IDF thumbs its nose at Europe, US State Department seethes
Four and a half years ago, the Europeans commenced a new strategy to try to force Israel to commit suicide: They began building illegally for the 'Palestinians' in areas that are classified as Area C. At the time I wrote:
When Israel entered into the Oslo Accords in 1993-1995, the entire area
of Judea and Samaria was split into three parts. 'Area A,' which mostly
comprised the seven major cities in Judea and Samaria, and which
contained most of the Arab population of the area, was to be under
'Palestinian' control. 'Area B' was to be under 'Palestinian' civilian
control with Israel responsible for security. 'Area C,' which includes
most of the Jewish cities and towns in Judea and Samaria, was to be
under complete Israeli control.
Under the Oslo Accords, there
were no restrictions on Israeli building in Area C. Those who negotiated
the Oslo Accords envisioned an eventual 'Palestinian autonomy' within
Areas A and B. There was no intent to establish a 'Palestinian state,'
and certainly no promises from Israel that one would be established. In
fact, the opposite was true. This is from Prime Minister Rabin's last
speech to the Knesset - in which he was advocating for a Knesset
endorsement of 'Oslo 2' - on October 5, 1995:
We view the
permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will
include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule
of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which
will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank.
We
would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which
will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its
authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the
permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the
Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First
and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim
and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty,
while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths,
Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in
their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes
which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and
other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the
"Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.
That's a far cry from what the 'international community' and the Obama administration are attempting to push on us today.
For a long time, Israel ignored the illegal European building. But the Europeans are obsessed with destroying the Jewish state (that's the strongest lesson I am learning from Tuvia Tenenboim's Catch the Jew), and the IDF has finally decided enough is enough.
The IDF on Tuesday morning razed five unauthorized Palestinian modular structures in the South Hebron region of the West Bank, three of which had been funded by the European Union. [Note the EU flag on the trailer - CiJ].
...
The five structures in question were part of the village of Um al-Kheir,
which is located next to the settlement of Carmel. Three of them were
newly built, very close to the security fence around Carmel.
The non-governmental group B’Tselem, which has opposed such
actions, released a video of the demolition, which showed the shovel of a
crane taking down the structure within minutes as the villagers
watched.
Israel is apparently going to begin taking illegal 'Palestinian' building seriously.
On Sunday, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked visited the South Hebron Hills
to see the unauthorized Palestinian construction for herself.
“I
saw on this trip a tremendous amount of illegal Palestinian building in
Area C, with the help of foreign funding. We can’t allow for a double
standard when it comes to building. It’s not clear to me how those who
fight against Jewish building in Judea and Samaria are a leading force
in illegal Palestinian building,” Shaked said.
But on Monday - before the demolitions happened - the Obama-Clinton-Kerry State Department - the foreign policy czars of the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' - was seething.
“We are concerned by the accelerated rate of demolitions undertaken by
Israeli authorities that continue in the West Bank as well as east
Jerusalem,” State Department Press Office Director Elizabeth Trudeau
told reporters in Washington at the daily briefing.
Funny - don't they demolish illegal buildings in the US?
NGO Monitor reports that the German government spent millions of dollars between 2012 and 2015 supporting Israeli groups that support boycotting Israel and negating the Jewish state.
The NGO Monitor watchdog group has found that between 2012 and 2015,
Germany funneled at least $4.4 million to some 15 Israeli organizations,
and 42 percent of the donations went to groups supporting an
international boycott against Israel and policies negating Israel’s
existence as a Jewish state.
The report found that the German Economic Cooperation and Development
Ministry operates a Civil Peace Service (Ziviler Friedensdienst)
project in Israel, but in fact, on the ground the project is headed by a
different German group, KURVE Wustrow, which has partnered with two
local organizations—the Israeli Coalition of Women for Peace and the
Palestinian Popular Struggle Coordination Committee.
NGO Monitor argues that the Coalition of Women for Peace actively
supports the BDS movement, including heading a project titled “Who
Profits from the Occupation,” a database of potential boycott “targets.”
The Popular Struggle Coordination Committee promotes violent riots
across Judea and Samaria, and its Twitter account often features posts
encouraging violence, the report said.
The German Embassy in Israel said that Germany “remains committed to
the two-state solution and devising sustainable peace in the Middle
East. The German government opposes any boycott of Israel, including BDS
activities, as such action undermines the peace process. The German
government’s funding policy seeks to support selected projects via
earmarked funds. Germany will continue to invest in projects and
initiatives that can promote and increase awareness to the two-state
solution.”
Still reading Catch the Jew, and this is totally consistent with it. Hitler must be feeling proud.
And then there's the European Union, which despite all its problems still focuses hatred on Israel.
Yes, that's an EU sponsored caravan for 'Palestinians' in Area C (which under the Oslo accords is totally controlled by Israel) and yes, it's illegal. This one is right next to the Jewish town of Carmel in the Mount Hebron region.
