What really happened in Jerusalem

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: March 29

http://tinyurl.com/bmr6ghk

“I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those [Palestinian] kids, they’d say, ‘I want these kids to succeed.’ ”

Very true. But how does the other side feel about Israeli kids?

Consider that the most revered parent in Palestinian society is Mariam Farhat of Gaza. Her distinction? Three of her sons died in various stages of trying to kill Israelis — one in a suicide attack, shooting up and hurling grenades in a room full of Jewish students.

She gloried in her “martyr” sons, wishing only that she had 100 boys like her schoolroom suicide attacker to “sacrifice . . . for the sake of God.” And for that she was venerated as “mother of the struggle,” elected to parliament and widely mourned upon her recent passing.

So much for reciprocity. In the Palestinian territories, streets, public squares, summer camps, high schools, even a kindergarten are named after suicide bombers and other mass murderers. So much for the notion that if only Israelis would care about Arab kids, peace would be possible.

That hasn’t exactly been the problem. Israelis have wanted nothing more than peace and security for all the children. That’s why they accepted the 1947 U.N. partitionof British Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. Unfortunately — another asymmetry — the Arabs said no. To this day, the Palestinians have rejected every peace offer that leaves a Jewish state standing.

This is not ancient history. Yasser Arafat said no at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba in 2001. And in 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a Palestinian state on all of the West Bank (with territorial swaps) with its capital in a shared Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas walked away.

In that same speech, Obama blithely called these “missed historic opportunities” that should not prevent peace-seeking now. But these “missed historic opportunities” are not random events. They present an unbroken, unrelenting pattern over seven decades of rejecting any final peace with Israel.

So what was the point of Obama’s Jerusalem speech encouraging young Israelis to make peace, a speech the media drooled over? It was mere rhetoric, a sideshow meant to soften the impact on the Arab side of the really important event of Obama’s trip: the major recalibration of his position on the peace process.

Obama knows that peace talks are going nowhere. First, because there is no way that Israel can sanely make concessions while its neighborhood is roiling and unstable — the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt, rockets being fired from Gaza, Hezbollah brandishing 50,000 missiles aimed at Israel, civil war raging in Syria with its chemical weapons and rising jihadists, and Iran threatening openly to raze Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Second, peace is going nowhere because Abbas has shown Obama over the past four years that he has no interest in negotiating. Obama’s message to Abbas was blunt: Come to the table without preconditions, i.e., without the excuse of demanding a settlement freeze first.

Obama himself had contributed to this impasse when he imposed that precondition — for the first time ever in the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations — four years ago. And when Israel responded with an equally unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze, Abbas didn’t show up to talk until more than nine months in — then walked out, never to return.

In Ramallah last week, Obama didn’t just address this perennial Palestinian dodge. He demolished the very claim that settlements are the obstacle to peace. Palestinian sovereignty and Israeli security are “the core issue,” he told Abbas. “If we solve those two problems, the settlement problem will be solved.”

Finally. Presidential validation of the screamingly obvious truism: Any peace agreement will produce a Palestinian state with not a single Israeli settlement remaining on its territory. Any settlement on the Palestinian side of whatever border is agreed upon will be demolished. Thus, any peace that reconciles Palestinian statehood with Israeli securityautomatically resolves the settlement issue. It disappears.

Yes, Obama offered the ritual incantations about settlements being unhelpful. Nothing new here. He could have called them illegal or illegitimate. It wouldn’t have mattered — because Obama officially declared them irrelevant.

Exposing settlements as a mere excuse for the Palestinian refusal to negotiate — that was the news, widely overlooked, coming out of Obama’s trip. It was a breakthrough.

Will it endure? Who knows. But when an American president so sympathetic to the Palestinian cause tells Abbas to stop obstructing peace with that phony settlement excuse, something important has happened. Abbas, unmasked and unhappy, knows this better than anyone.

