The Latest Gaza Flotilla: The Freedom Flotilla Coalition Makes a Laughing Stock of The Washington Post

Tweet


Must reading from beginning to end!

This morning, I sent another letter to the editor in chief and the managing editor of The Washington Post, inquiring why there had been no correction of William Booth's June 29 article that stated that Israel had intercepted an "aid ship" on its way to Gaza:

Dear Mr. Baron and Mr. Marida,

On June 29, 2015, on the Washington Post homepage under "More Headlines," there was a link "Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ship" which took you to the article "Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ship in Mediterranean" by William Booth. Booth states in his article:

"The Swedish-registered Marianne of Gothenburg was attempting to enter Israeli-controlled waters in the Mediterranean Sea and deliver aid packages to Gaza."

Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon, however, according to The Times of Israel, declared on June 29, 2015 that there was no aid aboard the said ship:

"There was no aid on board."

I have asked WaPo to correct this article (I received two Washington Post ticket numbers pertaining to my request for a correction), but I have received no response from your newspaper.

Does The Washington Post wish to contend that Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon was lying? I would appreciate a response from a WaPo editor.

Moreover, I would appreciate any evidence forming the basis for Mr. Booth's contention that the Marianne was delivering aid packages.

I understand that in January 2013, three senior editors of The Washington Post sent a memo to the newspaper's staff regarding practices and standards for online corrections, which stated:

We are committed to accuracy and transparency. We generally revise the story to make it accurate AND append a correction to the file. Typically, online corrections read like this: “Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported …”

I kindly ask to be informed if you believe Mr. Booth's article was accurate and that Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon was lying.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

. . . .

Today, I received the following reply from Mr. Martin Baron:

We handled the matter this way:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/did-the-flotilla-to-gaza-have-humanitarian-aid-aboard-or-not/2015/07/01/4ce7418e-05b0-49c3-ae5d-602e28bd6927_story.html 

The link is to a second article, also written by William Booth and published by WaPo yesterday (no one from WaPo notified me that it had been published), observing that the Marianne carried two cardboard "aid" packages:

"The Gaza activitists said the larger cardboard box contains a solar panel, donated by a Swedish magazine, ETC, which also runs an 'environmentally-friendly electricity company.' The panel was bound for Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City.

Ighe said the Swedish Association of Midwives also donated a nebulizer, a machine used to inhale medicines, often used to calm asthma attacks. That is the small cardboard box."

. . . .

My response to Mr. Baron:

Dear Martin,

First, thank you for getting back to me.

Mr. Booth writes in his new article:

"The Gaza activitists said the larger cardboard box contains a solar panel, donated by a Swedish magazine, ETC, which also runs an 'environmentally-friendly electricity company.' The panel was bound for Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City."

However, as reported by Tablet on July 29, 2014 regarding Al-Shifa Hospital:

"The idea that one of Hamas’ main command bunkers is located beneath Shifa Hospital in Gaza City is one of the worst-kept secrets of the Gaza war. So why aren’t reporters in Gaza ferreting it out? The precise location of a large underground bunker equipped with sophisticated communications equipment and housing some part of the leadership of a major terrorist organization beneath a major hospital would seem to qualify as a world-class scoop—the kind that might merit a Pulitzer, or at least a Polk.

So why isn’t the fact that Hamas uses Shifa Hospital as a command post making headlines? In part, it’s because the location is so un-secret that Hamas regularly meets with reporters there. On July 15, for example, William Booth of the Washington Post wrote that the hospital 'has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.' Back in 2006, PBS even aired a documentary showing how gunmen roam the halls of the hospital, intimidate the staff, and deny them access to protected locations within the building—where the camera crew was obviously prohibited from filming. Yet the confirmation that Hamas is using Gaza City’s biggest hospital as its de facto headquarters was made in the last sentence of the eighth paragraph of Booth’s story—which would appear to be the kind of rookie mistake that is known in journalistic parlance as 'burying the lede.'"

Or stated otherwise, the solar panel was intended for a building that serves not only as a hospital, but also as Hamas headquarters and a command center. This is "humanitarian aid"? Why didn't Mr. Booth refer in his second article to the dual function of the 'hospital'?"

Also, why did Mr. Booth accept the claims of the "Freedom Flotilla Coalition" in his first article without checking the facts?

In addition, his first article, claiming that Israel intercepted an "aid ship," was provided a homepage link. Was his second article also provided a homepage link?

Best wishes,
Jeffrey

Stay tuned . . .

Richard Kemp, "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous": Exposing the Bias of Mary McGowan Davis and the Times Editorial Board

Tweet

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The U.N.’s Gaza Report Is Flawed and Dangerous," Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, exposes the United Nations Human Rights Council report on last summer’s conflict in Gaza for what it is: tendentious trash commissioned to vilify Israel. Colonel Kemp writes (my emphasis in blue):

"The report is characterized by a lack of understanding of warfare. That is hardly surprising. Judge [Mary McGowan] Davis admitted, when I testified before her in February, that the commission, though investigating a war, had no military expertise. Perhaps that is why no attempt has been made to judge Israeli military operations against the practices of other armies. Without such international benchmarks, the report’s findings are meaningless.

The commission could have listened to Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last November that the I.D.F. [Israel Defense Forces] had taken extraordinary measures to try to limit civilian casualties. Or to a group of 11 senior military officers from seven nations, including the United States, Germany, Spain and Australia, who also investigated the Gaza conflict recently. I was a member of that group, and our report, made available to Judge Davis, said: 'None of us is aware of any army that takes such extensive measures as did the I.D.F. last summer to protect the lives of the civilian population.'

The report acknowledges that Israel took steps to warn of imminent attacks but suggests more should have been done to minimize civilian casualties. Yet it offers no opinion about what additional measures Israel could have taken. It even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices — the 'knock on the roof' — as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof-knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives.

