יום חמישי, 19 במאי 2011

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Video: The Media Myth of Two Jerusalems (Honest Reporting)

Posted: 18 May 2011 10:30 PM PDT

The myth of Palestinian Arab non-violent "resistance"

Posted: 18 May 2011 04:45 PM PDT

In Foreign Policy, Yousef Munayyer writes about "Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence."

He implies that the first violence done by Palestinian Arabs was only in 1935:
It wasn't until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began. After the 81-year-old Husseini died a few months after being beaten, a young imam living in Haifa named Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (the namesake of Hamas's military wing) organized the first militant operation against the British mandatory government. His death in battle with British soldiers sparked the Arab rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted until 1939.
Amazingly, Munayyer doesn't say a word about the 1920 Arab riots (5 Jews killed), the 1921 Arab riots (43 Jews killed) and the 1929 Arab pogroms (over 100 Jews slaughtered.)

Was this an oversight, or purposeful deception on Munayyer's part? Well, let's look at how he describes the Arab revolts of 1936-1939, which Arabs call the Great Rebellion:

The first phases of this revolt began with nonviolent resistance in the form of more strikes and protests, and the economy ground to a halt for six months when Palestinian leaders called for a work stoppage. This was put down harshly by the mandatory government, according to British historian Matthew Hughes, including the bombing of more than 200 buildings in Jaffa on June 16, 1936. The repression of both violent and nonviolent Palestinian dissent significantly destroyed the capacity of Palestinian society, paving the way for the depopulation of Palestine and the establishment of the state of Israel a decade later.

The idea that the first six months of the revolt were non-violent is a complete falsehood. As I have proven previously, Arabs were killing Jews from the very beginning of the revolt, in April 1936. On April 22, 7 were killed in Jaffa. Later that week some 6000 Jaffa Jews evacuated their homes from fear of the "nonviolent" demonstrations.

In May, three were killed at a bomb thrown at the Edison Cinema, and three more were shot dead in Jerusalem.

The "Great Revolt" was violent through and through, and ended up with the murders of not only many Jews and British, but also Arabs killing hundreds of other Arabs who they felt were not sufficiently supportive of the cause.

Munayyer then goes on to come up with a new definition of non-violent resistance:

In reality, even though the majority of the native inhabitants were depopulated during the Nakba, thousands of Palestinians practiced nonviolent resistance by refusing to leave their homes when threatened.
Here he turns history on its head. Many, if not most, Arab communities were not directly threatened by the Zionists - in fact, there were major communities like Jaffa where the Zionists called for the Arabs to stay, yet those who stayed were threatened by other Arabs for "collaborating" with the Zionists. Now, Munayyer is saying that the ones who stayed in fact were practicing resistance against the Zionists!

His lies don't end there.

The first and second intifadas were very different. In the first intifada of the late 1980s, Palestinians employed various nonviolent tactics, from mass demonstrations to strikes to protests. Even though the vast majority of the activism was nonviolent, it is the mostly symbolic stone-throwing that many remember.

In fact, there were some 164 Israelis killed during that "non-violent" intifada. Not only that, but about 1000 Palestinian Arabs were killed - by other Palestinian Arabs, who claimed that they were "collaborators'!

Yet, only 12 of the 70,000 Israeli soldiers regularly posted in occupied territories during the intifada died in the four-year uprising, clearly demonstrating the restraint with which Palestinian dissent was carried out.
Notice how he frames his statement, that "only" 12 soldiers in the territories were killed. In fact, in total, some 60 of Israel's fatalities were soldiers.

The only conclusion is that Munayyer is knowingly being deceptive towards his audience, banking on the fact that most people do not check "facts" that are stated so unequivocally.

Munayyer is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the readers of his column. Will anyone call him on it?

(h/t Omri Ceren via tweet)

Israel's cyber-war with Iran

Posted: 18 May 2011 01:15 PM PDT

Cool article from Strategy Page:

Recently, Israel revealed that someone (unnamed) had been trying to hack into key Israeli networks (government, military, infrastructure), and had, so far, failed. The mystery attacker is believed to have been Iran. Israel is going public with a lot of this Cyber War stuff in an attempt to put Iran on the defensive. But there's more.

Over the last year, Israel has revealed that its cryptography operation (Unit 8200) has added computer hacking to its skill set. Last year, the head of Israeli Military Intelligence said that he believed Israel had become the leading practitioner of Cyber War. This came in the wake of suspicions that Israel had created the Stuxnet worm, that got into Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment equipment, and destroyed a lot of it. Recently, Iran complained that another worm, called Star, was causing them trouble. Usually, intelligence organizations keep quiet about their capabilities, but in this case, the Israelis apparently felt it was more useful to scare the Iranians, with the threat of more stuff like Stuxnet.

This struggle between Israel and Iran is nothing new. Seven years ago, Israel announced that Unit 8200 had cracked an Iranian communications code, an operation that allowed Israel to read messages concerning Iranian efforts to keep its nuclear weapons program going (with Pakistani help), despite Iranian promises to UN weapons inspectors that the program was being shut down. It's long been known that Unit 8200 of the Israeli army specialized in cracking codes for the government. This was known because so many men who had served in Unit 8200 went on to start companies specializing in cryptography (coding information so that no unauthorized personnel can know what the data is.) But it is unusual for a code-cracking organization to admit to deciphering someone's code. Perhaps the Iranians stopped using the code in question, or perhaps the Israelis just wanted to scare the Iranians. Israel is very concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons, mainly because the Islamic conservatives that control Iran have as one of their primary goals the destruction of Israel. In response to these Iranian threats, Israel has said that it will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting nukes. This apparently includes doing the unthinkable (or a code cracking outfit); admitting that you had successfully taken apart an opponent's secret code.

Israel is trying to convince Iran that a long-time superiority in code-breaking was now accompanied by similar hacking skills. Whether it's true or not, it's got to have rattled the Iranians. The failure of their counterattacks can only have added to their unease.

Cryptography is a fascinating field. People have been creating and breaking codes since Biblical times but things really heated up during World War II with the German Enigma machines, and again in the 1970s with public key cryptography.

Today, in theory it is possible to encrypt data so that it can never be cracked in (literally) a million years. However, when there are flaws in the cryptographic algorithms, or when the cryptographic keys are not protected, encrypted data is still susceptible to being broken. Flaws in well-known algorithms are increasingly rare because they are published and available for anyone to review.

I'm curious what algorithm Iran used until Israel broke it.

(h/t Mohammed the Teddy Bear)

1948: When Iraqi Jews found out that they were doomed

Posted: 18 May 2011 11:22 AM PDT

Perhaps the most comprehensive book on the topic of Iraqi Jews being forced to move to Israel is Moshe Gat's "The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951." Here is his description of a seminal event that showed that Iraq's Jews - who were an important part of Iraqi society and had explicitly distanced themselves from Zionism as early as the 1930s in order to prove their loyalty and to integrate as well as possible - were doomed anyway:

[In 1948] Jewish millionaire Shafiq Ades, chief agent of the Ford Company in Iraq, ...was charged before a military tribunal in Basra with purchasing surplus military equipment - tanks, tnrcks and other equipment — from British camps in Iraq and sending them, dismantled, through Italy to Israel. This equipment. the prosecution charged, was being used by the Zionists against the Arab forces. He was also accused on giving financial support to the National-Democratic Party (a left-wing, non-Marxist party) and encouraging this party's demonstrations, with the aim of fostering unrest to the advantage of the Zionists." During and after the war, Ades had in fact accumulated capital by purchasing surplus British military equipment and selling it to Italian companies. It is, of course, difficult to trace what was done with this surplus equipment. lt was never proved in court that it had been sent on from Italy to Israel. Ades himself was not the only entrepreneur engaged in buying and selling surplus equipment, and his share in the companies engaged in these deals was no more than ten per cent. Moslem businessmen, such as the wealthy merchant Nagi al-Hadeiri. and members of the Iraqi cabinet, were among his partners, but were never brought to trial." The presiding judge, Abdullah al-Naasni. a member of the Istiqlal, the anti-Jewish party which repeatedly demanded the expulsion of the Jews and confiscation of their property. was a pro-Nazi who had been detained during the war in a British detention camp." "His trial lasted only three days - 11-13 September — and the defendant was given no opportunity to plead his case. The court refused to hear witnesses. probably in order to avoid embarrassing well-known persons who had been his business partners. Ades was sentenced to death by hanging and to a fine of five million dinars to be paid into the state exchequer. as compensation for the damage he had caused the state and army through his 'treachery'.

lt was clear that the Ades trial was stage-managed, that he was a scapegoat for Iraq's defeat in the war with Israel; and that revenge was being taken against the Jewish community through this attack on one of its eminent members. ...