PA removed monument so that Obama would not see it

PA removed monument in shape of map of "Palestine" that encompasses Israel so that Obama would not see it

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8704

Palestinian Media Watchhas documented that the official maps of the Palestinian Authority erase the entire State of Israel and replace it with "Palestine." These maps appear in the offices of PA officials, in schools and on monuments, just to name a few examples. Before his first election, US President Obama criticized such maps that anticipate a world without Israel, calling them a threat to Israel's security:

"I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security... Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence." (emphasis added)

[AIPAC Conference, June 4, 2008]

After the UN vote in November 2012, the PA built a monument in a central square in Bethlehem called "The State Monument," which shows the "State of Palestine." However, the model of "Palestine" also includes all of Israel, thereby erasing it completely. The monument celebrates the UN vote on statehood as well as the first PLO/Fatah terror attack against Israel in 1965, which is seen as the beginning of the Palestinian "revolution" and Fatah's anniversary date. The words on the map-shaped monument are:

"Birth certificate of the State of Palestine - Nov. 29, 2012,
The outbreak of the glorious revolution - Jan. 1, 1965"

It turned out that the monument was on President Obama's route in Bethlehem, so in order to prevent him from seeing it, the PA had the monument removed before he arrived, the official PA daily reported. This, however, outraged the local Palestinians who witnessed its removal:

"In the city, there are those who not only welcome the visit of the American President, but are willing to go even further... Residents were surprised to find that a model of the map of Palestine engraved with details about the Nakba ("Catastrophe" i.e., Israel's creation) and an olive tree were removed from the Al-Karkafa Square, to be replaced by a model of what was described as a peace dove. This enraged many people who gathered there."

PMW has documented that the PA hides its ideology, activities and goals from the US and European donors, in order to get political support and funding. The temporary removal of the map-shaped monument, so Obama would not see it, is consistent with this deception policy. (See PMW's book Deception for extensive documentation.)

In response to the popular anger that the PA daily had reported, the PA then tried to deceive its own people as to the reason for the removal of the monument. Two days after the first story appeared, the paper reported on a press conference held by the Bethlehem District Governor with the Mayor of Bethlehem, at which they claimed that the monument was removed in order to be "redone" and expanded. The fact that it was immediately before Obama's visit was coincidental, according to the PA. In the words of the District Governor: "Everyone knows that Americans do not dictate any Palestinian decisions."

The following are the two articles that appeared in the PA daily. The first describes the PA's deception of Obama and the second describes the PA's deception of its own people:

"Obama's upcoming visit to Bethlehem weighs heavily on the City of the Nativity. Every day, reporters asked residents their opinion about the visit. Most of them expressed opposition to US policy regarding the Palestinian issue...

Activists laid a large picture of Obama on the ground at the intersection of Bab Al-Dir, not far from the Church of the Nativity. Cars drove over the picture and then it was burned.

It seems that in the city, there are those who not only welcome the visit of the American President, but are willing to go even further... Residents were surprised to find that a model of the map of Palestine engraved with details about the Nakba ("the catastrophe," the Palestinian term for the establishment of the State of Israel) and an olive tree were removed from the Al-Karkafa Square, to be replaced by a model of what was described as a peace dove. This enraged many people who gathered there."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 19, 2013]

"Bethlehem District Governor, Minister Abd Al-Fattah Hamail, and Mayor Vera Baboun, held a press conference yesterday [March 20] to clarify details of what happened to the State Monument and why it was removed... Hamail said that it has been decided to redo the monument at the Nisan Square, known as "Khaikhoun Square", and place a monument symbolizing the Palestinian people's pursuit of freedom and peace next to the State Monument, according to the proposal submitted by the artist Akram Nastas. He also noted that the map engraved on the monument is the map of Palestine, which represents national symbolism and is implanted in the hearts of all Palestinians. He added that it is forbidden to infringe on the patriotism of even one Palestinian, whether he is a senior official or not. Hamail denied that Americans had any connection to the subject (i.e., the removal of the map), and said: "Everyone knows that Americans do not dictate any Palestinian decisions, as the Americans fought until the last minute against the decision to appeal to the UN, and President Mahmoud Abbas rejected this intervention and achieved the UN resolution regarding the [Palestinian] state. This monument illustrates this policy, and no one can remove it, no matter what happens."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 21, 2013]

UK Parliament scrutinizes Palestinian hate incitement

UK Parliament scrutinizes Palestinian hate incitement, terror glorification and British funding of PA in debate examining PMW findings

MP Ellman: "The matters... are truly shocking and put a question mark over the status of the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace"

MP Henderson: "No peace agreement will be able to guarantee...peace if a generation of Palestinians is growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel, Jews and the West"

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
http://tinyurl.com/c82zr6uBritish

Parliament recently held a long debate examining "hate incitement against Israel and the West by the Palestinian Authority." The debate was initiated by MP Gordon Henderson. Henderson and other MPs cited Palestinian Media Watch documentation of PA hate promotion and terror glorification, which they had seen in recent meetings with PMW Director Itamar Marcus as well as in PMW bulletins and reports.

