Thursday, October 31, 2013

Official Guardian Editorial Legitimizes a ‘One-State Solution’

Official Guardian Editorial Legitimizes a ‘One-State Solution’

Adam Levick

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

We’ve long believed that chances were strong that the historic editorial preference at ‘Comment is Free‘ towards commentators (and even Islamist extremists) who seek a ‘one state solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict would eventually translate into an official editorial position in favor of such a final solution.  Whilst that position may not yet have been explicitly expressed, today’s official Guardian editorial, on Jerusalem’s municipal elections, seems to have at least taken a step in that direction.

Ignoring polls indicating that Palestinian residents of Jerusalem would prefer – in the event a Palestinian state were created resulting in a divided Jerusalem – to remain citizens or residents of Israel, their Oct. 21 editorial (Jerusalem elections: the ballot and the boycott) starts off by legitimizing the most radical and unrepresentative Palestinian voices:

To cast a vote [in the Jerusalem municipal elections] is to acknowledge the legitimacy of the occupation, or so it is argued. “Participating in the process merely gives [the Israelis] political cover,” insists Hanan Ashrawi, from the PLO’s executive committee. “They want to create a reality where the Palestinians participate in the occupation of their own country.

The Guardian editorial continues:

But this year, for the first time ever, there is a Palestinian candidate [Arab Israeli] Fuad Saliman…[who] is running as a part of an Israeli coalition of left-wing parties. Given that Palestinians make up well over a third of the city’s population, their participation in the political process could transform a political landscape…

So, what is the Guardian’s interest in increasing Palestinian voter strength? It becomes apparent in the following paragraphs:

As a thought experiment, however, it is fascinating. Extrapolating from the local situation in Jerusalem, what if all Palestinians made a strategic decision to seek full voting rights within the reality that is Israel, rather than demanding a separate Palestinian state? In other words, what if they transformed their struggle from a nationalist one into a civil rights one?

Of course, Palestinians don’t all have the same access to the ballot box. But far from looking to exert their electoral presence on the national stage, those who do have the right to vote have been exercising it less and less. Seventy-five per cent voted in the 1999 elections. Ten years later, it was 54%. The fact that it didn’t dip below half earlier this year was put down to a last-minute intervention by the Arab League urging the million or so Palestinians living in Israel to get out and vote. Amid deepening despair as to the viability of a two-state solution, this [one-state] option…is only going to attract more attention.

While it is curious that their latest expression of “despair” over the two-state solution was published at a time when serious peace negotiations between the two parties are currently taking place, it’s more important to understand what exactly their little one-state ”thought experiment” actually means: the legitimization of a radical reconstitution of Israel from the world’s only Jewish state into a binational state in which Jews would likely again be at the mercy of the ‘benevolence’ of a hostile Arab majority.

The overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis, possessing a political sobriety informed by an understanding of the catastrophic history of such political powerlessness, would of course violently resist such a scenario, rendering any attempt to impose such a solution a likely recipe for endless war.

Finally, in 2011, following the Guardian’s release of its highly skewed “expose” of the ‘Palestine Papers’ – which among other stances, characterized Palestinian compromise on the refugee issue as a “craven” - Ron Prosor, who was then Israel’s Ambassador to the UK, blasted the paper in a Huffington Post essay titled “The Guardian’s Assault on Peace in the Middle East”.  Prosor decried the “self-appointed ‘guardian’ of Palestinian truth” who “maximized its opportunity to pledge allegiance to the hard-line, national fantasies which have crippled the Palestinian cause for decades.”

The one-state scenario, however it is couched, is not a “solution” but, rather, the racist anti-Zionist end game of Palestinian extremists who seek to deny Jews, and only Jews, their inalienable right to self-determination.

Still bickering over Balfour

Still bickering over Balfour

Dore Gold

Last year, on the 95th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the former Palestinian minister, Nabil Shaath, wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph attacking Britain for issuing its famous statement of support for the establishment in Eretz Yisrael of a national home for the Jewish people. Shaath called the Balfour Declaration, which was issued by Britain's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour on November 2, 1917, the beginning of "British imperialism" in Palestine.

At the heart of what he called Britain's "sins in Palestine" was the promise of this territory to the Jewish people, who, in the words of Shaath, "did not even live there." For him there was no Jewish history in Palestine, that needed to be acknowledged but only "colonial conspiracies" against the Arab residents living there. The rise of the Jewish national home, in short, was the product of external manipulations by outside powers, like Britain, and not the result of any authentic yearning of the Jews themselves. With the anniversary of the declaration again upon us, it is important to understand how Balfour's act still confounds Palestinian leaders who are prepared to distort its significance.

What Shaath and other Palestinian spokesmen found so objectionable about the Balfour Declaration was that it constituted the first step in a long effort to get the historical rights of the Jewish people to their homeland acknowledged by the international community. That recognition actually required a tough diplomatic struggle by the leaders of the Zionist movement during the First World War and in the years that followed.

Britain was not the only state involved. For example on June 4, 1917, they received a letter from the French foreign minister, Jules Cambon, who wrote: " would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago."

It turned out to be much more difficult to extract language that strong in the British cabinet at that time. What became the Balfour Declaration went through a number of drafts during the summer and fall of 1917. The original language of the declaration that was approved by the British foreign office and Prime Minister Lloyd George on September 19, 1917 specifically stated that Britain accepted the principle that "Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people."

