Israel Matzav

How can you tell the difference between a terror organization and a liberal democracy

Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, June 12.

1) How can you tell the difference between a terrorist organization and a liberal democracy?

The title is a trick question. In international fora, the terrorist organization gets a lot more respect. Last week the Ireland led the way to prevent the European Union from designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Ireland is reportedly blocking efforts inside the European Union to formally blacklist Hezbollah as a terror organization. Britain recently initiated procedures to add the Iran-backed terror group to the E.U. blacklist, after Bulgarian officials linked Hezbollah to the July 2012 Burgas bombing that killed six civilians and a Cypriot court convicted a confessed Hezbollah member on terrorism-related charges. The U.S. has repeatedly called upon the E.U. to follow its example and ban the group, which has established deep roots on the Continent.

Even as Hezbollah's reach is seen in South America and Syria the European Union refuses to sanction the terror group operating within its borders. 

But when it comes to Israel, the world is more intent on preparring a final solution. In the farcically named UN Human Rights Council, 67 nations and organizations heartily approved the report of asylum escapee, Richard Falk, condemning Israel. In a just world someone like Falk would issue his statements from behind the walls of an institution, but in the topsy-turvey world of the UN he is a respected "Special Rapporteur." Naturally, in this venue he received support from even the world's worst rights abusers. Look at how they piled on.

During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, speakers condemned Israel’s persistent refusal to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur and expressed concerns at the persistence of settlement activities and human rights violations, including restrictions on movement, arrests and harassment of Palestinians, and the particular effects on children. They highlighted the need to put an end to impunity for human rights violations. Speakers regretted the deterioration of the situation in Gaza due to the ongoing blockade and the loss of civilian lives. Some delegations echoed the proposal of the Special Rapporteur to investigate the activities of businesses connected with Israeli settlement activity. Others complained about the unbalanced mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the presence of political considerations in his report. Mr. Falk was accused of being anti-Semitic.
Speaking in the discussion were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the European Union, Mauritania, Egypt, South Africa, Algeria on behalf of the Arab Group, Indonesia, Iceland, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement, Iraq, Qatar, Cuba, Ecuador, Angola, Venezuela, Kuwait, Chile, Morocco, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Syria, Algeria, Turkey, Iran, Maldives, Zimbabwe, the United Nations Children’s Fund and Malaysia.

No, you didn't misread. Syria - whose government has killed more than 80,000 over the past two years - and its patron, Iran (of the laughably named "non-aligned movement) sit in judgment of Israel in this venue. In the asylum that is the UN, this is hardly remarkable.
There were, however two speeches that weren't anti-Israel and were, instead, indictments of the "human rights" establishment.

.@aliabunimah Thank you for condemning the antisemitism endorsed by #RichardFalk. We quoted you again @un today: blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2013…
— UN Watch (@UNWatch) June 10, 2013

One was by Anne Bayefsky; the other by Hillel Neuer.

Mr. Falk, in the first page of your report, you attack my NGO and ask this Council to launch an investigation in order to shut us down.
Does your report allege a crime? No, you simply object to our words. We are the only watchdog at the UN, and we report what you say. In reprisal, you now seek to muzzle our voice, to avoid being held accountable.
The real issue is whether your work, conducted under the banner of human rights, actually exonerates and exculpates the perpetrators of terrorism.

 2) Smacking Friedman down, again

Last week I took issue with Thomas Friedman's Israel lives the Joseph Story.

.@tomfriedman Earlier, Joseph was falsely accused; as Israel is now. Funny that you left that part out.
— David Gerstman (@soccerdhg) June 5, 2013

But I missed a major goof.

And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Elder of Ziyon:

Oh, and don't forget Friedman's other "if-then" fallacy here - that the world would allow Israel to keep the Jordan Valley as a buffer if only it would offer the Palestinian Arabs a state. Wasn't that already offered and rejected?

Meryl Yourish:

The bolded phrase contradicts all of the Palestinian statements made about Israel keeping any soldiers in the West Bank. In point of fact, the Palestinians absolutely begrudge Israel a force on the Jordan.

My Right Word:

Well, I do not know about the "world" but the Pals. would certainly not agree.

