Comment of the Day

Any questions?

The original link.

Disagreeing with MJ Rosenberg On Iran

MJ Rosenberg has written a new article on the HuffPo with his usual choice of topics: AIPAC, "neocons," the Netanyahu government, Israel, American politicians, etc etc. This time he is attacking certain politicians for referencing the Holocaust in talking about why Israel must defend itself against Iran. I wouldn't have a problem with someone complaining about that, but from Rosenberg it's pretty hypocritical considering his love affair with Philip Weiss and other anti-Zionists Jews who have exploited the Holocaust to justify their points of view as well.

But I didn't want to talk about that so much, instead I simply wanted to disagree with a couple of points that he made on the subject of an Israeli attack on Iran. Let's start with this point:

"After all, no country in history has ever committed suicide in order to destroy another. And Israel, with 200 nuclear weapons and air, sea and land launchers, could easily destroy Iran if it was attacked."

Countries haven't committed suicide, but people have. This isn't to say that I entirely believe what Rosenberg refers to as "the absurd argument by neocons" that Iranian leadership would be willing to sacrifice their own lives to destroy Israel, but I also can't ignore statements like this in which they say they wouldn't mind sacrificing their own people to achieve their goals. And also, this thing about Israel "easily destroying Iran?" Come on. Not only do we not know that for sure, but this is Israel we're talking about. Would they commit Iranian genocide even with a perfectly good reason to do so? They're not even willing to do what it takes defend themselves against Hamas. Ultimately though this point is debatable. What I really wanted to get to was this:

"As for a Holocaust, the main threat to Israel from Iran would come from the regional war that would inevitably follow any Israeli (or U.S.) attack on Iran. Every major Israeli city is within range of Hezbollah's missiles and it has tens of thousands of them. How many innocent Israelis would die in a missile onslaught produced by Netanyahu and Barak's obsession with maintaining Israeli hegemony? How many is it worth?"

I've criticized Mr. Rosenberg before for not thinking about more than the imminent future, and it applies even more clearly here. Yes, it's probably safe to say that an Israeli attack now would set off a war and Israel would get pounded by rockets. Which would probably result in people getting killed.

But what happens a year from now, when Iran does have the bomb? Does Mr. Rosenberg think that Hezbollah will just toss their missiles in the garbage? Or maybe they'll decide to turn over a new leaf and make peace with Israel? Or will they wait until Iran has a nuclear weapon and then start the regional war, this time protected by an Iranian deterrent? How many innocent Israelis will die then, Mr. Rosenberg? Did you ever stop and think about that? Obviously you did not, and it's fortunate for the Israelis on the ground that their government is.

Next up we have this questionable paragraph:

"A war with Iran would end any possibility of Israel ever achieving either peace with the Muslim world or any semblance of security. Forever. The dream of a secure Jewish homeland, a dream that took 1900 years to achieve, would be over....It is hard to imagine that any Jew would wish that on Israel. But clearly some do."

I hate to interrupt this self-flagellation but I have a tiny little question:

Why?

Why would a strike on Iran prevent Israel from having peace at any point in the future? Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor and was thanked for it ten years later. Israel hit Syria's too and their security situation didn't fall apart. Let's not forget either that a great many Arab nations want Israel to attack Iran, very very badly. So what makes Iran different, exactly? Is it just that MJ Rosenberg really doesn't want Israel to attack them, so he says whatever he wants in order to make people listen to him, no matter how illogical?

And I don't say this because I want a war with Iran, because I don't. But unfortunately the situation is more complicated than "war is bad so let's not do it." Israel has many factors to consider in the process of making this decision, and the MJ Rosenberg method of "just ignore the inconvenient facts and wave your arms a lot" won't solve any of their problems. If he thinks Israel shouldn't attack, then argue on the merits. And while he's at it, maybe he can teach his followers on the Huffington Post to do the same.

Photo Bias: Lebanese Rockets

This made the talk of the town yesterday:

Again, note how the subject of the picture is soldiers carrying guns. Notice how we can't see a single one of their faces. Notice further how they are UN soldiers and not Israeli. Notice how different it is from this:

Or this:

Humanization is one way street on the Huffington Post I suppose.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: New Iphone App

Cool Iphone app designed by Israelis to combat driver fatigue:

"If you’ve ever been yelled at for using your phone while driving (and let’s be honest, who hasn’t) now is your time to feel vindicated. A new iPhone app, called Drivia, says it is not only safe for driving, but will actually make your driving safer.

