On Friday, several sources reported that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had “admitted” that the State of Israel faces unfair treatment at the United Nations. The European Jewish Press reported that in a meeting with students in Jerusalem, Ban replied to a participant’s question saying “Unfortunately, because of the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, Israel’s been weighed down by criticism and suffered from bias—and sometimes even discrimination.”
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (L) shakes hands with Vuk Jeremic, President of the General Assembly, while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (R) watches on November 29, 2012 at U.N. headquarters in New York. (Henny Ray Abrams / AFP / Getty Images)
We on the left don’t often like to bring it up, but it’s the truth: Israel is often singled out for behavior that goes along unmentioned in other countries, often in much greater measure. Resolutions condemning Israel carry a nearly ritualistic quality at this point, yet blatant human rights abuses in other countries in the region (Saudi Arabia comes to mind) and around the world (China, anyone?) often appear to barely register on the official U.N. radar. The ongoing brutality in Syria provides an unfortunately apt example: While many member states have clearly wanted to take a stronger stand all along, for others the mere notion of harsh language was a bridge too far.
And that is wrong. That is wrong, and unfair, and frankly unhelpful to anyone wanting to build genuine, lasting peace anywhere in the world, not least Israel/Palestine.
Amongst the guests to Shimon Peres’s birthday extravaganza was the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame. As leaders of countries that experienced national renewal in the shadow of genocide, the two presidents have much to celebrate as well as mourn. Both Israel and Rwanda live under the signpost of "Never Again," borne by the figure of the survivor amidst memorials of bone and ash. As Rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes in the Jerusalem Post, Israel and Rwanda have "the weight of the world upon them."
President of the Republic of Rwandan Paul Kagame (2L) and his wife Jeannette (L), Israeli President Shimon Peres (3R) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2R) and his wife Sara (R) attend Peres's 90th birthday celebrations in Jerusalem, on June 18, 2013. (Jim Hollander / AFP / Getty Images)
For Benjamin Netanyahu and Kagame, this weight will always be measured on the scales of genocide, whether it is the threat of Iran or the incursions from the eastern Congo. "It makes me mad," says Kagame, "when I think about what was done to my people and how Rwanda is misunderstood for protecting itself."
The mutual lessons go beyond the problems of Hasbara, the art of excusing my violence over yours. The symmetries are everywhere, rooted in a politics of vigilante nationalism that reads every conflict as a potential apocalypse. In Rwanda, this collective trauma has been addressed through a process of reconciliation, one which also gives instruction for the challenge of turning weapons into ploughshares.
I remember talking, years ago, to an official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) about Samantha Power. Everyone praises her activism against genocide, the official noted. But empowering international institutions to punish human rights offenders could make Israeli military action more difficult. His bottom line: “She’s not good on our issue.”
Our issue? I agreed back then (and still do) that given Israel’s democratic credentials, no international body should treat its leaders the way it treats Slobodan Milosevic or Omar al-Bashir. Still, in my naivete, I was surprised to hear a Jewish official suggest that protecting human rights—especially against genocide—is not a Jewish concern.
A man looks at bodies laid out in a make shift morgue after Egyptian security forces stormed two huge protest camps at the Rabaa al-Adawiya and Al-Nahda squares where supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi were camped, in Cairo, on August 14, 2013. (Mosa'ab El Shamy / AFP / Getty Images)
I’m not surprised anymore. Look at the way prominent American Jewish groups have whitewashed last week’s massacre of Muslim Brotherhood supporters by Egypt’s military. In its summary of events, AIPAC at times suggested that both sides were equally culpable for the violence. (“Despite rapidly escalating violence between military forces and Muslim Brotherhood Morsi-backers, neither side seems to be wavering in its quest for political control.”) At others, it actually suggested that the Brotherhood bears most of the blame. (“The call for renewed [Brotherhood] demonstrations threatens to bring more bloody confrontation in the streets. Meanwhile, reports Thursday suggested that up to 17 churches were burned by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood across Egypt.”)
The Israel Project, a group “dedicated to informing the media…on issues affecting Israel, the Jewish people and America’s interests in the Middle East” (and run by AIPAC’s former press secretary), was even more misleading, titling a blog post: “Egyptian Govt Calls On Morsi Supporters to End Violence, as Islamists Burn Down Scores of Christian Churches and Homes.” While noting that the military has imposed a state of emergency, the Israel Project notes that this is “not particularly uncommon in Egypt.”
