Saturday, June 30, 2012

Yachad - very much on their own

Yachad - very much on their own

Yachad, very much on their own
On 19th June 2012 a few of us from the Jewish Defence League attended a conference arranged by Yachad, which was advertised here on their website:

The organisation Yachad claims to be a pro-Israel group, but a brief perusal on their site shows they are anything but. Essentially Yachad has been created by what we refer to as Self-Hating Israel-Threatening "Jews" (kapos really).

Our aim was to expose their lies and deceit. Despite their eloquence these thinly veiled leftists are only able to fool the historically illiterate or the ideologically driven. And when challenged with the truth, they stutter, hesitate and finally fail to reply in a coherent manner. See the videos below.

The way Yachad covertly forward their aim is by constantly "debating" issues that should not even be debated. Let's be serious, why debate if Israel should be criticised? Why debate if Jerusalem should be divided? Their "debates" are provocations and a means to make money by charging people to come and attend such hatefests.

Why don't they debate whether Palestine Fakestine history and identity should be questioned? Or why Arabs can live in Israel without fear and Jews cannot live in any Islamic country? Why don't they debate the fact Jews cannot vote in Gaza but Muslims can vote in Israel? There are many issues to choose from but Yachad deliberately chooses the issues which plainly set Israel up as the aggressor.
When we challenged their stance on Israel, they accused us of "spoiling" the conference (?) and unsurprisingly the audience was with them. You may judge for yourselves with the video we filmed, and another film being done by a Norwegian film crew which was following us. This will also be featured in a Counter-Jihad TV documentary later this year. Watch this space...

Regardless, the event consisted of Yachad's own short film regarding the problem of land claims and counter-claims in and around Jerusalem called My Neighbourhood, produced by Nadav Greenberg. However, when later questioned, quite amazingly, his attempts to justify his film along with those of his colleague, Daniel Seidmann, were even worse than the film itself. In short, these people weren't there to inform, they were there to preach to the 'converted'. Daniel Seidmann calls Israeli land as Palestine Fakestine and even went as far as to refer to the "Settlers" as "The worst thing Israel ever had". This outraged another one of our members who spoke out to express his disgust. 

The film "My neighbourhood", this 25 min work of fiction, operated according to the standard leftist narrative regarding the Israel-Arab conflict, and 'proved' once again that Israelis can do no right and Arabs can do no wrong. Any crimes committed by Arabs were overlooked, and history was distorted to the point that any action committed by Israel was portrayed as aggressive and totally without reason.
In order to make their case, in one segment aPalestinian fakestinian boy is shown complaining that the Israelis removed his family from their home, while blatantly ignoring the invasion and ethnic cleansing in 1929 by Arabs (Hebron being the most famous example) and by Jordan in 1948.

Nadav Greenberg the film maker, also deliberately chose not to inform the audience that Jews were simply re-claiming their own homes in Jerusalem, which were stolen by Muslim Arabs (prior to the creation of Jordan) during their riots of 1929 and 1936. In the final war of 1967, Jews won against the Arab invaders thus began the long legal battle to discover who owned what and what rights each owner and/or occupant possessed. Today, using the law courts to bring these cases are suitably called 'lawfare', and tomorrow in Bet El, 30 Jewish familes are being removed from their homes in what many are saying is based on evidence which, if presented to any other court in the world, would have been thrown out. But not in Israel, where many supreme court justices have connections to the NIF (New Israel Fund, more on that in a minute).

This incredibly important part of history and the attempts to resolve these issues was left out of the documentary so that the audience would see Israelis as simply having marched into Jerusalem, taking control of the territory and then deciding which houses they'd like (using the courts, to make it look legitimate, of course).
Jerusalem 1948 - A Jordanian Soldier Oversees
The Evacuation of Jews From Their Properties
This intentional distortion of the truth would be sickening were it not for the fact that by now the left's tactics bore us to tears.

If the situation was not so serious we could simply dismiss these efforts. But we cannot. There are no words to describe the contempt that Yachad and these like-minded organisations deserve.

The indisputable facts here are that these people are working against Israel and Jewish interests, do not represent a single Jew I know, and are more interested in placing the blame of the Israeli -Palestinian Fakestinian conflict solely on the Israeli side. 

Back in October 2011 Richard Millett's blog had an article addressing Yachad's pro-Palestinian stance on the following question Should Israel's friends be critical of her conduct?
And another one in November, headed Halloween horror for Israel as Yachad appears on Campus.
CiF Watch also wrote: Yachad how much of the UK Jewish left possess contempt for Israeli democracyArutz Sheva has the following about Yachad Activist: London anti-Lieberman Protest Boomerangs on the Left

Yachad is not interested in an informed, democratic debate. It is interested only in framing this issue in a certain light, and only interested in hearing the 'inevitable' conclusion from this demagoguery.

