Today Israel carried out its threat

Barry Shaw on Facebook

Israel threatened several times that it would destroy any Iranian base in Syria.

Today Israel carried out its threat when Israeli war planes destroyed an Iranian base near Damascus.
This base was attacked before it was equipped and manned as a public warning over the seriousness of Israeli intentions.
At night, while I was at Ginosar on the banks of the Sea of Galilee, we heard the unusual sounds of Israeli planes flying over the Golan Heights in the dark. They were obviously the planes on this mission.

https://www.facebook.com/netre52?hc_ref=ARQPrlh_brn2e5ge2HkHYzDLxHdcUE7zVYocON8mLPOIh2nvXFkdS1BQb7wZ26rN7V0

Hamas PA unification in trouble!

From Elder of Zyion

The Palestinian Authority, which supposedly is now the single official government in both the West Bank and Gaza, has tried to allow employees who were forced to stop work in 2007 when Hamas took over the various government institutions to return to their former jobs.

The employees remained on the PA payroll for the past ten years, paid literally to do nothing, with western aid dollars.

Hamas, however, has maintained its own security forces - and it physically prevented the PA employees from going back to their old jobs.

During this supposed reconciliation, the official PA news agency has tried to avoid criticizing Hamas. But that criticism has resumed:

The government of National Consensus Wednesday expressed regret that [forces] affiliated to Hamas prevented minister of local government Hussein Al-Araj and public employees from resuming work in their former posts in Gaza’s ministries.    
PA spokesperson Yousef al-Mahmoud said the government of National Consensus is deeply saddened by this serious step, which contradicts with all conventions and treaties, the last of which was reached last October, which threatens the success of reconciliation efforts.  

Abbas and other PA officials have said that they want Hamas to be disarmed, but Hamas deputy leader Khalil al-Hayya responded "The weapon of resistance is a red line that can not be discussed. This weapon will move to the West Bank to fight the occupation. It is our right to resist the occupation until it ends."

Hamas also said that it will give up control on "everything that is above ground" (besides the Al Qassam Brigades), indicating that Hamas continues to treat building tunnels into Israel as a high priority.

Binyamin Netanyahu Handles Hostile Andrew Marr

Bibi always give a good account of himself but I’d venture to say this was one of his most masterful performances.

New Zealand army units vs. thieving palestinian arabs in 1917. Elder of Ziyon

New Zealand army units vs. thieving Palestinian Arabs, November 1917: Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.


From "The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine," published in 1922 under the authority of the government of New Zealand:

For a very long time there had been a feeling of bitterness throughout the forces on account of the many acts of the natives and the manner in which they were protected against the troops. Claims for damage, alleged to have been done by our men were always supported and the men had to pay up.

This began as far back as Sinai where regiments were made to pay for damage alleged to have been done to the date palms there. Later in Palestine our troops suffered very much from the thieving propensities of the Arab. 

Here again if any damage were done to crops or stock of a native the claim was upheld, but no redress was ever obtained against a native for theft. At Rafa some natives attacked two of our men severely wounding one and killing the other and also stealing his horse. Subsequently the dead on the Rafa battle-field were dug up and stripped. This happened again after the action at Ayun Kara which took place close by Surafend and there is not the slightest doubt that these villagers were responsible. 

All troops round Surafend had been suffering from the depredations of the Arabs and could get no redress. Many times our men suffered by being fired upon by the native inhabitants and it must be remembered also that the murder of this New Zealander was not the first that had been committed by the Arabs in this district. An Australian had been shot here only a short time before.

The regiment considered what to do about the Arabs who were stealing from them, killing some and robbing graves.

In the end, they burned the village to the ground and 30 Arabs were killed or injured. The book refers to this as a "disturbance."

[A]t the inquiry it was found impossible to get any evidence as to who took part in the disturbance. But such evidence as was obtained showed that parties from units outside the Division took part in the disturbance which was probably organised in the murdered man's unit. The evidence showed clearly that many small parties came over from Ramleh, Ludd and G.H.Q. at Bir Salim.

It appears that the murdered man's comrades feeling aggrieved that the murderer was not immediately brought to book went to the village and demanded his surrender. They were met by an insolent answer from the head man of the village so they determined to find him and the searching of the houses led to a collision with the natives which resulted in a riot.

There is only slight embarrassment in the book about this incident.

