Middle East

Press Release June 29, 2015  Contact: Lena Bakman
NGO Monitor
02-566-1020
communications@ngo-monitor.org
Experts Provide Alternative Voice to UN Gaza Report: Events and Interviews
Jerusalem - As the UN report on the 2014 Gaza War is submitted to the Human Rights Council today, a group of military, legal, and Middle East experts will present an alternative voice in Geneva. Through statements to the Council and in side events, NGO Monitor and UN Watch, along with Colonel Richard Kemp, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, Jonathan Schanzer, Anne Herzberg, Uzi Rubin and Hillel Neuer, will critique the UNHRC report and identify key issues that the UN failed to properly investigate.

These experts are available to comment on the UN report and its legal and diplomatic implications. To arrange an interview, please contact: Lena
Bakman, +972-54-430-1861 or lena@ngo-monitor.org.
The Amuta for NGO Responsibility, NGO Monitor's UN ECOSOC-accredited parent organization, and UN Watch will be hosting a series of events at the UN. Today (Monday, June 29) from17:00 - 19:00, there will be a two-part panel event. Part One will discuss Filling in the Blanks, a book documenting missing elements in the UN investigation into the Gaza war, written by the aforementioned experts. Part Two will examine military and legal aspects of the Gaza war, featuring Colonel Richard Kemp,former head of the international terrorism and Iraq team for the Joint Intelligence Committee; Major-General Mike Jones, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command; and Professor Geoffrey Corn, South Texas College of Law, former Senior law of war expert for the US Judge Advocate General, and chief of the Law of War Branch in the International Law Division. There will be an additional panel event on Tuesday, June 30, at10:00am discussing laws of armed conflict in asymmetrical warfare.
WATCH LIVE WEBCAST HERE:  MONDAY, JUNE 29TH FROM 17:15 Geneva (11:15 AM USA EST) TO 19:00Geneva (1:00 PM USA EST)



UN Human Rights Council. Credit: The Commentator
Photo not from original Press Release

These experts made the following comments about the report of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza War:
Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of the international terrorism and Iraq team for the Joint Intelligence Committee: "The report is morally bankrupt, making no distinction between the Israel Defense Forces, the legitimate armed forces of a Western liberal democracy and Hamas, an internationally-proscribed terrorist group that operates a tyrannical dictatorship over the citizens of Gaza. The report has no military insight and it is quite clear that the UN commissioners and the drafters of the report have no knowledge or experience of armed conflict."
Major-General Michael D. Jones, Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Central Command: "While it is positive that the UN's Gaza report acknowledged that all combatants are required to abide by the law, and that Hamas's and other groups' indiscriminate rocket fire at Israel was unlawful, it is disappointing that the report fails to condemn these groups for unlawfully failing to distinguish themselves as combatants, as well as purposefully co-locating amongst civilians, knowingly placing them at risk, with absolutely no military necessity to do so. I am also disappointed that the report, came to conclusions without sufficient information to make a judgment.  Specifically, they condemn the IDF for engagements without any information on the IDF's objectives, military necessity, or known information on risk."  Professor Geoffrey Corn, Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law and former chief of the Law of War Branch in the International Law Division, US Judge Advocate General:"Unfortunately, findings of IDF LAOC violations throughout this Report rest on flawed or under inclusive interpretations of the law, and an inadequate consideration or appreciation of the realities of combat operations, ultimately undermining the credibility of these findings. What is obvious, however, is that only one party to this conflict - the IDF - demonstrated commitment to LOAC compliance, even when confronting an enemy who deliberately violated the law to gain tactical and strategic advantage."
Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:"The report gives no thought or attention to the actors that enabled the war... Iran has for years helped Hamas acquire long range rockets and develop domestic rocket making capabilities...the support that Turkey and Qatar provided to Hamas in the years leading up to the conflict, not to mention the diplomatic campaign that it waged on Hamas' behalf during the war. The role of Egypt is downplayed greatly... more than 1,000 tunnels had been destroyed before the war began...[this] was perhaps the greatest impetus for Hamas to launch its war... designed to re-negotiate the flow of goods and services between Egypt and Gaza."
Anne Herzberg, legal advisor at NGO Monitor: "Like previous HRC 'investigations', the Schabas-Davis Commission has failed to employ internationally recognized fact-finding standards, particularly transparency and impartiality. Moreover, the report is full of internal contradictions primarily as a result of its heavily reliance on the unverified claims of political advocacy NGOs and unreliable testimony from Gaza-based individuals. If the goal of this report was to provide a comprehensive accounting of the 2014 Gaza War, it has failed miserably."
YOU ARE INVITED
The Amuta for NGO Responsibility and UN Watch are pleased to invite you to a two-day side-event at the United Nations featuring legal, military, and international relations experts.Monday, 29 June 2015, at 5 pm - UN Palais des Nations, Geneva"Filling in the Blanks: Documenting Missing Demensions in UN and NGO 'Investigations' of the Gaza Conflict" a panel with: Colonel Richard Kemp, Jonathan Schanzer, Uzi Rubin, Professor Gerald Steinberg, Hillel Neuer, Anne Herzberg and others.Tuesday, 30 June 2015, at 10 am - UN Palais des Nations, GenevaA "Conversation on Laws of Armed Conflict in Asymetrical Warfare" with Colonel Richard Kemp, Professor Gerald Steinberg, Hillel Neuer, Anne Herzberg and others.
NGO Monitor, an independent research institution, was founded in 2002 in the wake of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. At this conference, 1,500 NGOs formulated the "Durban Strategy" which aims to isolate Israel through measures such as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and demonization.  NGO Monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org), is the leading source of expertise on the activities and funding of political advocacy NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor provides detailed and fully sourced information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.
  # # #mail@ngo-monitor.orgwww.ngo-monitor.org
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Schabas Report.

For Immediate Release:
June 23, 2015Contact: info@humanrightsvoices.org
Follow us on Twitter

Shocking UN Report Calls for Arrest of Israelis Around the World
This article by Anne Bayefsky originally appeared on Fox News.


Arrest Benjamin Netanyahu and any other “suspected” Israeli war criminals wherever and whenever you can get your hands on them. That is the shocking bottom line of a scandalous report released today from the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.


The Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva,
Switzerland. (AP2012)

The report emanates from a board of inquiry the Council created in the midst of the 2014 Gaza war. In legalese, the call to arrest Israelis either for trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC), or before any court in any country that the U.N. labels “fair,” reads like this:

The board “calls upon the international community … to support actively the work of the International Criminal Court in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; to exercise universal jurisdiction to try international crimes in national courts; and to comply with extradition requests pertaining to suspects of such crimes to countries where they would face a fair trial.”

To be fair, the U.N. report says this could apply to both parties. In other words, the democratic state of Israel, with a moral and legal obligation to defend its citizens, and the Palestinian attackers bent on genocide are moral equals. Throughout the 183-page tome, the U.N. council “experts” play the old “cycle of violence” trick, otherwise known as “it all started when you hit me back.”

An infamous photo from the Third Reich shows eminent Jewish lawyer Michael Siegel, beaten and bloodied after going to police headquarters on behalf of a Jewish client who had been sent to Dachau, forced to walk through the streets of Munich with a sign around his neck saying: “I am a Jew, but I will never again complain to the police.”

The similarity with today’s U.N. authorities is painfully clear. When Israel responds to Palestinian rocket fire – 750 rockets in 2014 alone prior to the war’s start – or Palestinian terrorists emerging from tunnels into Israel bent on carnage, it is Israel who is accused of war crimes. The only acceptable response, apparently, is to hang their heads or make a U.N. speech.

