Doc's Talk: "An Act of Hatred and Provocation"

Saturday, June 05, 2010

"An Act of Hatred and Provocation"

Debattartiklar
Zvi Mazel, former embassador for Sweden, on the flotilla:
"An Act of Hatred and Provocation"
Publicerad 2 juni 2010 - 15:38

The swiftness and scope of the reactions in the international arena to Israel's interception of the flotilla of pro Palestinian militants' ships trying to break the maritime blockade on Gaza are stunning. The Security Council convened within a few hours of the operation as if the world peace was in danger and condemned Israel. The UN Council on Human rights, dominated by such very democratic Muslim countries as Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, Djibouti Qatar and Saudi Arabia is convening today - not to debate and learn what happened but to condemn Israel. Many countries condemned Israel outright without waiting to know what had really happened on the sea. Even countries traditionally considered friends of Israel hastened to point the finger.

France said the operation was out of proportion (and what is the right proportion?) The US and Britain also admonished Israel and demanded a thorough investigation of the incident as they no doubt demand every time their own troops in Afghanistan or Iraq kill civilians. Even Russia said that Israel's behavior was unacceptable; never mind Chechnya and the persecution of human right activists in this vast Putin's Kingdom.

Turkey went ballistic. Prime Minister Erdogan attacked Israel and said among many other declarations that the attack was a "black a stain on humanity". He probably forgot the Armenian genocide, the ongoing massacre of the Kurds or that his country, known for its wonderful record of human rights, was the target of the famous movie: "Midnight express".

In the Arab/Muslim world where dozens are killed daily in suicide attacks by fellow Muslim there is sentiment of euphoria: Israel killed nine "innocent civilians" in a savage attack - it is so good for Arab propaganda. Today there are hundreds of articles in Arab/Muslim countries, glad to show their more than one billion readers the "real face" of barbaric Israel. London based influent Arab daily Alkuds AlArabi said it openly: "Arabs: don't be sad the success is huge". Considering the sterling Arab record on human rights and democracy they really have the right to rejoice on such an occasion.

Has the world gone crazy?

Now let us go the event itself. As expected, the provocation mounted by Muslim organizations in association with "Peace militants" to send to Gaza a so called freedom flotilla was successful beyond their wildest dreams: there are casualties. They can now keep on pointing the finger at Israel and blaming it for everything under the sun.

The organizers of the flotilla, a fanatic Turkish organization known under the initials IHH and its European partners had repeatedly and explicitly declared before setting out that their purpose was to break the siege of Gaza and embarrass Israel. The humanitarian supplies brought on board were just a ploy to hide their avowed objective. Israel did all it could to stop it. Appeals to Turkey went unheeded and that country let the flotilla sail and gave assistance to IHH. Israel offered to have all humanitarian supplies brought to the port of Ashdod from where they would be sent to Gaza. Israel also asked the "Peace militants" to transmit a letter to Gilad Shalit.

The answer was no on both counts. The militants were not interested in any humanitarian operation. They wanted to carry out their joint Arab-European propaganda offensive against Israel in order to delegitimize the Jewish state, deepen its isolation and provoke an international outcry.

Weeks before the flotilla set sail Arab Medias began broadcasting pictures of the preparations together with aggressive declarations by the organizers and the usual slanders against Israel. European governments and European Medias did not react nor did they heed the warnings issued by Israel. There were no recommendations of caution, and no honest reporting on the actual situation in Gaza.

Yet all knew that the blockade had started because of the terror operations carried out by Hamas, the smuggling of weapons and the kidnapping on Israeli soil of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. All knew also that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel lets through everyday dozens and sometimes hundreds of trucks laden with essentials and petrol.

Unfortunately we are the target of an Arab and international propaganda offensive characterized by the deliberate refusal to present the Israeli positions and indeed anything positive about that country. This is "Political correctness" in its starkest expression. The organizers of the so-called humanitarian operation understood only too well that they could go on with their plans secure in the support of Arab and European Medias.

Now it has happened. We know how it came about. The "Peace militants" of the extremist Turkish organization carefully planned their ambush. After having said over and over again that they would only oppose passive resistance, they attacked with guns, iron bars and knives and led to the dire results they were looking for.

Once again, they were fully aware of the fact that Israel intended to bring the ships to the port of Ashdod, deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza and send the participants of the flotilla back to their country of origin. Such a solution would have been acceptable to both parties. The militants would have claimed a moral victory and Israel would have sustained its legitimate policy of controlling what went to the Strip.

But this is not the way of the "Peace militants" whose hatred towards Israel knows no bounds. They wanted to cause damage to Israel, and no matter what the cost for them. After all, suicide bombing is the terrorist weapon of choice and the aim justifies the means.

Did Israel have a choice? It had to stop the flotilla since no one knew who the men on the ships were and what exactly they carried. Had the ships gone through, they would have been followed by more and more bringing weapons and terrorists to Hamas, a determined enemy on record many times for declaring its intent to destroy the Jewish state. Stopping the flotilla was Israel's right under international law.

One can also ask where all the peace organizations and their militants were during the eight long years Hamas deluged the South of Israel with thousands of rockets. Where were they when Gilad Shalit was kidnapped? Where were they when Hamas took over the Gaza strip in a bloody coup? Did they protest the slaughter that went on, did they protest when so-called opposition leaders were thrown off the roofs of tall buildings, did they protest when other leaders had their kneecaps shot.

And so now Israel is facing a full blown diplomatic crisis. Turkey is using it to the full to harm Israel to further its own status in the Middle East. Arab States - and Iran - are pouring oil on the flames and clamor for an all-out condemnation of Israel in the UN and Arab/Muslim organizations. The European Union is putting the blame squarely on Israel - and Israel alone. One can only hope that some form of reason will return after this frenzied rush to judgment.

Zvi Mazel
Former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden. Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk