Archive for the ‘Israel’ category

US takes tougher tone on Israeli settlements in new report

May 7, 2016

US takes tougher tone on Israeli settlements in new report, Times of IsraelMatthew Lee and Bradley Klapper

settlementIllustrative photo of a security fence around a Jewish settlement in the West Bank (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will endorse a tougher tone with Israel in an upcoming international report that takes the Jewish state to task over settlements, demolitions and property seizures on land the Palestinians claim for a future state, diplomats told The Associated Press.

The US and its fellow Mideast mediators also will chastise Palestinian leaders for failing to rein in anti-Israeli violence. But the diplomats involved in drafting the document said its primary focus will be a surge of construction in Jewish housing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The US approval of the harsh language marks a subtle shift. Washington has traditionally tempered statements by the so-called “Quartet” of mediators with careful diplomatic language, but the diplomats said the US in this case will align itself closer to the positions of the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, who emphasize Israel’s role in the Mideast impasse.

The report’s release is sure to infuriate Israel, where officials are already bracing for expected criticism. And on the other side, although the mediators will endorse some long-standing Palestinian complaints, the Palestinians are likely to complain the report does not go far enough.

Diplomats acknowledge the report, which could come out in late May or June, will be largely symbolic, requiring no action. It could be unveiled at the UN and possibly sent to the Security Council for an endorsement, according to the diplomats, who included three US officials. They all demanded anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the unfinished work publicly.

The diplomats said the report is intended to highlight obstacles to a two-state peace agreement — the stated goal of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders — and offer recommendations for restarting negotiations in a process that is stalled.

The Palestinians don’t want talks as long as settlement construction continues; the Israelis say they’re open to negotiations, but have shown little interest in making any meaningful concessions.

One diplomat said the report would be “balanced” because it would criticize the Palestinians for incitement and violence against Israeli citizens. Near-daily attacks in recent months by Palestinians, mostly stabbings, have killed 28 Israelis and two Americans. Some 193 Palestinians have been killed, most of them were attackers and the rest died in clashes with Israeli forces.

Pal terrorismIsraeli security forces at the scene where three Israeli soldiers were wounded in a vehicular attack near Dolev, in the West Bank, May 3, 2015 .(Flash90)

But the diplomat added that those involved in writing the report understand the focus on Israel will be its most contentious aspect.

Another diplomat said Israel will be put “on notice” that its appropriation of land isn’t going unnoticed.

The document won’t look only at East Jerusalem activity and West Bank settlement construction, but also at a “problematic trend” of legalizing smaller so-called outposts, the officials said. In addition, it will criticize Israel for a growing backlog of housing block approvals.

In 1972, there were just over 10,000 Israeli settlers, with 1,500 living in the West Bank and the rest in East Jerusalem. Two decades later, by the time of the Oslo peace accords, there were 231,200 Israelis living in the territories. That number rose to 365,000 by 2000, when the second Palestinian uprising began, and 474,000 by the time Benjamin Netanyahu became Israel’s prime minister again in 2008.

The settlements are now home to more than 570,000 Israelis, according to the Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now — 370,000 in the West Bank and 200,000 in East Jerusalem. Settlements range from small wildcat outposts on West Bank hilltops to developed towns with shopping malls, schools and suburban homes.

Some 2.2 million Palestinians live in the West Bank, with another 300,000 in East Jerusalem. Israel captured both territories in the 1967 Six Day War and It annexed East Jerusalem after the conflict.

Palestinian mourners attend the funeral of Eyad Omar Sajdia, 22, who was killed during clashes with Israeli security forces at the Qalandya Refugee camp on March 1, 2016 in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Two Israeli soldiers said to be using a traffic app mistakenly entered the refugee camp in the occupied West Bank overnight, sparking clashes that killed one Palestinian and wounded 15 people, officials said. / AFP / ABBAS MOMANI

Palestinian mourners attend the funeral of Eyad Omar Sajdia, 22, who was killed during clashes with Israeli security forces at the Qalandya Refugee camp on March 1, 2016 in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Two Israeli soldiers said to be using a traffic app mistakenly entered the refugee camp in the occupied West Bank overnight, sparking clashes that killed one Palestinian and wounded 15 people, officials said.
/ AFP / ABBAS MOMANI

The Quartet, which is supposed to guide the two parties to peace, has been largely irrelevant for the past several years. It was created in 2002 at a low point in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and in the years since has held sporadic meetings. Most have ended with bland statements condemning violence, criticizing settlements and calling for both sides to improve security and the atmosphere for peace talks.

The new report will repeat those calls, but the diplomats said they hoped the new criticism of Israel, in particular, would jolt the parties into action.

The Palestinians recently put off their push for a new UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity, in part because of the coming report, the diplomats said. And with anti-Israel sentiment growing in Europe, France may delay a planned May 30 meeting of foreign ministers on the situation.

The French also are talking about hosting a Mideast peace conference this summer. US Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to discuss the French initiative with Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault while on a trip to Paris next week.

Iran reconciles with Islamic Jihad: DEBKAfile sources

May 6, 2016

Iran reconciles with Islamic Jihad: DEBKAfile sources, DEBKAfile, May 6, 2016

The full renewal of aid came after Iran, under Hizballah pressure,  partially renewed the support in March. Hizballah is interested in maintaining its close ties with Islamic Jihad in order to ensure influence on Palestinian affairs and a foothold in Gaza.

**************************

After a two-year rift between Islamic Jihad and Iran that resulted in the halting of Tehran’s military and financial aid to the terrorist organization, a reconciliation agreement was reached this week between the two sides in the Iranian capital, DEBKAfile‘s sources report. The dispute began when Islamic Jihad refused to back Iran’s policy of support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, and rejected Iran’s request to send members of the organization in Syria and Lebanon to fight alongside pro-Iranian militias in Syria.

The reconciliation was reached when Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah arrived in Tehran with a large delegation from the organization’s leadership and met Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The renewal of Iran’s financial aid to Islamic Jihad was announced during the meeting.

DEBKAfile: The main mediator between the two sides was the leadership of Hizballah in Lebanon. The full renewal of aid came after Iran, under Hizballah pressure,  partially renewed the support in March. Hizballah is interested in maintaining its close ties with Islamic Jihad in order to ensure influence on Palestinian affairs and a foothold in Gaza.

During a public appearance in Tehran, Islamic Jihad leader Shalah said “defending Palestine is defending Islam.” In other words, Iran, not ISIS, is the defender of Islam.

Op-Ed: Read Peter Beinart and you’ll vote Donald Trump

May 6, 2016

Op-Ed: Read Peter Beinart and you’ll vote Donald Trump, Israel National News, David Friedman, May 6, 2016

Several weeks ago, I was “outed” as one of Donald Trump’s two advisors on the relationship between the United States of America and the State of Israel. It is an honor and a privilege to advise Mr. Trump on a critical issue that is near and dear to my heart, and I fervently hope that I have the opportunity to assist him in developing and implementing policies that strengthen both countries and the unbreakable bond between them.

Right now, however, the bloodsport of American presidential politics is in full bloom, and within that scented garden emerges a recent Op-Ed piece by CNN panelist, Peter Beinart, published in Israel’s left-wing paper Haaretz. Beinart, a well-known supporter of J Street, New Israel Fund and the BDS movement, decries Trump’s selection of Israel advisors as a cynical charade by which Trump leverages Jews in his employ to go “all in” on Israel solely to garner political capital. According to Beinart, these token Jews, myself included, are just willing pawns in a modern day Game of Thrones, all willing to fall on their proverbial swords for Trump the King.

I have never met Mr. Beinart nor do I care to, and he knows absolutely nothing about me. Had he made the slightest inquiry (apparently no longer necessary for modern journalists), he would have known that I am not in Mr. Trump’s employ,  have hundreds of other clients, and hold views on Israel that are entirely independent of any political movement or candidate.  Those views have been developed over more than thirty years of study of historical accounts and scholarly works, interaction with Israeli political, military and business leaders, and probably 100 trips or more to the Holy Land. I didn’t just come out of “central casting,” as Beinart implies, to facilitate some political theatre, and my beliefs are not for sale to the highest bidder. The same holds true for Jason Greenblatt, Mr. Trump’s other advisor, whom I have known for years.

But I do want to thank Mr. Beinart for getting this issue out on the table, albeit clumsily and disingenuously. Because his reflexive reaction to my involvement in the Trump candidacy lays bare how dangerous the Jewish left is to the State of Israel.

Let’s look at the criticisms offered by Mr. Beinart of views that I have previously expressed. He thinks I’m no good because  (1) I have accused President Obama of “blatant anti-Semitism,” (2) I have questioned the wisdom of Israel bestowing the benefits of citizenship, including free tuition at some of its best universities, upon those who advocate the overthrow of the State, and (3) I have likened J Street supporters to “kapos during the Nazi era.” Let’s unpack each of those a bit.

