Israel News

NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone’s Building Blocks

2010-02-09T18:14:00.001Z

NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone's Building Blocks

NGO Monitor

February 09, 2010

NIF-funded groups and their publications were featured centrally in the Goldstone report, which focused on alleged Israeli "war crimes" in the 2009 Gaza war. The report referenced B'Tselem more than 56 times; Adalah, 38; and Breaking the Silence, 27.
Many of these citations referred to speculative issues unrelated to the conflict in Gaza, seeking to brand Israeli democracy as "repressive" and to widen the scope of the condemnations.
Since the initial publication of the Goldstone report on September 15, 2009, these NIF-supported NGOs – including B'Tselem, ACRI, Gisha, PHR-I, and Yesh Din – have continued supporting Goldstone and lobbying the governments of the United States, the European Union, and others to legitimize the report's extreme biases and endorse its recommendations.
In response to the controversy over their support for Goldstone, these organizations and the NIF launched an offensive against critics. NIF supporters accused NGO Monitor of "silenc[ing] expression," and being "extremist," "incendiary," the "rotten fruit of Israeli democracy," and "McCarthyite."
In addition to involvement with Goldstone, several organizations funded by NIF, including Adalah, campaign against the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. Others such as Mossawa and Coalition of Women for Peace are active in worldwide boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns targeting Israel.
The political impact of NIF-supported NGOs, based on NIF's annual budget of $32 million, is bolstered by additional funds from European governments and church groups that allocate funds to the same recipient organizations.

Continued here: NIF-Funded NGOs: Goldstone's Building Blocks

Shared Jerusalem - a euphemism for apartheid racism

2010-02-08T22:55:00.001Z

The Ir-Amim organizaion has taken up the cause of the "unfortunate" Palestinian "victims" of "Zionist oppression" in Sheikh Jarrah, Arabs who are supposedly being expelled to make way for setters. Ir-Amim is one of those "rights" and "peace" and "democracy" groups funded by the Ford foundation and the New Israel Fund and several European governments as well as the EU (see New Israel Fund Supports anti-Israel propaganda).

I thought democracy was a system of government in which citizens choose the representatives who decide policy, and citizens form and fund groups to influence policy. Silly me! "Democracy," according to those who claim to know, is a system in which foreign governments and rich people decide policy for us. With their unblemished historical record, Europeans can clearly be trusted to have the best interests of the Jewish people at heart, and to do what is best for the Jews. American Jews and the Ford Foundation are more familiar with the problems of the Middle East than us ignorant Israelis.

It turns out that the Arabs (27 families in all) are being evicted from the houses because they did not pay rent for over 35 years. This little detail is generally hidden from accounts of the saga. It also seems that Ir-Amim, which claims to advocate "shared Jerusalem" actually is advocating apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem. Christians and Muslims can share East Jerusalem, not Jews, because Jews would be in "ongoing conflict with their environment" according to Ir-Amim.

To read the whole story: Ir-Amim on Sheikh Jarrah - Language, Logic, Politics and Propaganda

Ami Isseroff

Goldstone: The stab in the back that keeps on stabbing

2010-02-08T06:53:00.000Z

Another consequence of the Goldstone report:

"Senior UN diplomats note, meanwhile, that one consequence of the Goldstone inquiry is that Hamas, which along with Israel issued a formal response, has become a quasi-official actor in the UN arena. "

Recognition - even as war criminals - is what Hamas craves. Thank you, Judge Golstone.

UN likely to refer Goldstone findings to The Hague
By Shlomo Shamir, Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff , Haaretz Correspondents and Agencies
Arab states set to force debate that would bring Gaza war crimes claims before international court.

The United Nations is likely to refer the findings of the Goldstone report to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, diplomatic sources in New York said on Saturday.

A decision to bring the report on last year's Gaza war before the court would follow a debate in the UN General Assembly over Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's response to the document last week.

Assembly president Ali Abdussalam Treki announced on Saturday that member states were drawing up a plan of action over Ban's answer to the report, in which retired South African Judge Richard Goldstone accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes.

Treki, a senior Libyan diplomat, did not give a target date for a debate by the assembly - but the tone of his press release implied that he would push for a full discussion of the issue, diplomats said.

Ban himself is thought not to support a general session, fearing that further criticism of Israel would only delay the renewal of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Most UN-watchers believe that Arab member states will demand a plenary session on the report, however.

Senior UN diplomats note, meanwhile, that one consequence of the Goldstone inquiry is that Hamas, which along with Israel issued a formal response, has become a quasi-official actor in the UN arena.

In his report, Ban wrote that Israel had responded to all the accusations against it. But he added that it was too early to say whether recommendations had yet been implemented by Israel and Hamas, as the parties were still conducting investigations.

The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said on Friday that Israel was satisfied with Ban's statement, which was an "accurate representation" of the Israeli submission.

Hamas on Saturday appeared to backtrack on last week's apology for harming Israeli civilians in rocket attacks. The Goldstone report accused Hamas of firing rockets indiscriminately at civilians.

The militant group, which controls the Gaza strip, had said previously that its rockets were meant to defend Gazans against Israeli military strikes: "We apologize for any harm that might have come to Israeli civilians," the Hamas government wrote in an intial reponse to the Goldstone report.

But on Saturday Hamas said in statement that its response the UN had been misinterpreted and contained no apologies. Hamas officials declined to give any further comment.

"Hamas is a terror organization whose main purpose is to attack civilians, so it's not surprising that they would retract their apology," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David told the Associated Press on Saturday.

"For years Hamas has boasted about deliberately targeting civilians, either through suicide bombings, by gunfire or by rockets," Palmor said Saturday. "Who are they trying to fool now?"

Hala Mustafa, Egyptian journalist, challenges union over Israel 'warning'

2010-02-06T14:05:00.001Z

Egypt Editor Challenges Union over Israel 'Warning'

03/02/2010

CAIRO (AFP) – Egypt's journalists union issued a warning to a magazine editor on Tuesday after she received the Israeli ambassador in her house, prompting her to cry foul over freedom of the press.

Hala Mustafa, editor-in-chief of Al-Demoqratiya magazine, stirred up a controversy in September after receiving Israeli envoy Shalom Cohen.

A five-member panel, citing union rules barring support for normalisation of ties with Israel, issued a warning against Mustafa, rather than taking more serious action.

"We limited ourselves to issuing a warning because the commission's job is not to punish or seek vengeance against a colleague but to guarantee decisions are taken in a democratic manner," said panel member Gamal Fahmi.

Any act of normalisation with Israel by union members can lead to a reprimand or even expulsion.

The committee "took into account" that Mustafa had "given assurances she was not familiar with the details of this ruling on normalisation. She thought it only applied to travelling to Israel."

He added that Mustafa had agreed to respect the 1981 ruling, something she would neither confirm nor deny.

However, she said she "totally" rejected the warning, telling AFP she might even turn to the courts for redress of what she said was a "moral injury."

"It goes against freedom of expression ... which the union should protect," she added.

In 1979, Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, but there continues to be a generally hostile popular attitude towards anything implying normal relations between the two neighbours.

Separately on Tuesday, the panel suspended for three months the deputy editor-in-chief of the government-owned weekly October for having had dinner with an Israeli diplomat, Fahmi said.

B'tselem - Bad Arguments about Gaza

2010-02-06T10:13:00.001Z

B'Tselem And Bad Arguments

Published

by Eamonn McDonagh on February 5, 2010

I received an e-mail circular from B'Tselem today about Israel's policies towards Gaza. The first substantial argument offered is this:

"The siege of Gaza is causing enormous suffering among innocents, and it's hard to see how that deprivation can be justified," said Uri Zaki, B'Tselem's USA Director. "International law, as well as basic human and Israeli values, demands that Israel do its utmost to address its legitimate security concerns without inflicting unnecessary harm to the civilians of Gaza. The current policy doesn't come close to meeting that standard." Gazans' rights to minimal standards of food security, shelter, health, education and to travel are protected under international law. These needs should not be held hostage to security and political issues."

I could quibble about the adjective "enormous" but I won't. The argument is basically sound. To respond to it, the government of Israel would have to accept its premises, that is, it would have to say that the harm it's causing to Gazans is not unnecessary and/or that it's exaggerated and that in any case it's the only viable option for protecting its security. I'm not saying that any of this is true or false, just that the way B'Tselem sets out its arguments obliges the government of Israel to put its case in terms of human rights.

Now let's turn to the next set of arguments:

"Israel's closure policy is designed to weaken Hamas' hostile leadership, to persuade Hamas to cease firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit. However, the closure has instead harmed Israel's security by strengthening Hamas and adding to tensions that threaten renewed violence."

If I was a member of the Israeli government I'd be much happier to respond to this kind of vulgar pragmatism. I'd just ask why, if Hamas is so much stronger now than before, it's acting to suppress rocket fire into Israel by smaller groups, I'd point out that such rocket fire is a fraction of what it was before Operation Cast Lead and that we have no way of knowing what, if any, effect Israel's broader policies towards Gaza are having on negotiations to release Shalit. Oh, and I'd probably die laughing at the stuff about tensions and future violence. It's not like Hamas's attitude to Israel has varied much over the years; not when Israel still occupied the Strip, not when it left, not when Gazans could travel in large numbers to Israel and not when they were stopped from doing so. What has changed is that Hamas's behavior towards Israel has notably softened over the last 12 months or so.

There's another severe problem with these arguments. They imply that if Israel's policies towards Gaza were achieving their political and security goals they would therefore be justified.

B'Tselem declares itself to be an organization that acts in favor of the protection of universal human rights. It should argue on that basis and stop dishing up half-baked political analysis that even the most obtuse Israeli politician wouldn't have much difficulty dealing with.

The Palestinian state is coming - and Israel is not ready.

2010-02-05T21:58:00.000Z

Below is an excerpt of an article by Ben Caspit that appeared in Maariv. The translation is provided by American Task Force for Palestine. Never mind if you agree or disagree with Caspit's assessment of Benjamin Netanyahu or Ehud Barak. Focus on the main point: Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayyad is systematically building support for a Palestinian state in all of the West Bank and Gaza. His plan was announced last August: Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State. The Israeli government took no notice then, and is taking no notice now. It is scoffing, and is doing nothing to either meet this plan or counter it. The Israeli government is acting as if nothing is happening. Fayyad is not just building institutions for a state, as the Israeli government wants to delude itself into thinking. He is quite explicit: He is building a state.

In two years, if all goes according to his plan, the Palestinians will unilaterally declare a Palestinian State on all the territory of the West Bank including "East Jerusalem." Ariel, Hebron, Gush Etzion, French Hill, Latrun and Ramat Eshkol, the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, Har Choma, Gilo, the Mt Olives cemetery, will all be claimed by this state. The state and the claims will have the explicit backing of the entire Arab world, most or all non-Arab Muslim states, most Latin American and African states. They will have at least the passive acquiescence of the United States and most European states. They will be backed by the decisions of the Hague International Court of Justice, which ruled that the land of the West Bank is occupied territory. That is not all. The state will push for "Right of Return" for Palestinian refugees. There is a very real possibility that in two years there will be a Palestinian state in the West Bank: A state hostile to Israel, a state that has not signed a peace treaty with Israel, a state that has the support of most of the world, a state that may or may not be intent on destruction of Israel.

The Hamas, originally skeptical of Fayyad's plan, is already making the preliminary noises that will most likely lead to its rejoining the Palestinian government, because they would not want to miss out on the chance of governing a Palestinian state. They will get on board.

You may be justly skeptical. After all, the Palestinians have declared states in the past - in 1948, they declared two states in fact. A Palestinian Declaration of Independence was issued in 1988 and nothing came of it. But this time it is very different.

Israel has no plan whatever to deal with a very real possibility that is taking shape before our eyes. Even if the new Palestinian state is as peaceful as Switzerland or Finland, it will still bring about a major change in the geopolitical reality of Israel - and there is almost no likelihood that this new state will be anything like Switzerland or Finland.

The unilaterally declared Palestinian state would of course be a blatant violation of the Oslo accords and the Oslo process, but those were dead quite a while ago. Barring some very unforeseen and unforeseeable developments, Israel could destroy this new state by force, because the United States and the EU would not let it do so.

What would the United States do if the Palestinian state brought its claims, including Right of Return for Palestinian refugees to the UN Security Council? Would it veto a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, a resolution that would be international law backed by enforcement mechanisms, that would grant the Palestinians their demands? And what could Israel do if this Palestinian state sent its "police" - trained by the United States and backed by U.S. soldiers - to take over East Jerusalem? Would Israel send the IDF to fight these "police" and perhaps to fight Jim Jones's American West Bank "advisers?" How would the Americans react?

Remember that not a single country in the world recognizes Israel's claims in East Jerusalem, and certainly no country recognizes Israel's claims in the West Bank.

And what if, as is not unlikely, Fayyad and the Palestinian government are overthrown in a coup, thrown down from the roofs of buildings, as happened in Gaza, and the current "moderate" Palestinian government is replaced by a Hamas run government? It is not impossible. Yet no Israeli official seems to have paid much attention to the developing possibility of a Palestinian state.

Ami Isseroff

Ben Caspit
Ma'ariv (Opinion)
February 2, 2010 - 12:00am

[The title refers to a journal entry by Theodor Herzl in 1897, "In Basel I founded the Jewish state"] Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad came to Herzliya on Tuesday. Thinking that he would be participating in a panel discussion, he did not prepare a speech. Suddenly he found himself making the Palestinian "Herzliya speech." Fayyad did not become confused. He is no sucker. In fluent if nearly unintelligible English (Fayyad has a heavy accent), he laid out his doctrine: a Palestinian state within two years. On all the territory. Including East Jerusalem. That is all. In Herzliya, several meters from where the large statue of the visionary of the Jewish state overlooks the coastal highway, Fayyad founded Palestine.

Several years ago, when he appeared in the skies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no one took him seriously. But Fayyad, a gray, stubborn man, worked seriously, against all the chances and all the gangs, and succeeded. Today, he is seen as the most significant threat against the continuation of the current situation. His plan was presented and gathered momentum, the Americans see him as a kind of messiah, the Europeans pin their hope on him, and most important: the situation on the ground has changed dramatically. In two years, he hopes, the reforms will be completed and he will declare a state on the 1967 borders.

Because there is consensus throughout the world on the two-state solution, and also regarding the Green Line, Israel is liable to find itself facing a Security Council decision that adopts the Palestinian declaration, and without an American veto. What will we do then?

