Friday, 16 October 2009

Politics, Not Law

Politics, Not Law

We've been having a discussion here about whether Richard Goldstone read the report that bears his name. The significance of the matter can be overestimated - the report and its content are out there in any case. Yet the fact that the Commission was headed by a Jew with connections to Israel has given it tremendous added weight; the man thus opened himself to personal investigation, certainly in the context of his report.

Warren Goldstein, a South African rabbi with a PhD in International law, claims in his column published yesterday in the Jerusalem Post that there is very little about the report that is legal, and much that is politics. One of the four procedural weaknesses he finds in the work of the Commission is the impossible haste with which it did its job:

Any lawyer with even limited experience knows that there was just not
sufficient time for the Mission to have properly considered and prepared its
report. One murder trial often takes many months of evidence and argument to
enable a judge to make a decision with integrity. To assess even one day of
battle in Gaza with the factual complexities involved would have required a
substantial period of intensive examination. According to the Mission's Report,
the Mission convened for a total of 12 days.

They say that they considered a huge volume of written and visual material
running into thousands of pages; they conducted three field trips; there were
only four days of public hearings; and yet in a relatively short space of time
the members of the Mission agreed to about 500 pages of detailed material and
findings with not one dissenting opinion throughout.

They made no less than 69 findings, mostly of fact, but some of law and
within those 69 there were often numerous sub-findings.

All of this was quite simply physically impossible if the job had been
done with integrity and care.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Civilian Investigation: Pros and Cons

Civilian Investigation: Pros and Cons

According to Haaretz, the Americans, British and French are pressuring Israel to launch a civilian investigation into the events of the Gaza operation.

Such an investigation would likely to be headed by a retired Supreme Court justice - Aharon Barak is the obvious candidate - joined by a prominent academic figure and a retired general. It would sit for six months or a year, and eventually submit a thick report in two sections. One would be for public and international consumption, and would address all the issues relevant to the public, political and international discussions. The second, classified, section would focus on the minutiae of military practice; it will remain classified for decades, for obvious reasons. So far as I know, the classified section of the Agranat Commission's report, submitted in 1974, is still not open.

There are pros and cons to such a move.

The most obvious reason not to set up such a commission is that it would seem to vindicate the Goldstone Commission's findings, at least until the results are published. Given the degree to which the Goldstone Report really and truly is an unaceptable document- a very large degree - this is a legitimate consideration.

The second reason not to have a civilian investigation is that the international practice in democracies is not to have them. The investigations Israel is already holding are as professional and legally sound as those the Americans and Europeans hold, and their pressure on Israel to do more is hypocrisy (or power politics, which is similar). Remind me who headed the civilian investigation into the battles of Faluga, say?

The pros are more numerous. First, once the Barak Commission refutes the main findings of the Goldstone report - and it will, there can be no doubt about that - the world will have to divide itself on this matter into two clear camps. The one that accepts Israel as a democracy fighting an ugly enemy with reasonable measures and some room for improvement; and the one that uses whatever tools it can to attack Israel, irrespective of facts or rationality. True, the existing investigations should be enough, but for some people, Aharon Barak's presence will be reassuring.

This consideration also touches the whole issue of international law; a Barak Report will bolster the saner of its advocates and proponents.

Next, Israel has held such investigations for all its wars since 1973, and for various less-than-war cases in between. None of them have ever damaged us, and they've all strengthened us. There really is eternal room for improvement, and serious investigations by serious professionals always find valuable things.

Further, the reading of the Goldstone Report is uncomfortable. Yes, it's biases are outlandish, its methods are worse than primitive, and it's riddled by factual mistakes. Yet it's impossible not to read the litany of horrific things it describes and remain untouched. A civilian investigation would have the tools and the time to do what the individual reader cannot: sift through the endless details and do its best to reach the truth.

So, will there be such an investigation? I'd hazard the guess there won't. I don't see the Netanyahu government setting it up right now, since they've correctly decided to lambast the Goldstone Report with everything they've got; this, in spite of the fact that it wasn't them, it was the previous government (which contained the same minister of defense, that's true).

Should there be such an investigation? I think it would be the grown-up thing to do, yes.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Rua da Judiaria - Os Judeus Sefarditas de Inglaterra

Rua da Judiaria - Os Judeus Sefarditas de Inglaterra

Posted using ShareThis

The Torah Revolution: An important first step? [On Civil marriage in Israel]

The Torah Revolution: An important first step? [On Civil marriage in Israel]

Love of the Land: The Times: Reinterpreting 'International Law'

The Times: Reinterpreting 'International Law'

Media Critiques/Honestreporting.com
15 October 09

The Times's correspondent opposes Israeli settlements by misrepresenting the Geneva Conventions.


When do journalists become experts in "international law"? The Times's James Hider writes an analysis piece "Geneva Conventions give the lie to Israeli stance on new settlements". Putting aside one's personal views on the desirability or otherwise of Israeli settlements, it is a particularly inappropriate turn of phrase in the headline to accuse Israel of lying.

This is even more so considering that the application of the Geneva Conventions to Israeli settlements is open to interpretation. Hider, however, chooses a blanket statement to make his own interpretation:

Under the Geneva Conventions, however, it is illegal to settle civilians on land captured in war, which is why the international community condemns the move into the Palestinian territories.

In fact, as Mitchell Bard points out:

  • The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others.

Do the Geneva Conventions even technically apply to the settlements? The late Professor Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under US President Lyndon Johnson and a drafter of UN Resolution 242 writes:

Article 2 of the convention provides that the agreement applies "to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a high contracting party."Thus the convention cannot apply because the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip have never been generally recognized as territories of Jordan. Jordan administered them as a belligerent occupant between 1948 and 1967, after a war of aggression against Israel in 1948. Jordan's attempt to annex these areas in 1950 was recognized only by Britain (except for Jerusalem) and perhaps by Pakistan.

In any event, Jordan has formally renounced whatever claims it may have had to the territory, which is a residual part of the Palestine Mandate and therefore subject to the rights of "the Jewish people" to make "close settlement" on the land. I regard this aspect of the controversy as legally more important than arguments based on the Geneva Convention.

Thus, Hider not only fails to define the terms of the Geneva Conventions properly but also fails to note that their applicability to Israeli settlements is open to interpretation.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of a particularly virulent anti-Israel bias prevalent within Europe, as Israel's detractors invoke "international law" to promote accusations of "war crimes" and other illegal actions. While the European establishment may accept Hider's opinion as fact, not interpretation, the facts support a different conclusion.

Please send your considered comments to The Times - letters@thetimes.co.uk - remembering to include an address and daytime telephone number.



Love of the Land: The Times: Reinterpreting 'International Law'

Love of the Land: Failure Everyone Can See Now

Failure Everyone Can See Now


Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
15 October 09


At some point, not even the mainstream media can spin sufficiently for the hapless Obama foreign policy. This Washington Post report is blunt:

A political crisis for the Palestinian Authority and growing doubts about American mediation have deeply undercut chances that Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will resume in the near future, according to officials and analysts on both sides.

After nine months of shuttle diplomacy by U.S. special envoy George J. Mitchell, the gap between Israeli and Palestinian leaders appears to have grown, and it now includes not only a dispute over Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, but also renewed tension over Jerusalem, disagreement over the framework for the talks and controversy over a U.N. report on alleged war crimes during Israel’s offensive in the Gaza Strip last winter.

In other words, Obama’s Middle East gambit, apparently inspired by those known Middle East policy wonks Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, has failed. Spectacularly so. Putting daylight between the U.S. and Israel and sneering at the Bush team for being too close to Israel didn’t really get the Obami anywhere, did it? The Post is candid that the fixation on settlements “backfired.” As virtually every pro-Israel conservative commentator predicted, “It raised hopes among Palestinians, who began to demand nothing less than a full freeze, and led to severe tensions in U.S.-Israeli relations.”

And all that ingratiating with the “Muslim World” in Cairo? Not much was gained; in fact, the parties are more estranged than ever. Our relations with Israel have not been this strained since . . . well, ever . . . and the administration’s credibility is arguably worse than any of its recent predecessors.

What can be learned from all this? Sanctimonious speeches and fractured history-telling don’t make for “peace.” Savaging your allies doesn’t get you anywhere. And ignoring hard truths — including the Palestinians’ unsolved internal divisions and refusal to renounce and root out terrorism — also doesn’t get you anywhere. Moreover, Obama’s appearance on the scene doesn’t change any of the fundamental issues; neither does chanting “diplomacy” or “dedication to the peace process.”

This should be a wake-up call for the administration. The Obama team might want to consider letting domestic pols run foreign policy. And they might put away some of their egocentric misconceptions about the power of Obama’s aura.



Love of the Land: Failure Everyone Can See Now

Love of the Land: Open Letter to Defense Minister Barak: Do Not Negotiate My Release

Open Letter to Defense Minister Barak: Do Not Negotiate My Release


This week, I wrote an open letter to Defense Minister Barak, instructing him not to negotiate my release if I am G-d forbid abducted by terrorists. The letter has been making waves in Israel, and was quoted in Israel's major media outlets:

An open letter to Defense Minister Barak: Do not negotiate my release

To the Defense Minister of the State of Israel
Mr. Ehud Barak

Re: Instructions not to conduct negotiations for my release if I am taken captive

As an Israeli citizen, as a soldier and a reserve officer, I hereby instruct you that if, God forbid, I am ever kidnapped or taken captive by Arab terror organizations, no negotiations should be conducted to secure my release. This order is the product of a sound mind. The reasons for this instruction are as follows:

A. Twenty-five years ago, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard took shelter from his pursuers inside the Israeli Embassy in Washington. In accordance with an order issued by the Shamir government, then-Israeli Ambassador Elyakim Rubinstein handed him directly over to US federal authorities. Since then and to this day, Jonathan has been imprisoned under disgraceful conditions. He has never had even a short vacation outside the prison walls. His health is dangerously deteriorating. Israel - for whom and in whose name Jonathan sacrificed his life, did and continues to do everything possible to ensure that Jonathan will remain in prison and die there. Despite the biting betrayal that he experienced, every time that the media raises the possibility that Jonathan will be exchanged for one arch-murderer or another, Pollard hurriedly announces his opposition to this type of swap. It is incumbent on every Israeli citizen to understand - as a free person -what our betrayed hero understands from his jail cell. We must not buy liberty for an individual in exchange for endangering the lives of the public and encouraging additional abductions.

B. After a number of visits to his prison cell I understood that in the 25 years of continued betrayal of Jonathan, Israel's government has lost the moral foundation in the name of which it sends its sons to endanger themselves and in the power of which it can also bring them home. In fact, since the betrayal of Jonathan and until this very day, Israel has not brought one captive soldier home alive.

C. The Israeli government has refrained from carrying out the simple and most obvious actions for Gilad Shalit's release. Hamas, which at first avoided admitting that it was the kidnapper, quickly understood that Israel's leaders would not endanger themselves with international arrest warrants and is no longer afraid to claim full responsibility for this act. Its thousands of detainees in Israel are getting the royal treatment and enjoy conditions no Israeli detainee can even dream of.

As a first step, Israel should have compared the arrest conditions of Hamas prisoners to those of Shalit. No visits, no information, no sunlight. All Hamas leaders should have become the targets of kidnappings and assassinations. The entire supply of money, weapons, cement, fuel and electricity from Israel to Gaza should have stopped. These basic actions, and many others which could have led to Shalit's swift release, are not being carried out because the Israeli leadership fears its own fate. The only way that Israel's leaders can please both Israeli mothers and the world is to surrender and dispatch thousands of murderers to our doorsteps.

D. Clearly, the loss of vision and leadership that engenders these wholesale releases greatly encourages our enemies. The wave of terror and kidnappings that broke out following the release of thousands of terrorists does not fit what we had known in the past by any standard. "I couldn't look the mothers in the eye," said Defense Minister Yitzchak Rabin and signed the prisoner swap with the Jibril terror organization. This exchange led directly to the first intifada. This led to a mass release of terrorists in the Oslo Accord and to the suicide bomber rage that followed on its heels. The State of Israel has sunk itself inside fences and guards, but this is nothing more than a pain killer for spreading cancer.

