Who actually has legal rights to Palestine? Part 2

Now that we've established the legal framework in place before the creation of the State of Israel, we can discuss the agreements, rights and obligations which followed it, particularly UN Security Council Resolution 242.
(If you haven't read Part 1 yet, I highly recommend it, it's good for your health)

Is Israel always in the UN's cross hairs?

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 does not call for the return to 1967 borders

I assume most of you were already familiar with this concept. Still, it never hurts to be reminded of the context around this resolution. There are many points of discussion in regards to this resolution:

• Does every single word matter?
• Which version actually counts, the English or the French version?
• Is this resolution legally binding?

What present to get for a BDS friend?

Bored kids seeking to experience self-righteous indignation and then pretending that that indignation is useful to anyone. I'm sure we all know at least one person who fits that description. I have quite a few friends who do.

Now, the problem is, what do you do when their birthdays come around?

Yesterday, we had a little get-together for a close friend's birthday. Now to be totally fair, this friend isn't really active in the Palestinian arena of her organization, she concentrates mostly on developing countries in Africa (good on her!).  However, this doesn't stop her from randomly posting her organization's messages about the Arab-Israeli conflict on facebook, and to have simplistic four-word opinions such as "Palestinians live under oppression" or "Jewish settlers prevent peace" or even "Israel is exaggerating. Again". While she doesn't actively seek to BDS (She has no idea that all of the herbs she buys at the supermarket are from Israel), she knows her organization does a lot of propaganda for it, and she agrees with their reasons to do so.

She's not a bad person, though she does have some very enlightened thoughts such as that Jews wear funny little hats and that they don't integrate well, and they're really obsessive about their kitchens. (She babysat to a religious family once, and thought it was okay to bring her frozen lasagna and heat it in their oven. Let's simply say that hilarity did not ensue, and that the oven spent a week disassembled in the garden.)

Again, to be really fair, it's understandable that with what the medias here show of the conflict, it's almost impossible to have a different opinion, and it takes a great mind to be able to question oneself and search beyond the available platitudes.

I digress.

Her organization is very active in boycotting all things Israel, including open hearings and debates if they include anyone from Israel "with an agenda". They are definitely not in the business of understanding. Few people who proselytize about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict believe there is any value in listening to the other side.

I could have given her a little set of Ahava creams, or a basket filled with bamba, bissli and other Israeli calories, or perhaps an Israeli music CD (who doesn't love Idan Raichel?). But would she have felt differently about Israel's policies after feeling her super soft hands? Doubtful. I want something that will get her thinking, something that will start a debate. I don't need to convince people and to have everyone agree with me, but I do want their horizons to spread beyond their comfort level. Progress is made when ideas clash together. Or something.

Getting her a heavy duty geo-political book about the situation, or some historical analysis wouldn't be quite right. I'd obviously pick for something "from my side", and she'd be very wary reading it (if she ever would). I decided to give her an illustrated book called "How to understand Israel in 60 days (or less)" by Sarah Glidden.

It's the story of Sarah, a young American Jew, who goes to Israel for the first time, expecting it to fit her preconceived notions of it. It didn't. The tension in the story is based on the fact that progressive Sarah, like many of her cohorts, is critical of the State of Israel, particularly its treatment of the Palestinians. But what she sees is a reality much different from what she believed. Not all of it is good, which is probably the book's strongest point. It doesn't have all the answers. Heck, it doesn't even have all the questions. But she does question herself, and in that she does a grand job. It takes a very strong personality to say "I was wrong, I learned something new."

There are a few points in the book on which I wish she would have dug deeper, but on the whole I feel it's a very nice starting point for a more civilized discussion than random shouting of slogans. I hope that after reading this book my friend will see that there are no easy answers, and that not everything can be divided into "good" and "bad". Just because the loudest voices she hears seem to be so certain doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they're the loudest.

I hope that after reading it, we'll have some interesting conversations where she'll be more open to hear my thoughts (right now, I can't possibly be objective because I'm Israeli and therefore too involved).

Hasbara doesn't always have to be directed at the masses, this type of hasbara is one person at a time. The book is available in English, French, Spanish, German, Italian and Dutch. I'm sure you all know a person who could benefit from a book like this as a light introduction to the subject. Don't wait and make a lovely gift to your favorite BDS friend today!

Flotilla hypocrisy excessive, but raid still legal - part 2

(continued from part 1)

So, though the Palmer report confirms that

• the blockade was legal
• that the flotilla tried to breach it
• that Israel must enforce its blockade for it to be effective
• that the flotilla had ties to terrorist organizations

Now here comes the brain fart: The Palmer report also says that the IDF soldiers used excessive force in response to the violence they encountered on board the Mavi Marmara, and that Israel should apologize to Turkey.

So, let's rewind a little to analyze why the IDF soldiers used the force they used.

The take-over began with an attempt to board from two speedboats. These withdrew when faced with resistance from Mavi Marmara passengers. IDF naval commandos were then landed on the vessel by fast-roping from three helicopters. Starting at 4.29 a.m. 15 IDF personnel began to fast-rope onto the roof of the vessel from the first helicopter and met with violent resistance from a group of passengers. 

Violent resistance? That's somewhat of a euphemism, isn't it?

The Naval commandos who abseiled on the vessel were Shayetet 13 soldiers. It is an elite naval commando unit of the Israeli Navy, considered to be among the world's special forces. These people are not easily subdued, it takes a lot of violence to do that. They were armed with paintball rifles in their hands, plastic bullet riot dispersal handguns at their sides, and hidden firearms. They were beaten with metal pipes and chairs as they were coming down, remember?

The passengers on board were separated into two groups, the "soldiers" on deck, and the "others" below deck. The "soldiers" were well prepared, with gas masks, bullet proof vests, metals bars, knives, chains, and organized into positions.

Three of the commandos were captured and taken below deck. Do you realize the intensity of the Mavi Marmara "soldiers" violence if they managed to neutralize three elite Shayetet 13 commandos? To reduce them to this?

After seeing three of their soldiers get captured and taken away (they couldn't guess that people below deck weren't as violent as the people above), the soldiers got serious.