Between Two Leaders

The next day, the Israeli prime minister came to Herzliya. His speech was also good. After all, he knows how to give speeches (that very morning, in the Knesset, he gave a wonderful speech to Berlusconi). Bibi talked about education and about vision, and almost did not mention diplomatic trifles, except for the news that there may be, perhaps, a chance that within a month, or two, or maybe three, it may be possible, under certain conditions, to resume negotiations. And it may be that this actually refers to indirect negotiations with American mediation. Applause. Indeed, an historical accomplishment.

The main difference between Fayyad and Netanyahu, except for the fact that one has a state and the other still does not, is that Fayyad knows exactly what he wants. We see from the way Netanyahu handles things that he does not. All Bibi wants is to keep on surviving. To get to the weekend in peace, without some new scandal. He sells Shimon Peres one vision while marketing another to Benny, Bugi and Ruby. With the Americans he is here, and with the settlers he is there. He uproots with one hand and plants with the other. There is no goal, no management, no courage to do one thing or the other.

By definition, Netanyahu is the leader of the right wing. This definition holds until election day. The next morning, he is already a centrist. He glances leftward, feels his way, but is afraid. The feeling is that all that he wants is for nothing to happen. That he be left in peace. The thing is that quiet is detestable [a phrase from the anthem composed by Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky]. Anyone who thinks that the vacuum will remain empty is mistaken. Salam Fayyad is the one who is proving that now. He came bravely to Herzliya despite the ridiculous internal criticism of the Palestinians who screamed that the conference was for the sake of Israel's strength and security. Fayyad knows that this is an open academic symposium, and during it he made, in English, the same statements that he makes in Arabic in Ramallah and in Nablus. He speaks in only one language, Fayyad. With everyone, in every place. The exact opposite of Netanyahu.

The Coalition Is the Main Thing

Near the courageous one (Fayyad) and the fearful one (Netanyahu) stands another player-namely, the commentator. He serves as the defense minister of the State of Israel. He gives a speech here, speaks there, cautions and warns. Not to divide the land, Barak warns, is an existential threat. Not reaching a peace agreement with Syria, he warns, means all-out war. And afterwards, we will return to the negotiating table and talk about the same things, the same conditions, exactly.

The question is asked: for what purpose is Barak there? In any case, he is incapable of producing anything regarding the Palestinian question or even regarding the Syrian question, which is so critical. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said two days ago that the next war will reach all the cities of Israel. He is right. No more dull sounds of explosions from the edge of the Golan Heights. All of Israel will be barraged with heavy and precise rockets. After Muallem, President Assad spoke in his own voice, called Israel the bully of the region and warned of war. History teaches us that every time the leaders of the Arab countries have warned us of war, it broke out. Every time there was a stalemate, an explosion followed. So why wait for the explosion? The Netanyahu government is doing nothing, marking time.

Incidentally, this is in the best case. There is always good old Avigdor Lieberman, who will breathe life into the hissing embers and light a big fire, as he did yesterday with the follow-up about Assad: "If war breaks out, your family will fall from power," Lieberman warned loudly. Wow. What a man. And if Assad's family falls from power, Mr. Yvet, what will happen? Could it be that Syria will also become (after Iraq) an extremist Islamic state? Could it be that the Iranians will take it over? Might the Shiites penetrate even more deeply? Might it be that we will miss Assad, like we miss many things today that we invested infinite energy to get rid of?

The secret cause of Israel's PR and image catastrophe

2010-02-04T21:56:00.001Z

The Herzliya Conference on Israeli national security, hosted at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary center, has finally recognized that Israel has a certain problem with people who are trying to delegitimize Israel and Zionism. They organized a workshop on what the speakers called "Public Relations" and "image." Everyone agreed that Israel has a "public relations" and "image" problem and that it needs to get "public relations" people to change its "image." But nobody understood how the problem came about, and there was disagreement about what these public relations experts should be doing, and what "image" we want to communicate.

According to one summary:

Today, at the Herzliya Conference, one session was held on strategic communications for Israel. In other words, Israel's hasbara, or PR, problem. We all know that Israel has a serious PR problem. Israel is, almost always, painted in the worst of lights.

... Ido Aharoni discussed the problem of Israel's brand, as being solely associated with the conflict...

Eyal Arad discussed the three problems, that he sees, that Israel has in changing its image. "We have basically three problems that doom us to remain in that situation… The first requirement that we need in order to build image, change image, deal with images, is to understand the flow of information about our product... .

"Our second problem is that we don't know what we really want....Now, do we want to get Jews to come and live in Israel? Do we want to be an immigration country, so what we want to do is convince people that Israel is the best place, at least convince Jews that Israel is the best place for them ?

"The third problem that we have… and the third problem is probably the most important problem, and this is the reason we fail to address the two former problems, is that we don't have a client. When we try to deal with Israel's information campaign, you really don't have a client. Israel's problem, and I agree that our main problem in the world today have become a legitimacy problem. It's not that people do not think that our policies are right, it's that people question whether we should exist or continue to exist in the first place. We are more and more becoming the South Africa of the 21st century. "

The secret cause of Israel's PR and image catastrophe is now revealed. Do you understand the problem? Part of the difficulty, that we knew about, is that we are facing a political campaign - a campaign about the legitimacy of our country and our people. Arad got that part right. The Palestinian Charter insists that Jews are not a people. That is the basis of the campaign and it always has been. But the hidden secret that is ruining Israel's "image" and "PR" is that the people who are supposed to be doing ideological advocacy for Zionism and Israel advocacy think they are supposed to be doing "PR" and image building, and don't know what message to put in their "PR" or what "image to build.

The Zionism advocates don't know what Zionism or advocacy is. The people who are considered authorities on the issue, who are sent to the Herzliya conference to pontificate about it, confess that they don't really know what they want, or how to get it. They confuse advocacy with "PR." Eyal Arad should speak for himself. I know exactly what I want, and the Israeli information apparatus is not delivering it. The big part of the problem is the people in charge of handling the problem.

Israel advocacy is not about getting Jews to Israel. It is not Jewish education. It should not even be targeting Jews. Jews are a tiny and not too important minority in the United States, and an even tinier minority in other countries.

Israel advocacy is not about PR or "images." It can't be done by PR talking heads who don't know what we want. A country is not a "product." Challenges to legitimacy must be met by earnest political advocacy, not by "PR," remaking of image or rebranding. We do not need to deal with images or build images.

We need to build reality and deal with reality and tell people the truth. That's what we did when Israel was successful. The image was terrible. A rag tag bunch of idealists on a hopeless quest, a chaotic army, rude waiters in hotels, telephones that didn't work, an economy built on wishful thinking, immigrants in rags from Europe and the Middle East: the wretched and the hopeless. A basket case. That is how Israel was viewed in much of the world. It is certainly how the early Zionists were viewed. But it was only image. It was not reality. The people of the Second Aliya told the world "We are building the future of the Jewish people." Nobody believed them. Their shirts were torn and their shoes had holes. That was the "future of the Jewish people." But they told the truth. They were building reality, not "image." The reality built our country and the image took care of itself. We need to tell the truth and we need to know that we are telling the truth.

Israel advocacy is not about telling people Israel is a good place to invest or that we have pretty girls and nice beaches. "Everyone knows," don't they, that Jews are "clever with money" and that Jewish girls are hot and loose, right? Dpes that help us? Will it win support in international fora? Bragging about Israeli economic prowess plays into the image of the blood-sucking Jew-Zionist colonialists who are getting rich by oppressing the poor Palestinians, who are minding their own business, trying to make an honest living in the suicide vest business. Bragging about our technologically advanced society plays to Palestinian propaganda too. They are poor helpless native victims of a heartless and evil advanced society. Of course, the Iranians, who are building atomic weapons, tell a different story, and that too is accepted.

People do not base political opinions on a few factoids or "images." They may use the images or the factoids to bolster their opinions. They build a narrative and force the facts to fit that narrative. One we have been demonized it doesn't matter what we do. If we send rescue teams to Haiti, the mainstream "responsible" media like TIME ignore it, because it doesn't fit their narrative about the evil Zionists, the more sophisticated Israel bashers use it as a platform for an attack on Israeli policy, and the professional Israel haters say Israelis went to Haiti to harvest organs for illegal transplant traffic.

In the business world, PR and "image" and "branding" are acceptable. In the world of ideological advocacy, they are dirty words. "Image building" is what an oil company does after a tanker spill. It's what tobacco companies tried to do for smoking. In other words, it is lying or "improving the truth." "Rebranding" and remaking of images are what sleazy politicians do in order to foist themselves on the public. Some of us remember "the new Nixon." He wasn't much different from the old model Nixon, but the "image remake" fooled enough people long enough to get him elected president of the United States.

Israel advocacy, like all good political advocacy is not about lying, distracting people from reality or "building images." It has to be about telling the truth. Pretty girls on beaches might attract some jocks and sex tourists. But we need to speak to the political leadership and the politically active leadership segments of society abroad. Serious university students, diplomats and journalists are really not going to be impressed by pretty girls at beaches, and they don't much care if Israel is a good place to invest their money.

Israel advocacy is about explaining that Zionism is not racism, and that Jews have the same rights as other people - and we shall insist on those rights, whether it suits others or not. The enemies of Israel seize on this or that issue, but they almost always admit that in reality there is only one issue: denying the Jewish people the right of self-determination. Calling Zionism "racism." It's not about what Israel did in the Gaza war. The Americans and British roasted German babies in the fire-bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and other cities in World War II. Nobody tried them for war crimes, and nobody other than Nazis tried to dismantle England or the United States. Germany was not dismantled though they murdered 17 million people, including 6 million Jews, apart from the casualties of the war they started. It's not what you do. It's who you are. The campaign against Israel starts from the premise that Jews have no rights as a people. Therefore we have no right to self - defense or any other right. No campaign on the issues will convince those people of our innocence, because we are guilty by definition in their eyes.

To Eyal Arad and all the other talking heads who don't know what they want or what is needed: What we need is for our people to tell the truth, and to know what we want and why we are here. What we want is for the world to accept that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state of our own. That's the entire issue. If you don't understand that, you should not be making the case for Israel, and you should not be talking about it in conferences.

Ami Isseroff

Connection please? Haaretz links Gaza bomb blast to Israeli blockade

2010-02-04T17:11:00.001Z

A Red Cross (or Red Crescent?) ambulance was blown up in Gaza today. Haaretz seeems to think this can be blamed on the Israeli "blockade." Presumably, if there was no blockade, the "resistance" forces would not target the evil ambulances. Or something.

Ami Isseroff

Last update - 18:33 04/02/2010
Bomb blast rocks Gaza Red Cross convoy in possible attack
By Haaretz Service

An explosive device was detonated near a Red Cross convoy in the Gaza Strip, Army Radio reported on Thursday, adding that it had not yet been made clear whether the explosion was a premeditated attack.

No injuries were reported in the Gaza blast, the Army Radio report said and one of the armored vehicles was damaged.

The Hamas-ruled coastal enclave had been sealed off by both Israel and Egypt since Israel's invasion of the Strip during Operation Cast Lead early last year, although Israel has allowed the Red Cross to bring humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The explosion occurred just as the United States reportedly suggested to Israel that easing the Gaza blockade could help counter the fallout from the Goldstone report on alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year ago.

The U.S. message on the blockade was relayed last week when a Foreign Ministry delegation met in Washington with senior officials from the State Department and the White House. Much of the meeting dealt with steps that Israel could take to help the United States and others block the Goldstone report and prevent it from reaching the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Last month, Hamas sharply criticized Egyptian President Hosny Mubarak's defense of his country's expanded fortifications on its border with the Gaza Strip, saying they aided Israel's efforts to stifle the Hamas-ruled territory.

"Mubarak's remarks defending the steel wall are an address on the blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip," Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri told reporters in Gaza City.

The Egyptian president's statements "contradict his earlier remarks that he would not allow the starvation of the Palestinian people in Gaza," al-Masri accused.

On Sunday Mubarak marked the national annual Police Day holiday by declaring: "Fortifications along our eastern border are a work of Egyptian sovereignty, and we refuse to enter into a debate with anyone [about them]."

A lucrative smuggling trade in basic commodities, contraband but also in weapons has taken root along the Gazan-Egyptian border since Egypt and Israel closed the territory's borders after Hamas took control of its security services nearly three years ago

Goldstone extortion? US: Israel must ease pressure on Hamas to fix Goldstone problem

2010-02-04T11:07:00.001Z

The US has offered to "do Israel a favor" - because of the famous unbreakable bond. But the favor supposedly requires that Israel do a favor. That's how certain types of favors work. Confused? To explain the nature of this relationship, we need to tell a little story.

An honest guy is running a toxic waste disposal business in New Jersey. It's not likely, but it is possible. A not-too-honest person whom we will call Tony Soprano wants to put this man out of business. One day the poor fellow finds himself in court on 500 trumped up federal violations. He can't understand it.

Soprano's friend calls him and says, "Look, if you clear out of Newark and Bayonne and Jersey City and let Soprano take those areas, I can clear the federal raps for you."

"How is that?"

"Well, you know, paisan, I have friends. And the friends - they have friends. Sometimes I do favors for my friends. And they do favors for their friends. So their friends owe favors to my friends, and my friends owe me favors, so they return the favors. And I'm also asking you for a favor. Of course you want to do a favor for a friend. On the other hand, some people are not so friendly and don't do favors when I ask them. Accidents can happen to those people, or to their families, heaven forbid. That's how we get things done. You understand? You capisce?"

It is extortion and corruption of course.

The Goldstone report has made very serious accusations against Israel. We are war criminals - deliberate murderers of babies in their cribs, destroyers of vital installations for no reason, defilers of mosques. Either the allegations are true and people should be punished, or they are not true. That is how real justice would work. But the US government explained to Israeli officials how it is really going to work:

The United States has suggested to Israel that easing the Gaza blockade would help counter the fallout from the Goldstone report on alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead a year ago....

A main message of the U.S. officials was that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was directly linked to the ability of Israel's critics to push the Goldstone report forward and the ability to block the report's consequences.

In other words, the US is saying, "we have friends, and the friends owe us favors..." Probably, the officials who made this proposal cannot see any moral blemish in it or any problem of justice. That's the way they always do business. Unbreakable bond - that's family matters. But this is business. Business is Business. No hard feelings, right?

But the Goldstone report has no teeth unless it is adopted by a UN Security Council resolution. The US has a veto in the Security Council and does not need any friends. The US knows that the Gaza blockade prevents Hamas from getting cement to build bunkers. It knows that the blockade is intended to motivate Hamas to return kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. It knows that Hamas took power illegally and that the blockade is intended to weaken an illegitimate and tyrannical government. If they believe the allegations of the Goldstone report, regardless of what Israel does about the Gaza blockade, the US must vote to support it in the Security Council. The US must then be prepared to face similar charges over its own "war crimes" - on a much larger scale - in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they don't believe the allegations and vote to punish Israel anyhow, it is extortion and corruption, isn't it? Since the US doesn't need any "friends" to quash the Goldstone report, the US officials are less honest than a New Jersey gangster.

Do you still think the Goldstone report is about "justice?"

New Israel Fund supports anti-Zionist propaganda

2010-02-03T09:45:00.010Z

There is no doubt that the New Israel Fund means well - or at least many of its members and contributors do. But there is also no doubt that the New Israel Fund supports or collects funds for some of the most odious organizations in Israel - organizations whose goals have nothing to do with democracy and nothing to do with peace - organizations whose only goal is to besmirch Israel and to destroy Zionism and the Jewish state.

Zochrot is one example of these organizations. It organizes activities to perpetuate the myth that Israel was founded by "ethnic cleansing" of hapless and peaceful Palestinians who were minding their own business in 1948 - the Palestine Nakba myth. Its brochure claims that Israel expelled over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948. Its Web site links to the BADIL organization, that is dedicated to blocking any solution to the Palestinian refugee problem other than return to original (nonexisting) homes in Israel. New Israel fund also supports the innocently named "Coalition of Women for Peace" which is likewise involved in the delegitimation of Israel and Zionism, as well as New Profile, an organization noted for encouraging draft dodging.

The activities of New Israel Fund have been known for some time. The controversy over them was ignited by a study soon to be released by a right-wing group, Im Tirzu, which claims:

92 percent of the negative citations used in the Goldstone Report to criticize the IDF’s conduct in Gaza last year came from 16 Israeli NGOs, which Im Tirtzu has alleged received some $7.8 million in financial support from the NIF in 2008-2009 alone.

Among the NGOs listed in the report are Adalah, Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Center for the Defense of the Individual, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Yesh Din, Doctors for Human Rights, Gisha, Bimkom, Rabbis for Human Rights, Itach, Other Voice, New Profile, Machsom Watch and Who Profits from the Occupation.

Im Tirtzu has its own political ax to grind, and showed execrable judgment in ad hominem attacks on Meretz politician Naomi Hazan, currently president of the international board of the New Israel Fund. The Im Tirtzu ad caricatured her with an "N.I.F." horn and titled her "Naomi Goldstone Hazan." In Hebrew, the word for horn is keren, which also means fund. This clever pun was lost on English speaking readers of course, who only saw a Jew with a horn.

The ad claimed that without the New Israel Fund there would not have been a Goldstone report. But we know that the New Israel Fund didn't initiate the Goldstone report, and that committee members were determined to find Israel guilty regardless of the evidence. There would have been a different Goldstone report without the New Israel Fund, with the same conclusions,

Hazan didn't initiate the Goldstone report and is not responsible for its findings. As president of the international board she may have much power, but it is doubtful if she is solely responsible for approving the funding requests of each organization. There was no excuse for their obnoxious advertisement, nor is Naomi Hazan responsible for all the output of all these organizations. Hazan is a passionate advocate of peace and is entitled to her opinion, though New Israel Fund doesn't have to support it. Im Tirtzu's regrettable misuse of their findings gave enemies of Israel just the opening they needed to destroy the credibility of a legitimate finding.

However, Im TIrtzu deserve the same hearing as others. The "rights" advocates ask us to separate the political message of groups like New Profile from the facts they present. There are, for example, real human rights violations at checkpoints that don't serve the cause of Israel in any way, and Machsomwatch exposes them. That doesn't mean Israel is an illegitimate apartheid state and it doesn't mean Zionism is racism, but it points out a fault that is in urgent need of correction. However, the same advocates who want us to accept testimony from Machsom Watch or Betselem, have no problem trying to discredit the facts that Im Tirtzu presents as the work of "settlers." It doesn't matter who said it. It matters that it is true.

Nobody denies that N.I.F. supports these organizations, and it is a fact that most of these organizations are out to destroy Israel. We need to separate the message from the messenger. It is too bad that middle of the road, responsible groups, including peace groups who are desperately in need of funds, did not dare to raise the issue of New Israel's selective funding of radicals, and left it to Im Tirzu. Where were all the Tikkun Olam people when Zochrot and Adallah were telling lies about Israel? Isn't correction of falsehoods also Tikkun Olam?

A recent article by Solomonia about New Israel Fund attracted vigorous protests claiming that these organizations are only fighting for civil rights and pointing out injustices. Let's be clear. If there is an injustice in any democratic society, it is the duty of citizens to report it, to highlight it and to fight it. But the way to fight Jim Crow in the United States was not to join the Cominform and insist that America must be destroyed. Similarly injustices in Israel cannot be fixed by those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Decapitation is not a good way to cure headaches. The Arab society that would replace Israel would not have the same respect for human rights, and there are also the human rights of Israeli Jews to consider. We are also human and have rights.

It is right and proper for any organization to give evidence to an investigatory commission, but it is wrong for them to give fabricated evidence, to claim that dead terrorists are civilians and to pass off hearsay as fact. It is right to point out inhumane behavior at checkpoints. It is wrong to use instances of brutality in a campaign to delegitimize the state. It is right for Breaking the Silence to uncover abuses by the army, and to provide documentation of these abuses to Israelis. It is wrong for Breaking the Silence to take their traveling road show of Israeli atrocity stories to US campuses, and show it to 18 year olds who never served in the army, never heard of Hamas and have no other background information about the Middle East. Adallah has the right to advocate for an Arab Palestinian state perhaps, but it is simply insane for New Israel Fund to collect money from Zionist Jews to give to an organization of that type, and we do not need Im Tirtzu to tell us that.

How can we explain the fact that Jews, not necessarily anti-Zionist Jews either, founded and contribute to and support a charity that funds organizations dedicated to the destruction of Israel and defamation of the Jewish people? Rather than advancing peace and democracy in Israel, these activities make "peace" and "democracy" into hateful words among the Israeli Jewish public, because in propaganda, "peace," "democracy" and "justice" have been made synonymous with defamation and genocide of the Jewish people, destruction of Israel and dissemination of lies. Are there no causes in Israel and no organizations that really advance peace and democracy that are more worthy of funding by the NIF than the mendacious political extremists and degenerates of groups like Zochrot?

An article by Ben-Dror Yemini, translated from Hebrew, explains the Israeli Zionist point of view:

SLUSH FUND
(Translation of Article by Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma'ariv, 2.2.10)

The New Israel Fund is part of the global deception campaign. It does not deal with human rights but with denying one people's right to self-determination.

The New Israel Fund is angry. It thinks that it is correct to spread false testimony about the State of Israel. It thinks that it is OK to participate in the demonization campaign of groups whose goal is to eliminate Israel. It thinks that it is OK to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission, even though it was established by the automatic majority of dark countries that controls the "UN Human Rights Council." It thinks that it is OK for Israel to cooperate with the Commission even though no country in the free world supported its establishment. It is certainly legitimate, in a democratic country, to do all these things.

But there is something else that is also legitimate: Expose the truth about the Fund and the groups that falsely carry the description "human rights." If most of the political groups that are supported by the Fund do not recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state – do not say human rights. Tell the truth: Denial of rights only for Jews. The Palestinians have the right to a state, a national state, of their own, just as the Croats, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks and other peoples do – but not the Jews.

For example, the New Israel Fund supports the Zochrot non-profit association, which openly aspires to eliminate the State of Israel via the realization of the "right of return." Not that there is any such right and not that there has been even one precedent of a mass "return" after post-war population exchanges – but this does not bother the Fund. It always jumps at the slogan "human rights."

None of this is to say that Israel is exempt from criticism. Among the hundreds of claims, there are those that have merit. But many sane people abhor the human rights bodies, not because they abhor human rights, on the contrary. It is because most sane people are fed up that human rights have become a weapon for dark forces.

The New Israel Fund has turned itself into yet another body, one among many in the world, that are party to global deception. There are a million and one attacks on human life and human rights in the world. Israel, as a state in the midst of conflict, makes fewer attacks than any other element. This has been verified. This is anchored in numbers. But it is Israel that absorbs most of the criticism. This is called demonization, delegitimization and obsession.

There is no defense of human rights here but rather an orchestrated campaign in the service of Iran and Hamas. This is not the Fund's intention but this is the result. Things should be called by their name. Most of the groups supported by the Fund deal in the delegitimization of Israel. But the Fund rolls its eyes and whines: What is wrong with human rights? There is nothing wrong. There is something wrong with those who clearly aspire to deny the Jews' right to exist in the only place where they have sovereignty, in order to turn Israel into a "state of all its citizens," in which the majority will be Hamas supporters. There is something wrong with those who want to perpetrate politicide on only one people in the world. There is something wrong with those who collaborate with dark forces and try to sell the lie that it is all about "human rights."

How is it that so many people, mainly Jews, support the Fund? How is it they facilitate this systematic campaign that masquerades as humanitarian and is, in effect, demonic? They are not anti-Semites. They are people with good intentions. Their rhetoric deals with human rights and minorities. Jews are sensitive to this and good for them. Most are simply unaware. Most truly and innocently want Israel to be more enlightened and more progressive, and stricter about human life and human rights. But they do not know that the money goes to other goals.

Even Professor Naomi Chazan, who heads the Fund, does not hate Israel. But what has happened to countless bodies that deal with "the rights talk" has happened to them. In the end, they serve the agenda of Iran and Hamas.

Human rights groups can restore the confidence in themselves. They need to support human rights, not groups that deal in denying Israel's right to exist. In the meantime, these groups, including the New Israel Fund, are the major enemy, not only of Israel but of the free world and human rights.

Not every group funded by the New Israel Fund is anti-Zionist. We don't want New Israel Fund to stop funding projects in Israel and we certainly want them to encourage human rights, democracy and peace. But responsible people who really care about these issues should ask of the N.I.F. that it limits its funding to groups that really support democracy and human rights, not groups that are bent on the destruction of Israel.

Ami Isseroff

The Simple facts

2010-02-02T11:05:00.000Z

The simple facts

Dershowitz's film reminds Yair Lapid that case for Israel based on basic facts

Yair Lapid
Published: 02.01.10, 10:01 / Israel Opinion

After much postponement, I recently watched Alan Dershowitz's film "The Case for Israel". The renowned US attorney opens the film by declaring that he is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, and that he supports the two-state solution, but…

Dershowitz is neither a philosopher nor a filmmaker. He is not even a rightist. We have become accustomed to the case for Israel being only made by members of the rightist camp, yet Dershowitz supports us precisely because he is a leftist law professor at Harvard University who deals with human rights.

How dare they refer to Israel as an apartheid state? He asks with genuine amazement. Arab society features apartheid of women, apartheid of homosexuals, and apartheid of Christians, Jews, and democracy. Gays are being hanged in Saudi Arabia, genocide is taking place in Sudan, and women across the Arab world are murdered for not wearing a hijab or for falling in love with the wrong man.

Yet despite all of the above, eight out of the eight last United Nations' resolution pertaining to human rights happened to deal with Israel – the only state in the region where minorities have the right to vote and a country whose legislature includes Arabs almost from day one.

Does the global Left – as well as the Israeli Left – truly not care about the horrific Taliban regime, the terrible oppression of women in Gulf states, and the mass hanging festivals in Iran? Isn't it clear to them that all West Bank roadblocks, which undoubtedly cause an ongoing human tragedy, would be dismantled within 24 hours if only the Palestinians were kind enough to stop killing Jews?

And how come they are always talking about the 750,000 Palestinian refugees while forgetting the 800,000 Jewish refugees kicked out of Arab states? Why doesn't anyone remember that the Palestinians already had four real opportunities to establish their state, yet each time they preferred to revert to terrorism?

And who dares to refer to the security fence as an "apartheid fence," while disregarding the fact that it was built, in line with international law, only after more than 1,000 Israelis were murdered in less than three years?

I was watching Dershowitz's film, yet instead of feeling happy I felt a little dumb. After all, I was familiar with these facts before, just like any other Israeli is familiar with them, so how come we are always on the defensive, always apologizing, and always losing the battle for global public opinion?

It is true, of course, that millions of petro-dollars are being used for anti-Israel propaganda (whoops! I'm again buying into their story- this is not anti-Israel propaganda but rather, pure and simple anti-Semitism.) But how the hell did we manage to get to a situation where the truth – the basic, simple, fact-based truth – has gone out of fashion?

Costco Targeted by anti-Israel boycott - your help needed

2010-02-02T10:32:00.005Z

The Israel Boycott people are at it again. There is no doubt about their objective, since the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) group Web site states that they are against "Imperialism, Colonialism and Zionism" a sentiment endorsed indirectly by Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee.

This time they are targeting Costco for selling Israeli fruit. You can help by contacting Costco and thanking them for ignoring the boycott as described below and by buying Israeli products at Costco stores, and by investing in Costco stock and telling them why.

Costco is Target of Boycott For Selling Israeli Products

...[According to boycotters] Costco is guilty of selling Israeli grown clementines. The boycott has a home on the Web and it has volunteers recruiting and instructing people on what they can do to encourage Costco to stop the sale of Israeli goods. Below is the body of a mass circulating e-mail which offers advise on who to contact at Costco:

Friends,

Such a simple action! I called 425-313-8100 and spoke with Mark DeCosta in produce. I told him that I was calling because I saw that Costco was selling clementines from Israel. I explained very politely that there is an international boycott against Israeli products because of the ongoing genocide there. I mentioned the attack on Gaza a year ago, that 1,400 people were killed there, and that Israel restricts food, electricity and drinking water. Mark was very receptive, and said he would pass the message o the buyer in California, and also gave me her number. I'll call her tomorrow and would be happy to hear that other folks might do the same.

Buyer: Pat Burlinguette
925-456-7208

Do not underestimate the consequences if a boycott like this has any success. If friends of Israel do not let Costco know that they support the sale of Israel[i products] it would not be a surprise if the company decides to forgo selling Israeli products.