Use of the term "reconstitute" meant that the land was once their homeland before and should now be restored to them. It meant that the Jews had historical rights. For that reason, this language had been sought by the Zionist leadership led by Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow who wanted it indicated that the Jewish people had a historical connection to their land. This original formula had been approved by President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the text was submitted in advance.

It was not such a far-fetched goal to seek formal acknowledgement of Jewish historical rights. A little over two decades earlier a well-connected Protestant clergyman from Chicago, Reverend William Blackstone, received broad backing for a petition for a Jewish homeland signed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker of the House of Representatives, university presidents and the editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post. Top industrialists, like John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, also lent their support. In short, the idea of the Jewish people re-establishing their country had become acceptable in the elite sectors of the American establishment.

Blackstone's petition specifically characterized the connection of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel as "an inalienable possession from which they were expelled by force." In other words, the Jewish people had not willingly given up their claim to their land. Indeed, there was no act in which they relinquished title to the Romans or their successors; in fact from the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. until the Muslim conquests, there were Jewish resistance movements that tried to recover Jerusalem, and afterwards a constant stream of Jewish immigrants followed.

Blackstone may have not known all this but he touched upon the idea that there were historical rights of the Jewish people, which were recognized at the time he sought signatories to his petition. The petition was submitted to President Benjamin Harrison in 1891 and in another version to President Wilson in 1917, with the aim of influencing his attitude to the Balfour Declaration.

Despite the growing popularity of the idea in the West, there were British opponents to making any commitment to a Jewish national home. This group sought to water down the language of what was to become the Balfour Declaration. Edwin Montagu, the secretary of state for India and the only Jewish member of the British cabinet ironically lead the internal fight against what Balfour was doing.

Montagu feared that acknowledging Jewish rights in Eretz Israel would lead to the denial of Jewish rights to live in Britain or elsewhere in the Diaspora. He was also ideologically committed to Jewish assimilation. So under his influence all references to the Jewish people "reconstituting" their homeland were dropped. He announced at the time: "I assert that there is not a Jewish nation." He moreover insisted: "I deny that Palestine today is associated with the Jews." Montagu could not stop the Balfour Declaration, so he tried to weaken its contents. It is not surprising that Shaath makes Montagu the hero of his analysis.

In any case, the Balfour Declaration was basically a statement of British policy; it did not establish legal rights. This first occurred with the meeting of the victorious allied powers at San Remo, Italy in 1920, where they adopted the Balfour Declaration in an international agreement. Then in 1922, 51 members of the League of Nations approved the document for the Palestine Mandate.

The Mandate document restored important elements that had been taken out of the Balfour Declaration as a result of the debate in the British cabinet, for it stated: "...recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The British Government issued a White Paper in 1922 that further clarified this point by saying that the Jewish national home "should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

Nabil Shaath wanted his British readers last year to believe that the process that began with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and ending up with the British Mandate in 1922 created the Jewish claim to a homeland. For him the Jewish homeland was entirely invented by British imperial interests and had no historical roots. In short, it was an illegitimate claim.

But that is a distortion of what happened for what was involved at the time was a British recognition of a pre-existing right. Moreover that British recognition was fully accepted by the international community by 1922, through the League of Nations. Finally, it must be added, that those rights were not suspended when the League of Nations was disbanded, but rather they were transferred to the United Nations, which replaced it.

In summary, Shaath refuses to acknowledge the steady buildup of the Jewish national home over the centuries; the Ottoman census already showed a Jewish majority in Safed in the 16th century. European consular reports in the 19th century showed that by the 1860s the Jews re-established their majority in Jerusalem -- decades before British armies took over the Middle East. The Balfour Declaration reflected a historical trend that was already underway, but it did not launch the Jewish return to Eretz Israel. This return was a product of the national will of a people which Shaath and his colleagues still refuse to recognize, thereby perpetuating the conflict with Israel to this day.

The New Holocaust Discoveries

The New Holocaust Discoveries

by Rabbi Benjamin Blech

The latest revelation about the Holocaust stuns even the scholars who thought they already knew everything about the horrific details of Germany's program of genocide against the Jewish people.

It's taken more than 70 years to finally know the full facts. And what is almost beyond belief is that what really happened goes far beyond what anyone could ever have imagined.

For the longest time we have spoken of the tragedy of 6 million Jews. It was a number that represented the closest approximation we could come to the victims of Hitler's plan for a Final Solution. Those who sought to diminish the tragedy claimed 6 million was a gross exaggeration. Others went further and denied the historicity of the Holocaust itself, absurdly claiming the Jews fabricated their extermination to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause.
But now we know the truth.

The reality was much worse than whatever we imagined.

The unspeakable crime of the 20th century, more than the triumph of evil, was the sin of the "innocent" bystander.

It wasn't just the huge killing centers whose very names - Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Majdanek, Belzec, Ravensbruck, Sobibar, Treblinka - bring to mind the ghastly images by now so familiar to us. It wasn't just the Warsaw ghetto. It wasn't just the famous sites we've all by now heard of that deservedly live on in everlasting infamy.

Researchers at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum have just released documentation that astounds even the most informed scholars steeped in the previously known statistics of German atrocities. Here is some of what has now been conclusively discovered:

There were more than 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe from 1933 to 1945.

