.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Mahmoud Abbas Lies Big at Euro Parliament - Then Retracts Quietly

The story about Abbas' Big Lie, Big Blood Libel against Jews at the European Union parliament last week is too big to let it be forgotten. Of course Abbas and other PLO/PA spokespersons --think of Sa'eb Erikat, Hanan Ashrawi, Diana Buttu, etc-- lie constantly but not usually at high profile venues like the European Parliament of the EU, like Mahmoud Abbas did last week. The lie was so big --Jews wanted to poison Arab wells (a lie out of the Middle Ages)-- so outrageous because it was groundless, in that way typical of PLO/PA lies, yet delivered before a high profile body like the European Parliament, that it drew widespread denials and condemnations. Abbas still lied to be sure in his retraction about where the lie originated, apparently within his own PLO/PA rather than in "media reports" as he claimed in his retraction.

Even an Arab correspondent for the New York Times, Diaa Hadid, exposed the lie (New York Times, 24 June 2016), not to mention pro-PLO/PA bodies like JStreet and "Human Rights Watch," so Abbas was put in a position where it was more advantageous for him to retract the lie than to keep on supporting it.
The IsraellyCool Blog did a good job on presenting this affair and I now quote from them:

Following the uproar in the wake of his water blood libel to the EU parliament – which even included a NY Times report by Diaa Hadid decrying it (but not from the EU parliament itself, which applauded him after the speech) – PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO has retracted it.
mahmoud abbas eu parliamentPalestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday morning retracted accusations he made days prior about Israeli rabbis calling for the poisoning of Palestinian wells.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization, which Abbas chairs, issued the retraction after the PA president made the unsubstantiated charge in an address Thursday to the European Parliament.
The comments prompted a harsh condemnation from Israel, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accusing Abbas of propagating blood libel, referring to anti-Semitic allegations against Jews that arose in the Middle Ages.
The PLO’s statement Saturday said that Abbas “rejected all claims that accuse him and the Palestinian people of offending the Jewish religion.
“After it has become evident that thealleged statements by a rabbi on poisoning Palestinian wells, which were reported by various media outlets, are baseless, President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world,” the statement read.
The retraction also added that Abbas condemned all accusations against him of anti-Semitism.
Abbas’s remarks to the European Parliament did not appear on the official transcript issued by his office, suggesting he may have spoken off the cuff as he condemned Israeli actions against Palestinians amid stalled peace talks.
“Only a week ago, a number of rabbis in Israel announced, and made a clear announcement, demanding that their government poison the water to kill the Palestinians,” Abbas said, in what appeared to be an invocation of a widely debunked media report that recalled the medieval anti-Semitic libel.
“Isn’t that clear incitement to commit mass killings against the Palestinian people?”
Abbas, who received a standing ovation from EU lawmakers after his speech, gave no source for his information — and there has been no evidence over the past week of any call by Israeli rabbis to poison Palestinian water.
Israel said in the statement that it “awaits the day when Abu Mazen (Abbas) will stop spreading lies and be involved in incitement. Until then, Israel will continue to protect itself from the Palestinian incitement which generates acts of terror.” [Diaa Hadid, NYT 6 June 2016]
But here’s the deal. Even this retraction is dishonest.
As I posted last week, the blood libel seems to have originated with the PLO itself, being first published by the PLO’s National Bureau for the Defense of the Land and to Resist the Settlements on June 16th – days before it appeared in other news outlets. So when the PLO retraction blames it on “various media outlets,” they are deliberately and dishonestly hiding the fact they were the ones who started it, these media outlets merely parroting the PLO story.
Not only that, but as I noted (and I believe I was the only one to notice this), Abbas did not merely parrot this blood libel from days before but he embellished it. The original blood libel mention one Rabbi – the non-existent Rabbi Shlomo Mlma – issuing an ‘advisory opinion’ in which he allowed Jewish settlers to poison water in Palestinian villages and cities. But to the EU Parliament, Abbas mentioned “a number of rabbis” who demanded “their government poison the water to kill the Palestinians.” An even harsher accusation if that’s possible. Yet the retraction mentions only the earlier blood libel about the one rabbi.
In other words, this came from Abbas. His own PLO started the blood libel and he embellished on it, trying to make it sound even worse when he stood up in front of the EU Parliament.
As I posted yesterday about Palestine Post-gate, Abbas knows what he is doing when he lies or is otherwise being dishonest. He knows his audience. He knows once he puts out a particularly image or soundbite, so many people will lap it all up. He knows too that many will not even remember this retraction.
Abbas cannot be trusted when it comes to anything he says, including any so-called desire to reach a peaceful two-state solution.
Update: Even Dia Hadid of the NY Times acknowledgesthe PLO started the blood libel.
The Palestine Liberation Organization had initially published the allegation on a website run by one of its offices, and it spread through some regional news media outlets.
------ end of post by Israellycool---------
Addition by Eliyahu m'Tsiyon:
Diaa Hadid also pointed out in her article that
In October, Mr. Abbas erroneously accused Israeli forces of killing a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who had taken part in the stabbing of two Israelis. The boy had actually been wounded and later recovered.
 Anybody who still claims that Abbas is a reliable partner for peace is either a fool or a deliberate liar.
- - - - - - - - - - -
6-28-2016 Caroline Glick on Obama's poisoned candy offer of military aid [here]
6-26-2016 PM Netanyahu reacting to Abbas' retraction [Times of Israel, live blog]:

Netanyahu says Abbas against direct peace talks

Ahead of his trip to Rome to meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday slams PA President Mahmoud Abbas for spreading “abhorrent lies” against Israel.
Abbas last week falsely accused Israeli rabbis of urging the poisoning of Palestinian wells. He later retracted the remarks.
“Regarding the process with the Palestinians, I think that Abbas last week again proved to the entire world that he is not interested in direct negotiations with Israel,” says Netanyahu. “Worse, he also spread abhorrent lies about the State of Israel and Judaism. True, he quickly apologized, a halfhearted half-apology, but the things he said there were in keeping with what he has said about us on other occasions, including at the UN General Assembly. Therefore, I think that people can conclude from this who wants to advance peace and a peace process – and who does not.” [emph. added]

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

New York Times Blows Winds of Putsch for Israel & How President Truman Got Rid of an Insubordinate War Hero General

The New York Times has long been the mouthpiece of the US foreign policy Establishment. That the NYT is so hostile to Israel up to the point of crude lies demonstrates the deep rancor towards Israel of that Establishment.

We all know that the US and the other major WW2 allies were of little help to the victimized Jews during the Shoah, that is, during WW2. Whereas US warplanes bombed military targets near Auschwitz (Oswiecim) by 1944 --but not the gas chambers at Auschwitz nor the railroad tracks leading there-- the United Kingdom prevented Jews from finding refuge in the internationally designated Jewish National Home, the Land of Israel.

During the 1967 Six Day War, the intelligence ship, USS Liberty, spied electronically on Israeli military moves and sent the information to Jordan and Egypt. A US army signal corps truck-mounted electronic intelligence station did the same on a smaller scale from the Jordanian-controlled "West Bank." The truck had to pull back across the Jordan River with Jordan's Arab Legion when Israel took the "West Bank."

Now, the Establishment mouthpiece, the NYT, fans the flames of putsch, of a possible coup d'etat in Israel, publishing an article praising insubordinate Israeli senior army and intelligence officers for being "pro-peace" and "pro-human rights." The author, Ronen Bergman, has excellent sources in Israeli intel, according to his own writings, and the NYT describes him as "a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine." He is not a free-lancer but "a contributing writer." That is a more permanent arrangement. Here are some putschist samples:
IN most countries, the political class supervises the defense establishment and restrains its leaders from violating human rights or pursuing dangerous, aggressive policies. In Israel, the opposite is happening. Here, politicians blatantly trample the state’s values and laws and seek belligerent solutions, while the chiefs of the Israel Defense Forces and the heads of the intelligence agencies try to calm and restrain them. [NYT 21 May 2016]
Now right here we have what would be seen in the USA as justification for a putsch against the democratically elected government of PM Netanyahu. The politicians violate "human rights." See that buzz term, human rights? Now to another gem:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer last week of the post of defense minister to Avigdor Lieberman, a pugnacious ultranationalist politician, is the latest act in the war between Mr. Netanyahu and the military and intelligence leaders, a conflict that has no end in sight but could further erode the rule of law and human rights, or lead to a dangerous, superfluous military campaign.
Lieberman is a pugnacious ultranationalist. Obama is not a pugnacious ultranationalist. He only wants to give The Bomb to a pugnacious religiously fanatic regime in Iran that believes that it has the right to The Bomb, despite Iran being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. And we are warned of the further erosion of "the rule of law and human rights" as well as being threatened with "superfluous war." Obama incidentally seems to be moving closer to sending ground troops to Syria on the pretext of fighting ISIL which Obama has tried hard not to interfere with over the past two years. Of course, for Bergman, the generals and intelligence honchos who have made mistake after mistake, especially starting with Oslo, are the good guys, whereas PM Netanyahu and his government are the bad guys.
An I.D.F. general told me that the top brass saw the telephone call [by Netanyahu to the father of a soldier who had violated army rules and was being investigated and charged, which treatment Netanyahu did not cancel] as a gross defiance of the military’s authority. The deputy chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Yair Golan, chose one of the most sensitive dates on the Israeli calendar, Holocaust Memorial Eve, to react: He suggested that Israel today in some ways resembles Germany in the 1930s.
So the army has legitimate authority which the prime minister lacks, indeed its authority is superior to that of the elected leaders. Apparently the military is not supposed to be subordinate to the civilian government. And Israeli supposedly resembles Nazi Germany in some ways. I would say that Israel is more in the position of France in the 1930s pre-Vichyite period when "peace movements" in France and Britain were calling on their governments to make peace with Hitler, giving him what he wanted which also conformed to the principle of "self-determination", some said, especially Communists. 