Read the rest of this column here.
A former Israeli military officer gains prominence and rises to be Prime Minister. During his first term, he ignores gestures towards peace and is labeled a hawk. But in a later term, under American pressure, he stuns his base and risks political isolation with substantial gestures towards peace. At first glance, this sounds like the political trajectory of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Interestingly, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may be following a similar path.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he delivers a speech on June 5, 2013, at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem. (Gali Tibbon / AFP / Getty Images)
Ariel Sharon began his political career with conservative opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially regarding the construction of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some even thought of Sharon as the father of the settlement movement; he said he considered Netzarim, an Israeli Jewish settlement in Gaza, “to be the same as Tel Aviv.” Nonetheless, this same Sharon was the leader who orchestrated the dramatic 2005 disengagement from Gaza, forcibly removing over 8,000 Israeli settlers and IDF soldiers from the territory. Along with other Likud party officials, Knesset Member Benjamin Netanyahu harshly condemned Sharon’s plan, exclaiming, “I am calling on all those who grasp the danger: Gather strength and do the right thing. [Don't] give [the Palestinians] guns, don't give them rockets, and don't give them a huge base for terror.” Despite facing a tremendous opposition within the party, Sharon executed his plan.
Although many thought that Netanyahu was a fervent hawk, he is also showing a remarkable openness to ideological change. Early in his career his stance on prisoner releases, one of the most sensitive and key issues of the conflict, was uncompromising. As opposition leader in 2007, when former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was considering releasing Palestinian prisoners as a gesture for peace, Netanyahu bitterly rejected Olmert’s stance. Netanyahu declared, “The release of prisoners before the conference is not the path of peace, it is the path of terror.” Nonetheless, this month Netanyahu agreed to release 104 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom, with “blood on their hands,” have been incarcerated for over 20 years, including one who slaughtered a Holocaust survivor.
Turmoil and civil strife are engulfing Egypt, and members of the Israeli defense establishment are watching events unfold south of the border with concern. In one sense, the bloody struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood is an internal Egyptian affair. But it doesn't take very much imagination to see how growing instability in Egypt can affect the region as a whole, Israel included.
The IDF's Southern Command is focusing its gaze on the Sinai Peninsula, which has become a hotbed of radical Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups that are taking advantage of the power vacuum to flourish in the desert dunes. Training camps and weapons caches are mushrooming.
Egyptian man takes a break after climbing to the summit of Mount St. Catherine in south Sinai, Egypt on February 13, 2013. (Ahmed Gomaa/AP)
The armed groups in Sinai are composed of an unknown number of members (some estimates have put them in the thousands). They are made up of radicalized Bedouin, residents of Egypt proper, and a growing number of foreign volunteers.
The more chaotic things get in Egypt proper, the harder it will be for the Egyptian military, stretched to capacity on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria, and other cities, to keep the jihadis in the Sinai province in check. And the streets of Egyptian cities don't look like they will quiet down any time soon.
When Barack Obama finally reacted Thursday to the violent crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt that, a day earlier, saw more than 600 killed, he used cagey language that seemed to deny that the U.S. had a relationship with one side of the quickly evolving crisis: the military government. Obama elided any mention of the billions of dollars the U.S. provided over decades to Egypt's military, which, since a coup against the Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi early last month, rules the country. It is precisely this aid which led the Washington Post editorial board to declare Obama "complicit" in the military's brutal attack against the Brotherhood.
Some on the American right, however, exhibit none of Obama's evasiveness. They've been frank about American support for Egypt's military, even as its government led what Reuters writer David Rohde pointed out was "the largest massacre of protesters since the 1989 Tiananmen Square." The National Review called in an editorial for the U.S. to keep supporting the Egyptian military government is at "war" with the Muslim Brotherhood. Today in Commentary, neocon scholar Michael Rubin wrote this rather incredible conclusion to his call for Egypt to continue its crackdown—and for America to support it—no matter the human cost:
So what should the United States do? So long as the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to turn back the clock, impose its hateful and intolerant ideology upon Egyptians of all religiosities and religions, and refuses to abide by the pathway to transitional elections, and so long as it continues to fight in the streets, then it should suffer the consequences of its actions. And if those consequences result in exponentially higher Brotherhood casualties than army casualties, then so be it. That is the truest path to peace.