In part, the war criminal charge is just one more U.N. slander. U.N. meetings routinely consist of wild allegations of Israel committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and crimes against humanity, and frequently analogizing Israelis to Nazis. The anti-Semitic dimension of these attacks is palpable, with constant references to the offense of “Judaization” – the criminalization of the presence of Jews in what is supposed to be Judenrein Arab territory, or what is in practice apartheid Palestine.

While the point of all this hate speech is to demonize and delegitimize Israel, the war crimes label takes the campaign one step further. It deliberately ravages Israel’s right of self-defense.

Self-defense is the essence of sovereignty. In the words of the U.N. Charter: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of … self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations …” The United Nations was not intended to be a suicide pact.

But incredibly, the U.N. council report purports to address legal responsibility for casualties in Gaza without once mentioning “self-defense.”

It was exactly the outcome that the council had planned. The Council gave the board of inquiry its marching orders on July 23, 2014, just 16 days into the war. It named June 13, 2014, as the starting line because Palestinian terrorists kidnapped three Israeli teenagers on June 12. It said the Council “condemns … the violations … arising from the Israeli military operations.” Guilty before proven innocent is how it all began.

The board’s first chair, William Schabas, was forced to resign after it was revealed he had been a paid legal adviser to the Palestinian Authority. On his way out the door in February, Schabas admitted the “fact-gathering” was “largely completed,” and yet the U.N. denied the obvious conclusion that the result was irrevocably tainted. Consequently, a Palestinian legal adviser chaired the inquiry for more than half of its 10-month existence.

Impartiality was equally alien to American Mary McGowan Davis, who took over from Schabas. She had already chaired a Council committee about the 2008/09 Gaza war, and she declared in a March 2011 report that Israel's legal system did not meet standards of independence or impartiality, or make “accountability” possible. Those criteria are both the pre-conditions for the ICC’s ability to throw Israelis in prison and the subject matter of her 2014 job.

In short, the Council gave the same person the same assignment on almost the same fact situation … and surprise! Israel is guilty as charged.

In 2011, McGowan Davis described the misogynist, homophobic, anti-free speech, "de facto authorities in Gaza" (i.e. Hamas) – infamous for throwing political opponents off tall buildings – as "generally tolerant of local human rights organizations."

A U.N. “human rights” expert par excellence.

Little wonder that the report is riddled with lies and libels. It claims Israel was “directing attacks against civilians,” and acted “in utter disregard of…the civilian population…” It omits that Hamas rejected or violated a total of 11 cease-fires that would have reduced Palestinian casualties by 90 percent. It says the intent of “Palestinian armed groups” in constructing and using tunnels cannot be “conclusively determined” – photographic evidence of weapons caches and terrorists emerging from openings terrifyingly close to Israeli villages to the contrary.

It even goes so far as to lament that Palestinian “armed groups” don’t have more room for their criminal enterprise: “…the obligation to avoid locating military objectives within densely populated areas is not absolute. The small size of Gaza and its population density make it difficult for armed groups to always comply with this requirement.”

The U.N. has reached a new low. The United States should start by resigning from the Human Rights Council effective immediately.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Pillar of Defense and UN Human Rights Council.

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted here with permission of Middle East Forum:

Islamic Jizya: Fact and Fiction
by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPage Magazine
May 28, 2015http://www.meforum.org/5275/jizya-fact-fiction


The Islamic State demands that Christian "infidels" pay jizya, a per capita tax on non-Muslims sanctified by Islamic law, or forfeit their lives.Muslim demands for non-Muslim "infidels" to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of "tolerance" in Islam.
In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.When the Islamic State invaded ancient Christian regions around the Ninevah Plain last June, it againdeclared: "We offer them [Assyrian Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword."

Palestinian preacher 'Issam Amira recently urged his followers to wage jihad against non-Muslims "when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya."The Islamic State—which most Western politicians ludicrously insist "has nothing to do with Islam"—is not alone in calling for jizya from Christian "infidels." In 2002, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, discussing the Muslim prophet's prediction that Islam will eventually conquer Rome, said, "We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians . . . will yet pay us the jizya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam."
And in a video recently posted, Sheikh 'Issam Amira appears giving a sermon in Al Aqsa Mosque where he laments that too many Muslims think jihad is only for defense against aggressors, when in fact Muslims are also obligated to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslims:When you face your pagan enemy, call them—either to Islam, jizya, or seek Allah's help and fight them. Even if they do not fight [or initiate hostilities], fight them!... Fight them! When? When they fight you? No, when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya.... Whether they like it or not, we will subjugate them to Allah's authority.In short, if the Islamic State is enforcing jizya on "infidels," demands for its return are on the increase all around the Muslim world. Put differently, if Abu Shadi, an Egyptian Salafi leader, once declared that Egypt's Christians "must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or prepare for war," Dr. Amani Tawfiq, a female professor at Egypt's Mansoura University, once said that "If Egypt wants to slowly but surely get out of its economic situation and address poverty in the country, the jizya has to be imposed on the Copts."The Doctrine and History of JizyaSo what exactly is jizya? The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29, in an injunction that should be familiar by now:Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued(emphasis added).In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims:If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah's help and fight them.The second "righteous caliph," Omar al-Khattab, reportedly said that any conquered "infidel" who refuses to convert to Islam "must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency."
This theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam's authorities. According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia,[Muslim] jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis [subjugated non-Muslim Christians and Jews] were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.Some of Islam's jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, in bestial fashion.
Conquered non-Muslims were required to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors.The root meaning of the Arabic word "jizya" is simply to "repay" or "recompense," basically to "compensate" for something. According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that "takes the place" of something else, or "serves instead."
Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money. As one medieval jurist succinctly put it, "their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya."
Past and increasingly present, Muslims profited immensely by exacting jizya from conquered peoples.
For instance, Amr bin al-As, the companion of Muhammad who conquered Christian Egypt in the early 640s, tortured and killed any Christian Copt who tried to conceal his wealth. When a Copt inquired of him, "How much jizya are we to pay?" the Islamic hero replied,If you give me all that you own—from the ground to the ceiling—I will not tell you how much you owe. Instead, you [the Christian Copts] are our treasure chest, so that, if we are in need, you will be in need, and if things are easy for us, they will be easy for you.Yet even that was not enough. Caliph Uthman later chided Amr bin al-As because another governor of Egypt had managed to increase the caliphate's treasury double what Amr had. In the words of Uthman, the "milk camels [Egypt's Christians, that is] . . . yielded more milk." Years later, yet another caliph, Suleiman ibn Abdul Malik, wrote to the governor of Egypt advising him "to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood."
Caliph Suleiman ibn Abdul Malik described his Christian subjects as a beast to be milked "until it gives no more milk."Little wonder Egypt went from being almost entirely Christian in the seventh century to today having a mere 10%—and steadily dwindling, thanks to ongoing persecution—Christian minority.
Related to the idea of institutionalized jizya is the notion that non-Muslims are fair game to plunder whenever possible. The jizya entry in theEncyclopaedia of Islam states that "with or without doctrinal justification, arbitrary demands [for money] appeared at times." Even that medieval traveler, Marco Polo, whose chronicles appear impartial, made aninteresting observation concerning the Muslims in Tauris (modern day Iraq) in the thirteenth century:According to their doctrine [Islam], whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians [during the course of a plunder-driven raid], are considered as martyrs.... These principles are common to all Saracens [Muslims].All this is echoed in recent times by the words of Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, spoken a few years ago, concerning what the Muslim world should do to overcome its economic problems:If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [invitation to conversion] or stands in our way, then we must kill or take them as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid [holy warrior] who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads.So it was for well over a millennium: Muslim rulers and mobs extorted money from "infidels" under their sway as a legitimate way to profit.
Much of this financial fleecing came to an end thanks to direct European intervention. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, one Muslim region after another abolished the jizya and gave non-Muslims unprecedented rights—originally to appease Western powers, later in emulation of Western governance. The Ottoman Empire's Hatt-i Humayun decree of 1856 abolished the jizya in many Ottoman-ruled territories. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the jizya was gradually abolished wherever Western powers were present.