First, Obama’s anti-Semitism. Here’s the context – Hamas puts on school plays in which 10 year olds dressed as terrorists plunge fake knives into 10 year olds dressed as Jews to the delight of the audience, and Palestinian Authority leaders (they’re supposed to be the “moderate ones”) bestow praise upon all participating in the “knife intifada.” Asked to comment on the unspeakable tragedy of innocent Jewish civilians being murdered by knife-wielding Islamic radicals, Obama and Kerry do little more than condemn the proverbial “cycle of violence.” I’m sorry, but this is pure and outright murder and any public figure who finds it difficult to condemn it as such without diluting the message with geo-political drivel is engaging in “blatant anti-Semitism.”

Second, the wisdom of free stuff for those engaged in advocating the overthrow of the State of Israel. Every civilized country other than Israel punishes treason. In the United States, advocating to overthrow the government by force or violence can get you life in prison. In Israel, Islamic radical citizens speak this way all the time, often on the way back and forth from world class institutions of higher learning which they attend for free. Is this a good idea? Is there no minimal allegiance required for Israeli citizenship? Sure seems like a fair question to me.

Finally, are J Street supporters really as bad as kapos? The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one? But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas – it’s hard to imagine anyone worse.

Mr. Beinart, therefore, has done us a service, albeit unintentionally. He has shown us the danger of the Jewish left – the lost souls who blame Israel for not making a suicidal “peace” with hateful radical Islamists hell bent on Israel’s destruction. This is Hillary Clinton’s crowd, and they are no friends of Israel.

Donald Trump’s view of Israel isn’t quite as nuanced as that of Mr. Beinart nor as academic as that of President Obama. He thinks that when radical Islamic terrorists are trying to kill you, the right thing to do is kill them first. Don’t negotiate, reason or cajole. Just defeat them. Or as Mr. Trump would say, “win.”

So please read Peter Beinart’s latest column. It will leave you convinced to vote for Donald Trump.

‘Tunnel war’ heralds Hamas-IDF next clash

May 6, 2016

‘Tunnel war’ heralds Hamas-IDF next clash, DEBKAfile, May 6, 2016

NahalOz_Tunnel_480_Kotert

The IDF and Hamas are engaged in another round of warfare both above and below ground. The two sides are exchanging fire in the Gaza border area while the IDF continues its operations to locate the terror tunnels of the Hamas military wing. The IDF did the correct thing on Thursday by declaring areas near Gaza with suspected  tunnels as “closed military zones”, amid concern that Hamas has already infiltrated into Israeli territory, even as training exercises. It is also important that the IDF is maintaining secrecy on the technological tools being used to locate the tunnels.

The exchanges of fire between the IDF and Hamas in the Gaza border area during the last few days have rattled the terrorist organization, making it fire mortar shells, rockets and light weapons at IDF forces in the area. The firing that intensifies each time that the troops approach a tunnel is helping the IDF locate the openings of the tunnels.

More than a year after the end of “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014, which was supposed to eliminate the threat of tunnels to southern Israel and restore calm among citizens, the Israeli government finally ordered the Defense Ministry and the IDF to listen to the complaints of Gaza border area residents, and to what was happening beneath the ground.

The noises from underground that were recorded over the last few months by frightened residents in the area’s communities and the shaking of the ground at night left no doubt that the digging was taking place nearby. In order to eradicate in  order to end the tunnel threat. IDF experts tested hundreds of devices, ideas, methods and means from various fields of research, including some that could be defined as bizarre.  Many new tunnels were been discovered with the help of hitherto untested technologies.

This with the human sources of intelligence like Mohammad Atauna, a commander in the Hamas tunnel network whose capture by Israeli intelligence was published on Thursday, could lead to the elimination of the tunnels in the coming days and weeks. All of these developments have made it clear to the heads of the military wing of Hamas, the Izzudin al-Qassam brigades, among whom only some follow the orders of the Hamas leadership and its political wing, that their biggest strategic asset, the tunnels, may disappear in the very near future. Whether the process takes a month or six months, it should now be very obvious to them that in the very near future the majority of the underground Hamas infrastructure will be destroyed, whether by explosives or flooding.

Since the heads of the Hamas military wing invested most of their budget and efforts in the digging, fortification and reinforcement of the tunnels that they planned to use to invade and attack Israel, the destruction of the underground network may have three main results:

1. In the coming days, the Hamas military wing may lash out in a desperate attempt to land a major blow against Israel. It is expected to be significantly weakened by the IDF operations in the near future but regain strength in the long term.

2. The military wing of Hamas will suffer a major defeat in the battle for popular support. The dire economic situation in Gaza that is partially due to the diversion of resources to the tunnels and other military means will weaken support among the public.

3. These developments will bring about a change in the balance of forces in Gaza that will benefit the political wing and weaken the military wing.

Under these circumstances, the desire by the head of the Izzuddin al-Qassam brigades, Mohammed Deif, who was seriously injured but is still alive and kicking, to get revenge against Israel has not been forgotten in IDF command in Tel Aviv and at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. The assessment in Israel’s intelligence community is that in the coming days he will use all the means at his disposal, with or without the permission of the political wing, and just before his last tunnels are discovered, in an attempt to launch a strike to deal a powerful and painful blow to Israel.

In the meantime, on Thursday, the IDF continued its preparations to bombard Hamas from the ground and the air as the terrorist organization’s mortar shelling increases.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal

May 5, 2016

Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal, Weekly Standard, Lee Smith, May 5, 2016

It’s hardly any wonder that Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has a “mind meld” with his boss, the president. According to a David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday and already posted to the website, Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is contemptuous of “the American foreign-policy establishment.” What Obama calls the “Washington playbook” dictating the sorts of responses available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the “Blob.”

The Blob includes “editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker,” etc. It also encompasses, according to Rhodes, Obama’s former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the administration’s first defense secretary Robert Gates. Presumably Leon Panetta, former Pentagon chief and CIA director, who goes on the record to criticize Rhodes and the president, is also part of the Blob, alongside “other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.” In other words, the emotion driving the administration’s foreign policy is contempt—contempt for allies, colleagues, and the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII international order, ensuring relative global stability, and peace and prosperity at home.

Samuels’s profile is an amazing piece of writing about the Holden Caulfield of American foreign policy. He’s a sentimental adolescent with literary talent (Rhodes published one short story before his mother’s connections won him a job in the world of foreign policy), and high self regard, who thinks that everyone else is a phony. Those readers who found Jeffrey Goldberg’s picture of Obama in his March Atlantic profile refreshing for the president’s willingness to insult American allies publicly will be similarly cheered here by Rhodes’s boast of deceiving American citizens, lawmakers, and allies over the Iran deal. Conversely, those who believe Obama risked American interests to take a cheap shot at allies from the pedestal of the Oval Office will be appalled to see Rhodes dancing in the end zone to celebrate the well-packaged misdirections and even lies—what Rhodes and others call a “narrative”—that won Obama his signature foreign policy initiative.

Rhodes is a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda that is packaged as politics but is often quite personal. He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts and motivations supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials. He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives, at a time when the killer wave of social media has washed away the sand castles of the traditional press.

As Rhodes admits, it’s not that hard to shape the narrative. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

In Rhodes’s “narrative” about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when “hardliner” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an “echo chamber” in the press. “[Al Monitor reporter] Laura Rozen was my RSS feed,” says Tanya Somanader, the 31-year-old who managed @TheIranDeal twitter feed. “She would just find everything and retweet it.”

“In the spring of last year,” Samuels writes:

legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.

It’s not clear whether or not Panetta supported the deal, but he admits he was wrong about Obama’s willingness to take all measures to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

As secretary of defense, he tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ” Panetta recalls. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”

Panetta stops.

“But would you make that same assessment now?” I ask him.

“Would I make that same assessment now?” he asks. “Probably not.”

Rhodes tells Samuels that Don DeLillo is his favorite novelist. “That’s the only person I can think of who has confronted these questions of, you know, the individual who finds himself negotiating both vast currents of history and a very specific kind of power dynamics,” he tells Samuels. “And that’s what it’s like to work in the U.S. foreign-policy apparatus in 2016.”

So that’s it. For the last seven years the American public has been living through a postmodern narrative crafted by an extremely gifted and unspeakably cynical political operative whose job is to wage digital information campaigns designed to dismantle a several-decade old security architecture while lying about the nature of the Iranian regime. No wonder Americans feel less safe—they are.

Egyptian-German Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad: Our Hatred of Jews Has Poisoned Us

May 5, 2016

Egyptian-German Scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad: Our Hatred of Jews Has Poisoned Us, MEMRI-TV via YouTube, May 5, 2016

According to the blurb following the video,

In a lecture posted on the Internet on March 21, Egyptian-German scholar Hamed Abdel-Samad said that the Prophet Muhammad had lowered the Jews to a “subhuman level, viewing them as animals,” and he compared the treatment of the Jews in the years following Muhammad’s death to that of the Nazis. “This hatred is poisoning us” and “preventing us from dealing with our problems in a serious way,” said Abdel-Samad, adding that “instead of poisoning one generation after another with this hatred, we should let them learn something from humanity,” in order to enable them to “overcome the barrier of hatred and of fear of the other.” The lecture is titled “Islamic Fascism and the Jews.” For additional lectures by Abdel-Samad, see MEMRI TV clips 5443 and 5356.