IDF personnel involved in the operation needed to take action for their own protection and that of the other soldiers.
The Israeli report concluded that IDF personnel acted professionally in response, and switched back and forth between lethal and “less-lethal” weapons as appropriate during the incident, consistent with their rules of engagement and the exercise of self defence.

This is where the Israel Double Standards strike once more. 

Imagine, if you will, a bunch of hooligans, doing something illegal, who start to hit the police officers who come to arrest them. The hooligans manage to capture three police officers, basically holding them hostage, and they continue with their rage and violence, and face to face combat. What do you think would happen? No shots would be fired? And at the end of the day, who do you think would have the most "damage"? The trained, armed police officers, or the overweight hooligans who tried to hit armed soldiers with metal pipes? 

But replace "police officers" with "IDF soldiers" and "hooligans" with "flotilla activists", and of course the IDF used "excessive force".

And the metal pipes and knives the flotilla activists were using? Your light everyday stuff..

These are not butter knives

Gas masks always spell "peace" to me

Yeah, I would stop to consider non-lethal options when a knife that size approaches

 Once the soldiers saw that their non-lethal weapons weren't getting results, of course they weren't going to just stand there, and they had to escalate the situation to get back the advantage. Yes, 9 activists died, as a result of thinking that attacking soldiers while wearing flip-flops might actually have a positive outcome. Which makes the Palmer report state  this:

Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection.  Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers.  Several others were wounded.
The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable.  Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces.  No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.
Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

What is this secret mathematical equation that makes this excessive? Wasn't the flotilla activists' reaction to the IDF on-boarding even more excessive?

But anyway, Israel has adopted the report, with a reservation.

At the same time, Israel does not concur with the Panel’s characterization of Israel’s decision to board the vessels in the manner it did as “excessive and unreasonable.”  [...] Israel feels that the Panel gave insufficient consideration to the operational limitations which determined the manner and timing of the boarding of the vessels and to the operational need for a covert takeover in order to minimize the chances for resistance on board.
As to the actions of Israel’s soldiers, given the panel’s conclusions regarding the resistance that they encountered when boarding the Mavi Marmara, it is clear that the soldier’s lives were in immediate danger.  [...]
Given these circumstances, Israel’s soldiers clearly acted in self-defense and responded reasonably, proportionally and with restraint, including the use of less-lethal weapons where feasible.  The Panel's characterization of the circumstances which led to the nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara does not adequately take into account the complexities of what was clearly a chaotic combat situation.[...] Given the close range combat that clearly took place aboard the vessel, wounds sustained at close range do not in themselves suggest wrongdoing by Israeli soldiers. 

And while Israel refuses to apologize (and rightly so), they have not undertaken and steps to cut diplomatic relations with Turkey, and hope they can return to path of cooperation.
The Turkish reply?

• They reject the report
• They expell the Israeli ambassador
• They will challenge Israel's Gaza blockade at the International Court of Justice (because they love us there)
• They will escort aid ships to Palestinians in Gaza

All this, because Israel didn't apologize. I see. Turkey doesn't need to accept the Palmer report criticism of the support of IHH and their failure in stopping the flotilla, but they can embrace the tiny portion which is critical of Israel. Hypocrites.

Grow up Turkey, and take it like man, now move on with your life. Don't you have some Kurdish massacres to cover up?

It's Israel Double Standards time! Don't worry, it's only on days that end with a 'y'.

Flotilla hypocrisy excessive, but raid still legal - part 1

And no matter how many articles concentrating on Israel's use of "excessive force" are published, you can't change the fact that the raid was legal.

I wonder how many people actually bothered to read the 105-page report (notice the "Strictly confidential" at the top). It can easily be summarized with: The Gaza blockade is legal, the flotilla was provocative and without justification - all because Gaza won't pacify and come to negotiation tables (they prefer communication through the wonders of rocket technology). The report amazingly recognizes Israel's right to self-defense even though Gaza's legal status is undefinable.
The report reviewed the national investigations conducted by both Turkey and Israel, and then came to its own (lengthy, footnote-filled) conclusion.


Here's a little "best-of" from the report: (emphasis mine if present)

There was little need to organize a flotilla of six ships to deliver humanitarian assistance if only three were required to carry the available humanitarian supplies. The number of journalists embarked on the ships gives further power to the conclusion that the flotilla’s primary purpose was to generate publicity. 

That's what I've been telling friends since the 31st of May 2010, when I found myself to be the spokesperson of the Israeli position following the rampant ignorance flowing all around me. The flotilla was not humanitarian, it was a propaganda tool (with dubious IHH ties to boot). There was very little humanitarian cargo on three of the six ships, and quasi none on the Mavi Marmara, and it was all unnecessary given the large quantities of aid coming in regularly from Israel.

There is a further issue. No adequate port facilities exist in Gaza capable of receiving vessels of the size of the Mavi Marmara. It appears that arrangements had been made to offload the cargo onto smaller vessels at sea, which no doubt would be awkward and inefficient. Yet the flotilla rejected offers to unload any essential humanitarian supplies at other ports and have them delivered to Gaza by land. These offers were made even during the voyage. The conclusion that the primary objective of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity by attempting to breach the blockade is further reinforced by material before the Panel that suggests that a reception for the flotilla had been arranged by Hamas.

Well, gee. Shocker, right? And since the blockade wasn't breached, Hamas didn't care so much about the so-called humanitarian aid. In fact, Hamas refused the flotilla's humanitarian aid when it was being delivered on land by Israel. Sure smells fishy...

It was foreseeable to the flotilla organizers as it was to the Turkish Government that there was a possibility of force being used against the ships to enforce the blockade. While the level of lethal force that was actually used may have been unforeseen, the organizers did anticipate that there would be an altercation with Israeli forces. The Panel is concerned that not enough was done to inform the participants in the flotilla (including the almost 600 passengers on the Mavi Marmara) of the risks of personal injury that the journey may have involved.

Are you kidding me? The participants were more than well informed, they were prepared for it, they were asking for it. Yes, there are videos of them doing so, why do you ask?