MP Gordon Henderson on the severity of the Palestinian culture of hate:

"It is clear that a culture of hate has wormed its way into the very fibre of Palestinian society. Incitement to hate is pervasive in Palestinian school textbooks, on television programmes and at cultural and sporting events. Palestinians have been consistently and unremittingly taught to hate Jews, Israel and the West... Incitement takes many forms. It ranges from the denial of Israel's right to exist to the abhorrent glorification of violence and infamous Palestinian terrorists." [British Parliament debate, Feb. 26, 2013. All quotes below are from this debate.]

Documentation cited by MP Henderson:

"During the Palestinian application for statehood at the United Nations in September 2011, the PA's official TV channel broadcast a map that depicted all of modern Israel and the Palestinian territories wrapped in the Palestinian flag with a key through it. Therefore, at a time when President Abbas was telling the UN that he sought two states living side by side, residents on the west bank were being shown a map carrying an unmistakeable message of Palestinian sovereignty over the whole area."

(See PMW bulletin, Oct. 6, 2011)

"Last summer, a PA TV broadcast showed a painting depicting Israel as an ogre with a Star of David skull cap that impales and eats Palestinian children in Gaza."
(See PMW bulletin, July 23, 2012)

"Just this month, PA TV broadcast a music video honouring a number of convicted terrorists... One of the terrorists who was honoured in that video was Ibrahim Hamid, who is serving 54 life sentences in Israel for planning a series of suicide bombings that killed 46 Israelis."
(See PMW bulletin, Feb. 5, 2013)

"Official Facebook page of Fatah in Lebanon recently posted a photo of a mother dressing her young son with an explosive suicide belt and encouraging him to blow up the Sons of Zion."
(See PMW bulletin, Oct. 29, 2012)

Other MPs from various parties likewise cited examples and agreed reiterated the significance of PMW's findings.

MP Dr. Matthew Offord (Con):
"Fatah's Facebook page routinely publishes pictures and slogans venerating arms and violence against Israel. In some pictures, young children are even shown carrying rifles."
(See PMW bulletin, Jan. 7, 2013)

MP Louise Ellman (Lab) said the findings raise the question of the PA as a partner for peace:
"I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The matters that he brings to the attention of the House are truly shocking and put a question mark over the status of the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace."

MP Henderson raised the problem of the of the UK funding PA salaries to prisoners, a topic being debated now in Norwegian Parliament as well:

MP Gordon Henderson:
"Consistent with the Palestinian Authority's policy of glorifying terrorists, the PA financially rewards terrorism by paying a monthly salary to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons convicted of terror offences... I was shocked to learn that those payments are part funded by the British taxpayer. Indeed, the payments come from the PA's general budget, into which the UK contributes more than £30 million each year. I am unaware of any known safeguards in place preventing the use of UK aid to that end. Previous attempts by my parliamentary colleagues from all parts of the House to raise that issue have been met with apparent denial and a declaration that the payments are simply "social welfare payments to the families of prisoners" ...However, since these payments are not explicitly given to those in need, it seems logical to assume that they are given as a form of reward for prisoners' terror acts."
(See PMW reports)

MP Guto Bebb (Con) cited proof that the payments were not social welfare, but in fact salaries for prisoners:
"... in December 2012, a Palestinian Authority statement, which was released through its official news service... which is made in the name of the Palestinian Minister responsible for prisoners' affairs, Issa Karake, announced that those payments were salaries and not social assistance. It went further by stating that any talk of social assistance was incorrect rumour. How can my hon. Friend square that issue with the denials made by our own Government?"
(See PMW bulletin, Feb. 14, 2013)

MP Henderson cited what he saw as a positive remark by Prime Minister David Cameron:
"I am reassured that this is an issue that the Government are starting to regard with increased seriousness. Indeed, the Prime Minister made his position clear at a United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner late last year, when he said: "Britain will never support anyone who sponsors a football tournament named after a suicide bomber who killed 20 Israelis in a restaurant. We will not tolerate incitement to terrorism."