There were 30,000 slave labor camps; 1,150 Jewish ghettos; 980 concentration camps; 1000 prisoner of war camps; 500 brothels filled with sex slaves; and thousands of other camps used for euthanizing the elderly and infirm, performing forced abortions, "Germanizing" prisoners or transporting victims to killing centers.

The best estimate using current information available is 15 to 20 million people who died or were imprisoned in sites controlled by the Germans throughout the European continent.

Simply put, in the words of Hartmut Berghoff, Director of the German Historical Institute in Washington, "The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought; we knew before how horrible life in the camps and ghettos was, but the actual numbers are unbelievable."

And what makes this revelation so important is that it forces us to acknowledge a crucial truth about the Holocaust that many people have tried to ignore or to minimize - a truth that has profound contemporary significance: The unspeakable crime of the 20th century, more than the triumph of evil, was the sin of the "innocent" bystander.

For years our efforts to understand the Holocaust focused on the perpetrators. We looked for explanations for the madness of Mengele, the obsessive hatred of Hitler, the impassive cruelty of Eichmann. We sought answers to how it was possible for the criminal elements, the sadists and the mentally unbalanced to achieve the kind of power that made the mass killings feasible.

That was because we had no idea of the real extent of the horror. With more than 42,000 ghettos and concentration camps scattered throughout the length and breadth of a supposedly civilized continent, there's no longer any way to avoid the obvious conclusion. The cultured, the educated, the enlightened, the liberal, the refined, the sophisticated, the urbane - all of them share in the shame of a world that lost its moral compass and willingly acceded to the victory of evil.

"We had no idea what was happening" needs to be clearly identified as "the great lie" of the years of Nazi power. The harsh truth is that almost everyone had to know. The numbers negate the possibility for collective ignorance. And still the killings did not stop, the torture did not cease, the concentration camps were not closed, the crematoria continued their barbaric task.

The "decent" people were somehow able to rationalize their silence.

Just last year Mary Fulbrook, a distinguished scholar of German history, in "A Small Town Near Auschwitz "wrote a richly and painfully detailed examination of those Germans who, after the war, successfully cast themselves in the role of innocent bystanders.

"These people have almost entirely escaped the familiar net of 'perpetrators, victims and bystanders'; yet they were functionally crucial to the eventual possibility of implementing policies of mass murder. They may not have intended or wanted to contribute to this outcome; but, without their attitudes, mentalities, and actions, it would have been virtually impossible for murder on this scale to have taken place in the way that it did. The concepts of perpetrator and bystander need to be amended, expanded, rendered more complex, as our attention and focus shifts to those involved in upholding an ultimately murderous system."

Mary Fulbrook singled out for censure those who lived near Auschwitz. But that was before we learned that Auschwitz was replicated many thousands of times over throughout the continent in ways that could not have gone unnoticed by major parts of the populace. Millions of people were witnesses to small towns like Auschwitz in their own backyards.

And so Elie Wiesel of course was right. The insight that most powerfully needs to be grasped when we reflect upon the Holocaust's message must be that, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

That remains our greatest challenge today. If we dare to hope for the survival of civilization we had better pray that the pessimists are wrong when they claim that the only thing we learn from history is that mankind never learns from history.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Diplomatic terror

Diplomatic terror

Op-ed: After miserable failure of PA's military terror, Abbas goes from one international leader to another and incites against Israel

Guy Bechor 

Recently, Abbas has been practicing Rohanization: Using idyllic and embellished depictions to deceive the global public opinion, which does not understand much about the Middle East. "Hamas?" he was asked in Europe, and responded: "Every country has an opposition."

Well, I'm unfamiliar with any opposition which fires missiles at citizens, which digs terror tunnels for abductions, and which throws members of the rival group – in this case Abbas' group, Fatah – off the fifth floor. This is an "opposition" which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, and what would happen if it seizes power, as it did in Gaza in 2007? After all, Israel handed Gaza on a silver platter over to that same Abbas, who controlled the area for two years before fleeing with his people as fast as he could.

Israel-PA Conflict
Futile negotiations / Shimon Shiffer
Op-ed: Instead of suggesting bold alternative, Netanyahu loading 'two states' cart with irrational demands
Full op-ed
While towards the West Abbas has been trained to scatter magic words of "peace, freedom and partnership," words which surely sound nice to anyone who is not familiar with the situation, towards Israel Abbas uses what can be called "diplomatic terror," a new term which should be adopted. In every international forum, the Palestinian representative immediately attacks the Israeli one insolently, and we and the world treat this harassment as if it's an obvious thing.

Well, it's not. From now on, this is another type of terror, after the miserable failure of the military terror of that same Palestinian Authority. Abbas goes from one international leader to another, and incites against Israel. He is not busy with the entity he wants to establish. Co one care about that there. All he does is incite and fight Israel, confirming Israel's main claim that this is an authority engaged in incitement.

We are in a "peace" process, so why is Abbas busy inciting? More than Abbas wants a state, he wants the Jews not to have a state. Just like we put an end to Fatah's military terror – Hamas is carrying on with that, of course – there is room to demand an immediate cessation to diplomatic terror.

As part of that terror, Abbas claims that the Palestinian state will be free of Jews – whitewashed words describing serious ethnic cleansing of some 700,000 Jews. Is Europe ready to expel hundreds of thousands of Jews again? Is John Kerry willing to do so? And what is the difference between what Assad is doing in Syria, the expulsion and cleansing of hundreds of thousands, and what that Abbas is up to? Abbas overstates what he calls the "Nakba," but he himself is interested in creating an even more serious racial cleansing.