Caroline Glick is one of the few to have seen this coming:
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon is openly supporting the growing insubordination of IDF generals. In a speech last night, he urged senior officers to publicly air their opposition to government policies. In so doing, he brought Israeli democracy into an unprecedented crisis.. . .  a regime where civilians are free to act in accordance with their conscience even when doing so places them in opposition to the government is a democracy.
A regime where military commanders are free to act in accordance with their conscience even when doing so places them in opposition of the government is a military dictatorship. [Caroline's facebook page, 16 May 2016]
Also see her as follows:
For the Obama administration, Israel’s security brass is an alternative government. . . . , for the [US] administration, “Israeli democracy” means the Left is in charge [link here]
In other words, the Obama administration might not be averse to a military coup d'etat taking place in Israel, provided that the ensuing military government will follow Obama's demands on Israel for concessions to the Nazi-like "Palestinian Authority." Mahmoud Abbas is obviously, in the NY Times lexicon, not a pugnacious nationalist.
         Defense Minister Yaalon's public statements over the past year have too often been dishonest, if hesitant, attempts to smear Jewish inhabitants of Judea-Samaria and the Jewish public in general for crimes against Arabs, for violations of human rights, and so on. This appears to be a coordinated effort, what with the deputy chief of staff Yair Golan comparing Israel with Germany in the 1930s and other lies, totally overlooking the often Nazi nature of the content of Palestine Authority TV and radio programming, mosque preaching, newspaper articles, and so on. DM Yaalon's first dishonest and improper transgression was to accuse Jews of firebombing last summer an Arab home in the village of Duma near the Shiloh and `Eli settlements in which three Dawabsha family members died. Certainly, this was a terrible act but it is hardly certain who did it and the evidence for Jewish participation is weak, just some Hebrew grafitti. But Arabs too can write Hebrew and even do Hebrew grafitti. The more likely explanation of the crime is that it was part of a family feud or clan vendetta, a common enough event in Arab society. Indeed, houses were attacked with firebombs in that village both before and after the  one that killed three persons.
      Another one of Yaalon's offenses was to intervene in the case of a soldier who killed an already disabled terrorist in Hebron. This was a violation of army rules for opening fire. However, it should be handled by the military justice system. It would have been one thing for Yaalon to say that such events are regrettable and against orders and the case must be investigated and prosecuted. However, it was wrong of Yaalon to accuse the soldier of murder. There is such a thing as due process, even in the army. 
Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan compared Israeli society  to the Nazis on Holocaust Remembrance Day. This was a direct assault on the government’s policy of fighting, rather than joining, Israel-bashers who deny the right of the Jewish state to exist. And his comrades in the General Staff and in the Left praised him for his appalling behavior. [Caroline Glick, here]
Then there is the late Maj.-Gen. Meir Dagan, the retired director of the Mossad. Last Thursday Channel 2’s investigative news program Uvda broadcast an interview with Dagan, conducted shortly before his death. Dagan told the host Ilana Dayan that in 2010, he committed espionage. Dagan revealed that in 2010, he went behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s back and informed then-CIA director Leon Panetta that Netanyahu
and then-defense minister Ehud Barak were about to order the security services to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. [Caroline Glick, here]
The US of course does not tolerate insubordination by high ranking officers. We will take up the case of war hero General Douglas MacArthur below. Now back to the NYT's taste for a putsch in Israel, Ronen Bergman fills out the picture:
In some conversations I’ve had recently with high-ranking officers about Mr. Lieberman’s appointment as defense minister, the possibility of a military coup has been raised — but only with a smile. It remains unlikely.
So Bergman tells the NYT and its readers that the subject of a possible coup has been raised. But it is "unlikely." It's cute that the ever so democratic NYT is so interested in hearing about a possible coup in Israel that they publish a piece that transparently and implicitly justifies just that, if not going so far as to advocate a coup. But why is the NYT  pushing a putsch in Israel? The motive is obvious. They want Israel to bend to Washington's dictates, which under Obama are more blatantly anti-Jewish than under previous presidents. That means Israel surrendering territory to fanatically hate ridden pan-Arabist and Islamist Arabs, obsessed with hatred for the Jews who have stepped out of the humiliated place of the dhimmi as decreed by Islamic law.

The NY Times continues with its buttering up of the army to the detriment of the elected civilian government. A piece by Isabel Kershner [NYT, 29 May 2016] makes ex-Defense Minister Ya`alon look good, democratic, whereas Netanyahu and Lieberman look bigoted and narrow, etc: "the generals . . . have spoken out against manifestations of extremism in the ranks and in broader society," "shrill segment of the public," "an aggressive segment of the public."  The people who are fed up with murder and mass murder efforts are "aggressive," "shrill," "extremist," etc. On the other hand, "Other Israelis want the military to remain a moderating force and a bulwark against extremism." Are these "Other Israelis" the supposedly good folk who would welcome a military coup against "extremism"?

General Yair Golan, deputy chief of staff, sanctimoniously declaimed on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day:
"if there is one thing that is scary in remembering the Holocaust, it is noticing horrific processes which developed in Europe – particularly in Germany – 70, 80, and 90 years ago, and finding remnants of that here among us in the year 2016." [here]
This is a Judeophobic accusation. An implicit assertion that the Israeli people are Nazi-like. That is another justification for a coup. After all, he is saying that the people are immoral. Their elected government is perforce immoral. No comment from Golan about the profound Nazi-like hatred of Jews and Israel fostered by the Palestinian Authority, by Hamas, by the press in various Arab countries, and in Western lands where the media habitually misrepresent what happens in Israel as well as the relevant history of Arab-Jewish relations. 
The prime minister perceived the threat in Golan's remarks: "Mr. Netanyahu rebuked General Golan, criticizing his remarks as outrageous, and said, “The I.D.F. is the people’s army and must remain out of political debates.”" [here]
On the other hand: 
"While the controversial comments drew fire from many within the nationalist camp, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon defended Golan, arguing that criticism aimed at him was part of a larger “campaign to harm the IDF and its officers politically.”“The responsibilities of an army officer, especially a senior commander, are not limited to leading soldiers out to war, but also include charting out a path and ethical standards with the help of [his] moral compass,” said Yaalon." [here]
Yaalon is speaking out of what he claims is higher morality. But since Golan's comparison to Germany in the 1930s was false and ignorant at best, Ya`alon's defense was also out of place. And the implicit support in his words for insubordination and possibly a putsch was obviously wrong. 
Netanyahu properly rebuked Ya`alon:
Netanyahu reportedly called Yaalon, sharply criticizing him for defending Golan’s comments [here]
Looking back to 20th century history, we can see that the USA, both before and after WW2, rather often supported generals who overthrew legitimate governments abroad. In some cases this was justified as opposition to corrupt and tyrannical regimes, as in Egypt in 1952 and Iran/Persia in 1979. The problem is that corrupt and tyrannical regimes have often enough been replaced by regimes that were even worse by every measure. As in Egypt and Iran (Persia). Ask yourself if the present Islamic fanatic Khomeini regime of the ayatollahs in Iran now is any better than the Shah's regime that it replaced, with the aid of the Carter Administration. Or is it even worse?

In any event, the powers that be in the United States do not like insubordinate generals who dispute the civilian leadership openly. 
Douglas MacArthur was a hero in both world wars, I & II. He was the commander of American forces in the Korean War, starting in 1950. His brilliant Inchon landing behind North Korean Communist troops opened the way for American and allied forces to reach the Yalu River between North Korea and China. After China entered the war in late 1950, MacArthur 
"wished to bomb Chinese bases in Manchuria and was prepared to risk a full-scale war with communist China. President Truman sought to hold him in check but MacArthur made public his advocacy of carrying the war into China. This defiance of official government policy led the President peremptorily to relieve him of his commands on 11 April 1952." [Alan Palmer, The Penguin Dictionary of Twentieth Century History (New York: Penguin 1979), p242]
"When President Truman would not agree to his plan for an attack upon  Communist China, MacArthur made his opinions public and Truman responded by relieving the General of his command. . . . his action represented a challenge to civilian authority which the President did not hesitate to meet." [Walter Laqueur et al., A Dictionary of Politics (rev ed; New York: The Free Press 1974), p307]
So we see that MacArthur openly defied the president of the time and his policy. He was insubordinate and was dismissed. The US government does not tolerate defiance of its policy by its own generals. But somehow such insubordination is OK when practiced against other governments and may even be encouraged by US government mouthpieces like the New York Times.
- - - - - - - - - -
Also Read:
JNi.Media in Jewish Press, 6 May 2016 "Netanyahu Confronts Yaalon over Call to IDF to Speak Their Minds," [here]
Amnon Lord, 6 May 2016: "Meir Dagan's Private Putsch" [in Hebrew] [הפוטש הפרטי של מאיר דגן] [פה]
Shmuel Rosner, "Israel defense forces against people of Israel" Jewish Journal, 16 May 2016 [here]
Bret Stephens, "Netanyahu against the Generals," Wall Street Journal 23 May 2016 [here]

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Top Palestinian Arab Leader Collaborated with the Nazis & in the Holocaust -- PLO/PA Calls Israel "Nazi"

In another one of the outrageous and deceitful statements of the PLO and its embodiment in the "palestinian authority," the PLO/PA delegate to the UN accused Israel of acting like Nazis by calling Arab terrorists terrorists. The terrorists don't like to be called terrorists.

First, let's clear up the issue of "occupation." The PLO/PA delegate, one Riyad Mansour, claims:
". . . all colonizers, all occupiers, including those who suppressed the Warsaw [Ghetto] uprising, labeled those who resisted them as terrorists.” [i24 news TV - 4-27-2016]

As a matter of fact, Germany, Austria and Japan were occupied after World War 2. Germans (including Austro-Germans) or Japanese who resisted that occupation in any violent manner might have been called terrorists. In any case, they would have been suppressed violently and firmly. They would have found little sympathy in the world of that time, outside the Arab lands and Franco Spain, for example. Nazi German war criminals were given refuge in Egypt, Syria, Spain and several South American countries. In Egypt and Syria, Nazi veterans like Johannes van Leer obtained high positions in the state apparatus, where they often were used to work against Jews, such as making propaganda against them. The USA, USSR, UK and France were proud of occupying the former Axis powers. They were not ashamed. Russia still occupies vast expanses of pre-WW2 Japan at first occupied by its forerunner, the USSR.

Another point is that Mansour did not specifically mention the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943. Someone at i24 TV, perhaps someone ignorant of real history, inserted the word         "[Ghetto]" into Mansour's text in brackets. In fact, there was a Polish nationalist uprising in Warsaw in 1944, a year after the Jewish ghetto revolt. Maybe Mansour was referring to that revolt. Be that as it may, this Polish uprising was suppressed in blood, as the Jewish uprising had been the year before. In both cases, by the German SS and Wehrmacht. 

Now, the main problem with Mansour's words is that precisely the top leader of the Palestinian Arabs in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Haj Amin el-Husseini, was a Nazi collaborator. He spent most of the war years in the Nazi-fascist domain in Europe, with a Nazi-subsidized headquarters [by Himmler] in Berlin. He visited Auschwitz and broadcast over Radio Berlin calls to murder Jews ["Kill them wherever you find them . . . "]. He also helped recruit a SS division made up of Bosnian Muslims which was called the Handschar [after khanjar - a kind of traditional Muslim sword]. This Handschar SS division became notorious for its massacres and atrocities in Bosnia and elsewhere in Yugoslavia, Serbia, Croatia, etc.
During and after WW2, Husseini and his criminal acts were notorious in the civilized world. However, the Big Four Powers, USA, UK, USSR & France protected him from being prosecuted at Nuremberg as a war criminal, which he surely was. Indeed, Yugoslavia put him on the UN's list of war criminals but the secretary-general of the newly formed Arab League, Azzam Pasha, went to Yugoslavia and persuaded the country's new Communist dictator, Tito, to allow Husseini to go without being prosecuted or punished for his crimes in Yugoslavia [recruiting the Handschar].

It needs to also be stated that in the Spring of 1941, Husseini was in Baghdad, Iraq, then under a pro-Nazi regime where he agitated against the local Jews. This culminated in the Farhud massacre which took place in Baghdad on the Shavu`ot holiday of 1941. In Berlin, his headquarters and institute for training pro-Nazi imams included sons of most of the leading Palestinian Arab families. So Husseini's pro-Nazi crimes were not  individual acts but acts for which most of the Palestinian Arab leadership was responsible.
It is regrettable that Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, assumed that Mansour was referring to the 1943 Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Revolt rather than the 1944 Polish uprising. On the other hand, maybe Mansour was deliberately being vague, trying to allow people to read into his words whatever they wanted. Maybe he was intimating that he recognized the Jewish Ghetto Revolt without explicitly mentioning it. Because in their Arabic-language statements, the PLO/PA does not recognize the Holocaust [nor does the Hamas]. Or only seldom. As we know, Mahmoud Abbas himself, accused the Jews/Zionists of exaggerating the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis.

Here is the article from i24 where Danny Danon objects to Mansour's hypocritical statements:

Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon calls on the international community to condemn the comparison.
The Palestinian representitive to the United Nations on Wednesday said that Israel labels its opponents as terrorists in similar fashion to the Nazi regime's suppression of Warsaw Ghetto uprising fighters.
"[Israel’s] representative on the UN Security Council trying [sic] to show that all the Palestinian people who have legitimate rights to resist occupation in legitimate ways he paints them as terrorists," said Palestinian UN ambassador Riyad Mansour, speaking at a press conference in New York.
"Guess what, all colonizers, all occupiers, including those who suppressed the Warsaw [Ghetto] uprising, labeled those who resisted them as terrorists,” the Times of Israel quotes Mansour.
Israel's UN ambassador Danny Danon rejected the comparison, calling on the international community to condemn the accusation.
"Any equalization between the Nazi’s and Israeli democracy is despicable and is worthy of denunciation from the international community," Danon said.
"The Palestinians continue to lie to the world and to turn to the international community with crazy claims, rather than to fight incitement and terrorism."
"Israel's Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon speaking at an emergency meeting of the Security Council on March 14, 2016"

Mansour has in the past accused Israel of harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians, theTimes of Israelreports, claiming that bodies of Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces have been returned "with missing corneas and other organs." [i23 TV 4-27-2016]
. . . . . . . [the article continues at the link above]

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 18, 2016

European Union Against Israel, Not against Occupation in Principle

UPDATED 4-3-2016 see at bottom

We do not agree that Israel is now occupying any territory that does not belong to Israel according to international law. But suppose it were. Suppose for the sake of argument that Israel was occupying Judea and Samaria, the heart of ancient Judea, the ancient Jewish homeland that the Jews have traditionally called the Land of Israel and that Greece and Rome called Judea ( IVDAEA, Ioudaia). The European Union claims this all the time and uses this false claim to deny the human and civil rights of Jews. The EU denies Jewish rights to inhabit any land over the 1949 Israel-Transjordan [now Jordan] armistice line. But the EU seldom complains about Turks settling in the Turkish occupation zone of northern Cyprus. We will get back to the EU and Cyprus below.

The EU does not agree to Jews doing business over the 1949 armistice line or running factories or farms there in what was the Jordanian occupation zone from 1948 to 1967 in Judea-Samaria or doing any productive activity there.

The EU also denies those rights to Jews in those parts of Jerusalem captured by Transjordan in 1948 from which Arab irregular forces and the Transjordanian Arab Legion had driven Jews out starting on 30 November 1947 up to the summer of 1948, although Jerusalem was to be an internationally governed enclave where both Jews and Arabs could reside, according to the UN General Assembly recommended partition plan. These areas were captured by Israel in the June 1967 Six Day War after 19 years of Transjordanian [now Jordanian] occupation. Now the EU gets up on a moralistic high horse of hypocritical outrage when Jews again live in those formerly Arab-occupied parts of Jerusalem, whereas there has been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem going back to 1853, if not before. But the EU says that those areas are occupied. 
This is what the EU said about a recent Israeli decision to recognize a tract of unused land without private owners near Jericho as state land, as it was recognized in the days of the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim empire to be sure, which as such was seen by the Arab Muslims in the Land of Israel as representing them: 

“Israel’s decision … is a further step that risks undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state and therefore calls into question Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution,” the EU says in a statement.
“Any decision that could enable further settlement expansion, which is illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace, will only drive the parties to the conflict even further apart,” the EU continues. 
 “The European Union remains firmly opposed to Israel’s settlement policy and actions taken in this context . . ." [here]

The claim of illegality is based, as we know, on two false claims: One, that Israel is an occupying power in Judea and Samaria and the formerly Jordanian-occupied parts of Jerusalem. Two, that people cannot voluntarily migrate to an occupied territory. This second claim is based on a false interpretation of Geneva Convention IV:49:6 (The point is that people are permitted to voluntarily migrate to such territories, even if "occupied."). See here for clarifications on these legal issues.

But the question is whether or not the EU is actually against occupation in principle or simply hostile to Jews and Israel. The question is easily answered. The EU is quite comfortable with living with occupying powers and trading with them without demanding, for example, the labeling of goods produced in the supposed occupied territory as settlement goods or products of an occupied territory.
The proof of EU hypocrisy on this issue is very close at hand. The island republic of Cyprus is very close to Israel, a few score kilometers northwest of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea. Cyprus is also a member of the EU. Yet, about 35% of the island is occupied by Turkey. The fact that northern Cyprus is occupied is recognized by just about everybody, although not by Turkey. Do these facts cause or lead to any massive EU denunciation of Turkey as an occupying power abusing the native population of the occupied territory in an illegal and/or inhuman fashion?
The question is itself laughable. The EU is happy to do business with Turkey and is now agreeing to work to bring Turkey into the Union. But the British press agency, Reuters, does not even want to call Turkey an occupying power which it is. See below how Reuters' wordsmiths get around the O word by using a long euphemism
Addressing a threat by Cyprus to block parts of the deal unless Turkey stops opposing the reunification of the divided island, the Commission paper will propose that opening five new "chapters" in Turkey's negotiations to join the EU -- another promise made in March -- would be "conditional", the official said. [here]
The French state-owned broadcaster France24 does the same as Reuters:
EU president Donald Tusk warned Tuesday that hard work lay ahead to finalise the deal, after Cyprus threatened to derail it over long-standing disagreements with Turkey. . . . . [here]

How is that for a euphemism for Turkish occupation of part of Cyprus? Long-standing disagreements, no less!!! But further on the same article gets a little closer to the fact of occupation without actually stating it frankly:
The island of Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded its northern sector . . . [here]

The Turkish troops invaded in 1974 and they are still there. But we must not call it "occupation" for that word is reserved for Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria, that the League of Nations recognized as parts of the Jewish National Home in 1922.

Far from calling for Turkey to end its occupation of northern Cyprus, the EU leadership is asking Greece and Cyprus for concessions to Turkey on account of the migrant issue. This is despite the fact that Turkey has actually encouraged the refugee flow across the dangerous waters of the Aegean Sea to Greek islands. After all, people smugglers are putting migrants onto unseaworthy craft and/or without life jackets or otherwise letting people go out to sea to die. The Turkish police do not interfere with this. Turkey is a country with thousands of political prisoners. No doubt the police could stop the people smuggling, if the government of Erdogan and Davutoglu wanted them to. The Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras made this point to EU leaders and they most likely knew of and understood the Turkish encouragement to people smugglers before Tsipras told them. The Greek defense minister had also made this point while on a trip to Israel a few weeks ago
Mr. Tsipras insisted that the EU must exert pressure on Ankara to put an end to the flow of refugees and migrants to Greece [here

Is it not obvious to all but fools that the EU is not especially against occupation, even the occupation of part of an EU member state? Is it not clear to all that the EU is really against Israel, against Jews, against Jews having rights and safety, and respect? The EU policy towards Jews in Judea and Samaria could rightly be called apartheid and anti-Jewish racism.
- - - - - - - - - 
5-3-2016 Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, despite the treaties around the founding of that state which Turkey also signed:
"Greek Cypriots will no longer require visas to visit Turkey under an EU-Turkey agreement on visa liberalization but this does not amount to Turkish recognition of Cyprus, a Turkish official said on Tuesday.
"Turkey's cabinet has approved waiving visas for EU citizens once the EU relaxes its visa requirements for Turks, according to a decision published in the Official Gazette. The move is one of the 72 criteria required by Brussels.
"The official confirmed the deal would also apply to Greek Cypriots."

See how Turkish president Erdogan operates outside of his own country:
4- 1-2016 Report in Foreign Policy of thuggish, unacceptable behavior by Erdogan's bodyguards in Washington at the Brookings Institution which had invited Erdogan to speak [here]

Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Capitalists Finance Anti-Israel "Leftists"

The funds contributed to anti-Israel organizations by the Ford Foundation is old news. Indeed, at the monstruous Durban I conference in 2001, which was supposedly opposed to racism, Israel and Jews came under intense hatred. As researcher Edwin Black discovered, many of the so-called "civil society" bodies and  "non-governmental organizations" attending and voting against Israel at the conference turned out to have been financed by the Ford Foundation, which was founded with the wealth of automobile mogul Henry Ford, who was one of the most notable Judeophobes in American history and gave encouragement to Hitler.

Not to be outdone by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund turns out to be funding at least two noxious anti-Israel bodies, the campus-based "Jewish Voice for Peace" and the American Friends Service Committee, an offshoot of the Society of Friends, a religious group usually known as the Quaker church which ordinarily takes pride in preaching a pure pacifism in line with Jesus' supposed call on his followers to "turn the other cheek".

Some of the stunts performed by the "Jewish Voice for Peace"  cost a fairly large amount of money. Consider:
On February 2, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), an anti-Israel organization that seeks to “drive a wedge” in the Jewish community over support for the Jewish State, distributed 10,000 copies of a propaganda pamphlet masquerading as The New York Times. Claiming to be a special edition of the paper, the publication featured “articles” praising BDS and blaming Israel for the latest round of Palestinian terrorism over the past four months.The high production value of the lookalike—described by the Times as “deliberately designed to trade on our name and mislead users”—should direct focus towards those that provided the funds required to make such a stunt possible. Aside from the cost of printing thousands of copies of the multi-page fake, JVP and its partners devoted resources towards launching a faux Times website and Twitter account to accompany the handouts.
While JVP does not publish information on its financial backers, some of their supporters proudly announce their bankrolling of this group. In 2015, JVP received a two-year, $140,000 grant from the New York-based Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF). The private fund made the allocation through its “Peacebuilding” program, which claims to “advance just and durable peace by supporting innovative and collaborative approaches and policies for conflict prevention, management, and transformation.” It is unclear how financing groups that demonize Israel, promote discriminatory boycotts, and aim to silence its advocates can be considered a “collaborative approach” that will advance peace.
Here is some info on the American Friends Service Committee and its tie to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF):
JVP is far from the only hostile and offensive group to receive RBF’s blessing. In 2015, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)—a group that regularly refers to “Israeli apartheid” and Israel’s “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians—received $50,000 for its “Israel Program.” The Quaker group is a close ally of JVP, andpromotes BDS initiatives throughout the United States, including on university campuses. AFSC’s Dalit Baum authored a 2014 divestment resolution at Loyola University and has spoken numerous times with the pro-BDS group Students for Justice in Palestine. Similarly, JVP and AFSC have partnered to host “BDS summer camps” to train college activists. [full article by Yona Schiffmiller here]
According to the article that I have quoted, the AFSC received only $50,000 from the RBF. But don't worry about the AFSC. It is a very well funded body and has many sources of funding, some of them government-connected. It maintains offices in Ramallah, Jerusalem and many other places throughout the world. All that takes money.

Now, getting away from the specific details, is it not curious that groups conventionally identified as "Left" enjoy generous funding from capitalist bodies, foundations representing super rich capitalist families and founded with money from the profits --in some cases-- of inhuman exploitation of poor working men and women? When the smug and self-righteous and "do-gooder" recipients of Ford Foundation funds receive their thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions, do they think of how the money was made upon which the Ford Foundation was founded?

Many of these "do-gooder" and pro-"peace" and pro-"human rights" bodies support Hamas, the branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that has established a statelet in Gaza. One addled mind who teaches, if you please, in an American university, one Judith Butler, informed the benighted world that Hamas, as well as Hizbullah, was part of what she called "the Global Left." Are these bien pensant "do-gooders" and "progressives" and "leftists" aware that the main financial support of their dear Hamas, their "leftist Hamas," is the super wealthy sheikdom of Qatar on the Persian Gulf? If they are so aware, does it bother them that slavery is practiced in Qatar under very cruel conditions which have led to the deaths of hundreds of foreign slave laborers in Qatar over the past few years as they build facilities for the 2022 world soccer championships, the Mondiale? And that Qatar contributed to the corruption of the highly corrupt FIFA, the international soccer/football/ body? If Qatar did not hand out huge bribes to FIFA board members to vote to award the sheikdom with the Mondiale for 2022, why would anybody have thought for a moment that the Persian Gulf sheikdom with its 50 degrees centigrade temperatures in the summer, would be suitable for hosting a soccer championship?
- - - - - - - - - - -
3-27-2016 Ziva Dahl tells more on funding by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund [here] from New York Daily News.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, February 19, 2016

The Paradoxes of Qatar: Pro-American & Anti-American at the Same Time

Qatar hosts the headquarters of the American Central Command, which actually guided the US war on  Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 2003. The same Qatar owns and operates from Qatar the Al-Jazeera TV network which broadcasts and incites in both English and Arabic, particularly  through the voice of one Sheikh Qaradawi, who preaches hatred of America. The two facilities, the CENTCOM HQ and the premises of al-Jazeera can be seen with the naked eye one from the other.

Hussein Ibish, a spokesman to the American public of Arab views --therefore he writes with relative restrain and moderation-- describes the Qatari paradox: anti-American & pro-American at the same time. He writes on the occasion of the closing down of al-Jazeera America, which never succeeded in gaining enough audience share to make the project worthwhile for Qatar:

Al Jazeera America was the latest, and perhaps most ambitious, branch of a media empire that the tiny but wealthy Gulf emirate of Qatar has used to project its influence, first regionally and then globally. The American-specific incarnation, begun in 2013, was partly an effort to rebrand for the United States the earlier iterations of the franchise, Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English. But the American network was hobbled from the start by this very legacy.

Because Al Jazeera Arabic overtly promoted Doha’s foreign policy objectives, the network was controversial and disliked by virtually every other government in the region. The Arabic station introduced a freewheeling reporting style — except for avoiding any criticism of Qatar — that transfixed Arab audiences with previously unheard-of debates.
Impartial it was not: A hefty dose of old-fashioned Arab nationalism and a strong bias for the Muslim Brotherhood, which was supported by the Qatari government, were unmistakable. This ideological orientation led to exaggerated accusations in the United States, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, that Al Jazeera served as a media affiliate of Al Qaeda.
Hyperbolic as such claims were, there was a distinctly anti-American bent to its reportage. The Iraq war, in particular, was portrayed virtually as a campaign of mass murder.
The real problem here was the Janus-faced nature of Qatari foreign policy, contradictory and ultimately unsustainable.
On one hand, the huge American military presence in Qatar is a key element of Qatari security strategy. Centcom largely ran the Iraq war out of its forward headquarters at the Udeid Air Base, which Qatar built to encourage a United States establishment there. On the other hand, Qatar gave a hugely influential platform on Al Jazeera to the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who elsewhere preached that “Americans in Iraq are all fighters and invaders” whether they were military or civilian, and that it was “a duty for all Muslims” to kill them. Thus Qatar was indispensable to the American war effort in Iraq and at the same time gave credence to one of the most influential Islamic propagandists against it.
Al Jazeera English, the network’s global English-language incarnation, was much more subtle than its Arabic-language counterpart. But it, too, has played a distinct role in Qatar’s ambitious outreach.
The English channel reached its peak of influence through its unrivaled coverage of the Egyptian uprising in January 2011. Despite a pro-Brotherhood bias, its reporting of the insurrection was also extraordinarily detailed, comprehensive and informative. Even the White House was said to be relying on Al Jazeera English for information during the uprising.
Since then, though, Al Jazeera’s credibility has suffered, particularly in the Arab world. After the 2013 ouster of the Brotherhood government of President Mohamed Morsi, the English network’s Egyptian bureau fell apart when its staff members were arrested and charged with disseminating “false news.” Qatar was eventually forced to close its pro-Brotherhood Arabic service to repair relations with Egypt.
That is the baggage that Al Jazeera America inherited on its debut. . . . . 
[New York Times, 17 February 2016; emph. added[full article here]

As far as it goes the article is interesting and informative. And, I believe, factual. However, it is curious that Ibish somehow forgets to mention another paradox: the USA, the world's great friend of liberty and enemy of Communist tyranny, tolerates the slavery the prevails in Qatar in the form of the indentured servitude of tens of thousands or more of foreign workers brought in to do the  hard and work in the  sheikdom. It is Nepalis and others, horribly treated, who build the stadiums for the 2022 world soccer championship or FIFA Mondiale. Many of them have died. But the USA does not seem to care. Neither does the so-called "Global Left" such as it is, seem to care about slavery in Qatar. Nor does the anti-Israel BDS movement seem to care. 

In the summer of 2014 when Israel was fighting against thousands of rockets shot at Israeli towns and cities by Hamas, the USA in the person of John Kerry wanted Israel to accept mediation between itself and Hamas on the part of both Turkey and Qatar, both of them Muslim states hostile to Israel. Just by the way, perhaps the US State Department thought that the fact that Qatar was financing Hamas, itself a jihadi organization, was inconsequential. Israel thought otherwise and preferred Egyptian mediation. Maybe this is explained by the fact that the US press, the contemptuously called MSM, hardly reports on the  ugly social conditions prevailing in Arab states. At least not in Qatar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hamas, the "Left" & Qatar [here]
Marxist-Leninst enjoys favor of rich Arab amir [here]

Labels: , , , , , ,