web analytics
October 21, 2014 / 27 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘ngos’

Cancer Imagery and Jew Hatred

Wednesday, August 7th, 2013

Rowhani’s comment about Israel being a ‘sore’ (whether or not he added that it should be removed) expresses a popular meme in the Muslim world. The idea is expressed explicitly in the Hamas covenant, and it often appears in PLO media. Palestinian Journalist Khalid Amayreh published an article in 2010 on an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website in which he called  Jews “an abomination, a cancer upon the world.” Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Friday called Israel a “cancerous gland” which must be “excised,” echoing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Other Iranian officials also use this language on a regular basis.

rowhaniqudsday

The idea persists, despite the fact that — by any objective standard — the behavior of Israel is anything but expansionist and invasive. Although Israel ‘grew’ at the expense of the Arab nations in 1967, it has eagerly abandoned most of the territory conquered in the name of ‘peace’, even when that goal proved illusory. It would probably have given it all up if the Arabs had been more focused on strategic advantage than honor and vengeance.

Since 1948, the Arabs (and from 1979, the Iranian regime) have persisted in trying to ‘cure’ the Jewish ‘cancer’, sometimes by war, sometimes by diplomacy and often by both at once. The Arabs seem to have learned by successive humiliations (which only deepen their hatred) that direct means will not be successful. Now they have adopted a multi-pronged strategy of military pressure combined with delegitimization to reduce Western support for Israel, along with diplomatic offensives at the UN and with the US to obtain a solid territorial base. Once this is achieved, they expect to finish the job in another regional war.

The Arabs in particular have never been terribly original. First they borrowed the anti-Jewish ideology of the Nazis, exemplified by Palestinian Arab leader al-Husseini’s relationship with Hitler and the Nazi scientists and war criminals who found sanctuary in Egypt, Iraq and Syria after the war.

The rest of the world was understandably repelled by Nazi ideology, but in the late 1960′s Yasser Arafat was instructed by the KGB to present his gang as a movement of national liberation for a distinct ‘Palestinian people’, and Zionism as a form of imperialism. The international Left followed the KGB’s lead, and this marked the beginning of the Left’s fanatic anti-Zionism.

In 2001, a new element was added with the development of the Durban Strategy by anti-Israel NGOs. Gerald Steinberg explained it thus in 2005:

The Durban conference crystallized the strategy of delegitimizing Israel as “an apartheid regime” through international isolation based on the South African model. This plan is driven by UN-based groups as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which exploit the funds, slogans and rhetoric of the human rights movement.

On this basis a series of political battles have been fought in the UN and in the media. These include the myth of the Jenin “massacre,” the separation barrier, the academic boycott, and, currently, the church-based anti-Israel divestment campaign.

Each of these fronts reflected the Durban strategy of labeling Israel as the new South Africa.

Since then the campaign has expanded greatly, despite the complete absence of parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa.

It’s important to understand — and the cancer imagery makes this clear — that despite the various guises that the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian cause affects, there is one basic element that underlies it: an extreme hatred of the Jewish people and the desire for another genocide against it.

License to Murder: It’s Not Just Amira Hass

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013

The Palestinian Authority is the official body behind the recent “intifada” of rocks and Molotov cocktails, and Haaretz journalist Amira Hass has long been the Palestinians’ unofficial spokeswoman. When she wrote an article this week legitimizing rock throwing, she was doing her part in the PA’s effort to stretch a defensive umbrella over the young brutes lobbing rocks and incendiary bombs. They are the ones who mortally wounded baby Adelle Biton. They are the ones who seriously injured musician Itzik Kalah’s wife, Tziyona, four months ago near Beitar Ilit. Both events occured in the so-called settlements blocs: the Palestinians do not discriminate.

The Central Command of the IDF won’t admit it, but a rash of so many terrorist attacks at the same time and with such scope is impossible unless it is centrally organized. The PA, meanwhile, is not in the least embarrassed by what it dubs a “popular intifada.”

The terrorist organizers don’t only deploy terrorists. They also deploy collaborators and lawyers, as well as sympathetic media coverage from within the civilian population under attack (in accordance with the doctrines of terrorism first developed in the Soviet Union).

I don’t have any intention of taking on Amira Hass. She turned traitor long ago, and her case is one for the legal authorities. But is Hass the only journalist in the service of the “popular intifada”? What about the other news media—are they doing their job? Or are they also collaborating, by keeping silent?

Helplessness

Most of the media do not report most rock-throwing attacks. I encountered this reality in the past when my wife and I were nearly lynched on our way home from visiting my parents’ graves on the Mount of Olives. Only a few of the media reported on the injury to my head, even though pictures were provided to them on a silver platter. No journalist came to interview me about what I had experienced, about the feeling of helplessness that comes with the inability to protect one’s wife.