From now on, the senior Palestinian official will know that for every Jew who leaves his home, he and his authority will have to pay damages to the evictees or to the Israeli government, and we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. This should also be, and will be, the Israeli demand in the negotiations.

The Palestinians must also pay damages for the Gaza evacuation. In the 21st century, whoever demands ethnic cleansing should be denounced and expelled from the international community, and whoever is forced to evacuate his home will be fully compensated by the racists demanding his evacuation.,7340,L-4445445,00.html




Chodesh Tov to all. May this Pessach finally bring us the true Geula.

In honor of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, here is an important review of the SECRET CLAUSES OF THE OSLO ACCORDS, which called for the murder of settler leaders, for dehumanization, delegitimization of the settlers, for disarming of the settlers, for removal of IDF presence on the roads. Have events on the ground since then proven the veracity of these claims, yes, or no?

As you can see, everything Barry said in 1999 has come true. See how settlers were disarmed. See the horrible defamation of settlers in the press. See how checkpoints have been removed one by one. See how the police constantly sides with the Arabs and indicts Jews who defend themselves. See how Jews have been brutalized, abused, savagely beaten, sprayed, attacked, shot at by police, and murdered. 

And see how many rabbis, rabbis' families, and other leaders of the settler movement families have been murdered, or near- murdered. Should I name them? I am no statistician, but it appears to me an absolute statistical impossibility that so many rabbis and leaders should be the 'accidental' victims of such terror and car accident attacks, considering the total Israeli population, and the total settler population as a whole. This is part and parcel of a deliberate, murderous plan by AMALEK WITHIN AND WITHOUT ISRAEL.

Here is a very small and partial list of the victims of the savage leaders and rabbis murdering frenzy:

MK Rehavam Zeevi, HY"D

The daughter of MK Levy, HY"D

The Kahane family, HY"D

Mordechai and Shalom Lapid, HY"D,

The son of Moshe Feiglin severely wounded in a strange car accident,

Nadia Matar attempted murder in a car accident,

Baruch Ben Yosef's son, HY"D

Rabbi Fogel and family, HY"D

Rabbi Moshe Talbi, HY"D

A Meshulam daughter, HY"D

Etc, etc, etc, etc.

And if your argument is 'but Arab terrorists did it!", refer to the last articles about NATO on this blog, understand the deliberate strategy of employing Arab assassins to do their dirty work: they are not only murderers but cowards too, hiding behind others, more afraid of man than of God. Isn't that the hallmark of Amalek?


May Hashem, in honor of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, bring about a swift reversal of our condition, similar to the reversal that happened millenia ago, at the time of the Exodus from Egypt.

Shana Tova, today is Rosh Hashanah of Kings. May Hashem restore our Malchut speedily, and get rid of the evil, murderous and cowardly usurpers currently in power in Israel.



Mearat a-Machpela (The Cave of the Patriarchs) is the burial place of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The place was purchased by Abraham. The cave is the second-holiest Jewish site. The insane rulers of Israel gave the Arabs most of Mearat a-Machpelah, even though the Arabs massacred the Jewish community in the very same city of Hebron.

Yigal Amir, although he did not actually kill Rabin, is a hero because he raised his gun against a high-ranking traitor, the murderer of Altalena. I would love to know that Dr. Baruch Goldstein walked into the holy Jewish site desecrated by Arabs and exacted revenge on them and preempted the planned pogrom. Unfortunately, I am not sure about that. Dr. Goldstein was a good Jew and a wonderful person, but he was not perhaps a national hero. He was a victim.

The official story is simple: On Purim 1994, a mad Kahanist took his rifle, went into a mosque, and shot the worshipers. Never mind that the place should not be a mosque in the first place. Never mind the Arabs were shot from a different rifle than Dr. Goldstein’s. And certainly never mind that he allegedly shot 154 Arabs with 140 bullets.

The absurdity of the government’s scenario was immediately apparent: a tender person, a caring doctor, shot Muslims in cold blood. The government ventured the libel that Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an army doctor, was so mad that he even refused to obey orders of his commanders and declared his only authorities to be RAMBAM and Kahane, and also refused to treat Gentiles. Those lies were perpetuated even though Dr. Goldstein’s commanders denied them immediately. Dr. Goldstein was in fact distinguished for excellence in medical service and had treated many non-Jews.

The Arab crowd lynched Dr. Goldstein after disarming him. The Israeli attorney general refused to prosecute the murderers, most of whom were well known and boasted of the murder. In another case, when a Jew shot an Arab terrorist after disarming him, the Jew was sentenced to a long prison term even though he acted in temporary insanity. As everyone says, Arabs are not treated equally with Jews in the state of Israel. They are treated preferentially.

Immediately after murdering Dr. Goldstein, the Arab mob attempted a large-scale pogrom in Hebron, with nine Jews and a number of Arabs killed in the subsequent clashes. The Hamas-led pogrom was premeditated, prepared long before the incident, as the official warnings indicate. A day before, a Palestinian mob (“worshipers”) rioted in the Maarat Hamachpela, and shortly before the incident they chanted “Slaughter the Jews,” as the Shamgar report concedes. Acting on Major Stellman’s order, the IDF surprisingly released the arrested Palestinian inciter. Despite the exceedingly high tensions and clear pogrom mood, the IDF and Border Police didn’t bring reinforcements but left only a handful of guards at the Cave of the Patriarchs. Massacre of Jews was in the air, and the Israeli government welcomed it, as the massacre would have ended the troublesome Jewish presence in Hebron, as the 1929 massacre did.