Friedman loves to pose as someone who understands simple truths that those in power (especially in Israel) fail to appreciate. But here he shows that he hasn't been paying attention to the past twenty years of the peace process. Maybe in 1993 an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley was an accommodation would have made. It is no longer. 

3) Soccer news 

Despite efforts of anti-Israel activists to prevent it, Israel hosted this year's UEFA (European soccer's governing body) under 21 championship. Israel did not advance in the tournament. However, the Israeli team did win its final match in Jerusalem against England. Ofir Krieff, of the Israeli team, scored the game winning goal.

To score in the capital city, in my home town, in front of my home fans, is a fantastic feeling. We did a really good job. The credit goes to the team and not to me even though I scored. It's all thanks to the great work of the staff and the players.
I think that we had a really good tournament overall. To win four points against these kind of teams is a big achievement. We had some criticism and it wasn't always right. This team has a lot of potential and we proved it today against England which is nothing to take for granted.
When I scored I just thought that we had finally got the win after this hard work. The credit goes to Guy [Luzon]. It was highly important to finish with a good taste because of him and I'm happy that we gave him this goodbye present. "I wanted to run over to him but afterwards I saw nothing because everybody was all over me".

One of Israel's top players was Taleb Twatha:

This is a 20-year-old, after all, from a world far removed from the one he now inhabits as a professional footballer. Defender Twatha is from a Bedouin family, born and brought up in Jisr az-Zarqa, a coastal town in the north of Israel which did not even have a football pitch when he was growing up.
"We have only 13,000 people in Jisr," the left-back explained to UEFA.com. "Jisr is a very poor town and when I was young there was no football there – not even a football field. I'm the youngest in my family. My eldest brother studies medicine in Italy. My other brother does the same but in Germany. My sister finished nursing school in Jordan. My father is the school principal and my mum is also a teacher. I'm the only one to have gone into professional sport."
That he ended up playing UEFA Champions League football for Maccabi Haifa FC aged just 17 was the result, he says, of a serendipitous moment seven years earlier – namely, a random phone call from a family friend. "I tried gymnastics, tennis, karate, but only in the fifth grade did I start playing football. I had some luck because I was in the car with my dad one day when a friend of his saw a newspaper ad about a football school and phoned him about it. I interrupted the call and told him I wanted to go. Just a year later I moved to Maccabi Haifa."

4) Erekat's Latrun gambit

In commemoration of the 46th anniversary of the start of the Six Day War, the New York Times published a press release for the Palestinian Authority, On Anniversary of Arab-Israeli War, a Palestinian Plea:

It was here on the wooded slopes of Latrun on Tuesday that Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, chose to mark the anniversary of the outbreak of the 1967 war and to call for an end of Israeli occupation.
“I am sure many of you are asking why is Saeb Erekat bringing you to this point,” Mr. Erekat said to a group of diplomats and reporters as he stood against a backdrop of green fields, a reservoir and an Israeli settlement of red-roofed houses in the valley below.
“It is not because I want to demarcate the maps or finalize the negotiations,” he said, referring to the intensive efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry to get the Israelis and Palestinians to return to peace talks. “I just want to stand here and say, ‘It is 46 years later.’ ”

Control of Latrun was critical for control of the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and at the time, Arab forces had been poised to to attack Irael's narrow coastal corridor. Much as Erekat obfuscates the issue, control of Latrun was essential for Israel's survival.
The New York Times continues.

If nothing else, Mr. Erekat’s selection of Latrun spoke to the great distance between Palestinians and Israelis. Many Israelis consider Latrun to be an integral part of Israel. Drivers heading to either Tel Aviv or Jerusalem speed across the unmarked armistice lines along the main highway, slicing through several miles of West Bank territory and designated stretches of buffer zone, oblivious to the area’s fraught history.

The reporter tells us the obvious, but leaves out something else that is obvious. The Palestinians once again are seeking to "move the goalposts." Erekat's press conference was apparently the first move in a new campaign. 

Israel Matzav writes:

The 'Palestinians' have responded to US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's pressure on Israel for concessions... by seeking even more concessions. The 'Palestinians' are now seeking two of Israel's biggest tourist attractions: Mini Israel and the Latrun tank museum. In fact, they're seeking the whole area around Latrun...