No fence can stop rockets. The weakness of the Israeli leadership in the face of terror organizations has been well internalized by a distant and much more dangerous circle of enemy states. Why should Iran's leader be afraid if the Hamas leaders feel safe?

E. "I see Israel as a state of all its citizens," explained the most influential Israeli of this generation, former Chief Justice Aharon Barak. Israel, fleeing from its Jewish identity, has pulled the carpet out from under the moral foundation of its very existence and right to send soldiers into battle. If not for a Jewish state, then what are we doing here? Why should we send our sons to the army and not to Australia?

The inevitable result of loss of Jewish vision is loss of our ability to conduct any sort of political program. When there is no strategic goal, there cannot be tactical policies. As a result, Israel will continue to conduct itself according to the caprices of constantly-surfacing international and local pressure and media campaigns.

F. In this situation, the responsible Israeli citizen is faced with one of two choices: One - to come to terms with the process briefly described here and to wait for the coup de grace that will terminate the historic episode called 'The State of Israel'. The other option is that, like in past wars, the simple soldiers will know how to save the state from the failures of its leaders. As such, we, the civilians and the simple soldiers order that no negotiations be held for us.

G. I am pleased to report that both combat officers and soldiers have announced that they will unhesitatingly add their names to this petition. I plan to continue to send you letters from soldiers in the same spirit.

Respectfully,

Moshe Feiglin

Since I announced this initiative, I have received quite a few letters from soldiers and citizens who penned their own versions to Barak. The most touching was a letter from Yitzchak, a soldier who served with Gilad Shalit. Yitzchak wrote as follows:

"Since Gilad was abducted, I feel torn and I do not know what to do to help him. Like every Jew on earth, I pray for him and hope that he will be released soon - safe and sound.
Yet, I am dismayed at how our entire country kneels before the terror organizations every time that they succeed in capturing one of our fighters in their clutches. This situation is intolerable and we fall into this trap time and again. I am frequently forced to refuse the requests of my fellow soldiers from our company and brigade to participate in demonstrations for Gilad. I have reached the conclusion that our intellect must take precedence over our emotions, as painful as this is for me."

My letter to the Defense Minister seems to have touched a raw nerve. Many people are disgusted with Israel's defeatism and are anxious to join in this initiative. It is important to remember that since the wholesale release of terrorists in the Jibril swap 25 years ago, not one Israeli soldier has returned home alive from terrorist captivity. The terrorist release approach is not only wrong from a moral and security point of view; it also fails to produce positive results.

Statistically, 80% of Hamas terrorists return to terror and murder after their release. In other words, 16 of the 20 terrorists released by Israel in exchange for the Gilad Shalit video will once again attempt to murder Israelis. It is reasonable to assume that one of them may possibly succeed, G-d forbid. This will be just part of the true price of the video. It is merely the promo for the pictures of long lines of buses filled with gleeful murderers that we will be treated to if the entire exchange takes place, G-d forbid.

The more soldiers and citizens who write letters to the Defense Minister, the greater the chances that Israel will regain its moral balance and return to war against terror instead of surrender to its dictates.

Please fill in your name and information on the letter below, copy, paste and email it to moshe@mflikud.co.il . We will send the letters in bulk to Minister Barak.

Or print the letter out here, fill in your information and fax it to our office: 09 792 0570

or mail it to:
Manhigut Yehudit
POB 21
Ginot Shomron
44853


Love of the Land: Open Letter to Defense Minister Barak: Do Not Negotiate My Release

Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas as Peace Partner? Dictators vs. "The Street"

Mahmoud Abbas as Peace Partner? Dictators vs. "The Street"


Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
15 October 09

The US Administration has resumed its efforts to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. US special Middle East envoy George Mitchell is back in the region in yet another bid to persuade the two parties to revive the peace process.

But the question that needs to be asked these days is: Is there really a strong, credible and reliable partner on the Palestinian side for any deal? Or, in simple terms, can Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian deliver?

The answer obviously is no.

Even if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas were to sign a peace agreement tomorrow morning, it is highly unlikely that the Palestinian president would be able to sell it to his people.

Abbas’s credibility has been severely damaged as a result of the manner in which he handled a resolution that was supposed to be brought before the UN Human Rights Council regarding the findings of the Richard Goldstone report into Operation Cast Lead.

Palestinians were hoping that the resolution, which accuses both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes during the war, would be endorsed by the Council.

Abbas, however, shocked many Palestinians by ordering his representative at the UN, Ibrahim Khraishi, to set aside the resolution.

Abbas has since been facing an unprecedented wave of denunciations and allegations of high treason from many Palestinians and Arabs. Even some of his loyalists are now calling for his resignation on the pretext that he cannot be trusted to negotiate peace with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

The street protests that erupted in the Palestinian territories and Arab capitals following Abbas’s controversial decision serve as a reminder of the wide gap that has always existed between Arab dictators and their constituents.

The protests also serve as a reminder that the Arab masses are more interested in punishing Israel than making peace with the Jewish state.

Abbas is under attack because, in the eyes of many Palestinians and Arabs, he “helped Israel bury its war crimes” in the Gaza Strip. In mosques in different parts of the Arab world, he has been condemned for “exonerating the Jews” and “betraying the blood of the Palestinian martyrs” killed in the war.

Abbas has offered a number of explanations for his decision to set aside the Goldstone report - explanations which have only caused further damage to his credibility.

First his aides and he claimed that the decision was taken under US pressure and threats. Then they argued that the decision was taken at the request of a number of Arab and Islamic countries. When these two explanations did not calm the Palestinian and Arab streets, Abbas ordered the establishment of a three-man commission of inquiry to look into the circumstances that prompted him to set aside the resolution.

This last move - the formation of a commission of inquiry - has been received with laughter by Abbas’s critics. As a Palestinian minister put it, “In the beginning I thought it was a joke when I heard that the president had established a commission of inquiry to investigate himself. How can anyone take him seriously from now on?”