We need to contact Costco and let them know that we will shop there because they sell Israeli products. When I told my wife about the boycott, she immediately responded that she was getting a Costco membership and she will buy the clementines "Even though I don't like clementines. "

Information about contacting Costco can be found here.

This boycott is part of an international cultural and academic boycott of Israel.

We must do all that we can to help Israel fight back.

Israeli Flying Aid continues the Israeli rescue effort in Haiti

2010-02-01T20:42:00.004Z

The IDF rescure teams have dismantled their life saving field hospital and most IDF personnel have left Haiti after giving "first responder" emergency aid that won praise from US media and gratitude from Haitians. The teams that rescued people from wreckage are also gone, as well as the Zaka volunteers. They all did an impressive job. But the tragedy of the Haiti earthquake is not ended, and neither has the aid extended by Israelis. Gal Lousky's Israeli Flying Aid is there and they have set up a a Web log to tell the story of Israeli Flying Aid to Haiti. They are rebuilding orphanages , rescuing young girls from sexual exploitation, getting food to the hungry and trying to fill the urgent and seemingly endless needs of a displaced population With the aid of Orange Israel Telecommunications, they are building an orphanage to house 70 children as an initial project.

Israeli Flying Aid (IFA) is a volunteer non-profit organization founded by Gal Lousky. IFA specializes in transferring emergency, lifesaving aid to populations in disaster areas, and in particular nations in which the IFA presence is especially significant:

• Nations that have no diplomatic relations with Israel, and are hostile to Israel.

• Nations in which the government is hostile to its own citizens and refuses to allow entrance of foreign lifesaving aid after natural disasters but in effect uses the disaster as a weapon of mass annihilation in order to overturn opposition.

• “Complex regions” where UN Red Cross teams and NGOs are not allowed entry (e.g., Indian Kashmir following the earthquake, Russian-occupied Georgia, etc.)

IFA has aided disaster victims in India, Sri Lanka, the Georgian Republic and elsewhere, including extending aid in the United States during Hurricane Katrina.

Israeli Flying Aid is on the spot in Haiti bringing vitally needed help. They need your donations to continue.

Donation information as provided to me:

For donations via wire, please use the following details:
Israel Flying Aid
Israel Discount Bank
Branch number: 199
Account number: 57797
Swift code: IDBLILIT

or via check to:
P.E.F ISRAEL ENDOWMENT FUNDS, INC.
317 Madison Avenue, Suite 607, New York, NY 10017
The covering letter of the check should have this information:
Date:______________________

Enclosed is my contribution of $ ____________________________ with recommendation to your trustees that it be used for:

Organization: Israel Flying Aid, 48 Ben Zion Galis, Sgula Petach Tikva, ISRAEL 49277

Name (contributor):_____________________________________ (please print)

Address:______________________________________________________

Minimum contribution accepted is $ 25.00.

Gifts are tax deductible only if made payable to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc. (IRS No. 13-6104086)

Upon request a copy of the last Annual Report filed by P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc. with the New York Secretary of State may be obtained from either P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc. 317 Madison Avenue, Suite 607, New York, NY 10017, or the office of the New York Secretary of State, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12226.

Ami Isseroff

Israelis want to take in Haitian families

2010-01-31T21:27:00.001Z

Poll: 60% think Israel should take in Haitian families

Ynet-Yesodot survey shows most Israelis believe State should absorb devastated families from quake-stricken Caribbean country, 47% show willingness to adopt Haitian children

Ynet
Published: 01.31.10, 15:05 / Israel Jewish Scene

After the closing of the Israeli field hospital in devastated Haiti and the imminent return of the aid mission - what is Israel's next step? The majority of the Israeli public believes that citizens should not adopt children who lost their parents in the earthquake as long as there are Jewish or Israeli orphans without a home.

However, most Israelis think that the State should take in devastated families, a joint Ynet-Yesodot poll suggests.

The poll was conducted by Panels Institute on a sample representative of the adult Jewish population in Israel of 522 respondents. The maximum sampling error is 4.3%±.

According to the data, 94% of the public believe that the decision to send a rescue mission to Haiti was important. The majority based their answer on Israel's duty to save lives - 72%, while 22% explained it with the need to improve the State's international image.

Only 6% said that the decision was a mistake and explained this by asserting that Israel must take care of its own needy first.

Asked in case they were interested in adoption, whether they would consider adopting a Haitian orphan 53% replied negatively, 15% answered positively on condition of conversion to Judaism, whereas 32% replied an unconditional "yes."

Analyzing the responses according to religious affiliation shows that the ultra-Orthodox, religious and traditionalists on the whole ruled out any option of adopting children from Haiti (93%, 77% and 51% respectively) while 52% of seculars answered that they would regard it possible.

On the survey's third section participants were asked whether Israel, as a Jewish state, should take in families who have lost everything in the earthquake. Some 60% replied yes (44% unconditionally and 16% in a partial way so as to promote Israel's image) while the remaining 40% replied negatively.

Some 24% claimed that Israel must take care of its own poor first and 16% feared that the Jewish majority in the country would be compromised. The poll indicated that seculars and traditionalists were more inclined to answer positively (66% and 57% respectively) while the haredim and religious opposed (86% and 63% respectively).

'No distinction among sectors'

Yesodot director Shoshi Becker commented on the survey's findings and said, "The situation in Haiti is perceived as a catastrophe and we all, as Jews and as human beings, see the importance in offering aid. I am glad there is no distinction among the different sectors on this point.

On the other hand, it appears that the issue of conversion is troubling the public. It does not completely prevent the willingness to adopt Haitian orphans but people definitely want to see a solution - also on the national level – which would make it easy for them to take that humane step.

"I would expect a statement from the Chief Rabbinate or other rabbinical elements on this issue – a call to mitigate conversion terms or any statement regarding the refugees' halachic status in this special situation. "

Inescapable conclusion: Israel must probe the Gaza war

2010-01-31T08:32:00.010Z

There is no doubt about it. The Goldstone report about Operation Cast Lead (the Gaza war of 2008) is not about "justice." It is based on an investigation initiated with the most malicious intent, by a UN body, the UNHRC, that is obsessed with the mission of delegitimizing Israel. Its major conclusions were decided before there was any "investigation," and the investigation that was undertaken was a bad joke, consisting mostly of collecting Israel-bashing libels from anti-Israel NGOs. Judge Goldstone was enlisted in this nefarious project to provide a fig leaf of respectability for the "human rights" advocacy of countries like Libya and Sudan. He did not exercise the best judgment in accepting the charge and did not conduct a fair investigation.

The Goldstone report was meant to be, and will be, the centerpiece of a vicious PR campaign and UN propaganda persecution against Israel. It gives the usual sources many opportunities to rant about "Zionist war criminals" and "Zionist war crimes" and to attempt to force a UN Security Council condemnation of Israel. Alan Dershowitz has pointed out that Goldstone went beyond the various human rights organizations with his fantastic contention that the Israeli government diabolically planned in advance to murder Palestinian civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure. (see THE CASE AGAINST THE GOLDSTONE REPORT: A STUDY IN EVIDENTIARY BIAS).

However, it is time to say what everyone knows and will not admit. Israel's army probes of the Gaza war crime allegations are not going to satisfy many critics, nor will documents like the one issued recently by the Israeli government, and other reports that are either in preparation or submitted. The Israeli MAG (Military Advocate General) reported that they investigated X number of cases raised ( about 140 at this time) by the infamous Goldstone report and closed them. But the skeptics will dismiss it all as "Zionist propaganda" because they have been convinced, rightly or wrongly, that only an independent civilian inquiry will discover the truth.

Contrary to the impression that some people seem to have, the report presented to UN Secretary General Ban was not the final Israeli rejoinder to the Goldstone report. Israel is preparing a very long report that will be a point by point refutation:

The 40-page “letter” was delivered to Ban, explaining the independence of ’s legal system, and the efficacy of the justice system in the military.

Diplomatic officials stressed that this letter is not the IDF’s answer to the Goldstone Commission report. The IDF rebuttal is currently being completed, and will number more than 1,000 pages and will answer point-by-point all the allegations in the Goldstone Report

The "40 page letter" referred to above may or may not be the 46 page document that is posed at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website - Gaza Operation Investigations - an update. That document details the structure and independence of the Military Advocate General's office and the Israeli investigation process, as well as giving finding regarding some of the cases.

These efforts, which impress Israel's friends, are not necessarily going to convince the the world, and do not change the fact that there were, and are, real problems that require both judicial and administrative or legislative remedies.

The problems are evident even in the handling of the rebuttal. According to Haaretz, newspaper, the letter sent to Secretary General Ban claimed that two IDF officers were disciplined for improper use of white phosphorus in one incident on January 15, 2009. But according to Haaretz newspaper, the IDF promptly denied that any officers were disciplined!

The Israel Defense Forces on Monday denied that two of its senior officers had been summoned for disciplinary action after headquarters staff found that the men exceeded their authority in approving the use of phosphorus shells during last year's military campaign in the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli government wrote in a recent report.

The report, which was a sensation for a day, seems to have vanished without a final resolution - either a clear official confirmation or a clear denial. This is not indicative of an orderly process of investigation, to say the least. If Haaretz is referring to the 46 page update document, there is indeed a report that officers were disciplined in section 100 and what is apparently the same report for the same incident is given in Section 108:

One of these incidents involved alleged damage to the UNRWA field office compound in Tel El Hawa.102 The special command investigation revealed that, during the course of a military operation in Tel El Hawa, IDF forces fired several artillery shells in violation of the rules of engagement prohibiting use of such artillery near populated areas. Based on these findings, the Commander of the Southern Command disciplined a Brigadier General and a Colonel for exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardized the lives of others.

There is no mention of white phosphorus in that section. In Sections 118-120, the document states categorically that all IDF use of white phosphorus was found to be legal and there were no violations. The Haaretz article related an entirely narrative that is not taken from the document, and their source is not clear. The IDF denial that officers were disciplined for any reason that is quoted in Ha'aretz is also unexplained.

If we don't believe our own report, it is not likely that anyone else will believe it. If different branches of the IDF cannot ascertain whom the IDF punished and for what, there must be at least some procedures that require investigation and correction.

According to the report, about 150 cases were investigated and 36 were referred for disciplinary action. Details are not given for every case. In the entire Gaza operation, we are supposed to believe, almost nobody made serious errors in judgment. We are to believe that almost all the decisions were correct, even though soldiers died from friendly fire, and three little Palestinian girls, whom everyone admits were blameless, daughters of a blameless physician, Dr. Izzeldin AbuelAish, were killed by mistake..Those are three wrongful deaths that we can identify by name. Even the most pro-Israel enthusiast might think it is suspicious if the IDF says, "We investigated ourselves and we found ourselves almost blameless."

If all the IDF decisions were correct, then how did it happen that we waged an expensive and risky war, and at the end of the war there was a lot of destruction in Gaza, but the Hamas remained stronger than ever? It is unlikely that Israeli generals are war criminals as Goldstone charges, but nobody should get a prize for the planning and execution of the Gaza war. The Goldstone report or some similar kangaroo proceeding, should also have been foreseen by the planners since allegations of Israeli "war crimes" are not new. Even if there were no instances of criminal malfeasance, there was certainly a failure of decision making, and there errors of judgment and lapses in discipline. We all know about the graffiti left in Gaza by various IDF soldiers, and about the inciteful pamphlets initiated by fanatic rabbis and distributed by the IDF "through an oversight." What mechanisms were put into place to correct these problems?

We were assured, from the start, that the Gaza war would not be like the Second Lebanon war. Officers and government officials would not speak out of turn, and would not make pointless bellicose remarks. But pointless bellicosity continued long after the Second Lebanon war, and the Goldstone report used them as "evidence" against Israel. For example, In October 2008, just before General Eisenkott said, regarding Lebanon:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.”

This is the sort of primitive and needless bragging and bullying that used to characterize Arab leaders. It is in a class with the threats made by Gamal Abdul Nasser before the Six day war. Whatever policies the government adopts, they are not set by the IDF, and whatever military doctrines the IDF adopts, they are not more effective if discussed in public. Wars are not won by rhetoric. If the Israeli government wanted to warn the Lebanese against testing Israeli patience, there were other, more credible and more civilized ways to do it.

Even more pointless were the remarks of Eli Yishai, Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor. He said on February 2, 2009

Even if the rockets fall in an open air or to the sea, we should hit their infrastructure, and destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired.

We can point out that these remarks were made after the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead and cannot prove intent, though they might say something about general policy and state of mind They are not evidence surely, as Yishai didn't plan the operation. They were utterly pointless because unlike General Eisenkott, Yishai is not a military authority and is not in charge of military planning. He should stick to what he knows.

Perhaps the skill of Alan Dershowitz can convince friends of Israel that it is not illegal to call for destruction of homes, as he does so well. But if you require a Dershowitz or a Clarence Darrow to defend you and to produce an exegesis of your remarks in the manner of the Rashi and the Rambam, you are in trouble. Those who are not so well disposed to our cause will take the remarks literally. As the Israeli government had to be aware of the hostile international environment, what possible excuse was there for remarks such as these, intended evidently to garner support from Shas party voters. What is a minister of a religious party doing meddling in foreign policy and military strategy in public? Yishai probably knows even less about military strategy than he knows about industry, trade or labor. What purpose did these remarks serve?

At least some Israeli authorities have understood that an independent investigation is required. Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, who headed the Military Advocate General's international law department during Operation Cast Lead called for an investigation, though she is apparently convinced that all is well in the best of all possible worlds:

"There is not necessarily a need for a commission of inquiry because we essentially know more or less what happened in terms of decision making, orders and targets," she said. "As for the top brass, we have the protocols of government meetings."

Nonetheless, she added, "We are now in a situation in which we need to give our friends - who don't want to see lawsuits filed against us in their own courts - the tools to do away such claims, along with other charges against us," she said.

"If they need a commission of inquiry then that's what we'll give them," she added. "I really don't think we have anything we need to hide."

It is not so clear that everything is under control and nothing can go wrong, as Sharvit-Baruch implied. If she had done her job right during the Gaza war, there might not have been a Goldstone report. Moreover, if everything is just fine, then how did it happen that her remarks, made in confidence to a closed forum, were published the next day in Haaretz? Leaks of this sort are the rule, rather than the exception. What sort of army cannot keep secrets?

Menachem Mazuz, Israel's outgoing government counsel (a title erroneously translated in English as "Attorney General") also explained why an independent investigation is needed:

"There is a danger here of a 'Serbianization' of Israel," even though the report on the Gaza war was biased and contains unsubstantiated conclusions, Mazuz said. "Therefore I believe that Israel has a clear interest in conducting a serious, expert examination that will deal with the report and produce an opposing report. It would be a serious mistake not to establish some sort of committee. We must remove the shame of accusing Israel of being a country that commits war crimes."

"Some sort of committee" is not enough. There must be a judicial committee of inquiry or judicial proceedings in regular courts regarding criminal allegations. The investigation or trials would not satisfy everyone. The Palestinians, notwithstanding the fact that they won't try any of their "alleged" war criminals and their supporters will continue to rant about Zionist war criminals, backed by the Arab world and degenerates like the Dutch socialite Greta Duisenberg. But friendly governments will at least have a solid basis to reject the Goldstone allegations and to combat the campaign of pseudo-legal war criminal proceedings being waged by Palestinians and their supporters.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi are opposed to a probe. But they are among the "suspects," because part of Goldstone's allegations, the most serious ones, claim that the Gaza operation was planned to harm civilians and to harm infrastructure in order to hurt civilians. Of course, intentional destruction of some infrastructure may have been done based on the doctrine that we must destroy "infrastructure" of terrorists. That is not criminal, but since terror groups do not have and do not need much infrastructure, it is probable that this doctrine is mistaken. But it is clear that suspects in a possible investigation should not be deciding whether or not to have an investigation.

A second investigation, non-judicial, is needed to examine the tactical and strategic and policy aspects of Operation Cast Lead. Before the next war, we must find out what really went wrong in Operation Cast Lead, and in the Second Lebanon War. Obviously, not all the lessons of the Second Lebanon war were learned, because in some respects the Gaza war was a repeat performance. This is true despite the great strides taken by the IDF in repairing itself, and despite the fact that both the Chief of Staff and the Defense Minister had been replaced, and nobody doubts the professional qualifications of the present incumbents. And the problem is not confined to military planning.

The two wars share too many negative characteristics in common: Both were long drawn out operations that generated a lot of destruction and civilian deaths on the enemy side, but did not inflict a decisive blow on the enemy. Both brought charges of Israeli "war crimes."

Israel's friends may be willing to help us, especially as the United States, Britain and others may be accused of similar war "war crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan by the same coalition of terror groupies But friends can only help those who help themselves. And we need a real investigation, because there are real problems that exist regardless of the Goldstone report. The same sorts of problems have been dogging the IDF and Israeli government since the Yom Kippur War: poor intelligence, poor decision making, poor strategy, neglect of essential preparation, flaws in implementation. Israelis who do not believe me, should consider this example, which is easy to check. What is the status of the air raid shelters in your town. Are they all clean and ready? Were they all opened and ready for use when there was a drill?

After each war there is an "investigation" and we are assured that the problems will not recur, but they do. Condemning the Goldstone report is not enough. Friends of Israel have to understand that along with condemning the Goldstone report, we must call for independent inquiries.

What is more important than the last war or last wars, is the next one. The next Lebanon or Gaza war, if there will be one, is being planned according to the same formula: a long war of attrition featuring air and ground operations. The minister of religion and the minister of rabbit growing will issue bellicose announcements about grinding the enemy to dust and will be duly quoted in the media. The confidential remarks of every military official in closed door forums will make daily headlines. The network and media photographers and correspondents will have weeks to report about the real or imagined agony of innocent Lebanese civilians. The enemy will be able to generate a great deal of Pallywood and Hoaxbulla - dead bodies taken from morgues, staged ambulance emergencies, the same person losing a different home on different days. The anti-Israel lobby will have a PR festival, and Israel will accomplish no strategic objective other than to strengthen its enemies.

Well-meaning polemics against the Goldstone report, as bad as the report is, miss the point. It is always valid to ask for an independent civilian investigation of criminal actions when there are reasonable suspicions. Justice must be seen as well as done. When the military and civilian decision process has produced two catastrophic failures in a brief period, it is also imperative to hold a serious and probing technical and policy review as well. It is not unpatriotic to mount these investigations. It is common sense, good government and good Zionism.

Ami Isseroff

Duisenberg: Jewish Zionists control Holland

2010-01-31T07:23:00.001Z

Last update - 06:09 31/01/2010
Dutch pro-Palestinian socialite: Jewish lobby plays on Holocaust guilt
By Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz Correspondent

"Holland's powerful Jewish lobby is playing on the country's sense of guilt over the Holocaust," a prominent Dutch activist said last week, triggering angry reactions and accusation of anti-Semitism from pro-Israel Dutch Jews.

Gretta Duisenberg, the widow of the first president of the European Central Bank and a friend of the Queen of the Netherlands, said in an interview for Islam Online that "the Jewish lobby in Holland, like in the United States, is very strong and powerful, and it is still playing on our guilt feelings although it is 63 years since the Holocaust."

Duisenberg, a leading pro-Palestinian activist and well-known member of Holland's high society, added that "whenever you have something against the Jewish people in Holland, they call you an anti-Semite."

"These are anti-Semitic remarks, based on the libel of the Protocols of Zion, that the Jews dominate the world," said Ronny Naftaniel, head of Holland's largest pro-Israel group and watchdog on anti-Semitism, the Center for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI.)

Duisenberg's spokesperson, Paul Lamp, rejected this, telling Haaretz that in the interview Duisenberg also referred to "Zionist Jews and orthodox Christians who dominate our government and the government of the United States."

While this quote does not appear in the piece, the interview does contain a quote by Duisenberg saying that "Holland's right-wing government is Christian radical, and the radical people within the Jewish people have very strong feelings toward Israel, and they dominate our government."

Duisenberg once said she wants to collect six million signatures for a pro-Palestinian petition. In a 2005 television discussion, she said: "I hope the Jews realize they can't take over the south of Amsterdam the same way they took over the West Bank."

"She doesn't realize it, but with this kind of statements she doesn't only insult Jews, but is also severely damaging the Palestinian position in the Netherlands," Naftaniel said. "People will believe that to support the Palestinians you have to be anti-Semitic, which of course is not true."

This month Naftaniel's organization released data showing that in 2009, the number of anti-Semite incidents in Amsterdam doubled compared to 2008, when 14 anti-Semitic incidents were reported in the Dutch capital. Jews in Amsterdam feel increasingly "besieged" as they are exposed to a growing barrage of name-calling, hate mail, firecrackers in their mailboxes, graffiti and - occasionally - physical abuse, CIDI said.

Dubai death of Hamas terrorist blamed on Israel

2010-01-29T10:30:00.000Z

"Brother" al-Mabhuh died a martyr according to Hamas. They should rejoice that he is in heaven with 72 virgins, but they are not consistent.

Hamas is not especially beloved of the Dubai or Egyptian governments. Accidents can happen. Especially if you are in the terrorism business. Perhaps the death of a terrorist "in suspect circumstances" should be registered as "death from natural causes" or "occupational disease." But it is best to blame everything on Israel of course..

Ami Isseroff

Hamas blames Israel for death in Dubai of top militant

By Adel Zaanoun (AFP)

GAZA CITY — The Islamist Hamas movement blamed Israel on Friday for the death in Dubai earlier this month of one of the founders of its military wing and threatened retaliation at a time of its choosing.

"Mahmud Abdel Rauf al-Mabhuh died a martyr in Dubai on January 20, 2010 in suspect circumstances that require an inquiry in cooperation with the United Arab Emirates authorities," Hamas said in a statement released in its Gaza stronghold.

"We hold Israel responsible for the assassination of our brother and leader," the statement said, adding Hamas would "retaliate for this Zionist crime at the appropriate moment."

There was no immediate Israeli reaction to the allegation, which gave no details on exactly how he died.

There was also no immediate comment from the authorities in Dubai on Hamas's appeal for a joint inquiry.

In Damascus, where Hamas has its leadership in exile, politburo member Izzat al-Rishq also accused Israel of assassinating Mabhuh in a statement posted on the group's website.

"The Zionist enemy assassinated commander Mahmud al-Mabhuh in the United Arab Emirates," Rishq said, adding that Hamas would "avenge the blood shed by the martyr."

Born in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the Gaza Strip, Mabhuh was one of the founders of Hamas's Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades armed wing. He was 50 at the time of his death.

Hamas said his remains had been flown to the Syrian capital where a funeral was to be held later on Friday.

Hamas said Mabhuh was behind the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers in separate operations in 1989 during the early stages of the first 1987-1993 Palestinian uprising.

Avi Sasportas and Ilan Sadon were both later killed.

Mabhuh also masterminded a number of other attacks on Israeli targets and Israeli authorities demolished his home in Gaza in retaliation.

Mabhuh spent several spells in Israeli custody. After his last release, "he spent his life being hounded by the Zionist occupier until he succeeded in leaving the Gaza Strip," Hamas said.

"Our brother had been a target for the occupier ever since his participation in the kidnapping operation against the two Zionist soldiers, and for his role and support for the resistance."

Over the years, a number of Hamas leaders have died in operations Israel calls "targeted killings."

In 2004, Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed in an Israeli helicopter gunship attack in Gaza.

One month later, another Hamas leader in Gaza, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was killed when two missiles hit his car.

And in 1997, agents of Israel's Mossad overseas intelligence service poisoned Hamas's now leader Khaled Meshaal in a botched assassination bid in Jordan's capital Amman that nearly ruptured Israel's relations with its eastern neighbour.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since ousting forces loyal to Western-backed Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas in June 2007.

In December 2008, Israel launched a devastating offensive against the Palestinian territory in a bid to stem persistent rocket fire by militants.

It ended with reciprocal ceasefires the following month since when there have been sporadic rocket or mortar attacks and retaliatory Israeli air raids but no major fighting.

Hamas is denying it targeted civilians in Israel

2010-01-29T01:55:00.000Z

It is obvious why Hamas is denying it targeted civilians in Israel. It is equally obvious that they are lying. They targetted civilians both during the war and after the war. Hamas rockets did not kill 10 soldiers as stated below. Several soldiers were killed in friendly fire.

Why Hamas is denying it targeted civilians in Israel

Ahead of a Feb. 5 deadline to respond to war crimes charges in the UN-sponsored Goldstone report, Hamas said it had meant to hit military targets last winter. Human Rights Watch disagrees.

By Erin Cunningham Correspondent / January 28, 2010
Gaza City, Gaza

Ahead of a looming deadline for Israel and Hamas to respond to war crimes charges in the UN-sponsored Goldstone report, Human Rights Watch (HRW) hit back today at a claim made by Hamas earlier this week that its fighters did not commit war crimes in its three-week war with Israel last winter. Instead, said Hamas, its fighters struck civilian areas in Israel "by mistake" when launching rockets at the country's military installations.

"Hamas's claim that rockets were intended to hit Israeli military targets and only accidentally harmed civilians is belied by the facts," the HRW statement said. "Civilians were the target," the statement continued, "and deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime."

The Hamas claim was revealed in an internal document obtained by the Associated Press. Local media say it is part of a larger report Hamas plans to send to the United Nations (UN) later this week, ahead of a Feb. 5 deadline imposed by the UN on both Israel and Hamas to provide evidence they are carrying out independent investigations into allegations of war crimes.

Failure to comply may result in the UN taking up war crimes proceedings against the two at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
Hamas hasn't launched serious inquiry

But rights groups here say despite announcements that it plans to launch an investigation, Hamas has so far fallen short of a serious inquiry into the conduct of its own fighters

"I am not confident they are carrying out a serious investigation," says Khalil Abu Shammala, director of the Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights – one of the 11 Palestinian rights groups that called on Palestinian leaders to investigate war crimes last week. "But the problem is this: while they want international recognition, they also don't understand international criteria for such procedures."

"They think the international community will adopt their story, that they didn't mean to target civilians, and that will be it," Mr. Shammala continues. "But this is not a joke. If they continue like this, they should be very afraid, just as the Israelis should, of criminal prosecution."

The move may be just a public relations stunt meant to boost its international image, local analysts say. Others say the movement assumes the international community is more focused on Israel, also accused of war crimes and which rebuffed this week UN calls for an independent inquiry into its own army's actions.

"This apparent revelation by Hamas that it hit civilian targets during the war is nothing new, but I think they are looking for legitimacy from the international community, to present themselves as cooperative and open to criticism," says Gaza-based political analyst, Talal Okal.

"They know that Israeli actions during the war are seen as being far worse," Mr. Okal continues. "So I don't think they are taking the whole process very seriously in this respect."

Goldstone report

Rockets fired by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups from the Gaza Strip during the war killed 13 Israelis, including 10 soldiers, and injured more than 800. More than 1,400 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, were killed by the Israeli offensive, according to Palestinian and international human rights groups.

In a 575-page report published by a fact-finding mission commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council and headed by South African judge Richard Goldstone, the team accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes for targeting and failing to protect civilians. The report calls Palestinian rocket-fire "indiscriminate," and therefore a violation of international law.

Hamas government spokesmen were unavailable for comment, but the Islamist movement has so far been very vocal in its support for the UN war crimes investigation, allowing the mission to conduct its work in Gaza last summer and even criticizing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for dropping his endorsement of the mission's findings in October.

UN Human Rights Council's JUSCANZ group admits Israel with US help

2010-01-28T19:33:00.002Z

A tiny step forward in the nightmare of UN boycotts of Israel.

U.N. Rights Group Ends Israel Exclusion
UN Watch Lauds U.S. Role, Calls on U.N. to Lift Remaining Barriers

Geneva, Jan. 27, 2010 – After decades of exclusion, Israel was granted membership in a United Nations caucus in Geneva.

Israel's admission to the Human Rights Council's JUSCANZ group -- an acronym for the non-EU democracies of Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand -- was approved last Friday by consensus, and signifies they regard the Jewish state as "like-minded." The group has expanded over time to include Norway, Switzerland and other Western countries.

"For this to happen in Geneva, and especially at the Arab-dominated Human Rights Council, is an historic accomplishment for Israel and for the principle of equality," said Alfred Moses, Chair of the Geneva-based UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights organization.

"It's a significant achievement in an arena where regression is the norm, one that will allow Israel for the first time to participate in a UN consultative group on human rights issues," said Moses.

"This is particularly important during a time when countries are planning for the 2011 reform of the council, a body that has repeatedly turned a blind eye to the world's victims of human rights violations."

"The diplomatic victory followed years of diplomatic efforts, which were supported by UN Watch as a necessary implementation of the UN Charter's equality guarantee for all nations, large and small. The United States is one of several countries that deserve particular credit for finally making it happen."

The change does not apply to JUSCANZ consultations in New York, nor to the Asian regional group's continued exclusion of Israel. UN Watch called on the United Nations to remove remaining discriminatory barriers to Israel's full and equal participation within UN voting and consultation blocs.

"We also urge the Human Rights Council in particular to remove its permanent agenda item targeting Israel; to eliminate its post of a permanent investigator on alleged Israeli violations, where guilt is presumed in advance; and to end the policy whereby three-quarters of all council resolutions have been devoted to the one-sided censure of Israel, and Israel made the object of more special sessions than the total for the rest of the world combined."

UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

Netanyahu Address at Auschwitz, marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day

2010-01-28T09:21:00.001Z

Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at ceremony marking 65 years since the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp

I want to thank the Government of Poland for the historic effort it is making to commemorate the greatest catastrophe that befell my people and the greatest crime committed against humanity.

We have gathered here, Poles and Jews, at the crossroads of tragedy. Our long shared history included tremendous cultural accomplishments and the lowest low humanity has experienced. We were here. We remember those who froze to death; if they did not freeze to death, they were executed by gas, burned in the ovens. We remember also that one-third of the Righteous Gentiles, those who risked their lives and their children's lives and those of their families in order to save others, were Poles. We remember all this.

As we stand here to commemorate the past, we are helping to build a future of decency, truth and hope for our two peoples and for all mankind.

Now I will speak in Hebrew, the reborn language of the people whom the Nazis sought to exterminate.

[Translation]

The voices of millions of my people gassed, burned and killed in a thousand different ways rise out of this cursed ground. In the final moment of their lives, many whispered or cried out the timeless words of our ancient people: "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." Perhaps a few used their final breath to chant another age-old prayer: "Remember what Amalek did to you. Never forget!"

To those who were murdered here, and to those who survived the destruction, I come from Jerusalem today with this promise: We will never forget! We will never permit those who desecrated this monument to death to distort or wipe away your memory. We will always remember what Amalek's Nazi heirs did to you. We will be prepared to defend ourselves when a new Amalek appears on the stage of history and threatens again to annihilate the Jews.

We will not delude ourselves into believing that the threats, vilifications and Holocaust denials are merely empty words. We will never forget. We will always be vigilant.

The Holocaust author, K. Zetnick, in his testimony at the Eichman trial, called the death camps "another planet". But the horrors of the Holocaust occurred not in a far away world but right here on earth. It was not the work of beastly animals but of beastly men, of loathsome and despicable murderers.

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that a murderous evil must be stopped early, when it is still in its infancy and before it can carry out its designs. The enlightened nations of the world must learn this lesson.

We, the Jewish nation, who lost a third of our people on Europe's blood-soaked soil, have learned that the only guarantee for defending our people is a strong State of Israel and the army of Israel. We have learned to warn the nations of the world of approaching danger but at the same time to prepare to defend ourselves.

As the head of the Jewish state, I pledge to you today: We will never again permit evil to snuff out the life of our people and the life of our own country.

I came here today from Jerusalem to say to those who perished here: The people of Israel live! We have returned to our homeland, to the land of our fathers, to our capital Jerusalem. We have come from every corner of the earth - Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands, Jews from the Soviet Union and Ethiopia, Poland and Yemen, Romania and Iraq, France and Morocco, Jews from seventy lands and five continents.

Some who came almost didn't make it. Barracks #16 at the Birkenau death camp, a few meters from here, housed a17-year old Jewish youth who suffered from the 80 lashes he received in the Ghetto from his Nazi tormenters. No one believed the boy would live, but he survived and escaped from the camp. With the victory over the Nazis 65 years ago, he immigrated to Israel. Fifteen years later, he was the Israeli police officer guarding Adolph Eichmann when the Jewish state brought the Nazi henchmen to justice.

That young man is Michael Goldman. With his wife Eva, he raised a family in Israel, and they have five children and nine grandchildren. Michael is with us here today - a witness to the Holocaust, a witness to the redemption.

The Jewish people rose from ashes and destruction, from a terrible pain that can never be healed. Armed with the Jewish spirit, the justice of man, and the vision of the prophets, we sprouted new branches and grew deep roots. Dry bones became covered with flesh, a spirit filled them, and they lived and stood on their own feet.

As Ezekiel prophesized:
"Then He said unto me: These bones are the whole House of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up, our hope is gone; we are doomed.' Prophecy, therefore, and say to them: Thus said the Lord God: I am going to open your graves and lift you out of your graves, O My people, and bring you to the land of Israel."

I stand here today on the ground where so many of my people perished - and I am not alone. The State of Israel and all the Jewish people stand with me. We bow our heads to honor your memory and lift our heads as we raise our flag, a flag of blue and white with a Star of David in its center.

And everyone sees. And everyone hears. And everyone knows - that our hope is not lost.

Lancet Study Blames Palestinian Wife-Beating on Israel

2010-01-27T19:50:00.001Z

Lancet Study Blames Palestinian Wife-Beating on Israel

Posted By Phyllis Chesler On January 24, 2010 ...

Lancet Study Does Not Mention Honor Killings, Forced Veiling, Arranged Marriages, etc.

It's official. Britain's premier medical journal Lancet ^[1] has been completely Palestinianized. It no longer bears any relationship to the first-rate scientific journal it once was. Perhaps Lancet is no longer a standard-bearer but has become a follower in the global movement in which standards have plunged, biases have soared, and Big Lies now pass for top-of-the-line academic, scientific work.

The post-colonial academy is itself thoroughly colonized by the false and dangerous ideas of Edward Said (please read my dear friend Ibn Warraq's most excellent book Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism ^[2]). However, I once believed that Said's paranoid perspective had primarily infected and indoctrinated only the social sciences, humanities, and Middle East Studies. We now see his malign influence at work in a new article, just out today, by professors who work at the Department of Medicine at Harvard University; the Division of Epidemiology and Community Health at Minnesota University's School of Public Health; The Boston University School of Medicine; the School of Nursing at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; and at the School of Social Work and Social Welfare at Jerusalem's Hebrew University.

Their study ^[3] is titled: "Association between exposure to political violence and intimate-partner violence in the occupied Palestinian territory: a cross-sectional study." And yes, they have found that Palestinian husbands are more violent towards Palestinian wives as a function of the Israeli "occupation"— and that the violence increases significantly when the husbands are "directly" as opposed to "indirectly" exposed to political violence.

I believe that Arab and Muslim men, including Palestinian men, are indeed violent towards Arab and Muslim women. I also believe that war-related stress, including poverty, usually increases "intimate partner violence," aka male domestic violence. But beyond that, how does one evaluate this study?

First, let's follow the money. This study was funded by the Palestinian National Authority as well as by the Core Funding Group at the University of Minnesota. The Palestinian Authority is not a disinterested party. But even worse: The data was collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Palestinians are the people who once told the world that Israeli soldiers shot young Mohammed al-Dura, committed a massacre in Jenin, and purposely attacked Palestinian civilians (who just happened to be jihadists dressed in civilian clothing or hostage-civilians behind whom the jihadists hid).

Second, let's note that the study has a political goal which trumps any objective academic or feminist goal. (These researchers claim to have a "feminist" perspective). In my view, this study wishes to present Palestinian men as victims even when (or precisely because) those men are battering their wives. And, it wishes to present Palestinian cultural barbarism, which includes severe child abuse, as also related to the alleged Israeli occupation.

Third, therefore, the study has purposely omitted the violence, including femicide, which is routinely perpetrated against daughters and sisters in "occupied Palestine" and has, instead, chosen to focus only on husband-wife violence and only on couples who are currently married. The honor murders of daughters and sisters by their parents and brothers is a well known phenomenon in Gaza and on the West Bank.

I have written about some high profile cases before. "Souad" barely survived being set on fire ^[4] by her West Bank family because she became pregnant out of wedlock by the man who promised to marry her; Israelis nursed her back to health and she fled the area for Europe, where she wrote a book about her near-death experience. Asma'a al-Ghoul ^[5], whom I interviewed in 2008, was fired for writing a series of articles about honor killings on the West Bank and in Gaza. These barbaric, misogynist, and femicidal customs are not due to any alleged political, military, or economic "occupation" by Israelis.

Fourth, if one is completely serious about violence against women, the researchers would have factored in the role of Hamas, which has "occupied" Gaza both militarily and religiously. Since they have done so, more and more (previously modern) women have been forced to veil; more child marriages as well as arranged marriages are now taking place.

Indeed, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups have lured young Palestinian women into becoming suicide killers ^[6]. In 2002, they manipulated Wafa Idris, a clinically depressed woman into blowing herself up, and in 2004, they lured Reem al-Riyashi, a wife and mother of two, into an affair and then threatened to shame her (which would have led to her being honor-murdered). Instead, they gave her a path to glory.

This study chose not to include such terrible violence against women because it could not, strictly speaking, be attributed to the alleged Israeli occupation—or to the still unresolved matter of the disputed territories.

Fifth, had the Lancet study wished to study—truly study—the effects of war in terms of an increase in male domestic violence at home, they would also have studied or at least referred to studies about the fate of Israeli women in terms of "intimate partner violence"; after all, they are also women and they are on the other side of the exact same conflict. A comparison might have been both just and arguably more feminist. In addition, this study would have tried to establish some kind of base line or control group i.e. the researchers would have compared their Palestinian-on-Palestinian domestic violence with the domestic violence rates in other Arab, Muslim countries such as Jordan, Syria, or Egypt, where there is no alleged (western) occupation exists.

Sixth, Lancet is a British journal and it has hereby descended to the same level of anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish propaganda that is quite common among Britain's own non-academic journalists. Countless British journalists have done precisely what this study has attempted to do: Blame it all on Israel.

Lancet has done this before ^[7], and I have written about this rather nasty tendency more than once. I have also written about this tendency among feminists in my book The Death of Feminism ^[8]. Make no mistake: This Lancet study is introduced by Rita Giacoman, a real feminist, who teaches at the Institute of Community and Public Health at Birzeit University which is located in, as Lancet describes it, "Occupied Palestinian territory."

In 2002, in an updated version of her book The Price of Honor, British-American (and anti-Zionist) journalist Jan Goodwin claims that the Israeli military policies of self-defense have emasculated Palestinian men. Curfews keep grandiose, woman-hating, and honor- and shame-reared men at home for long hours. Based on anecdotal evidence, Goodwin believes that such men take their considerable frustrations out on women and children. Here, Goodwin quotes Suha Sabbagh, who says that the "Palestinian male, a father, the authority figure in the house, has lost all his authority." Goodwin dwells on the systematic "humiliation" of the Palestinian man by the Israelis. She writes: "Much of this belittling has taken place in front of their children and womenfolk," which in turn has "cut down" the image of the Palestinian man as the family's "hero" figure. "For Arab men, this is the same as losing their masculinity."

And here Goodwin, like so many other feminists, contradicts herself. Arab and Muslim overly vigilant paternal authority is precisely what has brutalized Arab and Muslim women. In 1992, Jean Sasson published Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia ^[9]. The unnamed al-Saud princess (whose story Sasson tells), describes the typically cruel way in which fathers, brothers, and husbands treat their "womenfolk." Let me quote her: "The authority of a Saudi male is unlimited; his wife and children survive only if he desires. In our homes, he is the state…From an early age, the male child is taught that women are of little value…the child witnesses the disdain shown his mother and sisters by his father; this leads to his scorn of all females…[the] women in my land are ignored by their fathers, scorned by their brothers, and abused by their husbands."

Iranian-Swiss Carmen bin Laden, in her book Inside the Kingdom ^[10], portrays life for women under Saudi male rule similarly. Women cannot go out without a male escort and they cannot leave the house or the county without male permission and accompaniment. A daughter can be married against her will, a father can seize custody of his children and not allow their mother to ever see them again. Bin Laden writes: "I rarely met a Saudi woman who was not afraid of her husband…A wife cannot do anything without her husband's permission. She cannot go out, cannot study, often cannot even eat at his table. Women in Saudi Arabia must live in obedience, in isolation, and in the fear that they may be cast out and summarily divorced."

Saudi Arabia has not been "settled," "colonized," or "humiliated," by Israelis.

Jordan has not been "settled," "colonized," "occupied," or "humiliated" by Israel. And yet, Jordan has a high rate of honor killing. According to Elaine Sheeley, in her 2007 book Reclaiming Honor in Jordan ^[11], nineteen to one hundred honor killings take place in Jordan each year. Based on another author's use of United Nations statistics, Sheeley also cites a much larger number of honor killings in Jordan, Gaza, and the West Bank. (I am not sure how they came to this figure or if it is at all accurate but the number given is 2,550 per year).

Due to the Bedouin leadership, honor killing is rampant in Jordan; the police jail the intended victims (for their safety) rather than the potential perpetrators; and even the King dare not sign into law serious sentencing consequences for an honor killing. Judges are allowed to use their discretion in sentencing and sentences are very light.

Egypt is not colonized by Israel, and yet serious violence against women is common there. This includes female genital mutilation, wife-beating, daughter-beating, forced marriages—and, with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, the forced veiling of previously modern women.

More at Lancet Study Blames Palestinian Wife-Beating on Israel

Palestinian Authority has become an obstacle to peace.

2010-01-27T18:42:00.000Z

This Palestinian view reveals more than it intended to. It should be clear now to all fair minded people that Palestinian obstructionism is preventing the renewal of the peace process. Earlier, the Palestinian Maan news service reported that Palestinians had added what seems to be an impossible precondition to renewal of negotiations. Israel must agree to withdraw from all territories conquered in the Six day war. If that is a precondition, then presumably the negotiations are about what part of Tel Aviv the Palestinians want.

According to the Ma'an article:

The aide, Nimer Hammad, told Ma'an that Abbas asked that Israel commit to a real settlement freeze even for a limited period of time. His second request was that negotiations be based on the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and a full withdrawal to those armistice lines.

Ami Isseroff

U.S. Pressures Abbas on Peace Talks, Official Says
Saud Abu Ramadan, Gwen Ackerman
Bloomberg
January 26, 2010 - 12:00am

The U.S. is putting pressure on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to resume peace talks with Israel while avoiding confrontation with the Jewish state, a senior Palestinian official said.