It is difficult to overstate Yachad's criminal actions here. Yachad is not only about being against Israel but also lends itself to jihad. Previously, we have written about the importance of migrationin preparation for jihad in Islam.

Yachad has upset many people in the community, therefore given the importance of this issue we decided to take this to the International Counter-Jihad arena (where the Norwegian documentary will be shown), where other Jews and Righteous Gentiles will see what Yachad gets up to behind closed doors.

With all this, it may not surprise anyone to learn that Yachad is funded by the NIF - New Israel Fund - a group funded by George Soros. Soros is infamous for having been widely acknowledged to have broken the British currency in 1992, brought about revolutions, destabilised many countries and kick-started the Asian economic crash of the late '90s, by trying to bring down Thailand's currency, the Bhat. George Soros' comment when asked about the 2008 world economic crash? A culmination of his life's work.

However, when challenging Yachad director Hannah Weisfeld about the Soros-link she pretended not to know. However, the following screen-grab provides sufficient evidence.

As you can see, the NIF is funding Yachad.

Here is an article from Ha'aretz that alludes to Yachad's Hannah Weisfeld being cosy with NIF.

From the above article: 

"One Friday morning two weeks ago, the great and good of Britain's Jewish establishment converged on a London hotel for the Israeli Embassy's annual Independence Day bash. Meanwhile, across town, Hannah Weisfeld - the director of the young "pro-Israel, pro-peace" Jewish organization Yachad – was sitting down with an executive from the New Israel Fund for breakfast." 

Thanks to the efforts of others, Yachad has been exposed for what it really is and even though it has been around for some years, possesses less than 500 "likes" on their facebook page. Even still, those who have "liked" the page certainly haven't kept their displeasure to themselves, as this next screen grab shows.

This is a photo of this same conference at the Hampstead  Synagogue where a certain Shmuel Weisfeld expresses his disgust towards Yachad.

Since the photo is small here is what Mr. Shmuel Weisfeld said:

Shmuel Weisfeld 
it would be so much more powerful, and more respectful, if you would "discuss" the "future" of Jerusalem, in Jerusalem with those of us that live here, pay taxes, go to the army and actually have to live with any results said discussion may have. you actually do not have any idea how offensive this is to the people that live here. It is quite extraordinary how you have deeply alienated and offended the very people whose future you say you care for. you carry on as if you have no concern for the sentiments of population of this country, as if you "know" whats best. if you could only catch for a second what is like for us being on the receiving end of you i have no doubt your tactics would not be received as a slap in the face of contempt and egotistical indignation but actually be received as an act of genuine concern as you try to convey but so painfully fail."

There are no further depths to which these people can stoop. Yachad like to portray themselves as a grass roots organisation. They are not.

They enjoy no popular support at any level, and the only reason they continue to exist is because of billionaires such as George Soros who continue to fund their lobbying efforts on public opinion and assault Israeli victim's rights through Israel's corrupt supreme court.

Yachad exists to 'correct' public opinion, not represent it. It seeks to persuade the Jewish community that what they feel is wrong, and that only Yachad's propaganda events provide the solution. Unfortunately for them, they are not preaching to an uninformed community. A great many Jews know all too well what is really going on in Israel (and speaking to some of the elderly in our community, some would have even fought in WWII and in the '48 war for liberation).

In addition, most Jews know that they don't need to attend a Yachad event to see Israel maligned, they can watch that nightly on the news in their own homes.

Considering the NIF's resources and power, our only hope is to spread the word about the tactics of NGOs such as Yachad, and make them political issues (much like the Islamic veil) which our politicians will no longer be able to ignore. Only then will they be forced to confront the NIF, Yachad, and other subversive NGOs which already yield far too much power.

Please share these articles.

G-d and truth are on our side. 

See the videos here:

1. Exposing Yachad Part 1

2. Exposing Yachad Part 2

3. Exposing Yachad Part 3

4. Exposing Yachad - Part 4


If At First You Don't Succeed...

If At First You Don't Succeed...