Drivia is an interactive, voice activated trivia game application that is designed to keep drivers awake and safe. Drivia takes care of the driver, making sure he stays alert towards the game, and most importantly, the road. Once the app’s fired up, it will ask you multiple choice questions and you simply shout out “One!”, “Two!” or “Three!” when prompted. If you’re unresponsive for a period of time, the app quickly and persistently pesters you with questions and beeps with the aim of keeping you awake.

Drivia was invented by two friends who both had experiences with sleepy drivers. Israeli Eldad Ben-Tora was on his way home one night when the driver in front of him started to doze off and almost crashed into a car in the opposite lane. Meanwhile in Australia, Assaf Mayer Yitzhaki was on a 9-hour bus trip with a sleepy driver who stayed awake by shouting out answers to a quiz show on the radio.

When the two heard that a majority of road accidents happen because of driver fatigue or lack of focus, they decided to launch an application that would not only make the driver safer, but also keep him or her entertained and engaged. The app offers many different trivia categories that can appeal to different drivers, from history, to sports and music.

When turning on the app, users are asked to divulge their level of tiredness, from “awake” to “pretty tired” and “dead tired.” The content of the trivia game, as well as the interval between questions and volume, depends on the driver’s fatigue. If a driver responds too slowly, the app emits pre-recorded messages to engage the driver, as well as loud sounds, until the driver is responsive again.

Drivia is a free app available in the AppStore in English, Basque, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese. However, music and sports quizzes cost $0.99 each.

Drivia’s founders say they are planning to launch an android and Windows Mobile version, as well as an added feature displaying rest stops."

Sorry BDSers, you can't download this app because it was developed by evil evil Israelis. Oh well. 

UN Condemns Syria, HuffPosters Condemn Israel

As usual, there is only one state in the Middle East worth talking about on the Huffington Post, no matter what the article. This time, it's the UN releasing a report stating the Syrian government has committed "crimes against humanity." But hey, why talk about Syria "shooting indiscriminately at unarmed protesters" or "sexually abusing" prisoners when you could change the subject to Israel?

The original links

Denial of the Day

Jonathan Miller wrote a fantastic article about the liberal case for Israel, citing many examples of Israel's successes and positive attributes, much to the chagrin of the anti-Zionist crowd. One of these was about Israel's tolerance of gay people, unmatched anywhere else in the region. Shockingly, there were some including our old buddy "MarcEdward" who tried to disagree with him about that. For instance:

If you would like to go to the original link, you'll see that he didn't stick around to defend his point when confronted with the truth. Still, it is interesting to see the depths that Palestinian supporters will sink to in order to maintain their political views.

Neil vs Anav on UNESCO

As I think we may have pointed out, Anav Silverman has recently written something about how UNESCO is enabling Palestinian efforts to cover up Jewish history. If you don't remember that, I suggest you read it now because the Huffington Post has dutifully allowed the anti-Israel viewpoint to have the last word (like always). This time it comes from Neil Ford, Director of Public Information from UNESCO and brand new HuffPo blogger, who has now attempted to refute Ms. Silverman's claims about UNESCO. And how does he do it?

"UNESCO is not fueling conflict, as claimed by Anav Silverman in her emotional and poorly-researched attack...But rather than itemize the errors in Silverman's article, let me clarify how UNESCO's World Heritage Convention works and what it has done in Palestine."

Yep. That's it. That's all that Mr. Ford has. I'm not going to repeat that everything that Silverman said, but if you'd like to take a look at her article you will find that it is entirely fact based and well sourced, unlike Ford's article which contains exactly no links to back up anything that he says. Ms. Silverman has testimony from people living in the West Bank and specific examples of Palestinian misbehavior, while Mr. Ford has personal attacks and deflections. You tell me: who should we believe?

Mr. Ford then proceeds to talk about the mechanics of how a certain site gets recognized as a World Heritage Site under UNESCO, which nobody cares about, and then we have this. He said that both Israel and 'Palestine' have recommended sites under the guidelines and concludes with this:

"It should be clear, then, that UNESCO is not trying to replace Israeli heritage with Palestinian heritage. Many cultures and religions have their roots in the Middle East and it is important to protect the heritage and cultural monuments of them all. Through this work, UNESCO promotes dialogue, mutual understanding and peace -- not conflict and confrontation."

For a director of information, we expected a little bit better than that. The truth is that UNESCO swallows pretty much whatever the Palestinians give them, including the examples that Ms. Silverman outlined in her article but also that they are starting to declare Jewish sites in Israel as mosques.  Let's not forget the Triple Arch Gate at Dan either. And of course the endless Arab attempts to rewrite Jewish history in the region, which UNESCO does nothing to prevent. Why did Mr. Ford not even try to dispute the truth of any of these things?

If this is the best that UNESCO has to offer, don't expect them to get anywhere any time soon.

Towards a Safer Tomorrow: Israeli Defense Industry

[Anti-Zionists often ask "What has Israel done for us lately?" Daniel Seal answered that question on the pages on the Huffington Post, and so the haters scattered like cockroaches.]

The defence of a country's citizens has always been of perennial importance for governments across the world. Yet, in recent times, the international community has seen a plethora of new threats emerge. These threats are harder to detect and prevent, and are more sophisticated than any we have faced in human history. Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly, today's global defence expenditure is believed to be in excess of $1.6 trillion.

Leading the way in developing technologies to make our world a safer place is a country famed for its ingenuity and technological brilliance. Israel is no stranger to all manner of threats, and this has spurred extraordinary strides in the development of its defence technologies. These advances have in turn given rise to a seemingly voracious global demand for Israeli products. Last year alone, sales by the country's defence companies totalled just over $7 billion.

Typically, when we think of 'defence technology', we tend to picture larger, more 'high-profile' hardware. It is well established that Israel certainly boasts this sophisticated technology in abundance. But the country also distinguishes itself in smaller niche spheres, which are by no means less important in effective defence systems.

A good example is electro-optics company Meprolight. Established in 1990, it has provided the military, law-enforcement and civilian markets with cutting-edge optical, thermal and night-vision devices. Last month, the company released the NOA NYX, the latest instalment in its NOA thermal sight series. Weighing less than a kilogram, the device utilizes microbolometer technology, making it effective in dust, smoke and even complete darkness. Perhaps most impressively, the device identifies human-sized targets at a 900 metre range whilst only requiring 4 'AA' batteries to function. It is fully operational within five seconds of activation, and can transmit a live video feed to a remote screen. Such advanced capabilities can dramatically influence the dynamics of battle, and assist law-enforcement in a hitherto unprecedented manner, proving every bit as influential as the accompanying ordnance.

The nature of contemporary security risks has placed a premium on the successful detection of suspects, long before they can carry out their intentions. Indeed, the tired cliché 'prevention is better than cure' holds especially true, particularly in civil defence. Here again, Israel is well placed to deliver innovative solutions to a market where there is little room for error. Indeed, the country has pioneered technology that many would assume only possible in science fiction novels. Take for instance WeCU Technologies Limited. The company has designed an automated system which is able to detect an individual's intentions after a 15-30 second screening session. By exposing an individual to certain stimuli, the person reacts and gives subtle clues to their association with it. The device monitors these physiological and emotional reactions, and is thus able to alert law enforcement to suspicious behaviour.

Perhaps more than any other public space, airports have been the most scrupulously monitored and managed. As a consequence, passengers typically face a battery of scans and security checks before boarding their flight. Despite being time consuming, these checks can be awkward, and subject to human error. The removal of shoes for instance, surely ranks amongst the most bothersome pre-flight screenings that passengers are obligated to undergo. Yet this inconvenience may soon be a thing of the past as innovations such as the 'MagShoe' scanner become increasingly commonplace. Developed by IDO Security, the device accurately detects metal items concealed in footwear and up to four centimetres above the ankle. Screenings take just two seconds to complete, and passengers do not have to remove their shoes. Already used extensively at airports in the United States of America, the 'MagShoe' is also perfectly suited for use at courthouses, prisons, stadiums and corporate offices.

Elsewhere, the Shoham based firm, Suspect Detection Systems, has developed technology capable of pinpointing a possible suspect, even if they have never been of interest to law enforcement. The system is operational in a range of environments including airports and border posts, and has proved 96% accurate in its assessments. The mechanism evaluates psycho-physiological indications which are then cross-referenced with a comprehensive and sophisticated database of information. In this way, suspects are quickly identified, and passed on to relevant authorities for further questioning. The company's client base ranges from the United States to South Africa.

Understandably, defence strategists are notoriously noncommittal when forecasting future trends. But ask them about unmanned aerial systems and they'll quickly close ranks and deliver a unanimous verdict. Quite simply, this revolutionary technology will experience exponential growth, and assume an increasingly vital role in defence programmes across the globe. Market analysis estimates that the worldwide UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) market will surge to a staggering $94 billion within the next decade alone. They may be 'en vogue' across the world now, but Israel has had four decades of experience in the development and refinement of unmanned aerial systems. Today, the country enjoys universal repute as a leading 'paragon' of this technology. One quickly realises why when they discover the phenomenal capabilities of Israel's latest UAVs. Israel Aerospace Industries' 'Eitan' is a prime example. Designed principally for reconnaissance missions, and comfortably operating at altitudes exceeding commercial air traffic, the 'Eitan' is a truly formidable asset. Equipped with specialized sensor and radar packages, it is able to function in all weather conditions, and remain airborne for an extraordinary 36 consecutive hours. But it is not alone. Elbit Systems' 'Hermes 900' is another Israeli-made UAV making headlines. An internal auto take-off and landing system allows this rugged UAV to safely function on alternate non-instrumented runways. When airborne, it employs an astonishing on-board inventory, including a Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI), electro-optics, and a sophisticated IR imaging laser range finder and laser designation system.