Then comes the report's main incoherence. They agree, in theory, that Israel is allowed to defend itself. But in practice, they don't agree with the method. Do they have other solutions? "Try less lethal next time". So no solutions, just empty words from people who've never been in a dangerous situation.

For Israel to maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced. That is a clear legal requirement for a blockade. Such enforcement may take place on the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists. To this point in the analysis no difficulty arises. But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances.

Yes, because you would have taken out your magic wand and with a flick and swish said "Petrificus totalus" and the whole incident would be over.

The Panel questions whether it was reasonable for the Israeli Navy to board the vessels at the time and place that they did. [...] The distance from the blockade zone was substantial—64 nautical miles. There were several hours steaming before the blockade area would be reached. 

But - you JUST said - never mind.

Then there is the fact that the boarding attempt was made by surprise, without any immediate prior warning.

If you watch the youtube clip above, there was plenty of warning, and the boats were being shadowed for a while before they were boarded. Was the IDF supposed to forgo all tactical advantage and inform the Flotilla of their every move? Where is that written in the San Remo Manual?


Then, we get to the actual use of force on the Mavi Marmara, all that in the upcoming part 2!

Media doesn't like Palmer report

Israel isn't your all time evil oppressor the media loves to portray according to the latest UN Inquiry Panel, dubbed the Palmer Report, so what is the media to do?

Why, spin the story and skew the information so that only the negative things about Israel come to light!
Have you seen the newspapers around you? What's the headline?

I mean, if you look at the report, Jpost sums up quite nicely the 5 main points:

According to Israeli officials, the 102-page report comes to the following conclusions:

• Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was legal, as was the interception of vessels trying to break the blockade.

• The IHH activists behind the flotilla were looking for a violent provocation.

• Turkey had a role with the IHH in the flotilla setting sail.

• The IDF soldiers defended themselves after coming up against premeditated violence by those on the ship.

• The IDF soldiers used excessive force.

Now, the first four points were obvious and known since day one, though it's nice to have recognition from the UN about that (for what little their opinion counts). 

That last point, that's where you see that these inquiries are done by people wearing suits who've had a nice, safe, desk job all their life.

The report admits that the IDF faced significant premeditated violence, yet concludes that its response was disproportionate, due to the dead being shot at close range, multiple times, etc. Given the fact that the commandos were being attacked at close range, wouldn't it make sense that they defend themselves in the same manner?

I mean, what is this whole shtick about "disproportionate force" anyway? In a battle, there's always one side stronger than the other, no? The stronger side will use all it can (especially at moments of distress such as the  Mavi Marmara attack) in order to have the upper hand. And when it comes to life and death (the "peace activists" on board were going to kill them, were they not?), the commandos will obviously use that upper hand in order to not die. Since when does the enemy have the right to dictate what force you should use? If the "peace activists" only use iron bars and knives, what advantage is permitted to the commandos? Thicker bars? Or are the commandos supposed to make a quick estimation of the level of the forces attacking them, and then resort the their elementary Krav Maga courses (but nothing after the third course, because that would be disproportionate).

If the UN would do an inquiry about police shooting in the US, most would be deemed "excessive" by these standards. Officers are allowed to shoot at anybody who threatens them directly, or even just seems to be. If you didn't know this, let me warn you: Do not jokingly threaten a police officer with a realistic looking plastic gun (let alone an iron bar or a knife). You will not live to tell the tale, and will be instantly nominated for a Darwin award for having the grace of removing yourself from the gene pool. (No one thought to nominate the Mavi Marmara 9 for a Darwin award? Dang.)

Now, I know the UN suffers from a serious Israel Double Standard ailment, and I've come to terms with it. (In fact, Turkey is rebuffing the findings... didn't see that one coming, now, did we?)

So, all things considered, I find that it's almost a balanced report, coming from them. (Well, except for the fact that The report recommends that Israel make “an appropriate statement of regret" and pay compensation to Turkey. Why don't the Turks need to apologize for creating this mess? And doesn't the fact that Israel has already said it would pay compensation through a fund set up by the Turkish government count for something? I digress.)

So anyway, a somewhat balanced report, which goes against the general media narrative that Israel is a cruel diabolical oppressor. What's the mainstream media to do? I know! Let's spin the story so that only Israel's faults are highlighted! We refuse to let tiny, insignificant details such as facts get in our way of demonizing Israel!

So here are the headlines around here (no links because I don't want to give them traffic, but you know where to find them)

UN judge Israeli raid on Gaza flotilla to be "excessive" - France24

Gaza Flotilla: UN judges blockade to be legal but criticizes Israeli raid - Le Monde

Flotilla: UN report judges Israeli raid as "excessive" (with a picture of Israeli supporters at a soccer match, wtf?) - La Libre

BBC News - the link to the story on the main page

BBC News - the headline after people bothered to click

How, when so much of the report is about the legality of the blockade AND its enforcement, the premeditated violence which was on board, the implication of the Turkish government, etc. how is the main attraction of the article "the excessive force used by Israel"?

Now many people just sort of skim through the headlines, and that's how they get a general idea of what's going on in the world. For the people actually bothering to click and read more, it doesn't get better. It gives details about how brutal the Israeli commandos were on board, how unnecessary the force was. Ridiculous. I'm guessing they would have approved if we just torpedoed the bloody boat? Doesn't the fact that nothing happened on the other boats give you a clue as to where the real problem was?

Anyway, it's business as usual for those busy demonizing Israel.

If you see incredibly slanted headlines/news pieces from so-called respectable news reporters, don't forget to give a heads up to our friends at Honest Reporting, who always do a great job.

And now for something completely different...

