Responding To Terrorism

I should probably just change the title of my whole blog to ‘Better Late Than Never’, but here goes anyway.

A month ago on Friday 9^th March, Israel decided it’d had enough of the continuous yet intermittent rocket fire from Gaza (50 over the last two months), and responded to the two rockets launched that morning.

As well as targetting Palestinian terrorists about to fire more rockets into Israel, the IDF killed the leader of the PRC Zuhir al-Qaisi, and another member, who were involved in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. The IDF had intelligence that al-Qaisi was planning a terror attack along the Israel-Gaza border, similar to one the PRC had carried out last August along Israel’s border with Egypt. In that multiple-stage attack, eight Israelis were killed when Palestinian terrorists attacked them in their cars and buses with guns, missiles and a suicide-bombing. In the days following, two more Israelis were killed by rocket fire.

After Israel killed the PRC leader last month, terrorists bombarded Southern Israel with over 300 rockets in the space of just four days. Myself and friends and family would flock to Facebook to find updates from friends and family in South Israel on their status, inbetween them flocking to their bomb shelters. In response the IDF targetted weapons depots, manufacturing facilities and rocket launching sites in Gaza. 24 Palestinians were killed, 20 of whom were terrorists, most whilst actually in the process of preparing to launch more rockets.

At the funeral of one of the terrorists, Palestinian gunmen fired into the air, with one bullet striking an eight year old boy in the head. This was of course blamed on Israel, although Palestinians later revealed the truth. Two days later the child died, and the day after that two more Palestinian teenagers died from trigger-happy Palestinians’ gunfire at another terrorist’s funeral.

A picture of a young Palestinian girl was circulated online, originally tweeted by Khulood Badawi, who claimed it was “another child killed by Israel”. It was discovered that the picture was from 2006, and the girl had died in an accident. Meanwhile it transpired that Badawi works for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs as an ‘Information and Media Coordinator’, with Honest Reporting calling for her dismissal:

“it is absolutely unacceptable that a UN employee working specifically on dissemination of information to the media and public tweets malicious and false information to libel Israel... [when it] is trying desperately to defend more than 1 million of its civilians from the incessant murderous rain of Gazan rocket terror”.

Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador to the UN also called for her dismissal, pointing out that she was “actively engaged in the demonization of Israel, a member state of the United Nations. Such actions contribute to incitement, conflict and, ultimately, violence.”

A week later in an indescribably horrific terrorist attack at a Jewish school in France, an Islamist fanatic rode up on a motorbike and murdered a Rabbi, Jonathan Sandler, his 3 and 6 year old sons Gabriel and Arieh, and 8 year old Miriam Monsonego, the daughter of the school principle.

Strangely, the EU Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton appeared to compare the attack to “what is happening in Gaza”.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the French-Algerian terrorist Mohammed Merah, who was a member of Al Qaeda, claimed that his actions, which also included the murder of three unarmed French soldiers was to “avenge Palestinian children”. He was killed after a 32 hour siege on his apartment, in which he injured several French police officers, preventing him not only committing further attacks but also from spewing any more excuses for his barbaric, evil acts. Possibly the best response to Merah’s comment about Palestinians came from the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who stated:

"This terrorist crime is condemned in the strongest terms by the Palestinian people and their children... No Palestinian child can accept a crime that targets innocent people. It is time for these criminals to stop marketing their terrorist acts in the name of Palestine and to stop pretending to stand up for the rights of Palestinian children who only ask for a decent life”.

In any case which Palestinian children was Merah referring to? Which children in Gaza was Baroness Ashton talking about? The ones brainwashed into wasting their lives by becoming terrorists? The ones oppressed by their own government? The children killed when they’re exploited by terrorists and used as human shields, who launch rockets into Israel from civilian areas? Or the ones killed in accidents because they’re surrounded by militants building weapons or ‘symbolically’ firing guns at terrorists’ funerals?

It has been pointed out again and again by pro-Israel activists that the actions of most supposedly ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists do nothing to help the Palestinians, in fact do the opposite. There seems to be a link; and somewhere between all these incidents there are lies, distortions and exaggerations about Israel’s actions that far from helping solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict simply trigger cycles of violence, not only manifested in antisemitism against Jews and Israel but with the much wider target of ‘the West’.

Our battle for support for Israel and the truth may sometimes seem unwinnable, but there are constant reminders of successes and the importance of this battle, and who knows the effect that each of these instances can have. So whether it’s blogging or tweeting or demonstrating, we have to keep spreading the truth.