Trump: Israel should keep building in Judea and Samaria

May 3, 2016

Trump: Israel should keep building in Judea and Samaria, Israel National News, Ari Soffer, May 3, 2016

Trump keep on buildingDonald Trump Reuters

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has said Israel should continue building in Judea and Samaria, insisting the Jewish state should “keep moving forward” in response to Arab terrorism.

Speaking to the UK’s Daily Mail, Trump emphasized his support for the State of Israel, and appeared to veer away from previous comments in which he declared that he would stay “neutral” on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Trump referenced the “thousands of missiles being launched into Israel,” by Arab terrorists prior to the 2014 Gaza war, asking rhetorically: “Who would put up with that? Who would stand for it?”

He also said he would sharply depart from the policies of the current White House, which has put enormous pressure on Israel to halt all construction – in Jewish areas only – in Judea and Samaria.

Asked if he similarly thought a building freeze was a good idea, Trump responded: “No, I don’t think it is, because I think Israel should have – they really have to keep going. They have to keep moving forward.”

Watch:

“No, I don’t think there should be a pause,” the GOP frontrunner added, while leveling criticism against the Obama administration for its treatment of Israel.

“Look: Missiles were launched into Israel, and Israel, I think, never was properly treated by our country. I mean, do you know what that is, how devastating that is?”

He did repeat his intention to negotiate a peace deal, however, but cautioned he would only do so if he believed the deal would be a permanent one.

“With all of that being said, I would love to see if peace could be negotiated. A lot of people say that’s not a deal that’s possible. But I mean lasting peace, not a peace that lasts for two weeks and they start launching missiles again. So we’ll see what happens,” Trump continued.

He also underlined his good personal relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – despite the latter’s criticism of him last year for his comments about banning Muslim immigration, which eventually scuppered the billionaire’s planned visit to Israel.

Trump praised Netanyahu as “a very good guy,” and again attacked Obama for his hostile treatment of the Israeli leader.

“I don’t know him that well, but I think I’d have a very good relationship with him,” Trump said of Netanyahu, for whom he made an endorsement video during last year’s Israeli general election.

“I think that President Obama has been extremely bad to Israel.”

Trump also repeated his oft-stated astonishment over Jews who continue to support Obama despite his hostility towards Israel.

“I don’t even understand where – I have Jewish friends that support Obama. I tell them all the time, I say, ‘What are you doing? The Iran deal is a disaster for Israel,'” he said.

Britain’s “Routine and Commonplace” Anti-Semitism

May 2, 2016

Britain’s “Routine and Commonplace” Anti-Semitism, Gatestone Institute, Richard Kemp and Jasper Reid, May 2, 2016

♦ Each of these politicians accused of anti-Semitism was voted into power by an electorate who knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views, they would not have been elected.

♦ “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.” — Mehdi Hasan, British Muslim political journalist.

♦ The consequences of Western politicians’ continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries.

Battle-hardened British soldiers were moved to tears by the horrors they witnessed at the Nazi charnel house of Bergen-Belsen when they liberated the concentration camp in April 1945. Yet seventy years after thousands of troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march across Europe.

In just one week, a British student leader, a Labour Party constituency MP, a London council leader, a member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and even Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have all been accused of being mired in Jew-hatred.

It is the tip of the iceberg. Each of these people was voted into power by an electorate that knew exactly what their views were. Had they not held these views they would not have been elected.

All are on the political left, but the problem does not stop there. The cancer of Jew-hatred today spreads from right to left throughout European nations and in all supranational bodies including the European Union and the United Nations. It is led by politicians, human rights groups and the media, whose contorted worldview has contaminated ordinary people on a scale unimaginable possibly even to the arch-propagandist Dr. Josef Goebbels himself.

1575Seventy years after thousands of British troops fought and died to destroy the regime that murdered six million Jews, the scourge of anti-Semitism is again on the march. Left: A British soldier talks to an emaciated prisoner after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen in April 1945. Right: An anti-Israel protestor in London holds up a sign saying “Hitler you were right,” in July 2014.

In the 21st Century, outside the Middle East, it is hard to express hatred of Jews publicly. So Jew-haters everywhere have adopted a proxy: the Jewish state. Israel is the acceptable target of their hate. That is why Labour MP Naz Shah’s “solution,” with chilling echoes of Reinhard Heydrich, was to “transport” all the Jews out of Israel, with the obvious implication that this would be done forcibly and violently.

It is why National Union of Students President Malia Bouattia advocated violence against Israel and accused the international media of being “Zionist-led.” It is why Muhammed Butt, a London Labour council leader, shared a Facebook post denouncing Israel as “a terrorist state like ISIS.” It is why former London Mayor and Labour National Executive member Ken Livingstone sought to discredit Zionism by his assertion that Hitler supported it.