(PMW notes that contrary to PM Cameron's policy, Britain does in fact support those who glorify terror. All the examples of terror glorification cited by the MPs in the debate were sponsored by the PA. Moreover, the PA leadership consistently glorifies terror. PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad sponsored a summer camp honoring Dalal Mughrabi, whose bus hijacking killed 37 civilians. Abbas supported naming a square after Mughrabi and personally sponsored a computer center named after her. These are just a few examples of many. PMW recently prepared a report for the Foreign Affairs Committee of Dutch Parliament with 40 pages of examples of PA-sponsored terror glorification. All of these events and programs glorifying terrorists are funded by the PA general budget that Britain supports. Contrary to PM Cameron's assertion that "Britain will never support" anyone who glorifies terror, it is supporting the PA, which glorifies terror almost daily. In addition to naming sporting events and places after terrorists, PA TV currently broadcasts four different weekly TV programs that are dedicated to honoring and glorifying Palestinian prisoners who are imprisoned for terrorism and security offenses. As long as Britain is supporting the PA, it is supporting those who glorify terror.)

The British government responds

Responding in the name of the British government was Alistair Burt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Burt acknowledged the problem, referring to documentation he saw in a recent meeting with PMW Director Itamar Marcus, but argued that hate incitement is a symptom and not the problem:

"I had a briefing on some of the material some weeks ago, through Palestinian Media Watch. There are some tough examples. I think that I was expected to be shocked, but I was not. Hon. Members should not mistake me. Some material was shocking and offensive. It has no place in any political or historical discourse in which any credible democratic authority has a part. But my deep and genuine worry is that this incitement is not simply a cause of separation between peoples and hatred; I am afraid that it is a symptom of it."

Burt also seemed to imply a symmetry between PA and Israeli incitement although he did don't cite any examples of Israeli incitement to back this up:

"I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government's position on incitement. We oppose, in all circumstances, the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. We deplore incitement on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

"We do not hesitate to raise instances of incitement with both the Palestinian Authority and Israel whenever we feel that it is appropriate to do so."

Burt cited a video he had been shown by PMW director Itamar Marcus in their meeting, of a younggirl singing about martyrdom at a performance broadcast on PA TV. However, following Burt's policy of blaming both sides equally, he did not blame the official PA schools who may have taught the girl the song, nor did he blame official PA TV for broadcasting the song, nor did he blame the producers of the event for including it in the program. Furthermore, he did not mention that PM Salam Fayyad and the Secretary General of the Presidential Office, Al-Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, were in the audience applauding the singers. Instead, he blamed both sides equally:

Burt: "My overwhelming feeling in looking at some issues, particularly in relation to children, was sadness that those on both sides of the divide who wish to emphasize difference and separateness are steadily winning that battle. One example, which my hon. Friend may be aware of, is a little girl of about seven years of age reciting with pride a poem about a suicide bomber, or so-called martyr. If we see a child reciting a poem about such a thing, instead of what ought to be filling her mind, how do we react? Anger towards her is clearly not appropriate. Whoever's fault it is, it is not hers. I felt sadness for her, but anger that those who possess the ability to take down some of the barriers between Palestinians and Israelis simply do not do so, but continue actions that perpetuate the hatred." (emphasis added)

Burt also praised the PA leadership for what he called "their genuine commitment to non-violence":

"On the PA's leadership, it is important to stress that we consider that the track record of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad shows their genuine commitment to non-violence and a negotiated two-state solution."

MP Andrew Percy rejected Burt's praise of the PA leadership, noting the PA may be telling UK leaders one thing and "saying something slightly different in Arabic":

"I am a little alarmed at that statement by the Minister, because there are many examples - example after example, indeed - of senior Palestinian officials at the very top levels attending sporting competitions named in honour of people who have murdered innocent Israelis, or of their attending ceremonies to rename squares and streets after people who have murdered innocent Israelis. So while they may say one thing to the West, they may be saying something slightly different in Arabic."

Alistair Burt responded by ignoring the facts cited by Percy and repeated UK policy:

"The Prime Minister was clear in his denunciation of those who set up sporting tournaments or who support activities named in memory of the so-called martyrs and the suicide bombers. Of course, that is the clear position of the UK Government."

(PMW notes that MP Percy was correct to state that PA leaders are involved in the terror glorification that Britain condemns. Burt's statement that Britain's policy is to "denounce those who set up sporting tournaments or who support activities named in memory of the so-called martyrs and the suicide bombers" is likewise not being implemented. Praising Fayyad and Abbas from the floor of UK Parliament for "their genuine commitment to non-violence," and not "denouncing" the fact that they are honoring terrorists, is contrary to stated UK policy.)