The official story accuses Dr. Baruch Goldstein of opening fire on Arabs. Any sensible person—and that doesn’t include the leftists of the Shamgar Commission—would ask how the doctor could achieve at least 154 Arab casualties, including 29 dead, with 140 bullets? He is claimed to have walked into the Cave with four cartridges, thirty-five rounds each for Galil rifle. Shooting into the dense crowd of Palestinians, it would have been just impossible to reach 154 of them. It would have been impossible to spend one round only for each casualty. It is very hard to kill with a single shot in such hurried circumstances. Even allowing for all those incongruities, there is physically no way to score 154 Arab casualties with 140 bullets.

The Arabs murdered Dr. Goldstein when he tried to reload his rifle, so at least one of the four cartridges was still unused, bringing the number of bullets down to 105. It is completely implausible that almost every bullet wounded several Arabs, passing through their bodies.

Shooting four cartridges in rapid-fire mode would not have produced that many casualties, and might have jammed the rifle. Shooting 105 or 140 bullets in semi-automatic mode would have taken considerable time, giving the guard just meters away enough time to react, and the Arabs time to flee.
Even the best shooter cannot realistically score 154 casualties acting alone, with a single rifle, hurrying, in a dense crowd. And Dr. Goldstein was not a great shooter. Neither before, nor after him, in thousands of terrorist acts throughout the world, was such a score ever achieved. No shooter came even close. Only in the totalitarian Israeli state which controls the media, can people be brainwashed into believing such nonsense. To compare, the Arab who inflicted nineteen casualties in Merkaz HaRav yeshiva in March 2008 spent about 600 bullets.

Another scenario is more likely, and supported by the large body of evidence: Dr. Goldstein appeared on the scene when the Palestinians had already started the riot they had prepared for months. The doctor was the first Jewish victim of the Arab mob. Israeli soldiers on duty shot at the Arab crowd, achieving the impressive 154 casualties. But at that time of rampaging peace process, the Peres-Beilin-Rabin clique could ill afford the picture of Arabs massacring Jews in Hebron, so they invented the story of Dr. Goldstein’s “massacre.” So the subsequent Arab riot became “justified” instead of being a normal Arab pogrom. As an added benefit, Peres-Beilin-Rabin framed the Kach Party, the only force which could stop the suicidal peace process. The Israeli establishment used the fact that Dr. Goldstein was a member of Kach to ban the party (it’s good that they did not ban the medical profession, since he was also a doctor).

At the Shamgar Commission hearings, two Israeli soldiers on duty that morning (Kobi and Niv) testified that Dr. Goldstein entered the Cave wearing his standard M-16 rifle, not the Galil used in the shootings. Independently of each other, they also said they saw another man entering the Cave with the Galil rifle. Shamgar rejected their testimonies.

A search for a mystery man with a Galil rifle walking in the Cave beyond the army posts at dawn could lead to one place only: Shabak, the Israeli security service. Just like they framed Yigal Amir and murdered Rabin, they also sent their man to shoot into the Arab crowd. The objective was tremendous: to end both the Jewish presence in Hebron (a major issue for Jewish zealots) and the only real political opposition, Kach (Netanyahu, that farce of an opposition, transferred Hebron to Arab jurisdiction).
It remains unclear how Dr. Goldstein entered the Isaac Hall, full of Muslims, without anyone noticing him in such a highly unusual movement. No less likely, he was murdered elsewhere in the Cave and his body later dragged into the Isaac Hall. Several Palestinians testified they saw Dr. Goldstein shooting, but even the Shamgar report notes numerous severe contradictions in Arab testimonies. Shamgar conjectured that Dr. Goldstein entered through the Yosefia route, but his fingerprints are absent on the door.

Conveniently for Shamgar, the CCTV on the site was found not to be operating at the time.
Israel’s rulers had a tremendous interest in murdering Dr. Goldstein. After the assassination of R. Meir Kahane, Dr. Goldstein became the link between several feuding Kahanist factions. After Dr. Goldstein’s murder, R. Binyamin Kahane became the leader of Kach, and was also assassinated. R. Binyamin Kahane was also ostensibly killed by Arabs, but the fact that the assassins “accidentally” pumped sixty-two bullets into the front seats of his car while not touching the kids in the rear seat reveals Israeli snipers. Years later the IDF arrested the alleged assassin, but since he had several murders on his hands, it was no problem convincing him to also accept responsibility for R. Binyamin’s.

Years later, Irv Rubin and Earl Kruger (respectively, the leader of the Jewish Defense League in America and a JDL activist) were murdered (“committed suicide”) in two separate incidents in high-security US prisons. JDL was the last remnant of Kahane’s movement. The Israeli establishment did away with Kach.

On a separate note, the killing of Arabs in the Cave of the Patriarchs is no different from the ancient events we celebrate on Purim.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Palestinian Authority - Billions in Aid Go Missing

Palestinian Authority - Billions in Aid Go Missing

A European watchdog reports that billions have disappeared into PLO leaders coffers.