As a result of this disturbance the Commander-in-Chief did not forward names of officers or men of Anzac Units which were camped at Surafend at the time and who had been recommended by the Divisional Commander for inclusion in the Peace Despatch; but subsequently he relented out of consideration for the good work of the Division and forwarded most of the names in a supplementary despatch.

This is the sort of historical event  that no one wants to remember. It shows that the Arabs were murderers and thieves, and that the New Zealand army took matters into their own hands to destroy the entire Arab community in retaliation.

The former wouldn't be reported today because it sounds like anti-Arab racism. The latter makes it sound like enlightened armies engaged in routine gross violations of human rights.

And who wants to talk about that unless the army is Jewish?

Jenny Listman vs. Elie Wiesel

Jenny Listman vs. Elie Wiesel (Vic Rosenthal): From Elder of Ziyon Vic Rosenthal:



A woman named Jenny Listman wrote a blog post accusing recently deceased Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel of touching her inappropriately at a public event 28 years ago, when she was 19.


 Today when the subject of sexual harassment of women is “trending,”  it created a furor, raising multiple issues: was her accusation true, and if so was it appropriate for her to make it public after Wiesel’s death when he could not respond? Was it ethical for her to air an accusation for which there could be no evidence except her own word? If true, did the allegation diminish Wiesel’s moral authority? 

The Jewish Daily Forward published a story about Listman’s accusation. Almost immediately it was met with a firestorm of criticism and withdrawn, with an apology that it did not meet their “journalistic standards.” (My immediate reaction: the folks that published the cartoons of Eli Valley for years have standards?) But they made the legitimate point that they could not verify her story.

My own feeling is that her account rings true. And after consideration, I think she was not wrong in making it public.

28 years after the incident, the only evidence that exists is Listman’s testimony. There is no way to corroborate or falsify her account today. But there is also no moral requirement that Listman must have other evidence besides her memories before she tells her story. Her experience, if she is telling the truth, is something that she knows firsthand. Her position is different from that of a journalist, who is obliged to verify the accounts of external sources. So the Forward’s withdrawal of the article does not imply that she should not have published it herself – and certainly does not imply, as some social media commentators have said, that she lied or was otherwise culpable.

Many have also said that she had no right to make the accusation after Wiesel was dead and not able to defend himself. But suppose he were alive and denied it. How would his denial change anything? It would still be “she said, he said.” It is considered dishonorable to bring a charge after its target is dead, but in this case it has no practical significance. Who knows, maybe he would have admitted it and apologized.

The reason the case has created so much controversy, of course, is that it was Elie Wiesel and not a random construction worker that allegedly placed his hand on her right buttock and squeezed. It was Nobel laureate Wiesel, the LA Times’ “most important Jew in America,” a man who had survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald and, by his books and other activities arguably did more to bring the Holocaust into public consciousness than any other individual. He made it personal: six million is a number, but Elie Wiesel was a boy whose family was murdered almost in front of his eyes.

Some say that by accusing Wiesel of behavior that is morally reprehensible, Listman has cast doubt on everything that he has said and done. His legacy will forever be that of a sexual harasser rather than a moral exemplar. 

I doubt this. Wiesel was a human being, like Washington, Jefferson, JFK and others who have been criticized on moral grounds. He was also a celebrity, with all the distortion of one’s own importance that comes with that. Wiesel was a man of a different time (even if by 1989 he should have known better). None of this excuses his alleged behavior, but that behavior is irrelevant to power of his testimony and his accomplishments.

Listman’s supporters argue that abuse of women is so common as to be invisible, they have had enough, and the way to stop it is to expose it, even if – especially if – the perpetrator is powerful or a celebrity. This strikes me as not unreasonable, as long as key distinctions – like the ones between verbal and physical harassment, and between butt pats and rape or murder are not blurred. Not everything is “violence,” and some harassment is worse than others. I think she would agree with me on this.

Personally, I wasn’t a big fan of Wiesel. What he suffered and what he witnessed were real, and especially in his memoir, Night, he raised awareness of the true monstrousness of the Holocaust, the degree of evil inherent in its perpetrators. Later, he opposed the trend in some eastern European countries of whitewashing their own cooperation with the Nazis. He supported oppressed peoples, but he had no illusions about which side was right in the conflicts surrounding Israel, and spoke out in her favor. He did humanity a great service, and he justly received the Nobel Prize and countless other honors.