British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary describes his government welfare payments as jizya taken "from the kafir (infidel)."Today, however, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage—often to the approval and encouragement of a West, now under the spell of "multiculturalism"—jizya, whether institutionalized as under the Islamic State, or as a rationale to plunder infidels, is back.
Even in the West, in 2013, a UK Muslim preacher who was receiving more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits referred to British taxpayers as "slaves," and explained: 
"We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for "right"], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir[infidel], isn't it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar ["Allah is Great"]. We take the money."Academic Lies about JizyaYet if Muslims—from Islamic State jihadis to Egyptian university professors—know the truth about jizya, the West is today oblivious, thanks to its leading authorities on Islam: Western academics and other "experts" and talking heads.
Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a widely acknowledged go-to source for anything Islamic:In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy ... (emphasis added)Despite the almost gushing tone related to Muslim rule, the idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy "Muslim protection from outside aggression" is an outright lie. Equally false is Esposito's assertion that jizya was paid to "exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service"—as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their conquered "infidel" subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad (holy war against infidels) without first converting to Islam.

John Esposito argues that paying jizya was a blessing for non-Muslims that "entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression."Yet these two myths—that jizya was for "Muslim protection from outside aggression" and exemption from military service—are now widely accepted. In "Nothing 'Islamic' About ISIS, Part Two: What the 'Jizya' Really Means," one Hesham A. Hassaballa recycles these fabrications on BeliefNet by quotingSohaib Sultan, Princeton University's Muslim chaplain, who concludes: "Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the 'covenant of protection' (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state."
In reality and as demonstrated above via the words of a variety of authoritative Muslims, past and present, jizya was, and is indeed, protection money—though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves. Whether it is the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it is the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their "infidel" subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money. Put differently, the subjugated infidel is a beast to be milked "until it gives no more milk and until it milks blood," to quote the memorable words of an early caliph.
There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die.
And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam. In short, jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam—add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.—one that, distort as they may, the academics cannot whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.
Note: Most quotations not hyperlinked are sourced from Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians. Full references can be found there.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He is the author of 
Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Jizya and Islam and Infidel.

From Arlene Kushner:
May 25, 2015
Confusion on the Government FrontWith regard to the establishment of a government, I do not remember the situation ever being quite as unclear and in flux as it is now.

Part of the problem is that ministry responsibilities have not been precisely delineated – that is, there is overlap among various ministries.  Makes it tougher to understand who is accountable for what, and tends to generate tensions between those heading those ministries.

In addition, there are ministries in which responsibilities are shared internally or even farmed out to persons outside the ministry in question.  This is the case, for example, with Silvan Shalom, who is not in the Foreign Ministry and yet has been given responsibilities that might be expected to be within the jurisdiction of that ministry, such as strategic dialogue with the US.

And, to top it all off, there are MKs who have been given more than one ministry, although we are seeing shifts in that situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I want to do here is provide an update on the situation since my last posting. But be forewarned: none of this is carved in stone and there may yet be other “adjustments.”


Last I wrote, I said that Gilad Erdan (pictured below), who is second on the Likud list, would not be taking a portfolio:  He had hoped for Public Security - which was in the end given to Yariv Levin - but only in conjunction with Interior – a position Erdan had held, but which was given to Shalom - because the two ministries work together.  He said that what he was offered by Netanyahu didn’t provide him with the tools to do his job effectively.  The problems that ensued here were a reflection of tensions between Netanyahu and Erdan, which have now been smoothed over.

Credit: Huffington Post
Photo not from original post
The word today is that Erdan will be Minister of Public Security after all.  And no, he will not be given Interior, but the reports are that he will be given a generous budget and possibly the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which had been given to Ze’ev Elkin, along with Immigration.

~~~~~~~~~~

A bit of clarification might help here:

Public Security is the statewide enforcement agency responsible for police, the prison system, rescue system, etc.  There are no independent local police departments – everything is overseen at a national level.  In light of terrorist acts inside of Israel and decisions that must be made regarding how to respond to them, this is a position of considerable import. An enhanced budget for police work seems to me an excellent thing.

Interior is the agency responsible for local government, citizenship and residency, identity cards, and student and entry visas.  Erdan had felt that coordination between local governments (municipal, etc.) and the services of Public Security was appropriate.

Strategic Affairs is, in broadest terms, responsible for coordinating security, intelligence and diplomatic initiatives regarding strategic threats.

~~~~~~~~~~

Erdan should have a place in the (inner) Security Cabinet now, as I understand it because of his involvement with Strategic Affairs – which is critical.

Additionally, Erdan may be given the Ministry of Communications (a position he has held before).  As I noted last time, Netanyahu had retained that position for himself.  I am not clear as to where this leaves Ofir Akunis, who had been assigned a place in the Ministry of Communications as a Minister-without-Portfolio. (I had read that as being a de facto Minister of Communication position, but now?)

Reports are that – because of the limit on the number of ministers who can be appointed - Benny Begin will have to resign his position as Minister-without-Portfolio.

~~~~~~~~~~

And there is yet one more piece of news regarding the government: Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, will be taking a leave of absence from that position in order to serve as Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Dr. Dore Gold – a long time advisor to Netanyahu and former Israeli Ambassador to the UN - is a good man. ~~~~~~~~~~

A ministry routinely has a director-general, who oversees the operation, in addition to the minister him or herself.  Gold, it must be said, is a notably well-known personage to fill that role.  There are ways in which this may be good, because he has considerable prestige and depth of strategic understanding.  But I see something else happening as well: Tzipi Hotovely is Deputy Foreign Minister, and, as Netanyahu is retaining that ministry for himself, there are ways in which it might have been said that she was de facto Foreign Minister.  We’ve already seen, however, that certain responsibilities that might have been hers were assigned to others.

What I suspect here is that the presence of Gold in the Ministry may further undercut her autonomy and latitude to function.  This has to be watched.  What is certainly the case is that Gold will provide reports to the prime minister on what is happening vis-à-vis Hotovely.