Can the decline be stopped? Yes, but that would require a great
unlearning of the political mythologies on which modern Europe was
built.
Among those mythologies: that the European Union is the
result of a postwar moral commitment to peace; that Christianity is of
merely historical importance to European identity; that there’s no such
thing as a military solution; that one’s country isn’t worth fighting
for; that honor is atavistic and tolerance is the supreme value. People
who believe in nothing, including themselves, will ultimately submit to
anything.
The alternative is a recognition that Europe’s long
peace depended on the presence of American military power, and that the
retreat of that power will require Europeans to defend themselves.
Europe will also have to figure out how to apply power not symbolically,
as it now does, but strategically, in pursuit of difficult objectives.
That could start with the destruction of ISIS in Libya.
More
important, Europeans will have to learn that powerlessness can be as
corrupting as power—and much more dangerous. The storm of terror that is
descending on Europe will not end in some new politics of inclusion,
community outreach, more foreign aid or one of Mrs. Merkel’s diplomatic Rube Goldbergs. It will end in rivers of blood. Theirs or yours?
In
all this, the best guide to how Europe can find its way to safety is
the country it has spent the best part of the last 50 years lecturing
and vilifying: Israel. For now, it’s the only country in the West that
refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of
human rights or altar of peace.
Europeans will no doubt look to
Israel for tactical tips in the battle against terrorism—crowd
management techniques and so on—but what they really need to learn from
the Jewish state is the moral lesson. Namely, that identity can be a
great preserver of liberty, and that free societies cannot survive
through progressive accommodations to barbarians.
Of course for Europe to learn anything from Israel it will first have to overcome its longstanding and visceral hatred of Jews. Is it capable of doing so? If the past is any guide, we may have a Muslim-controlled Europe in the next 50 years.
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen has in essence now admitted that lied when he told the European Parliament on Thursday that a 'rabbi' ordered Jews to poison 'Palestinian' water. The 'rabbi' doesn't exist, the organization he 'represented' doesn't exist, but none of that stopped Abu Bluff from telling the lie, nor did it stop the European anti-Semites who make up the European Parliament (including a grinning ear-to-ear foreign policy chief Federika Mog - a pity you can't watch the video anymore).
Mr.
Abbas’s retraction was sent to reporters early Saturday morning, issued
by the P.L.O., of which Mr. Abbas is the chairman. It said that Mr.
Abbas “rejected all claims that accuse him and the Palestinian people of
offending the Jewish religion.” It added that he “also condemned all
accusations of anti-Semitism.”
“After
it has become evident that the alleged statements by a rabbi on
poisoning Palestinian wells, which were reported by various media
outlets, are baseless, President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed that he
didn’t intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around
the world,” the statement continued.
It
was not immediately clear why Mr. Abbas repeated the allegation on
Thursday, days after it was widely debunked. Neither the rabbi who
supposedly made the claim, nor the organization quoted in the original
P.L.O. article, appear to exist.
And of course, this is not the first time that 'Mr. Abbas' has invented a lie. In fact, the entire existence of a 'Palestinian people' is one great big lie.
In October, Mr. Abbas erroneously accused Israeli forces of killing a 13-year-old Palestinian boy who had taken part in the stabbing of two Israelis. The boy had actually been wounded and later recovered.
So what's the genesis of this particular lie (aside from the Bubonic plague in 14th century Europe)? Here's where it came from.
The story was discovered to be false by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW),
an Israeli NGO that monitors Palestinian incitement. PMW claims that
Abbas’ accusation is based on an article published last week in Anadolu,
a Turkish news service, which claimed , “Rabbi Shlomo Mlma (sic),
chairman of the Council of Rabbis in the West Bank settlements(sic), has
issued an advisory opinion in which he allowed Jewish settlers to
poison water in Palestinian villages and cities in the West Bank.”
PMW reported that the story in Anadolu was based on a claim by Yehuda Shaul, a leader of the extreme left-wing Israeli NGO Breaking the Silence. Shaul was quoted in the Hebrew news service, NRG, as saying that “settlers poisoned” the water of a Palestinian town a number of years ago causing the Palestinians to leave”.
The story was confirmed as incorrect by several news services including Reuters and Haaretz. No such rabbi or council was found to exist.
Shocked. Just totally shocked... to see the Turks and the self-hating Jews at 'Breaking the Silence' involved in this....
I can't help but wonder what would happen if membership in the United Nations were brought to a democratic vote in its member countries. Here's some (prescient?) thoughts on that question by Judi McLeod in the Canadian Free Press (well, at least for now it's free, but the Trudeau government might have something to say about that).
“Today,
the sun has risen on an independent Britain, and look at it, even the
weather has improved,” announced Nigel Farage from the steps of
Westminster after the result was confirmed.
And the sun, which replaces the artificial
one on Obama’s logo, is rising in America too. Obama, who likely has
the leadership of the UN in his sights with the end of his term in
January 2017, was all but totally ignored by pro-Brexit voters.