Honest Reporting's spin on Monty Python - the Light Side of Life

And they're giving away Life of Brian DVDs! Enter here to try

(This way I can end this post on a less depressing note :) )

Related links:

The Palmer Report

Honest Reporting: 5 Key Claims of the UN’s Mavi Marmara Report

Turkey Rebuffs Palmer Findings

Foreign Ministry preparing for release of Palmer Report

Amnesty, at the height of hypocrisy

A few months ago, Amnesty International declared that "Last summer's war criminals must be punished". When you read that article a little more deeply, you see that they feel Israel, Lebanon and the international community haven't done enough to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and other grave violations.
Absurdly enough, in the same document, AI calls for Hezbollah to give more information about the abducted soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Absurd, because AI, who generally fights for the unconditional release of illegally abducted prisoners, does not ask Hezbollah for the release of our soldiers in this document, only for Hezbollah to give information about them. Bunch of hypocrites.

But in any case, the whole concept of addressing any parts of this document to Hezbollah or Lebanon is a moot point. Do they even care what pseudo-do-good-organizations like Amnesty International think?

Israel is capable of judging its own military activities, without the need of an external 'international community' who wouldn't know the first thing about the situation in the Middle East. Lebanon is not capable of that (reminder: Rafik Hariri). Hezbollah doesn't care to be capable of that.
In fact, Israel will do just that, following this absurd AI document.

Winograd Commission to address 'war crimes'

Chairman of commission probing Second Lebanon War tells MK
Gal-On committee will examine Israel's actions in context of
international law, following allegations of war crimes.

Just like in the past, where Israel judged whether Ariel Sharon was a war criminal (he was not), whether there was a massacre in Jenin (there was no massacre in Jenin), whether the Anti-Terrorist fence was illegal (is was not, however parts of its path were revised in order to better accommodate 'Palestinians'), Israel will judge its own military of whether any war crimes were committed.
Does anyone think Hezbollah will do the same?
Does anyone think Lebanon will do the same?

Back to Amnesty's document, the double standards it employs are completely ridiculous.
It laments the 'indiscriminate killing of civilians' and wants to hold those responsible accountable.
Let's compare the Israeli side to the 'other' side.

Hezbollah abducted two and killed three soldiers on our side of a UN recognized border. This was followed by Katyusha rockets fired randomly (and not especially towards military targets) into Israel. All this was an unprovoked attack.
Israel responded by sending helicopters over southern Lebanon.

Here already started the world's echoing call for Israel to stop using this disproportionate force. This would mean that they expected Israel to randomly fire Katyusha rockets back towards Hezbollah.
Who thinks that by doing this Israel would have avoided the world's wrath about 'indiscriminate killing of civilians'?
No one?
Didn't think so.

As the war drew on, we saw a regular pattern of events. Katyushas being fired into northern Israel, at one point getting as far as Hadera. Hezbollah would fire these rockets indiscriminately into Israel, with the hope of creating as many casualties as possible. Hezbollah would listen to Israeli news reports about recent Katyusha landings in order to better orient the next rockets and to create more casualties. It was impossible to know where the next Katyusha would be aimed at. I doubt anyone thinks they were the least worried about their human rights record.

In contrast, Israel preceded every one of the IAF's attacks by distributing thousands of pamphlets asking the civilian population to leave the area. Israel addressed every accidental civilian casualty with deep regret, and reiterated their call for the civilians to leave the areas that were being attacked. Does this sound like a country whose aim is to 'indiscriminately kill the civilian population'?

In some places the Lebanese civilian population was blocked from leaving these places where they knew Israel would attack. Hezbollah had placed launching pads for the Katyusha rockets near civilians' homes, sometimes inside them. Hezbollah counted on the civilian population in order to hide among them. This, for the terrorists was a win-win situation. Either the Israelis would avoid attacking them because of the high civilian population, and thus have the terrorists free to do as they wish, or Israel would attack them and then obviously harm the civilian population meant to 'protect' them, making Israel seem as a vicious killer to the world and ultimately have Israel retreat in order to retain a certain level of conscience. They therefore needed the civilians to stay there as their shield. This is forbidden according to the Geneva Convention (Article 37 outlaws the use of civilian populations as a shield for military actions. It explicitly prohibits "the feigning of civilian, noncombatant status; and the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict."), and in the even that it does happen, it is solely the responsibility of the side who hid among the civilian population. But again, I doubt anyone thinks Hezbollah were the least bit worried about their human rights record.

In contrast, Israeli civilians hid in underground shelters built years ago for their security by the Israel government. Some Israeli civilians from the north left the north in order to find shelter with family living in the center or the south, and were free to do so without having Israeli soldiers block their way, in order to make sure that Israel was correctly portrayed as the victim on CNN when the number of casualties would be compared.

It is absurd that Amnesty International should treat Israel in the way it does, given the obvious respect Israel has for human rights.
It is even more absurd when compared to the way Hezbollah is being treated with silk gloves, given its obvious disregard for anything remotely attached to human rights.

We Will Not Capitulate

Last year I found this article, a proposed text for a speech by the Prime Minister that would explain to the world exactly what it is we’re fighting...

We Will Not Capitulate

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world. I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel.

We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere. The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

A voice for six million citizens

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish race off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers.

Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility.

Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us.

The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya? What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly.

We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

In a loud and clear voice

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. What did it get us? A barrage of Kassam missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent. What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't?

In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to live normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle. I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.


By Ben Caspit, July 31st, 2006
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/457/743.html

A Whole Year and Still Nothing About Our Boys

Unfortunately I haven't got much time to blog these days, but I would like to mark the fact that a year ago today, Hezbollah terrorists penetrated Israel, crossed a UN approved border, killed three Israeli soldiers, abducted two Israeli soldiers, fired Katyushas into Israel, and all this in an unprovoked attack. Israel had completely withdrawn from southern Lebanon in 2000.

According to Bibi Netanyahu, not in the smartest of ways:

"The Barak government's irresponsible withdrawal from Lebanon brought
Hizbullah to the fence, paved the way for Nasrallah and caused the problems
in Lebanon in 2006,"

In the next few weeks, I'll post flashbacks to things that marked last year's war and the world reaction to it. Here's a start.

A year ago today, Dan Gillerman made some informal comments at the Security Council Media Stakeout.


To watch the video click here.
(Real Media, requires Real Player... Maybe I'll find a way to embed these type of videos into blogs one day, until then, you'll have to click... sorry.)