Such excellence inevitably finds itself in massive demand, and Israeli defence contractors have been inundated with orders from across the globe. A sizeable amount of this interest emanates from emerging economies. Take for instance Brazil, a booming economy with tremendous potential and ever increasing prosperity. Consequently, it will have the honour of hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2014, and the Olympic Games in 2016. As such, the Brazilian government has realised that it will require a world-class security apparatus in place for both these events. The Brazilian Air Force has therefore chosen to invest in both Elbit's and IAI's Unmanned Aircraft Systems to assist in fortifying its homeland security. This trade is reflective of Jim O'Neill's deductions which I addressed in my last article, 'New Dawn, New Day: Israel's Window of Opportunity in the 'Growth 8' Decade'.

For a country so small in geographic size, Israel has consistently 'punched above its weight' in providing defence solutions to the globe. The country's prodigious ingenuity has catapulted its inventions to near mythical status. But what truly separates the country from its contemporaries is its ability to respond to change. As new threats emerge, Israeli security contractors have rapidly and authoritively met the challenges. Such acute adaptability bodes well as Israel boldly strides into the future. 

Comments of the Day

On a thread about Iran expelling the British ambassador. I'm pretty sure the first poster was kidding but the other two are not:

The original link.

Op-Ed The HuffPo Doesn't Publish: Israel Deception Edition

[From Ynetnews. A different side to the hysteria cycle regarding Israel democracy.]

The food here is terrible, says one hotel guest at the outset of the movie Annie Hall. And the portions are so small, replies her friend. In the same spirit of dissonance, we have seen around here in recent months a whining assault by our finest trendsetters and their partners; this offensive targets the terrible deeds of the current government, ranging from the trampling of our citizens to the destruction of democracy. The government is also being slammed over the tiny effort, if at all, it undertakes for the sake of the citizens and for the sake of peace.

Had a foreigner arrived here and listened to the revolutionary milieu headed by our social protest leaders or by the media, he would have 

no doubt that Israel’s citizens are no less than slaves; that the local middle class has been destroyed; that nobody can make ends meet around here unless he was fortunate enough to be born to a wealthy family compensated endlessly by Steinitz and Bibi; that Israel never faced such diplomatic isolation; that our higher education and research are maligned by backward, Third World standards; that racist and discriminatory laws are pulverizing Israeli society; and that the Bibi-Lieberman government is at fault for everything.

Had this foreigner paid some attention to some tedious archives, he would discover, for example, that the “country that reached a scientific nadir” is third in the world in terms of per capita scientific articles; that the number of academic researchers per capita is second in the world; that Israel’s share in the global science production is almost 10 times greater than its relative share in the global population; that the country is third in the world in research investment in universities in relation to its GDP; and that it’s the first in the world in national expenditure on civilian research out of total GDP.

If we dig deeper, we shall discover that Israel’s economy is 17th on the list of developed economies (according to the Swiss IMD); that in recent years it has grown more than all other Western states and that unemployment here is lower than in all these countries; that according to American journal Atlantic, when adjusting the calculations to various economic and technological innovation and development indexes Israel is ranked fourth in the world; that in 2010 this country climbed to 15th place in the United Nations’ standard of living index; and that this state boasts the fifth highest life expectancy among OECD countries.

Shopping malls are packed

The foreigner’s confusion would have grown exponentially had he been told that the state where “most subjects are no less than slaves” is eight in the world in terms of human happiness, according to a Gallup poll for the years 2005-2009 (in most recent survey from last year, Israel moved up to seventh place). Meanwhile, in a Geocartography poll from a month ago, some 70% of Israel’s citizens said their situation was good. According to another survey, almost 90% of citizens would not be willing to live anywhere else in the world.

On another note, no fewer than 4.3 million Israelis traveled abroad in 2010, while shopping malls and coffee shops in the country are more packed than ever before these days.

The foreigner’s confusion would not have been made better by the fact that “the country’s growing isolation” enables it to develop unprecedented commercial, security, scientific and high-tech ties with the world; that with the passage of time, Israel only boosted the number of its diplomatic relations; that senior statesmen keep visiting here; and that Israel was brought into prestigious OECD club.

This foreigner’s disorientation would have surely gotten the better of him had he realized that in a country where rumors have it that the government already killed democracy, where citizens are scared to speak up, where the High Court has turned into a government arm, and where draconian laws shattered the freedom of the press – that very same press has no problem slamming that very same government, anti-government groups face no hindrance in blasting their own government and state; where the terrible hearing method proposed at this time is nowhere near its American equivalent; where libel laws discussed by the Knesset are still much softer than Britain’s; and when Israel’s judicial activism has no parallel in the Western world.

Even if whining is an Israeli mitzvah, the attempt to paint Israel in dark colors is mostly a calculated, orchestrated deception effort by certain political, ideological and media parties who feel that blatant lies are also proper persuasion means.

The ability to prompt many fine people to hit the streets and squares this past summer in the name of the lie that the middle class collapsed a while ago, or the assertion that fascism and silencing laws have taken hold around here, constitute the clearest evidence that lies often work, while drawing many loyal repeat customers.

Daoud Kuttab Climbs on the Cross

There is a lot going on in Daoud Kuttab's latest cringing column in the Huffington Post, this time on the subject of the ever dwindling American aid to the Palestinians. Without further ado, let's get right into it:

"Few in Washington may realize that the issue of U.S. funding for Palestine is the talk of the town in Ramallah and other Palestinian cities. And the talk is not pleasant...."

Ooo, scary! And what exactly are the Palestinians going to do about it? Hate Americans more? Burn our flags some more? Perhaps in an earlier draft Mr. Kuttab explained why exactly Americans should care about what the Palestinians think regarding the millions of dollars we just give to them ever year for free, but it doesn't appear here. 


Instead it's all about Abbas, and that's where we get the title of this post. In this article Kuttab tries to dance the two-step in which both rejecting and accepting American aid is a good thing:

"Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been telling aides that he plans to reject some $150 million in federal money earmarked for Palestinian security. Abbas's opposition is principled."

Okay, what's wrong with that? Skipping down a bit we see:

"It would be a political misstep to accept funds earmarked for security services while schools and nurseries are not completed. Palestinians would see the aid as analogous to the 30 pieces of silver that were accepted by Judas Iscariot when he delivered Jesus -- a position Abbas does not want to be in." 

First of all, would "Palestinians" see it that way, Daoud, or would you see it that way? We've seen dozens of journalists try to speak for the Palestinian (and American, and Israeli) people but if you're going to make a big claim like that it would be useful to provide some proof. Of course, I'm guessing your average Palestinian on the street isn't so willing to compare himself or herself to Jesus, but clearly Kuttab is feeling arrogant enough to pull it off. The Palestinians' aren't Jesus, and the PA is not Judas for wanting to keep the Christ-like Palestinians for wanting to murder Israeli civilians...just like Christ would have done.

I may have skipped too far in getting to that analogy, but just to rephrase what Kuttab is saying: You see, in his mind it's not only acceptable but expected that Abbas should reject our money if it means doing what America says (like living up to the PA's obligations under Oslo or stopping terrorists), but if American aid to other areas of Palestinian life (like "schools and nurseries") was rejected, oh what a terrible crime that would be.

In other words, Kuttab wants American money but doesn't want to accept the price that comes with it. And anyone that feels otherwise is a Christ-killer. Hey, he said it not me. Of course, as anti-Zionists are so quick to remind us, aid is fungible and money that is earmarked for schools or security could just as easily go to anti-Western propaganda or weapons.

So in the end Kuttab's complaints are pretty much what we have seen before: Oh it's so unfair that America is punishing the Palestinians for defying them at the UN, and they should just hand over the cash and shut up. If they don't, the Palestinians are going to be very angry and like the Incredible Hulk, you won't like them when they are angry. He sums it all up with this:

"The intricacies of foreign policy are usually unknown to the average American. But it doesn't take much to understand that aligning with one side in the Middle East peace process not only erodes the United States' diplomatic leverage but also plants the seeds of doom for the United States in a sensitive region."

Really? So he thinks that the Palestinians marching to the UN, and in the process telling America to shove it, doesn't erode America's diplomatic leverage either? Or that giving free money to people who hate us and tell us to shove it doesn't do the same? It's becoming clear to me that like many anti-Zionists, Kuttab tries to convince his audience that he wants America to be "balanced" and "helpful to making peace," but in truth he just wants America to give his fellow Palestinians aid and stop thinking about it. It's becoming clear that those days are over.