...
Obama and his teleprompter can’t possibly walk back the unasked for
advice he pushed on British voters to “stay” warning them they would be
at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S.
The toffs at the
EU, mostly unknown by the people they profess to serve, but who are
lavishly paid, may rule the roost in other European countries, but after
today’s vote of the people—no more in England.
The UN, which has the same unearned status from its ever sprawling headquarters in Manhattan, should be feeling the chill.
Shout it from the rooftops: The status quo was historically toppled for independence in Britain.
If it can happen there, it can happen in America.
In Israel, where we have systematically ignored the UN for as long as anyone can remember, voters may be too afraid to withdraw from it. After all, we are the lone sheep among all the lions, and we are still a small country, who can be hurt by the nations of the world in other ways, even if the UN's obsession with the 'Palestinians' also hurts us.
But the United States? That might be a different story.
I'm in Boston for those who have forgotten, and that's why I'm posting after Shabbat started in Israel. In case I don't get to post again, Shabbat Shalom to all of you.
Celebrating #Brexit: Why the EU doesn't deserve to exist
It's the morning after the #Brexit vote, and President Obama is giving (worthless) assurances that the US will maintain its 'special relationship' with Britain, even if Britain just slapped him and his internationalism in the face. If nothing else, #Brexit is proof positive that nationalism is alive and well in the 21st century. Two of the three guys in this picture are happy this morning. The other is President of the United States.
Like many Americans who have had it with Obama's immigration policies (and celebrated Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the State of Texas' defiance of Obama's open borders edict), many Brits have had it with Angela Merkel's allowing unfettered access to Europe for Muslim terrorists by way of Germany and the Schengen visa.
But if you want a reason for the wrath of God to be brought down on Europe, watch the European Parliament's reaction to 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen claiming that unnamed 'rabbis' had called for poisoning 'Palestinian' water. Yes, that's a blood libel worthy of the Middle Ages, but it brought the anti-Semitic Euroweenies lots of cheer on the day of the #Brexit vote.
Let's go to the videotape.
Here's the 30-second standing ovation the EU parliament gave to Palestinian President Abbas's anti-Semitic speech: pic.twitter.com/rYMHRG5Tld
— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) June 24, 2016
If the EU ceases to exist, there will be one less anti-Semitic body in the world and that's a good thing.
Greetings from an airline lounge in Paris, where the caterer is Jewish but the food isn't Kosher :-(
Yes, it's a travel day again.
Tomorrow Britain may vote to secede from the European Union in a process known as Brexit. If you're an Israeli, you should be rooting for that to happen. Here's why.
Should supporters of the ‘Leave’ campaign win the day this Thursday there’ll be aftershocks aplenty — and Israel too will feel the pain. Yet paying a short-term price will be worth the long-term gain: a victory for Britain’s exit from the EU is a preferable outcome both for Israel and Europe.
Diplomatically, Israel is better off negotiating separately with 28 foreign offices than with the European foreign service — the EEAS. As Michel Gurfienkel, the founder and president of the Jean Jacques Rousseau Institute, perceptively wrote: "the EU’s decision-making process, at French insistence but with British acquiescence, is based on the principle of unanimity or near-unanimity rather than on majority opinion."
Once France adopted a pro-Arab policy, for reasons of grandeur and later due to the increasing weight of its Muslim minority, it could use its position as part of the bloc's traditional motor to accentuate the EU's anti-Israel diplomatic tilt. The current French-inspired international conference to which the EU foreign ministers have subscribed is a case in point. After an anti-Israel vote, some of Israel's friends within the EU rush to explain that they disagreed but had to go along with the resolution to be good Europeans. For Israel it would be beneficial to rob them of this excuse.
The EU foreign service with pretensions to represent a great power status unflaggingly pummels Israel to compensate for Europe's prostrate behavior towards the likes of Turkey and Iran. The EU intervenes in our politics by engaging and empowering NGOs from one side of the political spectrum and thumbs its nose at our sovereignty by illegally building houses and roads in disputed areas whose ultimate disposition can only be decided by direct negotiations.
It is hard to feel benevolence towards a body whose representatives at UNESCO voted for a resolution that denied a Jewish connection to Jerusalem. It is difficult to take their condemnations of anti-Semitism at face value when Jews in Europe are compelled to take off their kippot and pull out their mezuzahs to disguise their identity and protect their safety.
The music that emanates from the corridors of Berlaymont is that the nation state is an anachronism. Israel, by providing a counter-example, angers the mandarins of Brussels.
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' going all out to destroy Israel?
Now that his administration has reached its final months, and little can be done to him personally, Barack Obama is pushing a harder line against Israel in an upcoming report about the 'settlements.'
The report, which is likely to be released in late May or early June,
will focus heavily on Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria, and
Jerusalem, senior diplomats told AP. The Quartet’s report will also take Israel to task for the demolition of illegal Arab buildings – many of which were built with the support of the European Union.
While in the past the US worked to soften some of the criticism
against Israel leveled by the EU, UN, and Russia, now, say officials
working on the Quartet report, US diplomats are pushing for harsher
language against the Jewish state.
One diplomat said the report was the Obama administration’s way of
putting Israel “on notice” that its patience was wearing thin.
Other officials involved in the drafting of the document claimed the
report will also criticize Israel for the legalization of some Jewish
communities in Judea and Samaria.
News of the Quartet report comes amid leaks indicating the Obama
administration is considering unprecedented moves to force Israel and
the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating channel. One option reportedly
on the table is a United Nations Security Council Resolution to layout
the frame work for a final status agreement – and force both Israel and
the Palestinian Authority into final talks.
Because the Iran deal that he rammed through Congress didn't endanger Israel enough.... 'Most pro-Israel administration evah'?
Exposed: 'Breaking the Silence' collects intelligence on the IDF - Does it reach their European masters?
Greetings from Boston where I have been working all week, and where the Sabbath does not start for several more hours. I will be here until Sunday morning. Sunday is a travel day, but I'm not heading back to Israel just yet. I'm heading West... (and should have WiFi access on the plane, so you may see a few more posts on Sunday). And for those who watch the weather reports, it looks like I will once again escape a serious winter snowstorm by the skin of my teeth, God Willing.
For those of you who have forgotten 'Breaking the Silence,' they are an organization that claims to be dedicated to exposing IDF abuses of 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria. They are funded by European governments, by the European Union (which awarded them the prestigious Andrei Sakharov prize) and by private American citizens (as well as by UNICEF and OxFam). Br'eaking the Silence' interviews discharged IDF soldiers and debriefs them regarding their IDF service. Or so they claim. It now seems that they do a lot more.
You might recall that recently, an organization called Ad Kan (Until Here) turned over video evidence to Israel's Channel 10 about human rights violations by 'human rights' groups Taayush and B'Tselem.Spreading the wealth, the group handed over material on 'Breaking the Silence' to Israel's Channel 2, which reported on it Thursday night (link and video in Hebrew). The material shows that 'Breaking the Silence' is collecting military intelligence which has no connection to 'human rights' violations in Judea and Samaria or anyplace else. And the unanswered question is 'with whom does 'Breaking the Silence' share that intelligence material?' That intelligence material could clearly and presently endanger the State of Israel.
In its investigation, Channel 2 cited unpublished testimonies from
Israeli soldiers that were obtained by the right-wing NGO Ad Kan, which
sent some of its members to join Breaking the Silence undercover. The
report claimed that Breaking the Silence collected “operational and
intelligence” information about IDF activities from both current and
former soldiers.
Channel 2 also broadcast videos of Breaking the Silence asking
soldiers “questions [that] appear to revolve more around their
operational activity rather issues regarding Palestinians and human
rights.”
While Breaking the Silence says it gathers anonymous testimonies from
Israeli soldiers about the IDF’s purported human rights abuses, these
testimonies have been previously criticized as being unsubstantiated and lacking context. In recent months, the group has come under increased scrutiny over the ethics of its practices.
In the wake of the new Channel 2 report, Breaking the Silence denied
any wrongdoing and emphasized that it works closely with Israel’s
military censor. Breaking the Silence CEO Yuli Novak added that several
organizations and members of the Knesset were trying “to silence” her
group.
And it seems that the next group to come under scrutiny may be 'rabbis' for 'human rights.'
The broadcast became headline news and the fallout
continued for weeks. Nawi was arrested at Ben-Gurion Airport when he
tried to flee the country.
A few days later, a follow-up program aired
more hidden-camera footage, this time showing Nawi with officials from
two other prominent “human rights” NGOs—Breaking the Silence (BtS) and
Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Both groups were shown giving money to
Nawi, who then handed out checks to Palestinians, apparently for taking
part in violent demonstrations. RHR claimed that Nawi was paid for
providing transportation services. BtS denounced everyone involved in
the program as “Stasi,” a reference to the notorious East German
intelligence service.
Steinberg observed that even before the broadcast of Nawi with
representatives of Breaking the Silence, there was growing criticism of
the group across the political spectrum in Israel.
Prior to the Uvda broadcasts, BtS and its patrons were
the particular focus of growing anger among many Israelis on the Right,
center, and even the center-Left. This anger followed a major jump in
the visibility of BtS, which reflected the group’s million- dollar
budget. BtS events in churches, universities, and national parliaments
around the world featured “anonymous testimony” that alleged systematic
immorality by IDF soldiers, with no corroborating evidence.