~~~~~~~~~~

What I close with here, is a marvelous statement last week by Hotovely – for Israeli diplomats and Foreign Ministry staff  - that has caused more than a bit of nervousness in certain government quarters, even as it has brought a smile to the faces of some of us (emphasis added):

“The international community deals with considerations of justice and morality. We need to return to the basic truth of our right to this land.”Hotovely then quoted the late journalist Uri Elitzur, who said that for the last 40 years, while the Palestinians were demanding “their” lands, Israel’s has been that: “We have strategic interests and security concerns.”Those arguments, she said, are the arguments of a robber.“If I wear your coat because I’m cold, and I can prove pragmatically and analytically that it really is cold for me, the world will ask a primitive and analytic question: Who does the coat belong to? In this context, it is important to say that this coat is ours, this country is ours, all of it. We didn’t come here to apologize for that.”Hotovely said the world understands Israel’s security needs, but arguments based on justice and morality always trump those dealing with security concerns.http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Hotovely-This-country-belongs-to-us-all-of-it-403819

Bravo to Deputy Minister Hotovely.  That took courage when the prime minister says we must keep the land for security reasons.

~~~~~~~~~~© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu.

From Arlene Kushner
May 7, 2015

Could Be Worse
Before I begin to discuss how it could be worse, a couple of housekeeping matters.

First, dear readers, please know that I am working overtime on the Legal Grounds Campaign.  That’s a good thing, because it means we are developing a solid campaign to coincide with the formation of the new government.  But it also means that there is less time for me to write. And so, please understand if sometimes intervals of several days go by in which I do not post.  Nothing is wrong.

I’ll pick up again on my regular posting schedule as soon as possible.

Thank you.

As to the Legal Grounds Campaign, if you have not done so, please do take a look at our website: http://israelrights.com .  Please! join the campaign (no cost), and take the time to learn about the campaign and Israel’s legal rights by reading the material on the site.Thank you again.

~~~~~~~~~~

And then...Credit: CagleCartoons
This lovely man is Yaakov Kirschen, originator of the Dry Bones cartoons. When you visit our website you will see the cartoon he did to address our issues.

When I wrote about him recently, I referred to him as Yaakov Kirschner.  And I do not excuse myself for this silly mistake.  I sentence myself to 100 lashes with a wet noodle.

~~~~~~~~~~
Now let’s talk about how it could be worse. What I have in mind is the new coalition that was formed, literally, at the very last minute, by Prime Minister Netanyahu.Credit: presidentconference

Deadline was midnight, last night, and he completed negotiations with Bayit Yehudi at about 10:30 PM.

This has not been a happy time for the Israeli electorate. Since the election on March 17, there has been no clarity.

~~~~~~~~~~

Background:

President Rivlin, after meeting with all factions, had offered Netanyahu – whose Likud faction has 30 mandates - the first opportunity to form a governing coalition. A coalition requires sufficient factions coming together with agreements so that they collectively represent at least 61 seats in the Knesset (half plus one).  When Netanyahu could not accomplish this within the allotted time, he requested an extension of 14 days, as the law permits.

I had made reference in postings during this time to the fact that rumors were flying fast and furious.  In the main, I did not write about those rumors – as they were just that: rumors, sometimes planted for purposes of influencing one faction or another, without shedding any genuine light on the negotiating situations.

There was (still is) talk of a unity government with the Zionist Union (Herzog-Livni).  It was said, until very recently, that Netanyahu wanted Lieberman to continue in his role as Foreign Minister. There was a great deal of scuttlebutt regarding what positions former Likudnik Moshe Kahlon of Kulanu was insisting upon – Kulanu’s orientation is socio-economic. It was widely understood, and correctly so, that Lapid of Yesh Atid would remain on the outside.

And there was a lot of talk about discontent expressed by many of the senior individuals who had secured seats within the Likud party.

And on and on.

~~~~~~~~~~

This new coalition, once it was formed, was supposed to bring stability and a cohesiveness that would permit strong governance.  But in the end of the day, that is not what we have gotten, in several respects.

The first parties Netanyahu signed coalition agreements with were Kulanu and UTJ (United Torah Judaism – Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox), with 10 and six mandates respectively.  It does appear that Kahlon (pictured) will be Finance Minister, as had been promised, and have control of related agencies that will permit him to push forward certain reforms – which have undoubtedly been written into the coalition agreement.   
Credit: TimesofIsrael

But the UTJ agreement?  It reverses reforms that had been made in the conversion process, and reinstates funds to hareidi schools that do not teach a core curriculum.  These are very bad moves in my opinion.  That’s even before we discuss the complex matter of haredi draft (which I would like to return to at another time.)

Following this was the agreement with Shas (Sephardi ultra-Orthodox), with seven mandates.  I see this as much worse than the agreement with UTJ, because I do not believe that Shas party head Aryeh Deri is fit to be appointed dog catcher.

And what is this about?  Securing mandates for the coalition.  Not about forming a solid nationalist base, that is for sure.

~~~~~~~~~~

At about this point, Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu, with six mandates, announced that he was resigning forthwith from his position as Foreign Minister and would be in the opposition – refusing to take part in the new government.There was some head-scratching at this, because Lieberman had declared consistent intention of continuing in the Foreign Ministry.  And he is, generally, erratic in his statements.  But I believe the motivation for his action here became quite clear: He was disgusted with Netanyahu’s rush to bring the ultra-Orthodox parties, with their demands, into the coalition and considered it a betrayal of principles, including nationalist principles.

Lieberman’s withdrawal from the process made the numbers a lot tighter.

~~~~~~~~~~

The final party negotiating a coalition agreement was Bayit Yehudi, with eight mandates – headed by Naftali Bennett.  Credit: Jpost

It has been Netanyahu’s interaction with this party throughout that has been most troubling.

In the course of the elections, with Likud running neck and neck with the Zionist Union in the polls, and sometimes even falling behind Zionist Union – a call went out to nationalist voters to vote Likud rather than Bayit Yehudi in order to ensure a Likud victory.  That call was apparently successful, as Likud pulled ahead in the elections – way ahead of what polls had predicted, while Bayit Yehudi fell back a handful of mandates from what the polls had predicted.

I don’t think it is unfair to say that Naftali Bennett took a hit for Bibi Netanyahu’s sake. This is certainly the way I, and many others, saw it.  Netanyahu spoke frequently about how Bayit Yehudi and Likud were natural partners in the upcoming government.  The expectation, if this was the case, was that this would be the first coalition agreement signed.  But that is not what happened.

There are those who say that the problem was that Bennett’s demand’s were excessive: he sought either the defense or foreign ministry. And yes, Bennett is a politician among politicians. But there was more than this going on, perhaps a reflection of tensions between the two dating back for some time.  Whatever the case, there was the sense that Likud was distancing itself from Bayit Yehudi.

Was this a desire to appear more “centrist” (read, less nationalist) than Bayit Yehudi?

I am keenly aware of the enormous pressures being placed on Netanyahu from the outside – the expressed expectation that we must commit to negotiations again, etc.  But when a government is formed, if it cannot represent what we are supposed to be, than we are in trouble.

~~~~~~~~~~

In the end, Bennett relinquished demands for defense or foreign affairs and sought the education portfolio.  In addition, he sought he sought the Justice Ministry for Ayelet Shaked. Credit: Haaretz

At this point, Bennett was in a very strong bargaining position, because without his mandates, Netanyahu had no coalition.  He said he would walk, if his demands were not met.  After extensive negotiations, Likud agreed to accept Shaked as Justice Minister. Sort of. For there was an infuriating attempt to strip Shaked, who should be excellent in this post, of her authority in several respects.  The stipulations were:

That she not chair the Judicial Committee, the body that appoints judges for the law courts; that she not appoint religious judges; and that she not sit in the Security Cabinet – where Bennett will also be sitting.

What was so enraging about the attempt to limit Shaked’s power is that the last justice minister was Tzipi Livni, and apparently this was all right with Likud.  Livni was a fig leaf – giving the world the impression that they were seeing a government to the left. Shaked represents just the opposite.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bennett balked at these limitations, and they went back into those eleventh hour negotiations. In the end, the only restriction that remained was that a Likud minister would head the panel that would make the religious judge appointments, with Shaked and someone from Shas participating.

Shaked will also sit in the Security Cabinet – although it is likely that Netanyahu will enlarge the number of individuals sitting in it to dilute the Bayit Yehudi influence.

~~~~~~~~~~

My friends, this is huge, and can change the face of Israel in several major respects.

A Likud official was cited thus (emphasis added):

“...the justice minister will soon have to decide on who the next attorney general will be.  It’s a very sensitive position...The second problem is that Shaked is spearheading the battle to change the face of the Supreme Court. Netanyahu has so far avoided going head to head with the court, and he may well not want this headache.”
While Shelly Yachimovich, former head of Labor, said:

“Prepare to see a hard and bitter battle for the welfare and identity of the judicial system and law enforcement...She is capable, but her view of the courts, the judiciary, and the legislature, are the opposite of mine.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-homes-ayelet-shaked-gets-justice-ministry-with-limitations/

Need we say more?

~~~~~~~~~~

Nor is Bennett as Education Minister a small matter.  The future of the nation rests with the understandings our young people have about Jewish identity, Jewish rights, and our place in the land.

Hear a discussion of these issues, on Voice of Israel, that clarifies their importance:

http://www.voiceofisrael.com/naftali-bennett-on-education-jewish-identity-and-israeli-sovereignty/

~~~~~~~~~~

And so, it could be a lot worse indeed.  In spite of Shas and all the rest, there may be some reforms ahead that can affect Israel in significant ways.  Let us pray so.

Let me add here that a third member of Bayit Yehudi (Tekuma faction), will be Minister of Agriculture.

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the major problems to be faced with this new coalition is that it has a razor-thin majority, and is thus vulnerable to extortion that can make moving ahead difficult.  (“You do that, and my party walks, bringing down the government.”) The likelihood that this government, as presently constituted, will be stable enough to last four years is small.

Netanyahu commented yesterday that “61 is good, 61 plus is better,” thereby stimulating speculation that he intends to enlarge the coalition.  Those rumors that he seeks Herzog for a unity government persist, but Herzog insists that he has no intention of bailing Netanyahu out. A political consultant I spoke with today believes that Herzog means it – that it would not serve him well to join Netanyahu now.

A second possibility is that Netanyahu still hopes to lure Lieberman, with his six mandates, back in. And there are other more obscure possibilities as well.  We shall see...

~~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime, there are more immediate issues confronting Netanyahu.  He still has to announce all ministry appointments. Will Yaalon retain his position as Defense Minister?  Seems a good bet but we do not know yet with certainty.  And Foreign Minister?  Netanyahu is reported to be reserving this for himself. But there is the feeling in certain quarters that he’s saving this for Lieberman, should he want to return, or Herzog, should he be lured in.

Additionally, there is discontent within Likud, as I had indicated above.  So many major posts have been given to other parties that Likud senior party members feel short-changed. Thus is there also talk about creating more ministries, which would require a change in the law.  From the opposition Yair Lapid says he will fight this tooth and nail because of the added expense to the country.

And so, we have a government. But there is yet a great deal to resolve.  Within a week, there should be answers, and I will track this to the best of my ability.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let me end with two good news pieces that show how special we are, no matter what the world thinks:

A team of five Israeli medical clowns has gone to Nepal to help reduce trauma and anxiety.Credit: Reuters

http://www.jpost.com/International/In-photos-Israeli-clowns-help-ease-trauma-in-quake-hit-Nepal-402253

~~~~~~~~~~

A medical team from IsraAID, an Israeli humanitarian response non-profit, has carried supplies in backpacks to reach remove villages in Nepal and provide care to the people.  Participating are ten doctors, nurses and midwives, who left their jobs in Israel to volunteer for two weeks in Nepal.  They first made their way to a group of mountain villages known as Thangpaldkap, in the district of Sidhulpalchowk, one of the hardest-hit regions of Nepal.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/clinic-in-a-backpack-brings-israeli-relief-to-remote-nepal-areas/

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyahu and Naftali Bennett.

From Arlene Kushner:
May 4, 2015

Towards a New Law of WarThis is the subject of a conference currently being held by Shurat Hadin, the Israeli Law Center, founded and run by the amazing Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. Credit: Wikimedia

Current laws of warfare are outdated, she explained in her introductory remarks.  The Geneva Conventions never envisioned the asymmetrical warfare that is waged today.  We must redefine the laws of warfare, so that democratic states can adequately fight back. Today, terror groups attack civilians, and when democracies fight back, their defense is referred to as a war crime.  Terrorists should not be able to apply to international courts as if they were victims when they are the perpetrators.


The IDF must be able to fulfill its mission of protecting the people of Israel and we we must protect our soldiers, as well.
~~~~~~~~~~

The conference is not being held with the expectation that it has any ability to change the rules of war. Rather, the goal is to stimulate an international dialogue on the issue.  What I will do here is summarize key speakers, and offer significant thoughts garnered throughout the day.

Participants are Israelis, Brits and Americans with legal and military expertise/experience.

~~~~~~~~~~

Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, immediate past Chief of Staff of the IDF, provided the opening keynote speech.Credit: Telegraph (UK)

His words were particularly powerful, as he spoke from experience in the field, addressing both strategic and moral issues.

Warfare in the past, he explained, took place on a battleground, on which military forces met each other. That battlefield has now disappeared and new dimensions have inserted themselves. As never before, we see the involvement of civilians – both as targets and human shields.  How does a soldier even determine who the enemy is, when he is not wearing a uniform?

As far as the international community is concerned, Israel has lost before even starting. Israel has no desire to hurt others who are not combatants but must protect the Israeli people.  A human dilemma.

~~~~~~~~~~

There are broad similarities with regard to the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.  In all instances, hostilities have been started by the terrorists, with Israel holding its force until there is no choice. In both instances, the enemy fighters are allied with the ruling powers, and operate from inside civilian society.  A house in a village in Lebanon will have a livingroom, but also a missile room; in the garden a launching pad may be hidden. Shifa hospital in Gaza has served as headquarters for Hamas terrorists.

We – as a moral nation - must update our legal tools.  The soldier today is subject to uncertainties as he faces a complicated situation.

~~~~~~~~~~

Second speaker, Lt. Gen. David Fridovich, Former Deputy Commaner, US Special Operations Command, asked:  Can you deter terrorists?  He thinks not.  Americans do not get it, he declared.  They are shielded by the media.

~~~~~~~~~~

The first panel addressed the problem of human shields – civilians who protect weapons.  What we are dealing with here is military necessity vs. humanitarian needs. We cannot attack civilians as such or use indiscriminate force. but there is an obligation upon the enemy (in principle only as it is never honored) to separate civilians from combatants and from military operations.

Said Prof. Richard Jackson, Special Assistant to the US Army Judge Advocate General for Law of War, eyes must stay on the target, with fire adjusted one round at a time, using precision weapons.  The enemy is trying to provoke a response that uses overwhelming force. What is needed then is a modulated response.