David Singer

Billions of euros in European aid to the PLO and Hamas between 2008 and 2012 may have been misspent, squandered or lost to corruption - according to an unpublished report by the European Court of Auditors - a Luxembourg-based watchdog - disclosed in an article appearing in The Sunday Times on 14 October.

Brussels reportedly transferred more than US$2.64 billion to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Gaza in that four year period - but had little control over how it was spent - the auditors said in the damning report seen by The Sunday Times.

EU investigators who visited sites in Jerusalem, Gaza and the the PAk noted “significant shortcomings” in the management of funds sent to Gaza and the PA.

These disturbing revelations followed closely on the heels of a report in Bethlehem-based Ma'an News on 10 October claiming that the Palestinian Authority's (PA) anti-corruption commission - established in 2010 - was working to retrieve PLO-owned land registered to individual PLO leaders - according to commission chief Rafiq al-Natsheh.

The commission had recovered around 400 dunams of PLO-owned land in 2012 - al-Natsheh told Ma'an.

Natsheh's remarks were made after comments by him in in the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustour the previous week that PA officials were moving deposits from Jordanian banks to foreign accounts.

"If suspects accused of stealing public money (are moving funds abroad), that falls within our jurisdiction, We will ask these countries to help us restore the stolen public money, Transferring money anywhere (abroad) will not prevent us from calling suspects to account and restoring that money,"

In rare comments on the location of assets belonging to the PLO - al-Natsheh admitted that bank deposits and real estate collected by the PLO dating back to its inception in 1964 had been entrusted to "trustworthy individuals" and had yet to be recovered.

According to al-Natsheh, some of the money and property - which was supposed to be have been deposited into public accounts when the PA government was established in 1994 - still remains in private hands.

Any possibility of an embedded culture of corruption on a grand scale within the PLO and Hamas - as alleged in these news reports - could well be influencing any reconciliation between the PLO and Hamas who themselves have been locked in an internecine power struggle since 2007, creating two separate fiefdoms where corruption easily flourishes - ensuring that the continuing plunder of large injections of international donor funds will always trump any efforts at reconciliation.

Systemic corruption in the PLO could also be a powerful driver in influencing the continuation of the current status quo with Israel - enabling unjust enrichment of PLO officials to continue at the expense of the PA Arabs for whose welfare and advancement such funds received from international donors were to be ostensibly applied.

According to Mona Chalabi on Guardian Datablog:

"The Palestinian economy is dependent on international aid and around 4 in 5 Gazans rely on donations for their survival...

... In 2011, the single biggest donor to Palestine was the United States followed by the EU who gave $281m and $206m respectively."

Other large donors in 2011 (in US dollars) included the UK (82.8 million), Sweden (76.4 million), Germany (57.5 million), France (43 million), Norway (39.6 million), Spain (34.9 million) Canada (34.3 million) and Italy (31.9 million).

In 2012 the Palestinian Authority only received 80% of the promised US$1 billion - well down from the $1.8 billion in 2008.

Continued mismanagement of dwindling international funds spells increasing economic hardship for PA and Gazan Arabs.

These donor countries must certainly be concerned at the allegations aired in The Sunday Times.

If the European Court of Auditors Report is confirmed - these countries will have no option but to call for an independent and transparent investigation into the possible misappropriation of foreign donor funds by the PLO and Hamas.

Transparency International - a Berlin-based watchdog monitoring corporate and political corruption - confirms that the state of paralysis afflicting the Palestinian Arab  parliament since 2007 as a result of the split between the PLO and Hamas has “given the executive unlimited management over public funds.”

A Palestinian Arab opinion poll conducted in July 2012 found that 71 percent of respondents believed that corruption existed in PA institutions under the control of President Mahmoud Abbas. Some 57% of respondents said the same of Hamas-controlled institutions in the Gaza Strip.

Similarly, a hearing held at the US House of Representative’s Committee on Foreign Affairs in July 2012 heard evidence accusing the Palestinian Arab political establishment of “chronic kleptocracy"

Transparency International seems to have pinpointed the crux of these monetary and financial woes affecting Palestinian Arab politics and policies with these few well chosen words:

"Presidential, legislative, and local elections are needed to restore the legitimacy of government institutions. This will also reinforce citizens’ interests, political accountability and the rule of law."

Whilst the PLO and Hamas continue to deny Palestinian Arabs the right to vote on who should govern them  - any prospects of investigating claims of misappropriation of international donor funds remains a distant dream.

The soon to be released report of the European Council of Auditors could prove to be the catalyst for ending the six year election drought in the PA and Gaza - resulting in the appointment of freely elected leaders implementing fully transparent and independent financial structures.

Such imperatives have become all the more urgent following these latest allegations.

Palestinian Terms Leave Little to Talk About

Palestinian Terms Leave Little to Talk About

Jonathan S. Tobin

The silence couldn’t last forever. The one thing that was conspicuously successful about the peace negotiations initiated by Secretary of State John Kerry was the way the Israelis and the Palestinians managed to keep their mouths shut about what’s been discussed since they agreed to start meeting again in July. While some reports have surfaced indicating that there has been no progress, today’s scoop by Israel’s Channel 2 gives us a lot more insight as to where the parties stand. And what we’ve learned makes it obvious that the meetings are every bit the fool’s errand that most observers thought they would be all along. According to the Israeli TV station, a “disgruntled Palestinian official” has leaked the Palestinian proposals offered for peace. As the Times of Israel reports:

According to the report, the Palestinians are also insisting that they gain control over water, and control at their sides of the Dead Sea and border crossings; that a Palestinian state be able to sign agreements with other states without Israeli intervention; that Israel release all Palestinian prisoners it holds; and that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants be granted the right to choose to live in Israel or the Palestinian territories as part of a final agreement.

