 2014, both Israel and the international community have taken steps to rebuild Gaza in order to ease the humanitarian situation there and prevent another conflict. But over the last several years, chaos in the rest of the Middle East has put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the back burner of regional priorities. An April 2016 report published by the World Bank, titled “Reconstructing Gaza – Donor Pledges,” revealed that a number of leading Muslim nations have failed to live up to their pledges for the Gaza rebuilding effort. At a 2014 conference in Cairo, the international community pledged roughly $3.5 billion over three years for Gaza. But as of the end of March 2016, only $1.4 billion had been delivered compared to the scheduled $2.7 billion. Several Arab states have fallen significantly short of their stated pledges for Gaza. Qatar, which promised the most aid at $1 billion, has so far only donated $152 million, the World Bank said. Saudi Arabia, the second-leading pledger, has delivered only 10 percent of its promise of $500 million. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has sent 15 percent of its pledge of $200 million. Turkey, which is one of Hamas’s top international supporters, has delivered one-third of the $200 million it pledged.
Egypt’s president announced Sunday the country will accept a Russian loan of $25 billion in order to build a nuclear power plant, despite recent terrorism and civil unrest in the country. The loan will finance longstanding Egyptian plans to build a new reactor in Dabaa, despite long running terrorism concerns in the region. Egypt’s current president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, signed a nuclear power plant deal with Russia last November, just days after the Kremlin announced a Russian aircraft was downed by an act of terrorism, killing all 224 people on board. The plane was heading from an Egyptian resort city to St. Petersburg in Russia. Groups tied to the Islamic State (ISIS) have made repeated attacks in Egypt, even killing nine people, six of whom were police officers, with a bomb in Cairo in January. Egypt is also politically unstable, and has changed presidents three times since 2011. The country’s former president, Mohamed Morsi, was removed from office by a military coup in 2013 and sentenced to death last May. Egypt has planned to build a nuclear reactor since 1955, but aborted most of its plans after the Chernobyl accident. Egyptian interest in nuclear power was renewed after the country signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Russia in 2004 and 2008, according to the World Nuclear Association. Egypt currently operates two extremely small and old reactors with technical assistance from Russia and Argentina.
Human remains retrieved from the crash site of EgyptAir flight 804 suggest there was an explosion on board that may have brought down the aircraft in the east Mediterranean, a senior Egyptian forensics official said on Tuesday. “The logical explanation is that an explosion brought it down,” the official told The Associated Press. The official, who is part of the Egyptian team investigating the crash that killed all 66 people on board the flight from Paris to Cairo early last Thursday, has personally examined the remains at a Cairo morgue. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. All 80 pieces that have been brought to Cairo so far are small. “There isn’t even a whole body part, like an arm or a head,” said the official, adding that one piece was the left part of a head. “But I cannot say what caused the blast,” he said.
Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei on Monday said the United States cannot “do a damn thing” about the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program. “They have engaged in a lot of hue and cry over Iran’s missile capabilities, but they should know that this ballyhoo does not have any influence and they cannot do a damn thing,” Khamenei said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency. Iran in March tested ballistic missiles, including two with the words “Israel must be wiped off the earth” emblazoned on them, according to the US and other Western powers. Under a nuclear deal signed last year between world powers and Iran, ballistic missile tests are not forbidden outright but are “not consistent” with a United Nations Security Council resolution from July 2015, US officials say. According to the UN decision, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” until October 2023.
Iran’s Assembly of Experts chose ultra-conservative Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati on Tuesday to head the key body which oversees the work of the country’s supreme leader and will elect his successor, state television reported. The 89-year-old cleric is one of the few hardliners who secured reelection in a February vote that saw a landslide for reformist and moderates in the capital and big gains elsewhere. Jannati was voted chairman of the 88-member Assembly with 51 votes. No moderates or reformists stood for the post. Former president Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who had chaired the assembly until 2011 and who topped the polls in Tehran three months ago, did not put his name forward, with media reports suggesting he could muster no more than 20 of the assembly’s votes.
India said Monday it will invest up to $500 million in a deal to develop a strategic port in Iran and both countries planned a number of projects they say are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The deal and plans were announced during a visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the first such trip in more than a decade. In a ceremony marking the agreements, Modi said the bilateral agreement to develop Chabahar, in southern Iran, and the “availability of about $500 million from India for this purpose is an important milestone,” in relations between the two countries. President Hassan Rouhani said working on the port can be a “great symbol” of cooperation between Iran and India. He said Iran’s energy resources and Indian mines can pave ground for cooperation in the aluminum, steel and petrochemical industries. Iran and India also signed a number of agreements to enhance technological, petrochemical and banking cooperation.
A prominent media outlet that received money from a White House-backed group of Iran deal advocates refused interviews with a top congressional critic of last summer’s nuclear agreement, deepening accusations that the Obama administration and its allies suppressed voices opposing the deal, according to conversations with sources and a series of emails viewed by the Washington Free Beacon. The publicly funded National Public Radio declined interviews with Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), a leading critic of the Iran nuclear deal. NPR had received funding from the liberal Ploughshares Fund, which has been exposed as being a core part of a White House-backed campaign to push lobbyists, policy analysts, and journalists in favor of the deal. When asked by reporters last week about refusing the interviews, NPR suggested that Pompeo’s office had never reached out to the station. However, multiple emails viewed by the Free Beacon demonstrate that Pompeo’s office had been in two separate talks with NPR producers about scheduling an interview. These developments threaten to entangle NPR in a growing scandal over the White House’s coordinated efforts to mislead Congress and the American people about the contents of the nuclear accord. The Ploughshares Fund, which coordinated with the White House to sell the deal, gave NPR hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Free Beacon initially disclosed in 2012. Ploughshares also gave high dollar donations to a range of other media outlets and organizations.
Eight hundred eleven op-eds. Three hundred fifty- two letters to the editor. Two hundred twenty-seven editorials. That’s the number of “pro-diplomacy” articles that Ploughshares Fund takes credit for helping support as part of its “proactive” media campaign to support the Iran deal last year. They “were published during critical moments of the Iran campaign,” the website of the fund boasts in its 2015 annual report. The revelations about the work that this one fund did to support the deal is just part of a larger story now being revealed in the US about how the government worked with NGOs to sell the Iran deal. NGO funding went to organizations such as National Public Radio and the “pro-peace” Israel lobby group J Street. The Iran deal is done. But understanding just how the wool was pulled over our eyes is necessary so that future “deals” of this sort can be challenged at their source. When one looks back at how US public support was influenced, it should serve as both a lesson about how the government works through its non-profit allies and about how public opinion can be manipulated and consent manufactured. The first lesson from how the Iran deal was sold to the public is that it is important to follow the money. Bradley Klapper at the Associated Press notes, “Outside groups of all stripes are increasingly giving money to news organizations for special projects or general news coverage... Ploughshares’ backing is more unusual given its prominent role in the rancorous, partisan debate over the Iran deal.”
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.