Where does all this hatred come from? Its long lineage begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammed and its modern form pre-dates Hitler. Back in the 1920s and 30s, murderous Arab gangs attacked Jewish communities in post-Ottoman, British Mandated Palestine and tried to drive them into the sea. They were stopped by Britain’s Captain Orde Wingate, who taught the Jews to defend themselves, fighting alongside British troops.

A few years later Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, made a deal with Hitler to bring the final solution to the Middle East, but the German advance was halted in its tracks at El Alamein by General Montgomery’s Eighth Army. As soon as the State of Israel was established, 68 years ago this month, by resolution of the United Nations, five Arab armies fell on her with the intent of annihilation. They failed, and ever since have been trying to destroy the Jewish state by military assault and terrorism in all its forms.

Recognizing their collective inability to eliminate Jews from their historic homeland by force, the Arabs have waged a pernicious and all-pervading propaganda war to demonize the Jewish State. Their lies have included the blatant falsehoods that Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria are illegal under international law; that the Israeli government operates an oppressive apartheid state; that the IDF is strangling Gaza under an unprovoked and illegal siege; that successive Israeli administrations have been the sole obstacle to peace in the Middle East; and that Israeli security forces deliberately murder innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Understanding that the might of the pen is magnified by the flash of the sword, the Palestinian leadership and their Iranian paymasters have frequently used violence to seize international attention. Provoking the Israelis into killing Palestinian people to ensure global condemnation was the true purpose behind the Gaza rocket wars and the recent wave of murderous knife attacks and car-rammings.

Why does the West pander to this religiously inspired hatred and bigotry? There are three fundamental reasons. First, Europe especially is consumed by imperial guilt. Those that are seen to have been historically oppressed and exploited can today do no wrong; Westerners must prostrate themselves at their feet.

Second, every European country depends on Arab oil for its continued existence and relishes the return of its petrodollars through arms sales and massive investment into their economies.

Third, Western governments understand the power of their ever-increasing Islamic populations. They fear the extremism of those who reject Western values and want to violently replace them with the ways of Islamic sharia law. And they calculate the mathematics of the Muslim vote at the ballot box.

They know that among these communities there is widespread and innate hatred of Jews and of Israel. Mehdi Hasan, a British Muslim political journalist, has confirmed: “anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.” Our politicians believe that by appeasement they will satiate the blood lust of the jihadists and gain the support of Muslim voters.

This is why we see Western leaders condemning Israel for insufficient restraint while defending itself from lethal Hamas rockets, when they know full well Israel has done all it can to avoid civilian deaths. It is why not one single EU member state had the courage to vote against the false condemnation of Israel for war crimes in the UN Human Rights Council last year. It is why the British government unequivocally asserts that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal when it knows they are not. It is why Prime Minister David Cameron, a friend and supporter of the Jewish state, accused Israel of turning the Gaza Strip into a ‘prison camp’ when he knew it had not.

These false and malicious condemnations fuel hatred of Israel and of Jewish people everywhere. They are driven and intensified by a media that is dominated by strident, virulent and unyielding anti-Israel bias.

What of the future? Imperial guilt in Europe shows no sign of diminishing. In fact, the ideology behind it is gaining strength as the EU seeks to undermine national identity in its drive for ever-closer union and the creation of a superstate.

Despite developing energy technologies, there is no prospect of significantly reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil in the foreseeable future. And with the vast influx of refugees from Muslim countries into Europe, the urge to appease their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attitudes can only increase dramatically.

This means Israel and the Jews are going to come under even more intolerable pressure, leading to a greater exodus of Jews from many Western nations and the increasing international isolation of the Jewish state.

But there is an alternative. It is that Western political leaders find the courage to reject the virulent anti-Israel prejudice. To speak what they know to be the truth about the situation in the Middle East. To stop encouraging Palestinian leaders to believe their campaign against Israel is going to achieve its goal of destroying the Jewish state. And rather than supporting Palestinian hate with Western dollars, to impose sanctions against their racist and destructive behaviour.

The consequences of Western politicians’ continued weakness and appeasement are far greater than encouraging anti-Semitism and undermining the State of Israel. It is the fatal and irreversible descent of their own countries. By allowing this anti-Semitic hatred, they are betraying the millions of citizens who have fought and died to oppose the sort of malevolent ideologies that are now incubating it.

Iran’s army chief takes command in Syria

May 2, 2016

Iran’s army chief takes command in Syria, DEBKAfile, May 2, 2016

Iranian ground forces commander

Israel must be prepared for the possibility that the Iranian chief of staff will personally take charge of the deployment of Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces along Syria’s border with the Golan Heights.