Judge Davis suggests that the I.D.F.’s use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime and recommends further international legal restrictions on their use. Yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies."

Now compare Colonel Kemp's conclusions with those of The New York Times in a June 23 editorial entitled "War Crimes and the Gaza War" (my emphasis in red):

"The report is expected to serve as the basis for a fuller investigation into possible war crimes by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. It is unrealistic to expect Hamas, which the United States and other countries consider a terrorist group, to comply with international law or police itself. But Israel has a duty, and should have the desire, to adjust its military policies to avoid civilian casualties and hold those who failed to do so accountable."

Yes, the New York Times is every bit as biased and ignorant as the panel responsible for preparing the United Nations Gaza report. Needless to say, the Times failed to mention how the UNHRC, ever since it came into being, has consistently singled out Israel for censure. As observed by UN Watch:

"In the nine years of its existence, the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel more times than the rest of the world combined, revealed UN Watch today, ahead of a new report to be released by the Geneva-based NGO that documents endemic selectivity and politicization at the world body.

The outcome resolution for the latest Gaza report, to be introduced at the UNHRC this week by the Palestinians together with the Arab and Islamic states, will condemn Israel exclusively, and will mark the 62nd resolution targeting Israel since the new and improved Council was created in 2006 -- while the total of all other UNHRC condemnatory resolutions for the rest of the world amounts to 55, with most of the worst violators given a free pass, if not a seat on the council itself."

One can only wonder why the Times allowed Colonel Kemp to rebut its vacuous editorial.

Ernesto Londoño, "Israel’s Ludicrous Spoof of Western Journalists": Londoño's Ludicrous Opinion Piece

The New York Times's war against Israel continues.

In a "Taking Note" blog item entitled "Israel’s Ludicrous Spoof of Western Journalists," Ernesto Londoño, who left The Washington Post in 2014 to join the Times editorial board, today takes his best shot at Israel. Regrettably, poor Ernesto is pitifully far off the mark. Ernesto writes:

"The [Israeli Foreign Ministry] released an animated video depicting a clueless, blonde, American-accented television journalist reporting idiotically from the Gaza Strip as Hamas militants lurked in the background. The spoof echoes a longstanding claim by the Israeli government: that Western journalists reporting from Gaza are often biased against Israel and refrain from criticizing Hamas, the militant group that runs the occupied territory.

The majority of international journalists who report out of Gaza deliver nuanced, measured and indispensable coverage. They often do so at great personal risk. Covering asymmetrical conflicts as deadly as Israel’s campaigns against militants in Gaza, an occupied territory, is among the toughest work journalists do.

Juxtaposing the cartoon against the dispatches of Sherine Tadros, the stellar Sky News Middle East correspondent, or Quentin Sommerville of the B.B.C. makes Israel’s attempt at humor hard to swallow. Remembering the colleagues who have died reporting from Gaza makes it intolerable.

Israeli officials have a long history of unfairly maligning certain Western journalists. But recently, the government has become more aggressive as part of an effort to mend its reputation abroad."

However, as reported by Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli Arab whose knowledge of Gaza and the West Bank dwarfs that of Ernesto, in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Turning a Blind Eye to Hamas Atrocities":

"The problem is that foreign journalists who manage to cross into the Gaza Strip face many restrictions imposed by the Hamas government. Local facilitators hired by foreign journalists are also under scrutiny by the Hamas government. That is why they are careful not to bring the dirty laundry out by telling the foreign media about things that could reflect negatively on Hamas.

Many of the reports about what is happening in the Gaza Strip are written by journalists who sit in offices in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. Their reports are almost always based in what they are told by their local stringers and facilitators. Besides being exposed to intimidation, a large number of these locals are actually affiliated with Hamas and serve as the movement’s unofficial spokesmen.

Some foreign journalists justify their behavior by arguing that they are too scared to report anything that might anger Hamas. They express fear that they would not be able to return to the Gaza Strip if they published such stories."

More to the point, as reported in a July 2014 Algemeiner article entitled "Media Watchdog Asks Why WSJ Reporters Deleted Twitter Photos Implicating Hamas in War Crimes":

"Two reporters in Gaza for The Wall Street Journal have deleted photographs that implicate Hamas in war crimes, namely using the Al Shifa hospital as a military headquarters, and media watchdog CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, on Tuesday asked them why the posts were removed? So far, CAMERA has received no answers from the reporters or from their editors, but the group said the deleted posts might be further evidence of Hamas intimidating journalists."

And in another July 2014 Algemeiner article entitled "Italian Journalist Defies Hamas: ‘Out of Gaza Far From Hamas Retaliation: Misfired Rocket Killed Children in Shati’," we learn:

"Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati said he was able to speak freely about witnessing a Hamas misfire that killed nine children at the Shati camp, confirming the Israel Defense Forces version of events, but only after leaving Gaza, “far from Hamas retaliation.”

On Twitter, Barbati, Jerusalem Correspondent for Radio Popolare Milano, and a former reporter for Sky Italia, in Beijing, said, “Out of #Gaza far from #Hamas retaliation: misfired rocket killed children yday [yesterday] in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

He said, '@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not #Israel behind it.'"

What about Ernesto's claim, "Remembering the colleagues who have died reporting from Gaza makes it intolerable"? If you follow Ernesto's link, we learn that his "colleagues" were "an Italian videographer and a local Palestinian helping him with arrangements and translation, [who] were killed along with four members of Gaza’s unexploded-ordnance squad as they attempted to defuse what officials described as an Israeli bomb." Why was I expecting a much longer list of persons who died under different circumstances, i.e. during the actual fighting in the summer of 2014?