Well, it seems that there are still many who do take Abbas seriously, especially in Washington and some European capitals. Abbas’s more recent decision to revive the debate over the Goldstone report by bringing it back to the UN Human Rights Council is seen as a pathetic attempt to save what’s left of his credibility. So is his decision to send Palestinian policemen in civilian clothes to the streets of West Bank cities to demonstrate in favor of their embattled president.

Abbas cannot be a partner to any deal: his image and credibility have been severely tarnished. Any agreement he reaches with Israel will be received with suspicion by a majority of Palestinians and Arabs.

Hamas, on the other hand, is not a partner because the movement is not going to change its radical ideology, at least not in the foreseeable future.

All that one can do now is to wait until a new, third-way party emerges in the Palestinian territories. Sadly, that option also does not seem to be realistic at this stage -- especially not when both Abbas and Hamas have a common interest in suppressing the emergence of new leaders.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades. He studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem. Abu Toameh currently works for the international media, serving as the “eyes and ears” of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


Love of the Land: Mahmoud Abbas as Peace Partner? Dictators vs. "The Street"

Love of the Land: J Street’s Threat to Israel

J Street’s Threat to Israel


David Hornik
Frontpagemag.com
15 October 09

As if Richard Goldstone wasn’t enough, the community of loyal Jews also has to cope—increasingly—with J Street.

J Street is holding a conference in Washington later this month, and it’s trying to get the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, to come to it. Oren has yet to accept.

Granted, the dimensions of the conference don’t look too imposing: over a thousand people including 250 college students, a predictable rostrum of lefty organizations like the New Israel Fund, the Israel Policy Forum, and Americans for Peace Now. Of more concern is that over 160 members of Congress are on the host committee for the Gala Dinner that’s part of the conference.

In other words, with this sort of AIPAC-aping, J Street wants to wield influence on the Hill and challenge the traditional lobby’s power. J Street very much wants Oren—even though he holds, and would express, non-J Street views—to show up and bestow Israeli-government legitimacy on the proceedings. The difference, though, between AIPAC and J Street is that while the former is deferential to Israeli democracy as embodied by elected Israeli governments, J Street knows no such humility.

Indeed, the Israeli embassy in Washington has reportedly “informed J Street of its concern that the new lobbying group advocates policies that could ‘impair Israel’s interests.’” Those include not only backing President Obama’s—recently softened—demand for a complete “settlement” freeze even in sovereign Jerusalem but also opposing sanctions on Iran. Or as J Street’s website puts it:

J Street believes that the immediate imposition of harsher sanctions on Iran would be counterproductive.… We do not rule out the option of deeper and more targeted sanctions in the future.… But at this time we urge Congress and the President to exercise strategic patience. We ask Congress not to move forward at this time with further sanctions….

J Street, that is, has a patience—even regarding sanctions—that is not shared by Israelis in Shihab-range amid continuing reports of Iran’s rapid progress toward the bomb.

J Street, however, keeps going after Oren and now its director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has published an open letter to him “to reiterate an invitation to you to address” the upcoming conference.

Ben-Ami, who has a persistent “protesting too much” tendency when avowing his devotion to Israel, apprises Oren that J Street is “a burgeoning movement that loves Israel, cares about its future, and believes only peaceful and immediate resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can secure Israel’s future as the democratic home of the Jewish people.”

He goes on:

You seem well aware…that the connection to Israel for a large number of Jewish Americans has become strained over time…. There is a generational dimension to these trends as well…. Young, liberal Jews have even less connection to Israel than their parents and grandparents, and they talk more openly about the challenges and difficulties facing Israel and about its responses.

But Ben-Ami assures Oren that help is on the way:

There is good news, however. The excitement that J Street has generated and its rapid early growth indicates that there is a thirst in the progressive Jewish community—and among young liberal Jews—to find a way to relate to, to talk about and, yes, to advocate for Israel that is consistent with progressive Jewish values…. Public comments by your spokesman last week indicate that you have “concerns over certain policies [of J Street’s] that could impair Israel’s interests.” I’m sure you also have concerns and disagreements over policies advocated by certain political parties and their leaders in Israel. That’s democracy….

Yes, and that’s what Ben-Ami doesn’t get—or more accurately, doesn’t care about: the Israeli parties and leaders Oren may disagree with are currently not in power because they did badly in the last Israeli elections. J Street is not Israeli and not part of Israeli democracy. That American Jews are, like everyone else, free to disagree with and criticize policies of democratically elected Israeli governments is obvious. Ben-Ami claims quite a different prerogative: to exploit his Jewish background in order to override Israeli policy, by getting the U.S. government to foist policies on Israel that Israel doesn’t want.

If that isn’t clear enough, Ben-Ami goes on to make it so by assuming toward Oren—that is, Israel—what can only be called a threatening posture:

We too have our own serious concerns over the policies of the present Israeli government and its impact not just on Israel’s interests but on our interests as Americans and as American Jews. As Jews who care about Israel [there it is again—protesting too much], we fear that, on Israel’s present path, we will see our shared dream of a Jewish, democratic home in the state of Israel slip through our fingers.

As Americans, we worry about the impact of Israeli policies on vital US interests in the Middle East and around the world.

Finally, as American Jews, we worry that the health and vitality of our community will be deeply affected by what happens in the region, how the world perceives Israel and by how our community here at home deals with increasingly complex conversations around Israel.

That gets closer to the real J Street message to Israel, which is: “We want peace over there in Israel and Palestine, and we want it now. (As for the Israeli reasons for skepticism about such peace—Hamas, rockets, Palestinian Authority rejection of all peace offers, Fatah belligerency, incitement, no Israel on Palestinian Authority maps, etc.—don’t bore us with facts.) You ruffian Israelis are embarrassing us progressive American Jews and if you don’t stop, we can get you to stop. Your calls for sanctions on Iran are more of the same pugnacious behavior that’s discomfiting us over here, and you’d be well advised to desist from it.”

Considering its well-documented Saudi ties, still-darker motives can of course be attributed to J Street. “Love” for Israel would somehow have to be mixed with respect. Genuine friends of Israel, outside and inside of government, Jewish and non-Jewish—who need not agree with all of its policies but respect its autonomy and democracy—should beware of what J Street really is and the threat it poses.