Let’s digest that for a minute. Not only did the Palestinians arrive at the peace table not prepared to compromise on their ability to militarize their putative state or join in offensive alliances against the smaller and more vulnerable Israel that would result from a peace treaty authorizing the birth of “Palestine.” They are also insisting that the millions of descendants of the Arab refugees of the 1948 War of Independence be allowed to “return” to Israel and effectively end the existence of the Jewish state. If that’s peace, what’s their idea of war?

To those who will argue that this is just an opening bargaining position that ought not be construed as their final offer, let’s imagine what the Israeli moral equivalent of these demands would be. It’s more or less the same thing as the Israelis saying the Palestinians could have an independent state alongside Israel provided that they accept that Jews would rule it.

Leaving aside the refugee question for a moment, the land-swap question is no minor technical dispute. Peace process advocates have estimated that 80 percent of the Jewish communities in the West Bank including the overwhelming majority of the settler population could be incorporated into pre-June 1967 Israel with a swap of 4 percent of West Bank land. But according to this report, the Palestinians won’t budge past 2 percent.

While the Palestinians may not like the Israeli positions on land swaps, they do not compromise the basic premise of land for peace. Such demands are subject to negotiation and if there was a genuine commitment to make a deal on the part of both sides they could, albeit with difficulty, be resolved. The Israelis, even this so-called “right-wing” government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has accepted the legitimacy of a two-state solution and agreed to the principle of territorial withdrawal from almost all of the West Bank. But the Palestinians are still stuck on what is, in essence, among the first principles of any peace deal: recognizing the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Part and parcel of that would mean discarding the right of return. Without doing that, what they are demanding is a Jew-free Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside an “Israel” inside the 1949 armistice lines with what would potentially be an Arab majority.

It’s true that Kerry’s blueprint for the talks calls for them to stretch out for nine months and we are only three months into that schedule. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is leading the Israeli delegation in the negotiations, is still making optimistic noises even while keeping mum about details. But such terms being offered by Palestinians make it hard to believe they are doing anything but going through the motions.

Peace is not just about pressuring parties to come to the table, though it must be conceded that Kerry’s efforts in this regard were impressive. In order for the diplomatic process to succeed there must be a desire to reach some sort of accommodation. But any discussion that involves terms that basically mandate the end of Israel illustrates that the Jewish state’s alleged peace partner is not genuinely interested in ending the conflict.

Given the Palestinian Authority’s culture of incitement and fomenting of hatred, this should come as a surprise to no one. And even if we accept the proposition that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas wants peace, the fact that Gaza is ruled by his Hamas rivals makes any agreement unlikely since signing it might give the embattled Islamists a major boost at his expense.

Meanwhile Israel is still acting as if peace is a real possibility and keeping its promise to release Palestinian terrorists, the price Kerry asked Netanyahu to pay in order to entice Abbas to participate in the talks. Israeli right-wingers continue to fret about the possibility that the Palestinians will take yes for an answer from Netanyahu.

By the same token, many in the United States still continue to talk as if it is Israel that must be pressured to make more concessions to the Palestinians. But so long as the Palestinians are still talking about the right of return, it’s painfully obvious there is nothing to talk about.

THIS IS A SIGN OF TRUE "PEACE" INTENTIONS.....Fatah: “All means of struggle until statehood”

THIS IS A SIGN OF TRUE "PEACE" INTENTIONS.....Fatah: “All means of struggle until statehood”
Fatah: "All means of struggle
until statehood"

Fatah about its military wing:
"When they strike - they cause pain"

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

Recent postings on one of Fatah's official Facebook pages reiterate the PA-Fatah strategy documented by Palestinian Media Watch of alternating between violence and diplomacy to put pressure on Israel to give in to the PA's demands.
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Sept. 8, 2013]

Under the headline "Fatah - All means of struggle until statehood" the administrator of the Fatah Facebook page posted three pictures showing different "means of struggle." One picture represents diplomacy as a "means of struggle," exemplified by a picture of PA Chairman Abbas speaking at the UN. The other two pictures represent the use of different kinds of violence as a "means of struggle." One shows a man wearing an Arab headscarf throwing a stone, while the other shows a man holding a rifle.
[Facebook, "Fatah - The Main Page," Sept. 22, 2013]
Another Fatah posting also illustrated the use of violence as one of Fatah's "means." A picture showed a member of Fatah's military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, taking aim with a rifle, accompanied by the following text:
"The Al-Aqsa [Martyrs'] Brigades:
When they speak - they act;
When they promise - they fulfill;
and when they strike - they cause pain."

Click to view examples of PA and Fatah officials referring to the strategy of alternating between diplomacy and violence.

This strategy is described in PMW's book Deception. For details on purchase, click here.

Which Country is More anti-Jewish, Qatar or Israel?

Which Country is More anti-Jewish, Qatar or Israel?