Most importantly, everyone should see the words of Eva Sandler, who lost her husband Rabbi Jonathan and her two young sons Gabriel and Ariel in the France school shooting. In a heart-wrenching article on the Chabad website, she referred to Pesach, which Jews worldwide are currently celebrating, and wrote:

“Along with our tearful remembrance of our trials in Egypt so many years ago, we still tell how ‘in each and every generation, they have stood against us to destroy us.’ We all will announce in a loud and clear voice: ‘G-d saves us from their hands.’…  The spirit of the Jewish people can never be extinguished; its connection with Torah and its commandments can never be destroyed.”

Judge Goldstone's Guilt

Two years after the Goldstone report accused Israel of committing war crimes in a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”, Goldstone has confessed that his conclusions were wrong.

Of course, all of his accusations against Israel were disproved both at that time and even before his investigation, by research undertaken by Israel supporters and truth-seekers all over.

The report was widely accepted, and used to further delegitimise Israel and deny its right to self-defence. I look forward to Robert Fisk’s reaction to this, as at the time he referred to Goldstone as “the eminent lawyer who so bravely… inspires…” etc. The self-hating Jews will also be quite upset about Goldstone’s retraction.

Significantly, The Times had observed that it was imbalanced for equating Israel and Hamas and not acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defence, and that the UN, who facilitated the investigation, is undeniably biased against Israel.

As Michael Weiss points out in the Telegraph, the report didn’t acknowledge Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields, and storage of weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, when even last week the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights criticised Hamas for violating international law by continuing to “store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas” (not for firing them at Israeli civilians though).

Now Goldstone acknowledges that: “The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion”, and that Israel’s investigations into 400 alleged incidents of misconduct “indicate[s] that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy”.

He admits, “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document”, but then blames this on Israel’s “lack of cooperation”. Bizarrely, he expresses disappointment that Hamas never investigated their own war crimes, even though he acknowledges that it is their “policy to destroy the state of Israel”.

Goldstone’s admission is brave but he demonstrates cowardice as well because instead of taking responsibility, he is blaming Israel for withholding information. But that evidence was available at the time for anyone who looked for it – either Goldstone is very stupid, or he deliberately chose to ignore the evidence and has only now realized how absurdly untruthful and damaging his report is.

It was not very difficult for supporters of Israel to learn the truth about everything that happened, so it is beyond me why so-called “amateur” bloggers like the great Elder of Ziyon and others are seen as irrelevant, whilst people like Goldstone who choose to ignore the facts receive worldwide recognition for their work. We are not detectives, but I and ever other pro-Israel blogger out there are more qualified than Goldstone to comment on the truth about Cast Lead and the general situation in Israel and the territories.

The reason why Goldstone wrote his retraction is evident from this quote: “the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.”

Recently Interior minister Eli Yishai wrote to Goldstone telling him to condemn Palestinian attacks on Israelis, because his report on Cast Lead legitimises the attacks by not holding the terrorists accountable and instead condemning Israel for acting in self-defence.

When Goldstone sees all the attacks on Israelis, and the absurd restraint Israel shows in its retaliations, and then hears and sees how the world still demonizes Israel, it would be impossible for him not to feel guilty. Yishai’s letter would merely have been the trigger for the article, written out of the guilt that Goldstone already feels.

The Promise: "Die, Evil Jews!"

The fourth and final part of The Promise, if possible, was even worse than the previous three put together in it’s demonisation of the Jews.

Anyone who defends the programme as “balanced” and really believes that all Jews are as evil as they are portrayed in it, must either be a. ignorant, or b. antisemitic.

This is just beyond anti-Zionism and any defence of it as such, as opposed to antisemitic, is just laughable.

I am not at all saying that some of what the Israelis and Jews did in The Promise didn’t happen; it did, and I would not defend the actions of the Irgun, some of what they did was disgusting.

But looking at The Promise from the perspective of someone who has no knowledge of Israel now or then, what they would think is that the Jews are totally evil.

In modern-day Israel, the Israeli brother tells Erin that “you can do anything you want to the Palestinians” with no consequences, and we see Israeli soldiers stand by as Jews scream abuse and throw glass and rocks at defenceless Palestinians - and this is portrayed as the norm – whilst the Palestinians in The Promise never do anything like this.

The reality is very different, not least because much as people like to pretend it isn’t, Israel is a democracy and Jews, just like Arabs will face the consequences if they are involved in violent behaviour. And that includes Israeli soldiers who are punished if they act against the IDF's strict code of conduct.