Ades was hanged in Basra on 23 September. and his body left exposed for several hours. There was public rejoicing among the Moslems of Basra. The execution stunned the Jewish community. Ades had not been a prominent figure in the community. He was assimilated and could be regarded as a symbol of Jewish integration in Iraqi society, having displayed no interest in Zionism and having been on close terms with senior officials in Basra. He had even donated considerable sums to the Palestinian cause. All this aroused considerable apprehension in the Jewish community. lf this well-placed Jew -  closely associated with ruling circles, and able to use his money for any purpose he saw fit - had fallen victim, could they hope for a better fate?

The hopes that had been nurtured by the advocates of Jewish integration in Arab society. were dashed by the hanging of Ades. lt destroyed all faith in the future consummation of this ideal, and demonstrated, in the most brutal fashion, that there could be no security for Jews on Iraqi soil, and that they were at the mercy of a regime which had proved itself powerless and inept. The sight of the celebrants around Ades's corpse was evidence of the true sentiments of the Arabs. But the execution was not the end of the affair. The Iraqi Ministry of Defence continued to arrest rich Jews. On 22 September, a day before Ades's execution, three Jews were arrested — two businessmen and a banker - and on the 24th two wealthy merchants were detained. The arrests were not carried out solely for purpose of extortion; the military authorities were seeking evidence of contacts between the detainees and Israel.
This was the start of the Jewish Naqba in Iraq, that culminated in a large and wealthy community being forced to abandon all their extensive properties and assets to save their lives.

Members of Congress say the obvious about Hamas. Why is that unusual?

Posted: 18 May 2011 09:58 AM PDT

From Politico, by House majority leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and chief deputy whip Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.).

As the news of Osama bin Laden's death spread, the free world breathed a deep sigh of relief and praised the United States for its accomplishment.

But in the Palestinian territories, such sentiments were not shared.

In the eyes of Ismail Haniyeh and the infamous Hamas terrorist organization he leads, the operation "marks the continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood." Really?

If killing the man responsible for the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history — not to mention the aggressor who did more to subjugate and kill fellow Muslims who disagree with his worldview than perhaps any other individual on earth — makes us oppressors, then how would Hamas describe bin Laden?

Haniyeh didn't hold back. "We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior," he proclaimed, "and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace."

Fitting, coming from a terrorist organization whose founding charter instructs, "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him."

As President Barack Obama draws national attention to the Middle East with a major speech on Thursday, we ask our fellow lawmakers — and all Americans — the following questions: Does this seem like a group with whom Israel can make peace? Would you trust this organization to have free rein in your own backyard? Is this a group deserving of $550 million in annual foreign aid from cash-strapped U.S. taxpayers?

These are questions the U.S. must now address, since Hamas — which controls the Gaza Strip — this month officially joined the Palestinian Authority in a unity government. The PA plans to unilaterally declare a state at the United Nations meeting in September.

With this agreement, it has made an unequivocal decision that its route to a potential state cannot include peace with Israel. Nor will it include negotiations with Israel; a disavowal of and crackdown on terrorism or any official recognition of the Jewish state — a set of conditions demanded by the U.S. and its allies but fiercely opposed by Hamas. What a slap in the face to the Obama administration.

Don't be fooled by Hamas apologists in the West, who refuse to accept Hamas at its word. Let us not blind ourselves to Hamas's genocidal outlook. This reconciliation does not mean Hamas will moderate itself. It means the PA is dealing a death blow to a troubled peace process, in which it has seldom demonstrated the courage to engage.

Terror in the Palestinian territories has taken a decisive step forward. Peace is in retreat.