A favored Palestinian official gives a press conference and a reporter for the New York Times dutifully records his statements without explaining what he is doing. She simply writes, "here's one more Palestinian that needs to be addressed by Israel," and not "the Palestinians keep changing their demands." Jonathan Tobin comments:

Erekat’s candor is in a sense quite commendable. Latrun is a potent symbol of the nature of the Israel that existed in those halcyon days before the obstacle to peace was the presence of Jews in the West Bank and in which a small state with indefensible borders and a capital that could be isolated with ease stood on the precipice of destruction as Arab armies began to mass on its borders. Erekat was sending a clear message to Israelis that if they thought the PA would ever accept the fact that the world had irrevocably changed in those 46 years they could just keep dreaming.
As Erekat well knows there now exists a broad consensus within Israel about the desirable nature of a two-state solution. That consensus includes Prime Minister Netanyahu and most of the members of his government. Indeed, even the Israeli right knows that if the Palestinians ever offered a complete end to the conflict and recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn they would find the majority ready to make painful territorial sacrifices. But by laying down a marker on Latrun—a place that no Israeli in his right mind would ever consider leaving—Erekat was making it clear their real priority was not peace but an effort to merely continue the conflict on more advantageous terms.
Indeed, reminding Israelis of the Israel that existed from 1949 to 1967 is not exactly the way to reassure his ostensible peace partners of the PA’s good intentions. But of course what else can you expect of a peace negotiator that has boycotted peace talks for the past four and a half years?

Israel begged Jordan not to join the war. King Hussein convinced of Egypt's early success against Israel joined in seeking to cut Israel in half. western Jerusalem was bombarded. Israel did not decide "we will dispossess the Palestinians" and seek war. War was forced on them and they fought to survive. Erekat wishes for the world to forget that. 

Elder of Ziyon asks a very important (rhetorical) question:

If the Six Day War hadn't happened... Would there be a Palestinian Arab state today on the West Bank and Gaza?

Perhaps that's something that Erekat ought to consider. If Jordan hadn't attacked Israel in 1967, would he now be an international celebrity for promoting Palestinian nationhood?
The rest of the New York Times article is a lament about how both sides are being unreasonable and how this mutual stubbornness will sink Jonh Kerry's peace plan. When it's one side that refused to negotiate and then changes the parameters of negotiations isn't that the side that is uninterested in peace?

Labels: Anne Bayefsky, BDS, designated terror organization, Hezbullah, Hillel Neuer, Latrun, Middle East Media Sampler, Saeb Erekat, Six Day War, Soccer Dad, Tom Friedman, UEFA

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:53 PM 0 comments

'Palestinians' move the goal line back, seek 'occupied Latrun'

The 'Palestinians' have responded to US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's pressure on Israel for concessions... by seeking even more concessions. The 'Palestinians' are now seeking two of Israel's biggest tourist attractions: Mini Israel and the Latrun tank museum. In fact, they're seeking the whole area around Latrun, which the main Jerusalem - Tel Aviv highway cuts right through.

“As a result of the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe),” the document read, “when two-thirds of the Palestinian population were forcibly exiled from their homes by Zionist militias prior to the creation of the State of Israel, almost half of the valley is now considered No Man’s Land (NML) an integral part of the Occupied State of Palestine.”

The Latrun Valley, the document continued, “is well known for its rich water resources and fertile land.”

According to the paper, Israel occupied the area during the Six Day War and “ethnically cleansed” three villages left standing after 1948, before completely wiping them off the map as well.

The paper said that following the forced displacement of the Palestinian inhabitants, the Jewish National Fund, in cooperation with Canada, built Canada Park “over the site of the villages.”

“Preventing Palestinians from making use of the Latrun area is part of Israel’s systematic attempt to turn the occupation of Palestinian land into annexation,” the document read.

“The Latrun Valley holds enormous potential for Palestinians, including its fertile lands, water resources, archeological sites and religious shrines. It is a vital and integral part of the State of Palestine as defined by the 1967 border.”

I actually know someone who is so pro-'Palestinian' that she won't set foot in Judea or Samaria. Even she uses the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv highway. And the Israeli response?