Concerning false reporting with respect to Israel by The Washington Post, where Ernesto previously worked, and The New York Times, where he is currently employed, Ernesto might want to have a gander at the following:

• "David Ignatius, "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters": A Flagrant Falsehood" (I forced WaPo to correct this opinion piece)
• "Fareed Zakaria, "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates": Fareed Again Fudges the Facts" (I forced WaPo to correct this opinion piece)
• "Second Open Letter to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times: Perpetuation of Falsehoods by Your Newspaper's Editorial Page" (false reporting by Jodi Rudoren, which was then repeated in a Thomas Freidman op-ed and a Times editorial)

And we haven't even touched upon the subject of anti-Semitism at The New York Times. If you have the time, Ernesto, you might want to begin by reading "Nicholas Kristof Retweets "OBAMA Told the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies, AIPAC & NRA, to Drop Dead in Same Month": Is Kristof an Anti-Semite?" and "Thomas Friedman, "Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir": Israel Doesn't Need Your Love."

Western reporting with regard to Israel has been far worse than "ludicrous," but thanks for your two cents, Ernesto.

Hagai El-Ad, "Israel’s Charade of Democracy": More Anti-Israel Balderdash From The New York Times

As I noted less than two weeks ago in response to a guest New York Times op-ed by Henry Seigman: "You wish to publish a guest New York Times op-ed? If you're Jewish and prepared to vilify Israel, your chances will improve immeasurably." Well, in the event that you require additional proof of this postulate, Hagai El-Ad , executive director of B’Tselem, provides the goods in a guest Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Charade of Democracy," which he begins by observing:

"Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is nearing the half-century mark, and Israel’s new right-wing government offers little hope of ending it. Nevertheless, the new government promises something else of value: clarity. And with that clarity, the opportunity to challenge the prolonged lie of the occupation’s 'temporary' status. For if the occupation has become permanent in all but its name, what about the voting rights of Palestinians?

. . . .

To be sure, after the Oslo accords were signed in 1993, Palestinians in the occupied territories got to cast ballots for some institutions of their own. But Palestinian independence never came to pass, and the interim partial autonomy established in its stead underscored how 'temporariness' is abused while ultimate control remains with Israel."

Okay, Palestinians in Gaza, from which Israel withdrew entirely in 2005, and the West Bank do not participate in Israeli elections. However, Hagai fails to mention that Palestinians in Gaza brought Hamas into power in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Hamas, which is listed by the US government as a foreign terrorist organization, has, ever since that time, refused to hold new elections in Gaza. On the other hand, Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis) has taken responsibility for orchestrating hundreds of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians and for firing thousands of rockets at Israeli towns and cities.

As for the West Bank, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is now in his eleventh year of his four-year term in office. Needless to say, Abbas also has no interest in future elections in the West Bank which could jeopardize Fatah's hold on power.

Also, no mention by El-Ad that Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Israel's "charade" of democracy? Spare me . . .

Nicholas Kristof, "Winds of War in Gaza": Selective Reporting as Usual

Nicholas Kristof is back to his old tricks. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Winds of War in Gaza," Kristof writes (my emphasis in red):

"The suffering [in Gaza] has multiple causes. Israel sustains a siege that amounts to economic warfare on an entire population. Hamas provokes Israel, squanders resources and is brutal and oppressive in its own right. Egypt has closed smuggling tunnels that used to relieve the stranglehold, and it mostly keeps its border with Gaza closed. The 1.8 million Gazans are on their own, and one step forward should be international pressure on Israel and Egypt to ease the blockade."

This is the only mention of "tunnels" in Kristof's opinion piece. Needless to say, Kristof fails to point out that Hamas used much of the cement that was imported from Israel in recent years to build a vast network of tunnels extending into Israel, which was used for terrorist infiltration during the last war.

Ease the blockade? Allow more cement and steel into Gaza to build new tunnels and thousands of more rockets to attack Israeli civilians? Take a hike, Nick!

Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir, "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza": Thanksgiving Israel-Bashing From The New York Times

In yet another Israel-bashing New York Times op-ed entitled "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza," Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir write:

"Palestinians under Israeli occupation need a police force to maintain internal law and order, but one that is accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community."

Their conclusion:

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights."

The Palestinian police must be "accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community"? Palestinians must "have their basic rights"? Fascinating. And just what do the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza want?

As reported by the Pew Research Center in April 2013:

• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "favor making sharia the official law in their country."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 84 percent "favor stoning as a punishment for adultery."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 66 percent "favor the death penalty for converts."
• 40 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say suicide bombing in defense of Islam is often/sometimes justified."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong."
• 44 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "honor killings" are "never justified" when a "female committed the offense."
• 87 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband."
• 33 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say a wife should be able to divorce her husband."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "Islam alone" leads to heaven.
• 82 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "converting others is a religious duty."

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights"? Given the findings of the Pew Research Center, perhaps Amrov and Tartir should have delineated just what those basic rights are. They obviously don't apply to women or homosexuals, and a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe that suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified, even if it deprives others of their "basic rights."

But heck, this isn't what New York Times readers want to know while gobbling their turkey and stuffing.

Washington Post Editorial, "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane": Remember Kobani!

As the Islamic State brings up reinforcements and the fate of the Kurdish city of Kobani hangs in the balance, where are President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry?

Two days ago, Obama attended a Democratic fundraiser in Hollywood. As reported in a TMZ article entitled "Gwyneth Paltrow Celebrity Event Sullies Presidency":

"The idiocy of Hollywood was in full bloom Thursday night when Gwyneth Paltrow turned an already-embarrassing Hollywood fundraiser into 'The Dating Game.'

Paltrow -- who hosted the event at her Brentwood home -- gushed as she introduced President Obama, 'You're so handsome that I can't speak properly.'