Meanwhile in The Promise’s version of the late 1940s the Jews are not only murderers but traitors as well – Clara, the Jewish woman who Erin’s grandfather was involved with, and his British-Jewish soldier friend both betrayed him leading to the deaths of British soldiers and Arabs.

The Promise completely ignores the other side to all this: that a. the majority of the Jews condemned these attacks – and not only condemned, but the Haganah, the original Israeli Defence Forces who worked alongside the British, captured and turned in Irgun members to the British; and b. at that time the Arabs attacked and killed hundreds of unarmed Jewish civilians.

The Promise fails to mention that the UN proposed the partition plan to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, and that the Jews accepted this but the Arabs rejected it.

It also throws in a large dose of sympathy to a Palestinian family whose daughter was a suicide bomber, and whose brother, a member of Hamas “says it’s his job to protect the family” – as though that’s in their charter and not to kill all the Jews or anything like that.

Finally, at the end of the programme, the director dictates to the viewers exactly what he aimed for them to think:

- About the creation of the state of Israel, Erin’s grandfather: “embarrassed and ashamed”.

- About present day Israel, Erin on the idea of returning: “Why, what’s the point?”

I have never seen such an obvious attack of delegitimisation of Israel on every level like this. With it's sympathy of Palestinian terrorists, and deliberate distortions and omissions of Israelis' and Jews' actions, The Promise is against both Israel’s right to existence and it’s right to self-defence, without both of which all the Jews would die. If that’s not antisemitism I don’t know what is.

Still Relevant...

A few months before I started this blog, I did a couple of pieces that were featured on Elder of Ziyon. Now that I do have this blog, I thought I may as well add them to my collection here. Even though they're from February 2009, they are still relevant as Israel is continuously, disproportionately blamed for that winter's war (and pretty much the whole Middle East conflict in general).

• The first piece is a spoof news story:

"UN: It's OK To Be Antisemitic... But Not Anti-Zionist

After many months of debate the UN has finally announced that it is acceptable to be openly antisemitic, but at the cost of being openly anti-Zionist.

A poll showed the majority of voters were in favour of sacrificing the ability to insult Israel for the sake of being to say what they really feel with regards to Jews.

"It was really tiring venting all my Jew-hate on Israel" one voter said. "Always having to say some sh** about Israel putting 10 million Palestinians in phosphorous chambers and causing a holocaust."

The ruling means that it is permissible, upon seeing a Jew, to shout insults such as "big nose" or "greedy f***er", and in some cases violence may also be acceptable, for example when the nose is extra large or the Jew is dressed very religiously.

However none of that applies to Israeli Jews, and the UN has warned of harsh consequences for those who say anything negative and untruthful about Israel, such as that Israel made up that it is fighting terrorists, Israelis are ugly, or that Israelis didn't invent falafel and hummus.

A UN spokesman said:

"For too long people have been holding the urge to express their disgust at the Jews' ugly conks and the fact that they're the ones who caused the recession, and that they control the media. We feel this is a positive move in giving people the freedom to express themselves in a healthy, honest way instead of always hiding behind the 'I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-Zionist' defence.""

• My second item was a satirical poster for the now infamous antisemitic play, Seven Jewish Children (view large version here, thanks to EoZ).

UN "Peacekeepers" Stand By As Lebanon Attacks Israel

Lately it's been very difficult to say the word 'peace' in any way other than in quotation marks, as the people associated with it continue to make a mockery of the word

First "peace" activists, and now UN "peacekeepers", who watched as Lebanese soldiers today murdered an Israeli soldier and injured others in an unprovoked attack. Three Lebanese soldiers and a journalist were also killed. Follow the Muqata blog for live updates.

The Israeli soldiers were on Israeli territory - between the security fence and the internationally recognised border - carrying out routine maintenance that involved clearing bushes and trees that encroached on the area, blocking the line of sight and thus constituting a security concern. The work was done in coordination with UNFIL, who also made the Lebanese army aware it was going to take place.

After a period of fighting started by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) - which they acknowledge, as "defending" their "sovereignity" - the Lebanese called on the IDF to suspend their fire, which they did. Soon after, the Lebanese fired at an Israeli tank; Israel responded.

The fact that the Lebanese fired not at the Israelis doing the work, but at their colleagues nearby, suggests that it was a preplanned attack, and not in retaliation to the work they were doing. 