Love of the Land: J Street’s Threat to Israel

Love of the Land: Anatomy of a Swedish Blood Libel

Anatomy of a Swedish Blood Libel


Allegations of Israeli organ theft are ugly, false, harmful—and they spread.


Andrea Levin
Wall Street Journal
14 October 09

Allegations that Israel plunders and trafficks Palestinians' organs are ugly, false, and harmful to peace efforts. No less dangerous—such libels spread.

The Aug. 17 story by Donald Bostrom in Aftonbladet, Scandanavia's leading daily, has quickly metastasized to mainstream Muslim media, spawning cartoons of Jews stealing body parts and drinking Arab blood. These have been published in Syria, Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, to name a few.

In early September, Algeria's al-Khabar newspaper echoed Mr. Bostrom in a new fantasy claiming Jewish-directed gangs of Algerians and Moroccans round up Algerian children, spirit them into Morocco and thence to Israel to have their body parts harvested and sold. On Sept. 17, Iran's PressTV breathlessly declared "an international Jewish conspiracy to kidnap children and harvest their organs is gathering momentum."

Hate-filled Web sites have also taken up the theme. Almost invariably, wherever such permutations on the idea of Israeli organ theft appear, Aftonbladet is cited.

Of course, Mr. Bostrom has enjoyed newfound acclaim in some quarters for his article. As the fresh rumors of child-snatching and organ theft circulated in Algeria, the National Federation of Algerian Journalists welcomed him last month to bestow an award for excellence, and promised support for his work.

Meanwhile, editors at Aftonbladet have neither acknowledged nor corrected any of the factual errors that litter the article, and instead react with indignation to charges of misconduct. In a perversion of journalistic standards, Editor-in-chief Jan Helin admitted on his own blog on Aug. 19 that Aftonbladet had no evidence for the incendiary charges against Israel. Nevertheless, according to another Aftonbladet editor cited in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper on Aug. 20, Mr. Helin's publication "stands behind the demand for an international inquiry" into Israeli actions.

In his original article, Mr. Bostrom wove a tenuous web of guilt by association among unconnected events, in the classic mode of conspiracy theorists. He linked a criminal New Jersey group—that included several Jews—engaged in organ-trafficking, to sweeping charges against Israel's supposedly unethical medical establishment. Into this he injected a lurid event from 17 years ago involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinian Bilal Ahmed Ghanem, whose organs Mr. Bostrom says were later removed for trafficking.

His account also contains errors concerning Israel, its physicians, laws and military. Take the overarching claim that Israel's medical establishment is grossly "unethical." Mr. Bostrom asserts Israel "is the only western country with a medical profession that doesn't condemn the illegal organ trade." Yet, as of eighteen months ago, Israel has one of the most stringent laws in the world regarding human organs. It prohibits receiving compensation for organs, bans the sale of organs from the dead as well as the living and minutely defines "compensation" to prevent evasion of the law. Unlike laws in other countries, it prohibits the use of insurance for pre- and post-operative treatment for those Israelis who go abroad and receive purchased-organ transplants. But Mr. Bostrom omits any mention of this.

In seeking to underscore Israel's supposed pariah status in the medical realm, the reporter cites a Jerusalem Post story from 1992 which, he claims, reported Israel being ostracized by France for its "unethical ways of dealing with organs and transplants." But the June 29, 1992 article only recounted that, like Italy, Israel was being dropped from a European organ-coordinating group because it had contributed too few organs in proportion to the number used for transplants. No hint is given of unethical activity in the Jerusalem Post story. That charge is invented by Mr. Bostrom.

Francis Delmonico, a Harvard surgeon and international transplant specialist who was quoted in the Aftonbladet article on the issue of organ theft in general, told me he found the Aftonbladetcharges completely inconsistent with his extensive interaction with Israeli doctors. Dr. Delmonico said he considered their professional conduct exemplary, and described physicians in the Jewish state as "noble and caring." He added: "[Mr.] Bostrom has a responsibility to validate his assertions or withdraw them." Like many others, Dr. Delmonico noted that Mr. Bostrom's scenario in which Ghanem was supposedly shot before having his organs removed for trafficking was "not feasible from a surgical vantage."

This indifference to the facts is telling with regard to the article's depiction of Ghanem. Contrary to the reporter's version, Ghanem was not an innocent "stone-thrower." Rather—according to sources that include the Jerusalem Post, Agence France-Presse, and a United Nations casualty summary—he was wanted for kidnapping and assaulting other Palestinians at a time of rampant internecine Palestinian violence.

There are also inventions out of thin air, such as Mr. Bostrom's connection of an ordinary 1992 campaign in Israel aimed at enlisting future volunteer organ donors to alleged abductions and organ theft committed against Palestinians. The reporter declares: "While the campaign was running, young Palestinian men started to disappear from villages in the West Bank and Gaza. After five days Israeli soldiers would bring them back dead, with their bodies ripped open." Mr. Bostrom adds, "There were rumors of a dramatic increase of young men disappearing, with ensuing nightly funerals of autopsied bodies." But evidence for this netherworld is, again, non-existent.

In one of the most seemingly damaging charges, Mr. Bostrom claims Ghanem's family itself accused Israel in 1992 of killing the man and removing his organs. However, according to recent in-person interviews with the family by the Jerusalem Post, Ghanem's mother, Sadeeka Ghanem, "denied that she had told any foreign journalist that her son's organs had been stolen." Another relative agreed, saying the family never told Mr. Bostrom Israel stole organs from the dead man's body.

Still, Aftonbladet's culture editor Asa Linderborg, in whose section the article appeared, wrote in a semi-hysterical Aug. 21 defense of the piece entitled "Examine Israel!": "In the black of night, [Mr. Bostrom] takes a unique photograph of the mangled body, cut open and stitched from the chin down to the groin, while the boy's frantic relatives are crying and screaming that the Israelis are plundering their son's organs." Fevered imaginations seem to be prevalent at the paper.

While visiting Algiers to pick up his award last month, Mr. Bostrom added embellishments to his original story, announcing that fully 1,000 Palestinians had endured the "harvesting" of body parts, and that all this began as early as 1960. The reporter has evidence for not even one case of organ theft, yet he's now charging 1,000 cases.

