Mideast Media Sampler 07/08/2011

From DG:

1) Protesting Israel in Australia

A number of Australian businesses have been targeted on account of their ties to Israel.

The protest was a relatively rare occurrence on Australian soil. Max Brenner became subject to calls of boycott after opening stores in the country, and pro-Palestinian activists attempted to get the government to ban Better Place, an Israeli-owned electric car company, from an electrical project in six cities. Another company, Veolia, which operates buses in Australia, has also been the target of such protests. 

A Jewish MP commented:

Jewish Labor MP Michael Danby called the protest stupid.
"These people are prejudiced fanatics who should look into their soul," he said. "While 1500 people are murdered in Syria, they launch their own sad little attack on a chocolate shop because it also has stores in Israel."

A commentator named Ted Lipkin observed (h/t Instapundit)

This unruly mob was so stereotypical that could have been supplied direct from central casting. There were 'kafiyeh' Arab-scarf-wearing Leftwing atheists rallying in defence of the theocratic medievalists of Hamas. There were radical feminists protesting on behalf of an Islamic radical regime that would slap them into a burka so fast it would make their head swim. And let's not forget the Rip Van Winkle hippies, that de rigueur cohort of aging radicals who've never outgrown their anti-Vietnam war protest stage.
...
But the most notable ditty of the evening told of liberating Palestine "from the river to the sea". For anyone not immersed in the intricacies of Middle Eastern geography, those boundaries include the entire territory of pre-1967 Israel proper.

In other words, the protesters outside Max Brenner were calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state. As a waggish Israeli once put it in the spirit of his nation's wry sense of humour: "Of course those activists want peace. They want a piece of Tel Aviv, they want a piece of Haifa, and they want a piece of Jerusalem."

Elder of Ziyon proposes a response.


2) Hezbollah south of the border

The hacker group LulzSec has released a bulletin from the Tucson police department, which apparently wasn't made public previously. ( via memeorandum)

In July of this year, Mexican authorities arrested Jameel Nasr in Tijuana, Baja California. Nasr was alleged to be tasked with establishing the Hezbollah network in Mexico and throughout South America. In April of last year, the arrest of Jamal Yousef – in New York City – exposed a weapons cache of 100 M- 16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. According to Yousef, the weapons, which were being stored in Mexico, had been stolen from Iraq with the help of his cousin who was a member of Hezbollah.

With the arrest of Jameel Nasr and Jamal Yousef, obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah’s presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO’s) operating along the U.S. – Mexico border. The potential partnership bares alarming implications due to Hezbollah’s long established capabilities, specifically their expertise in the making of vehicle borne improvised explosive devises (VBIED’s).

It's long been known that Hezbollah has been operating in South America, this paper (.pdf) has more details including the following from its summary:

Hezbollah’s operatives have infiltrated the Western Hemisphere from Canada to Argentina, and its activity is increasing, particularly in the lawless Tri-Border Area (TBA) of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. This research was conducted to expose the actions and objectives of Hezbollah in the TBA. The majority of US officials and operators believe that Hezbollah’s terrorist wing is separate from its political wing, but these are misconceptions from people who “mirror-image” the American experience when assessing Hezbollah. Unfamiliarity with the organization makes these assessors vulnerable to its propaganda, which is a severe problem that permeates the US government and its operatives. People who think Hezbollah is or could be compartmentalized or disunited are not familiar with the organization and perceive Hezbollah through the lens of the organization’s extensive propaganda effort. Hezbollah has a large operational network in the TBA, which generates funds for the party, but its primary mission is to plan attacks and lie dormant, awaiting instructions to execute operations against Western targets.

3) UN condemns Israel for defending itself, again

The New York Times reports: (via memeorandum)

Israel violated the resolution during the events on the border on May 15, the report says, noting the lethal force used by Israel was not commensurate to the imminent threat to Israeli soldiers and civilians. 

The protesters also violated the resolution, it says, because of their provocative actions, including when about 1,000 of them broke off from the main demonstration and “threw stones and two petrol bombs across the fence and attempted to climb it and bring it down.” 

Later on the reporter, Isabel Kershner writes:

Up to 10,000 demonstrators arrived at the border area on May 15, which Palestinians have come to refer to as Nakba Day, marking the founding of Israel in 1948. Nakba means catastrophe. The protests were organized by Palestinian and Lebanese organizations, including Hezbollah. 

Israeli officials have hinted anonymously that some of the casualties were caused by Lebanese Army soldiers who also opened fire. The United Nations report does not attribute any of the deaths to the Lebanese forces in the border area, saying the Lebanese Army attempted to control the crowd “using batons, tear gas and heavy firing in the air.” 

If 1000 of the protesters headed towards the fence, then the Lebanese army wasn't really controlling crowd was it. And why is the Israeli claim treated with such skepticism? Did the UN not look into the actions of the Lebanese army? (Or, for that matter, UNIFIL?)

Writing in the National Review David French writes:

On May 15, 2011, thousands of protesters — acting with the consent and cooperation of forces hostile to Israel — stormed Israel’s border fence. A large number of those protesters engaged in violent acts, including throwing stones, “petrol bombs,” and attempting to physically tear down the fence itself. Israel issued verbal warnings, fired warning shots, and then — finally — used deadly force. Could Israel have accomplished the same goals with different tactics (such as tear gas or other riot control mechanisms)? Perhaps. Was Israel required to use such tactics to defend its border? Absolutely not.

Indeed, international mandates requiring the use of nonlethal force do nothing more than encourage further incursions and diminish Israel’s ability to defend its borders. But that of course is the core goal of lawfare — to win for Hezbollah a victory in New York that it could never win in Israel.

Should the behavior of the UN's Special Rappoteur, Richard Falk, be at all surprising?


4) Hardline and tough


An AP story describes israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman like this:

Israel’s hardline foreign minister says there will be a tough response if the Palestinians follow through on a plan to declare independence at the United Nations this fall.

Funny, how those adjectives flow so freely in objective news reports. Why isn't the Palestinian plan considered hardline. Jonathan Schanzer describes the possible consequences like this:

At present, a United Nations General Assembly resolution falls short of a Security Council vote granting Palestinian membership. But it theoretically provides the Palestinians the legal basis to sue Israel for land and rights in the international court system. 

Israel, the U.S., Canada, Mexico and other nations are seeking to stymie this effort. They rightly fear that a declaration would endorse the dangerous Palestinian decision to cease negotiations with Israel. They also worry that statehood could spawn an irredentist Palestinian polity, prompt needless violence over disputed territories and weaken Israel in ways that could tempt other neighboring states into a regional conflict.

Congress voted overwhelmingly for a resolution urging President Obama to suspend aid to the Palestinians if they seek unilateral declaration of a state through the UN in September.

In an overwhelming majority, the United States House of Representatives passed Thursday night a resolution urging U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to suspend financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority if its leaders push for a United Nations vote for unilateral recognition in September. 

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.