Finally, in spite of all the documentation, Burt tried to minimize the severity of the problem:

"I do not fully share the bleakness of the rhetoric with which my hon. Friend began his remarks, particularly his comment that Palestinians have been consistently and unremittingly taught to hate Jews, Israel and the west."

Possibly anticipating Burt's comment or having heard it before, MP Gordon Henderson in his earlier remarks criticized those who fail to acknowledge the significance of the PA hate incitement. He also warned that the PA hate incitement will undermine any future peace agreement:

"It is shameful that such incitement to hatred has been denied by too many people... I contend that incitement is a form of abuse of Palestinian children. We must remember that those children are the next generation of peacemakers and state-builders. Simply put, no peace agreement will be able to guarantee peace in the medium to long term if a generation of Palestinians is growing up indoctrinated to hate Israel, Jews and the West." (emphasis added)

Click to see PDF of full debatein British Parliament, Feb. 26, 2013.

Click to see how PMW sparked debate in Norway, the responses of Norwegian MPs, and how as a result a parliamentary committee investigated if Norway is funding Palestinian terrorists in prison.

Of course Hamas killed the baby

by Alan M. Dershowitz

March 13, 2013 at 10:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3623/hamas-killed-baby

The recent disclosure that Omar Misharawi, the baby son of BBC reporter Jihad Misharawi, was actually killed by an errant Hamas rocket rather than by an Israeli missile, should have absolutely no moral implications. Of course the baby was killed by Hamas. He would have been killed by Hamas even if the missile that ended his life had been fired by Israel. Hamas is totally and wholly responsible for this death, as it is responsible for every civilian death in Gaza and in Israel. It is Hamas that always begins the battle by firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Generally Israel does not respond. When it does, its rockets occasionally kill Palestinian civilians. That's because Hamas wants Palestinians civilians, especially babies, to be killed by Israelis rockets. They want Palestinian babies to be killed precisely so that they can display the kind of photographs that were shown around the world: a grieving father holding his dead baby, presumably killed by an Israeli rocket. For years, I have called this Hamas' "dead baby strategy." The recent United Nations finding simply confirms the reality of this cynical strategy.

The errant rocket that killed Omar Misharawi was fired by Hamas terrorists from a densely populated civilian area adjacent to the home of the BBC reporter Jihad Misharawi. Hamas selects such locations for firing its rockets precisely so that Israel will respond by firing into civilian areas and killing Palestinian civilians. They regard such dead civilians as "shahids", or martyrs for the cause. It is better for Hamas' publicity campaign if the rocket that kills the Palestinian baby was fired by the Israeli Defense Forces, but even if the rocket was fired by Hamas terrorists, Hamas will claim, as they do regarding this death, that the lethal rocket was fired by Israel. Often the evidence is inconclusive, though the forensic evidence in this case points clearly to a Hamas rocket.

The important point is that it doesn't really matter who actually fired the rocket that killed the baby. The baby was killed by Hamas as part of a calculated strategy designed to point the emotional finger of moral blame at the IDF for doing what every democracy would do: namely, defend its civilians from rocket attacks by targeting those who are firing the rockets, even if they are firing them from civilian areas. As President Obama said when he visited Sderot shortly before becoming President:

The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if…somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

Babies like Omar Misharawi will continue to die in Gaza and in Israel so long as the world media continues to serve as facilitators of Hamas' dead baby strategy. Every time a picture of a dead Palestinian baby being held by his grieving parents appears on television or on the front pages of newspapers around the world, Hamas wins. And when Hamas wins, they continue with their deadly strategy. The media, therefore, is complicit in the death of Omar Misharawi as it is in the deaths of other civilians who are victims of Hamas' dead baby strategy. Pictures of dead babies in the arms of their grieving fathers are irresistible to the media. That won't change. What should change is the caption. Every time a dead Palestinian baby is shown, the caption should explain the strategy that led to his or her death: namely that Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from areas in which babies live and into which Israel must fire if it is to stop its own babies from being killed.

It may sound heartless to claim that Hamas wants its own babies to be killed as part of its strategy of demonizing Israel. But there is no escaping the reality and truth of this phenomenon. Indeed it has been admitted by Hamas leaders such as Fathi Hammad:

For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

Of course these Hamas leaders don't desire their own death. They build shelters for themselves and for the terrorists who fire the rockets at Israeli civilians. As soon as these rockets are fired from crowded civilian areas, the terrorist scurry into below-ground shelters, leaving babies, women and other civilians in the path of Israeli rockets that target the rocket launchers. This isn't martyrdom by the leaders and terrorists. It is cowardice. That too is part of the dead baby strategy: make martyrs of babies, while the leaders and terrorists hide in shelters. In Israel, it is precisely the opposite; shelters are for civilians; soldiers put themselves in harm's way. That's why the following illustration sums it all up:

Why does the world target Israel?