"Washington, along with the international community, is pressuring the Palestinians without obliging Israel to stop settlement construction," Nabil Shaath, a member of the decision-making Central Committee of Abbas's Fatah party, said today in an e-mailed statement.

Palestinians broke off the last round of Middle East peace talks at the end of 2008 to protest Israel's military action in the Gaza Strip. Abbas says he won't resume negotiations unless Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu freezes all settlement construction in the West Bank.

Failure to solve the conflict with the Palestinians is a bigger threat for Israel than the Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said today at a Tel Aviv conference. "The lack of an answer to the problem of drawing borders in the historic Land of Israel -- and not an Iranian bomb -- is the most serious threat to Israel's future," Barak said, in remarks broadcast on Israel Army Radio.

U.S. envoy George Mitchell met separately with Abbas and Netanyahu last week in his latest attempt to get the two back to the negotiating table. Netanyahu has declared a partial 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement-building and has been urging Abbas to return to peace talks. The U.S. has welcomed the move, easing its previous demands for a complete halt to construction.

'Leadership is Firm'

Shaath, a former foreign minister for the Palestinian Authority, said that Abbas would not give in to the pressure.

"The Palestinian leadership is firm in rejecting the U.S. and Israeli demands," Shaath said, adding that Abbas is currently traveling abroad to enlist support for his position. "The U.S. is not interested in a collision with Israel and that's why it is directing its pressure toward the Palestinians."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Jan. 18 after meeting in Berlin with Netanyahu that she also planned to press Abbas to grasp the offer of negotiations with Israel when she meets with him early next month.

"We need movement" in the peace process, Merkel said at a joint press briefing in Berlin today with Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Letter to a "Peace Activist"

2010-01-27T18:19:00.000Z

From Laurence Seef, who has inaugurated the Israel Proud Web Log

The Peace Activist

This letter was written in response to an article written by a self-proclaimed "peace activist".
I suggest reading this individual's article first at:gilasvirsky.com/godbliss.html to pick up the thread.

Dear Gila,

I stumbled onto your article "God Bliss" through a link from a website that recommended reading your article.
I read the article.

I also read about your commendable commitment, devotion and activities to bring peace into this troubled area. I respect all those who are concerned with making the world a better place and take the time and effort to do so, ultimately contributing to bringing about positive change for our generation and those to follow.

However, your article troubles me deeply, perhaps as deeply as your contempt for those who turn a blind eye to the hardships of the Palestinian populations in Gaza and the West Bank. It troubles me fivefold.

Firstly, unknown to many, there is a media war, a media "intifada" that does as much damage to Israel and the Jews, in Israel and abroad, as does Antisemitism, biased ignorant hate, war and bloodshed. I am certain that you do not intend contributing to the countless hate websites at worst, or anti-Israel sites that feed on disinformation published on the internet to swing public opinion.

We both know that "each small step counts", and that words are powerful and cause wars. I am thus personally very careful and selective with what I say and convey, no matter what my disposition or the subject.

While I respect open debate and freedom of speech, I take into account the "public opinion" you mention in your article. Yes, you want to make a change in Israeli society and I respect that. Yourpublicized website article addresses the entire public, which unfortunately addresses many outside of Israeli society. Now, you don't exactly hang out your dirty washing or publicize your relationship hitches, but rather work on them from within. Since there is no need to convert the converted, this leaves the "floaters" to swing and I dread thinking of the floating Mr. Smith who reads your article. The uncanny ease of hanging out dirty washing with little consideration of the impact and consequences, borders on masochism.

You might like me to qualify some of above, as I will do after each section. I can refer you to a number of online sources with direct links, but will suffice with adding headings for now, pending your response – "The Al-Dura Affair", "the Jenin Massacre", "Honestreporting", "Pallywood", to provide just a few.

Continued - Letter to a Peace Activist

Goldstone exposed

2010-01-27T15:42:00.000Z

A devastating critique. It is thorough. This is only a small part of it. Few have had the temerity to deal with the huge pile of verbiage and baseless criticism contained in the Goldstone report, and probably Goldstone is right, most people didn't even read the Klassik Komix version. It is enough for hard line critiques of Israel to know that it lambasts Israel, and it is enough for others to know that it makes unfair and impossible to substantiate accusations, especially the accusation that the Israeli government intended to harm civilians. Goldstone doesn't have the evidence to prove intent, or even to infer it.

Alan Dershowitz has provided a detailed, blow-by-blow analysis.

Ami Isseroff

Alan Dershowitz, THE CASE AGAINST THE GOLDSTONE REPORT: A STUDY IN EVIDENTIARY BIAS, 27/01/10

Goldstone continues to complain that no one has read his report. Dershowitz has. Unpublished essay published with his permission.

The Case Against the Goldstone Report: A Study in Evidentiary Bias

by Alan Dershowitz[1]

I. Introduction

The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements. It is worse than any report previously prepared by any other United Nations agency or human rights group. As Major General Avichai Mandelblit, the advocate general of the Israeli Defense Forces, aptly put it:

"I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League. We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional: It's a vicious lie."[2]

The Goldstone report is, to any fair reader, a shoddy piece of work, unworthy of serious consideration by people of good will, committed to the truth.

Most of the criticism and praise of the report has been based on its highly publicized and controversial conclusions, rather than on its methodology, analysis and substantive findings. The one statement Richard Goldstone has made, with which I agree, is that many of the report's most strident critics have probably not read the entire report. But it is also true, though I have not heard the report's biased author say this, that many of the report's most vocal defenders and advocates have also not read it.

It is not surprising that so few of the report's critics and supporters have actually made their way through its dense and repetitive texts. The version I originally read was 553 pages long plus appendices. There are 1223 footnotes, though many of its most critical statements are not well sourced. It is poorly written, obviously drafted by several different hands and without the benefit of a good overall editor. It is laden with internal inconsistencies, shoddy citations of authority, and overall poor craftsmanship. If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, this report lacks even the grace of a dromedary. Most of the commentary on the report, both pro and con, seems to be based on its somewhat sanitized summary and conclusion. Some of the worst mistakes are buried very deep in the report, many of the most serious ones toward the end.

Efforts are currently underway by supporters of the report to have governments, prosecutors, non-governmental organizations, religious groups and distinguished individuals sign on to the report, so as to give it the credibility it now lacks. No one should do so without reading the report in full—and without reading responsible criticisms (and defenses) of the report. I have read every word of the report and compared different sections. I have offered to debate Goldstone about its contents. He has refused, as he has generally refused to respond substantively to credible critics of the report. My offer to debate still stands. If he refuses, as I expect he will, let him at least respond to the serious legal, factual and moral criticisms contained in this study and others.[3] As the head of the mission and the report's most visible public defender, Goldstone has a public obligation to respond to responsible criticism, which to date, he has not done.

In the coming week, the Secretary-General of the United Nations will present a compilation of responses to the Goldstone Report.[4] I am submitting this analysis for inclusion.

The Israeli military will soon publish a detailed rebuttal to the Goldstone Report, providing photographic and other hard evidence that contradicts its most serious "findings." I am not in a position to deal with specific military issues. But I am in a position to consider and evaluate the evidentiary methodology employed by the Goldstone Report.

In this analysis, I will focus on the two central conclusions reached in the report. The first is that the real purpose of Operation Cast Lead was not to protect Israeli civilians from Hamas rockets, over eight thousand of which had struck Israel over a nine year period.[5] According to the report, Israel used the rocket attacks on its citizens as a pretext, an excuse, a cover for the real purpose of the operation, which was to target innocent Palestinian civilians—children, women, the elderly—for death. This criminal objective was explicitly decided upon by the highest levels of the Israeli government and military and constitutes a deliberate and willful war crime. The report found these serious charges "to be firmly based in fact" and had "no doubt" of their truth.[6]

In contrast, the Mission decided that Hamas was not guilty of deliberately and willfully using the civilian population as human shields. It found "no evidence" that Hamas fighters "engaged in combat in civilian dress," "no evidence" that "Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack," and no support for the claim that mosques were used to store weapons. [7]

As we will see, the report is demonstrably wrong about both of these critical conclusions. The hard evidence conclusively proves that the exact opposite is true, namely that:

Israel did not have a policy of targeting innocent civilians for death. Indeed the IDF went to unprecedented lengths to minimize civilian casualties; and

That Hamas did have a deliberate policy of having its combatants dress in civilian clothing, fire their rockets from densely populated areas, use civilians as human shields, and store weapons in mosques.

What is even more telling than its erroneous conclusions, however, is its deliberately skewed methodology,[8] particularly the manner in which it used and evaluated similar evidence very differently, depending on whether it favored the Hamas or Israeli side.

The evidentiary bias of the report should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the members of the Mission and statements they have made both before, during and after working on the report.[9] There were four members: A Pakistani woman, who was formerly Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders; an Irish man, who was formerly a Colonel in the Irish Defense Forces; a British woman, who is a professor at the London School of Economics; and a South African man, the former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The Pakistani member of the Mission, Hina Jilani, signed a letter (along with two other Mission members) before even being appointed stating that "The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core."[10] After the report was completed, she made statements indicating that victims must not only be listened to, but that it would be "very cruel to not give credence to their voices."[11] She did not mention that the "voices" of the Gaza witnesses were monitored and controlled by Hamas, since their testimony was televised, and that much of it was demonstrably false and contradicted by hard evidence.

The Irish member of the Mission, Col. Desmond Travers, refused to believe evidence that undercut Hamas' position even when it was on videotape and utterly uncontradicted. This is what he said about weapons being stored in Gaza mosques: "We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion….If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a [sic] many better places to store munitions."[12] Not only is there physical evidence that conclusively proves that mosques are a favorite place to store rockets and other weapons, but Hamas leaders boast of it.

The British member, Christine Chinkin, had already decided the case before hearing one bit of evidence. Here is what she said in a letter that bore her signature written before she was even appointed to the Mission: "The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence…. The killing of almost 800 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and more than 3,000 injuries, accompanied by the destruction of schools, mosques, houses, UN compounds and government buildings, which Israel has a responsibility to protect under the Fourth Geneva Convention, is not commensurate to the deaths caused by Hamas rocket fire….Israel's actions amount to aggression, not self-defence, not least because its assault on Gaza was unnecessary….As things stand, its invasion and bombardment of Gaza amounts to collective punishment of Gaza's 1.5m inhabitants contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law…. [T]he manner and scale of its [Israel's] operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law, notwithstanding the rocket attacks by Hamas."[13] Here is the curious manner in which Goldstone responded to claims Chinkin was biased: "This is not a judicial inquiry. If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she'd signed would have been a ground for disqualification."[14] If her bias would have been a ground for judicial disqualification, then surely her conclusions should not be credited by quasi-judicial bodies, such as the International Criminal Court, the U.N. Council on Human Rights and other governmental and non-governmental bodies.

Finally, the South African member, Richard Goldstone, insisted that the hearings in Gaza be televised, thereby assuring that all witnesses had to tow the Hamas party line or risk certain death. Goldstone also lied about the role Hamas played in escorting and presenting evidence to the Mission. Here is what Goldstone wrote about being escorted by Hamas: "I must, however, categorically deny the allegation that Hamas officials accompanied Members of the Fact Finding Mission at all, let alone 'at every stage of their visit to Gaza.' Reports to that effect are denial of truth, as I have already publically stated. I would have found this to be quite unacceptable."[15] The actual truth is quite different. According to an Associated Press article published on June 9, 2009, "Hamas security often accompanied his [Goldstone's] team during their five-day trip to Gaza last week, raising questions about the ability of witnesses to freely describe the militant group's actions."[16]

How could Goldstone possibly know who among those escorting him were affiliated with Hamas? The reality is that nothing significant takes place in Gaza without the approval of Hamas.

Richard Goldstone has acknowledged that he accepted the role of Chairman with a clear preconceived agenda. [17] He has told numerous Jewish friends and acquaintances that he agreed to take on the task in order to "help Israel." He believed that he would bring "balance" to the report. Whether his real motive was to help Israel or to accomplish some other goal, it is always disqualifying to come to a quasi-judicial fact finding function with a preconceived agenda. Sometimes it causes one to lean over backwards, sometimes forwards. But leaning in either direction is inconsistent with objectivity.

II. Goldstone: Israel Intentionally Kills Innocent Civilians

I begin with the Mission's most irresponsible criticism of Israel. At bottom the report accuses the Jewish state of having implemented a policy in Gaza that borders on genocide. It blames the civilian deaths that occurred during Operation Cast Lead not on the fog of war, not on the use of human shields by Hamas, not on the inevitability of civilian casualties when rockets are fired from densely populated urban areas, not even on the use of "disproportionate force" by Israel. Instead it blames the Palestinian civilian deaths on an explicit policy devised at the highest levels of the Israeli government and military, of killing as many Palestinian civilians as possible. It concludes that Operation Cast Lead was not designed to stop the rocket attacks on Israel's civilians—more than eight thousand over a nine year period.[18] Instead, the rocket attacks merely served as an excuse for the Israeli military to achieve its real purpose: namely the killing of Palestinian civilians. Lest there be any doubt that this is the accusation being made, read the words of the report itself:

"While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole."[19]

At other points in the report, the language "at least in part" is dropped. Instead the report concludes that Israel's "overall policy [was] aimed at punishing the Gaza population" and that its "force [was] aimed not at the enemy," but at "the civilian population."[20] It found that Israel was guilty of "the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians" and that the killings "are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions."[21] "[T]he Mission finds that the incident and patterns of events that are considered in this report have resulted from deliberate planning and policy decisions throughout the chain of command, down to the standard operating procedures and instructions given to the troops on the ground."[22] "[I]n every case the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians," and the report considered that "the civilian population as such" was "the object of attacks," rather than the collateral victims of military actions directed against combatants.[23]

These are among the most serious charges ever leveled by a United Nations organization against a member state. It accuses Israel of using Hamas rocket attacks against its civilians as an excuse—a cover—for a carefully planned and executed policy of deliberately targeting innocent civilians for mass murder. As philosophy professor Moshe Halbertal, a strong peace advocate and frequent critic of Israeli military actions (including during Operation Cast Lead), put it:

"Now, there is a huge moral difference between the accusation that Israel did not do enough to minimize collateral civilian death and the claim that Israel targeted civilians intentionally. It might well be that Israel should have done more than it did to minimize collateral deaths—it is a harsh enough claim, and it deserves a thorough examination. But the claim that Israel intentionally targeted civilians as a policy of war is false and slanderous."[24]

Even Israel's most vociferous domestic critics—The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and B'Tselem—acknowledge that "Israel did not have a policy of intentionally killing civilians…."[25] Jessica Montell, Executive Director of B'Tselem, wrote, "I was disturbed by the framing of Israel's military operation as part of 'an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience.' The facts presented in the report itself would not seem to support such a far-reaching conclusion."[26] While condemning the operation as disproportionate, or worse, these organizations did not cross the "huge moral" line—the line irresponsibly and mendaciously crossed by the Goldstone Report—of accusing Israel of intentionally targeting civilians for death. As the New York Times reported:

"[V]irtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B'Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct. 'I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack of civilian infrastructure,' said Yael Stein, research director of B'Tselem. 'It is not convincing.'"[27]

One would expect that before making so serious and unprecedented a charge, the report would present overwhelming direct evidence of such a policy. Israel is, after all, an open society with an aggressive investigative media, a strong independent judiciary, many dissenting voices, vigorous opposition parties, a vibrant peace movement and few secrets. Yet the report presents absolutely no hard evidence to support its serious accusations of a governmental policy of deliberately maximizing civilian deaths.