by Jonathan Schanzer

The Palestinians may appeal to the United Nations for statehood. Again.
That was the message out of Ramallah on Sunday, June 24, when Fatah, the dominant Palestinian faction in the West Bank, concluded a meeting of its congress.
If you listened closely, you might have heard a collective head slap halfway around the world at Foggy Bottom. The U.S. State Department fought hard last year to derail this very process at the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting in Manhattan. The Palestinians delivered their request, but failed to garner enough support in the Security Council, thanks to heavy U.S. and Canadian lobbying. U.S. diplomats then prevailed upon the Palestinians to shelve their application for nonmember observer status, which would have granted them some of the rights afforded to sovereign states, including the ability to sue the Israelis for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The Palestinians backed down last year. This year, they may not take no for an answer.
Although deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak once single-handedly reined in Palestinian adventurism and prodded Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas back to the negotiating table, his successor, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi, may not follow suit. To put it mildly, encouraging diplomacy with the Israelis has never been part of the Brotherhood's platform.
Even if the military retains full control of foreign policy in Egypt (a likely scenario for the foreseeable future), it is still doubtful that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will stand in the way of the Palestinian statehood campaign. Indeed, it's doubtful that any Arab state will. With the Arab Spring in full bloom, regional supporters of Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy have long since scurried for cover.
Abbas now cites Israeli settlement activity as the reason he refuses to negotiate. It was never a red line for him in the past, but it's now a convenient formula for him that can't lose. Palestinians support it. And you hear no complaints from the region, where anti-Israel rhetoric is growing increasingly strident.
According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the PLO, which is leading the charge to Turtle Bay, is now following the lead of a different regional player: Qatar. In late March, Erekat announced that the Palestinian leadership had reached an agreement with Doha to try again at the U.N. Other Palestinian insiders confirm that the Qataris are leading the charge, and one former official says they're even funding the legal effort for the PLO, producing analysis on the costs and benefits of the statehood initiative.
Throughout the spring, in one way or another, Palestinian officials affirmed this new, yet familiar strategy. For example, Abbas told Tunisian representatives as much in late April, and an unnamed Palestinian official echoed the same sentiments to Xinhua in May. Citing this anonymous source, the Chinese news agency reported that Abbas was "drumming up support for another battle in the United Nations to get a recognition of an independent Palestinian state."
Behind the scenes, the Palestinians have even tried to lay a foundation for the coming showdown in September. Hillary Zaken of the Times of Israel first reported that Abbas was angling to use the U.N.'s Rio+20 conference on sustainable development, held June 20 to 22 in Brazil, "to advance the PA's status in the eyes of the international community." Indeed, Abbas wanted Palestine to be identified as nothing less than a state at the conference, despite the fact that the U.N. had not yet done so. The Palestinian ambassador to Brazil, Ibrahim Alzeben, later admitted that he was angling for "full-status participation," while Israel, the United States, and Canada were reportedly fighting this on the sidelines, and apparently prevailed.
Similarly, in early June, the same three countries cried foul when Palestinian U.N. observer Riyad Mansour was treated as a representative of a state during a meeting of signatories to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. As the U.N.'s online summary account notes, the Canadian delegation protested where the Palestinian observer was seated, noting that it "did not recognize a Palestinian State" and that the seating arrangement "might create a 'misleading impression.'"
The Palestinians, notwithstanding such resistance from the Great White North, actually have broad international support for their initiative. The PLO's Negotiations Affairs Department claims that 128 countriesback the notion of a Palestinian state, and the number could be as high as 140. Either way, this is enough support at the General Assembly, in the words of Abbas during a recent trip to Paris, "to obtain the status of nonmember state, as is the case for the Vatican."
But Abbas will need to weigh this international support against the wall of resistance he's getting from Washington. In an interview with the Saudi Okaz newspaper, Erekat said that U.S. President Barack Obama's administration was threatening to suspend aid and close down the PLO mission in Washington if the Palestinians returned to the U.N.
Obama cannot afford to stand back and watch the Palestinians play for statehood as he campaigns for his reelection. If the Palestinians make it across the finish line at the General Assembly, Obama's domestic critics will charge that he threw Israel under the bus.
According to Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, the Obama administration has instructed the Palestinians to sit tight until after the presidential election. Abbas has since expressed unease about going back to the U.N. before November. But he also has his own considerations at home, where he's under fire on a few fronts.
For one, his spat with the rival Hamas faction is deeply unpopular. While Abbas continues to pay lip service to reconciliation with the Islamist group that overran Gaza in 2007, most Palestinians realize that the likelihood of a unity government is next to nil. With the Muslim Brotherhood having won the Egyptian presidency, Hamas (a Brotherhood splinter) believes it has gained more leverage, and it is therefore even less likely to compromise with Abbas on the terms of a unity government.
No less important a factor is Abbas's witch hunt for his political foes. In the past few months, he has gone after longtime allies of former Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat, including Mohammad Dahlan and Mohammed Rashid, charging them with corruption. Abbas's enemies have fired back, alleging that Abbas is himself guilty of wrongdoing, ranging from maintaining illicit slush funds in Jordan to illegally influencing the Palestinian judiciary. With accusations flying on a daily basis, Abbas has found himself knee-deep in muck of his own creation.
It may be months before things quiet down. In the meantime, Abbas knows he has to do something to shore up his leadership. Even if he escapes judgment on corruption, he is now -- in the midst of the Arab Spring -- already long past his legitimate presidential term, which officially expired in January 2009. He knows that Arab populations continue to challenge their leaders over political and economic stagnation. He can always blame Israel for the woes of the Palestinian people, but the argument only goes so far.
Abbas, now 77, smokes more than a pack of cigarettes a day, and he is keenly aware of the passing of time. He has failed to deliver peace. He has failed to deliver unity. Statehood may be his last opportunity to leave any meaningful legacy.
September may be his moment. Again. But it may also be the moment where Washington blocks him. Again.