There was my wife’s angle too. She was the one at the wheel. Aside from the fear and the terror, the trembling and the tears that gripped her, the post-traumatic symptoms, she was left with a sense of betrayal. My wife is a nurse, and she has occasion to provide treatment to residents of the Arab neighborhood where we were attacked, while virtually all the teachers from the little terrorists’ school stood outside watching as their students set upon us. Fittingly or not, the principal brought his daughter to be treated by my wife just one week later.

Then there is my daughter the journalist, who hurried to the scene only to discover that this was the same school about which she had published a number of complimentary news items.

And I have to make mention of the two times when I personally rescued Arabs who found themselves in the midst of angry crowds gathered for funerals of terror victims. Yet none of the Palestinians in the dozens of vehicles around us on the Mount of Olives made a move to save us.

What we have here is a perfect scoop by any measure. But almost nothing was published.

So when did the media report on what was happening in the area? Just one day after I was wounded, when City of David head David Be’eri lightly injured an Arab youth who was throwing rocks at his car as he drove through the area. The footage taken by the photographers who had been invited to film the Palestinian ambush, showing the youth being injured by Be’eri’s car, was broadcast repatedly.

Why does this matter so much to me? Because even aside from the media’s rightful function of delegitimizing terrorism with cold weapons, coverage makes a difference. A big difference. In a country where the media are so powerful that they dictate how many resources go to a given criminal investigation, reports carry a lot of weight. When rocks were thrown at an Arab woman last month in Jerusalem, media pressure brought out a slew of investigative teams, and all those who had been involved were quickly arrested. The powers that be made it crystal clear that the law is supreme, and it is enforced … the problem being that it is enforced selectively.

The European Union and Its Court: Stacked Against Israel

Monday, January 14th, 2013

The partiality and exaggerated rhetoric of the European Union (EU) against Israel has, in recent weeks, become ever more familiar. The EU condemned Israel’s plans to construct housing units in the four-mile area known as E1 between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a settlement of more than 40,000 residents; its High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, said she regarded construction plans in the neighborhoods of Givat Hamatos and Ramat Shlomo as “extremely troubling.”

Yet neither the settlements nor the proposed construction have ever prevented negotiations to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is noticeable that the EU has not articulated any serious criticism of the terrorist attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians — actions that do make a peaceful solution less probable. Further, as Israel’s former ambassador to the UN points out, the EU has never criticized the Turkish “settlers” for their “occupation” of Northern Cyprus, or “their own citizens who build beach-front villas in territory under Turkish occupation.” [Israel Hayom, January 7, 2013]. There is no mention of “Chinese occupied Tibet,” or “Pakistan occupied Kashmir.”

The continuing criticism of Israel comes at a moment when 14 of the 27 countries in the EU voted in the UN General Assembly on November 29, 2012 for the resolution that “Palestine” become a nonmember observer state at the UN. Only the Czech Republic voted against the resolution. The EU disregarded the fact that this resolution, a unilateral action, was illegal, a violation by the Palestinians of binding obligations in the Oslo Accords and other agreements with both Israel and the U.N., including Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which guaranteed that the final status arrangements should be reached only through direct negotiations. In addition the EU has refused to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. These decisions do not exactly evidence a record for any kind of EU objectivity; Ireland, arguably the harshest European critic of Israel, just assumed the presidency of the EU on January 1, 2013.

It had been hoped, however, that the European Court of Justice, established in 1952 to interpret EU law, and now composed of 27 judges who meet in Luxembourg, would be more impartial than the EU in its decisions on issues regarding Israel. Unfortunately, the record of the Court so far has been disappointing, and its partiality has been shown on a number of occasions.

In its judgment on February 20, 2010, the Court ruled that goods produced by Israeli companies based in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria (the “West Bank”)  did not qualify for duty-free import into the EU. The Euro-Mediterranean agreement between the European Community and Israel, signed on November 20, 1995 allows Israeli industrial products to be imported into the EU countries without customs duties. The decision in the 2010 case arose from the application by the German drinks manufacturer Brita to import soda-water makers and drink syrups manufactured by an Israeli firm, Soda Club, based in the settlement of Mishor Adumim. The European Court upheld the refusal of German customs officials to grant exemption from customs duties in this matter.

The Court explained its decision by what may be considered specious reasoning. The European Community (the predecessor of the EU) had signed an agreement on trade and cooperation with the PLO for “the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” on February 24, 1997. The Court held that each of the two association trade agreements had its own “territorial scope;” one scope was the State of Israel, and the other the territory of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Therefore, for the Court, products made by Israel which originated in Judea and Samaria did not fall within the “territorial scope” of the European-Israel agreement, and thus did not qualify for preferential customs treatment. The Court also presumed to considered the presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria “illegal.”