Thought For the Day

Once upon a time there was a boy who looked after the sheep for his village. Every now and again a wolf would come and eat one of the sheep, and some of the villagers would complain; but the boy enjoyed looking after the sheep, so he would say “What do you mean, a wolf? I didn’t see a wolf. Anyway, I don’t think wolves even exist round here; some people just make up stories about wolves because they don’t want me to look after the sheep.” After a while all the villagers believed him, and they were relieved that they didn’t have to worry about wolves any more.

Then one day a really big wolf with sharp teeth and a glint in his eye came to the field, and said “little boy, I’m going to eat YOU!” So the boy shouted “Help! Help! There’s a wolf and he’s going to eat me!” And all the villagers said, “Oh sure, you expect us to believe that? Just concentrate on your sheep and don’t worry us about wolves.” So nobody would help the boy, and he was eaten by the wolf.

Liars are not believed, even when they speak the truth.

Or:

Don’t spend twenty years telling everyone that antisemitism is a Zionist lie designed to stop people criticising Israel, and then act surprised when your movement turns out to be riddled with antisemites.

From Harry's Place

HPW: ME's Latest Police State

The Huffington Post published an editorial by Patrick Galey discussing the movement of one of the Middle East's (admittedly flawed) democracies moving towards a police state. He talks about this mistreatment of Americans by this country and the internal strife but the bulk of the article was dedicated to a new wiretapping center opening that would monitor communications. Galey expresses concern that the center will be used by unsavory members of the government to violate the citizenry's civil liberties.

How do you think the HPers reacted?

Well, obviously, since the country in question wasn't Israel, they were all for it! Compare these comments to the comments left under Hagai El-Ad's article about Israel cutting off foreign funding for NGOs. As usual, when Israel isn't the one making poor decisions, the HuffPosters could care less.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Latest PalArab Poll

If there's one thing the Huffington Post doesn't want its readers to know, it's what the Palestinian people actually think. The Palestinians are much more useful to the "destroy Israel" cause when they are two dimensional victims, who exist only to be oppressed by Israel. But unfortunately for the HP, the Palestinians are real, and some people listen to what they have to say. Here's the results of a recently taken poll.

"A new poll carried out by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC) reveals that support for Fatah among residents of the Palestinian Authority has not been hurt by the Shalit deal , which was completed between Hamas and Israel last month.

And yet, the Hamas-led Shalit deal still receives wall to wall support – 86% of those questioned expressed their satisfaction with the results of the deal – the satisfaction rate is close to that of the Israeli satisfaction rate with the deal.
In spite of the pessimistic results, the poll revealed that when it comes to the political process, the majority of respondents (56.3%) opposed the resumption of violence against Israel, compared to 45.5% in April 2008. Furthermore, the percentage of supporters of terror operations dropped to 29.3% in this poll, compared with 49.5% in April 2008.  

The same trend was found regarding rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, where there was an increase in the percentage of respondents who found them harmful (40.8%), the JMCC poll revealed."

Good news, everyone! Only 1 in 3 Palestinians support murdering Israeli civilians! I'm sure peace is right around the corner!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Updates will resume on Monday.

Israel and the Red Cross Law

[An article by Kevin Bermeister on the HuffPo.]

Just last week, a Memorandum of Understandingbetween Magen David Adom (Israel's primary ambulance service organization, known as MDA) and the Palestine Red Crescent Society was leaked. The unintentionally disclosed MoU not only speaks to attitudes between and within the two ambulatory societies themselves but it also offers up a somewhat startling behind the scenes view into the negotiating tactics of the presumed politically-neutral International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and demonstrates their vested interest in tilting the outcome of Middle East negotiations.

In the memorandum, the ICRC, a long-revered operation which has presented itself publicly as a neutral party, is exposed instead as a political pawn. Rather than laboring to provide care whilst staying out of the maelstrom of the political machine, the ICRC appears to serve those nations that blindly cleave to the 22-year-old, flawed Oslo initiative. Not only has the ICRC rigidly continued to support the Oslo Accords but it has done so without considering whether or not that agreement has been so far compromised as to no longer be of aid to those caught in the midst of the reality that exists in the Middle East today.

The memorandum was signed in Geneva on November 28, 2005 by Dr. Noam Yifrach, the Israeli Services chairman, and Younis Al-Khatib, president of the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), in the presence of official representatives of the ICRC and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC). What the MoU did was empower its sponsors, the ICRC and the IFRC, to do more than just work towards saving lives, but also reveals how these related organizations used their power to promote one side of a political policy which could cause grievous harm to innocent citizens on either side. 