(Video) Hamas Minister Fathi Hammad, "From this place, I bring you glad tidings ...

(Video) Hamas Minister Fathi Hammad, "From this place, I bring you glad tidings ...

28 June '12..

The video below is from footage of a Gaza police academy graduation ceremony, in which Hamas Minister of the Interior and of National Security Fathi Hammad delivered an address. The footage aired on Al-Aqsa TV on June 13, 2012.

Published on Jun 25, 2012 by 

Adam Kredo at The Washington Free Beacon sums it up quite adequately with the following:

Hammad’s remarks, which are routinely echoed by Hamas officials, provide context for the currently stalled peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.

The formulation of a stable new governing coalition in Israel led American leaders and some liberal Jewish groups to demand that Israel return to the bargaining table. A major demand from the Israelis is that the Palestinian government be able to allay security concerns when its own police forces assume solitary control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Hammad’s comments, however, indicate that these security forces are being trained to view Israel as a perpetual enemy that must be annihilated.

You think?

Moshe Ya'alon: Strategic thinker and leader

Moshe Ya'alon: Strategic thinker and leader


Candidly Speaking: Ya’alon is perhaps the most understated minister in the government and is considered a highly untypical Israeli leader.

A recent interview by journalist Ari Shavit with former IDF chief of staff, now vice premier, Moshe Ya’alon, provides a fascinating insight into the thinking of one of Israel’s most sophisticated political leaders and covers the crucial challenges facing the nation. It deserves to be widely read.

Ironically, the extensive interview was published in the weekend magazine of Haaretz, the Israeli daily notorious for promoting the very views which Ya’alon’s interview devastatingly demolishes.

Coincidentally, precisely seven years ago I devoted a column to Ya’alon, describing him as one of the most adroit strategic thinkers to have headed the IDF. He was then accused of being disgruntled and embittered after his premature termination as chief of staff by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon in response to his fierce opposition to the withdrawal from Gaza – for which he was subsequently totally vindicated.

Ya’alon was retired in the wake of his successful military response to terror which demonstrated that, contrary to the mantras invoked by the bleeding-heart leftists, resolute military action can significantly neutralize terrorism. He was also proactive when he instituted dual-track initiatives of targeted assassinations and construction of the security fence, the combination of which effectively brought an end to the second intifada.

In my earlier column, I expressed frustration and anger that, in a country facing existential threats from its neighbors, a retiring chief of staff’s explicit warnings of disastrous repercussions arising from the policies of prime minister Ariel Sharon had been totally ignored by the government and opposition. Regrettably, his predictions were subsequently basically realized.

Although highly politically incorrect at the time, Ya’alon also asserted that Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasser Arafat were birds of a feather. Far from being peace partners, he insisted that they were primarily committed to ending Jewish sovereignty in the region.

He furthermore predicted that the Arab “right of return,” which other Israeli leaders contended was merely a PA negotiating ploy, was set in stone and would remain a cornerstone of the intransigent Palestinian demands.

He also warned of impending missile attacks directed toward Israel’s civilians unless the government took steps to enforce tougher deterrence.

Vice-Premier Ya’alon is certainly not typical of contemporary right-wing activists. He is a follower of Ben- Gurion rather than Jabotinsky. He is a kibbutznik with a Labor background who displays traditionally liberal approaches in relation to most social, religious and economic issues. Yet while not religiously observant, he enthusiastically endorsed Jewish heritage educational programs designed to promote national consciousness in the IDF.

This new interview provides fascinating insights into Ya’alon’s view of the current imbroglio and reaffirms his primacy as a profound strategic thinker in relation to Israel’s external military threats.

A major component is devoted to the Iranian nuclear threat. Ya’alon stresses that we must not, under any circumstances, stand by and enable “the apocalyptic-messianic regime of the ayatollahs” to obtain the bomb. Although hopeful that Israel will not be obliged to go it alone, Ya’alon insists that “we are not bluffing” and that despite the likelihood of considerable Israel casualties should armed conflict ensue, it is unquestionably preferable for us to bomb rather than to be bombed.

He points out that the IDF has the ability to hit the Iranian surrogate Hezbollah with 150 times the explosive power they could direct against us, which should make the Lebanese government weigh the consequences if they enable missiles to be launched against Israel from their territory.

Ya’alon also articulates what few other Israeli leaders are willing to say publicly. “I was ready to divide the land but they are not... because they say ‘either them or us,’ I say ‘us’... as long as the other side is not ready to recognize our right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, I am not ready to forgo a millimeter. I am not even willing to talk about territory. After land-for- peace became land-for-terror and land-for-rockets, I am no longer willing to bury my head in the sand.”