Two days later he made an excellent speech at the UN Security Council, during a meeting about the "Situation in the Middle East". The full video is almost two hours long. I'll spare you the suspense, it's a lot of Israel bashing and incoherence about victims and restraint and fallacies.

In the midst of this room full of darkened opinions, there is one candle of intelligence and enlightment. Dan Gillerman. You can see his contribution in the next two youtube clips.

Part I of Dan Gillerman's Speech at the UN's Security Council

Part II of Dan Gillerman's Speech at the UN's Security Council

As brilliant as his speech is, there is a drawback. His audience is the UN. His words fell on deaf ears. Just like Herzog's speech after the UN's ridiculous decision to equate Zionism with racism. In a movie, or in an Ayn Rand novel, speeches like these would wake up the dormant neurons in the audience, they would realize what the "big picture" is, they'd get up and give a standing ovation (in the movie), or nod in silent agreement and act accordingly (in the Ayn Rand novel), and the world's intelligence level would have increased a notch.
Not here.


In the days following the start of the war, Cox and Forkum had some excellent comic strips made.



This one is actually from right after Gilad Shalit was abducted, but I discovered it on July 13th. I like this image so much. For me it represents the whole situation of the Middle East.

The media world exploded. Countless staged pictures of dead children on the Lebanese side, the now infamous Green Helmet Guy, incredible exaggerations in captions which have nothing to do with either the picture or reality, photoshopped pictures on Reuters exposed by LGF, objects meticulously placed in order to ignite reader disapproval against Israel, pictures showing what Hezbollah wanted the world to see, pictures wrongly identified, debris of same building shown over and over again to insinuate constant Israeli destruction and contempt for Lebanese civilians... And the list goes on...

And in all this, world condemnation of Israel, excessive force, Israel should use restraint, blahblah. And where are our boys? Geneva convention anyone? Has Amnesty done anything in order to know anything at all about them? Has the Red Cross condemned anyone because the illegally abducted Israeli soldiers haven't been given access to their services?

www.banim.org

Israel and Apartheid

For the sake of improving this result in Google, here's a link to the ADL's very thorough explanation of why Israel has nothing in common with Apartheid South Africa.

Israel and Apartheid: The Big Lie

The other links that appear when querying "Israel and Apartheid" are ridiculous op-eds in which the blatant anti-Israelity of the respective writers is obvious from the very first paragraph.

I like this image from the dissident frogman so much, I'll use it again

Saving Lives: Israel's Anti Terrorist Fence

I am currently in the process of searching for my next apartment. Because rent here is quite expensive, I'm looking for shared apartments where the renters are looking for a flatmate. So right now I'm going off from one place to another, looking at rooms and meeting people. Obviously, you not only have to like the apartment you're going to live in, you also have to get along with the other people! And you don't have a lot of time to meet them, show them the real you, see their real them, and understand whether you'll love or hate each other in the coming months. I like to mention that I am Israeli right from the start. I'd rather know if I'm in front of an Israel-hater before I move in.

So today I visited this nice little place with three other people. I sat down to talk, and while mentioning Israel, one of them said something about the wall there and how it's horrible.

I stayed very polite and all, but still felt I had to say the following "It's not a wall like the Berlin wall or something, it's mostly a fence, and it's an anti-terrorist fence". We changed the subject after that. But I don't think I'll be getting a call from them anytime soon.

The fence is Israel's defense.

I know that in some places it can cause discomfort to Palestinians. But the fence saves lives, since Palestinians refuse to do so. People all around me seem to imply that the comfort of a Palestinian is more important than the life of an Israeli. Oh they'll never say it out loud, but when people complain about the fence, that's what they are really saying, whether they are aware of it or not.

For the people who just aren't aware of the facts, here are some. Then, you'll be able to decide for yourself if the fence is a bad or a good thing.

• Why did Israel build this anti-terrorist fence?
  About a thousand people were murdered in attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists, and thousands have been injured, maimed for life.
  In almost all of these cases, the terrorists infiltrated Israel from the Palestinian areas in the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership has done nothing to stop them and has even encouraged them.
  After other options were tried and failed, Israel decided to erect a physical barrier against terrorists.
  Until then, the absence of a physical barrier made infiltration into Israeli communities very easy for terrorists.
  
• How could this fence have been avoided?
  The Palestinian Authority did not fulfill the commitments it made to fight terrorism. They have only themselves to blame for the anti-terrorist fence.
  However, the Palestinians seek to blame Israel, the victim of terrorism.
  Had there been no terrorism, Israel would not have been obliged to build a fence to protect its citizens.
  
• Is it a "wall" or a "fence"?
  Despite the many (many many) pictures being shown in the Main Stream Media of a tall concrete wall, more than 97% of the fence consists of a chain-link fence system, with technological advances designed to warn against infiltrations.
  The part of the fence, less than 3%, that is made of concrete is there for a reason. They are intended not only to stop terrorists from infiltrating, but also to stop them from shooting at Israeli vehicles from atop hills near the highway.
  Since the chain-link fence is about the same width as a four-lane highway, in some areas with a high housing density, for the comfort of the Palestinians, a concrete wall was built instead of the fence.
  
• But, but, putting a fence is like putting a border, no? You're supposed to decide where the final borders are through negotiations. That's, like, cheating, no?
  No. This fence is not a border and is not considered as such by anyone, except protesters who don't listen and like to complain.
  The route of the fence has been determined on the basis of security needs and topographical considerations.
  The anti-terrorist fence does not annex Palestinian lands nor change the legal status of the Palestinians. The fence can be moved or even removed, when that glorious day of everlasting peace finally comes. The fence is a temporary, defensive measure, not a border.
  Israel has had other anti-terrorist fences just like this one, which were moved to comply with new borders.
  
• Well then why isn't the fence along the 1967 line? That would show you're not trying to annex Palestinian lands.
  No, that would just be useless.
  The sole purpose for the fence is security and it was built wherever it was needed to prevent terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli population centers.
  If the fence had been built along the 1967 lines then THAT would have been a political statement of fixing a border without negotiations, and it would have nothing to do with the security needs of Israel's citizens.
  The 1967 lines are just the armistice lines between Israel and Jordan during the years 1949-1967. It was not the final border between the countries.
  