~~~~~~~~~~

The next member of the panel to speak was Col. Richard Kemp, Former Commander, British Forces in Afghanistan, and one of Israel’s staunchest friends.Credit: militaryspeakers (UK)

The use of human shields is rapidly increasing, he said:

• there is a greater prevalence of asymmetrical power, with the weaker side using civilians
• this is a means of political warfare against the Western powers (Israel included), a way to undermine democracies and democratic armies
• there is influence by the media
• this hinders direct attack, restrains democratic armies ability to operate

Today human shields are used as primary weapons. Greater blame is placed by the world on those who hit human shields than on those who use them.

The use of human shields continues, said Kemp, because this works.  He suggested here that if democracies had greater reluctance to be deterred by human shields they might be employed less.  He is not suggesting wholesale slaughter! but wonders if perhaps there is a need to permit greater collateral damage.  The proportionality calculus must change, and it needs to be codified.
~~~~~~~~~~

Human shields lose their status as protected persons because they enhance the enemy’s goals.  But only if they are serving as shields voluntarily. (More on this follows.)

Death of human shields must be considered the responsibility of those who use them.  It is illegal to use human shields.  In fact, the law requires moving civilians from a combat area.

Kemp suggested that over-all military objectives, and not just the immediate situation, must be considered when deciding on how to respond to human shields.  If there is greater collateral damage permitted in one operation, perhaps in the long term it would discourage use of human shields.

~~~~~~~~~~

Bassem Eid, a courageous Palestinian Arab Human-Rights activist, followed with some comments on what Kemp had suggested.

The civilians in Gaza must wake up, he declared: their leaders do not have the right to do as they do.  However, Hamas coerces people, pays them to motivate them to stay put, and charges those who flee an area that Israel is about to attack with being Israeli collaborators.

International human rights organizations do not raise the issue of human shields:  “No Jews, no news.”

Hamas cares nothing about civilians or reconstruction – only about new tunnels and a stronger military.

~~~~~~~~~~

I want to move here to the panel that discussed the critical issue of proportionality.  Proportionality is not about how many deaths were suffered on each side – which is how the topic is frequently represented.It is rather a question of what is a proportionate amount of collateral damage for a given military advantage. In the end, this is a principle that requires interpretation.  The rule of proportionality is the most misunderstood and misapplied.

Prof. Yuval Shany, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, says that democracies do not normally utilize indiscriminate force or kill civilians on purpose.  But there remains a host of related questions.  Regarding, for example, weapon choice: do you act quickly, even though there will be collateral damage?  Or do you lose valuable time and wait until a more accurate weapon is brought in?  Risk to the soldiers serving under a commander must be considered by him, as must issues of military necessity.

On these questions, “reasonable minds may disagree.”

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Northwestern University School of Law, asked how one measures proportionality. The law does not define what the proportion is.  Who decides?  In international law, there is no final legal decider.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Geoffrey Corn, of the South Texas College of Law, provided insights on this matter that were clear and enormously useful.Credit: mysantonio

We are dealing, he said, with the hypocrisy of double standards.  The law is not going to change, but we should not allow it to be distorted: if properly understood, there is flexibility.

The keyword is excessive: a significant imbalance.  Commanders must anticipate the risk, and make an assessment regarding whether it is worth it.

The commander must be judged on conditions that prevailed when he made his decision.  Many tactical factors will have weighed into the equation.

Instead, the commander is criticized based on the results.  No commander, no matter how moral, can always make the right decision.

~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Corn prefers to think in terms of the rule of precautionary obligations.  This provides objective evidence of good faith and morality.  Did the commander take into consideration different weapons, different timing, how much warning to give?  Etc. etc.  If all these measures have been weighed, then it is possible to move ahead with lethal force to defeat the enemy.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Corn says that the moral considerations need to be ramped up when fighting the most immoral of enemies – otherwise all moral footing is lost.  The moral well being of our combatants at the end of the war must be considered.
~~~~~~~~~~

These are exceedingly heavy issues that must be struggled with in real time.  We know that down the road – soon - we will be confronting these situations again.

I close here by noting that it was remarked several times during the course of the day that there is no more moral army in the world than the IDF. No other army takes the extraordinary measures that ours does to warn civilians before we attack.  At the same time, we take the most heat from the world.

~~~~~~~~~~

It is highly likely that when I next post it will be to discuss the formation of the coalition.  The deadline for Netanyahu is almost upon us.  It has not been a happy scenario, but I believe he will pull it off somehow by Wednesday. The news today is that Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu and until now foreign minister, is declining to participate in the coalition.

~~~~~~~~~~© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Lawfare and Human Shields and Disproportionate Force.

From Arlene Kushner:
April 23, 2015
See the Miracle!
Credit: JpupdatesToday is Yom Ha’azma’ut – Israel Independence Day.  It is 67 years since Ben Gurion announced the establishment of the State of Israel, on the Hebrew date of Iyyar 5, which that first year corresponded to May 14.  (Today is only the 4th of Iyyar – celebrations were moved up to avoid Shabbat desecration).See here the full reading by David Ben Gurion of the Declaration of Independence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy_LlKE9OMQ:

Its words are of enormous significance – in terms of the recognition of our historical and legal rights to the Land, our readiness to include Arabs in peace, and a great deal more.  Many of the illustrations that accompany the reading are enlightening as well (Ban Ki Moon towards the end notwithstanding).

Credit: takegreatpictures~~~~~~~~~~When Ben Gurion announced independence, the people were already at war, for the Arab nations were determined to destroy the Jewish State at its very inception.  The population of Israel at that time was 806,000 - many were bone-weary refugees from the Shoah; they had to conduct their war of self-defense with meager weaponry. It didn’t look good.  But we prevailed, just as we have prevailed in every war since, sometimes astoundingly so.Not only have we prevailed against every enemy intent on destroying us, we have managed to grow and flourish at the same time.  Today our population is 8,345,000.  The Jewish population is 6,250,000 (74.9% of the total population), making Israel now the largest Jewish community in the world.  The Arab population is 1,730,000 ((20.7%), and the remainder are non-Arab Christians and members of other groups.  Some 176,000 babies have been born in the last year, and 32,000 have come to Israel.~~~~~~~~~~I site here commentators who have, over the last couple of days, celebrated Israel’s successes. Isi Liebler, in “We have reason to rejoice,” writes (emphasis added):“Israel has become a veritable economic powerhouse, emerging as the second-largest country (after the US) in high tech and start-up facilities. We overcame our water problems via an extraordinary desalination program.  And now we are effectively energy self-sufficient, and will even be exporting surplus gas resources.“...our social welfare structure and in particular the medical systemprovides outstanding services for all Israeli citizens without discrimination.“Culturally, we are a pulsating country in which our ancient and sacred language has been renewed as the lingua franca for Jews coming from totally different cultures....“Despite external threats and terror, we remain a democratic oasis in a region of barbarism, providing the right to vote to all citizens...“But the most incredible transformation is that after 2,000 years as a subjugated and persecuted people, we have become a regional military superpower.  The empowerment of the Jewish nation, the success of our people’s army, and its ability to deter the combined force of all its enemies is mind-boggling...”http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Candidly-speaking-Independence-Day-We-have-reason-to-rejoice-398845~~~~~~~~~~Michael Freund, in “Kvell, don’t kvetch, on Independence Day,” says (emphasis added):“...In the blink of an eye, we went from bloodstained Jewish history to blossoming Jewish destiny...“...In the spiritual realm, we have also reached new heights.  Israel is now home to more yeshivot than have ever existed at any time in all of Jewish history.  On any given day, more Torah is being studied than ever before, more pages of Talmud are being scrutinized, and more Jews are visiting sites such as the Western Wall and the Cave of the Patriarchs.“Indeed, in just about every field imaginable, be it literature or music, theater or the arts, Jewish creativity is at an unprecedented level...”http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Fundamentally-Freund-Kvell-dont-kvetch-on-Independence-Day-398837~~~~~~~~~~To this I want to add Israel’s incredible propensity for lending assistance to other nations in times of hardship and crisis.  There are Israeli teams working with drought-plagued Africans to improve irrigation techniques for better agricultural yield, Israeli doctors seeking to ameliorate disease in struggling corners of the world, Israeli rescue efforts in times of earthquake and tsunami.That propensity for lending assistance applies at home, as well. Wrote Abigail Klein Leichman, in Israel 21C, “Intermittent terrorism and wars since before the founding of the state of Israel have bred a culture of caring second to none.”In this sense, too, we are very much family – people reach out even to strangers with advice and assistance. Israeli society is exceedingly child-friendly, as well.  I was astonished, and delighted, to see, when I first came here, that parents bring babies and toddlers to weddings, which is fine for all concerned.  Jews in Israel have a considerably higher birthrate than Jews of other lands – babies are an intrinsic part of all that goes on.And what better indicator of hope for the future than making babies?~~~~~~~~~~How has all of this happened?  There is a reason why Yom Ha’atzma’ut begins with a special prayer service that includes Hallel – psalms of praise to the Almighty.  Without the Hand of Heaven, we could not be where we are. ~~~~~~~~~~Above I wrote about the increase in the Jewish population here over the years.  I believe this is a step in the Ingathering of the Exiles – kibbutz galluyot, spoken of by prophets and rabbinic sages alike.  Jeremiah (29:14): "I will...gather you from all the nations and from all the places whither I have driven you… and I will bring you back." The Talmud states that "the day of the Ingathering of the Exiles is as great as the day on which heaven and earth were created."~~~~~~~~~~And so, my friends, open your eyes and SEE THE MIRACLE.  Embrace it and broadcast it.