He adds, “One of our biggest problems is that we have become solution-oriented and expect a solution now.... We need to look not for a solution but for a path. There are problems in life that have no solution.

At the moment the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem with no solution.... Anyone suggesting otherwise is promoting a false illusion. A golden calf. Selfdeception.”

Yet Ya’alon remains optimistic. “When I see where my grandparents and parents were and where my children are – I see that time is not working against us....The secret of Zionism is that when our ethos is to build and the ethos of the other side is to destroy, our ethos will triumph.... We must free ourselves of being solution- orientated and discard self-blame. We must free ourselves of thinking that if I give in to the enemy and please the enemy, the enemy will give me quiet. That is an Ashkenazi way of thinking unrelated to the reality of the Middle East.”

Ya’alon was asked, “As a Mapainik, a kibbutznik, a Rabinist, how did you become a Likudnik?” To which he responded, “The Labor movement had Yitzchak Tabenkin and Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin.

Even Rabin from the Oslo process was never from Peace Now. He supported the Allon Plan in the broad sense and firmly opposed withdrawal to 1967 lines.

Before his assassination he spoke in the Knesset about an eternally united Jerusalem and about the Jordan Rift Valley and about a Palestinian entity that would be less than a state.”

Ya’alon is perhaps the most understated minister in the government and is considered a highly untypical Israeli leader. He is not an adept political street-fighter.

He is soft-spoken, even dour, and certainly lacks charisma.

Despite his low profile he is one of our most capable leaders. He was a brilliant chief of staff who can take credit, to a large extent, for creating the strategy that brought an end to the era of the suicide bombings.

His moral integrity would qualify him to serve as a role model for most Knesset members. Irrespective as to whether or not he rises to more senior positions in the government, it is comforting that a man of his caliber is today a senior member of the security cabinet and influential in the formulation of defense policies.

It is also reassuring to know that if Ya’alon ever considered that the government was initiating policies endangering the country, unlike numerous other politicians, he would not remain silent.

Reuters Incorrect “Correction”

Reuters Incorrect “Correction”

When I checked my e-mail this morning, I was pleased to see that Reuters responded to one of our readers who contacted  them about the issue raised in yesterday’s video – namely that the headline of their article accused Israel of breaking a truce with Hamas by responding to a rocket attack.
It does not take expert anaylsis to understand that if Hamas is launching rockets at Israel, there really is no truce that Israel could break with a response.
So as I said, I was pleased that one of our readers had pointed out their error and assumed that they had fixed the mistake — no doubt caused by hasty editing rather than a purposeful attempt to malign Israel.
But then this is Reuters. And when I read the new headline, it wasn’t much better.
Here is the original headline:
and here is the correction:
And the article leads with:
(Reuters) – Israel launched two air strikes in Gaza on Friday, killing two Palestinian militants and wounding five other people as rockets fired from the enclave slammed into its southern region, threatening to unravel an Egyptian-brokered truce.
The rocket attacks — according to Reuters own reporting — took place a few hours before the Israeli air strikes. They did not happen simultenously. Israel did not launch strikes “as” the “rockets fired” (notice, Reuters did not write “Palestinians fired rockets,” “Hamas fired rockets,” or even “militants fired rockets.” But that’s another issue.)
Nothing “shook” the truce. Palestinian terrorists fired rockets at Israeli civilian areas. Hours later, Israel attacked (from the air, lest anyone think that the word “raid” implies that Israel entered Gaza on the ground) terrorists preparing to launch more rockets.
Would it be asking too much for Reuters on their correction to get the story right?
You can comment on the revised Reuters article here.

A green light to attempt genocide

A green light to attempt genocide

Iranian VP Mohammad-Reza Rahimi views Israel's border from Lebanon
Iranian VP Mohammad-Reza Rahimi views Israel’s border from Lebanon
TEHRAN — Iran’s vice president delivered a baldly anti-Semitic speech on Tuesday at an international antidrug conference here, saying that the Talmud, a central text of Judaism, was responsible for the spread of illegal drugs around the world…

Mr. Rahimi, second in line to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said the Talmud teaches to “destroy everyone who opposes the Jews.”

The “Zionists” are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said, asking foreign dignitaries to research his claims. “Zionists” is Iran’s ideological term for Jews who support the state of Israel.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict,” Mr. Rahmini said. “They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade.” …

Mr. Rahimi … told stories of gynecologists’ killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously, no Jews died in that uprising.

He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think that they are a superior race. “They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them,” he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who “honestly follow the prophet Moses” and the Zionists, who are “the main elements of the international drugs trade.”

This kind of rant serves several purposes. On the most basic level, a great majority of the world’s Muslims probably believe him (although I doubt that the same could be said for Iranians). Belief that Jews are essentially evil in multiple ways leads to dehumanization, stage 3 in Stanton’s 8 stages of genocide.