Indeed, much of the evidence cited in the report proves precisely the opposite—that Israel's policy was to minimize civilian deaths, while attacking those responsible for targeting Israeli civilians with rocket attacks. Moreover, it ignores massive amounts of evidence—some specifically offered to it, other publicly available in open sources—that prove beyond any doubt that the central conclusions of the report are demonstrably false.

Goldstone has himself acknowledged that there is no actual "evidence" that the report's conclusions are correct. Indeed, he has gone even further and admitted that "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." He has also said he would not be embarrassed "if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved" [28]—as it appears likely they will be, by photographic and other hard evidence.[29] Yet Israel's enemies cite the report as if it proved its charges beyond all doubt. That is because the report itself is written so as to suggest, quite falsely, that it had proved its case. For example:

"The Mission considers this position ["The operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at publishing the Gaza population…."] to be firmly based in fact…."[30]

"[T]he systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations."[31]

The reality is that the report's central conclusions—that Israel's policy was to maximize the deaths of civilians—is not "firmly based in fact." It is made up of whole cloth and contradicted by the evidence purportedly relied on by those who wrote the report. Moreover, it is disproved by public record evidence deliberately ignored by the report.[32]

The report relies on five categories of evidence that purport to prove that Israel's true intention was not to defend its civilians against Hamas rocket attacks, but rather to maximize the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. These categories are: statements of military leaders; statements of political officials; the nature of Israeli weaponry; the number of civilian casualties; and the fact that the IDF deliberately attacked food supplies and non-human civilian targets, such as a wastewater plant.

The first category consists of statements—generally quoted with little or no context—made by Israeli military leaders before the beginning of Operation Cast Lead. These include the following:

"In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighborhood of that name. Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine:

What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved."

"After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a number of senior former military figures appeared to develop the thinking that underlay the strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah but 'the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure and intense suffering among the population… Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah's behavior more than anything else.'"

"These thoughts, published in October 2008 were preceded by one month by the reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:

With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate[33] to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite… In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah's military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. Such a response will create a lasting memory among … Lebanese decision makers, thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programmes…

This approach is applicable to the Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy."[34]

These polemic snippets—calculated to deter Hezbollah and Hamas from firing rockets at Israeli civilians—were selected from thousands of statements made over the years by IDF officers. Even so, not a single one of them—nor any statement quoted in the entire report—calls for the maximization of Palestinian civilian deaths, or for the specific targeting of Palestinian civilians. They specifically exclude targeting civilians for death from the list of appropriate punitive actions, such as damage to "national infrastructure," the "elimination of the Lebanese military" and generic "suffering of hundreds of thousands of people." Civilians always suffer from military actions, and even from lesser sanctions. For example, on December 11, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that sanctions against Iran would be intended "to persuade the Iranian government that they would actually be less secure with nuclear weapons" because "their people will suffer enormously" from sanction.[35] Surly such a statement could not be used to prove that the United States intends to kill Iranian civilians.

The so-called "Dahiya doctrine" of responding to rocket attacks with disproportionate force intended to destroy infrastructure says nothing about specifically targeting civilians for death. To the contrary, the quoted material says that "punishment must be aimed at the decision makers," referring to those who make the decision to allow the rockets to be fired, and to "civilian power that supports" the terrorist organization, namely Hamas. Ordinary people, civilians, are not mentioned. Their exclusion is significant. Yet the report misused this doctrine and these quotes to try to prove that the object of Operation Cast Lead was the killing of civilians.

The report itself admits that it does not know "whether Israeli military officials were directly influenced by these writings."[36] But it reaches the conclusion that "what is prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice."[37] Yes! The destruction of physical infrastructure. Not the targeting of civilians. Indeed, what was "put into practice" was a policy of warning civilians by phone, emails, leaflets and other means. As we shall see, Israel went to great lengths to protect civilians, not to attack them.

Instead of looking to the hard evidence that is completely inconsistent with any Israeli policy of targeting civilians and maximizing civilian deaths, the report focused on selective statements of Israeli leaders made before Operation Cast Lead and calculated to deter rocket attacks by threatening a disproportionate response.

It is more than ironic that the same report refused to credit much more specific statements made by Hamas leaders before Operation Cast Lead. On February 29, 2008, Fathi Hammad, a leading Hamas legislator, made the following statement:

"For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'"[38]

The report quoted this statement and then chose to ignore it. This is what it said:

"Although the Mission finds this statement morally repugnant, it does not consider it to constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack."[39]

Nor apparently did it consider it in any way relevant to whether Palestinian civilians willingly allowed themselves to be used as human shields—or even as to whether the IDF might reasonably have believed it to be relevant when they planned the operation.

In contrast to this dismissive attitude toward this and other specific and bellicose statements[40] and threats of Hamas political leaders, the report attributed considerable weight to vague and general statements made by Israeli political officials during and after Operation Cast Lead. It focused particularly on one statement made by Tzipi Livni who was then Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs. On January 13, 2009, Livni said, "We have proven to Hamas that we have changed the equation. Israel is not a country upon which you fire missiles and it does not respond. It is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild—and this is a good thing."[41]

The report also quotes Eli Yishai, then Minster of Industry, Trade and Labour. Yishai said on January 6, 2009,

"It [should be] possible to destroy Gaza, so they will understand not to mess with us…it is a great opportunity to demolish thousands of houses of all the terrorists, so they will think twice before they launch rockets. I hope the operation will come to an end with great achievements and with the complete destruction of terrorism and Hamas. In my opinion, they should be razed to the ground, so thousands of houses, tunnels, and industries will be demolished….[T]he operation will continue until a total destruction of Hamas."[42] The report quotes Yishai as saying on February 2, 2009, "Even if the rockets fall in an open air or to the sea, we should hit their infrastructure, and destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired."[43]

With these quotes in hand the report concludes, "Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy."[44] There is an argument, albeit a very weak one, that these quotes suggest an unlawful policy of disproportionate destruction of property. This argument is weak because the use of the word "disproportionate" quoted on page 9 supra does not constitute an admission that unlawfully disproportionate force would be employed under the standards of international law. Under international law, the harm collaterally inflicted on civilians must not be disproportionate to the military objective.[45] But there is no prohibition against using overwhelming—that is disproportionate —military force against a legitimate military object.[46] Israel had a perfect right to kill every single Hamas fighter, even if that number was in the thousands, in order to stop the rockets from endangering millions of Israeli civilians. The fact that 8,000 Hamas rockets succeeded in killing only a dozen or so Israelis, does not require Israel to limit the number of Hamas combatants killed. Reading the quote on page 8 does not suggest that the speaker was urging disproportionate civilian casualties but rather he was urging military force greater than and disproportionate to the number of Israelis killed by to the rockets that were being fired at Israeli civilians. This is perfectly lawful under international law. If proportionality were required in relation to military targets, it would be impossible for countries like the United States to employ its overwhelming military weapons—drones, tomahawk missiles, stealth bombers—against terrorists, who are poorly equipped but determined to kill.

To argue, moreover, that these polemical statements directed against property and terrorists conclusively prove a "deliberate policy" of "violence against civilians" is simply absurd. Livni suggests that Israel will "go wild" on Hamas in order to restore deterrence, and nowhere suggests civilians will be targeted. Yishai says he wants to "destroy Gaza," but quickly clarifies that this means "complete destruction of terrorism and Hamas," a legitimate military objective. The report concludes that Yishai's quote regarding destruction of homes may suggest "reprisals against civilians … contrary to international humanitarian law."[47] Unsurprisingly, the report omits that in this same speech Yishai clarifies that homes destroyed will be "terrorists' homes while informing them in advance —so as not to hurt the family members."[48] This deliberate omission is particularly disturbing, since it is directly relevant to the report's most damning condemnation of Israel, and the omitted portion of the quote undercuts the report's conclusion. One can be extremely critical of some of the statements quoted in the report without using them as a basis for the non-sequitur argument that they prove an intent to do what they pointedly do not advocate: namely the deliberate killing of babies, innocent women and other civilians.

Continued here: The case against the Goldstone Report

Arab reformist view of American Middle East policy

2010-01-27T13:53:00.000Z

A trenchant and cogent analysis of the problems of US Middle East policy. This is an important point to understand:

And finally, and most important in many ways, a freedom gap that has so far frustrated every attempt at peacemaking in the region, because the dividends of peace hold more promise for the peoples of the region than most of their ruling corrupt and authoritarian regimes.

But the Arab states and the Arab public have to understand, along with the US, that the US has to deal with the Middle East as it is. If it doesn't solicit good relations with undemocratic regimes, that doesn't leave the US many potential friends in this part of the world. If the Arabs want democracy and development, it is up to them to make the effort. Democracy cannot be imposed from outside, as Arabs were reminding the United States only a few years ago, when the Bush administration was trying to do just that.

There may, unfortunately be a way out for America - it may be forced out of the Middle East by Iran.

Ami Isseroff

For America there is no way out
By Ammar Abdulhamid
Commentary by
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Despite occasional calibrations reflecting changes in administration, the policy of the United States toward the broader Middle East and North Africa region remains highly influenced by a set of misperceptions and ideological stances more related to American domestic politics than to regional realities. This situation has constantly undermined Washington's efforts and, occasionally, its desire to play a positive role in the region, serving to transform the US into a convenient scapegoat upon which ruling regimes heap blame for all regional woes.

To further complicate matters, the misperceptions involved have long become indigenous to both US political parties, where persistent bickering serves to make officials and experts impervious to serious criticism and, consequently, unable to conduct any serious course correction. Indeed, the various actors involved in formulating American foreign policy have grown too addicted to scoring points in an ongoing ideological battle than in trying to keep up with the continuously shifting realities on the ground in the Middle East.

This tendency has served to make US foreign policy highly reactive, episodic, disconnected, and subject to manipulation by outside parties whose interests and approaches often do not coincide with those of the US. Through misinformation campaigns and intensive lobbying that plays and preys on the ideological differences between the groups making or influencing policy in Washington, American friends and foes alike have, in effect, undermined Washington's ability to chart a course of action in the region that is truly commensurate with its interests.

A kind of willful blindness that has become all too prevalent in certain quarters is making the situation even more desperate. It is shifting the regional focus of the US constantly from the peace process, to the war on terror, to democracy promotion, to Iran's nuclear challenge, to calls for open engagement and promises of development aid, to thoughts of gradual disengagement from the region, at least on the micro-level. Each one of these approaches has been hailed as the key to solving, if not the region's problems per se, then, at least, American problems in the region.

Yet this reductionism contrasts sharply with the approach favored by America's friends and foes in the region, all of whom tend to operate on a multi-track basis. Successive governments in Israel, for instance, have for the last two decades continuously affirmed their commitment to the peace process, while simultaneously engaging in activities to undermine it, including the expansion of settlements, collective punishment, and the cutting off humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians.

The Syrian regime has also perfected this fine art of stonewalling with its talk about peace and security on the one hand, and its ongoing support for all sorts of terrorist groups undermining the stability of Syria's neighbors on the other.

Such behavior, by Israel, Syria, or any other regional state, which might appear contradictory at first, has, nonetheless, proven quite effective over the years in enabling the players involved in exacting concessions and creating new facts on the ground that better serve their perceived interests. Meanwhile, the US continues to pursue a single-minded path, then another, and another, before lapsing into whimsical ideas of regional disengagement like a bumbling behemoth.

But the US will not be able to maneuver its way out of this situation by turning is back on a region actively engaged in exporting its turmoil to the world. There is no exit for the US from the region, and attempts at macro-managing the region's transition cannot take place in the absence of a micro-understanding of its shifting realities. America's real challenge, then, is to figure out a role for itself commensurate with its long-term strategic interests, rather than scurrying for an imaginary way out.

Success in this regard, however, requires serious reevaluation of America's basic assumptions about the very issues behind its current involvement, especially the following:

First, the war on terror, where the

US focus on military solutions and security alliances with authoritarian regimes has played right into the hands of the terrorists and the corrupt regimes that support them;

Second, the Arab-Israeli conflict, that has recently evolved into a regional struggle for realignment involving Iran and Turkey, and to a lesser extent India and Pakistan, and where Arab regimes and non-state actors are becoming more clients than serious decision-makers;

Third, the Iranian nuclear challenge, where every diplomatic maneuver and threat of economic sanctions or military strikes seems to bring closer, rather than delay or rule out, the specter of a regional nuclear arms race;

Fourth, a developmental gap that has affected even the supposedly rich and stable monarchies of the region, that is when one is willing to look beyond the façade of fantastical projects;

Until the US formulates a vision for its role in the region based on an objective assessment of realities on the ground, rather than the ideological ramblings of "experts" from the left and the right, and until it develops a real multi-track strategy that seeks to simultaneously address each of the challenges highlighted earlier, American involvement in the region will continue to be disastrous, no matter who is in charge in the White House.

Ammar Abdulhamid, the founder and director of the Tharwa Foundation, is a Syrian author and human rights and democracy activist who is currently based in Washington DC. He enjoys a global reputation as an outspoken advocate for social and political change in the broader Middle East and North Africa. The current article is part of a series advocating the revamping of US foreign policy in the region. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.