Under the new accord, for the first time, Hamas's TV broadcasts are to be sent into the West Bank. Shows designed to poison the minds of young Palestinians by lauding the ways of jihad and perpetuating hateful lies about Israel, Jews and the U.S. will likely further radicalize the West Bank.

Remember, these are the same broadcasts that notoriously aired a Mickey Mouse-like cartoon character teaching children to "annihilate the Jews."

The last time the PA partnered with Hamas, the latter forcibly removed the former from the Gaza Strip and created a virtual terrorist state on Israel's borders. Six years and thousands of rockets and mortars later, many Israeli civilian communities are still paying the price. The U.S. must not allow this to be repeated in the West Bank.

Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel's security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets set to visit Washington this week, the PA has made its move against peace. It has embraced a regime of terror — one that mourns bin Laden's death — even as it now hopes for the U.N. to unilaterally grant it a state in a vote this coming September. The Obama administration must stand united with the American people, and with Israel, to oppose this vote.

In a dangerous region, Israel is a democratic ally bound to us by a shared set of beliefs in freedom, peace and human progress. Serving on the front lines of the struggle against terrorism and Iranian-backed aggression, Israel is our vital strategic asset that provides stability to a volatile neighborhood.

The Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement empowers Hamas terrorists and endangers Israel. The U.S. must use every tool in our diplomatic arsenal to make clear that we will not tolerate a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

It is our duty, as leader of the free world, to do no less.

As Jennifer Rubin writes:

As with Iran sanctions, it is Congress that seems to be leading, while the administration is dragged along. No doubt the administration is nervous that the British and the French won't cut off the Palestinians. But shouldn't Obama be reminding them, the rest of Europe and the membership of the U.N. that the Hamas reconciliation and the renunciation of past agreements make recognition anathema to all people of good will? Maybe the Brits think there is mileage to be gained by recognizing a Palestinian state in contravention of decades of international agreements, but does Britain really want to put the stamp of legitimacy on a terrorist state?

The president has a speech tomorrow, a meeting with Bibi Netanyahu the next day and an appearance at AIPAC on Sunday. He has a choice: a clear message of support for the Jewish state or mush. I hope it's the former, but you can't go wrong betting on Obama mush.

Jewish history in 3 minutes

Posted: 18 May 2011 09:02 AM PDT

Cute:


(h/t Joel)

Gaza students still locked out of Egyptian universities

Posted: 18 May 2011 08:04 AM PDT

Last month, Egypt's ambassador to "Palestine" assured Gazans that they would no longer have any impediments to being able to attend Egyptian universities and that Egyptian security will not stop them.

However, nothing has changed. Students who were already attending classes are finding that they are not allowed to attend final exams this term. According to one student, some Egyptians blamed Palestinians for being behind the Alexandria church bombing and as a result the security services resumed their restrictions on Palestinian Arabs.

Is it still spring?

UNRWA strike closes Gaza schools, clinics

Posted: 18 May 2011 07:05 AM PDT

A violation of Gazans' human rights?

Palestinians working for the UN refugee agency in Gaza announced a comprehensive strike for Wednesday, over the dismissal of three employees union officials say were wrongfully let go.

The strike will last all day Wednesday through Thursday, and see all of UNRWA's unessential services, like schools, clinics, and administration offices close. Nearly 11,500 workers will walk out of their jobs, effecting 238 schools and 25 clinics.
There are numerous similar UNRWA strikes every year in various areas.

It is heartwarming to see how dedicated UNRWA workers are to their jobs.

State Department snubs Jimmy and the Yentas

Posted: 18 May 2011 06:01 AM PDT

Off topic but delicious.

From Foreign Policy:
Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them.

Carter and Ahtisaari, both Nobel Peace Prize laureates, had been eager to give their readout of their meetings in North Korea April 26 and 27 to U.S. officials and press their case for a resumption of food aid to the Hermit Kingdom. The two are members of the Elders, a group of senior figures who have been informally engaging with regimes that official governments won't deal with, in the hopes of finding pathways to peace. They traveled to North Korea last month with former Irish President Mary Robinson and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland. Other members of the Elders include Kofi Annan, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi.

But no one at the State Department would meet with them, so the trip to Washington was cancelled.