On a more emotional level, it doesn’t matter if a listener — or even the speaker — believes it or not. It is intended as a message of hate, a verbalization of the upraised middle finger, and a threat. It’s more of an action than an utterance.

It sends a message to other enemies of Israel as well. It says “we are not afraid of them, we will tell them to their faces that we intend to kill them.”

This is not the first time an Iranian official has sent this same message: “you are not human, we hate you, we will exterminate you.” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khameini and President Ahmadinejad have both compared Israel to a “cancerous tumor,” with obvious implications.

The Israeli leadership — especially PM Netanyahu — has a sense of history and understands that threats like this have to be taken with the utmost seriousness.

This is a test, but not for Israel, which already understands what it is facing. It is a test for the “international community,” whose representatives were present at the conference and heard this atavistic Jew-hatred, as vile as anything that came from Hitler’s propagandists.
European diplomats in attendance expressed shock. Even Iranian participants in the conference, co-sponsored by Iran and the United Nations, privately wondered at their government’s motive for allowing such a speech, even given its longstanding antagonism toward Israel…

A European diplomat said afterward: “This was definitely one of the worst speeches I have heard in my life. My gut reaction was: why are we supporting any cooperation with these people?”

Now there is no excuse for pretending that the Iranian regime is anything other than it is. They have seen the face of the beast. Will they close their eyes to its intentions, as they did to Hitler’s?

The reaction of the European diplomat quoted above wasn’t encouraging:
But the diplomat, who declined to be identified by name or country, defended his presence at the conference. “If we do not support the United Nations on helping Iran fight drugs, voices like the one of Mr. Rahimi will be the only ones out there,” he said.

Do we really need to explain to a ‘diplomat’ that Rahimi speaks for the regime? That his voice is “the only one out there” in Iran? Of course not.

If the reaction from the “community,” particularly the US, is not swift and substantial — a retraction and apology must be demanded — then it will be taken as a green light.

A green light to attempt genocide.

Where's the Coverage? Another Double Standard for Israel on Refugees

Where's the Coverage? Another Double Standard for Israel on Refugees

There are an estimated 45,000-60,000 people currently living in Israel illegally, mostly from Eritrea and South Sudan. Some of them would be considered refugees by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):
The 1951 Refugee Convention establishing UNHCR spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."
Many others would not be considered refugees, but instead migrants:
Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve the future prospects of themselves and their families. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or preserve their freedom.
Only refugees have protected status under international law and the preferred outcome for them is to be repatriated. According to the UNHCR Handbook for Repatriation and Reintegration Activities, "The UN General Assembly (GA) has repeatedly affirmed UNHCR’s function of promoting/facilitating the voluntary repatriation of refugees."
So, when Israel undertakes a program to voluntarily repatriate several hundred South Sudanese refugees, there should be no hue and cry, right? Wrong.
Washington Post blog on the subject used words like "deportation" and "expulsion". And, of course, Isabel Kershner couldn’t resist a Holocaust reference in her New York Times article:
But the government clampdown is also ripping at Israel’s soul. For some, the connotations of roundups and the prospect of mass detentions cut too close to the bone."I feel I am in a movie in Germany, circa 1933 or 1936," said Orly Feldheim, 46, a daughter of Holocaust survivors, as she doled out food last week to a long line of immigrants...
Of course, the usual suspects in the anti-Israel community could not help but pile on. Moira Levy, who claims to be a South African journalist, wrote a letter to the Cape Times declaring she will cut herself off from being a Jew because of Israel’s "violent racial repression." In response, Desmond Tutu wrote a letter to Levy pleading:
Please do not blame your faith for the policies of the people who have political power in the State of Israel.When members of our family behaved wrongly, we did not turn our backs on them, but tried to convince them to steer a fairer course.
Are these "fairer"? Not really. In all of the above cases the world community through the UNHCR, funded in large part by the United States, picks up the tab. But in Israel's case, the people of Israel are paying -- adults reportedly received $1,300 each and children $650 each. In the "fairer" non-Israeli cases, repatriated refugees received much less, only a few hundred dollars each. Fairer?
However, the main thing that differentiates the repatriation of refugees from other countries from the repatriation of refugees from Israel is that there's no outrage about it. There's no uproar and there's certainly very little media attention. Furthermore, regarding the fact that economic migrants have no legal status, have you heard about that in the press? Have you read that repatriation of refugees -- including from Israel -- is legal, fair, and even encouraged by the world community? No? Where's the fairness? Where's the journalistic integrity? Where's the coverage?