Let's set aside the perversity of calling for an ongoing massacre as the "truest path to peace." What Rubin is arguing against—his blogpost is titled "The Perils of Proportionality"—are concepts enshrined in international law. International human rights law dictates that, when people protest, governments must adhere to "proportionality" in their response. "The state is permitted to use force," said Sarah Knuckey, an international lawyer at NYU School of Law. "But the rules for the use of force are clear: any use of force must be both necessary and proportionate to a threat. Any intentional use of lethal force is only lawful where strictly necessary in response to a truly imminent threat to life. Some of the footage and descriptions of killings and injuries I have seen strongly suggests grossly excessive force by the Egyptian security forces."
Let's be clear: in the run-up to the crackdown, there were scattered reports of arms occasionally surfacing among the protesters, and occasional fire was exchanged between Morsi supporters and the military. But by and large these Brotherhood sit-ins were peaceful. "If some participants within an otherwise peaceable protest are armed and violent, the entire protest does not necessarily thereby become unlawful, and it does not justify the state using force against all the protesters," Knuckey said. "Force may only be used against those protesters posing a real threat."
Morris “Moshe” Eisenstadt was born in Brooklyn in 1914; he immigrated to Israel late in life, and volunteered for many years at a hospital in a suburb of Tel Aviv. Eisenstadt was sitting on a park bench reading a book when Ibrahim Salem Ali al-Rai attacked and killed him with an axe in 1994. He was 79 years old.
Isaac Rotenberg was born in Poland in 1927. In the course of the Holocaust he was sent to the Sobibor death camp, but managed to escape in 1943 when Sobibor’s inmates rose up against the Nazis. Rotenberg ultimately fought the German army with the Partisans and, after arriving in Israel, worked in construction. He was on his knees repairing a floor when Salem Ali Atiyeh Abu-Musa and another assailant attacked and killed him with axes in 1994. He was 67.
Annie Ley came from France as a tourist in 1991; Mohammed Ahmed Khaled Asakreh stabbed her to death in Bethlehem, reportedly as she ate in the restaurant at which he worked. Ley was 64. Her murderer, along with al-Rai, Abu-Musa, and 23 other prisoners were released from prison by Israel earlier this week, as a good will gesture to its Palestinian negotiating partners.
Each of these attacks happened when I lived in Israel, and many others as well. I wasn’t able to fully grasp the horror at the time, and I’m not able to do so now. I don’t understand what it takes to pick up an axe and murder an old man on a park bench, any more than I understand what it takes to wrap oneself in explosives and rip a crowded bus to bloody shreds.
I understand that this is a war. When soldiers are killed, I mourn, but at least I understand the mechanism at hand: We kill their combatants, they kill ours. Parents remember nothing but chubby cheeks and expressions of love; enemies remember nothing but the other side’s willingness to kill me and mine.
Although the peace talks have barely begun, they are already showcasing the recurring pathologies that blame Israel unfairly and absolve Palestinians unduly. The Palestinians are playing the blame game with American help and Israelis are wallowing in their culture of guilt. Only one side had to make premature concessions before the negotiations even began—Israel by freeing legally-convicted murderers. Only one side incurred the world’s wrath for contemplating the natural expansion of its own communities—Israel, seemingly stirring more outrage for building homes for its citizens than the Egyptians or Syrians do for massacring theirs. And only one side seems to be found perpetually guilty by progressives, accused of outrageous atrocities—with one Open Zion talkback to a recent article of mine claiming it was trying to “exterminate” the Palestinians—Israel.
Israel's security fence snakes along the Green Line border with the West Bank, as it turns north-east from the Israeli red-roofed community of Bat Hefer on January 30, 2004. (David Silverman / Getty Images)
Underlying this pile-on against Israel is the increasingly widespread but wrongheaded assumption that the 1967 borders are holy and reflect a clear division between Israeli territory and Palestinian territory. This sanctification of the hastily-improvised 1949 armistice lines mocks history, distorts international law, and threatens the creation of a two-state solution, which will only work if it builds upon a foundation of mutual respect rather than perverse demonization of only one side in this complicated conflict.
Anyone who knows anything about history, especially of the twentieth-century Middle East, knows that the borders shifted and populations drifted. Neither the Palestinians’ nor the Jews’ love of the land and claims to the land follow the complicated twisting border drawn in green pencil to end the 1949 war, which is what this “holy” 1967 border is. Making things even blurrier, after the 1948 war ended, there was no Palestinian state established in the West Bank or Gaza—Jordan controlled the West Bank, without formal international approval, and Egypt controlled Gaza, without formal international approval.
If you haven’t yet heard of him, Sam Horowitz is the American Bar Mitzvah boy who’s gone viral. A video of him dancing, Las Vegas style, with a bevy of showgirls has fast dominated the Jewish blogosphere. According to the wires, the Dallas-based Bar Mitzvah boy had dreamed of “descend[ing] from the ceiling” since he was seven and saw a Cheetah Girls show. And boy, did he ever get to.
Writing in the Washington Post, L.A.-based Rabbi David Wolpe, who recently made headlines for liberalizing his synagogue to embrace marriage equality, was particularly incensed, calling the video “egregious, licentious and thoroughly awful” and “an historical outrage,” and asking, “our ancestors struggled and suffered and fasted and prayed so Sammy could cavort?”
Rabbi Wolpe issues some fair critiques—about a culture of entitlement, ridiculous levels of extravagance and what it means to drown a moment of spirituality in crass materialism.
Now, there’s no doubt that the video is entertaining. Good Morning America even thought to interview Sam himself. But entertainment value aside, here’s why I think the video—and specifically Sam’s performance—is actually morally laudable.
"I don't know what's better, to be in the mouth of a dove or on the penis of a Jew."
--Arab-Israeli author Sayed Kashua in an interview with Globes, on whether he feels in his work that he is more like an olive branch or a fig leaf.
- 'West Bank military courts systematically deny Palestinians the right to a fair trial' - Military prosecution fails to meet legal requirements under Geneva Convention, says Col. Netanel Benishu, new president of the military courts in the territories. (Haaretz+)
- Official confirmation: State admits to vetting defense lawyers in security trials - Letter from prosecution to senior lawyer sheds light on 'shadow judicial system’ for security cases. (Haaretz+)
- Israeli extradited to Bosnia to stand trial for genocide - Carmiel resident who immigrated from former Yugoslavia was allegedly involved in the 1995 massacre of over 1,000 Muslim Bosnians. (Haaretz+)
- Arab bus driver beaten at wheel by passengers in Israel’s north - Arab Israeli Shahdi Hadar says none of the other 40 passengers came to his aid; five suspects arrested. (Haaretz+)
Palestinian clo,thes of the king - The royal tour turned into a big embarrassment: King and Queen of Sweden agreed to wear keffiyehs they received from someone who said he was an Iraqi refugee - without knowing it had an anti-Israeli slogan, "Al-Aqsa is ours and is not their Holy Temple." (Yedioth, p. 9/Ynet)
- Israel's Sweden ambassador compares Palestinian prisoners to mass killer Breivik - The ambassador’s remarks have caused a storm in Sweden, and have garnered harsh criticism from the families of Breivik’s victims. (Haaretz+ and Ynet)
- Lavish 'Gaza' mall is actually in Malaysia, Israeli military admits - Israeli military apologizes for a photograph on its English-language blog, which was incorrectly represented as a mall in Gaza, describing it as an honest mistake. (Haaretz+)
- PMO confirms terrorists' bodies to be transferred to PA - Following PMO'sWednesday denial of report on Israeli intention to hand over to Palestinians bodies of terrorists buried in Israeli territory, High Court procedure supports reports. (Ynet)
- Israel vying to supply weapons to Poland - Allegations of preferential treatment for Israeli suppliers raising a storm among senior Polish officers. (Haaretz+)
For the full News from Israel.
Barack Obama spoke to the nation today about the crisis in Egypt. He didn't take my advice—mirrored in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, and countless other fora for leading opinion-makers—to cut off Egypt's aid. Instead, he took the mild-mannered step of suspending joint Egyptian-American military exercises (that'll teach 'em!).
What was most stunning about his remarks, though, was that Obama seemed to not acknowledge at all that we even give Egypt a massive military aid package of more than a billion dollars. Going beyond even that, Obama made comments that made it seem the U.S. had no link at all to any of the factions in Egypt engaged in yesterday's devastating and brutal violence. Here's what he said:
We don't take sides with any particular party or political figure. I know it's tempting inside of Egypt to blame the United States or the West or some other outside actor for what's gone wrong. We've been blamed by supporters of Morsi; we've been blamed by the other side as if we are supporters of Morsi.