In response, hundreds of IDF reserve officers petitioned the Minister
of Defense, demanding that BtS activists be barred from speaking on
military bases. In parallel, relatives of terror victims and fallen
soldiers demanded that Education Minister Naftali Bennett prohibit BtS
from speaking to high school students. NGOs like B’Tselem were also
criticized. On Israel’s popular Saturday night satire program Gav Hauma,
host Lior Schleien did a ten-minute routine based on the issue,
primarily lampooning BtS and related NGOs.
I'm amazed that B'Tselem is allowed to speak on military bases.... But what Professor Steinberg says about anger coming from 'even the center-Left' is true. Yesh Atid party leader Yair Lapid has accused 'Breaking the Silence' of digging under the foundations of the State of Israel, and causing it both internal and external damage (link in Hebrew).
For those of you wondering why Israel feels the need to stop foreign governments from financing its NGO's, this is another data point.
ISIS has recruited experts with chemistry, physics and computer science degrees to wage war with weapons of mass destruction against the West, a shocking European Parliament report has claimed.
The terror organisation, according to the briefing document, 'may be planning to try to use internationally banned weapons of mass destruction in future attacks'.
The document, which was compiled in the aftermath of the deadly attacks on Paris claimed that ISIS has already smuggled WMD material into Europe.
Experts fear that ISIS will be able to exploit a failure of EU governments to share information on possible terrorists.
Already, British police forces have been conducting exercises on how to deal with various types of terrorist attack. But the EU report claims that government should 'consider publicly addressing the possibility of terrorist attack using chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear materials'.
The report, ISIL/Da'esh and 'non-conventional' weapons of terror warns: 'At present, European citizens are not seriously contemplating the possibility that extremist groups might use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials during attacks in Europe. Under these circumstances, the impact of such an attack, should it occur, would be even more destabilising.'
Rob Wainwright, head of Europol said after the attacks on Paris: 'We are dealing with a very serious, well-resourced, determined international terrorist organisation that is now active on the streets of Europe.
'This represents the most serious terrorist threat faced in Europe for 10 years.'
Well, just as long as they don't attack before January 20, 2017 (or for that matter, November 8, 2016), Obama is cool with it.
#BDS_Fail Why Netanyahu can snub his nose at Europe
In case you missed it, earlier this week, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that he is suspending Europe's involvement in the 'peace process,' in response to Europe's decision to label (and effectively boycott) products originating in Judea and Samaria.
That sounds like a bold step by a small country against the European behemoth. Evelyn Gordon explains why it's a step that Israel could afford to take.
The deputy prime minister of Vietnam visited Israel on Wednesday, prompting Jerusalem Post reporter Herb Keinon to delve into some fascinating trade statistics.
Bilateral trade between Israel and Vietnam totaled almost $1.1 billion
last year, a fivefold increase in just five years, and is now more than
double Israel’s trade with Austria and four times its trade with Norway.
In fact, Keinon later tweeted,
Israel’s trade with Vietnam now exceeds its trade with 21 of the
European Union’s 28 member states. And Vietnam is just one country;
Israeli trade with other Asian countries has also burgeoned. All of
which goes to show that one of Israel’s biggest Achilles’ heels – its
economic dependence on an increasingly hostile Europe – is swiftly
disappearing.
Taken as a whole, the EU is still Israel’s largest
trading partner, but its lead has been shrinking rapidly as Israeli
trade with other parts of the globe expands. Moreover, many of the
European countries most hostile to Israel are among its least important
trading partners. Norway, Sweden, and Ireland, for instance, would star
in any list of the most hostile countries, yet each of them conducts
less trade with Israel than Vietnam does. In other words, the countries
that are most hostile to Israel tend to be those with relatively little
ability to cause it economic harm.
Israel has long since ceased to count on Europe for
diplomatic support. In international forums, many European countries
reflexively back even the most outrageous anti-Israel resolutions, while
even Israel’s best friends in Europe rarely do more than abstain. This
past May, for instance, every EU country voted for
a UN resolution declaring Israel the world’s worst violator of health
rights (perhaps they think Israeli hospitals should stop treating Syrian
war victims or cancer patients from Hamas-run Gaza?).
Nor does Israel depend on Europe militarily. As Haaretz reporter Anshel Pfeffer pointed out
after Britain threatened to suspend arms exports to Israel during last
summer’s Gaza war, such threats are so old hat that Israel long ago
dropped Britain as a major military supplier. Ditto for most other
European countries (the two exceptions being Germany and Italy). Today,
Israeli defense imports from Britain consist mostly of spare parts that
it could easily obtain elsewhere if necessary.
Must see video: With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations
I planned to post this yesterday, but was too busy with work. The Middle East is taking over Europe. Unfortunately for the Europeans, that isn't a reference to Israel and the Jews. It's a reference to Muslims coming from Middle Eastern, South Asian and African countries who are turning native Europeans into a minority with the cooperation and encouragement of Europe's chattering classes.
Let's go to the videotape. It's kind of long but worth watching.