One Israeli official was stunned by the Palestinian campaign over Latrun, saying it was as if the Palestinians were moving the goal line backwards.

Referring to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s push to restart Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the official said, “It’s almost as if every time we move forward, or every time there is a prospect of moving forward, the Palestinians bring up an issue which they know is a game breaker.”

The Palestinian decision to make this an issue, the official continued, “raises concerns as to their seriousness.”

He characterized as “very troubling” the Palestinian bid to bring this issue “out of deep freeze” now, and said it raised questions about “their attitude to the peace process.”

All peace plans have always put Latrun inside Israel, the official said.

“No Israeli government, no Israeli prime minister, can seriously entertain that this area would be going to the Palestinians.

Instead of dealing with the very issues that Kerry is asking the sides to deal with, it appears the Palestinians are playing games and regressing to hard-line positions that should have been left behind years ago,” he said.

But this sort of 'negotiating' needs to be met by officials on the record and not by anonymous officials who cannot be identified. Until Israel's government says loud and clear 'ad kan' (until here), this sort of negotiating through the media is going to continue, and the Arab demands will just increase. 

What could go wrong?

Labels: John Kerry, Latrun, Palestinians, Six Day War, two-state solution, War of Independence

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:36 AM 4 comments

German National Railways withdraws from Jerusalem-Tel Aviv rail project

Bowing to a campaign led by a self-hating Jewish Israeli (of course!) the German National rail company Deutsche Bahn has withdrawn from its supportive role in the construction of a high speed rail line between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The rail line is designed to cut travel time between the two cities to 28 minutes by 2017.

According to a report in Der Spiegel, Germany’s Federal Transport Minister Peter Ramsauer told Deutsche Bahn CEO that the project was politically “problematic” and violated the “terms of international law.”

The German government indicated back in December that it was nervous about the project after German MP’s began questioning it. In a letter dated March 14, 2011 and obtained by Change.org, Germany’s Parliamentary State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs Enak Ferlemann wrote to MP Inge Höger:

“The German government has pointed out that for German foreign policy, the Israeli state railroad project traversing occupied territory, is problematic and potentially a violation of international law... In the meantime the management of DB International has also confirmed in writing that, in regards to this politically very sensitive project, DB International would be engaged in no further activities.”

...

An international campaign calling on Deutsche Bahn to withdraw from the project was launched after “Who Profits” released a report detailing the involvement of European and American companies in the construction of the rail line. Who Profits is an on-going grassroots investigation effort by activists in The Coalition of Women for Peace, a leading Israeli feminist peace organization, dedicated to exposing companies and corporations involved in the occupation so as to promote a change in public opinion and corporate policies and eventually lead to an end to the occupation.

Meirav Amir, Coordinator of Who Profits, celebrated the German government’s decision.

“I want to congratulate the German government for making such a clear and bold statement about the illegality of this train route under international law,” she said. “It’s encouraging to see a government abide by their own treaties and adhere to international law, and we call on other European governments to follow suit in making sure that companies in their countries abide by international law.”

I've discussed the train's route before here.

Forbes quotes Israel Railways spokesman Liran Gordon as saying that Deutsche Bahn played a 'minor role' in the project, and that its withdrawal won't affect the 2017 launch date.

Israel Radio reports that the areas in question were no-man's land before 1967, and not Jordanian territory. The picture of the rail connection construction at the top was taken from a portion of the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway which is similarly situated. I wonder how all these 'activists' get from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv.

Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Deutsche Bahn, high-speed rail line, Jerusalem, Latrun, Tel Aviv, Who Profits

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:32 PM 6 comments

Oy vey! High-speed rail line cuts through disputed territories

For years now, we Jerusalemites have been promised a high speed rail connection to Tel Aviv. Many of us are familiar with the pitch: It will start in Ramot on the northern end of the city and will reach Tel Aviv in 28 minutes. Given that the current train starts near the Malcha mall at the southern end of the city, requires a change in Beit Shemesh and takes about 90 minutes to get to Tel Aviv, this would be a massive improvement for rail commuters.