But the most notable thing is that despite the maintenance being ongoing work that is not newsworthy,  large numbers of journalists and photographers were on the scene even before the attack - including two correspondents from Hezbollah news outlets.

Taking into account the links between the LAF and Hezbollah, EoZ highlights that Hezbollah members may have carried out the attack, dressed in the Lebanese army uniform.

UN "Peacekeepers" [in the blue berets] enjoy the show as the Lebanese fire at Israel

Of course, Israel has had problems with UNFIL before. UNFIL have been known to allow Hezbollah to hold posts near their own positions, and also treats the IDF as equivalent to Hezbollah, despite the IDF being a legitimate army and Hezbollah recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation.

In 2000, when Hezbollah abducted and murdered three Israeli soldiers, UNFIL hid video evidence they had until nearly a year later, despite Israel repeatedly asking to see it, with the UN denying it's existence - but clips being aired on Syrian and Lebanese television.  UNFIL claimed that their "objectivity" didn't allow them to disclose military information to parties in a conflict.

But obviously for UNFIL, what applies for one side doesn't apply for the other. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, UNFIL openly published real-time information on the IDF's positions, weapons and operations on their website, which Hezbollah would've found very useful; whilst giving away nothing on Hezbollah's tactics.

So why wouldn't they stand and watch as Lebanon attacks Israel?

UPDATE: UNFIL confirmed the IDF was acting within the Israeli border, and that the Lebanese fired first (Lebanon also acknowledge that they fired first).

UPDATE (4/8/10): There are claims that Israel was warned not to approach, and that the LAF at first fired only warning shots. Zvi at EoZ observes in video footage of the outbreak, that immediately after UNFIL shout their "warning" to the IDF ("Down, down!") the Lebanese soldiers are aiming their guns down towards the IDF, not away from them, and that as soon as the shots ring out a cloud of dust rises just in front of the Israelis, evidently as a result of the gunfire. 

It is a almost certain that Hezbollah were involved, one indication being that they operated from a village close to the LAF post.

All evidence points to this being a pre-planned ambush, so the question remains, who exactly was behind the whole thing? Why did UNFIL not try to stop the LAF from attacking, and how involved were Hezbollah?

Update 6/8/10: The LAF are claiming that the Lebanese soldiers were following army orders to open fire on the Israelis. EoZ suggests why this could be untrue, if Hezbollah were involved:

It [LAF] wants to project an image of having full control over its soldiers; it wants to erase any indication that Hezbollah influences the army; it wants to take full credit for a decision that is wildly popular in Lebanon and it wants to contradict whatever Israel says. 

EoZ points out that if the incident comes under an international investigation, the Lebanese army should be found guilty of one or two things: "acting recklessly in violation of [UN Resolution] 1701", and/or being influenced by Hezbollah, recognised as a terrorist organisation.

And the third thing of course, would be evidence on the pre-planned nature of the attack, and on the involvement of UNFIL, the LAF, and Hezbollah.

Gaza News And Latest Flotilla Backlash

Elder of Ziyon highlights that as Israel has increased the amount and variety of aid going in to Gaza, rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel have also increased.

In other news from Gaza, terrorists have, for the second time in two months, burnt down an UNRWA childrens' summer camp, both times handcuffing the camp's guards. Last time they also left behind a note threatening to kill John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza director, and other UN officials.

Ging's reaction was to praise Hamas for their response to the incident, and to seemingly blame Israel for extremism in Gaza, indicating that it is because of the blockade. Melanie Phillips points out that 

"It is Hamas that has to be isolated and defeated if a start is to be made in slowing down the rate of extremism". 

She observes that the view of the UN, Britain, US and EU is that 

"the way to stop more extremism being generated in Gaza is to provide more aid, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists". 

What they're doing is "supporting the extremism which makes the lives of Gaza's Arabs such a misery" - and then placing the blame on Israel.

One thing Israel can, for once, be rightly blamed for, is Turkey's $400 million loss in the tourism industry due to the holiday cancellations of about 100,000 Israelis. (*thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the link). One Turkish tourism company which expected to bring 17,000 Israelis to Turkey this year, has so far only had 200 Israeli clients, having to pay $1.1 million to hotels for cancelled reservations, and incurring a total loss of almost $2.5 million due to all the cancellations.

Well, what did they expect when their Prime Minister openly supported a ship of extremists who attacked Israeli soldiers, and then accused Israel of war crimes when the soldiers defended themselves - completely ignoring the IDF's video evidence that refutes that.