An Egyptian military bulldozer dismantles a protest camp, tearing down a banner with deposed president Morhammed Morsi's face. (Hassan Mohamed / AFP / Getty Images) / President Barack Obama delivers a statement on Egypt at his vacation home August 15, 2013 in Chilmark, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. (Rick Friedman - Pool / Getty Images)
But the fights in Egypt yesterday were between the Muslim Brotherhood and security forces of its military government, and that is a split on which we most certainly do take sides. Money talks, after all, and the U.S. pays for almost a fifth of Egypt's military budget. That's precisely what the whole debate about aid since the military's July 3 takeover has been all about, and yet Obama just ignored it. "Unfortunately, this manages to combine a bad policy of supporting the Egyptian military regime with the insulting pretense that the U.S. is merely a passive observer instead of a patron of the offending government," wrote Daniel Larison. It ain't, apparently, just a river in Egypt.
Early in August, at an Al Quds Day rally in Toronto, a speaker called for the murder of Jews. Elias Hazineh, the former president of an organization called Palestinian House, suggested that an ultimatum be given to Israelis. "You have to leave Jerusalem. You have to leave Palestine. We say get out or you're dead! We give them two minutes and then we start shooting. And that's the only way they'll understand." Hazineh spoke to an applauding crowd of around 400.
What was more disturbing than the inflammatory and hateful declarations was the way they were almost completely ignored by the mainstream press. Diane Weber Bederman, a blogger with the Huffington Post Canada, noticed that the Canadian conservative Sun News Network covered the event and speech with live reports from the scene. She wrote, "I haven't seen or heard reports from other mainstream media. Perhaps I missed it."
A giant Palestinian flag is displayed during an Al Quds Day rally on August 3, 2013. (John MacDougall / AFP / Getty Images)
Bederman didn't miss anything. I checked the website of every newspaper and broadcast outlet in Toronto. I found only one other reference to the rally in the local press. Five days after the rally, the notoriously anti-Israel Toronto Star ran a profile of Hazineh. To provide a veneer of objectivity the story included a quote from Shimon Fogel, the CEO of Center for Israel Affairs, who said that it was "disgusting and outrageous that a speaker at a rally in Canada would call for the murder of Jews in Israel." To the Star reporter, Hazineh admitted the words were "inflammatory" and "inappropriate." Yet the profile is largely sympathetic. In explanation he said: "The language was a metaphor, it was not used as a reality.... I was using to make a point. I was trying to make a point, enough is enough." Some metaphor. For decades, mainstream Palestinian thought has regarded the indiscriminate killing of Jews as legitimate. It's no stretch to see Hazineh's words as an endorsement of blowing up Israeli buses or firing missiles at Israeli cities.
Following my previous analysis of the latest Peace Index poll of Israeli attitudes towards the contours of a potential peace agreement, and particularly toward the refugee issue, one Open Zion commenter faulted my focus on Jewish Israeli attitudes.
Going by the name of grizzlebar, the commenter wrote:
This article only reflects and discusses Jewish-Israeli opinion as if that's all that matters. Any time you exclude 20% of the people from a snapshot of Israeli national thought, you can't be taken seriously....77% of 80% = 62% = number of Israelis that reject even a modest nod to Palestinian Right of Return or compensation, in this Jews-only discussion. If all Palestinian Israelis support at least the modest approach...that means only 13% of Israelis would have to be convinced to moderate their views....
Three points emerge from this critique that merit discussion. The first relates to the data. How many Palestinian citizens of Israel do, in fact, support the refugee proposal suggested in the survey (right of return “in principle,” with limited actual return, and compensation for the rest)? grizzlebar is right to assume strong support, though the actual numbers provide a more complete picture. According to the survey, 82 percent of Arab Israelis support such a plan. This takes grizzlebar’s presumed 13 percent of total Israelis who would need convincing to 17 percent.
So for understanding the totality of the potential voters who would be asked to state their preferences in a peace agreement referendum, grizzlebar’s lens is a useful one, and I thank him/her for weighing in.