Israel evacuates a settlement, but gets whacked by NY Times anyway

Israel evacuates a settlement, but gets whacked by NY Times anyway

Leo Rennert

This week saw a generally peaceful evacuation of 30 Jewish settlers from a Beit El neighborhood in the West Bank -- a move ordered by Israel's Supreme Court which found that five buildings were on Palestinian land.  For the affected settlers, it was a wrenching experience, but with urgings from their rabbi to comply peacefully, they packed up and moved to new housing elsewhere in Beit El.

One would think that such compliance with a lawful court order on a highly politically sensitive issue might be depicted as Israel going the extra mile to advance the peace process -- but not by the New York Times.  In fact, in its June 27 edition, the Times runs a purported news article by Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren that manages to use this event to indict Israel as driving another nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. ("Settlers Begin Mandatory Evacuation of a West Bank Outpost" page A10).

In Rudoren's view, Israel -- and only Israel -- stands in the way of a peace deal with the Palestinians.  Mahmoud Abbas is automatically forgiven for refusing to resume negotiations.

Rudoren's real thrust is to focus on a compromise with the settlers forged by Prime Minister Netanyahu -- in exchange for removal of this Beit El neighborhood, Israel will build another 300 homes in parts of Beit El that don't sit on Palestinian land.  But why should this be an impediment to achieving a two-state solution since Israel intends to keep Beit El in any two-state peace deal anyway?  Plenty of room would be left on the West Bank for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.

With an assist from some "experts" dug up by Rudoren, the Times draws its own conclusion that, to achieve peace, Israel must cede all of Beit El to a Palestinian state.  Never mind what Israel might demand if peace talks ever resume.   Never mind exactly what borders would be drawn for a Palestinian state.  Rudoren and the Times, with all their imperious chutzpah, already have determined that Beit El, a town of 7,000 residents north of Jerusalem, must and will end up on the Palestinian side. 

Here's how Rudoren puts it:

"While Palestinians and their supporters saw the court ruling as a moral victory, the practical result is an expansion of the settlement enterprise.  Several experts said the agreement further diminishes the prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and some saw the deal as a sign that Mr. Netanyahu was leaning toward a unilateral rather than bilateral approach to the issue, with Israel essentially defining the borders of a future Palestinian state.

"Beit El, about 15 miles from Jerusalem, is seen by most experts as one of the settlements that would be removed if a peace agreement were reached with the Palestinians, making its expansion now more significant."

And which "experts" prompt Rudoren to reach such a conclusion.  Well, she trots out Tzaly Reshef, one of the founders of Peace Now, a far-left advocacy group that regularly attacks Israel while supporting Palestinian demands.  "There is no solution with Beit El," Reshef tells Rudoren.  Reshef, of course, is no "expert."  He's a crusader for the Palestinian agenda.

But in the view of Rudoren and the New York Times, Reshef and Peace Now trump the democratically elected government of Israel. With Rudoren, Israel's agenda doesn't count.  Only Peace Now's pro-Palestinian agenda has validity in her eyes.

In sum, Rudoren's piece boils down to an anti-Israel editorial disguised as a news story.  Readers beware.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers

Syria Sends a Message to NATO?

Syria Sends a Message to NATO?

By Rick Moran 

Two heavily armed regional powers — Turkey and Syria — are inching toward military conflict following the downing by Syria of an unarmed reconnaissance jet in international waters last week and the subsequent firing on rescue planes by Syria dispatched to search for the pilots.

While Turkey has shown restraint, its warnings to Syria are specific; any further military action against Turkish forces would be met with “retaliation.” This includes a pointed message by Turkish Prime Minister Raycep Erdogan who said that Syrian forces advancing toward the border would be “treated as a military target.” Syria has thousands of troops near its 566 mile border with Turkey who are there to try and stem the flow of rebel fighters into Syria. Erdogan’s warning changes the rules of engagement for Turkish forces, making conflict more likely.

For only the second time in NATO’s history, a member nation invoked Article 4 which allows a country to call a meeting of the alliance if it feels its security is threatened. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen condemned the Syrian attack on Turkey’s aircraft but stopped short of saying that NATO would take any military action. The Obama administration also decried the downing of Turkey’s plane while praising Ankara for its measured response.

Meanwhile, Russia is set to deliver more arms to Syria, including refurbished attack helicopters and a sophisticated air defense system. Indeed, there has been speculation from many analysts about why Turkey was flying an unarmed plane so close to Syrian air space. Testing Syria’s Russian supplied air defenses is thought to have been one of the reasons for the plane’s flight path.

The fear of igniting a regional war with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran siding with Syria and squaring off against NATO has never been greater. But it is thought that President Assad doesn’t want a wider conflict, despite the fact that he acknowledged for the first time on Tuesday that Syria was in a “state of war.” Assad’s usual tack is to blame “terrorists” for the conflict. But in a televised speech following the swearing in of his new cabinet, Assad said, ”When we are in a war, all policies and all sides and all sectors need to be directed at winning this war.” As he was speaking those words, Free Syrian Army forces were hitting the elite Republican guard headquarters in Damascus. The attack on President Assad’s personal bodyguard shows that the FSA is becoming more capable – and more daring, although it is believed they are still too disorganized to take and hold territory.