With all this going on, the only thing that seems to concern the Europeans is barring products of 'Israeli settlements' - an act that is proven anti-Semitic by the fact that it is the only 'occupation' among some 200 worldwide that the Europeans have decided to address.
The European countries themselves are starting to reconsider the Schengen laws that allow persons to pass from one country to another, and it is time for other countries in the West - the United States, Canada (very little chance that will happen now that Trudeau has replaced Harper), Australia and yes, Israel, need to reconsider the admission of citizens of European countries without visas.
The world is changing in dangerous ways. Vigilance is necessary.
Why Syrians are fleeing to Europe (and not to Arab countries)
A reminder to one and all that I am in Boston, and that's why I am posting after the Sabbath started in Israel.
I'm sure all of you were touched by the picture of a Syrian boy being carried out of the water having drowned off the coast of Turkey (reproduced above).
But many of you may be wondering why the Syrians are trying to flee by sea to Europe, rather than fleeing south via Jordan to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, where they would at least speak the language.
The answer to that lies in the 'Palestinians.'
The Syrians can see how the 'Palestinians' have been treated by their Arab brethren for the last 67 years. They are confined to 'refugee camps.' In most Arab countries, they do not hold citizenship, cannot travel, cannot hold any job that requires any kind of license and do not live in permanent housing. Instead, they are left to languish to await the (God Forbid) demise of the State of Israel.
Many of the Syrian refugees are likely 'Palestinians.'
As to the reason that you hear of the Syrians fleeing to many different European countries and not just to one (e.g. Germany which seems more willing than others to take them), that is because once you get to any European country, you can get a Schengen visa.
The Schengen Visa is the representative of the collective of 26 European
countries that have mutually decided to eliminate passport and
immigration controls at their joint borders. Within the Schengen area,
concurrently, the citizens of these 26 European countries are free to
travel in and out of this zone as one single country sharing equal
international travel rights. The citizens of the Schengen zone countries
cherish the right to migrate internationally without any limitations,
the basis of free movement, one of the basic human rights.
And that's without even taking into account the general 'pleasure' of living in a Muslim country. It's no wonder the Syrians want to go to Europe and not to Arab countries.
Turkey, where that picture was taken, is not a Schengen country. The family was trying to reach Greece after escaping by land to Turkey. Turkey is a Muslim country for all intents and purposes.
Guardian: #KiyiyaVuranInsanlik (humanity washed ashore) but no mention of its cause
Britain's Guardian published the photo above (and another even more shocking one) of a Turkish police officer carrying a dead Syrian boy whose body washed ashore as he attempted to flee the horrors of Syria's war (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“The situation on the islands is dramatic in terms of the sheer
numbers flowing in, lack of shelter and ever worsening hygiene
conditions,” Ketty Kehayioy, the UNHCR’s spokeswoman in Athens told the
Guardian. “The absence of staff to conduct registrations is creating
enormous bottlenecks on Lesvos and Kos which is further exacerbating
substandard conditions, conditions themselves worsened by very limited
facilities.”
Local NGO’s and volunteers, working around-the-clock to support
insufficient state services now stretched to breaking point, described
the situation as “utterly overwhelming.”
Wednesday’s dead were part of a grim toll of some 2,500 people who
have died this summer attempting to cross the Mediterranean to Europe,
according to the UN refugee agency, UNHCR.
Athens’ caretaker government, in power until elections are held on 20
September, announced emergency measures to facilitate the flow after
meeting in urgent session under the prime minister, Vassiliki Thanou.
...
“The problem is very big,” said Mouzalas, a doctor who is also a member
of the Doctors of the World aid organisation. “If the European Union
doesn’t intervene quickly to absorb the populations … if the issue isn’t
internationalised on a UN level, every so often we will be discussing
how to avoid the crisis,” he told reporters, insisting that the
thousands risking their lives to flee conflict were refugees. “There is
no migration issue, remove that – it is a refugee issue,” he said.
But while the article does mention Islamic State (ISIS), it fails to mention the fact that the other side of Syria's civil war - Bashar al-Assad - has shown equal contempt for the lives of Syria's citizens, including its children. And the article also fails to mention that the release of more than $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets as a result of the United States and Europe selling out to a nuclear armed Iran means that Assad will have even more money and weapons with which to make war on Syria's civilian population - alongside ISIS.
Yes, there is a humanitarian crisis here. And not only is Europe not solving that crisis (and it may not be able to solve it just by taking refugees in), it is making the crisis worse by financing it.
The constitution of the United States is actually a pretty well-written document. According to Mark Dubowitz, it would allow Congress to amend what most Americans see as a very bad deal with Iran.
There is ample precedent to amend the deal. Congress has required amendments
to more than 200 treaties before receiving Senate consent, including
significant bilateral Cold War arms control agreements with the Soviets
like the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
Treaty, as well as multilateral agreements like the Chemical Weapons
Convention negotiated with 87 participating countries, including Iran, by President Bill Clinton. And it’s not just Republicans putting up obstacles. During
the Cold War, Democratic senators like Henry Jackson withstood pressure
from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who insisted that the deals they
negotiated go unchanged. This all happened at a time when Moscow had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at America.
