France Advocates Peace in the Middle East - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

The fundamental question is whether sincere negotiations are possible at this time, and whether the international community should be involved.  Three issues immediately arise. The first overwhelming problem is the refusal of much of the Palestinian world to accept the existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius on June 21, 2015 at meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah revealed plans to help revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that broke down in April 2014. The proposal would entail a United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an agreement on a two-state solution on the basis of the armistice lines that existed before June 1967. If no successful agreement is reached within an 18-month period, the intention, apparently, is an international call for recognition of a Palestinian state.

Well-meaning though the French proposal is, the essential problem is that it obviates the process, advanced since 1967, of direct negotiations between the two parties.

A new book by the paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall assays not simply the errors and fraud in the scientific community but even more the unwillingness of supposedly objective analysts to change their minds even in the face of compelling evidence that contradicts their own views. Partisan motives in science as in politics often influence supposedly objective conclusions. This problem is inherent in all political analysis but particularly so in the case of commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

The fundamental question is whether sincere negotiations are possible at this time, and whether the international community should be involved.  Three issues immediately arise. The first overwhelming problem is the refusal of much of the Palestinian world to accept the existence and legitimacy of the State of Israel, whatever it calls itself.  

Many Palestinian logos and TV broadcasts continue to show a map of “Palestine” that includes in it the area of the State of Israel as well as areas in the West Bank and Gaza. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, himself stated on April 8, 2015, “Palestine means the entire national land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” Either “Israel” is erased from the map or if Israel is mentioned it is “Occupied Palestine.” Frequently accompanying these statements is an image of the Dome of the Rock with a text,” Jerusalem, we will not forsake a single grain of your soil.”

The problem here is shown by at least one of the senior figures of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Bahr, one time Deputy Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. His desire for peace was displayed by his preaching for the “annihilation of Jews and their supporters and the Americans and their supporters.” Equally friendly, he announced at the 27th anniversary of the founding of Hamas that the organization was preparing 100,000 fighters to liberate Palestine and expel the last Zionist soldier from the land. In saying that the Israeli occupation must go, Bahr apparently forgot that it was the “occupied” who had started the war against Israel.

If not rejection of the very existence of Israel, only qualified acceptance comes from the highest Palestinian quarters. In June 2015, Saeb Erekat, the head Palestinian negotiator for more than two decades who never “negotiates,” issued a statement calling for revoking any Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel until Israel recognizes a Palestinian state, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over east Jerusalem. Erekat did not qualify his urging for cancelling of all economic and security cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The Palestinians, he said, should never sign any peace deal with Israel that recognizes it as a Jewish state.

The second issue is that the Palestinian authorities, including Fatah, have continued to glorify Palestinian terrorists. In April 2015, 14 Palestinian terrorists who murdered more than 160 people were honored. The most well known was Khalil al-Wazir, more familiarly named Abu Jihad, the co-founder of Fatah and deputy to Yasser Arafat, who killed more than 125 Israelis. He was praised as a person who “Allah created just to confront the enemy (Israel).” He certainly confronted his enemy by heading the PLO’s military wing that killed at least 125 Israeli civilians. He was responsible for organizing the Savoy Hotel operation in Tel Aviv in March 1975 that killed 11 people; the Coastal Road Massacre led by woman terrorist Dalal Mughrabi in March 1978 when 37 people were killed and 70 others injured in a hijacked bus; an attack on March 7, 1988 on a bus, the so-called Mothers’ Bus, that killed three people in Dimona, and an attempt to capture the Israeli Ministry of Defense.

It is dispiriting that Abu Jihad was officially praised for his talent in persuading young people to die as martyrs and to be prepared to sacrifice. One wonders what the possibilities for peace can be when the Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki issued a statement on April 19, 2015 that “this region needs pioneers on the path of brother Abu Jihad.”

Abbas Zaki is not only the advocate of this sad future for Palestinians to become terrorists, but also falsely present arguments in favor of their cause. A particular one was his dependence on UN General Assembly resolution 3236 of November 22, 1974. Zaki states, “We have UN resolution 3236 that the Palestinian has the right to use any means of struggle, including armed struggle. That’s an international resolution.”

The trouble is that the resolution says the exact opposite.  The correct words are that the UNGA “recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” The Charter, of course, says that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means.

Hamas is no angelic group. In a surprising move -- because of its constant criticism of Israeli actions -- Amnesty International on May 26, 2015 published a report on the abduction, torture, and summary killing of Palestinians by Hamas forces during the conflict in the Gaza Strip in summer 2014. It indicates the extent to which the security forces of Hamas carried out horrific abuses, and spine-chilling war crimes. They executed at least 23 Palestinians and arrested and tortured dozens more. It was only the presence of journalists and photographers that made Hamas stop the brutalities.

The causalities came from members of Fatah or those said to be cooperating with Israel. Like the Mafia, Hamas settled scores with its rivals. With utter ruthlessness, Hamas used part of the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City to interrogate and torture suspects, while other parts of the hospital continued to function as a medical center.

The third issue is the nature of the unknown second party in any negotiating process. On June 17, 2015 the so-called Palestinian unity government headed by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah resigned because it was impossible to heal the differences between the two feuding groups, Fatah and Hamas. The “government” found it could not operate in the Gaza Strip. The non-negotiator Erekat naively argued that Hamas and Islamic Jihad should join the executive committee of the PLO.

The 26th Arab League Summit on March 28, 2015 witnessed a fantasy exchange of belligerent statements. Mahmoud Abbas, now in the 11th year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority, called for an Arab military intervention, a joint Arab force, to intervene against Hamas in Gaza. In response, Hamas stated that Abbas had lost his legal legitimacy and had no mandate to take any decisions or make any declarations that “depart from the national consensus or national constants.”

Foreign Minister Fabius stated without comment that Abbas had told him that a new Palestinian unity government would include only officials who recognize the State of Israel and who renounce the use of terror. Fabius is aware that he has a long way to go to overcome the uncompromising Hamas commitment to violence, and the refusal of the organization to live together in dignity, security, and peace with the State of Israel.

The search for peace must continue, but Fabius must first find out the correct Palestinians telephone number to call in order for them to meet Israelis at the negotiating table.

Michael Curtis

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/france_advocates_peace_in_the_middle_east_.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A dangerous document - Smadar Bat Adam

by Smadar Bat Adam

The report determined that any piece of information Israel provided was "unverifiable," while the material presented by Palestinian or pro-Palestinian organizations were facts set in stone.

There is no easy way to say this, but the U.N. Human Rights Council report on Operation Protective Edge, composed by a fact-finding mission headed by Judge Mary McGowan Davis, was a childish endeavor.

The report determined that any piece of information Israel provided was "unverifiable," while the material presented by Palestinian or pro-Palestinian organizations were facts set in stone. Honestly, It does not take a genius to understand that one needs just a tad more common sense to at least try to conceal the bias against Israel in this inquiry. 

The problem begins with the framework. The basic assumption, that Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, completely ignores the truth: Israel disengaged from Gaza a decade ago, providing its residents with complete autonomy that afforded them the ability, under the right leadership, to prosper. 

The same basic bias extends to defining Hamas only as an "alleged" terror organization, which completely ignores a decade of rocket fire and terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. Further, the mission completely disregarded the governmental corruption and the terror Hamas has been inflicting on its own people.

The report, for all its conclusions, could have been a truly amusing document, if not for the fact that it poses a danger to the free world, as it allows terrorist organizations the use of democratic instruments and rules to which they do not subscribe.

Juxtaposing a terrorist organization and a democratic state calls into question the views of some of the world's most renowned intellectuals and philosophers who have shaped ethics and the principles of justice throughout human history. 

The 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, best known for his book "Leviathan," presented human history as a struggle for survival and accumulation of power, and argued that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by committing to a social contract or a treaty.

To what kind of human rights treaty, valid in times of war or peace, has Hamas ever subscribed? Does this report truly suggest that the Western world adopt values such as martyrdom as a way to realize the essence of man?

In his book "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," written in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant, one of the most important philosophers in modern times, claimed that when trying to determine the nature of one's actions, the moral individual must first ask himself whether his standards are universal or can be applied universally. 

Clearly, the forces driving the U.N. to ignore fatal blows to human rights, especially in the Muslim world, and present Israel as a top human rights violator, are not interested in ethics and morals any more than they are interested in Kant's philosophy.

This is unequivocally expressed in the document calling for an International Criminal Court investigation of Israel and Hamas, knowing that issuing arrest warrants or applying political pressure on the terrorist organization, which already conducts itself in secret, would be meaningless, while on the other hand, accusing Israel and its leaders of war crimes would have far-reaching ramifications. 

The prominence given to terrorism-sponsoring countries and terrorist organizations in the U.N. and its various institutions is tantamount to extinguishing the great light of democracy.

Smadar Bat Adam

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12977

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Al Jazeera Reporter Endorses Terrorists - Rachael Hanna

by Rachael Hanna

• Zaidan's comparisons should raise concerns about whom the Obama administration designates as terrorists -- or even chooses as strategic partners: If these groups are not America's enemies, who is?
• Whatever sympathies he may have for the Al Nusra Front, Zaidan's loyalty to the ethics of his profession and his responsibility to his readers evidently do not outweigh his loyalties to a terrorist organization.
  

Why is Ahmad Zaidan, Al Jazeera's Islamabad bureau chief, tacitly endorsing a terrorist organization?

In an op-ed for Al Jazeera's English website on June 2, entitled "Nusra Front's quest for a united Syria," Zaidan writes that the Islamist militant rebel group in Syria is distancing itself from Al-Qaeda and "positioning itself as the natural heir of jihadi ideology."

The Al Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda's offshoot in Syria, is one of the largest, most powerful and best-organized rebel groups fighting the Assad regime, and in December 2012 it landed on the U.S. State Department List of Terrorist Organizations. Officially designated as an alias of Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra was branded for the more than 600 attacks it had claimed responsibility for since November 2011, many of which had taken the lives of innocent Syrian civilians. Recent victories as part of a rebel coalition against the Assad regime in the northwest province of Idlib have further bolstered Al Nusra and strengthened the group's leadership position among Syria's anti-government forces.

Zaidan's bias in favor of Nusra is clear almost immediately, when he notes that when he was covering Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, his "hosts" from those two terror organizations never offered him more than "simple tea and bread for breakfast," whereas his Al Nusra hosts had generously laid out a "dozen dishes" for him. However, his appreciation of a wider range of breakfast options quickly turns to using his position as a leading reporter for the most influential news network in the Middle East -- and the larger Muslim world -- essentially to act as a mouthpiece for Al Nusra.

Ahmad Zaidan, Al Jazeera's Islamabad bureau chief, is shown here reporting from Damascus, Syria. (Image source: Al Jazeera video screenshot)

Zaidan recounts and quotes extensively from a separate interview conducted by Al Jazeera Arabic on May 27 with Al Nusra's leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, to emphasize differences between Jolani's leadership tactics and those of Al-Qaeda under Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zaidan writes that Jolani "defies al-Qaeda's legacy of going after minorities," highlighting a promise from Jolani that if the Alawites (an offshoot sect of Shia Islam to which Syria's ruling family and many of its supporters belong) were to abandon the Assad regime, they "would be welcome" in a new Syria.

Jolani, according to Zaidan, also promised that Druze communities in Syria would be protected; as a result of that statement, he has received support from Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze.

The problem with Zaidan's translation of the interview with Jolani from Arabic to English is that he leaves out a critical caveat that Jolani made regarding protection of the Alawites, considered by many Sunni Islamists, including Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra, not to be true Muslims, but apostates of Islam. A Guardian article, reporting on Jolani's interview with Al Jazeera, accurately translated Jolani's relevant quote as: "If the Alawites leave their religion and leave Bashar al-Assad, we will protect them." [Emphasis added.]

Zaidan seemingly manipulated the original quote to obscure that Al Nusra is, in fact, not tolerant of other religions or religious minorities, and that only religious conversion would allow Alawites to remain safely in Syria under Al Nusra leadership.

Also absent from Zaidan's characterization of Al Nusra as more tolerant than Al-Qaeda, is any mention of Syria's significant Christian minority, which makes up about 10% of the population.

The Guardian article, however, does translate Jolani's remarks on Christians; his words are far from accepting. The Guardian paraphrases Jolani as saying that "in a future state ruled by Islamic law, the financially capable would pay 'jizya,' or tax reserved for non-Muslims."

Zaidan's misleading translation and editing of Jolani's interview reveal more than bias: they demonstrate a violation of a basic principle of journalistic ethics: not to manipulate quotes from sources in a way that fundamentally changes their meaning. Zaidan has done just that -- and to support a terrorist organization, no less.

Many who commented on Zaidan's article noticed his deceitful omission. Journalist Evan Hill, who speaks Arabic and has covered the Middle East for both Al Jazeera and the Guardian, tweeted, "Is it me or does Zaidan leave out the part of the Alawite quote where he said 'give up your beliefs'?"

Having less-than-subtly revealed his support for Al Nusra, Zaidan continues sounding off as an unofficial media spokesman for the group. He cites "recent leaks" that Al Nusra leaders have decided to leave "the al-Qaeda umbrella and operate exclusively as a Syrian party aiming to establish an Islamic State," although a public announcement of such a break has yet to happen.

According to Zaidan, "[S]uch a move, whenever made, would not only satisfy Nusra's followers," of which Zaidan certainly seems to be one; it would "also pull the carpet from under the feet of ISIL." In other words, as his article's subtitle, "Nusra Front is positioning itself as the natural heir of jihadi ideology," makes clear, Al Nusra sees itself as the group that will upstage the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) to control Islamist jihadi ideology in Syria -- hardly a comforting alternative to Assad and ISIS.

The Middle East -- especially Syria and Iraq -- needs a great deal of humanitarian aid just now; what it does not need is competition between brutal, seventh century-styled Islamic states. Nevertheless, Zaidan seems to be of the opinion that the way to take down ISIS is a competing caliphate.

Certainly, the half-hearted U.S.-led strategy for fighting ISIS has thus far failed to produce any promising signs that ISIS is on the retreat -- especially since the loss of Ramadi in Anbar province last month. Leaving terrorist groups to duke it out, however, has also failed to end the conflict.

The excuse Zaidan offers for his support of Al Nusra is that the international community -- as well as any non-Islamist rebel forces on the ground in Syria -- have failed to help citizens under siege from the Assad regime, and that these failures have led to increased sympathy among the population for Islamist rebel groups who "exercise real power."

While this is an accurate, although overly simple, assessment of the situation in Syria, it hardly seems a sufficient reason for Zaidan, as a leading reporter for a major global news network, with unparalleled media influence in the Muslim world, to endorse the cause of a terrorist organization.

To Zaidan, however, not only is the current situation in Syria reason enough to throw his support behind Al Nusra, it is also a reason to chastise the United States for not having already gotten on the group's bandwagon. Comparing Al Nusra to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Zaidan writes: "Washington used to depict the PLO as a terrorist outfit -- but then took a U-turn." Zaidan's use of the word "depict" is telling; to him, Al Nusra is not a terrorist group; rather it is unfairly being labeled one by the United States.

Instead, he suggests that the U.S. should repeat history and change its tactics toward Al Nusra. However, this change would entail the U.S. supporting a group that does not believe in religious tolerance even among Muslims; that views Christians as second-class citizens, and that uses terrorist tactics, including the attempted use of chemical weapons, in its fighting against the Assad regime, just as the regime has done.

Zaidan draws another parallel to support Al Nusra: between Al Nusra and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He notes that the group was "once the main target of the US military, but is not currently designated as a 'terrorist organization' by either the UN, UK or the US." Finally, he reminds his readers that Washington no longer brands "Hezbollah or Iranian Quds Force's Qassem Soleimani" as terrorists.

Zaidan argues that since the United States has changed relationships with these current or former terrorist organizations, it should take another extremely dangerous militant Islamist group off its terrorist list.

However, Zaidan's comparisons should raise concerns about whom the Obama administration designates as terrorists -- or even chooses as strategic partners: If these groups are not America's enemies, who is?

Zaidan proceeds to call the Obama administration hypocritical for supporting "alien" Shia militias "fighting on behalf of Baghdad," but not demonstrating the same support for "Syrian fighters -- such as those who make up Nusra's ranks" waging war against Assad. Again, Zaidan's argument should give the White House pause as to whom the U.S. is partnering with in Iraq. Iranian-backed Shia militias, while they may be committed to fighting ISIS, can hardly be considered long-term partners for a stable Iraq.

In his closing thoughts, Zaidan makes a half-hearted attempt to mention the importance of "tolerance" and "build[ing] bridges" in Syria, although given his support for a group whose goal is supposedly to convert everyone to its extremist brand of Sunni Islam or force discriminating taxes on them, honest reconciliation does not seem to be a priority for him.

More alarming than Jolani's support for Al Nusra and his editorial dishonestly is that Al Jazeera allowed this article to be published. Zaidan is entitled to express his opinions, regardless of how unsettling they might be. This was, after all, an op-ed piece; the disclaimer at the bottom clearly states that the views presented in the article do not represent the views of Al Jazeera. So while Al Jazeera should not have censored Zaidan for the content of his piece, it was irresponsible and unethical to have published an article that, through deceitful editing practices, grossly misrepresents Al Nusra's ideology.

As for Zaidan, whatever sympathies he may have for Al Nusra, his loyalty to the ethics of his profession and his responsibility to his readers evidently do not outweigh his loyalties to a terrorist organization.

Rachael Hanna is Associate Managing Editor of the Harvard Political Review.
Follow Rachael Hanna on Twitter

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6027/al-jazeera-terrorists

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Establishing a Palestinian Islamist State - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

• The United Nations' verdict of guilty to Israel, in its "Schabas Report," issued yesterday, was written even before the trial began.
• Only the wide-eyed West still does not believe that Mahmoud Abbas is telling the truth when he assures the Palestinians of his intent to destroy Israel.
• All public opinion polls in the Palestinian Authority (PA) indicate that if elections were held today, Hamas -- whose only openly-stated reason for existing is to destroy Israel -- would win in a landslide, as in 2006. Gaza has already been lost to Hamas and perhaps soon to ISIS. All evidence reveals that to establish a Palestinian state now would turn it into an Islamist terrorist entity.
• Abbas thought that forming a Unity Government with Hamas would give the PA a unified front with which to harvest more money and diplomatic concessions from Europe. But last summer, Abbas was informed of a Hamas murder plot against him.
  

The Middle East is at it again. At the top of the list, no one, it seems, is even thinking of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability -- and by extension at least several other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt.

First, It is dangerous enough for any openly expansionist regime, theological or not, to have nuclear weapons; Iran has recently shown itself to be nothing if not expansionist. Second, and, if possible, worse, several of the countries around Iran -- who correctly feel in its crosshairs, have already announced that they will be building or buying nuclear weapons as well; and have probably already started. The Islamic State (ISIS) is also rumored to be on the market for a nuclear warhead; you too can apparently buy one for around $400 million. So we shall all have uncontrolled and uncontrollable nuclear proliferation to look forward to.

On top of all that, the Americans and Europeans are rumored to be at it again, pressuring the Palestinian Authority (PA) to renew peace negotiations with Israel. The London-based newspaper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, recently quoted a senior Palestinian who suggested that the PA Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, meet with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to jump-start the stalled negotiations.

New signs of triggering antagonism between the Palestinians and Israel are also reflected in the Vatican's recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the State of Palestine, despite the vandalizing of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and other acts that led to the mass-exodus of persecuted Christians from the Palestinian territories, and despite the PA having joined with the terrorist group, Hamas, in the so-called Palestinian National Consensus Government ["Unity Government"]. This union enabled Israel to accuse it of responsibility for the war crimes that really only Hamas committed against Israeli civilians during the last war. At the same time, the tottering Palestinian Authority is trying to delegitimize Israel by accusing it of war crimes in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Neither of these attacks bodes well for either Israel or the PA.

The ICC in The Hague also recently announced that it would unilaterally investigate Israel for alleged war crimes committed in the last clash in the Gaza Strip. This project will not end well for the Palestinians, the Israelis or the politicized "Jim Crow" International Criminal Court. Meanwhile, the Unite[d] Nations' verdict of guilty, in its "Schabas Report," issued this week, was written even before the trial began.

The Obama Administration has also increased its pressure on Israel with not-so-subtle threats. Susan Rice and other sources within the US administration openly claimed in early March that, in view of Israel's "refusal" to make peace, and because of its interpretations of statements made by Netanyahu during this Israel's elections this year, Washington would not veto unilateral European proposals to establish a Palestinian state.

President, Barack Obama, on May 22, tried to reassure the Jewish community to the contrary and said that he was "an honorary member of the [Jewish] tribe," but his assurances are suspicious. Obama has earned a reputation for not telling the truth, from blaming the 2012 slaughter of Americans at Benghazi, Libya on a YouTube video (even two weeks after he knew the video was not the reason), to welching on his "red line" commitment when Syria's government used chemical weapons on its own people.

The Israelis regard the American stance as an anti-Israeli vendetta based on Obama's personal dislike of both Israel and Netanyahu. Although Netanyahu has said that now might not be the best time for a Palestinian state, he has, in fact, never changed his fundamental policy: that a Palestinian state could potentially be in Israel's best interests.

What Netanyahu did say, with justification -- as hard as it is to admit he was right -- is that, given the current regional chaos, establishing a Palestinian state at this time would mean establishing a terrorist state in the West Bank. To do so now would simply lead to what is euphemistically called "further regional destabilization" -- namely, war. Recognizing a Palestinian state at this time will also encourage terrorist activities by giving extremist Islamic elements -- presently operating throughout North Africa, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq -- even more territory from which to expand their operations.

This new Islamic extremist land-and-power grab would be similar to that of Hamas after it took over the Gaza Strip, after when Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005; or the ISIS takeover of Syria and Iraq when the US withdrew or failed to act. Currently, Hamas and ISIS in the Gaza Strip menace the security of both Israel and Egypt.

A new Islamic emirate in the West Bank at this time would also be dangerous for Jordan. Even without an Islamic emirate, Jordan has to cope with waves of refugees, among whom are Islamist terrorist operatives infiltrating the kingdom with the goal of overthrowing the Hashemites and turning Jordan into a territory ruled by ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood. Given Iran's efforts to exploit the weakness of Sunni Islam in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Bahrain, there seems no need for another extremist Islamic arena in Jordan.

Considerable pressure is also now being directed at the Palestinian Authority to renew negotiations with Israel. Some of the pressure comes from former President Jimmy Carter's possibly well-intentioned but totally counterproductive demand that the Palestinians hold elections.

All public opinion polls in the PA indicate that if elections were held today, Hamas, as in 2006, would win in a landslide.

Unfortunately, many decision-makers in both the United States and Europe view the situation through the lens of Western democracy and practices. The overwhelming Hamas victory in the student council elections at Bir Zeit University, near Ramallah, should have been a wake-up call. 

Unfortunately, it was ignored.

Hamas supporters march during a student council election rally at Bir Zeit University, near Ramallah, on April 20, 2015. The overwhelming Hamas victory in the student council elections should have been a wake-up call to the U.S. and Europe.

Mahmoud Abbas has a dilemma. If elections are held in the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas-- whose only openly-stated reason for existing is to destroy Israel -- wins, the PA will cease to exist and Israel will be able to avoid the peace process for all time.

If, however, elections are not held, Mahmoud Abbas will continue to rule without international or Palestinian legitimacy. Not only did his four-year term expire six years ago, but at this point, he barely represents the Palestinians in the West Bank.

The almost two million Palestinians on the other side of Israel, in Gaza, are represented almost exclusively by Hamas, with continuing attempted inroads by ISIS. Abbas is thus unable to represent "the Palestinian people" in any serious political process. The proposal for elections is therefore an embarrassment for Abbas, and is generally ignored.

Tragically, to shore up its status locally, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has taken a series of hasty, contradictory and dangerous steps. Since the PA's chance at controlling the Gaza Strip has disappeared forever, the PA, to ensure its own continued survival, coordinates security with Israel to prevent further Hamas subversion in the West Bank.

In the meantime, senior figures in the PLO and the PA compete with Hamas in issuing strident, extremist messages to the Palestinian populace, which is consequently being radicalized -- to the point now of supporting Hamas and ISIS.

Mahmoud Abbas and his high-ranking associates, nevertheless, continue to hold formal ceremonies to honor terrorists killed during attacks on Israeli targets.[1] Abbas also continues to commemorate "shaheeds" [those who die in the cause of Islam, often called "martyrs"] who killed dozens of Israeli civilians in suicide bombing attacks. Abbas erects monuments, names town squares after them, and holds sports and chess tournaments in their honor.

On this year's Nakba Day -- "the day of catastrophe," which commemorated the 67^th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel -- during the May 15 ceremonies, Mahmoud Abbas promised the Palestinian masses that the occupied territories and the Palestinian diaspora would soon be restored to the independent state of Palestine. He also swore that the "resistance" -- that is, armed violence and terrorism against Israel -- would continue until the goal was achieved: destroying the State of Israel and establishing the Palestinian state on its ruins.

These intentions are not a secret to Israelis. They therefore do not trust his sincerity when he claims he wants "peace." Only the wide-eyed West still does not believe that Mahmoud Abbas is telling the truth when he assures the Palestinians of his intent to destroy Israel.

The deliberate tension crafted by the Palestinian Authority has, as its only objective, bloodshed -- both Palestinian and Israeli. This tactic can usually be seen when the level of violence falls below what the PA finds acceptable. It then trots out the old saw, first coined by the anti-Israeli Islamist sheikh Ra'ed Salah (whose right to free speech is protected by Israeli law), "Al-Aqsa mosque is in danger!"

At the beginning of May 2015, Sheikh Yusuf al-Dayis, the PA Minister of Religious Endowments [Waqf], made headlines in the Palestinian daily, Al-Quds, with the incendiary statement that the fate of the entire Muslim nation hung on the 35 acres of the Temple Mount. He even provided a list of what he claimed were Israeli "attacks" on Al-Aqsa mosque. Sadly for him, visitors to the Temple Mount can see every day the exorbitant security measures taken by the Israelis to protect the site. In point of fact, the record shows that every time the Palestinians want to provoke another pointless round of violence and slaughter, they say, "Al-Aqsa mosque is in danger!" It invariably causes hundreds of casualties on both sides and achieves absolutely nothing.

The last time a mosque actually was damaged was recently, in the Gaza Strip, when Hamas's security forces removed the holy books, then used three bulldozers to raze a Salafist mosque. Hamas claimed it was in retaliation for an alleged Salafist attack on Hamas "jihad fighters" south of Khan Yunis. Sources in Gaza confirmed that seven Salafist-jihadi operatives were arrested in the mosque, and that Hamas had recently arrested 30 Salafist-jihadi Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis members. Having started terrorism in the Gaza Strip, Hamas is now reaping the result: terrorism there is "going viral."

All evidence reveals that to establish a Palestinian state now would quickly turn it into an Islamist terrorist entity. Each time governments encourage Islamist movements, or ignore them in the hope that they will attack someone else, these movements have boomeranged into their own backyards and then moved on to their neighbors'. This will be the fate of Syria's Bashar Assad, who let Hamas and other terrorist groups set up shop in Damascus. Former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat let Hamas into the neighborhood, and the Palestinian people are now being repaid by Hamas. Arafat wrongly assumed that letting Hamas in the door would serve him by forcing Israel to make concessions. Mahmoud Abbas thought that forming a Unity Government with Hamas would give the PA a unified front with which to harvest more money and diplomatic concessions from Europe. But last August, Abbas was informed of a Hamas murder plot against him. "We have a national unity government and you are thinking about a coup against me," he said to Hamas's leader, Khaled Mashaal.

The Islamist terrorist enclaves are wholly the fruit of the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine freely being spread around the Middle East and the democratic West. The so-far isolated incidents of bloodshed in Europe, Africa and the United States are just at the beginning stages of a long, bloody campaign to engulf the world.

Gaza has already been lost to Hamas and perhaps soon to ISIS. Libya and Lebanon may follow next. If the West pressures Palestinians and Israel to create a Palestinian state now, the West Bank and Jordan will be sure to follow. Enabling an expansionist Iran to have a nuclear threshold capability will also throw the region into war.

We, the Palestinians who live in the Palestinian Authority and within Israel, have not stopped dreaming of a Palestinian state, but we also witness the chaos around us and are relieved that so far the catastrophe has not harmed us or our families.

Some Palestinian politicians have turned to more extreme rhetoric to find favor with Israeli Arabs, but despite the tendency in Palestinian society towards extremism and terrorism, what is certain is that even if the establishment of the Palestinian state is postponed, most Palestinians hope the West will not make the mistake of permitting Iran to go nuclear. A nuclear Iran will create a nightmare that will make the Nakba look like a coming attraction.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

---

[1] For recent examples, see: "Fatah glorifies arch-terrorist who planned killings of 125," May 14, 2015; "PA honors 3 terrorists who lynched two Israeli reservists," May 11, 2015; "PA sports presents terrorist murderers as role models," May 4, 2015.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6028/palestinian-islamist-state

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A war against the entire West - Rafael Bardaji and Joseph Raskas

by Rafael Bardaji and Joseph Raskas

A report issued by a high-level group of former diplomats and military officials recently concluded that if Israel sought to systematically kill civilians in Gaza, either Israel's military did not try nearly hard enough or it got very unlucky, because it failed spectacularly to achieve that supposed objective.

Increasingly, human rights organizations are attempting to make military forces operating under the purview of the Laws of Armed Conflict subject to persistent human rights claims in the civil sphere. Israeli soldiers have historically been made the mark -- much as they are being made now by the U.N. Human Rights Council. But such moves mask a broader agenda that should worry the entire West.

Consider: Last summer, courtesy of Iran, the Gaza-based terrorist group, Hamas, perpetrated the kidnapping and brutal murder of three Israeli teens, battered Israel with more than 450 rockets, and plotted what were intended to be strategic, mass-casualty attacks launched via tunnels emerging in Israel, in some cases near schools. In response to Hamas's unlawful aggression, Israel was forced to fight a war it did not want and sought for months to avoid -- but nevertheless, it was still roundly condemned and heavily pressured to halt its campaign. 

A report issued by a high-level group of former diplomats and military officials recently concluded that if Israel sought to systematically kill civilians in Gaza, either Israel's military did not try nearly hard enough or it got very unlucky, because it failed spectacularly to achieve that supposed objective. The preliminary findings of the international group -- whose 11 members include the former NATO Military Committee Chairman Gen. Klaus Naumann of Germany; former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi; former U.S. State Department Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper; and the former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp -- demonstrate the combat-to-civilian kill ratio was approximately 1:1 -- a significantly better score than the 3:1 ratio that U.N. estimates show for such conflicts worldwide.

However, by focusing exclusively on the civilian casualty count, rather than the strategic circumstances that brought them about, the so-called human rights campaign capably masks its wider aim: to fundamentally erode the moral imperative of certain Western wars. 

Operating under the banner of socially concerned citizenry, these groups ascribe a singular importance to having wars fought by the rules that they seek to impose, at the expense of fighting the war to a victorious and convincing triumph.

This activism does not only place an imprimatur of human rights upon a misguided agenda. It also erodes the necessity and justness of such wars, while seeking to provide justification for even more misguided ideological campaigns. Moreover, the fear of legal action initiated or otherwise encouraged by these organizations hamstrings the prosecution of war by civilized societies.

Both Israel and the West are immersed in legitimate and necessary wars and face guerrilla forces -- which deliberately and indiscriminately target civilian populations and launch their battles from within civilian areas, with the expectation that the resulting carnage will provide fodder for human rights activists to bring about intervention in the wars.

Democratic armies -- those of Israel and the United States in particular -- work gallantly to hold civilian deaths to a minimum. But more and more they are being handicapped in fighting the war.

Citizens of the West need to be made aware of how their nations' democratic agendas, governmental objectives, and military campaigns are being undermined by ideologies and actors that are anathema to Western culture. Ignoring or failing to confront the perpetrators for fear of otherwise lending legitimacy to those conditions is understandable -- but the counterculture will only continue to grow.

We must give the enemy no quarter in demolishing his malicious propaganda. World leaders must continue to condemn as often as necessary the ongoing human rights violations committed by non-state actors against democratic states. Organizations -- governmental and otherwise -- that voice concern for the treatment of such malevolent actors should be exposed and labeled for what they truly are: apologists for terrorists. 

The ruling that the so-called human rights campaign seeks to impose is not regarding what type of force Israel can impose on Hamas, but whether or not democratic armies of the West have the right to use force of any kind.

Western nations pursue war only after careful deliberation leading to a conclusion that war is necessary and just. Once that conclusion has been reached, however, a war must be fought to be won.

Rafael Bardaji served as national security adviser to Spain's former President José María Aznar from 1996 to 2004, and is currently the executive director of Friends of Israel Initiative. 

Joseph Raskas is a combat veteran of the Israel Defense Forces and currently an analyst for Friends of Israel Initiative.

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12963

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Preventing Islamist Terrorism - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

Britain has taken the lead in presenting ideas to counter extremist views and terrorist actions. The objective is not only a concern with violent extremism but also with non-violent extremism that may create support for terrorist activity.

The time has come to discuss, and considering implementing, the argument made by Karl Popper that we should claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. How do we stop young men and women from becoming jihadist terrorists? A depressing new incident on June 13, 2015 involving a native British Muslim has ignited painful discussion as well as anxiety in the UK.

The incident concerned a 17-year-old teenager, Talha Asmal, a very good A level student in Dewsbury, near Leeds, in West Yorkshire. He left his hometown to go to Turkey, then to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS). He took part in the attack that killed 11 people by detonating a vehicle filled with explosives near an oil refinery south of Baiji, Iraq. Asmal is Britain’s youngest suicide bomber, two years younger than another Islamist teenager from West Yorkshire who was killed during the attack on a London bus on July 7, 2005.  

The town of Dewsbury is now regarded as one of the UK’s centers of Islamist extremism. It was the home of notorious terrorist Mohammas Sidique Khan, who on July 7, 2005 bombed the London underground station Edgware Road, killing himself and five others. The neighboring town of Bradford in Yorkshire on June 17, 2015 also saw the departure of three local women and their nine children to go to Syria and fight for IS.

Why would Asmal and Khan, and like-minded young Muslims, become terrorists? Why would young women take themselves and their children to fight for IS? The question of why they become jihadists defies rational explanation. The more than 2000 Muslims who have left Britain were not socially deprived, since many came from middle class or aspiring families. In the Yorkshire areas where they lived, and where there is a substantial number of Muslims, they did not suffer from any kind of “Islamophobia.” They were not deprived of educational opportunities since they seem to have done well at school. They were apparently not students of mainstream Islam. For them, the paradox is that they have joined IS, a group that is fighting other Muslims in Syria and Iraq.

Some of those vocal in the anti-Western blame game, offer the explanation that the foreign policy of the United States and of European nations is responsible. Two factors are present. The first, an issue of course that is currently disrupting U.S. presidential politics, is the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Irrespective of the answers given by presidential contenders, a specious explanation is that it was the Western intervention in these two countries that radicalized the Muslim youngsters.

The second particular factor is the De-Ba’athification policy, the removal of all influence of Saddam Hussein’s Ba'ath party in the Iraqi political system. The American diplomat Paul Brenner, when he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, introduced the policy in May 2003. That policy led to 400,000 members of the Iraqi army being barred from government employment and from receiving pensions, though they were able to keep guns. The policy was rescinded a year later, but was continued by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who barred Ba'athists from taking part in the parliamentary elections. Some argue that this was responsible for the deteriorating security situation. Many of these former Iraqi military officers who had been in the Iraqi intelligence agency now work for the IS security service.

Britain, like other Western countries, is now disturbed both by the increasing number of youngsters, born in Britain, joining the IS and by the likelihood of some of the jihadists returning home and becoming involved in local terrorists acts.

It is worth exploring current thinking on how to deal with both the initial inducement of the young to fight for IS and the problem if they return to their home area.

Britain has taken the lead in presenting ideas to counter extremist views and terrorist actions. The objective is not only a concern with violent extremism but also with non-violent extremism that may create support for terrorist activity.

This takes a number of forms.  It is assumed that Islamic leaders, like the rest of society, are concerned not only by the intrinsic appeal of jihadism, but also by the fact that many in the Muslim community either condone or acquiesce in it.

This argument was forcibly made by Shalid Malik, a Labour Party politician, British born of Pakistani descent, who in fact was Member of Parliament for Dewsbury for a number of years. In July 2005 he said that British Muslims must confront the voices of Islamist evil. After the Asmal incident, Malik in June 2015 said that Muslims must defeat the Islamic State in mosques and communities across the country: “It’s a struggle that can only succeed if it is one which is led by Muslims themselves.”

A stronger case has been made by British political leaders, primarily Theresa May, Home Secretary since 2010, and by Lord Carlile, former government reviewer of anti-terrorism legislation. Both stress the need for a Prevent Program, a counterterrorism strategy. Such a program is essentially based on challenging extremist ideas and terrorist actions, and stopping the influence of jihadist influence.

Counterterrorism could take many forms, government authorities working with both mainstream media and educational groups and businesses and Muslim organizations to prevent extremism and to draw attention to the evils stemming from that extremism. Though it is obviously controversial, since it infringes on the question of free speech, an important concern must be with the Internet. The Western democracies should use computer programs, to provide a counternarrative, using the same tools, the same thought processes that have radicalized youngsters, to counter Islamist online propaganda.

There is now abundant evidence that the major factor attracting youngsters to join the jihadist cause has been the Internet. A starting point would be to prevent extreme Islamist imams from preaching their hatred messages, and to counter that extremism in mosques, schools, and publications. Moderate Muslims should join in this effort.

The issue must be confronted of whether the Internet should be obliged to reveal Islamist information that may be harmful to security. Human rights groups as well as mainstream media should share in dealing with this increasing important topic and with publicizing the nature of the evil perpetrated by jihadists so that people become aware of it and find jihadist violence less attractive. Regarding those who have been attracted by IS, it is worth discussing whether democratic countries should block the return of those who have gone to fight for IS. Evidently, no Western security force has the resources to provide surveillance of all those suspected of support for terrorism, either before their departure to join IS or if they were allowed to return. Extremism must be prevented in both cases. 


Michael Curtis

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/preventing_islamist_terrorism_.html

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Par for the Course: EU- & NIF-funded NGOs Central to UNHRC Lawfare Attack - NGO Monitor

by NGO Monitor

An initial review of the “Report of the detailed findings of the independent commission of inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-21/1” shows that the unverified claims of NGOs were referenced, cited, and quoted at a high volume, in contrast to accepted international fact-finding standards

See here for NGO Monitor's press release, "UN Report on Gaza: Improvement Over Goldstone, But NGO Reliance Hurts Credibility," June 22, 2015

The report of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the 2014 Gaza War, headed by William Schabas and then Mary McGowan Davis after the former’s resignation over his undisclosed paid work for the PLO, quotes extensively from biased and unreliable political advocacy non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although these groups lack credibility and do not employ professional fact-finding standards, the COI repeated the NGOs’ unverifiable factual claims and allegations of Israeli “war crimes.”

European government funding enables these NGOs, as does funding from private foundations such as the New Israel Fund (NIF). Without the financial support and public backing from their donors, these fringe advocacy organizations would not have a platform to disseminate their propaganda.

An initial review of the “Report of the detailed findings of the independent commission of inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-21/1” shows that the unverified claims of NGOs were referenced, cited, and quoted at a high volume, in contrast to accepted international fact-finding standards:

NGO	Number of References	Donors
B’Tselem	69	European Union, France, DanChurch Aid (Denmark), Diakonia (Sweden), Norway, Christian Aid Ireland, EED (Germany), UNICEF, Catholic Relief Services (US), World Vision, Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), ICCO (Netherlands), Trocaire (Ireland), UK, the Ford Foundation and the New Israel Fund.
UN-OCHA	60
Amnesty International	53
Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)	50	European Union, UN OCHA ($577,000 in 2014 for a Gaza "Crisis Appeal Request"), Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Open Society Foundations (US), Christian Aid (UK), Grassroots International (US), Kvina Till Kvina (Sweden), Al-Quds Association Malaga (Spain), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), and DanChurchAid (Denmark).
Al-Mezan	29	Does not publish financial information, reflecting a lack of transparency and accountability.
Human Rights Watch (HRW)	22
Al Haq	19	Does not publish financial information, reflecting a lack of transparency and accountability.
Physicians for Human Rights- Israel	16	European Commission, Diakonia (Sweden), Medico International (Germany), Medico International- Switzerland, EED (Germany), Holland, and HEKS-EPER (Switzerland).
Al-Dameer	14	Does not publish financial information, reflecting a lack of transparency and accountability.
Hamoked	12	Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), CCFD (France), Ford Israel Fund (USA), The French Consulate, Misereor (Germany), the Netherlands, New Israel Fund, Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Royal Norwegian Embassy, Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), Sivmo (Netherlands), Trocaire (Ireland), Spanish International Development Cooperation Office (AECID), UNDP, and others.
UNRWA	8
Breaking the Silence	8	European Union, Misereor (Germany), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Norway, AECID (Spain), Dan Church Aid (Denmark), ICCO (Netherlands), CCFD (France), Human Rights and International Law Secretariat, Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), SIVMO (Netherlands), Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Open Society Institute, New Israel Fund, and others.
Adalah	8	European Union, Switzerland, Germany (via EED and Medico International), Spain (via ACSUR), Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Oxfam-Novib (Netherlands), Christian Aid (UK), UN Development Programme (UNDP), New Israel Fund, Ford Foundation, and Open Society Institute.
Yesh Din	5	European Union, UK, Germany, Norway, Ireland, Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD), HEKS-EFER (Switzerland), Oxfam NOVIB (Netherlands), New Israel Fund (NIF), Open Society Institute, and the Moriah Fund.
Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)	5	United States (State Department’s MEPI program), Diakonia (Sweden), European Union, Christian Aid (UK), NDC, Norway, Netherlands, Oxfam, EED (Germany), and Kerk in Actie (Netherlands).
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI)	4	Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), ICCO (Netherlands), Cordaid (Netherlands), Kios (Finland), Royal Netherlands Embassy in Tel Aviv, Royal Norwegian Embassy in Tel Aviv, SIVMO (Netherlands), The Sigrid Rausing Trust (UK), Trocaire (Ireland), United Nations Voluntary Funds for Victims of Torture, and others.
FIDH	4	EU, Finland, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, Ford Foundation, NED, Open Society Foundation.
Addameer	3	Does not publish financial information, reflecting lack of transparency and accountability. 2010 annual report (latest available) “acknowledge[s] the support and advocacy” of Christian Aid (UK), ICCO (Netherlands), Ireland, NGO Development Center, Paz con Dignidad (Spain), Solidaridad Internacional (Spain), Solidarity for Development and Peace (Sodepaz), The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and others.
Military Court Watch	3	MCW is “fiscally sponsored by Dalia Association.”
Gisha	2	European Commission, United Kingdom, Oxfam GB, Trocaire (Ireland), Oxfam Novib (the Netherlands), Irish Aid, Norway, UNDP, Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), and Human Rights and International Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands).
Norwegian Refugee Council	2	Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ECHO (EU), Europe Aid (EU), SIDA (Sweden), DFID (UK), UNHCR, UNICEF, OCHA and others.
Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling	2	2014 “financial supporters and international project partners” include: Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (joint government funding from Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands), Norway, European Union, Germany, Canada, Iceland, Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Dan Church Aid (Denmark), Bread for the World (Germany), Open Society Institute, Caritas Switzerland, UNDP, and Broederlijk Delen (Belgium).
Gaza Community Mental Health Center	1	UNDP, UNRWA, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), Norwegian Representative Office to the Palestinian Authority, Bread for the World (Germany), Quaker Service Norway, National Endowment for Democracy (US), Medico International Switzerland, Deutsche Geselischaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany), Grassroots International (USA), and others.

Examples of NGO factual claims and allegations repeated by the COI
B’Tselem - 69 citations

• B'Tselem's Black Flag report is cited 28 times. (See NGO Monitor’s Emotion, Not Law: A Critical Reading of B´Tselem´s "Black Flag" Report.)
• “Along with the Attorney General, the MAG reportedly regularly participated in cabinet meetings regarding the 2014 hostilities. B’Tselem, Israeli authorities have proven they cannot investigate suspected violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in the Gaza Strip…” (¶ 619 and footnote there)
• “The commission has analysed one such document, dated 10 July 2014, which discloses the MAG’s reasoning for closing an investigation into the case of a 14-year-old boy killed on 19 March 2014…. The MPCID investigation concluded that the IDF acted in full accordance with open-fire regulations, and therefore found no grounds for criminal proceedings…. An investigation by B’Tselem concluded that the boy ‘posed no danger to any other persons’.” (¶ 639)
• “NGO B’Tselem recorded 473 administrative detainees, as at the end of August 2014, which appears to be the highest number of administrative detainees since April 2009.”  (¶ 413)
•  “The commission observes, however, that some of the incidents examined in this section raise serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of ‘roof-knocking’.”(¶ 235-237)

Amnesty International - 53 citations

• “In addition, during the escalation of hostilities, the number of IDF positions in the south of Israel around Gaza, sometimes close to civilian communities, was higher than usual, as this area was used to position artillery and as a staging ground for the IDF ground operation in Gaza.” (¶ 88)
• “According to media accounts and reports from Palestinian NGOs, around 20 residents in surrounding buildings were injured.” (¶ 210)
• “Amnesty International found that ‘the conflict provided renewed evidence that vulnerable communities in Israel, particularly Bedouin villages in Israel’s southern Negev/Naqab region, many of which are not officially recognized by the Israeli government, lacked protection.’” (¶ 567)
• “As pointed out by Amnesty International, the village of Kaser Al-Ser was recognized by the State of Israel in 1999, but its infrastructure remains rudimentary and it is threatened by demolition. According to Amnesty International, the family did not receive compensation from the authorities after the attack because the victim’s home was due to be demolished anyway.” (¶ 21)

Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) - 50 citations

• “According to the commission’s assessment, on the basis of witness statements; photos of the site and of remnants of weapons; building plans;  the combination of damage caused; and the small amount of fragments shown; indicate that the house was most likely struck by a MPR 500 lb bomb fitted with JDAM.” (¶ 176)
• “On 29 July 2014, at approximately 4.30 a.m., a guided bomb was launched on the Dheir family house in Rafah. In total, 19 family members were killed including 9 children and 7 women one of the women was 6 months pregnant. Another 3 children suffered serious injuries. Photos provided to the commission by two sources show a completely destroyed building, with only rubble and cement blocks remaining.” (¶ 181)
• “Hamas has indicated that it ‘is determined (...) to promote the rule of law, the respect for the judiciary, the separation of powers, the respect for human rights, the equality among citizens; to fight all forms of discrimination; to protect public liberties, including the freedom of the press and opinion ...’ Speech delivered by Prime Minister Isma’il Haniya at the conference organized by the PCHR on “The New Government and the Agenda for Human Rights”. Gaza, June 2006.”  (¶ 45 and footnote there)

Al Mezan - 29 citations

• “While the IDF has not so specified, its current rules appear to permit using 155mm artillery against targets located 100 meters from civilian homes (while the safety margin is 250 meters from IDF forces), as pointed out by a group of NGOs in 2006.”(¶ 412)
• “...IDF planes destroyed the two storey house of Majed Al Batsh….Two adjacent houses belonging to two brothers of Majed Al Batsh and a third house belonging to a neighbor were also severely damaged. At least 17 people were killed immediately.” (¶ 158) (See NGO Monitor’s Emotion, Not Law: A Critical Reading of B´Tselem´s "Black Flag" Report for a list of family members who were members of Hamas, not civilians.)
• “Witnesses interviewed by the commission said that there had been no warning before the strike. They also insisted that there were no militants in the house, and that the neighborhood was calm at the time of the attack.” (¶ 198)

Human Rights Watch (HRW) - 22 citations

• “According to Human Rights Watch, the ‘lethal radius for a 155mm high explosive projectile […] is reportedly between 50 and 150 meters and the expected casualty radius is between 100 and 300 meters [and] the error radius for a 155mm shell is usually 25 meters.’” (¶ 412)
• “based on an inspection of the impact mark on the pavement, a hole in the concrete about 12 centimetres deep and 15 centimetres wide, Human Rights Watch concluded that the strike was most likely caused by a spike guided missile that produces fragments that reach up to 20 meters from impact.” (footnote to ¶ 443)
• “Eyewitnesses also told Human Rights Watch that, on 24 July, a group of 16 elderly men and adolescents carrying a white flag came under fire near the Tawhid mosque, in the north-western part of Khuza’a, at around 8 p.m. One man died on the spot and another died of his injuries in the following hours.” (¶ 318)

Al Haq - 19 citations

• “At least 24 strikes involving ambulances and medical personnel were reported” (¶ 462)
• “Gaza experienced power outages of 22 hours a day during the hostilities.” (¶ 582).
• "According to the Palestinian Human Rights Coalition, 407 Palestinians died as a result of delays in the delivery of medical aid.” (¶ 460)

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) - 16 citations

• Physicians for Human Rights reports that there may have been a “roof-knock” warning, which shattered glass and killed one of the cousins. (¶ 191)
• The witnesses said that five of the women could not be buried because their bodies had "evaporated", indicating that the blast disintegrated the bodies. The eyewitness said that no warning was given prior to the attack. The witness’s account is corroborated by Physicians for Human Rights (¶ 159 and footnote there)
• On the basis of their research into large numbers of attacks of houses, many NGOs have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the warnings issued during Operation Protective Edge. (¶ 263)

Al-Dameer - 14 citations

• “Nevertheless, the commission received information indicating that settler violence against Palestinians and their property continued unabated.” (¶ 506)
• “However, the commission reviewed information suggesting that cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was used extensively during interrogations in the period under examination.”(¶ 516)

HaMoked - 12 citations

• “According to information reviewed by the commission, on 2 July 2014, the IDF demolished a home in Ithna, Hebron, belonging to the family of a suspect accused of killing an Israeli policeman in April 2014. As a result, a mother and her five children lost their home.” (¶ 526)
• “In each case, the NGO HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice to challenge the legality of the home demolitions and prevent them from taking place.  According to the information received by the commission, the High Court of Justice repeatedly dismissed the petitions, with the exception of one case, in which it issued an order nisi, instructing the state to explain why it should not refrain from carrying out the demolition.” (¶ 528)

Breaking the Silence - 8 citations

• “...anecdotal testimonies by IDF soldiers, indicate that the vast scale of destruction may have been adopted as tactics of war.” (¶ 418)
• “It’s not like in every building that was struck in Shuja’iya there was some Hamas militant or somebody firing at our forces.” (¶ 291)
• “The idea was to minimize casualties on our side, and to use as much of our arsenal as was needed to eliminate any chance of there being someone inside.” (¶ 391)

NGO Monitor

Source: http://ngo-monitor.org/article/par_for_the_course_eu_nif_funded_ngos_central_to_unhrc_lawfare_attack

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The United Nations Has Israel’s Blood On Its Hands - Ronn Torossian, Hank Sheinkopf and George Birnbaum

by Ronn Torossian, Hank Sheinkopf and George Birnbaum

Bennett said, “It is a report with blood on its hands that is trying to turn Jewish blood into the cheapest product in the world. This is a report with blood on its hands because it’s trying to restrict soldiers who protected this country’s citizens; it’s trying to tie our hands.”

In response to the United Nations report issued today which accused Israel of war crimes, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials thundered that “it is well known that the entire process that led to the production of this report was politically motivated and morally flawed from the outset.” We agree.

Across the political spectrum in Israel, the United Nations report was condemned – noting its purpose was simple – to undermine Israel’s right to defend its citizens from attack.

Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennett noted that the report “has blood on its hands [for] allowing the murder of Jews.”  Speaking from the Knesset, Bennett said, “It is a report with blood on its hands that is trying to turn Jewish blood into the cheapest product in the world. This is a report with blood on its hands because it’s trying to restrict soldiers who protected this country’s citizens; it’s trying to tie our hands.”

There is blood on the hands of those who wrote the report – as well as those organizations funded by the New Israel Fund who provided factually inaccurate information to the United Nations.  They are responsible for this modern day blood libel against Israel.

MK Tzipi Livni – a Netanyahu opponent — denounced the report, noting it was “born in sin by a committee that systematically and proactively attacks Israel.” Livni added, “We will not accept a comparison between IDF soldiers and terrorists. We will not agree to speak about IDF soldiers and terrorists in the same breath. This is an important distinction for any country fighting terrorism.”

Put most simply, this report gives a boost to terrorist organizations around the world by allowing them to continue to attack innocent civilians.

While Israel chose not to cooperate with the biased UN, factually questionable information was provided by numerous organizations funded by the extremist New Israel Fund (NIF), including B’Tselem (69 mentions in the report), Human Rights Watch (22 mentions), Physicians For Human Rights-Israel (16), Hamoked (12), Breaking The Silence (8), Adalah (8), and Yesh Din (5.).

Bennett said from the Knesset:

I saw the report, and I saw here several recognized organizations: Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem — and I ask myself: B’Tselem? Our B’Tselem? That cannot be. So I had to make sure.

He added:

I went on the website of The New Israel Fund, who invented the granting of this patent of putting soldiers on trial for war crimes. Please note – the B’Tselem organization was nominated for the Campaign to name Children from Gaza Killed During Protective Edge. Why would the world file complaints against us? We’re so good at harming ourselves – [via] organizations such as B’Tselem, the New Israel Fund, Breaking the Silence. After all, if the world would miss a war crime to attribute to us – there are those of us who would find it all by ourselves. Like a homecoming party, the radical leftist organizations meet after each operation of the IDF, and tell the UN that we are war criminals.

Many in Israel have called for an end to funding of these organizations who harm Israel’s interests.  We join them, and agree it is time that those responsible for funding the organizations behind this report immediately stop helping the enemies of Jews.

Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson once asked, “Is there another people on Earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe?”

Professor Gerald Steinberg, an Israeli academic, said recently that “While the leaders of the New Israel Fund… claim to support Israel and human rights principles, they enable the highly destructive activities that do the opposite. By the time these funders acknowledge this failure and end their support, the damage will be done.”

We say loud and clear to the United Nations, the New Israel Fund and their donors: The State Of Israel will continue to defend itself whether you like it or not.  And we will say forever – shame on you. Stop strengthening terrorists and funding the enemies of Israel.


George Birnbaum is an international political consultant, who is partners with Arthur Finkelstein. Birnbaum formerly served as chief of staff for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hank Sheinkopf, CEO of Sheinkopf Communications, is a leading political strategist who has worked on campaigns in four continents.  His clients have included former President Bill Clinton.

Ronn Torossian is a New York-based entrepreneur and author of “For Immediate Release.”

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/ronn-torossian-and-hank-sheinkopf/the-united-nations-has-israels-blood-on-its-hands/ 


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.