Rational and responsible editorial judgment would have discarded Mr. Bostrom's surreal story at the outset. Such judgment would also have considered the real world effects of inciting yet more enmity in a volatile conflict, stoking misconceptions and raising greater hurdles to reconciliation.

But Aftonbladet's view of the parties involved appears strikingly crude, perceiving a realm populated by evil stick-figure Israelis preying mercilessly on romanticized Palestinian "stone-throwers." One cannot in this context forget Aftonbladet's unsavory pro-Nazi sentiments during the Hitler regime. This past seems to have done little to inoculate the paper against related bigotries today.

In an age of diminishing communication barriers, when false images and ideas can mislead hundreds of millions of people in minutes, it is more important than ever to reinforce the tenets of honorable journalism, and to expose malfeasance for all to see.

Behold, Aftonbladet.

Ms. Levin is executive director and president of CAMERA, Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.< .



Love of the Land: Anatomy of a Swedish Blood Libel

Love of the Land: G-d's Country

G-d's Country

Approximately one thousand years after the destruction of the second temple and Israel's exile from its homeland, deep in the depths of the harsh exile and one thousand years before the beginning of the return to Zion - the great Torah commentator Rashi opens his monumental commentary on the Torah with the question of the ownership of the Land of Israel. What with all the hardships and troubles facing European Jewry at the time, with the Land of Israel but a vague and distant memory, the most pressing problem demanding Rashi's attention is what we will answer the non-Jewish world when it will claim that we are robbers in our own land, usurping its ownership from the local Canaanites.

The Torah should have begun with the first commandment G-d gave to Moses, Rashi quotes his father. Why, then, does the Torah open with the story of creation? His answer may not have seemed relevant then, but it is certainly pertinent today and reads like a current events account. Rashi explains that the Torah opens with the story of creation to establish the fact that G-d created the world. "If the nations of the world say to Israel, 'You are robbers - you have conquered the lands of other nations,' Israel can answer as follows: The entire world belongs to the Holy One, Blessed Be He. He created it and gave it to whom He pleased."

The Givot Olam "outpost" near Itamar

During the Sunday Manhigut Yehudit Sukkot event in Jerusalem, Rabbi Yitzchak Brand gave me a paper with some of his Torah thoughts. "With all due respect to Rashi," Rabbi Brand, head of a large faction of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Manhigut Yehudit begins his presentation, "wouldn't it have been better if we had received the Land of Israel empty of previous residents? Why did the Creator of the world choose to bring us to a land that was already occupied? Why didn't He give us the Land of Israel first - just like he gave France to the French and England to the English? Why do we first have to conquer and then look for excuses?"

Rabbi Brand answers that if we would not have been forced to conquer the Land of Israel, nobody could have accused us of robbery. But then we would not have been able to answer with the irrefutable facts that Rashi points out in his commentary on this week's Torah portion, Genesis. And, after all, the reason for our presence in the Land of Israel is specifically so that we may give this answer. In other words, when the Nation of Israel - the nation that is a living testimony to the existence of the Creator of the world - drives out it enemies and settles the Land of Israel, it essentially declares that there is a higher authority in this world. He created the world and He determines the path that it will take. The only reason that we merit to live in Israel is so that we may proclaim that G-d is King of the World. This is the only way that we can justify our presence here in the eyes of the world.

When I read what Rabbi Brand had written, I remembered a short article that Manhigut member Meyer Goldmintz had sent me. The State of Israel expelled Meyer from his home in Yad Yair, destroyed it and turned the place into an Arab garbage dump. Today, Meyer lives with his family in the settlement of Haresha. In his article he asks a simple question:

How is it that we, the settlers, who have taken the utmost care not to settle lands privately owned by Arabs, who searched for strictly state-owned lands to settle and were sure to distance ourselves from even the slightest hint of robbery of Arab-owned land - are nevertheless constantly accused of robbing Arab lands, while the kibbutzim of the leftist Shomer Hatzair, almost all of which were built on lands that had belonged to Arab villages that were conquered and destroyed in 1948 - are considered bastions of "peace"?
Meyer answers that it is specifically the fact that the settlers are careful not to build on Arab land that has brought about their dismal reputation. Very simply, they (we) have betrayed our mission and cannot give the answer that Rashi gives at the beginning of the Torah.

The leftist kibbutz member, who had ostensibly disassociated himself from the Torah, did not deny the fact that he was a Jew. As a Jew, he drove out the non-Jew living in his land and settled in his place. By doing so, even though he likely did not intend to - our leftist fulfilled the essence of the reason for the return of the Jews to their Land. He showed the world that there is a Creator and that He decides when non-Jews will live in His land and when His children will live in their place. Thus, the borders of Israel in the places from which the Arabs were forcibly expelled are not questioned today. But we, the settlers, who strive to fulfill G-d's commandments - have not yet fulfilled the basic reason for settlement of the Land. On the contrary, we have avoided it. We were careful not to drive the Arabs out - the complete opposite of the sanctification of G-d's Name accomplished by the leftist kibbutzim.

True, it is the State of Israel that decides when and whom to expel - not private people. But we never protested and enthusiastically adopted this approach. Today, we are suffering the consequences of our actions.

Shabbat Shalom,

Moshe Feiglin



Love of the Land: G-d's Country

Thursday, 15 October 2009

RubinReports: Palestinian Prime Minister Rejects "Mickey Mouse" State. Perhaps Prefers Donald Duck State Instead?

Palestinian Prime Minister Rejects "Mickey Mouse" State. Perhaps Prefers Donald Duck State Instead?

[Warning! Satire. Since the Middle East can be so grim, we have to laugh at it sometimes. But all of the below also happens to be true.]

By Barry Rubin

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad complains about Israel’s offer to the Palestinians. "By all indications they have a Mickey Mouse state in mind," Fayyad said, using the Disney character's name as slang for unimportant or trivial. "It looks like it would not come close to what we have in mind."

Unfortunately, Fayyad didn’t explain what he meant. Possibly he meant that Israel sought an unmilitarized Palestinian state, as if it weren’t serious unless it had a big army? If what Fayyad has in mind is a country with a big gun perhaps he would prefer an Elmer Fudd state.