She then showed utter ignorance about, and contempt for, the Constitution and separation of powers -- the basic tenets of our government -- by saying, 'It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.'"

And Kerry? He is jetting off tonight to an equally embarrassing fundraiser for Gaza in Cairo.

Is anyone paying attention to the antics of Obama and Kerry? Apparently, The Washington Post is awakening from its slumber. In a blistering editorial entitled "U.S. is complicit as it blames Turkey for the catastrophe in Kobane," WaPo hammers the Obama administration for effectively aiding Syria's monstrous Assad regime while worsening "conditions for his victims in towns held by moderate rebels who, in theory, enjoy U.S. backing." Lambasting Obama's "strategy" (Does he have one?) as "incoherent as well as morally questionable," the editorial says of an emerging catastrophe in Kobani:

"But the White House seems as uninterested as ever in truly helping the moderates. Easier just to blame the Turks."

Remember the Alamo? Perhaps on November 4, American voters will remember Kobani.

New York Times Editorial, "Having to Rebuild Gaza, Again": The US State Department Again Has Its Facts Wrong

Remarkably, in an editorial entitled "Having to Rebuild Gaza, Again," The New York Times avoids remonstrating against Israel. Questioning the wisdom of providing billions of dollars to rebuild Gaza "just so it can be destroyed in the next war," the Times observes with regard to a donor conference to be held in Cairo on Sunday:

"Israel has a right to insist that Gaza not be used as a launchpad for attacks against Israelis.

. . . .

The only long-term answer to a destructive militant group like Hamas is to empower moderates and give Palestinians hope of a constructive future that could, in time, include a comprehensive peace settlement leading to an independent state."

However, the editorial also mistakenly states:

"Since 2007, when Hamas seized control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, Israel and Egypt have enforced a draconian blockade that restricts the flow of people and goods in and out of Gaza. While the goal is to squeeze Hamas, innocent people have paid a much bigger price."

A "draconian blockade"? In fact, prior to Sisi becoming president of Egypt in 2014, anything and everything, including new cars and long-range missiles, flowed through the hundreds of tunnels leading into southern Gaza. Shipments of cement and steel into Gaza from Israel were of course diverted into the construction of an attack tunnel system intended to be used to infiltrate Israeli border communities.

Who will be representing the United States at the Cairo donor conference? None other than Secretary of State John Kerry, who demanded that Israel accept Turkish and Qatari mediation during the recent Gaza conflict. (Kerry is obviously not concerned if Kurdish-held Kobani falls to the Islamic State during the course of his trip.) In a Voice of America article entitled "Kerry to Cairo for Talks With Abbas on Gaza Reconstruction," Scott Stearns writes:

"Senior State Department officials traveling with Secretary Kerry say the priority here is to address the immediate needs of the people of Gaza, where fighting destroyed the only power plant."

However, as reported by Middle East Monitor in a September 14 article entitled "Gaza's only power plant ready to work pending fuel supply":

"The only power plant in Gaza is now ready to work pending the delivery of fuel supply needed to operate it, CEO of Gaza Electricity Company Walid Sayel said in a press conference Saturday."

Kerry's State Department again has its facts wrong? What a surprise! I have asked the Voice of America for a correction. Let's see if they bother answering.

Thomas Friedman, "Order vs. Disorder, Part 4": What About Containment of Iran's Nuclear Weapons Development Program?

Is it possible for anyone to discuss "containment" in the Middle East without referring to Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons? Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman manages to do so.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Order vs. Disorder, Part 4," Friedman would have us know that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the wider East-West clash of civilizations what Off Broadway is to Broadway." Claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict allows us to "see many trends at a smaller scale first," Tom claims that the United States is now "heading" toward "containment" of the Islamic State, in much the same way that Israel seeks to contain Hamas. His conclusion:

"In short, containment in both theaters is necessary but not sufficient for long-term stability. But, unlike the Cold War where our containment strategy was largely the product of like-minded democracies working to liberate like-minded people from a bad system, in the Middle East, we have few like-minded partners.

The most we can hope for are 'least bad' allies and 'least bad' outcomes. In today’s Middle East, least bad is the new good."

"Not sufficient for long-term stability"? Friedman doesn't mention that there is a population explosion in the Muslim Middle East that does not allow for "long-term stability." As stated in a Washington Post article by Max Fisher entitled "How the world’s populations are changing, in one map":

"The Arab Middle East has been experiencing a very significant youth bulge over the last few years, meaning that an unusually large share of the population is young people. That's been problematic because when large numbers of young people hit working age at the same time, the Middle Eastern economies aren't able to provide enough jobs."

Gaza? Toward the end of 1967, its population was under 400,000. Today, its population has reached 1.8 million, and it is expected to reach 2.1 million by 2020. Achieve long-term stability given this trend? Good luck.

But more to the point, how can Friedman talk about "containment" in the Middle East without referring to Iran's nuclear program? You will recall that Obama declared two years ago at the United Nations:

"Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Remarkably, during his speech at the United Nations last week, Obama dropped all the threatening language when referring to Iran:

"America is pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue, as part of our commitment to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and pursue the peace and security of a world without them. And this can only take place if Iran seizes this historic opportunity. My message to Iran’s leaders and people has been simple and consistent: Do not let this opportunity pass. We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful."

Obama created a stir when he acknowledged that the US did not have a strategy for dealing with the Islamic State. Question: Does Obama have a strategy for dealing with Iran when the November 24 negotiations deadline arrives without an agreement to curtail Supreme Leader Khamenei's nuclear weapons development program?

I doubt it.

Ron Prosor, "Club Med for Terrorists": What About the US Arms Sale to Qatar Totaling $11 Billion?