They've even started building the rail line. You can see a picture of it above. But over at al-AP, they're very upset about the rail line. You see, they think they've discovered that the rail line runs through the disputed territories.

Left-wing critics stated that the planned rail route violates international law because the construction has seized Palestinian land and won't serve Palestinian residents of the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority will "resort to all legal and possible diplomatic methods to try to end this violation of Palestinian rights," spokesman Ghassan Khatib said. He called on foreign companies to withdraw from the project.

Companies from Italy and Russia, the latter state-owned, are helping build the line, and a subsidiary of Germany's state railway provided a technical opinion for one segment, albeit inside Israel, according to Israel Railways.

Israeli government officials say they have taken steps to ensure that the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem line would one day benefit Palestinians. Transport Ministry spokesman Avner Ovadiah said planning has begun on an extension that would connect Gaza with the city of Ramallah, the West Bank's center of commerce and government. .

But researcher Dalit Baum said that idea is "a cynical ploy that is only suggested in order to justify this train route as legal." Baum wrote a report on the project published this week by an Israeli watchdog group, the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Most of the six-kilometer (nearly four-mile) stretch of the railway inside the West Bank runs through tunnels.

However, Israel is taking Palestinian lands, some of them privately owned, for tunnel portals and access roads, Baum said. Most of the land belongs to the Palestinian villages of Beit Iksa and neighboring Beit Surik, whose residents have already been separated from some of their lands by the Israel's security barrier.

The train line will run on the Israeli side of the barrier.

Omar Hamdan, the Beit Iksa mayor, said the villagers only found out about the plans to lay the tracks through their lands last year when they were alerted by Israeli peace activists. By then, it was too late to object, he said.

Israel's Civil Administration, a branch of the Israeli military responsible for planning permits in the West Bank, said while the West Bank segments for the rail line have been approved in principle, land expropriation orders for Beit Iksa have not yet been issued. Officials said villagers would still have a chance to object once that happens. Local officials estimated at least dozens of acres of Palestinian land would be affected.

Work has already started in the West Bank in parts near Beit Surik and Beit Iksa. The first stretch of the 34-mile (56-kilometer) rail line has been completed, starting at Ben Gurion Airport and running inside Israel.

Planning for the high-speed line began in the mid-1990s, but was repeatedly delayed by objections from environmental groups and local residents.

Originally, the train line was to run within Israeli territory on the edge of Mevasseret Zion, a Jerusalem suburb abutting the West Bank. But after residents objected, the line was moved 300 meters (yards) to the north, into the West Bank, cutting through the lands of two Palestinian villages.

"The Israeli planners decided to move the route into the military occupation's jurisdiction to avoid having to negotiate a compromise with Israeli citizens," Baum wrote in her report.

A second segment was planned from the start to take a shortcut through a part of the West Bank that juts into Israel near the Latrun area.

Let me let you in on a few secrets. Ramot, where the train is due to have its Jerusalem terminus... is beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

Mevasseret Tziyon is partly built (maybe even mostly)... beyond the 1949 armistice lines.

Beit Ikhsa (a name beloved to Israeli children for the last 43 years - Ikhsa means Yuck in Hebrew) is that village that you see overlooking the Jerusalem - Tel Aviv highway between Ramot and Mevasseret on your right as you're leaving Jerusalem. It's kind of hard to believe that any Israeli government could give it away.

And as to the train route around Latrun (where the picture was taken - I know that spot well)... it's right near Highway 1, the main Jerusalem - Tel Aviv highway which - guess what - runs through disputed territories for about eight kilometers near Latrun.

Mind you, other than Ramot, which is included in Jerusalem, I have never heard any of these issues raised in 'peace talks.' But reality is that there is no way Israel is going to undertake to divert highway 1 around that eight kilometer stretch (it would take years, would cost a fortune, and would wreak havoc with out traffic), and if those eight kilometers of a highway can be tolerated, six kilometers of a rail line could be tolerated as well.

The borders have been as they are for 43 years, and there is no way we can go back to 1967. If the 'Palestinians' cannot acknowledge that reality, there will never be a peace agreement.

Labels: 1949 armistice lines, high-speed rail line, Jerusalem, Latrun, Tel Aviv

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:17 PM 1 comments