International law recognizes the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems as protected images. People, vehicles and buildings displaying these symbols are safeguarded and any party engaged in a conflict can be held liable to criminal or other charges if found to have targeted and harmed those protected by these emblems. MDA, wishing to obtain the same protection for their Star of David insignia, appealed to the ICRC for recognition. After many years of intensive diplomacy and negotiation the ICRC and the IFRC adopted the Red Crystal as a recognized emblem under Article Two of the additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: "Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005."

The memorandum, signed in November 2005 and the Protocol III adopted in December 2005, finally entitled MDA to include on its buildings and vehicles the Red Crystal emblem. By agreeing to this additional, controlled iconography, MDA obtained the protection, under international law that is afforded to the Cross and the Crescent, albeit via the Red Crystal. This recognition and sanction was finally obtained, but the 70-year process of getting to this point is, in itself, suspect. Moreover, now that documentation on the negotiations has been made public, the very nature of the concessions MDA was required to adhere to call the neutrality of the ICRC into question.

The deliberate and exacting pre-conditions imposed on MDA by the ICRC and the IFRC belie the promise of impartiality that is expected of such a prestigious and virtuous organization. In the MoU, Israel is branded as an "occupier" and MDA is forced to agree that "internationally recognized borders" are the only line of demarcation for protected ambulatory societies. "MDA and PRCS" were subjected to "operate in conformity with the legal framework applicable to the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967." Further "MDA" had to "ensure that it has no chapters outside the internationally recognized border of the state of Israel." "MDA and PRCS" had to "recognize that PRCS is the authorized national society in the Palestinian territory and that this territory is within the geographical scope of the operational activities and of the competences of PRCS."

In other words, according to this agreement, MDA has no right to set up an ambulance chapter to service its largest settlements such as Efrat, Gilo, Maalah Adumim, Ariel and Kedumim among others. Additionally, "MDA and PRCS will use a distinctive emblem in conformity with the requirements of the Geneva conventions and its Third Additional Protocol" thus stipulating that Israel's famed Red Star of David would be redesigned to display a Red Crystal in order to conform to the requirements of the protocol.

Both the Israeli MDA and the Palestinian RCS committed to operating "in accordance with international humanitarian law." I looked up "international humanitarian law" and discovered this brand of law is developed, sponsored and promoted by the ICRC. On their Website they make the bold assertion the ICRC is a "promoter and guardian of international humanitarian law (IHL)."

And yet, one has to ask where their impartiality lies in their arbitrating and upholding of humanitarian law. Let me remind readers of some facts related to Israel's formation. In 1948, Israel declared her independence setting her borders west of the Jordan River. Almost immediately thereafter, Jordan, Egypt and their allies attacked Israel occupying Israeli land including east Jerusalem, and the West Bank. In 1967 Jordan, Egypt and their allies attacked Israel again during which time Israel reclaimed the land it had lost in 1948. Given these facts, international law also declares Jordan and Egypt aggressors and supports Israel's legal right, so exactly what was it that motivated the ICRC and the IFRC to leverage its law to stoop into political rhetoric and brand Israel as an "occupier"?

Without question, the Red Cross has been caring for those in need and has been an unmitigated savior for millions of people. Nevertheless, in the eyes of countless Red Cross supporters, the organization's innocence has been tainted and its claim of neutrality severely compromised. Perhaps I am being oversensitive to the abuses perpetrated by the ICRC or perhaps MDA, which relies on foreign donors to come up with the vast majority of its funds, was the victor finally obtaining important refuge for the Star of David as provided under international law.

Whatever the case, in the highly charged, sensitive realm of diplomacy, these emblems are imbued with deep-seated meaning, and in manipulating these marks, the ICRC will have used her privileged position of power to leverage her diplomatic advantage over Israel in every significant territory in which they operate. Donors to the Red Cross and MDA may ponder these political maneuverings, but both organizations do wonderful work for people in need and that, ultimately, is paramount.

Despite the concerted efforts of nations affiliated with the Red Cross and their Red Crescent nation cohorts, the Oslo Accords of 1993 spiraled downward into the abyss of failed diplomacy. In the meantime, Israel established for itself, and its people, a new reality in a world where information and knowledge are accessible to all, not merely the purview of a privileged few who kept all others entrenched in ignorant darkness. As Oslo's heady days disappear into the sunset, perhaps now all people in the region, armed with more accurate and fuller information, will finally be better served. 

The Curious Delegitimization Inversion

[By Matthew Ackerman.]

An editorial published yesterday by the Washington Post demonstrates an odd inversion regarding delegitimization that has become popular of late, in which actions taken by the Israeli government to enhance its legitimacy are deemed to further erode it. By protecting those working against Israel’s standing and constraining those who hope to fight against them, these kinds of editorials do much more to delegitimize Israel than any action taken by the country’s government.