"The trip was arranged at short notice and due to busy schedules and given everything else going on we were not able to arrange meetings at the right level," a spokesman for the Elders told The Cable. The State Department offered no comment on the situation.

The Chinese, however, had time for the Elders. They spent two days in Beijing April 24 and 25 and had dinner with foreign minister Yang Jiechi. Neither the North Korea nor South Korea leaders met with them, but they did get meetings with high level officials in both countries. Ahtisaari and Brundtland also had meetings in Brussels last week with President of the EU Herman Van Rompuy and several other EU officials.

It's no secret at all that the Elders' trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:

The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous...or both...and exemplifies why Carter had no...zero...USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:

"Do you want to meet with Carter?" Clinton is looking at papers, and just says "No." Then she pauses, looks up and adds, "HELL no!!!"

Besides going to North Korea without any administration support, Carter alienated Washington's policy community when he declared at a Seoul press conference on April 28 that "to deliberately withhold food aid to the North Korean people because of political or military issues not related is really indeed a human rights violation."

Former NSC Senior Director for Asia Victor Cha just happened to be in Seoul that day, staying in the same hotel as the Elders, and said that people in South Korea were very upset at Carter's remark.

"People who work on the food issue with North Korea know the very real problems of diversion to the military, and Carter's statement implied that China -- because it gives food unconditionally to North Korea -- is more of a human rights upholder in North Korea than the others, which was not well-received," Cha told The Cable.

(h/t Mike)

NYT's Tom Friedman endorses Abbas' intransigence

Posted: 18 May 2011 04:02 AM PDT

Yet more idiocy from Thomas Friedman in the guise of being a concerned observer:

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can't speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel's future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs - between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world - Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.

I repeat: It may not be possible. But Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel's creativity to find ways to do such a deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal - and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.

Israel is in a dangerous situation. For the first time in its history, it has bad relations with all three regional superpowers - Turkey, Iran and Egypt - plus rapidly eroding support in Europe. America is Israel's only friend today. These strains are not all Israel's fault by any means, especially with Iran, but Israel will never improve ties with Egypt, Turkey and Europe without a more serious effort to safely get out of the West Bank.

The only way for Netanyahu to be taken seriously again is if he risks some political capital and actually surprises people. Bibi keeps hinting that he is ready for painful territorial compromises involving settlements. Fine, put a map on the table. Let's see what you're talking about. Or how about removing the illegal West Bank settlements built by renegade settler groups against the will of Israel's government. Either move would force Israel's adversaries to take Bibi seriously and would pressure Palestinians to be equally serious.
Once again, Friedman tries to sound even-handed - he understands Israel's precarious position, he doesn't know if Israel has a peace partner, he knows that the situation is complex and fluid.

Yet he does not ever mention that all of the intransigence is from the Palestinian Authority. He doesn't point out that even the dovish Israeli governments got nowhere with Abbas, even with specific maps and plans.

To Friedman, there is but one goal: Israel caves to Palestinian Arab territorial demands. And if the PA refuses to make a deal, then Israel must give more, and more, and more until they do.

In Friedman's fantasy world, once Israel shows it is "serious," then somehow some magic pressure will appear that will force the PA to respond. Unfortunately this has never happened. In fact, Abbas' position hardened not during Netanyahu's time in office - but during Olmert's!

What is particularly galling is that Friedman, like J-Street, couches his calls for Israel and Israel alone to make concessions as if he is doing it out of love for Israel. This is garbage. If he loves Israel, he needs to wake up and use his bully pulpit to expose the Palestinian Arab intransigence and constant calls to destroy Israel via "return" - a demand that has not changed one bit since 1948. He needs to expose the incitement in Palestinian Arab society. He needs to expose the fact that the PA has not changed its position one bit since 1988 - and brags about it. He needs to point out that previous Israeli creativity to reach a peace agreement was met not with flexibility but with more demands. All of this is well-known, even to a know-it-all like Thomas Friedman.

That's what someone who cares for Israel would do.

UPDATE: The Islamic Jihad newspaper "Palestine Today" loved this column, quoting it extensively. Which is exactly what one would expect them to do with something written by such a concerned friend of Israel, right?
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:03

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)