Background note: Kasim Hafeez was born in a British Muslim household of Pakistani origin. As a result of the constant indoctrination at home and in his circle of friends, he became both anti-Israeli and antisemitic. After reading Alan Dershowitz's 'The Case for Israel' in 2007, he began to doubt his own beliefs, researched the issue and visited Israel. After his return to the UK, he became convinced that he had to take a stand by speaking out about Israel and against Islamist radicalization.

**************************
Op-ed: By singling out Israel, human rights activists abandon those who really suffer from apartheid

Kasim Hafeez 20.02.2013

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4347381,00.html

Genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid; if you've ever had the pleasure of speaking with some of the more zealous haters of Israel you'll hear these phrases at some point, normally yelled at you by a delightful middle class keffiyeh-wearing student.

I guess to some extent, sadly, we have become slightly accustomed to these libels. The hypocrisy of those claiming to be pro-Palestinian and champions of human rights and their obsessive hatred of Israel has led to the abandonment of those who suffer true apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Detractors will undoubtedly be quick to ask why supporters of Israel point to other regimes to exonerate Israel. But this is not really what I'm doing. Israel needs no exoneration as, fortunately, Israelis are able to protest, challenge and choose their governments. That's democracy folks. But, just for the sake of argument, let us say all the malicious lies have some truth to them. Still the question remains: Why is Israel singled out for protests and global marches lauded by the 'enlightened' regimes in Tehran and Damascus, yet some of the world's human rights catastrophes carry on daily, completely ignored, by the same holier than thou activists?

For me, a particular source of pain and anger is the situation of minorities and women in my parents' homeland. In Pakistan, not a week goes by without a story of rape, murder, humiliation and torture. In this Islamic country, terms such as Jesus Christ are banned in text messages and a young girl is shot for demanding basic education. Yet apart from the attempted murder of Malala Yusufzai, these stories rarely make it to the press. The brutally oppressed Christian minority suffers at the hands of an archaic blasphemy law, yet, apart from small-scale protests held by Pakistani Christian groups, there were no calls to boycott Pakistan and no flotillas were planned. I guess murdered Pakistani Christians maybe not a trendy enough cause. I wonder if a British newspaper would publish a cartoon of a Pakistani mullah murdering minorities to pave the way for a Sharia state. Our journalists love freedom and liberty, but the love their lives a little bit more.

Obsessed with destruction of Israel

The House of Saud promotes religious apartheid, destroys history and spreads wahhabism, yet the world remains silent. Maybe the cause isn't cool enough. Or maybe we should just allow people to suffer and dismiss it as a cultural phenomenon; maybe we should say this is how things are in that part of the world and focus on the need to stop 'apartheid Israel,' which just elected another Knesset member of Ethiopian descent.

Remember when a handful of Darfur nationals and real human rights activists protested outside the UN Human Rights Commission against the atrocities in the region? Well, the instigator of the ethnic cleansing, Sudan, sat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Once again, so many of our activists remained silent because Israel was not involved. It is interesting to note that some of Israel's fiercest enemies like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain dismissed the UN report on Darfur, penned by Nobel laureate Jody Wolfe, and acted to protect Sudan at the UN.

Why are the self-appointed defenders of Palestinian rights silent while Palestinians are being massacred in Syria by Assad's regime? And why do they remain silent when a Palestinian girl is murdered in the name of honor? Where were they when Hamas fired rockets from inside a school in Gaza? Oh, I forgot, they were outside the nearest Israeli embassy chanting slogans in support of Hamas.

I know there are many people who genuinely care about Palestinians and want to see them live in peace with their neighbors, but there are too many modern-day Jean-Paul Marats who are full of fiery rhetoric and demand blood. People have become obsessed with the destruction of Israel. These people should be ashamed of themselves, emulating the Nazis by urging boycotts of Jewish businesses while murder, rape and humiliation are rampant in so many nations. Real apartheid, genocide and ethnic cleansing are occurring on our watch, yet these people have become so obsessed with the end of Zionism that the suffering of others had become a side show.

Protest the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia and you'll have my respect. Protesting against an Israeli theater group is pathetic.