In shooting down the aircraft, was Syria sending a message to NATO that the country won’t be the pushover Libya was? That’s the view of Fawaz A. Gerges, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Middle East Centre at the London School of Economics. Gerges points out that radio intercepts by Turkey clearly show the Syrians knew the plane was in international waters and was Turkish in origin — claims denied by Syria who insists it was unaware to which country the air craft belonged. “We had to react immediately, even if the plane was Syrian we would have shot it down,” said foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdisi at a press conference in Damascus.

Prime Minister Erdogan isn’t buying that explanation. And while the shooting down of an unarmed jet precipitated the crisis, Syria’s firing on planes sent to rescue the pilots enraged the Turkish government. Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc on Monday accused Syrian forces of opening fire on a Turkish search-and-rescue plane during the search on Friday for the F-4 Phantom jet. He said the attack was called off only when Turkish officials called Syria to tell them of the plane’s mission.

In a speech before Parliament, Erdogan laid down a red line that Syria cannot cross: “Any military element that approaches the Turkish border from Syria and poses a security risk and danger will be regarded as a threat and treated as a military target,” Erdogan said. The Turkish prime minister said that there had already been several border incursions by Syrian forces, including at least 5 incidents involving Syrian helicopters violating Turkish air space.

And Erdogan warned Syria not to mistake its forbearance for a reluctance to act: “No one should be deceived by our cool-headed stance,” he added. “Our acting with common sense should not be perceived as a weakness.”

Professor Gerges believes there is more to Erdogan’s warning about the border than a threat of retaliation. He said that Turkey was intent on “establishing a de facto safe zone that hinders Syria’s ability to move troops close to the border.” He added, “This will allow the Syrian rebels to gather strength in that the border area and advance toward the Syrian heartlands.” It will also facilitate the transfer of arms to the FSA — a task that the US has now become engaged in, according to a New York Times report last week.

The meeting of NATO ambassadors called by Turkey under Article 4 of the treaty resulted in strong condemnation of Syria by the ministers but a flat refusal to contemplate military action in response to the shoot down. “It’s my clear expectation that the situation won’t continue to escalate,” Fogh Rasmussen told reporters after the meeting. The alliance praised Turkey for its restraint, and in a statement issued after the meeting, said the downing of the plane was “another example of the Syrian authorities’ disregard for international norms, peace and security, and human life.”

But events may move faster than NATO is prepared for. The change in Turkey’s rules of engagement on the border could result in events getting out of control very quickly. Ankara has moved tanks to the border region with Syria. It is clear that Erdogan means what he says and that both sides may be moving toward a military confrontation that could ignite the fuse of regional war. Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, torn between factions that support Assad and those who support the rebels, would be hard pressed to remain neutral in any conflict with Turkey and the same could be said of Iran. So, while both Syria and Turkey may wish to avoid war, it would take enormous restraint if a border incident were to occur and military confrontation ensued.

In an editorial, The Independent says that the attack by Syria on Turkey’s aircraft “illustrate[s] the knife-edge on which regional security is poised. The nightmare prospect of a conflict involving Syria, Turkey, Israel and Iran becomes more credible with each passing day.”

And Russia is throwing gasoline on the fire, protecting its lone client in the Middle East, but making a regional war a possibility by continuing to supply the Assad regime with arms and heavy weapons. A Russian think tank reports that Moscow will be shipping half a billion dollars in military equipment to Syria, including “12 top-of-the-line MiG-29 fighter jets this year and to deliver a batch of repaired Mi-25 attack helicopters,” according to Reuters. The weapons are part of an arms purchase completed before the rebellion broke out, but included in the package are two sophisticated air defense systems that would add to Syria’s already formidable array of anti-aircraft equipment.

Russia insists that the weapons it is selling to Syria cannot be used to fight the rebellion, but this is nonsense. In addition to the attack helicopters, Russia has supplied the Syrian army with a 240MM mortar — the world’s heaviest mortar round which the Syrian army has been using with devastating effect in cities. One shell can level a building.

The Russians have also supplied Syria with its most modern tank — a modified T-72 that Assad’s forces have been using all over the country. Landmines, missiles, perhaps even chemical weapons have been sold to Syria as well as ammunition that is killing thousands. It’s clear that Vladmir Putin is playing for keeps in Syria and will do whatever it takes to see to it that President Assad survives.

The longer the conflict goes on in Syria, it becomes more likely that other nations will be drawn into the vortex of war. Even if both President Assad and Prime Minister Erdogan do not desire conflict, in such a tense, unpredictable situation, things are likely to spiral beyond the control of leaders who have set in motion the machinery of war and now find themselves at the mercy of events.