Earlier this month, I submitted an opinion piece to The Washington Post entitled "Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco." I observed Qatar's links to radical Islamic organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State, alternatively known as ISIL or ISIS. In addition, I noted the Obama administration's demand that Israel accept Qatari mediation of the Gaza conflict, coming on the heels of the July sale by the US of $11 billion of arms (including 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Qatar.

What use does a nation the size of Connecticut with a population of 2 million have for so many anti-tank missiles? None. You know as well as I do where these missiles will be headed.

Last Wednesday, the same day on which I was notified by WaPo that they were not interested in my opinion piece, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. Of course, Merkel is unwilling to take a position with respect to these allegations directed against the world's richest country per capita.

Today, in a guest opinion piece entitled "Club Med for Terrorists," Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, asks that the world tell Qatar to stop financing Hamas. Prosor writes:

"In recent years, the sheikhs of Doha, Qatar’s capital, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza. Every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that read 'Made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar.'

. . . .

[Qatar] harbors leading Islamist radicals like the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a religious fatwa endorsing suicide attacks, and the Doha-based history professor Abdul Rahman Omeir al-Naimi, whom the United States Department of Treasury has named as a 'terrorist financier' for Al Qaeda. Qatar also funds a life of luxury for Khaled Meshal, the fugitive leader of Hamas."

No mention, however, by Prosor of the July sale by the United States of $11 billion of advanced armaments to Qatar. Why no mention? Perhaps given Israel's current difficult relationship with the Obama administration, he didn't wish to pour fuel on the fire.

Me? I don't need to be diplomatic. The sale of these weapons to Qatar by the Obama administration is nothing less than an obscenity.

Is Mohammed Deif, Head of Hamas's Military Wing, Dead?

According to Fox News, Israeli intelligence believes that Mohammed Deif, head of Hamas's military wing, was killed in an air strike on Gaza this morning.

Why do I believe this is a reasonable assumption? The body of a man was pulled from the rubble, but his identity has not been disclosed by Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas has disclosed that Deif's wife and son were killed in the air strike.

In addition, Israel used a bunker bomb on the house. The IDF would not waste a bunker bomb unless it had a high degree of confidence that Deif was in the house.

Moreover, Hamas has responded to the attack with unaccustomed rage - a record 168 rockets fired at Israel on Wednesday - and even shot two missiles at an Israeli offshore gas installation 19 miles from Gaza.

Stay tuned.

A Must View (Pat Condell) and a Must Read (Response to Lancet Article)

I apologize for ignoring the blog in recent days. The Washington Post offered me the opportunity to submit an op-ed, and I have been busy preparing a draft, which was sent off today. Let's see what they decide to do with it.

Meanwhile, have a look at Pat Condell's video, "Hypocrisy over Gaza":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?sns=em&v=_Ugsv5u-sW0&app=desktop

Also, carefully read the response of Qanta Ahmed, Alon Y Avidan, Aaron Ciechanover, Daniel Shechtman, Daniel Zajfman, Uriel Reichman, Roger Kornberg, Avram Hershko and Peretz Lavie to a Lancet article:

http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673614613143.pdf

There is still hope, sanity and intelligence in this world.

Obama Withholds Arms From Israel

Wow, what a day!

First, The Washington Post, in its lead online article entitled "Obama administration shows little urgency for stemming Islamic State violence" by Greg Jaffe and Greg Miller, is telling us that "the Obama administration’s response to the [Islamic State]’s blitzkrieg through northern Iraq has been defined primarily by the limits it has placed on the U.S. military’s intervention." Or stated otherwise, the US air force attack on ISIL militants besieging tens of thousands of Yazidis seeking refuge on Sinjar Mountain, amounted to pure cosmetics, intended to deflect criticism from a neo-isolationist Barack Obama, vacationing in Martha's Vineyard.

And now, we are being told by The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled "Israel Outflanks White House in Pressing Gaza Strategy" by Adam Entous that the Obama administration is withholding arms shipments to Israel:

"The Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, or DSCA, was about to release an initial batch of the Hellfires, according to Israeli and congressional officials. It was immediately put on hold by the Pentagon, and top officials at the White House instructed the DSCA, the U.S. military's European Command and other agencies to consult with policy makers at the White House and the State Department before approving any additional requests."

Yes, America's president is seeking revenge after Netanyahu refused to agree to Obama's demand that Israel allow Qatar and Turkey, the world's leading backers of Hamas, to mediate the Gaza conflict.

It doesn't matter that the US has just signed a deal to supply Qatar with $11 billion of arms. After all, Obama needs to show Israel who is the boss during this time of crisis.

We are also hearing that the US plans to provide the Lebanese army with weapons.

I suppose it was only a matter of time. With less than two and a half years until he departs the Oval Office, Obama, a petulant leftist in moderate's clothing, has decided that he can play golf to his heart's content while ISIL threatens America's Kurdish allies in Iraq, and that he can withhold arms from Israel while it is at war with Hamas.

Can it get any worse? Absolutely.

Ronen Bergman, "How Hamas Beat Israel in Gaza": Yeah, Right

Yes, The New York Times remains intent upon disparaging Israel, also as regards its current conflict with Hamas.

Last month, The New York Times published a guest op-ed by a young man named Nathan Thrall (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/nathan-thrall-how-west-chose-war-in.html), who would have us believe that Israel, with the help of Egypt and the West, brought the current war with Hamas upon itself. However, Thrall's risible essay failed to mention:

• The Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

• Past suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by Hamas operatives (425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, which killed 377 and wounded 2,076).

• The thousands of rockets fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the course of more than a decade.

Thrall did, of course, repeat Obama's declaration that the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable."