On Sunday, the Israeli Cabinet agreed to release the first group of 104 Palestinian prisoners convicted of serious terrorism charges with “blood on their hands.” And after Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel announced the settlement construction of over 1,000 housing units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem—a plan that infuriates Palestinians—Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas did not back out of direct negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. These actions demonstrate both sides’ seriousness towards the peace process. Although these gestures appear to be a cause for optimism, both leaders have failed to undertake a more important task—preparing the public to accept the concessions necessary for a final negotiated settlement.
Israelis holding pictures of their loved ones, killed by Palestinians, protest against the planned release of 104 veteran Palestinian and Israeli-Arab prisoners, in front of the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem on July 28, 2013. (Menahem Kahana / AFP / Getty Images)
According to many experts on Israeli and Palestinian affairs, a viable settlement will require two conditions: Jerusalem will have to be divided, and Palestinians and their descendants who fled Israel in 1948 will not be allowed to return. Yet leaders on each side still refuse to acknowledge publicly that their side will be required to concede these major points. On July 18, 2013, a seemingly innocent ceremony marking the opening of the Maccabi Games, an international Jewish sporting competition, rigidly staked a claim to Jerusalem. Netanyahu explained before a diverse audience, “Today all of you can proudly say: this year in Jerusalem, Israel’s undivided and eternal capital.” Publicly advocating such an uncompromising position to the Israeli population on a key issue will hardly persuade Israeli hardliners to support a peace deal.
At the same time, Palestinian officials continue to advocate unrealistic positions that threaten to derail any agreement. In early 2013, when discussing the ramifications for Palestinian refugees in Syria during the civil war, the Associated Press reported that Abbas told Egyptian journalists that he refused to accept a deal brokered by the United Nations Secretary General of allowing the refugees to resettle in the West Bank or Gaza rather than in Israel. Instead Abbas exclaimed, “We rejected that, and said it’s better they die in Syria than give up their right of return.” Such a statement only increases the hostility of the Palestinian public towards a workable resolution to this deeply complex problem.
"Maybe these email messages should simply be titled, I’m frightened. Can we talk?'"
--Haaretz blogger Mira Sucharov examines the hateful emails that circulate about Muslims.
- Hezbollah claims responsibility for strike on Israeli troops in Lebanon - Hassan Nasrallah says Hezbollah fighters planted bombs in an area they knew in advance IDF soldiers would pass through. (Agencies, Haaretz)
- 1,500 Bedouin awaiting home demolitions - Around 1,500 Bedouin residents of Sawah are awaiting the demolition of their homes after an Israeli court rejected their appeal. Residents say they are there since before 1948. But in 2007, Israeli planning and construction authorities asked the residents to evacuate the village after Israel's army declared the area a military zone. (Maan)
- Israel encouraging preschool literacy - just not among Arabs - Formerly nation-wide program to encourage kindergarten reading skills only dropped in Arab communities for the past two years. (Haaretz+)
- 8 years since destruction of Gush Katif synagogues - Yesterday at Hurva Synagogue in Jerusalem's Old City, (radical settler - OH) Rabbi Dov Lior spoke at commemoration marking eight years since Palestinians destroyed synagogues in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. (Israel Hayom, p. 9)
- State refuses residency for Eritrean man married to Israeli woman - Population authority officials insist on a clean criminal record from Eritrean army deserter, despite flexibility in regulations. (Haaretz+)
- Flip-flops? Not in our office - Prime Minister's Office is making order in its wardrobe: A dress code distributed in the office prohibits employees from wearing shorts, sleeveless shirts and shirts exposing the stomach. One veteran employee: "We've returned to high school." (Yedioth, p. 18)
- Jewish Agency airlifts 17 Yemeni Jews to Israel in covert operation - Mission motivated by increasing security concerns for the safety Yemen's Jewish community, agency says. (Haaretz+ and Ynet)
- Tel-Aviv: Dozens protest against Egyptian army - Israeli Arabs protest in front of Egyptian embassy in Tel Aviv against 'bloodshed' of 'those whose only wish is to bring back the president they've elected'. Protesters are carrying signs in support of ousted President Morsi. (Ynet)
For the full News from Israel.
A deal on Iran’s nuclear program and U.N. sanctions regime has been reached. But the U.S., Iran and Israel seem to be interpreting the same agreement quite differently.