The most recent decision by the European Court is pure judicial burlesque. On January 20, 2010 the president of the Israeli think tank, NGO Monitor, who is a British citizen and thus has standing, filed a lawsuit, under the EU’s Freedom of Information Law, against the European Commission (EC), the executive arm of the EU, to obtain information found in 200 documents about EC funding of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These bodies often pose as “peace” and “human rights” organizations, ” but in reality are highly politicized advocacy groups, attempting to manipulate Israel through boycotts, divestments, sanction, frivolous and malicious lawsuits, and accusations of alleged “war crimes” — all of which would render them ineligible for EU funding.

US: Jewish Homes Endangering World Peace, East Jerusalem Must Go to the Arabs

Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

And we’re off to the races again, with a big NY Times headline: State Department Rebukes Israel Over Settlement Activity, and yet another absurd tail chasing by the U.S., the E.U., Israeli and Jewish leftists, who are convinced that the true threat to the much yearned for 2-state solution is the fact that Jews will live in homes.

The most likely outcome, unfortunately, is that Prime Minister Netanyahu will capitulate, as he has done so many times before it’s an embarrassment to even mention it any more. Netanyahu is like your slightly slow nephew that you catch stealing ten dollars from your jacket pocket. You let him know that you know he did it, only to discover half an hour later that the kid stole the same ten dollar bill yet again.

Does he really think we don’t know he has no intention of actually building anything, that it’s all an election-month gimmick, after which he will surely find a fantastic explanation as to why he must not follow through (I’ll never, ever forget the post-Pillar of Defense appearance of the three tenors, Bibi, Ehud and Ivette, who told us they have achieved for us the very goal that 2 weeks earlier all three described as absolutely insufficient).

But, for now, Netanyahu has promised to start construction on thousands of new homes, 1,500 in Ramot Shlomo, well within Jerusalem proper, and 5,000 in E-1, also inside the Jerusalem municipality. And, again for now, he hasn’t reneged yet, so, who knows, maybe he became a Zionist overnight and will stick by his promises.

The world, fulfilling its own part in this bizarre dance, has taken its cue from the Palestinians, and started shrieking.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told Reuters on Monday that “Settlement activity is unilateral” – you heard that? Going to the UN for statehood in violation of the written “Oslo” peace documents – that’s not unilateral. Building in Jerusalem – that’s a deal breaker.

Fayyad continued, saying the move “is completely adverse to the continued viability of a two-state solution and the possibility for our people to continue to exist.”

Now, observe the following exchange between a reporter and U.S. Dept. of State’s Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, over the issue of the mutual violations of the peace accords:

Reporter: “Up until now, the Palestinians haven’t had any recourse when these settlements were being built. Now, as an upgraded member of the United Nations General Assembly, they do have the option of joining the International Criminal Court or other courts and pursuing this as a matter of international law. And the United States itself recognizes that the settlements are not legal. So what incentive do you have to offer the Palestinians not to try and seek this redress in an international court when you yourself are saying that it’s provocative and it’s not legal?”

See what happened here? By acting unilaterally and in violation of their signed contracts with Israel, the Palestinians will now have to ability to take Israel to court over its own violations of the same contracts.

Ingenious.

Now, in PA PM Salam Fayad’s play book, a viable Palestinian state must have East Jerusalem as its capital. Unfortunately, Fayad knows the score, but countless Israeli governments have failed to act on this essential issue: if Israel does not create facts in the field with mass construction in East Jerusalem, they’ll take it away from us. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some Israeli prime minister, wishing to show how big hearted he or she is (think Tzipi Livni), will give it away – unless it’s built and populated with hundreds of thousands of Jews.

And so, on cue, on Tuesday, E.U. foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton joined the chorus of condemnation, saying that the European block was “deeply dismayed by and strongly opposes” the Israeli plans.

U.S. Dept. of State’s Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, in her much quoted press briefing appearance on Tuesday, was asked: You will have seen Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments this morning that they will continue to build in Jerusalem, East Jerusalem included, because it is the undivided and eternal capital of Israel. You will probably also have seen that several European countries that are members of the Security Council are talking about drafting some kind of condemnatory language about this. So one, I’m wondering what your reaction is to the Prime Minister’s comments, and two, I’m wondering if you’ll sign on to the European expression of extreme displeasure.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/us-jewish-homes-endangering-world-peace-east-jerusalem-must-go-to-the-arabs/2012/12/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: