.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

More Jerusalem Arabs applying for Israeli citizenship

From Reuters:
"I declare I will be a loyal citizen of the state of Israel," reads the oath that must be sworn by all naturalized Israeli citizens. Increasingly, they are words being uttered by Palestinians.

While Israel regards the east of the city as part of Israel, the estimated 300,000 Palestinians that live there do not. They are not Israeli citizens, instead holding Israeli-issued blue IDs that grant them permanent resident status.

While they can seek citizenship if they wish, the vast majority reject it, not wanting to renounce their own history or be seen to buy into Israel's 48-year occupation.

And yet over the past decade, an increasing number of East Jerusalem Palestinians have gone through the lengthy process of becoming Israeli citizens, researchers and lawyers say.

In part it reflects a loss of hope that an independent Palestinian state will ever emerge. But it also reflects a hard-headed pragmatism - an acknowledgement that having Israeli citizenship will make it easier to get or change jobs, buy or move house, travel abroad and receive access to services.

Israeli officials are reluctant to confirm figures, but data obtained by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies indicates a jump over the past decade, rising from 114 applications in 2003 to between 800 and 1,000 a year now, around half of which are successful. On top of that, hundreds have made inquiries before the formal application process begins.

Interior Ministry figures obtained by Reuters show there were 1,434 applications in 2012-13, of which 189 were approved, 1,061 are still being processed and 169 were rejected. The remainder are in limbo.

Palestinians who have applied do not like to talk about it. The loyalty oath is not an easy thing for them to sign up to and becoming a naturalized Israeli - joining the enemy - is taboo.

"It felt bad, really bad," said a 46-year-old Palestinian teacher who took the oath a year ago. Despite her reservations, she knew it was right for stability and career prospects.

"We just want to live our lives," she said. "At the end of the day, politics gets you nowhere."

Some other Palestinians fear their community's reaction to breaking the taboo, so keep their decision even from family and friends.

For many Palestinians, East Jerusalem feel likes a twilight zone. They pay Israeli municipal taxes and receive healthcare and insurance benefits, but are often neglected when it comes to basic city services - from trash collection to new playgrounds and resources in schools and clinics.

The situation is particularly bad in places like Shuafat, a refugee camp a few minutes away from the Old City. Shuafat lies beyond the concrete barrier built by Israel in the mid-2000s, after a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings.
The Jerusalem municipality can't do anything about Shuafat - if Israel dismantles a "refugee" camp the world would freak out. There have been UN resolutions condemning Israel for thinking about dismantling camps in Gaza when there was still an Israeli presence there.

UNRWA agrees to provide services for that area.

So Palestinian Arabs keep its residents as zoo animals to show off how bad things are for them - and Reuters uses it as an example of how Israel doesn't take care of its Arab residents of Jerusalem. In fact, Israeli ambulances that venture into Shuafat often get stoned.

Then comes this interesting fact:
More Palestinians, albeit in small numbers, have also been moving into predominantly Jewish neighborhoods and even settlements on occupied land.

You know, those "Jewish only" neighborhoods we hear so much about.

See also this relevant article, "Mondoweiss reveals the evil Zionist dentist conspiracy."
(h/t K)

08/04 Links Pt2: UK Telco Blocks Pro-Israel sites; The Strange World of Max Blumenthal

From Ian:

JPost Editorial: Honoring Shira
The murder of 16-year-old Shira Banki at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade on Thursday was a terrible tragedy – for her family and friends, and for those who envision an Israel that protects the freedom of all.
Shira succumbed to her wounds on Sunday at the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem’s Ein Kerem after a three-day battle for her life. She was stabbed by Yishai Schlissel, a fanatic homophobe who carried out a similar attack at the gay parade in Jerusalem a decade ago, and was just released from prison a few weeks ago.
Shira is survived by her parents and three siblings. Her family decided to donate her organs to save other lives.
The family issued a heart-wrenching statement saying: “Our magical Shira was murdered because she was a happy 16-year-old – full of life and love – who came to express her support for her friends’ rights to live as they choose. For no good reason, and because of evil, stupidity and negligence, the life of our beautiful flower was cut short. Bad things happen to good people, and a very bad thing happened to our amazing girl. The family expresses hope for less hatred and more tolerance.”
Shira represented the very finest of Israeli society.
According to her family and friends, she balanced a strong Zionist ethic with the liberal and democratic values of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.
NUT pulls 'one-sided' school books on Palestinians
The National Union of Teachers has “temporarily” pulled a new educational resource which aimed to “illustrate the daily struggles experienced by Palestinian children”, following public outcry that it was one-sided and unbalanced.
In a statement on Tuesday the union said: “The NUT and Edukid are temporarily withdrawing the jointly developed 'My Name is Saleh' teaching resources, which examine the situation of a Palestinian child through the framework of the UN Rights of the Child.
“The NUT remains confident in the materials, but we are always prepared to consider any concerns about publications we have any involvement with.
“Legitimate support of the United Nations’ definition of the rights of the child are something that we will of course uphold.”
The resource immediately drew criticism, with the Board of Deputies expressing concern that “the literature presents a one-sided and partisan view in contravention of legislation, which encourages political education in schools, but is required to be balanced”.
The resource was reported to both the Charities Commission, which said it was investigating the matter, and the Department for Education.
A DfE spokesperson said: “The law is crystal clear that all political discussions in school should be unbiased and balanced. Teachers should only use teaching materials which are suitable for their children and we trust them to decide which resources to use in their lessons.”
Obama admin mulling intervention in massive judgment against Palestinians in terror case
The Obama administration has signaled it may intervene next week in a civil lawsuit in which 11 American families won a potential billion-dollar judgment from the Palestinian leadership over a series of bombings and shootings that killed or wounded dozens of U.S. citizens, a move that critics say would find the government siding with terrorists over its own citizens.
The families won a $218.5 million judgment in February after a seven-week trial in Manhattan Federal Court in which a jury found the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority were responsible for a string of attacks from 2001 to 2004 that killed 33 and injured hundreds. A 1992 law that requires damages in such cases to be tripled, as well as interest on the award, would push it to as much as $1.1 billion. The judgment, which the Palestinians are appealing, would equal nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual operating budget.
Late last month, the Department of Justice, which had previously not been involved in the 11-year-old case, informed the court it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug. 10, but officials would not elaborate. A source said the Department of Justice was working with the State Department on the matter.
“As the filing states, the United States is considering whether to submit a Statement of Interest in the [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization] matter,” a DOJ spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. “Any filing would be made on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of any other party.”

Transcript of Bibi phone call on Iran deal

Today, Binyamin Netanyahu spoke on a conference call about the Iran deal. Here is the transcript.


Thank you.

It’s good to be with you today. I want to thank our hosts, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference of Presidents.

And I want to thank all of you for taking the time in the middle of a busy day.

Our time today is short, so I’d like to get right to the point. I want to talk with you about three fatal flaws in the nuclear deal with Iran. And I also want to dispel some of the misinformation and, regrettably I have to say, the disinformation about the deal and about Israel’s position.

I want to answer some of your important questions.

The most important point I have to make today is this: The nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It actually paves Iran’s path to the bomb. Worse, it gives Iran two paths to the bomb.

Iran can get to the bomb by keeping the deal or Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

First let’s understand how Iran gets to the bomb by keeping the deal.

See, the deal allows Iran to maintain and eventually expand a vast and increasingly sophisticated nuclear infrastructure. This infrastructure is unnecessary for civilian nuclear energy, but it’s entirely necessary for nuclear weapons.

Astonishingly, the deal gives Iran’s illicit nuclear program full international legitimacy.

If Iran keeps the deal, in a decade or so – at most 15 years – the main restrictions on this vast nuclear program will expire. They'll just end.

The deal's limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran has and on the quantity of uranium Iran enriches, those restrictions will be lifted. And at that point Iran will be able to produce the enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and it could produce that arsenal very quickly.

After 15 years, Iran's breakout time will be practically zero, just a few days. I think President Obama said as much in an interview with NPR.

By keeping the deal Iran will become a threshold nuclear weapons power.

The deal does make it harder for Iran to produce one or two nuclear weapons in the short term. But it does so at a terrible price. Because the deal makes it far easier for Iran to build dozens, even hundreds of nuclear weapons in a little over a decade.

Now, 10 to 15 years pass in no time. I think it was like yesterday and I remember this very well, all those preparations for the Y2K bug and the celebrations of the new millennium. That was 15 years ago. It's a blink of an eye.

We’re told that this deal buys us time, but 10 to 15 years is no time at all. So by keeping the deal, Iran can get within a decade or so not just to one bomb, but to many bombs.

But Iran has a second path to the bomb, one that would give it a nuclear weapon in far less time.

You see, Iran could violate the deal. And there’s good reason to think that Iran will do so, that it will cheat. They've done it before. They'll do it again.

Now, people don’t really contest that, but they argue that Iran will be prevented from cheating because we'll have good intelligence and unprecedented inspections. Well, let me start with intelligence.

I have the greatest respect for Israel’s intelligence capabilities. I have the greatest respect for the intelligence services of the United States and Great Britain.

But it has to be said honestly. For years none of us discovered the massive underground nuclear facilities Iran was building at Fordo and at Natanz. For years none of us discovered that the Syrians were building a nuclear reactor for plutonium production.

So I can tell you from experience, it’s very precarious to bet the deal's success on intelligence.

Now what about inspections?

Neither intelligence nor inspections prevented North Korea from building atomic bombs despite assurances that they wouldn’t be able to do so. And while the deal with Iran allows for ongoing inspections of Iran's declared sites, what about Iran’s secret nuclear activities?

See, under the deal, if a facility is suspected of housing a hidden nuclear activity, inspectors must wait at least 24 days – that's 24 days! – before getting access to those suspected sites. Not only that, the inspectors must first share with Iran the critical intelligence that led them to suspect these sites in the first place. That's actually astounding.

Some have said that 24 days is not long enough to conceal evidence of illicit nuclear activity. But as leading experts have pointed out, 24 days is more than enough time to clean up a site of all traces of illicit activity.

It’s like the police giving a drug dealer three and a half weeks’ notice before raiding his lab. Believe me, you can flush a lot of nuclear meth down the toilet in 24 days.

I’ve heard the claim that the deal blocks Iran’s covert path to the bomb. But no matter how good your intelligence is, no one can credibly make such a claim. How can you block what you don’t know?

So Iran can keep the deal or Iran can cheat on the deal.

Either way the deal gives Iran a clear path to the bomb, a difficult path to one or two bombs today and a much easier path to hundreds of bombs tomorrow.

Now, here’s the thing – everybody in the Middle East knows what I've just said. And the countries in the region threatened by Iran have already made clear that they will work to develop atomic bombs of their own.

So the deal that was supposed to end nuclear proliferation will actually trigger nuclear proliferation. It will trigger an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, the most volatile part of the planet. That's a real nightmare!

But the deal’s dangers don’t end there.

See, the deal gives Iran also a massive infusion of cash and Iran will use this cash to fund its aggression in the region and its terrorism around the world. As a result of this deal, there'll be more terrorism. There will be more attacks. And more people will die.

It's been said that most of the money that Iran will get will not go to Iran’s terrorism and aggression. Well, let's suppose that's true. Let’s suppose that Iran just takes 10% of the money for terrorism. That's 10% of nearly half a trillion dollars that Iran is expected to receive over the next 10 to 15 years. That’s a staggering amount of money. And that would turn any terrorist group sponsored by Iran into a terrorist superpower.

So for all these reasons – Iran’s two paths to the bomb and the cash jackpot Iran stands to receive – For all these reasons, this is a very dangerous deal, and it threatens all of us.

My solemn responsibility as Prime Minister is to make sure that Israel’s concerns are heard.

It wasn’t long ago, certainly not that long ago, that the Jewish people were either incapable or unwilling to speak out in the face of mortal threats, and this had devastating consequences.

I’ve been very clear – the days when the Jewish people could not or would not speak up for themselves, those days are over.

Today we can speak out. Today we must speak out. And we must do so together.

Here in Israel, Isaac Herzog, the Leader of the Labor Opposition, the man who ran against me in this year’s election and who works every day in the Knesset to bring down my government, Herzog has said that there is no daylight between us when it comes to the deal with Iran.

This is simply not a partisan issue in Israel. Sure, some people disagree, but overwhelmingly across the political spectrum, a huge majority of Israelis oppose the deal. So this is not a partisan issue in Israel.

It shouldn’t be a partisan issue in the United States either. Nor is it a personal issue. This isn’t about me. And it’s not about President Obama. It’s about the deal.

I’m asking you to rise above partisan politics as we in Israel have risen above it. Judge the deal on its substance and on its substance alone. The more people know about the deal, the more they oppose it.

And the more people know about the deal, the more the deal’s supporters try to stifle serious debate. They do so with false claims and efforts to delegitimize criticism.

Yet there’s one claim that is the most outrageous: that those who oppose this deal want war. That’s utterly false.

We in Israel don’t want war. We want peace. Because it’s we who are on the front lines.

We face Iran's terror on three borders. We face tens of thousands of Iranian rockets aimed at all our cities. We face Iran, whose regime repeatedly calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. We face Iran whose terrorist proxies try to kill Jews every day. We know that Iran is not only the leading state sponsor of terrorism, it's also the leading state sponsor of anti-Semitism.

Israelis are going to be the ones who pay the highest price if there’s war and if Iran gets the bomb.

The claim that we oppose this deal because we want war is not just false. It's outrageous.

Israel wants to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and Israel wants peace. This deal will advance neither goal.

I don’t oppose this deal because I want war. I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war, and this deal will bring war. It will spark a nuclear arms race in the region and it would feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression. That would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.

Don’t let the deal’s supporters quash a real debate. The issue here is too important. Don’t let them take your voice away at this critical moment in history.

What we do now will affect our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren – in Israel, in America, everywhere.

This is a time to stand up and be counted.

Oppose this dangerous deal.

Thank you.


(h/t YMedad)

‘These people had not hitherto regarded themselves as “Palestinian” but as part of Syria as a whole, as part of the Arab world’ (Daphne Anson)



I’m in the throes of a house move, always a delightful experience when surrounded by walls and walls of identikit brown boxes of books that have not been opened for decades and simply must be culled when I get to the new place. So I hope Elder’s readers will bear with me if this week I précis an article which I posted to my blog not very long after I first ventured into cyberspace. I think that many will find the article an intriguing one. Authored by a distinguished Israeli scholar, political scientist Professor Joseph Nedava, it was first published in Amnon Hadary’s journal Forum on the Jewish People, Zionism and Israel, No. 42/43, Winter 1981, pp. 101-7.
At the outset, Professor Nedava’s fascinating article points out that when Theodor Herzl visited Eretz Israel in 1898 he found an “almost empty country” with perhaps 250,000 Arab inhabitants, who, far from being a hostile minority in a sovereign Jewish state, would, he assumed, be successfully integrated into a prosperous society, as seen in his utopian novel Altneuland. This optimism on Herzl’s part was, the article continues, unmatched by only one early Zionist, Israel Zangwill, who, anticipating resistance on the Arabs’ part, wrote in his The Voice of Jerusalem (London, 1920, p. 93): [W]e must gently persuade them to “trek”. After all, they have all Arabia with its millions of square miles ... and Israel has not a square inch.’ [Emphasis added.]
Max Nordau reflected the consensus in official Zionist circles when he berated Zangwill in a letter dated 15 January 1919: ...The stand you have taken in the Arab question seems to me regrettable. It’s no use qualifying your scheme as your own individual idea – we have not to count on the good faith of our eternal enemies, and henceforward they will quote you as their authority for the accusation that, not you Israel Zangwill, but “the” Jews, all the Jews, are an intolerant lot dreaming only violence and high-handed dealings and expulsion of non-Jews and longing for the continuation of Joshua’s methods after an enforced interruption of 3400 years or so.’ [Emphasis added.]
Nevertheless, Zangwill’s views proved influential with a number of British statesman, since, Nedava tells us, early drafts of the Balfour Declaration considered a possible transfer of the Arab population to neighbouring states. Indeed, lifelong Zionist Robert Boothby, a long-serving, very colourful non-Jewish Conservative MP who was given a life peerage as Baron Boothby in 1958, and was known during the 1930s for his robust anti-Appeasement stance, entertained the idea at least into the 1960s. On 3 January 1963 in his contribution to a tribute to Chaim Weizmann broadcast by the Third Programme (the highbrow station on BBC radio), Boothby stated that “the original Balfour Declaration made provision for the Arabs to be moved elsewhere, more or less”. Subsequently, having cited in his own support writings by the stalwartly Zionist non-Jewish Labour MP Richard Crossman and the diplomat Sir Alec Kirkbride, he reluctantly accepted the Jewish Chronicle’s correctness in asserting that no extant written draft of the Balfour Declaration included such a provision (“the displacement of the Arabs was never considered or thought of, either on the British or the Zionist side”), but was buoyed by a letter to the London-based Jewish Observer and Middle East Review (28 February 1964) by Boris Guriel, senior staff officer of the Weizmann Archives: ”Serious substantiation can be found for Lord Boothby’s contention as to the original meaning of the Balfour Declaration prior to the final version... The Arabs were never mentioned in the original draft, and, by way of omission, the possibility of a transfer became plausible... [Emphasis added.]
Despite the Arab riots of 1929, which cast considerable doubt on the feasibility of Jewish-Arab co-existence, Zionist leaders said nothing about a possible Arab population transfer. However, in 1937 the British Royal Commission set up to investigate the 1936 riots proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, suggesting the transfer of about 225,000 Arabs from the former to the latter, and citing as a precedent the swapping of about 1,300,000 Greeks and 400,000 Turks after the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. Nedava believes that this provision in the Royal Commission report was instrumental in ensuring support for partition among Zionists. He explains that in its determination to implement Partition the British Government accepted the proposal to transfer Arabs, but on a voluntary rather than compulsory basis, and quotes the then British Colonial Secretary, former Conservative MP William Ormsby-Gore (later Lord Harlech) addressing the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations: These people had not hitherto regarded themselves as “Palestinian” but as part of Syria as a whole, as part of the Arab world. They would be going only a comparatively few miles away to a people with the same language, the same civilization, the same religion; and therefore the problem of transfer geographically and practically was easier even than the interchanges of Greeks and Turks between Asia Minor and the Balkans ... if homesteads were provided and land was prepared for their reception not too far from their existing homes, he was confident that many would make use of that opportunity.’ [Emphasis added.]
In a letter of 17 January 1930 to a son of the great American lawyer and Jewish communal leader Louis Marshall, Chaim Weizmann had written: "There can be no doubt that the picture in the minds of those who drafted the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate was that of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine. Palestine was to be a Jewish State in which the Arabs would enjoy the fullest civil and cultural rights; but for the expression of their own national individuality in terms of statehood they were to turn to the surrounding Arab countries – Syria, Iraq, Hedjaz, etc.” [Emphasis added.] And now Ormsby-Gore assured Weizmann that the British Government intended to set up a Committee that would find land (in Transjordan, and perhaps in the Negev too) for the transferred Arabs, and would decide the precise terms of the transfer. At a meeting held in London on 9 September 1941, Weizmann told Anglo-Jewish leaders – interrelated patrician members of what the late Chaim Bermant dubbed “The Cousinhood” – that "If … they could transfer those Arab tenants who owned no land of their own (he believed there would be about 120,000 of them) they would be able to settle in their stead about half a million Jews.”
Just prior to the Biltmore Conference, Weizmann wrote (Foreign Affairs, January 1942, pp. 337-8) that in the future Jewish State there will be complete civil and political equality of rights for all citizens, without distinction of race or religion, and, in addition, the Arabs will enjoy full autonomy in their own internal affairs. But if any Arabs do not wish to remain in a Jewish State, every facility will be given to them to transfer to one of the many and vast Arab countries. [Emphasis added.]
In his book The War and the Jew (New York, 1942, pp. 218-9) Revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote along the same lines. To quote Nedava: ‘He and his party have quite often been wrongly and maliciously attacked for their ostensible intention to drive the Arabs out of Palestine. Nowhere and at no time did Jabotinsky propagate the evacuation of the Arabs from Palestine. On the contrary, he expressed himself many times in favour of granting the Arabs in a Jewish State full equality, but, as he was not sure that all this would be sufficient inducement for the Arabs to remain in a Jewish country, he “would refuse to see a tragedy in their willingness to emigrate. The Palestine Royal Commission did not shrink from the suggestion. Courage is infectious. Since we have this great moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of 350,000 Arabs from one corner of Palestine, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay.”
Among the many British Zionists who reacted enthusiastically to the Royal Commission’s idea of an Arab population transfer was Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, an army officer who served under General Allenby, attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, and was involved in the creation of the Mandate; he came of a non-Jewish merchant banking family and was, incidentally, the nephew of the famous Fabian Socialist Beatrice Webb. A staunch advocate of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, he argued that “if any Arabs have doubts about it, let them go to the large Arab territories bordering Palestine after full compensation”. £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 would suffice to “buy the lot out”, he thought, and he believed that thousands of Englishmen would follow his example in donating to this total.
During 1938-39, notes Nedava, a British Arabist explorer and intelligence officer, Harry St John Philby, father of notorious Cold War pro-Soviet spy Kim Philby, advanced a plan in which King Ibn Saud was a conniver and perhaps even the initiator. AS St John Philby summarised it, “The whole of Palestine should be left to the Jews. All Arabs displaced therefrom should be resettled elsewhere at the expense of the Jews, who would place a sum of £20 million at the disposal of King Ibn Saud for this purpose.” He alleged that the plan foundered because Weizmann was unable “to interest his powerful friends [Churchill and Roosevelt].”
Although, owing mainly to Arab opposition, the British Government dropped the Partition with transfer proposal, the notion of transfer persisted, being adopted by the British Labour Party late in 1944, only months before it took office under prime minister Clement Attlee, in its Declaration on “The Post-War International Settlement” with respect to Palestine: 'There is surely neither hope nor meaning in a “Jewish National Home” unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. There was a strong case for this before the war. There is an irresistible case now, after the unspeakable atrocities of the cold and calculated German plot to kill all Jews in Europe. Here, too, in Palestine, surely is a case, on human grounds and to promote a stable settlement for transfers of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land, and let their settlement elsewhere be carefully organized and generously financed. The Arabs have many wide territories of their own... Indeed, we should re-examine also the possibility of extending the present Palestinian borders, by agreement with Egypt, Syria, or Transjordan.’ Nedava relates that Weizmann neither expected this nor appreciated it, telling Hugh Dalton, who was to become Attlee’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Zionists “never contemplated the removal of the Arabs, and the British Labourites, in their pro-Zionist enthusiasm, went far beyond our intentions.”
Yet the prominent left-wing publisher, Victor Gollancz could observe, in his book Nowhere to Lay Their Heads, London, 1945, pp. 28-29:Suppose that a few hundred thousand of the million Arabs at present in Palestine would consider life in a Jewish Commonwealth impossible ... is there no way out? Surely there is, and a very simple one. The world has recently been discussing the project of moving great hordes of men and women – not a few hundred thousand, but ten to twelve million – from their old homes to a new environment... Suppose the United Nations said to the Arab statesmen “We desire to establish, by the necessary stages, a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine, for we believe a settlement of the Jewish question on lines such as these to be an indispensable part of the world settlement. We give our guarantee that every Arab in Palestine shall have complete civic equality and religious freedom. But if, in spite of this guarantee, any Arab should wish to leave Palestine and settle elsewhere we would make it easy for him to do so; we will see to it that the change takes place in the best conditions, and we will provide ample funds, in each case, for the secure establishment of a new home.” Gollancz, continues Nedava, was mindful that a shortage of people impeded the Arab world’s agricultural and industrial development. During the Second World War and its immediate aftermath there were attempts to transfer Arabs from Palestine to Iraq, which was crying out for Arabs to settle on its land. Nedava quotes a correspondent of the London Times, H. T. Montague Bell, who in an article published in that newspaper on 27 October 1937 wrote: “Iraq’s paramount requirement is an increase of population. With from 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants, she cannot do justice to the potentialities of the land – the lack of labour is a constant problem – and she is at a disadvantage against Turkey and Iran with their far larger populations ... any substantial increase of population in the near future must come from outside.” Bell became involved in advocating the transfer of Arabs from Palestine to Iraq, but, concludes Nedava, such proposals proved abortive “either because of lack of goodwill or sustained drive.

08/04 Links Pt1: Netanyahu: I'm waiting for world to condemn terror against Jews; Stop the Hate

From Ian:

Netanyahu: I'm waiting for world to condemn terror against Jews
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visited a Jewish woman who was injured by a firebomb attack in Jerusalem on Monday said he was waiting for the international community to condemn the attack as it had previously condemned the arson attack in the West Bank that claimed the life of a Palestinian toddler, Ali Dawabsha.
"A few days ago I visited the injured brother of the baby Ali who died in a terror attack that targeted Arabs. Today I visited Inbar [Inbar Azrak], a young woman who was injured from a firebomb by terrorists targeting Jews. Ali's brother is four-years-old, Inbar is a young mother of three, ages, two, three and four," Netanyahu said.
"Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. Our policy is zero-tolerance for terrorism regardless of background. We condemn it and fight it in equal measure," he added.
Netanyahu said he was waiting for the international community to join him in condemning the attack against the Jewish woman.
"Days ago the international community joined me in condemning the terrorist attack that targeted Arabs and I expect it now to join me in condemning terror targeting Jews."
"I'm still waiting," Netanyahu said.
Palestinians: The Difference between Us and Them
The strong response of the Israeli public and leaders to the arson attack is, truthfully, somewhat comforting. The wall-to-wall Israeli condemnation of this crime has left me and other Palestinians not only ashamed, but also embarrassed — because this is not how we Palestinians have been reacting to terror attacks against Jews — even the despicable murder of Jewish children.
Our response has, in fact, brought feelings of disgrace and dishonor. While the Israeli prime minister, president and other officials were quick strongly to condemn the murder of Dawabsha, our leaders rarely denounce terror attacks against Jews. And when a Palestinian leader such as Mahmoud Abbas does issue a condemnation, it is often vague and equivocal . . .
We have failed to educate our people on the principles of tolerance and peace. Instead, we continue to condone and applaud terrorism, especially when it is directed against Jews. We want the whole world to condemn terrorism only when it claims the lives of Palestinians. We have reached a point where many of us are either afraid to speak out against terrorism or simply accept it when it claims the lives of Jews.
The Israeli president has good reason to be ashamed for the murder of the baby. But when will we Palestinians ever have a sense of shame over the way we are reacting to the murder of Jews?
Honest Reporting: Stop the Hate
Please join our effort to show the world that we stand together, united against hate.
The horrendous murders of one year old Ali Dawabsha and 16 year old Shira Banki were committed by individuals who do not represent Israel in any way. They are terrorist crimes, no less than others that Israel has unfortunately experienced throughout its history.
From across the Israeli political spectrum, these cowardly acts have been condemned and rejected. The media should not suggest that these two horrendous crimes are reflective of Israeli society. We want the world to know that these acts do not represent us.
Click here to add your name.

NYT blames religious Zionists for not attending rally where they would have been lynched

An op-ed in the New York Times by Etgar Keret with the title "Do Israelis Still Care About Justice?"

TEL AVIV — “This isn’t everyone,” my son said Saturday as we stood on the steps of the Tel Aviv City Hall, in Rabin Square. “There are more people coming, right?”

It was already 9 p.m., an hour and a half past the official opening of the anti-violence, anti-incitement demonstration. He’s not even 10 yet, but he’s already seen that square full of people demonstrating for less important causes and he’s sure that, as in every good Western, the cavalry is on the way, that tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of citizens horrified by the terrible events that occurred in Israel this week will be thronging the square. How is it possible that fewer people would come to demonstrate against the murder of children and innocent people than to demonstrate against the high cost of housing or the halt to building in the settlements?

[T]he embarrassing truth is that a demonstration against two hate crimes — the firebombing on Friday of a home in a Palestinian village, which killed an 18-month-old boy, and the stabbing of six marchers on Saturday in Jerusalem’s Gay Pride Parade, including a 16-year-old girl who later died of her injuries — did not get many people out of their homes, definitely not in this especially hot, humid August. And that truth is not a pleasant one for anybody.
...
[W]here are those settlers in their skull caps who instantly filled this square when demonstrations were held against the demolition of illegal settlements — but who are now choosing not to demonstrate against the murder of babies? Do they think that, when it comes to Palestinians and the L.G.B.T. community, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has been erased from their set of stone tablets? That we have some sort of division of labor here: The right demonstrates for the sanctity of the land, and anything related to murder of innocents who are not Jewish or straight falls completely outside their jurisdiction?
What KEret doesn't want NYT readers to know is that this wasn't an anti-violence rally. It was an anti-settler rally.

Even the photo of the rally accompanying the op-ed makes this clear:


When the organizers said that this wally was against violence, they meant - and their attendees understood - tht they were saying that religious Jewish Zionists are guilty of murdering Arab babies.

Another clue that this rally was not for tolerance but actually was inciting against religious Jews is that it began before Sabbath ended (it was called for 7:30). If they wanted to be inclusive, they would have been a bit more tolerant themselves.

It is even worse. As Yeshiva World News reported:

Education Minister (Bayit Yehudi) Naftali Bennet was invited to be one of the speakers at the [Saturday night] rally at Rabin Square calling for an end to violence in society and tolerance.

Bennett’s aides explained the minister agreed to speak amid an awareness it was not going to be a friendly crowd. On his way to the event, the minister received a request not to appear, a request made by organizers as they feared the reception he receives from participants may be unruly or worse.

Bayit Yehudi Yinon Magal, who also planned to attend, was also asked not to do so. He too complied.

Bennett’s office staff released the following message to the media. “We are saddened over the decision that the Minister of Education did not attend the rally calling for solidarity and tolerance as he was informed his planned appearance was canceled. To remove any doubt, if organizers would have changed their minds the minister would have attended and delivered a message as one who represents a large segment in the State of Israel”.

So there was a hate rally in Rabin Square where even an Israeli MK was threatened with violence - but they go to Western media and complain that the Jews they despise don't care about human life.

But a couple of the organizers were aware enough that their left-wing "peace" crowd was anything but peaceful, and they were out for blood.

It is indeed an irony that a rally that was purportedly against incitement was in fact a source of incitement. But it is an irony that the New York Times would never report on.

Amnesty lies again about Rafah school incident

Amnesty International, that respected human rights organization, continues its practice of daily anti-Israel lies.



The missile didn't hit the school. It hit a motorcycle on the road outside the school.

The UN Secretary General created a board of inquiry into the various incidents involving UN facilities in Gaza. His report says "The Board found that the missile had been directed at a motorcycle carrying three individuals."

The report goes on to say 
The Government of Israel stated to the Board that an examination of the incident was being undertaken at the request of the Military Advocate General. IDF had fired an aerial-launched missile at the motorcycle, which had been carrying three militants belonging to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. By the time it became apparent that the strike would coincide with the moment the motorcycle would pass by the school gate, it was no longer possible to divert the missile.
Amnesty is lying in tweeting that Israel shot at and hit the school. Yes, in this case there was a tragic miscalculation, but that is because Islamic Jihad terrorists were traveling next to the school, not because of IDF war crimes, as Amnesty wants the world to believe.

By the way, this is the incident where Gazans were seen taking the dead body of a girl and posing it next to one of the dead jihadis who was dragged inside the school gates to make it look like the incident happened there. Afterwards one man took her body and ran for the cameras down the block as if he was seeking an ambulance.

How a French tourist turned into an "Israeli settler extremist" on the Temple Mount

From Ma'an:

Clashes broke out between Palestinian worshipers and and Israeli police at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on Tuesday after an Israeli extremist attempted to raise the Israeli flag over the holy site, witnesses said.

Witnesses said that Palestinian worshipers asked Israeli police to stop the extremist but they were ignored.

Palestinian worshipers and compound security guards then stopped the extremist themselves and tore up the flag, witnesses said.

They added that the Israeli extremist assaulted the worshipers with a sharp implement, injuring two Palestinians identified as Muammad Badran and Suliman abu-Mayyala.
Arab media refer to the person near the Dome of the Rock as a "settler."

it is highly unusual for a religious Jew to approach the Dome of the Rock, so this sounded suspicious.

Especially when Arabic media published video and photos of this supposed "Israeli extremist" "settler":


He doesn't exactly look like a religious Jewish Zionist, does he?

You have to look at the Hebrew media to learn what happened.

This is a French tourist. (Initial Israeli reports said he is Italian.)

It is fr from clear that he "waved" the Israeli flag. My guess is that he simply was carrying a souvenir flag that he had bought; there is no video of his waving it or of the crowd ripping it up so for all we know it was a lapel pin.

As usual, truth and calm are not exactly what the Arab media are seeking when they report stories like this. They want to incite hatred.

And it works.

Monday, August 03, 2015

08/03 Links Pt2: There is NO Demographic Time Bomb; The enemy’s sneer: the anti-Semitic Jews

From Ian:

In the enemy’s sneer: the anti-Semitic Jews
Those who hate Israel use anti-Zionist Jews as examples to “prove” that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. As can be seen from the high proportion of Jews among the fake peace activists who are anti-Israel extremists and Hamas apologists, anti-Zionist Jews play an important role in the international coalition aiming to delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state. As the theory goes, since there are Jews who hate Israel then hating Israel is not anti-Semitic. “Are you telling me that these Jews are anti-Semitic?” anti-Zionists ask with a sneer. Yes actually, that is exactly what I am telling you. Anti-Zionist Jews are anti-Semites, just like all the other anti-Zionists.
According to Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, anti-Semites believe that Jews must be “judged by a standard different from that applied to others”. The website “Dictionary.com” defines anti-Semitism as “discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews”. These definitions do not require that anti-Semites hate all individual Jews, which is the naïve definition of anti-Semitism that anti-Zionists would like us to use. Except for a tiny minority of truly self-hating Jews, anti-Semitic Jews do not hate themselves; they in fact have an over-inflated opinion of themselves, imagining that they are the only real Jews, the saviors of Jewish morality, and the self-sacrificing defenders of peace.
Many of the anti-Zionists, Jews and non-Jews, are highly educated. They are denouncing Israel while knowing very well about all the wars, terrorist campaigns, and attempts at genocide directed at Israeli Jews. They are denouncing Israel while knowing very well that the methods used by Israel to defend herself are far more ethical than the methods used by her enemies to attack Israel. Educated anti-Zionists pretend to not know all this, but anti-Zionist Jews do not need to pretend although many do so anyway. Anti-Zionist Jews are proud to say that their objective is to correct flaws in Jewish behavior while letting non-Jews worry about correcting flaws in the behavior of Israel’s enemies.
For anti-Semitic Jews, it is wrong for Israel to kill terrorists if there is any risk at all to civilians, regardless of what terrorists may do to ensure that civilians are within harm’s reach. For anti-Semitic Jews, killing terrorists is even wrong in itself because in their view, other ways must be used to appease and reform terrorists. Anti-Semitic Jew Norman Finkelstein referred to Israel’s attacks on Hamas in Gaza as a “massacre”, even implying that it was a “Holocaust”. For anti-Semitic Jews, Israel is ethical only if she totally disarms and if she endures attacks without ever defending herself, but since Israel dares defend herself, anti-Semitic Jews do not hesitate to use the wildest rhetoric against Israel, rhetoric that they would never use against anyone else.
 Ben-Dror Yemini: No dark secrets, just a propaganda film
There are two ways to deal with materials of this kind. The first way is a historical outlook. The testimonies should also be presented in the overall context of the events. In the years, months and weeks before the war there were specific threats of annihilation.
The Arab League decided in 1964 that "the completion of the military preparations will lead to the final destruction of Israel." In 1966, then-Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, who later became president, declared: "We are determined to soak this land in your blood, to throw you in the sea." Nine days before the war broke out, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser said: "Our basic goal is the destruction of the State of Israel." A week before the war broke out, PLO founder and leader Ahmad al-Shukeiri said: "Whoever survives will remain in Palestine. But I don't think anyone will survive."
That's the historical background. That's what those who went out to fight heard. That doesn’t justify any war crimes. And in practice, there were only a few testimonies of war crimes.
But there is another approach – neither historical nor scientific, but propaganda-related. It's the approach who prefers to manipulatively emphasize testimonies over exceptions. It's the approach who joins, perhaps knowingly, the massive campaign aiming to present Israel as a monster. It's the approach of the PR campaign of "Censored Voices," which includes the distorted claim that "70 percent of the material was censored" in order to create the suitable atmosphere to convey the message.
The film will not only be screened around the world, but also in Israel. That's the way it should be. Israel is a democracy. But we should know that it's not an exposure, and there was no exposure there. Everything has already been published. The film's director didn't hesitate to present her political agenda. The result, we should all know, is a propaganda film.
Air France wipes Israel off of the map...literally
An Air France in-flight map omits Israel, according to a passenger who sent a photo to the Facebook page of the pro-Israel organization StandWithUs. In the photo of the map, there were only indicators of where the West Bank and the Gaza strip are. Since posting that photo, other members of the Facebook page have started posting their own photos, taken on Air France flights, of the in-flight maps sans Israel.
In a letter to Air France chairman and CEO, Frédéric Gagey, the Simon Wiesenthal Center director for international Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, noted that, “French members of our center have sent us reportedly captured shots from the English and French language of an Air France flight-path, taken last week between New York and Paris, and the locations ‘Israel’ and ‘Tel Aviv’ are glaringly absent.”
The letter noted that, “We are asked whether Air France has succumbed to the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions] campaign to delegitimize the Jewish State by literally wiping it off the map?”
Air France issued an apology, saying they “deeply regret this incident, due to a map scale and display problem which is currently being resolved.”
In 2009, British Midland International Airlines, a subset of of British Airways, apologized for omitting Israel from their in-flight maps, also attributed the mistake to a technical error. (h/t Yenta Press)

There is no reason Gaza cannot import grand pianos

Usually I don't bother wasting my time with the Mondoweiss blog, but I happened to come across a piece by a person who teaches Gaza kids the violin over Skype because Israel doesn't allow him into Gaza.

Here is a representative excerpt:

Israel’s tight grip on life in Palestine is spun as the regrettable consequence of its right to self-defense. This, like the very idea that putting down resistance to its oppression is “defense”, is a lie. Stifling Palestinian achievement is itself the goal of Israel’s interference, because the Zionist narrative requires the dehumanization of anyone in the way of its ambitions. Israel needs to depict Palestine, and above all Gaza, as a nest of marauders. Palestine must never be seen as a civilization nurturing artists, writers, scientists, scholars—and violinists.

The BBC recently aired a piece entitled “Saving Gaza’s only grand piano”, a feel-good item that reported the discovery and restoration of a grand piano damaged in Israel’s 2014 “Protective Edge” attacks. In a virtually Orwellian reversal, the BBC referred to that onslaught as a “war with Israel”, and left its audience with the impression that Gaza would have a more flourishing music scene if only—well, if only ruling Hamas weren’t so conservative. One need not make any excuses for Hamas’ faults to point out that it is not Hamas that bombs Gaza to ruins and suffocates it under siege.
Apparently, those Jews are so evil that they actively work to ensure that Gazans cannot enjoy culture. Because somehow they are in the way of Zionist ambitions. Which makes it hard to understand why those Zionists left Gaza. But consistency is not exactly a hallmark of Mondoweiss - hate is, and this piece is filled with it. But it is hate dressed up as a love of culture, so it is an acceptable - nay, an admirable - expression of hate.

I have news for the author. That Zionist entity that he claims is besieging Gaza both physically and culturally would not block the import of more grand pianos. I have been told by the people who run Kerem Shalom that they have seen Jacuzzis and Mercedes and other luxury products pass through without a problem. But the haters at Mondoweiss don't want people to know that.

There is one other word not mentioned at all in this anti-Israel screed: Egypt. While the author whines that "Israel blocked me from entering the coastal strip" he neevr says that he attempted to enter it through Egypt, the Rafah crossing that Israel has no control over.

The crossing that has allowed exactly zero people to cross in either direction since Ramadan. While Israel has allowed thousands to cross in both directions.

No, this hater doesn't want to water down his criticism of Israel by mentioning that Gaza is besieged by their fellow Arabs. The Goliath Jew vs. David Arab narrative is so much easier for propaganda purposes, and Egypt's security fears from Gaza cannot be as airily dismissed as the author pooh-poohs Hamas rockets which he claims are only in retaliation to Israeli actions towards a sector that they left.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head that people actually believe this crap.

How the UN obfuscates its false Gaza casualty statistics

The UN OCHA-OPT also has a website for the one-year anniversary of the Gaza war.

On its Data page, it says "2,251 Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians, were killed." Its footnote references the summary of the UNHCR report.

The UNHCR report, in turn, uses as its reference - the OCHA! "Data compiled by the OCHA Protection Cluster, 31 May 2015. For its methodology, seeA/HRC/28/80/Add.1, para. 24, footnote 43."

When you look in that reference, you see:
The Protection Cluster is the mechanism for coordinating humanitarian action by humanitarian organizations (UN and non-UN) working in the protection sector. It is one of several such sectoral clusters. OHCHR leads the Protection Cluster in OPT. For more on the cluster system, see www.ochaopt.org/content.aspx?id=1010056. OHCHR compiled figures on fatalities in its capacity as leader of the Protection Cluster. The methodology used involves the compilation of initial reports of fatalities from the media and other sources which are then crosschecked and verified in collaboration with a number of international, Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations. Where available, each individual’s name, age, sex and place of death is determined, as well as their status as a civilian or combatant where this can be determined. Multiple sources are cross-referenced, not only from media and various human rights organizations, but also information released by the IDF and by the Palestinian armed groups regarding the identity of combatants. Information from the Ministry of Health in Gaza is one, but not an exclusive, source of information. Verification of the information collected is continuing. Figures are published on the website of OCHA on behalf of the Protection Cluster.
So we have OCHA referring to the Human Rights Council referring back to OCHA referring back to the statistics compiled by the Human Rights Council. It is a bit...incestuous.

And even though they publish this supposedly detailed description of their methodology, in the end it is all a scam. The UNHRC is the one that determines if someone is a militant or a civilian and it chooses which evidence to believe and which evidence to ignore.

Documentation of scores of "civilians" who turned out to be military targets have been published, both on this blog and from the Meir Amit ITIC. UNHRC is aware of the Meir Amit ITIC because they quote it in their Gaza report. But they choose to ignore its findings when compiling their statistics. (This is obvious because their numbers have not changed for at least six months while the ITIC has issued new reports.)

Which means that all of these footnotes are a smokescreen for the fact that the anti-Israel UNHRC is making up the statistics based on its own bias and using a spaghetti system of footnotes to obfuscate its methodology.

The UN is supposed to be transparent. As such, I call on the UNHRC Protection Cluster and OCHA to publish their list of the names of all the victims of the Gaza war with their sources and classification of the casualties as civilian or not. This would be necessary for independent researchers to see exactly how the UN's Protection Cluster does its work. And if they knew that they were being checked, they would be a lot more careful with their statistics.

They won't do this, of course, because they don't want people to find out that their methodology ,and therefore their statistics, are wrong, and that the truth exonerates Israel of many of their accusations.