In a new Just Journalism study, they highlight just how much Israel's footage was ignored by the UK media. They discovered that the Times, Telegraph, and Financial Times gave the footage the attention and detail it merited - and through that, countering the activists' claims that the IDF attacked first. Just Journalism conclude that the Guardian and Independent "severely under-reported" the footage, and when it was mentioned, it was dismissed as Israeli propaganda. But then the Guardian and Independent usually do leave out Israel's side of the story so this comes as no surprise.

Open Letter To Self-Hating Lefty "Jewish" Organisations

In Tuesday's Times there was a full page letter/advert written by a number of Jewish organisations: Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewish Writers Against the Occupation, and Scottish Jews for a Just Peace.

What do all these groups have in common? Well, I have a hunch that they don't care about justice and human rights for Israel. They also represent a very small minority of Jews. People who only call themselves Jewish when it's Israel-bashing time. I don't know why they do it, but anyway.

Here's the letter, with my thoughts:

OPEN LETTER TO GORDON BROWN ON THE GOLDSTONE REPORT:
BRITISH JEWS DO NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE

Dear Prime Minister,

We appreciate your Government's stated intention to build bridges with the Jewish community in the light of responses to the Goldstone report. To achieve this, it is vital for you to recognise that British Jews do not speak with one voice on this matter.

Of course British Jews don’t speak with one voice, but if you are going to try to “buildbridges” with the Jewish community, wouldn’t it makes sense to try to do it with the MAJORITY of British Jews. i.e. the ones who actually identify with their Jewish status, and Israel’s role in that; not the ones who only call themselves Jews when they want to criticize Israel.

What are they even saying in this paragraph? That Brown can't "build bridges" with the Zionist British Jews? That the self-hating Jews are the more important and they're the ones that Brown should please?

We welcome the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict as a key document in the upholding of international law in situations of violent conflict, and regret your Government's failure to endorse the Report and its recommendations at the United Nations General Assembly.

The Goldstone report was less about fact finding and more about vilifying Israel and excusing Hamas terrorism.

We condemn the vilification of Richard Goldstone, an internationally acclaimed jurist who has made a substantial contribution worldwide to the development and maintenance of international humanitarian law, and his distinguished co-authors.

Did they even watch this video, where an Israeli terrorism victim asks Goldstone why he left her story out of the report?

Did they know he sent a 13 year old boy to prison for protesting apartheid in South Africa? Do they still condemn the "vilification" of Goldstone after this?

We note that the preparation of the Report was severely hampered by the refusal of the Israeli authorities to respond to reasonable enquiries or to facilitate access by the mission to Gaza or the West Bank and that it was only Egypt's assistance which eventually allowed the Mission to gain access to Gaza.

Why should Israel respond to the enquiries when they’ve already presented the evidence? Is it their fault that Goldstone and his team completely ignored the evidence that was there for everyone to see?

We further note that the Report unequivocally condemns not just Israel's devastation of Gaza but also Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli neighbourhoods and does not in any way deny Israel its right to legitimate self-defence.

Well, they noted wrong. The Goldstone report did not condemn Hamas even once. And by not condemning Hamas and only singling out Israel for condemnation, the implication is that terrorism is acceptable and therefore Israel cannot defend itself against it.

We fully support its recommendation that both parties conduct full investigations into the allegations of war crimes in the Report.

We believe Israel cannot afford, nor should it wish, to exempt itself from the scrutiny of the international community on these matters. We consider that it is the attempt to do so, rather than the Goldstone Report, that is damaging Israel. We therefore urge you to endorse the Report at the next available opportunity.

Wrong again. Israel rejects the report because it’s a load of lies. It is the lies that damage Israel, not Israel’s attempt to prevent the spreading of those lies. And it doesn't help when a bunch of self-hating Jews stick their noses in.

Conflicting Messages From The Times

In it's editorial on Friday, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and stated that it should be rejected at the United Nations "Human Rights" Council. The Times highlights the problems with the report:

"First, there is no equivalence between the actions of Israel in self-defence and those of Hamas in seeking to destroy it. Second, the UNHRC is not a credible forum. It is... notorious for bloc voting and bias against Israel. And finally, the Goldstone report itself is imbalanced: it focuses on Israel’s faults rather than its right to protect itself."

It's much more than that, but at least the Times is trying to stand up for Israel's rights. But then, perhaps in an attempt to appear objective, the article states that Israel caused "more than a thousand Palestinian civilian deaths", which is simply not true. Of the 1200 killed in Gaza, about 700 have been proven to be terrorists.

"But Israel was responding to a sustained barrage of rocket attacks by Hamas after its takeover of power in Gaza. It had no choice but to respond to these provocations. Hamas, backed and supplied by Iran, has rejected all attempts to persuade it to recognise Israel, instead relentlessly pursuing the destruction of the Jewish state in the interests of an intolerant and delusional pan-Islamic ideology. Unlike Israel, it consistently engages in the cowardly practice of using civilians as human shields."

"Judge Goldstone takes Hamas to task for killing Israeli civilians and 'seeking to spread terror' through rocket attacks on southern Israel. But he reserves his strongest language for Israel’s 'disproportionate' use of force and its 'deliberate targeting' of Palestinian civilians."

"Israel adheres to standards higher than those of its enemies. Its right to self-defence is not in question: what is at issue is how it exercises that right, and whether it does so in conformity with its own moral values. In launching an inquiry, it would challenge Hamas to do the same."

But the last paragraph ignores the fact that Israel has conducted it's own investigation, proven how many terrorists were killed, that Hamas used human shields, hid themselves and weapons in populated areas, in mosques, schools, hospitals and ambulances.

Putting that aside, the article is, as usual, too little too late. Where was all that during the war? When did the Times report on the rocket attacks, or Hamas' use of human shields, their refusal to recognise Israel and objective to wipe out the Jewish state, or Israel's right to self defence?

Then, the next day, in their article on Britain abstaining from the vote, what is the accompanying picture of? Hamas terrorists? The damage caused by their rockets? Course not, it's only phosphorous. Otherwise you might think Israel are the victims in some way.

Meanwhile it's worth reading Colonel Richard Kemp's statement on the IDF, where he explains how "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare".

Also, Goldstone was "saddened" that the resolution made no reference to Hamas' crimes. His exact words were: "There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report". Well it was probably a bit difficult to find that "single phrase" in the 600 pages about Israel!

Speaking of which, another rocket was fired into Israel today, thankfully with no damage. The psychological effects of that alarm on the million Israelis in the South having to run into shelters, and the terrorists' prayer for an Israeli death as the rocket was launched, are never newsworthy though.

Finally, here is CAMERA's list of falsehoods in the Goldstone report, the website on the the report I linked in my last post, Elder of Ziyon on the IDF's report, and on inaccuracies in the Goldstone report with other commentaries as well. The UN is a joke. But we knew that already.

UN in Gaza to probe Israeli 'war crimes'

A UN delegation arrived in Gaza on Monday to investigate Israeli 'war crimes'. There's an enlightening interview with Amira Hass, a journalist for the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper. She seems to hate Israel so much, you wonder why she's living there, then you realise that she actually lives in Gaza, and although her reason seems to be so that she can report the 'truth'... well, I live in London and I can probably see the truth of Gaza clearer than she can. So, according to Hass, Israel's refusal to co-operate with these investigations means that Israel is hiding something. Which is that, apprently, Israel is exaggerating the threat from Hamas. This woman lives IN Gaza, maybe from her side of the fence the rockets look like fireworks. She also says that she barely saw any Hamas combatants (that's because they hide in crowds of civilians and don't wear "terrorist" stamps on their heads) and that "there is there is no way that the Israeli figures about casualties is correct."* She also observes that with their unsophisticated rockets "there is no way they could stand up against the Israeli army." She has completely missed the point. First of all, of course there's no way Hamas can stand up against the IDF - when the IDF is in Gaza (alhough they give a good fight with their human shields and bombs in mosques). But when the IDF is not in Gaza, who does she think Hamas are targetting with the rockets? She also mentions how journalists were allowed into Sderot but not Gaza. That's an interesting point because I don't seem to remember seeing pictures of injured Israelis and damaged kindergartens in all the papers. And is she saying that if journalists were allowed in Gaza they wouldn't have made up that story about the 40 dead in that UN school that turned out to be a lie? (only 12 died, 9 of which were Hamas). Then she rambles on about how the rockets didn't liberate the Palestinians from the 'occupation' (you don't say), and about settlements. This current investigation can go two ways: either they make up stories of Israeli atrocities and no one cares because everyone already thinks Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, or they don't find proof of war crimes (because Israel didn't commit any), and everyone thinks Israel's gotten away with it once more. Either way, equilibrium is established and we can all go back to our daily lives.