Or is the problem that Israel wants a Palestinian state which ends the conflict forever? In that case, Fayyad seems to prefer a Wiley Coyote state, which is always trying to trap Israel in order to destroy it.

After all, the Palestinian leadership is always in search of some magic weapon (from Acme Corporation?) and can never accept that it won’t wipe out Israel.

But Israel, like the Roadrunner, always avoids the trap. Like Wiley, the Palestinian leadership always ends up by catching itself in its own trap. Pretty often, it runs off a cliff only to be left standing in mid-air until it looks down and remembers gravity, then plummeting to the valley far far below. Meanwhile, the Roadrunner dashes off merrily unharmed. Beep! Beep!

In a sense, though, Fayyad is right that Israel wants a Palestinian state to be like Mickey. After all, Mickey is a nice guy, never aggressive or violent, always trying to get along with neighbors.
No wonder that role model is so upsetting for Fayyad!

Nevertheless, the mouse metaphor seems to have a powerful hold on the Palestinians and Islamists, too. The Saudi Shaykh, Muhammad Al-Munajid, stated on Al-Majd TV on August 27, 2008, that mice were Satan's soldiers and that "according to Islamic law, Mickey Mouse should be killed.”

Is Fayyad's mouse reference a subtle hint from him that he thinks Israel wants Hamas and its friends to finish him off by demanding he make risky compromises? (Note, in the Arabic-speaking world, any compromise is considered risky, no matter how much you get for making it.)
Or maybe Fayyad has in mind Farfour, the Hamas children’s show character based on Mickey Mouse, who calls for genocide against the Jews but is later killed by the Israelis and thus, as a martyr have to be revenged. Hamas wants a Farfour state.

Farfour once made a mistake of praising the English language, only to be criticized by Sara, the show's cute little suicide-bomber-in-training human co-host: "No, Farfour, you are wrong," she explained, "because you don't know that the Muslims are the basis of civilization. If not for the Muslims, the world wouldn't have gotten to where it is today."

Is that a double-entendre?

But Fayyad has evidently forgotten old Yasir Arafat who when once asked if he watched television answered that he only liked the Tom and Jerry cartoons because he enjoyed the way the mouse always fooled the cat.

So perhaps it is a question of whether the state be based on Mickey Mouse or Jerry the Mouse or Farfour the Mouse.

Personally, though, I think Fayyad should ask for a Donald Duck state, a far more appropriate choice. Here’s what a Disney site says about Donald. While Disney (which believes that everyone is naturally good, a nice idea for a children's entertainment company but not for a U.S. president) attributes good intentions to Donald, it continues (please allow me to quote as length as it is too perfect):

"But by the time they surface Donald's already off and running in the wrong direction. He refuses to let anyone or anything stand in his way. It doesn't matter how much humiliation the world dishes out to him, Donald will take it and come back for more. He's a loser, not a quitter, and he'll go down fighting. This is a duck with one short fuse, and...when things don't go right, he goes ballistic. Yet after the storm is over and the tantrum is through, when faithful Daisy [one of the heavenly virgins?] soothes his brow or his conscience finally catches up with him, even Donald can admit that there must be a better way. If only he could figure out what it is.

"Hot-headed Donald is a little man in a big world that's trying to keep him down. Call it fate, or call it lack of self-control, nothing goes right for this duck: even his best intentions often go awry. Of course, by the time his best intentions surface he's probably already chasing after less noble pursuits. As stubborn as he is temperamental, he won't give in, even when he's up to his beak in trouble. Then watch out. Like a lot of people with a temper problem, he's blind to his own faults but quick to see them in others. He can't understand why life seems so much easier for pals Mickey and easy-going Goofy. It's not fair. Still, Donald will keep struggling to get what he deserves in the world."

Now if Fayyad admits that Donald Duck is the perfect symbol for the Palestinian movement and the state he wants to create, the casting will be perfect. Moreover, the Saudis can be Scrooge McDuck, Donald’s wealthy uncle who never helps him despite having mountains of money in his vault.

And to this I can only add: That's all, Folks!



RubinReports: Palestinian Prime Minister Rejects "Mickey Mouse" State. Perhaps Prefers Donald Duck State Instead?

RubinReports: How the Palestinian Authority is Killing Even the Charade of a Peace Process

How the Palestinian Authority is Killing Even the Charade of a Peace Process

By Barry Rubin

Let’s take a careful look at this AP dispatch on an October 12 Fatah internal memorandum. The official Fatah document charges the Obama Administration with disappointing the Palestinians and being mainly responsive—like presumably all previous presidents—to the pro-Israel lobby.

It states:

"All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated. Obama couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."

Now if the Palestinian Authority and Fatah aren’t happy with Obama they are going to have a very difficult time ever finding a U.S. government they like.

And even given this attitude, their “job” is to court the U.S. government, give it incentives to help them, show they are compromising in order to win its favor, and prove they can deliver benefits for American interest. But they have no concept of such a strategy.

Instead, they basically demand what they want and view anyone who doesn’t give it to them—without their doing anything to earn it—as an enemy.

Note carefully this passage in the AP dispatch about the memorandum:

“Obama raised Palestinian hopes further with his repeated calls for Israel to halt all construction in settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem--areas the Palestinians claim for a future state.”

What the mass media won’t tell you is that Obama himself introduced this divisive idea of a freeze—which the Palestinians had never made a precondition for talks—thus leading the Palestinians to raise their demands and, consequently, wrecking even talks being held, much less them achieving any progress.

And here, indirectly, is the proof:

“The last round of Israel-Palestinian negotiations broke down late last year with no apparent breakthroughs on the main issues dividing the two sides: final borders, the status of Jerusalem and a solution for Palestinians who lost homes and other property in Israel after it achieved statehood in 1948.”

No mention of construction freeze here, right? Just borders, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian demand (a rather strange one for real nationalists but not for those who put the priority on destroying Israel) that Palestinians go to live in Israel rather than Palestine.