My Beautiful Israel:

Israel – Small but Outstanding:


Hatikva and more:

Note: I provide links to specific videos. What sometimes happens is that they are followed automatically by others that may or may not be of interest to you, but which I have neither endorsed nor recommended.~~~~~~~~~~© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.  
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Yom Haatzmaut.

Press Release April 21, 2015  Contact: Yakira Heller
NGO Monitor
058-668-9603
yakira.heller@ngo-monitor.org Statement on Amnesty International-UK's Rejection of a Resolution to Campaign against Antisemitism
Jerusalem - Amnesty International-UK's (AIUK) decision to reject a campaign against antisemitism in the UK highlights the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of what was once a leader in human rights advocacy.

On April 19, AIUK held its 2015 Annual General Meeting, and adopted 16 of 17 motions. The only proposed resolution that was rejected called on AIUK to "Campaign against anti-Semitism in the UK," as well as "Lobby the UK Government to tackle the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Britain" and "monitor anti-semitism closely." According to the motion, "neither AIUK nor the [Amnesty] International Secretariat have undertaken research or campaigning work specifically on anti-Semitism in the UK."

The AIUK vote also took place in the context of repeated antisemitic incidents within the organization itself -- in particular the activities of staff member Kristyan Benedict, who currently is listed as "crisis response manager." Benedict has a history of obsessive anti-Israel attacks and antisemitic outbursts. One example involved a threat of physical violence against a pro-Israel attendee of an event that Benedict chaired. A second example (November 2011), Benedict tweeted an attack on three British MPs whom he characterized as war-mongers, all of whom are Jewish. This prompted an inquiry into Amnesty by the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, seeking clarification on the organizations policies towards preventing antisemitism. He has investigated by AUIK for some of his rhetoric; however, serious steps have not been taken.
Amnesty-UK's refusal to condemn antisemitism also comes at a time when levels of antisemitism in Europe are at levels unparalleled since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, an Amnesty-UK official offered a misleading technical justification, claiming that "our membership decided not to pass this resolution calling for a campaign with a single focus." In fact, AIUK has initiated "single focus" campaigns frequently in the past, for instance, approving "overwhelmingly" a 2010 resolution on Sinti and Roma Communities, and stating: "Within the last year widespread discrimination and violence against Sinti and Roma communities has intensified in a number of European countries, which Amnesty International has published within respective country reports." AUIK's silence on antisemitism stands in sharp contrast.


Antisemitism in Europe. Picture is from March 2014 -- before Gaza war.
Credit: Arutz Sheva. Photo not from original press release

In this context, we note that NGO Monitor research has repeatedly shown that Amnesty International and AIUK disproportionately single out Israel for condemnations, and focus attacks on Israel while ignoring severe and systematic human rights violations in the region. Many Amnesty officials and "researchers" have a history of intense anti-Israel activisms, promoting the narrative of Palestinian victimhood and Israeli guilt, to the exclusion of universal human rights. AUIK's decision to turn its back on antisemitism is consistent with this immoral record.-----------------------------------------Anti-Israel and Antisemitic tweets by AIUK staff member, Kristyan BenedictTweet (November 19, 2012): "Louise Ellman, Robert Halfon & Luciana Berger walk into a bar...each orders a round of B52s (inspired by @KarlreMarks Bar quips) #Gaza.Tweet (November 5, 2014): Israeli regimes response to our Gaza report: Amnesty is "a propaganda tool for Hamas & other terror groups" (#JSIL?) http://t.co/gqwN9O2JrK
NGO Monitor, an independent research institution, was founded in 2002 in the wake of the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa. At this conference, 1,500 NGOs formulated the "Durban Strategy" which aims to isolate Israel through measures such as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaigns, lawfare, delegitimization and demonization.  NGO Monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org), is the leading source of expertise on the activities and funding of political advocacy NGOs involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. NGO Monitor provides detailed and fully sourced information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.
  # # #mail@ngo-monitor.orgwww.ngo-monitor.org

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Amnesty International and Antisemitism.

From Arlene Kushner:
April 19, 2015
The Bottom Line...on the unanimous vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to advance the bill, sponsored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), which would give Congress the right to review the deal currently being worked out with Iran.

Yes, as I wrote last week, it is a step in the right direction, as Senators are beginning to insist upon their right to be involved in this critical deal.  But it falls short in a very critical respect.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of Commentary, effectively explains this in “The Reverse Iran Deal Ratification Process” (emphasis added):“...By treating it as a normal act of legislation, the president will be able to veto the measure. That sets up a veto override effort that will force Iran deal critics to get to 67 votes, a veto-proof majority. If that sounds reasonable to you, remember that in doing so the bill creates what is, in effect, a reverse treaty ratification mechanism. Instead of the president needing a two-thirds majority to enact the most significant foreign treaty the United States has signed in more than a generation, he will need only one-third of the Senate plus one to get his way.

“By allowing pro-Israel Democrats a free pass to vote for Corker-Menendez the president is giving them a way to say they voted to restrain the president before also granting them a path to back him by either voting for the deal or failing to vote to override the president’s veto. That gives plenty of room for inveterate schemers such as Democratic Senate leader-in-waiting Chuck Schumer to make sure the president gets his 34 votes while giving some Democrats, including perhaps himself, impunity to vote against him.