Should Congress follow in this proud tradition and disapprove of the
Iran deal, there are three possible scenarios. Each presents challenges.
But each is preferable to this fatally flawed agreement.
...
The power of U.S. financial sanctions always depended on the private
sector’s appetite for risk. In the event of a congressional disapproval,
or a vote in which a simple majority of senators reject the deal, major
European companies likely will hold off on investment until a new
president comes into office in 2017. They will also be concerned about
the legal and reputational risk of doing business with Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (who dominate strategic sectors of Iran’s
economy like finance, energy, construction, and automotive and will
still be designated a proliferation sponsor by the United States).
Treasury has already issued
guidance that international companies should be very circumspect before
reentering the Revolutionary Guards-dominated Iranian market.
This leverage can be used to get a better deal, one that would
require that nuclear, arms, and ballistic missile restrictions don’t
sunset until the U.N. Security Council (where America retains its veto)
votes to lift them. It would remove the Iranian nuclear snap back
language and include Tehran’s explicit acknowledgement that sanctions
can be reimposed for terrorism, human rights abuses, ICBM development,
and on other non-nuclear grounds. It also would include other changes
like the requirement that IAEA weapons inspectors physically enter and thoroughly investigate any suspect military or non-military site, something U.S. lead negotiator Wendy Sherman said in a recent congressional hearing will not always be necessary because soil sampling carried out by Iran will be sufficient.
It won’t be easy getting changes to the deal as it now
stands. It will require additional leverage. But the United States will
never again have the kind of powerful secondary sanctions leverage that
it does today. Congress now has an opportunity to ensure that we
maintain and use that power. The aim should not be to torpedo diplomacy.
Rather, it is to defuse that ticking time bomb by making
critical amendments to this Iran deal that lower the risk of a future
war.
Dubowitz does not consider the potential that Iran will race to
breakout — and for good reason. Iran’s participation in the talks shows
us that Iran wants to get the bomb without risking its regime (by
military strength). So long as it can cajole the West, keep its
infrastructure in place and rebuild its economy, it can be patient. If
it would try to make a dash, it would face the threat of military action
from Israel, and theoretically from the United States. Iran was not
willing to pursue that risky proposition and with the potential to get
partial sanctions relief, there is no reason to believe it would do so.
Ironically, “war” (as in “this deal or war”) is the most far-fetched
scenario.
As Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) argues today,
if the deal goes into effect, we will be in a much worse position in
five or 10 years than we are now. “We have more leverage than we will
ever have, but under this deal that leverage will flip in approximately
nine months, when most major sanctions are relieved. Iran will further
deepen its regional strength,” he argues. “Unfortunately, the agreement
ties our hands in countering Iran’s efforts. If we try to push back,
Iran will threaten to speed up its nuclear development since it already
will have a windfall of money, a rapidly growing economy and alliances
built with our partners, who will feast on the mercantile benefits of
doing business with Iran.” In other words, the deal does not buy us
time; it forfeits our leverage and increases Iran’s hegemonic ambitions
and determination to get its bomb (even if it has to wait 10 years).
Doing the deal, then,
is the risky proposition — by increasing violence in the region in the
short term and practically ensuring major military conflict down the
road (sanctions won’t be available) with a stronger and more confident
Iran. Not doing the deal is the safe move — for it keeps our
leverage, allowing for more effective coercive diplomacy by the next
president. Most important, it would begin the process of reassuring our
Sunni and Israeli allies that we intend to push back on Iran, a
necessary precondition for limiting Iran’s influence and, not
coincidentally, also instilling confidence in the war against the
Islamic State.
Too bad Corker is the guy who led the surrender of Congress' treaty power. That would have made rejecting this deal a whole lot easier.
Shalom and Erekat meet in Jordan, Europeans sponsor, US not informed
Interior Minister Sylvan Shalom and 'Palestinian' chief negotiatorbottle washer Saeb Erekat had a get-acquainted meeting in Amman on Thursday. Jordan knew of and sponsored the meeting alongside the European Union. In a reflection of just how important Obama and Kerry are to the 'process,' the United States was not even told.
A private individual who holds no official position in the Israeli
government acted as a middleman in preparing for last Thursday’s meeting
between Interior Minister Silvan Shalom and chief Palestinian
negotiator Saeb Erekat, Haaretz has learned.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas were aware of the talks about holding the
meeting and approved it. Senior officials in the Jordanian government
and the European Union were also involved. The United States, however,
was kept in the dark and Israel did not update the Americans before or
after the meeting took place.
...
At a certain stage European Union envoy Fernando
Gentilini tried to coordinate between the sides and even suggested the
meeting be held in Brussels, however Erekat asked that it be held in
Amman, Jordan, which brought the Jordanian government into the secret.
Erekat did not present preconditions for the meeting, beyond that it be
held at a neutral venue.
The two-hour meeting was mainly intended for the two
to get acquainted. Both Erekat and Shalom presented initial suggestions
on how to restart the peace process, but did not enter into a detailed
discussion. They agreed to report back to Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and to meet
again in the near future.
The Amman meeting began in the presence of Jordanian
Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh, and later Erekat and Shalom continued in
private.
I don't really expect this to go anywhere. The 'Palestinians' are hoping the United Nations will do their dirty work by passing a resolution in September mandating a 'Palestinian state.' But the big story here is the non-existent American influence. #ThanksObama.
The most significant proposal is on banking, where large Israeli
institutions have daily dealings with major European banks, while also
providing loans and financing to Israeli businesses and individuals
based in the settlements.
Under European Commission guidelines from 2013, EU- and
member-state-funded lending cannot be provided to Israeli entities
operating in the occupied territories.
With the British government holding a controlling stake in some banks
following the financial crisis, that would in theory prevent those
banks providing financing to Israeli counterparts that have dealings in
the settlements.
"Do day-to-day dealings between European and Israeli banks comply
with the EU requirement not to provide material support to the
occupation?" the report asks, saying it is an issue that EU member
states have yet to resolve.
The issue extends into loans and mortgages. An Israeli with dual
European citizenship should, in theory, not be able to use a settlement
property as collateral for a European loan since Israeli-issued property
deeds are not recognised.
Another area in which the EU may be in violation of its own rules
relates to European charities that are tax-exempt while using funds to
support activities in the settlements, which the EU regards as illegal
under international law.
And the report questions whether Europe should accept qualifications
from academic, medical and other Israeli institutions based in the West
Bank given that it does not recognise Israel's sovereignty over the
territory.
Likewise, there is a question mark over whether the EU should be
dealing with Israeli institutions - such as the Ministry of Justice and
the national police headquarters - which are based in East Jerusalem.
Is this what we can expect next?
UPDATE 8:28 PM
A very interesting Twitter conversation: EU in Israel denies that any of this is going to happen.
Note the reference to the concept of
belligerent occupation. Immediately after this paragraph, the Court
makes the following observations, under the heading ‘relevant
international law’ (para. 94):
Article 42 of the Regulations concerning
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907
(hereafter “the 1907 Hague Regulations”) defines belligerent occupation
as follows:
“Territory is considered occupied when
it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The
occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been
established and can be exercised.”
Accordingly, occupation within the
meaning of the 1907 Hague Regulations exists when a state exercises
actual authority over the territory, or part of the territory, of an
enemy state(1) . The requirement of actual authority is widely
considered to be synonymous to that of effective control.
Military occupation is considered to
exist in a territory, or part of a territory, if the following elements
can be demonstrated: the presence of foreign troops, which are in a
position to exercise effective control without the consent of the
sovereign.
According to widespread expert opinion physical presence of
foreign troops is a sine qua non requirement of occupation(2) , i.e.
occupation is not conceivable without “boots on the ground” therefore
forces exercising naval or air control through a naval or air blockade
do not suffice(3) .
Now, it almost goes without saying that the Court was not discussing Gaza. It was discussing an area called Gulistan on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But....
In para. 95 the Court then proceeds to
cite the ICRC Customary IHL Study as well as Article 49 GC IV regarding
rights of displaced persons. (The same text can be found in paras. 96-97
of the Chiragov judgment). But the really important bit happens in paras. 143-144 of Sargsyan:
143. At this point the Court considers
it useful to reiterate that Azerbaijan has deposited a declaration with
its instrument of ratification expressing that it was “unable to
guarantee the application of the provisions of the Convention in the
territories occupied by the Republic of Armenia” (see paragraph 93
above). In its decision on the admissibility of the present case, the
Court has held that the declaration was not capable of restricting the
territorial application of the Convention to certain parts of the
internationally recognised territory of Azerbaijan (Sargsyan (dec.),
cited above, §§ 63-65) nor did it fulfil the requirements of a valid
reservation (ibid., §§ 66-70).
144. The Court notes that under
international law (in particular Article 42 of the 1907 Hague
Regulations) a territory is considered occupied when it is actually
placed under the authority of a hostile army, “actual authority” being
widely considered as translating to effective control and requiring such
elements as presence of foreign troops, which are in a position to
exercise effective control without the consent of the sovereign (see
paragraph 94 above). On the basis of all the material before it and
having regard to the above establishment of facts, the Court finds that
Gulistan is not occupied by or under the effective control of foreign
forces as this would require a presence of foreign troops in Gulistan.
See what I meant? Replace “Gulistan”
with “Gaza”, and there you have it! In fact, I’m pretty sure that this
is at least one judgment of the European Court that Israeli governmental
legal advisors will be citing all the time, whenever the issue of
Gaza’s occupation is brought up (and good for them).
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