Two other points are worth noting. First, the Western media virtually never mention Israeli demands when discussing the peace process. Nothing about security guarantees, that any peace agreement ends the conflict forever (which is a rather normal thing to request), plus demilitarization and the barring of any foreign forces from entering the state. Only Palestinian demands are ever brought up.

(To be fair, one could imply that Israel wants border modifications, east Jerusalem, and Palestinians going to live in Palestine, but in other articles these are mentioned far less than Palestinian demands.)

Second, the AP articles states:

“The Palestinians want talks to resume from the point they broke down last year under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert. Netanyahu says he is not bound by any concessions Olmert may have made.”

This is a common misstatement, rationalizing a ridiculously sleazy bargaining technique. Imagine you are in negotiation with someone over the sale of a house. You offer him a higher price if he makes certain concessions like helping on financing, including the furnishings, etc. He says: “No, I won’t give you any of those things. Now remember where we left off? You offered me a higher price in exchange for nothing.”

If the Palestinians had accepted Olmert’s offer and made their own concessions to get more, Netanyahu would view himself as bound by any concessions Olmert made. But since the Palestinians rejected Olmert’s proposal and refused to give the concessions he asked of them, no Israeli government is bound. As Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once said in an identical situation: Nothing is decided until everything is decided.

And finally here’s my favorite line about the memorandum:

“The document, dated October 12, was issued by Fatah's Office of Mobilization and Organization. The office is headed by the party's No. 2, Mohammed Ghneim.”

Do an Internet search—allowing for variations for the transliteration of this name, example, Muhammad Ghaneim—and you will find that I’m just about the only one who has written about this gentleman and his role as the number-two man in Fatah, the Palestinian Authority, and the PLO. Everyone else has ignored it.

I wrote that Ghaneim is a hardliner who rejected the 1993 Oslo agreement and would pull the Palestinian leadership in a more radical direction, making peace even more impossible and increasing the movement’s anti-Americanism.

This is precisely what’s happening.


RubinReports: How the Palestinian Authority is Killing Even the Charade of a Peace Process

Israeli Flag Raised in United Arab Emirates - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Israeli Flag Raised in United Arab Emirates - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Anti-Israel Attack Foiled in Turkey - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Anti-Israel Attack Foiled in Turkey - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

From Friend to Enemy? Israel Slams Turkish Incitement on TV - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

From Friend to Enemy? Israel Slams Turkish Incitement on TV - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Katif Evictees Say New Gov't Treats them Better - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Katif Evictees Say New Gov't Treats them Better - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Israeli Firm Patents Unmanned Helicopter - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Israeli Firm Patents Unmanned Helicopter - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Reclaiming the Land, Making Wine - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Reclaiming the Land, Making Wine - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Photos: Sanz Rebbe in Hevron - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Photos: Sanz Rebbe in Hevron - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Muslim Mafia Exposed

Muslim Mafia Exposed

Shared via AddThis

Israel Matzav: Good luck with that

Israel Matzav: Good luck with that

Israel Matzav: Putin kicks sand in Obama's face

Putin kicks sand in Obama's face

Remember those ads from comic books in the '60's where some poor shmendrick on the beach gets sand kicked in his face and then Charles Atlas comes and turns him into a bodybuilder? President Obama is looking more and more like the shmendrick, but Charles Atlas is nowhere to be found.

On Tuesday night, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that sanctions against Iran would be 'counter-productive.' And on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the threat of sanctions against Iran 'unneeded.'

Putin said the threat of sanctions is unneeded at this point because it could scare the Iranians, scuttling chances that talks with global powers could end Tehran's recalcitrance.

"If we speak about some kind of sanctions now, before we take concrete steps, we will fail to create favorable conditions for negotiations. That is why we consider such talk premature," Putin told reporters in China.

"We believe that we should treat this issue with caution, and there is no need to scare the Iranians," he said.

Yeah, let's not scare the Iranians. That might actually induce them to give up their nuclear weapons or to come out and fight like men. Instead, we'll be really careful not to scare them.

Is Barack Obama scared yet?

What could go wrong?


Israel Matzav: Putin kicks sand in Obama's face

Israel Matzav: How to end the Arab - Israeli war

How to end the Arab - Israeli war

Jeff Jacoby nails it in Wednesday's Boston Globe column:

In an important article in the current Middle East Quarterly, Daniel Pipes reviews the terrible failure of the 1993 Oslo accords, and homes in on the root fallacy of the diplomatic approach it embodied: the belief that the Arab-Israeli war can “be concluded through good will, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents.’’ For 16 years, Israeli governments, prodded by Washington, have sought to quench Palestinian hostility with concessions and gestures of good will. Yet peace today is more elusive than ever.

“Wars end not through good will but through victory,’’ Pipes writes, defining victory as one side compelling the other to give up its war goals. Since 1948, the Arabs’ goal has been the elimination of Israel; the Israelis’, to win their neighbors’ acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. “If the conflict is to end, one side must lose and one side win,’’ argues Pipes.

Diplomacy cannot settle the Arab-Israeli conflict until the Palestinians abandon their anti-Israel rejectionism. US policy should therefore be focused on making them abandon it. The Palestinians must be put “on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then - no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons.’’

So long as American and Israeli leaders remain committed to a fruitless Arab-Israeli “peace process,’’ Arab-Israeli peace will remain unachievable. Let the newest Nobel peace laureate grasp and act upon that insight, and he will do more to hasten the conflict’s end than any of his well-meaning predecessors.


Israel Matzav: How to end the Arab - Israeli war

Israel Matzav: Fatah signs a peace agreement

Israel Matzav: Fatah signs a peace agreement

Another Blood Libel

Another Blood Libel

I suppose this will somehow be construed as legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, or as the unimportant ravings of some lunatic, or as another wearying chapter in the endless story of the Jews not getting along with their neighbors "over there", or as the whirlwind the Israelis are reaping for the storm they have sown.

It's not.

It's a blood libel. Jews kill non-Jewish children in cold blood, because that's what Jews do. Blood libels have been around for centuries, they have nothing to do with Israeli policies, or any actions taken by Jews. This one is broadcast, so we're told, on prime time TV, on a government sanctioned television station.

Let the burning of Turkish embassies begin.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...