“What has happened here is that despite furious effort and hard legislative work all critics of Obama’s pursuit of détente with Iran have accomplished is to allow him the opportunity to legally make a historic and disgraceful act of betrayal of Western security with the least possible support. They may have had no better options and I’ll concede an ineffectual vote on an Iran deal might be better than no deal at all, but please spare me the praise for Corker’s bipartisanship or the chortles about how the White House was beaten. What happened yesterday actually advanced the chances for Iran appeasement. And that’s nothing to celebrate.”
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/15/the-reverse-iran-deal-ratification-process-obama-corker-menendez/

~~~~~~~~~~

Keith Koffler, in his article, “The Corker Cave-in,” agrees with this analysis and takes it one step further (emphasis added):“’The Unified States Senate just capitulated to Obama,’ radio host and Constitutional scholar Mark Levin said Tuesday night. ‘The Unified States Senate just rewrote the Treaty Provision of the Constitution.’“...It’s true, international agreements have increasingly, over the decades, been done by executive action. But an agreement such as this – negotiated over the course of years and involving nuclear weapons for our most pernicious adversary and therefore the possible destruction of the United States – must by its nature qualify as a treaty under the Constitution, or there is no Constitution at all.

“The Founders are very clear on the need for a co-equal role in such critical matters for the Senate, which was originally entrusted not just with approving treaties, but helping negotiate them too...

”With the Corker bill, he [Obama] now has Congress in his pocket as he joins Iran in shredding the Constitution over a Swiss negotiating table. And in ten to 15 years, when Iran conducts its first nuclear test, Congress will have had a ‘role’ in the tragedy.”http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/04/15/corker-cavein/~~~~~~~~~~Let’s look briefly at some other commentary about the Iran deal, and some of the latest news updates:“Iran could collect up to $50 billion in oil revenue if sanctions are lifted, according to congressional officials briefed by the Obama administration.

“If negotiators are successful in brokering a deal with Iran this summer to suspend its nuclear program, officials say the country could receive between $30 billion and $50 billion after signing an agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported....”http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lifting-u.s.-sanctions-would-give-iran-infusion-of-up-to-50-billion/article/2563272

Credit: ABC News; photo not from original article

~~~~~~~~~~

Foreign Policy editor David Rothkopf argued last week that:“Unfreezing billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets...will have the effect of exacerbating Iran’s ‘systematic, 35-year campaign of regional meddling, destabilization, and extension of … influence’ that threatens the Middle East.”
http://www.thetower.org/1899-foreign-policy-editor-nuke-deal-that-doesnt-halt-irans-regional-threat-is-serious-error/

~~~~~~~~~~“As UN nuclear inspectors arrived in Tehran [last] Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the Islamic Republic will not accept a comprehensive nuclear deal with major powers if all sanctions imposed on Tehran are not lifted.

“’If there is no end to sanctions, there will not be an agreement,’ Rouhani said in a televised speech in the northern Iranian city of Rasht.

"’The end of these negotiations and a signed deal must include a declaration of cancelling the oppressive sanctions on the great nation of Iran.’"http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4647387,00.html~~~~~~~~~~And – as you grapple with this horrendous situation - factor this in, as well (emphasis added):“Even if Congress rejects his final Iranian nuclear deal, President Barack Obama could use his executive pen to offer Tehran a hefty portion of sanctions relief on his own. ...

“The president could suspend some existing US sanctions with his waiver authority. He could issue new orders to permit financial transactions that otherwise are banned under current law. And he could simply take certain Iranian entities, including nearly two dozen Iranian banks, off US target lists, meaning they no longer would be subject to sanctions.

“Only Congress can terminate its legislative sanctions. And those are some of the toughest penalties against Iran because they target its energy sector, central bank and key segments of its economy. But experts say Obama can neutralize the effect of some of those sanctions, too, and work with the Europeans to neutralize others....

“Says Tyler Cullis, legal fellow at the National Iranian American Council, which favors an agreement: ‘Some have expressed doubt whether the president can provide Iran significant sanctions relief solely on the basis of his own authority. Such doubt should be put to rest.’

“He said the president ‘could almost gut’ an entire segment of sanctions...”http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-could-ease-many-iranian-sanctions-without-congress/~~~~~~~~~~“North Korea supplied several shipments of missile components to Iran during recent nuclear talks and the transfers appear to violate United Nations sanctions on both countries, according to U.S. intelligence officials.” (Emphasis added) http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-transfers-missile-goods-to-iran-during-nuclear-talks/~~~~~~~~~~“A senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Sunday that inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement with world powers.

“Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard's deputy leader, said on state TV that allowing the foreign inspection of military sites is tantamount to ‘selling out.’

"’We will respond with hot lead [bullets] to those who speak of it,’ Salami said. ‘Iran will not become a paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.’"http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Apr-19/294948-iran-guard-rejects-inspection-of-military-sites.ashxJust how much will Obama tolerate?  Is this a deal at any cost, so that he can claim a deal?~~~~~~~~~~This is heavy information, as I am well aware, my friends.  But we dare not ignore it.~~~~~~~~~~And now for the good news, which we so badly need. Today I include a couple of sites – the first and last items - that may be of interest to tourists.Israel’s Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park has earned its certification as a UNESCO World Heritage site.  Located in lowland south of Beit Shemesh and east of Kiryat Gat, the Park – which is five sq. kilometers - is within a larger area referred to as the “land of the caves.” http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Israels-Beit-Guvrin-celebrated-as-UNESCO-World-Heritage-site-398074The park contains thousands of ancient underground man-made caves, and also encompasses the ruins of Maresha, an important town of Judah of 2,000 years ago.  Here you see the “Bell Cave” and below it, a cave with dovecotes.     Credit: Shmuel Bar-AmCredit: S. Aronson ~~~~~~~~~~In the face of its lowest levels of available water ever, Brazil has hosted a delegation of 13 Israeli water companies who came to help the Brazilians address their water crisis.http://israelnewtech.com/2015/03/israeli-water-delegation-on-mission-to-help-brazil-solve-water-crisis/~~~~~~~~~~Professor Zvi Bentwich, 78, a member of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev’s department of microbiology, immunology and genetics, heads the university’s Center for Emerging Diseases, Tropical Diseases and AIDS.  In the 1990s, he did groundbreaking research that uncovered a link between intestinal worms and immune system deficiencies – deficiencies that contribute to Africa’s AIDS and tuberculosis epidemics.Now the professor has been named the recipient of a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for his project in Ethiopia to wipe out parasitic worm infections.http://www.israel21c.org/news/gates-grant-for-public-health-hero/Credit: BBC~~~~~~~~~~“Can you name 15 varieties of cherry tomatoes? What about four types of carrots? Have you ever tasted an Uri Kaduri orange? And do you know the difference between the seven varieties of mint leaves?

“A three-hour visit to the Salad Trail, a unique touch-and-taste farm in the Hevel Habesor region of the northern Negev, will turn you into an expert grower for the day.

“Pick-your-own produce farms are commonplace. But agronomist Uri Alon (pictured below) has upped the ante with his complete senses-and-learning experience at his farm in the northern Negev.

“’If you want to see how the real vegetables grow, and taste the best vegetables in the world, that’s reason enough to come visit,‘ Alon, the brains behind this blossoming oasis in the middle of the sandy desert, tells ISRAEL21c.

“’If you want to see the real Israel and see how you can take a desert and change it and make it bloom, it’s enough reason to drive 1.5 hours from Tel Aviv.’”http://www.israel21c.org/headlines/the-tastiest-tourist-attraction-in-israel/
~~~~~~~~~~© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2015/4/19/april-19-2015-the-bottom-line.html

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Obama and Corker.