כ"ד לחודש השמיני תשע"ד

This was a disturbing report from the sports world....
Debbie NBC FINA World Cup Swimming Broadcast Censors Out Israeli Flag to Appease Muslims, Flag Also Pulled @ Facility

October 22, 2013

The FINA World Cup swimming competition video feed censored out the Israeli flag to appease the host country of the games, Qatar. The Israeli flag was also pulled from outside the swimming facility. Don’t blame the Muslim Nazis in Qatar. Blame the FINA co-conspirators who obeyed the demands of Qatar. FINA is the international governing body of swimming, diving, water polo, synchronized swimming and open water swimming. And if today’s FINA officials had been around in 1930s and ’40s Europe, they’d have fit in perfectly. Sieg Heil! So would the Jew-hating aholes at NBC Universal who did the, um, videography and “wipe the Israeli flag off the screen” graphics. (cont.)

Esser Agaroth (2¢): 
Lionel "Leo" Messi
Check out Debbie's full report, including examples of censored photos and videos.

What is particularly disturbing is that even though Qatar pulls this kind of shenanigans, it has not seemed to affect the popularity in Israel of wearing Qatar Foundation/Barcelona gear, in homage to the Argentine, Qatar Foundation-partnered FCB Barcelona team footballer Leo Messi. The [privatized] Israeli Postal Service even put out a commemorative set of stamps and soccer ball for sale. Most every branch had a manikin baring Messi's "Qatar Foundation" jersey.

"Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF), headquartered in Qatar's capital city of Doha, is an independent, private, non-profit organization established in 1995 by His Highness Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Amir of the State of Qatar...

Qatar Foundation logo/IDF Golani Brigade logo
Any resemblance?
"Qatar Foundation is proud to have been selected to place its logo on the FC Barcelona jersey as part of a long–term partnership between Qatar and one of the most successful football clubs in the world [FCB Barcelona]...."
Life In Israel: The Dayan Kippah Draws a Penalty

October 21, 2013

Guy Dayan, footballer (or soccer player) for Hapoel Acco, has devised his own version of the Icke Shuffle, and he too has upset the sports authorities. Dayan's celebration after he scores a goal has recently been updated to include pulling a kippa out of his sock and donning it atop his head.

Maybe it would be better to compare Dayan's celebration to Tim Tebow than Ickey Woods.

Guy Dayan celebrating with a kippah
(Photo credit: Madag Gozani)

Dayan first did the "Dayan Kippa" in a game against Maccabi Petach Tikva, and the referee ignored it. Then he did it again while playing against HaPoel Ranaana, and caught a penalty for it.

The refs association has decided to put an end to the uncertainty and issue a statement clarifying the rules. The statement reads:
In our region, due to the multitude of religions and sensitivities among the variety of populations, and in order to prevent any provocation and and unnecessarily inflaming passions, the donning of a kippa by a player who scores a goal will result in a yellow flag thrown. The referees will act accordingly.
No more Dayan Kippa in Israeli sports...
Esser Agaroth (2¢):
Can you believe these self-loathinggoy-pandering, "Jewish" referees?

It seems to me what they are trying to say is...

How dare Israel identify itself as a Jewish State.

How dare Israel allow for the freedom of religious expression,...for Jews.

How dare Jews in Israel stand out from the goyim, even in their own land, and even if it is not their intentions.

Normally, I would say that this is just like in galuth (exile): Wouldn't want to upset the goyim!

Unfortunately, there is something much more nefarious going on here. Israeli sports politics is only a drop in the bucket of the systematic de-Judaisation of the Land of Israel.

And so, I ask you, which country is more anti-Jewish, Qatar or Israel?

Qatar is simply behaving like it supposed to...

ישמעאל שונא את יעקב.
Yihsma'el hates Ya'aqov

The West is going along with it,...for the oil, for the "cultural experience" of it all, or for whatever.
עשו שונא את יעקב.
Esau hates Ya'aqov

What's Israel's excuse?

MORE FROM A "PEACE-LOVING" PEOPLE....PA minister: Hamas founder Yassin is role model for children

MORE FROM A "PEACE-LOVING" PEOPLE....PA minister: Hamas founder Yassin is role model for children
PA Minister of Religious Affairs:
Arch-terrorist and founder of Hamas,
Ahmed Yassin,
is "exalted Palestinian figure" and "icon"

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

A senior Palestinian Authority minister has presented arch-terrorist and founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, as a role model for Palestinians. In a Friday sermon recently broadcast on official PA TV, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud Al-Habbash stated that Yassin is an "exalted national Palestinian figure," an "icon," and that Palestinian children are taught about his "legacy, Jihad, actions, and morality."

Under Yassin's leadership, Hamas killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings, drive-by shootings and other terror attacks.

Click to view

While defending Arafat against criticism that had been voiced on Al-Jazeera TV, PA Minister Al-Habbash included Hamas leader and terrorist Yassin in his praise:
"Almost ten years after the death of the great leader Yasser Arafat, a leader over whom there was no dispute among the Palestinian nation... No one dared come out against us and accuse Arafat of treason. Can Arafat be accused of treason? Can Ahmed Yassin be accused of treason? Can they be accused of treason? They are exalted national Palestinian figures. They are icons - people teach their children about their legacy, their Jihad, their actions and their morality."
[Official PA TV, Sept. 13, 2013]

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin - Founder and former head of the terrorist organization Hamas. The Hamas movement is responsible for numerous terror attacks and the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians.

Click to see more examples of PA glorification of terrorists.