• The anti-terrorist fence is an obstacle to peace.
  Terrorism is a deadly obstacle to peace.
  The fence is an obstacle to terrorism.
  
  The fence is a defensive, temporary, passive and effective barrier to terrorism. As such, it is the one thing that has brought us closer to calm in the region, which will increase the chances of achieving peace.
  Once terrorism ends and peace is achieved, the fence can be removed. Lives lost due to terrorist attacks cannot be brought back.
  
• Is the fence taking into proper consideration the needs of the Palestinian population?
  In addition to its efforts to ensure the security of its citizens, Israel attaches considerable importance to the interests of the local Palestinian residents. Israel recognizes the necessity of finding an appropriate balance between the imperative need to prevent terrorism and defend its citizens, and the humanitarian needs of local Palestinian residents.
  Even so, it is important to remember this: There would have been no need for an anti-terrorist fence had there not been an orchestrated campaign of terrorism that targets Israeli men, women and children for death. Death is permanent. It is irreversible. The inconvenience caused to Palestinians by the anti-terrorist fence is temporary and reversible, once terrorism stops and peace is achieved. Freedom of movement is important. But it is not more important than the right to live.
  Having said this, Israel will do all it can to reduce hardship and inconvenience for the Palestinians who are affected by the fence, and have often rerouted its path after complaints.
  
• Is the anti-terrorist fence not intensifying hostility and hatred towards Israel?
  This I often hear from my friends. "But those poor Palestinians, of course if you put a fence and a checkpoint in their way, then they'll hate you more!"
  Yes, obviously if make it easier for terrorists to come kill my family, they will like me more. But it won't stop them from killing my family, will it? The fence will, it already has.
  What does intensify the hostility towards Israel? Incitement within the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world.
  If the Palestinian Authority isn't capable of stopping terror, they should at least be happy that Israel took care of it, and tell their population that it's a good thing that terror is decreasing. Unless, of course, they don't agree.
  
• Does this anti-terrorist fence actually help?
  In fact, yes, thank you for asking.
  People have often told me very silly things like "You don't need that fence anymore, there haven't been terror attacks for like, forever."
  Uh, no. There haven't been terror attacks (or significantly less) thanks to the anti-terrorist fence. Terror still hasn't stopped. Only now it is INTERCEPTED.
  
• Isn't the anti-terrorist fence just another "Berlin Wall"?
  Funny, I actually heard this one at work the other day.
  The Berlin Wall was designed by the Communist regime of East Germany to keep the German citizens of "East Berlin" locked in and to prevent them from knowing the world of freedom and democracy on the West side.
  Israel's anti-terrorist fence is not built to keep anyone locked in. On the contrary, it is there for one purpose only - to keep the Palestinian terrorists out.
  
• The anti-terrorist fence is apartheid! The anti-terrorist fence is racism!
  Almost every Palestinian claim attaches the term "apartheid" to the fence. But the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is nothing like the situation that existed in South Africa, and the anti-terrorist fence has nothing to with racial separation, but with the need to prevent terrorism.Apartheid: Racial separation used in South Africa against fellow citizens of the same country; black South Africans were denied all rights and mingling between the ethnic groups was forbidden.The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is not a racial one, nor a domestic one. It is a national-territorial conflict between two distinct people. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. But Israeli Arabs are citizens, and have equal rights under Israeli law. On the other hand, Jews cannot be citizens of the Palestinian Authority. Who's racist?The attempt to depict the building of an anti-terrorist fence by Israel as somehow related to "apartheid" is ridiculous. What Palestinian propaganda purposefully omits is that the sole reason for the fence's existence is Palestinian terrorism.

And to end this post, a great image from the dissident frogman

The Flaw in the Land for Peace Concept

This headline, Arab League to visit Israel, caught my attention...

This article talks about the Arab League sending envoys to Israel to discuss an Arab "Peace initiative" which I think is flawed in its very core.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the foreign ministers
would lead an Arab League mission to Israel to discuss the Arab peace plan,
which would trade full Arab recognition of Israel for an Israeli withdrawal from all lands captured in the 1967 Mideast war and
the creation of a Palestinian state.

This is wrong. It is flawed to exchange something real and physical like land for something non tangible and vague like recognition. What does recognition even really mean? How can you say you don't recognize us if you're willing to talk to us about recognition?
We exist, whether they like it or not. This is not a matter of discussion. In my opinion, giving weight to their non-recognition of us gives them the power to play with us. It's a negotiation chip. They'll trade us recognition for something, but through that negotiation we will have actually gotten nothing.

The very act of party A negotiating with party B for recognition of party B implies the acknowledged existence of party B by party A, therefore the whole negotiation is futile.

The whole concept of land for peace is ridiculous. These disputed lands, we got them because THEY broke the peace. Had they not decided to wage war against us (I realize this is a very general THEY) then these lands would have never been in our hands. So we should reward both their war initiation and their losing the war by giving them land? If we had lost the Six-Day War, would we even have the option of negotiating anything? We would have been dead.

The concept of land for peace is flawed at the root. This is because in exchange of land, a physical tangible thing, we get back a concept, an idea, a warm fuzzy-wuzzy feeling which we hope is shared with our counterparts, but have no way of ever really knowing.
By this Israel pays for something which was rightfully hers from the beginning, the notion of peace.
Peace is not something which can be achieved in a day, there is no "On/Off" button for peace. It is achieved over time, with a respective cooperation of some sort (One which, I would imagine, would be ensured in a fair peace negotiation). Land can be given in one day, it does have that immediate property which can change in an instant from "ours" to "theirs".
On the other hand, if one day peace is achieved, it can disappear in a moment. The concept of peace can be erased with one movement. But the land given for this peace would then remain in their hands.
At this point, Israel will have lost everything and gained nothing.

"This is the first time the Arab League is coming to Israel," Regev said.
"From its inception the Arab League has been hostile to Israel. It will be the
first time we'll be flying the Arab League flag."

So they already won something. We're flying their flag. Are they flying ours?

And then the article talks of another part of the peace proposal, which in and of itself proves that this "peace proposal" is nothing more than a Trojan horse.

Israel has welcomed aspects of the plan, while rejecting its call for a
return of all of the West Bank and an implied demand to resettle within Israeli
borders the Palestinian families who became refugees from the 1948 war that
followed Israel's creation.

The refugees issue has always angered me. Not only the issue itself, but the world's blindness to what it means.
First the issue itself:

1. Even though about 680,000 people of Arab descent became refugees at the time of Israel's creation, most of them did so without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. Had they decided to stay, they would have been part of today's Israeli Arab population. These people have become refugees in their respective host countries, and have remained so for almost sixty years. We are now three or four generations later.
   At about the same time, about 1,5 million Jews were forced or threatened out of Arab countries throughout the Middle East. About 600,000 were resettled in the newly established Israel (the others fled to Europe or the United States).
2. These "Palestinian" refugees have lived in squalor ever since becoming refugees. One of the distinguishing marks of poverty is having many children per family. They excelled at that. Oddly enough descendants are also refugees, making them the only population on earth whose refugee status seems to be hereditary.
   If you would compare to other situations, this would mean that I, as a descendant of four European Jews displaced during WWII, would still be qualified as a Polish refugee, just as my grandparents were for a few years after WWII.
   I am sorry, but children, grandchildren, and whatever the ensuing family tree might be, they ARE NOT refugees. Of the original 680,000 refugees, how many are left? This is the only number that should be considered.
3. Obviously, having 8 kids per family or what not has increased their population to 3 or 4 million (I lost count). They are asking to relocate these 3-4 million refugees back in Israel. Since Israel is a democracy, a sudden increase of its Muslim population will make sure that the only Jewish country in the world will de facto no longer be Jewish. Why would they propose such a thing under the guise of a "peace proposal"? It's a sure death of Israel as we know it, and that is what they really want to achieve.

But the point that really angers me, and that no one seems to talk about, is the absurdity of this claim.

This claim, to return 4 million Palestinian "refugees" in Israel, is claimed and repeated in parallel with the claim for a Palestinian country. What do they need a Palestinian country for if the plan is for them all to be relocated in Israel? Why do they need to return to Israel if they have a Palestinian country? Isn't this an obvious attempt to erase Israel? Either from the outside, by creating a terrorist state as a neighbor, or from the inside, by eliminating the unique Jewish identity of the country through demographics.

No Mouse Trap Large Enough for this Filthy Rat

I've mentioned this creature before. Farfur is an Islamist Mickey Mouse lookalike. He preaches hate, terror, martyrdom and world domination on a children's show on Palestinian TV.

For some reason, they decided to eliminate the ugly Mickey Mouse clone. (Maybe they were about to get sued by Walt Disney for defamation of character?). Now let's see, if you'd ever want to eliminate a character from a children's program, how would you do that?

1. Discreetly never use his costume again. Maybe no one will notice.
2. Have a goodbye episode where you explain that he's going off to college or to Australia or to the moon or something. He'll promise to send postcards.
3. Have him killed by the evil blood-sucking money-craving land-stealing neighboring Jews. While he's killed have him remind the entire generation of influential young Palestinians that they will be forever miserable unless they liberate an imaginary country which never existed, and convince them that it actually did exist and it got stolen.

Obviously, the Palestinian authority responsible of what gets shown on TV opted for number 3. Color me surprised. Let's see some Oscar-winning acting on their behalf in the following video.

If you want a brief resumé of this great movie, here it is (taken from comments from LGF):

An old Palestinian man has a grandson, named Farfur, who, for reasons entirely unclear, is a gigantic rat. Grandpa bequeaths to his rodent kin the "keys" and "documents" to "Tel Aviv". (Which city didn't exist until Jews built it). Subsequently, Farfur the talking rat gets abducted and interrogated by a brutal African who is also Israeli. (We know he's Israeli because he wears his sunglasses indoors and generally behaves like a total prick). The African Israeli demands that Farfur turn over the Tel Aviv "documents", alternating his negotiating technique, bizarrely, between vicious beatings and generous offers of financial compensation. Farfur (the rat) spurns these inducements, and is subsequently beaten to death, apparently unable to defend himself, notwithstanding the fact that he seems to outweigh his assailant by a
considerable margin.

There are about a million reasons why this video makes me want to throw up, besides the horrible acting. I'll start typing them until my fingers get tired.