Numerous Middle East countries consistently violate human rights, yet the UN vilifies Israel. Is it just me or is something deeply wrong with our moral compass?

Why Jews should stand against Christian oppression

 By BEN LEVITAS 18/02/2013

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=303677

Of all the countries in the Middle East, only in Israel is the Christian population growing and flourishing.

At a recent conference in Johannesburg, South Africa, I was shocked to hear a Nigerian church leader declare that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world today. On my way home afterwards, the deaths of 12 Christians, attacked in their church in Nigeria, was announced on the radio.

A quick Google search revealed the true scale of this onslaught against Christians, so it didn’t take me long to find further confirmation of this assertion. In November 2012, none other than German Chancellor Angela Merkel made the same claim, in very nearly the same words.

The Open Doors website lists the countries responsible for persecuting Christians, with the worst perpetrators in sequence being: North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Maldives, Mali, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea, Syria, Sudan and Nigeria.

“For the eleventh year running, North Korea is the most difficult place on earth to be a Christian. One of the remaining Communist states, it is vehemently opposed to religion of any kind. Christians are classified as hostile and face arrest, detention, torture, even public execution.”

Shared in common by the next 12 states that practice “extreme persecution” is a majority Muslim population. In some, like Saudi Arabia, there is no provision for religious freedom in the constitution, which stipulates that “all citizens must adhere to Islam and conversion to another religion is punishable by death.

Public Christian worship is forbidden; worshipers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture.”

In almost all Islamic countries, missionary activity and the distribution of Christian material, even the Bible, is illegal. Muslims who convert to Christianity risk honor killings, and accusations of blasphemy are an ever-present reality, punishable in many cases by mob violence.

Civitas, The Institute for the study of Civil Society, published a review of Rupert Short’s recent book Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack, which confirms the Nigerian preacher’s claim that Christianity is in peril like no other religion: “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers” and “200 million Christians [10 percent of the global total] are socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.”

Rupert Short highlights the fact that Christianity is facing elimination in its biblical homeland. Between a half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have emigrated or been killed over the past century. Over 600,000 Copts have fled Egypt since 1980, as a result constant intimidation, including the the burning of churches.

In Egypt on February 7, 2013, Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II, who became pope in November 2012, spoke against the nation’s Islamist leadership and the growing Islamist power in Egypt. He criticized the Muslim Brotherhood and President Mohamed Morsi’s constitution, which is based upon sharia law.

In the West Bank, which has been under the administration of the Palestinian Authority since 1995, there are about 50,000 Christians; less than 3% of the Palestinian population.

Bethlehem’s 22,000 Christians make up only a third of its residents, down from 75% a few decades ago.

The exact number of Christians remaining in Iraq is not known, but it has fallen sharply from as many as 1.4 million before the US-led invasion nearly a decade ago to about 500,000 today. After a brutal attack on Baghdad’s Our Lady of Salvation Church in October 2010, that killed more than 50 worshipers, and after several other attacks, Iraqi Christians have been forced to take extreme security measures at all communal gatherings.

In Syria, where Christians previously enjoyed a respected status, this 2,000-year-old community, which at over 2 million adherents was the largest church in the Middle East after Egypt’s Copts, now faces extinction. During the chaos of the civil war, the Christians, lacking militias of their own, are easy prey for Islamists and criminals alike. Archdeacon Emanuel Youkhana of the Assyrian Church of the East wrote: “We are witnessing another Arab country losing its Christian Assyrian minority. When it happened in Iraq nobody believed Syria’s turn would come. Christian Assyrians are fleeing [en masse] from threats, kidnappings, rapes and murders. Behind the daily reporting about bombs there is an ethno-religious cleansing taking place, and soon Syria [could] be emptied of its Christians.”

Rupert Short attributes the intolerance and violence toward Christians, ignored or even sanctioned by governments, to the rising Islamification of Middle Eastern countries.

The Christian response has been muted and restrained as one would expect from a religion which propounds “turning the other cheek.”

Speaking during his traditional Christmas message from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Benedict XVI called for an “end to the bloodshed” in Syria and denounced the “savage acts of terrorism [which] continue to reap victims, particularly among Christians.”

He was referring specifically to Africa, even as gunmen on Christmas attacked a church in the northern Nigerian state of Yobe, killing six people, including the pastor, before setting the building ablaze.

So why should I as a Jew care about the fate of Christians? Firstly, having been victims for thousands of years it is our obligation to care and reach out to victims of discrimination, religious intolerance and extremism. Secondly, it is our responsibility to stand up for religious freedom and specially for those moderate and tolerant values promoted by most of these Christian minority groups. Moreover, Christians are rediscovering their Hebraic roots and are strong supporters of Israel, as they see its rebirth as the actualization of the biblical prophesies and of their divine mission to assist with the return of Jews to their promised land.

It is incumbent on my people to ensure that at least in the area where there is Jewish suzerainty, discrimination against Christians does not occur, and I have satisfied myself that of all the countries in the Middle East, only in Israel is the Christian population growing and flourishing.

The writer is the chairman of the South African Zionist Foundation (SAZF, Cape Council).

Paying People to Hate You

By Douglas Murray, Gatestone Institute Feb. 7th 2013

http://tinyurl.com/atxybeq


 And so it was that I found myself once again in a meeting in the twilight world of Brussels -- an ugly city filled with ugly buildings, ugly overpriced food and overpaid officials. The objective of any visit must always be a hit-an-run: to get in and get out as swiftly as possible. The only reason to go is to try and inject some sense into a city so starved of it. When, therefore, asked to address the matter of what the European Union might do to tackle anti-Semitism, the answer is easy: "Stop funding anti-Semites." What is hard is that this is Brussels, where words are meaningless and nothing makes any sense. Here is just one example:

The Palestinian Ma'an News Agency is one of the most supremely anti-Semitic organs in the Middle East. Which I hope readers realize is putting it in the premier league of anti-Semitic slander. Here is an excerpt from a recent article on the Ma'an website by one Saswan Najib Abd Al-Halim: "Jews think that their fortresses will protect them from death, but any breach of these fortresses or protective walls instills panic and fear in their hearts, and they are seized by fear and trembling. If a missile falls beyond their protective walls or if even a bullet passes over them, you can see how their hearts fill with horror -- and this is because Allah has stricken fear in their hearts and decreed humiliation and degradation upon them until Judgment Day…

"Historically, it is known that the lives of Jews have always been war and fighting. The only reason for this is that they have been outcasts in every corner of the earth, and not one nation in the world respects them, for they cause strife, and scheme everywhere they settle. We know that they have been defeated in every war they have fought throughout history, and they have been dispersed in every direction, but Allah's curse upon them and his fury at them cause them to continue with their transgression and tyranny."

It is possible that there are people willing to concede that the Ma'an News Agency has the right to run this sort of libelous venom. But now we come to the real question: Why on earth should we pay for it? The Ma'an News Agency is not able to run this type of libel unaided. It does not run it because it manages to gather enough subscribers and enough advertising "clicks" from cosmetic companies. It runs because we actually pay for part of it. I wish the jaw were still able to drop at this. As I have said for years – it is not surprising when you find people who hate you. What is surprising is when you pay people to hate you.

The Ma'an News Agency has been funded by a range of international bodies. These include – astoundingly – the British government. Also the Danish and Dutch governments. And of course it also receives funding from the EU. When Mr Al-Halim and friends pour out their anti-Semitic hate speech – calling Jews "the root of conflict in the world," "cursed by Allah" and "outcasts in every corner of the earth," it is we who are paying part of his cheque. When Ma'an propagates the idea that "Allah has decreed" that Jews are destined to be "humiliated," it is we who are acting in the role of publisher.

As Palestinian Media Watch has previously revealed, Ma'an News Agency, part of the Ma'an Network, was launched thanks to funding from the DANISH Representative Office to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Other donors with whom Ma'an partners are the European Commission, UNESCO, and UKaid. And just in case you thought these peaceable-sounding bodies could not possibly realize what they are doing, or that Ma'an's fraudulent language must somehow be hidden from them, you just have to remind yourself of how in-plain-sight all of this is. The latest Ma'an atrocity finishes with the words of the Fatah slogan -- not Hamas, Fatah -- "Revolution Until Victory."

"Revolution Until Victory?" Surely not. As the British, Dutch and Danish governments might say: Surely you mean: "Can't we all work towards a two-state solution where Palestinian and Jewish states can live side by side?" No, I'm afraid not. "Revolution Until Victory": There it is. There it always is. I fear that even if Brussels hosts a thousand more seminars on tackling anti-Semitism, absolutely nothing will be done about it. And we remain so blind, so stupid, so vicious or so wicked that we will actually pay for this malevolence. And so we will -- in more senses than one.