Today, in furtherance of its agenda, The New York Times has published a guest op-ed entitled "How Hamas Beat Israel in Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opinion/how-hamas-beat-israel-in-gaza.html) by 42-year-old Ronen Bergman, who would have us believe:

• "Hamas was dictating the duration of the conflict by repeatedly refusing cease-fires. Furthermore, it preserved its capability of firing rockets and missiles at most of Israel’s territory, despite the immense effort the Israeli Air Force invested in knocking out launch sites."

• "Hamas also waged an urban campaign against Israeli ground forces, inflicting at least five times as many casualties as in the last conflict and successfully used tunnels to penetrate Israeli territory and sow fear and demoralization. It made Israel pay a heavy price and the I.D.F. eventually withdrew its ground troops from Gaza without a cease-fire."

• "Israeli leaders have now set the demilitarization of Gaza as one of their goals. But it’s difficult to picture how this could be achieved."

Hamas has dictated the duration of the conflict and has preserved its capability of firing rockets and missiles? Rubbish. In recent days, the number of rockets fired against Israel has declined, and we are no longer seeing intense rocket barrages aimed at the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Beersheva.

Moreover, Hamas has now agreed to a 72-hour-ceasefire. Hamas had previously insisted that it would agree to such a truce only if Israel first agreed to "end its eight-year siege on the Gaza Strip, release dozens of prisoners whom Israel has re-arrested that were released in 2011 as part of the Shalit exchange, [and agree to] the re-opening of a seaport and airport in Gaza, and the creation of a safe passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=718980). What happened to Hamas's demands?

Israel is demoralized? Spare me. Israel was demoralized during and after the War of Atonement (Bergman was a one-year-old toddler at the time), and Israel was demoralized after the Sabra and Shatila massacre (Bergman was 10 at the time). However, as recently acknowledged by none other than Barack Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “poll numbers are a lot higher than mine” and “were greatly boosted by the war in Gaza”  (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0).

It's difficult to picture how demilitarization of Gaza can be achieved? Well, Bergman might first wish to acknowledge the Gaza has suffered some $6 billion in damages owing to the current round of fighting, and there is no way that Gaza will ever recover unless European donor countries urgently send funds. Will Europe again send funds to rebuild Gaza without asking that Hamas stop using the money for missiles and tunnels? Stay tuned.

Certainly, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not willing to transfer money to Hamas's account, and Hamas's rift with Iran has not been healed.

And notwithstanding Hamas's efforts to make the world believe that all the dead in Gaza consisted of civilians, we are beginning to learn that close to 1,000 of the dead were militants and Hamas officials. Needless to say, this number does not include the 160 children who died building the tunnels, or those who were executed by Hamas to prevent them from divulging their locations (see: http://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-said-to-have-executed-dozens-of-tunnel-diggers/).

Mind you, I am not saying that there will be no Israeli commissions of inquiry following the conflict. Israel was not prepared for the tunnels, the IDF made the mistake of using antiquated personnel carriers, and mortar fire from Gaza exacted too many IDF casualties. But to claim that "Hamas beat Israel"? Yeah, right.

Adania Shibli, "Separated by Israel, Palestinians are forgetting how to stand together": Distorting the Facts

In a guest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Separated by Israel, Palestinians are forgetting how to stand together" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/separated-by-israel-palestinians-are-forgetting-how-to-stand-together/2014/08/08/ab3ab1fa-16a3-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html?hpid=z3&wp_login_redirect=0), Adania Shibli, a visiting professor at Birzeit University’s Institute of Women’s Studies and Cultural Studies Department, writes:

"What used to be an open space where people could travel freely between all the Palestinian areas, and even into the Israeli areas, has been divided into four zones, with connections between them controlled by more than 500 checkpoints and roadblocks and a wall 26 feet high."

Peculiar. In fact the West Bank separation barrier, intended to keep suicide bombers out of Israel, is only 10 percent "wall," meant to prevent terrorists from shooting into Israel, and 90 percent "fence." Moreover, as of February 2014, there were only 13 West Bank checkpoints, whose use is dependent upon the security situation at any given time (http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2013/05/06/reality-check-the-truth-behind-crossings-in-judea-and-samaria/).

Apparently unbeknownst to Shibli, there is also a separation fence between the US and Mexico, to prevent Mexicans from crossing the border and seeking work. Mexicans are not trying to blow themselves up and kill innocent American civilians.

But why should the facts get in the way of Shibli's propaganda opinion piece?

White House Spokesman Josh Earnest: Not Appropriate for Hamas to Restore Rocket Fire

As just reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-32-hamas-warns-that-without-deal-on-harbor-itll-resume-attacks-friday/):

"White House Spokesman Josh Earnest sounded a cautious note today, saying that the White House 'did not believe it was appropriate for Hamas to restore rocket fire' in a tempered response to the reescalation of violence between Israel and Gaza."

Guess what, Josh? Firing rockets at civilian population centers is more than inappropriate. It's a war crime.

I never thought it possible that I could miss Jay Carney.

Consider also what, again according to The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-33-us-hopes-for-new-gaza-truce-in-coming-hours-livni-submits-plan-to-end-conflict/), US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf had to tell reporters today:

"What Hamas did today in its decision to resume rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk."

Hamas rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk? True, we are being informed by the Israel Defense Forces, that 20 percent of the rockets fired by Hamas on Friday fell on Gaza, but apparently Harf also has a problem declaring that rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilian population centers is a war crime.

Let there be no mistake about it: Obama & Co. are not friends of Israel.

New York Times Editorial, "Making the Gaza Cease-Fire Last": Who Writes This Rubbish?

In an editorial entitled "Making the Gaza Cease-Fire Last" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/opinion/making-the-gaza-cease-fire-last.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times would have us know:

"There seems to be little room left in Israeli politics for those who would end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and create an independent Palestinian state."

Remarkably, The New York Times is unaware that Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005.

"Little room left in Israeli politics for those who would end the occupation of the West Bank"? Nonsense. On the other hand, Israelis are painfully aware of the danger posed by the introduction of advanced weapons systems into the West Bank, and almost all would insist on the demilitarization of a future Palestinian state.

Regarding casualties, the Times writes:

"More than 1,800 Palestinians, a majority of them noncombatants, and 67 Israelis have been killed. United Nations officials said 408 Palestinian children were killed and 2,502 injured."

The basis for these numbers? Regarding the number of Palestinian dead, the Times refers us to a Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias&) that informs us, "Through last Thursday, according to a New York Times analysis of a list provided by the Health Ministry, more than a third were women, children under 15 or men over 60." Or in other words, according to the Gazan Health Ministry, i.e. Hamas, two-thirds of the dead were males between the ages of 15 and 60. If this is indeed the case, Israeli attacks could not have been indiscriminate.

Moreover, these numbers do not take into account Palestinian women and children who attacked Israeli troops with bombs strapped to their bodies (see, for example: http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/07/25/idf-troops-foil-female-suicide-bombing-attack/).

The Times also doesn't mention that Palestinian fatalities include Palestinians executed by Hamas for allegedly assisting the Israeli Defense Forces.

And of course, no mention by the Times of the 160 children, not included in these numbers, who died digging Hamas's tunnels.

The Times writes:

"In too many cases, Israel launched weapons that hit schools and shelters and failed to adequately protect Palestinian citizens."

Of course, no mention by the Times that Hamas stored weapons in UN facilities and fired rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques. Also no mention by the Times of attempts by the Israeli military to warn civilians of impending strikes, e.g., "roof knocking," pamphlets and direct phone calls.

The Times continues:

"Both sides are claiming victory, Israel for wiping out 32 underground tunnels that Hamas intended for attacks on Israel.

. . . .

The bottom line is that neither side has achieved its main goal of destroying the other."

Unbeknownst to the Times, the goal of the Israeli operation was never to destroy Hamas, but rather to stop the missile fire and to eliminate the threat of planned cross-border raids by Hamas to kidnap Israeli civilians from surrounding agricultural communities. Although the Israeli Defense Forces cannot be certain that the goal of neutralizing the tunnels was achieved in its entirety, much of the tunnel network leading into Israel was certainly destroyed.

Perhaps we should be grateful that the Times editorial ultimately acknowledges, "It may be necessary to have Hamas in Cairo, but the group offers Palestinians nothing except nihilism and endless suffering."

[I sent an email to Andrew Rosenthal, indicating the factual inaccuracy concerning Israel's alleged "occupation" of Gaza. Do you think I'll hear back from him? Not holding my breath.]

Thomas Friedman, "Dear Guests": Wrong Again

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Dear Guests" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-revelations-in-the-gaza-war.html?ref=opinion), subtitled "Revelations in the Gaza War," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman concludes:

"Here is where Israel does have a choice. Its reckless Jewish settlement project in the West Bank led it into a strategy of trying to keep the moderate Palestinian Authority there weak and Hamas in Gaza even weaker. The only way Israel can hope to stabilize Gaza is if it empowers the Palestinian Authority to take over border control in Gaza, but that will eventually require making territorial concessions in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, because it will not act as Israel’s policeman for free. This is crunchtime. Either Arab and Israeli moderates collaborate and fight together, or the zealots really are going to take over this neighborhood. Please do not return to your routines."

A "reckless Jewish settlement project in the West Bank"? Apparently unbeknownst to Friedman, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has acknowledged that Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484). But why should Friedman concern himself with facts? They only get in the way of his opinions.

The Palestinian Authority "will not act as Israel’s policeman for free"? Oh really? Again, unbeknownst to Friedman, this is exactly what the PA has been doing in the West Bank vis-a-vis Hamas over the past several years. Why? Some five years ago, Palestinian Authority President Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas since that time, and this logic, premised upon survival and the suppression of his Hamas rivals, still guides Abbas, who is in the tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Then, too, there was the bloody June 2007 Battle of Gaza between Hamas and Fatah. Revenge is a particularly strong motivating force in the Middle East, and Abbas has not forgotten the humiliating dissolution of his unity government and the ouster of Fatah from Gaza.

Yes, I know: Yasser Abed Rabbo, an advisor to Abbas, a few days ago told Friedman that "The Palestinian Authority has no intention of becoming Israel’s policeman in the West Bank and in Gaza for free" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-how-this-war-ends.html), and if Yasser Abed Rabbo told Friedman this, it must be true.

Sorry, Tom, it isn't.

Roger Cohen, "Start With Gaza": The Master of Moral Equivalence

Roger Cohen's journalistic ethics? Perhaps you recall how Cohen, in 2009, was busy visiting Tehran and seeking to convince us that Iran is "not totalitarian." You might also recall how Cohen paid $150 a day for a translator, who was reporting back to the Iranian authorities (http://www.jta.org/2009/03/16/news-opinion/united-states/roger-cohen-spars-with-iranian-jewish-expats). I don't recall that he ever mentioned these payments to his New York Times readers.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Start With Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/roger-cohen-start-with-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Cohen again begins by telling us:

"In Gaza, an open-air prison for 1.8 million people, more than 300 children are dead, killed in the almost month-long Israeli bombardment. Each of those children has a name, a family. Several were killed in the recent shelling of a United Nations school, an act that the United States called 'disgraceful.' The many civilian casualties in Gaza cannot be waved away as the 'human shields' of Hamas. They were not human shields; they were human beings. When the guns die down, Israel will begin a difficult accounting."

Cohen then says that Hamas is "criminal." Or in other words, Israel is bad and so is Hamas.

Gaza is an "open-air prison for 1.8 million people"? Cohen again (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/roger-cohen-why-americans-see-israel.html) fails to mention that Gaza's current population of 1.8 million was some 300,000 in 1967 after Israel occupied Gaza during the Six Day War (Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005). Needless to say, the main reason Gaza is so crowded is that Gazans have been very busy having children. Then, too, life expectancy in Gaza of 74.64 years, according to the CIA World Factbook, is considerably higher than life expectancy in Turkey amounting to 73.29 years.

Cohen doesn't tell us about Gaza's eight universities and colleges, or its gourmet restaurants (e.g., "Roots"), or its 5-star hotel ("The al-Mashtal"). And then there was also the "Crazy Water Park," which was burned down by Hamas, because Hamas didn't want men and women intermingling.

Cohen also fails to note that the border between Israel and Gaza was not always closed. It was shut down after suicide bombers, sent into Israel from Gaza and the West Bank, killed more than 1,000 Israeli civilians. By the same token, Cohen ignores the more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds that were fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities prior to the current war.

Have a look at a video filmed a few days ago by an Indian television news crew from NDTV of this horrifying "open-air prison":



Does the residential area surrounding the rocket launching site look like an "open-air prison" to you? But why should that bother Cohen? The facts only get in the way of his fanciful story.

The recent shelling near (not "of") a United Nations school was deemed by the United States "disgraceful"? Cohen doesn't mention that three Islamic Jihad operatives were killed in the attack. He also doesn't tell us anything about civilian casualties resulting from US drone attacks. As observed in a May 2014 Huffington Post article entitled "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html) by Matt Sledge:

"Obama recently told The New Yorker that he 'wrestle[s]' with civilian casualties. But, he said, he has 'a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans -- killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes.'

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed."

Am I to understand that the Israeli government does not have a "solemn duty and responsibility" to keep the Israeli people safe?

Yes, Cohen is revolting.

Mark Landler, "U.S. Diplomacy on Gaza Has Little Sway on Israel": In fact, Obama Has "Little Sway" Anywhere

The impotence of Barack Obama, the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval office, is the topic of a telling New York Times article entitled "U.S. Diplomacy on Gaza Has Little Sway on Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/world/middleeast/gaza-is-straining-us-ties-to-israel.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0) by Mark Landler. Landler begins by observing:

"When the State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza on Sunday, saying it was 'appalled' by this 'disgraceful' act, it gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government.

The blunt, unsparing language — among the toughest diplomats recall ever being aimed at Israel — lays bare a frustrating reality for the Obama administration: the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has largely dismissed diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the violence in Gaza, leaving American officials to seethe on the sidelines about what they regard as disrespectful treatment."

"Appalling"? "Disgraceful"? It is "appalling" that US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki never spent a week in the southern Israeli town of Sderot and learned what it means to take cover from incoming rockets within 15 seconds. It is "disgraceful" that Psaki failed to take into account that during the current conflict, Hamas has been firing rockets, stored in UN facilities, from schools, hospitals and mosques.

Psaki's outburst was indeed the product of frustration within the Obama administration. Just over a week ago, Obama demanded that Israel agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire, coupled with mediation from Qatar and Turkey, Hamas's principal backers. Obama told Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister had no choice in choosing meditators. Netanyahu ignored Obama, and Landler goes on to tell us why Obama was not able to have his way:

"And yet, with public opinion in both Israel and the United States solidly behind the Israeli military’s campaign against Hamas, no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors, and unstinting support for Israel on Capitol Hill, President Obama has had few obvious levers to force Mr. Netanyahu to stop pounding targets in Gaza until he was ready to do it."

However, Landler fails to explain why public opinion in Israel has so staunchly supported the Israel Defense Forces campaign, or why there has been "no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors."

In fact, the Israeli public is painfully aware of the threat presented by Hamas. Hamas has sought to wage asymmetric war against Israel, but owing to the effectiveness of Iron Dome, rockets fired from Gaza have caused relatively little damage. On the other hand, the rockets did succeed in causing the US FAA to ban flights to Israel, thus effectively undermining Israeli commerce. Of greater significance, Hamas tunnels leading into Israel could have led to a spate of kidnappings and ensuing blackmail. Israel could not live with this threat, which had been ignored by the Israeli military establishment, and which inevitably will be the subject of future commissions of inquiry.

"No outcry from Israel's neighbors"? Egypt's Sisi and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah view Hamas as part and parcel of a radical Sunni threat to their regimes emanating from ISIL, and were incensed when Kerry sought to freeze them out of the negotiating process. Sisi and Abdullah would be delighted to see Hamas eradicated. Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, also took umbrage when he was not invited to attend the peace conference in Paris convened by Kerry. Nice work, John.

Mr. Landler concludes his article by observing the Obama administration's fury at Israel for calling into question Kerry's motives:

"'I cannot for the life of me understand why the Israelis would do this to Kerry,' said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. 'If it was designed to pressure us, I don’t know to what end.'"

I have news for that anonymous "senior administration official": It was Kerry who put the gun to Israel's head by demanding that Israel agree to a cessation of hostilities without allowing Israel to destroy the tunnels and with the appointment of Qatar and Turkey as mediators.

But more to the point, no one is taking Obama seriously these days. In a Huffington Post article entitled "Stung By Criticism, Obama Preps Sweeping Defense Of His Foreign Policy Approach" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/24/obama-foreign-policy_n_5386471.html), Steve Holland noted:

"The president has come under withering fire in recent months for what his critics say is a passive approach to foreign policy, one that has allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to flex his muscle in Ukraine, and left the Syrian civil war to fester and China to threaten its neighbors in the South China Sea."

And so it happened that Obama, who could not stand up to tyrants and bullies and whose red lines have been drawn with washable crayons, sought to vent his frustrations against a long-standing friend in the Middle East.

Sickening.