• Grandpa tells Hamas Mickey "This land which was occupied in 1948, is the land which I inherited from my fathers and forefathers".
  This is a phrase commonly used in order to give the impression that "Palestinians" have been there forever, whereas Jews came along recently and stole the land.
  This impression is FALSE.
  More information about this can be found in the book "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters. I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to know the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In time, I'd like to discuss each chapter of her book on this blog.
• He continues "It is a beautiful land, all covered in flowers and olive and palm trees." Is this to give the impression that it was already this way when it was supposedly occupied?
  This impression is FALSE.
  Tel Aviv (this is the city he will soon talk about) was empty dune and founded in the 1880s by Jewish immigrants as an alternative to the expensive town, Jaffa. These empty dunes were purchased from willing Arab sellers in auctions, throughout many years, piece by piece. Here is a picture from such an auction in 1909.
  Anything that flourished in this arid desert is thanks to the Jews who came and built Israel out of the sand. "Flowers and olive and palm trees"? Not in Tel Aviv, not before the Jews.
• Now he talks about Tel Aviv. Sort of.
  "The land is called Tel Al-Rabi, but unfortunately the Jews called it Tel Aviv after they occupied it."
  This statement is FALSE for two reasons.
  Tel Al-Rabi never existed. It is the direct translation of Tel Aviv into Arabic. The Hebrew name was given to this city after it was given to the Hebrew translation of the book "Altneuland" by Theodor Herzl. There was no city there before Jews created it.
  There is a growing use of this fabricated name for the city of Tel Aviv. This is part of the increasing efforts to erase Israeli identity.
• The second reason that statement is FALSE is that Tel Aviv was never "occupied territory", or disputed territory or what have you.
  Tel Aviv always belonged inside Israeli borders. In the UN's 1947 partition plan, after the end of the Independence war in 1949 and until the Six-Day War in 1967, after that war and until today.
  But if Tel Aviv is "occupied", then that means they don't really want to live in peace with Israel next to them, does it? It means they want to completely get rid of Israel, coexistence be damned!
  Shocker?
  Not really.
• Grandpa talks about the keys and documents of the property he left behind. Meaning he was forced to leave everything behind and wasn't allowed to come back.
  This impression is FALSE.
  If he was forced to leave, it wasn't by the Jews. It was by Arab armies who promised they would wipe out the Jews in 1948. Arabs who stayed during the formation of the State of Israel became equal Israeli citizens with the same rights as everyone else. That's why you can still get the best Hummus in the WORLD in Jaffa. Because it's made by one of the descendants of the Arabs who stayed.
  On the other hand, Jews were forced to leave countless Arab countries. And they really were forced. Not make believe forced.
• "Documents proving that the land is ours".
  This is using what we insist on all the time, and turning it against us. We have documents proving that we bought the different pieces of land. We have proof that no lands were stolen.
• "Make sure you don't give up the land Farfur"
  Brainwashing the kids over and over again that they must never give up that land (which they never had).
• "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Jew".
  Palestinian Authority lets this pass on national television in front of thousands of kiddie eyes? Imagine the world outrage if on Israeli TV anyone said "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Muslim"? Double Standards, hellllloooooooo?
• "From the filth of the criminal, plundering Jew who killed my Grandpa and everybody else."
  Uh, I know children have a short attention span, but come on. Only ten seconds ago Grandpa keeled over and died from what appears to be old age and maybe overexposure to the sun (either that, or camel farts).
  Children watch this and it brainwashes them into thinking that even if Grandpa died of "natural causes", it is still Israel's fault. It is still the Jews' fault. Always the Joooooooos' fault.
• My four year old neighbor can draw a better Israeli flag than that. Are they so busy coming up with brilliant scenarios for the series that they don't have five minutes to draw a flag that actually represents a country? It's not the flag of Brazil or of Cyprus, which I'll admit are a bit harder to draw. It's two thin blue stripes and a star in the middle. You've burned it so often, you really ought to know it by now.
• Farfur is interrogated for unknown reasons by an Israeli agent who dislikes mice (apparently). Why are children shown this? What is the link between the two? Farfur having pseudo documents makes him an enemy of the state? There is a reason for this...
  It is to give the impression that Palestinians who are held in Israeli jails or are interrogated are actually innocent. (Because obviously, if Farfur has done nothing wrong, it would be ridiculous to interrogate him just because he has an old rusty key and a yellowing piece of paper). The impression is that Palestinians are interrogated just for the fun of the Israelis, even though they have done nothing wrong.
  This impression is FALSE.
  Palestinians who are held in prisons in Israel are there because they have some link with a terrorist activity.
  As Dan Gillerman has often said "They are not in there for some minor parking violation. They are there because of their links to terror."
• Ahhh the Israeli Interrogator seems to be forcing Farfur to sell his documents to the land, or in other words, to sell his land.
  This is to give the impression that previous occasions when Jews bought land from Arabs, if was forced.
  This impression is FALSE.
  In the 19th and early 20th century Arabs were more than willing to sell that useless desert land to foolish Jews. It seemed like easy money to them. Jews didn't force anything out of them. How could they have?
  Arabs made fun of the Jews for buying arid land and swamps, thinking those Jews really don't know the first thing about cultivating land. Then they saw what the Jews did with that "useless" land. Now they regret. Sour grapes. But nothing forced.
  If anything, nowadays, Arabs are forbidden to sell land to Jews. Not by Israeli law, nonono. By general Palestinian consensus. Arabs who sell land to Jews/Israelis get punished.
• All of a sudden Farfur is talking about liberating Jerusalem. Wasn't it Tel Aviv 45 seconds ago? Ah yes, mush it all up so that kids just keep the general idea of "I must liberate my land", which was never theirs to begin with.
• Farfur says "No, we're not the kind of people who sell our lands to terrorists".
  So Israelis are the terrorists now?
• The little veiled girl watches in utter sadness. She's only what, ten years old? Why is she veiled? I understand adult women who, of their own free will, wish to hide their "sexuality" and do so with a veil. But a girl that young is considered already as sexual and therefore needs to be veiled?
  That speaks miles about the morality of the producers of the show.
• Farfur was martyred. This is what is shown to children. In order to become a hailed martyr you need to defend your land.
• She talks of Mohamed Al-Dura, saying he was killed by Israelis.
  This is FALSE.
  If you look at the events of that day, it is almost physically impossible for an Israeli bullet to have hit that boy. It is completely possible that he was hit by a Palestinian bullet. But that's a whole other subject I'll also talk about another time.
• Us Infidels, we're supposed to be the descendants of monkeys and pigs (As far as the monkeys go, I don't really see the insult, but I guess they don't believe in evolution either) (maybe because they haven't?). But what are you trying to say, that Palestinians are the descendants of rats? Or that ultimately all Palestinians will have evolved into giant rodents? On Israeli Sesame Street, Kippi the hedgehog had hedgehog ancestors. No zoophilia in my childhood prime time TV.
• Look at that girl. What kind of a future will she have? Will she believe everything she repeats to the cameras? Will she also go and wear a belt bomb one day and be martyred? She seems like she could have been a smart girl. She could have been so much more than that.

The Palestinians have deliberately destroyed their own children; the destruction is thorough and complete. Is anyone surprised? Hamas swore they would annihilate Israel, and what better way to do it? Wage a multi-generational war against Israel. Indoctrinating the kids with nothing but hate and violence against Jews and Israel, giving them no hope for the present and a bleak future unless Israel is destroyed. How do you deprogram a whole generation who was brought up to think in this fashion?

And while we're on the topic, do you think Farfur is in heaven with 72 virgin Minnies?