The topic of the editorial is the latest supposedly “democracy threatening” action being contemplated by the Israeli government: legislation that would limit the funding foreign governments can supply to NGOs active in Israel. While it may be true the specific legislation the current Knesset is contemplating may not be the most effective solution, it does speak to a real problem: the support by foreign governments of a wide range of organizations active in Israel that seek to condemn Israel in international forums. Speaking to a foreign audience and not a domestic one, receiving funding from foreign governments and not private constituencies, many of these organizations are “Israeli” in name only and have become one of the more effective tools for spreading delegitimization in the West.

This is a serious problem that requires a smart, effective solution.

It won’t do, then, to claim, as the Washington Post does,“that the groups themselves are not trying to subvert the state — only to correct what they see as its flaws” or that the “groups have been targeted by right-wing politicians because many advocate for Palestinian rights.” To write this way is to parrot the justifications these groups make for themselves without investigating the many examples of public statements, positions, and actions they have made calling not for an “improvement” in the Jewish state but its end.

Thankfully, calls for the dismantling of the Jewish state remain taboo in mainstream public debate in the United States. Hence the irresistible allure of rhetoric that accuses those Israelis trying to prevent their country’s foundations from being eroded beneath them of being agents for delegitimization. It absolves the accuser from the responsibility of taking seriously the idea that powerful actors are trying, with some success, to undermine Israel’s legitimacy (for reasons that have nothing to do with any specific Israeli policies other than existence) and therefore considering what can be done about it.

It is in its way similar to rhetoric often employed during the Palestinian terror war from 2000-2004, during which many American commentators held that the problem of Palestinian terrorism could not be solved using military means, a supposition some later smartly concluded the IDF proved them wrong on. Whether attacks against Israelis come in ideological or militant form, the reflexive response of the commentariat is that aggressive Israeli attempts to fight back are at best counterproductive. In the end, however, this kind of thinking becomes an excuse for giving in to the forces arrayed against you when the smartest policy is instead to martial all the tools at your disposal and fight as well and as hard as one can.

The Washington Post’s editorial writers deserve credit for often taking sensible stands on Israel. In this case, however, they need to think more deeply.

New Trailer

Found by Israellycool:

Mya Guarnieri Rants About Settlements

Everyone's favorite HP blogger Mya "Sue Happy" Guarnieri has returned with extreme news about extreme visits to extreme places in the Middle East. I would perhaps think that an extreme trip to the ME would be visiting places like Saudi Arabia or Syria or Gaza. But no, it's the settlements in the West Bank.

Now, when I think extreme right-wing tour, I think of Republican congresspeople parachuting into a war zone while terrorists shoot at them and F-16s scream overhead. Or at least a lot of Mountain Dew

Our check is in the mail.

Let's see what Guarnieri has to say about it.

First she cites her source for the article (good), which is the Alternative Information Center (bad). The AIC is not a news organiation, it is an NGO dedicated to "a just peace" between Israelis and Palestinians. Take that for what its worth, especially after you read the article. Here are the facts:

"Five US Congressional Representatives recently conducted a "precedent-setting and historic visit" to Israeli West Bank settlements.... The five Republican members of Congress conducted the "in-depth tour" in cooperation with the Ariel Development Fund and the Strategic Unit of the Samarian Regional Council...During the tour the congressional representatives visited the Cross Samaria Road, the Barkan Industrial Zone, the settlement of Ariel, and participated in a formal reception in the Nablus-area settlement of Har Bracha."

Guarnieri then whines about the cruel Israelis hiring Palestinians to work on the settlements, and reminds everyone that the settlements are illegal.

So the question must be asked, what is "extreme" or "right-wing" about visiting settlements? It's not like the tour included speakers who said that all Arabs are evil (at least, according to the article Guarnieri linked to). If anyone on the tour endorsed extreme political views, I don't doubt that Guarnieri would have been happy to spell out exactly what was said. The settlers are people and there is nothing "extreme" about visiting them. Even left-wing and pro-Palestinian tour groups go and see the settlements up close and interact with the people there.

It's too bad Guarnieri stereotypes the settlers and their supporters as all extremists. Dehumanizing the enemy is something done in war, but decent people would expect Guarnieri to not do that to her fellow Israelis, Jews, and human beings.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

No real context needed, but you can click the link below if you want.

Gotta love anti-Semitic imagery surviving WWII and ending up on the HuffPost.

The original link.

"Peaceful" Comment of the Day

On a fully moderated thread:

HuffPost approved!

The original link.