But being a celebrity can have deleterious effects on a person, as has been demonstrated countless times by famous musicians, actors, writers and politicians. All the adulation, the admirers surrounding him and telling him over and over how great he is, make the celebrity think that possibly he really is above the rest, and that what is forbidden to ordinary people is permitted to him.

Elie Wiesel was a celebrity, and he loved it. He loved being invited to the White House, being knighted by the Queen, and visiting Buchenwald with Barack Obama and Angela Merkel.  He loved it too much, and in his excessive self-regard, he allowed himself to be used. Honoring Wiesel was a way of washing the blood off of the hands of the international community that had either killed Jews or closed its eyes during the Holocaust. And it was a way for those like Barack Obama and European leaders to distract attention from their present-day anti-Jewish policies.

Wiesel kept the Holocaust in everyone’s consciousness, which was a good thing and a bad thing. It was good because, at least for a time, it made Jew-hatred unpopular. It was bad because it provided a safe way for those who opposed the Jewish people’s right of self-determination to nevertheless feel good about themselves; and in a phrase that has recently caught on, to virtue-signal. Left-wing Americans who support organizations like J Street that are in practice anti-Israel, or even those that favor BDS, a program that explicitly calls for the end of the Jewish state, can get teary-eyed contemplating the dead Jews of 70 years ago, while favoring Palestinians over the living ones of today.

I found the social media response particularly interesting. The emotional content of posts by Listman’s supporters, most of them women who had experienced some form of harassment themselves, was strong. But the negative ones (by both men and women) were even more vehement. On Facebook, she was called a liar, a fraud, a “crackpot” and a “mental case,” accused of cynically seeking publicity for herself by attacking a great man, and worse. 

Some of the strongest reactions against Ms Listman come from Jews whose primary connection with the Jewish people seems to be the Holocaust. They are neither observant Jews nor politically active Zionists (discussing this phenomenon, Arthur Hertzberg once said that their knowledge of Judaism is in inverse proportion to their degree of Holocaust-obsession). Their Jewishness seems to be expressed primarily by studying about and commemorating the Holocaust, through literature, movies and various memorials and events. Their prophet was Elie Wiesel, and criticism of him cuts to the heart of their belief systems.

At the end of the day, I think that this controversy is unimportant. Elie Wiesel the celebrity may have acted badly, as celebrities do when their celebrity goes to their head, which I think is what happened. His accomplishments aren’t diminished by his mistakes, which were less significant. I also believe that Jenny Listman did the right thing by making her story, which I believe, public. The continual barrage of harassment which women face day in and day out is real, and the announcement that they are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” is legitimate and should be honored – even by the famous or powerful.

I’m confused? — Who are the real Palestinians?

From Barry Shaw

ISRAELI LEADERS:

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Born 21 October 1949 in Tel Aviv, Israel (formerly Mandate of Palestine)
EHUD BARAK, Born 12 February 1942 in Mishmar HaSharon, British Mandate of Palestine
ARIEL SHARON, Born 26 February 1928 in Kfar Malal, British Mandate of Palestine 
EHUD OLMERT, Born 30 September 1945 in Binyamina-Giv’at Ada, British Mandate of Palestine
ITZHAK RABIN, Born 1 March 1922 in Jerusalem, British Mandate of Palestine
ITZHAK NAVON, Israeli President in 1977-1982. Born 9 April 1921 in Jerusalem, British Mandate of Palestine
EZER WEIZMAN, Israeli President in 1993-2000. Born 15 June 1924 in Tel Aviv, British Mandate of Palestine

ARAB “PALESTINIAN” LEADERS:

YASSER ARAFAT, Born 24 August 1929 in Cairo, Egypt
SAEB EREKAT, Born April 28, 1955, in Jordan. He has Jordanian citizenship
FAISAL ABDEL QADER AL-HUSSEINI, Born in 1948 in Bagdad, Iraq
SARI NUSSEIBEH, Born in 1949 in Damascus, Syria
MAHMOUD AL-ZAHAR, Born in 1945, in Cairo, Egypt

So, Israeli leaders, who were born in Palestine, are called “Settlers” or ”Occupiers”, while Palestinian Arab leaders who were born in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Tunisia are called “Native Palestinians”!

BARRY SHAW  facebook: https://www.facebook.com/netre52

NOT SO CRUEL OCCUPATION IN RAMALLAH!

CRUEL OCCUPATION IN RAMALLAH! :)  THE WOW SHOPPING CENTER

https://www.facebook.com/WOWPalestine/