*********************

The chief of staff of the Iranian military, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, arrived in Damascus on April 30 to assume direct command of the Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces fighting in Syria, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report. His arrival showed Iran has significantly stepped up its military involvement in Syria.

Sources close to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said May 1 in Tehran that the general arrived in Damascus “to personally supervise the battles and the borders that were determined.” The sources did not specify which battles he would command or who had set the borders. They also did not say whether the borders referred to those of the war raging in Syria, or the country’s sovereign borders.

According to DEBKAfile’s sources in Moscow and Tehran, just as Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country’s military command see the current offensive by Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces around Aleppo as the climax of the Russian military intervention, the Iranians see the battle  for Aleppo as pivotal for the future of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime, as well as Tehran’s standing in Damascus.

Tehran also believes that the battle around Syria’s largest city will play a major role in determining all of the country’s borders, not just its northern one.

Our sources report that there are sharp differences between Moscow and Tehran on this point. It seems that the main role of Maj. Gen. Firouzabadi will be to ensure that immediately after the capture of Aleppo, his country’s forces will focus their operations on other areas of Syria where Iran, not Russia, has strategic interests.

One example of such an area is southern Syria, which borders both Israel and Jordan.

In other words, Israel must be prepared for the possibility that the Iranian chief of staff will personally take charge of the deployment of Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces along Syria’s border with the Golan Heights.

Until now, Israel’s government and military command had believed that it was possible to secure the northern border though understandings with Putin. But now, that assessment has been proven to be mistaken with the arrival of the Iranian general in Damascus, and Tehran’s announcement that Firouzabadi will deal with the issue of borders, among others.

DEBKAfile’s military sources point out that another main reason for the dispatch of the chief of staff is the fact that Iran has sent large forces from elite units of its standing army to Syria during the last month. It is the first time in Iran’s modern history that its standing army forces have been sent to fight beyond the country’s borders.

Over the past few weeks, the arrival of Iran’s 65th Airborne Brigade of the Special Forces-NOHED brigade drew particular attention.

Our sources report that this brigade will serve as the spearhead of the Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah assault on rebel positions in Aleppo.

According to the understandings reached by the Russian and Iranian general staffs, there is a clear division of responsibility between the forces of the two sides in the campaign. The Russian air force and heavy artillery will strike the rebel bases and positions in and around the city, while the Iranians, Syrians and Hizballah advance on the ground. After those forces surround the rebels in Aleppo, they will launch an all-out attack.

UK: The Left’s Little Antisemitism Problem

May 1, 2016

UK: The Left’s Little Antisemitism Problem, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, May 1, 2016

♦ Within a week, Britain’s Labour party leadership was forced to suspend one of its newest MPs and one of its oldest grandees — and both for the same reason.

♦ Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone both say that they condemn anti-Semitism. They always tend to add that they also condemn “Islamophobia and all other forms of racism,” a disclaimer that always seems a deliberate attempt to hide a hatred of Jews under the skirts of any and all criticism of Islam. What is most fascinating is that all the while they are saying this, they stoke the very thing they claim to condemn.

♦ They pretend that the Jewish state does such things for no reason. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other Islamist groups rain down on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The comment turns a highly-targeted set of retaliatory strikes by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Strip into a “brutal” attack “on the Palestinians” as a whole. While mentioning those death-tolls, Livingstone has no interest in explaining that the State of Israel builds bunkers for its citizens to shelter in, while Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields and useful dead bodies for the television cameras, to help Hamas appear as an aggrieved “victim.”

♦ It is the narrative of the “left” on Israel that is causing the resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is not coming from nowhere. It is coming from them. If the left wants to deal with it, they first have to deal with themselves.

Every time anyone thinks Britain’s Labour party has reached a new low of anti-Semitism, entirely new depths seems to open. In September, I wrote here about how the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party constituted a “mainstreaming” of racism in the UK. Although Mr. Corbyn claims he does not have any tolerance for any hatred of anyone, he is a man who has spent his political life cosying up to anti-Semites and terrorist groups that express genocidal intent against the Jewish people. He has worked closely with Holocaust deniers, praised anti-Semitic extremists and described Hamas and Hezbollah as his friends.

During his leadership so far, it is clear that the lead he is given is being followed farther down the party hierarchy. In March, I described how the party appeared to be rotting from the head down, with the discovery that the Labour Club at Oxford University had become an entity rife with anti-Semitic insults. Yet anyone who thought that the party could fall no farther had not imagined its turns of the past week.

1267In 2009, Jeremy Corbyn (left, posing before a Hezbollah flag) said: “It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.” Pictured in the middle is Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Pictured at right is Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

At the start of the week, the MP for Bradford West, Naz Shah, was found to have posted on Facebook threads such ideas as the deportation of all the Jews from Israel over to America; the caption read, “problem solved.” Elsewhere she wrote on a discussion thread, “The Jews are rallying.” Ms. Shah happens to be a Muslim and represents a constituency which, until the last election, was represented by George Galloway. Other luminaries of the area include the former Liberal Democrat MP and David Ward.

So it is fair to say that among her peers, what Ms. Shah said was not unusual. The posts are from 2014, a year before she became an MP, and during the latest of Israel’s engagements in Gaza. In her apology, once she was found out, Ms. Shah talked of the fact that it was period in which “feelings were running high.” Of course, not everyone during a period of heightened feelings calls for the destruction of a UN member state, but Ms. Shah did, and within a day of the exposé of these messages, and an appropriate political outcry, she was suspended from the Labour party, pending a full investigation.

Labour’s week had barely begun. Within hours, another Labour MP, Rupa Huq, tried to come to Ms. Shah’s rescue. In a BBC interview, Ms. Huq tried to compare calls to eradicate the State of Israel with any other “amusing” thing one might find on Twitter. After a swift U-turn, Ms. Huq managed to restrain herself and remained in the party.

Next, from stage far-left, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, currently on Labour’s National Executive Committee, made his intervention. Mr. Livingstone has been in the Labour party for almost five decades and in the same trenches as the party’s current leader all of his political life. They have marched together for many a terrible cause and stood shoulder-to-shoulder on many a forsaken platform. But as Ken Livingstone went on several BBC programs, he probably did not expect that within hours, his own Labour party membership would be suspended, as was Ms. Shah’s. Livingstone had used his media opportunities to start talking about Hitler — specifically to claim, that Zionism was an early policy of Hitler’s. Perhaps sensing that he had got himself onto unfortunate ground, Livingstone then stressed that this was all before Hitler “went mad” and killed six million Jews.

So within a week, the Labour party leadership was forced to suspend one of its newest MPs and one of its oldest grandees — and both for the same reason. Presently, Jeremy Corbyn and his spinners are desperately trying to pretend that they have cut out the problem and are dealing with it appropriately. But there are reasons why they cannot do this with the problem that the Labour party — and the wider left in Europe and America — now has when it comes to Jews and the State of Israel.

Both Jeremy Corbyn and Ken Livingstone say that they condemn anti-Semitism. They always tend to add that they also condemn “Islamophobia and all other forms of racism,” a disclaimer that always seems a deliberate attempt to hide a hatred of Jews under the skirts of any and all criticism of Islam. But doubtless on one level they believe it. What is most fascinating is that all the while they are saying this, they stoke the very thing they claim to condemn.

There was much outcry to one answer Ken Livingstone gave this week when he tried to excuse Naz Shah’s original comments by saying that they were “over the top and rude.” But it was what he said earlier and has so far gone uncommented upon that was far more revealing and points to the left’s central problem here. In an earlier interview that morning with BBC London, Livingstone had said:

“The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians.

“And there’s one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government.”

That right there is what is at the centre of Labour’s anti-Semitism problem. It pretends that the Jewish state does such things for no reason. There is no mention of the thousands of rockets that Hamas and other Islamist groups rain down on Israel from the Gaza Strip. The comment turns a highly-targeted set of retaliatory strikes by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Strip into a “brutal” attack “on the Palestinians” as a whole. While mentioning those death-tolls, Livingstone has no interest in explaining that the State of Israel builds bunkers for its citizens to shelter in, while Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields and useful dead bodies for the television cameras, to help Hamas appear as an aggrieved “victim.”

In pretending that a state, Israel, in protecting itself from a rain of rockets, stabbings and car-rammings in the best way it possibly can, is, instead, committing war-crimes, not only is there a perpetuation of one lie; there is the subtle placing of a kernel of a thought. Why, a naïf might wonder, do these double-standards exist only in regard to Israel, and not to, say, Iran, China, Sudan, North Korea or Russia? Might it be because some people just hate Jews?

Such a comment is also the reason why even if the party pretends to “root it out,” it no longer can. What Livingstone said there passed without comment because it is the sort of thing which many MPs in the party and countless members of the party believe. Yet every time they say it, they are propagating a lie. Excusing Naz Shah’s comments by saying that they came “at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians” parcels a whole pack of lies into one.

That is the problem. It is the narrative of the “left” on Israel that is causing the resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is not coming from nowhere. It is coming from them. If the left wants to deal with it, they first have to deal with themselves.