He Ru Follow us: Make a7 your Homepage
      From the Hills of Efraim
      by Yisrael Medad
      This blog will be informative, highlight foibles, will be assertively contentious and funny and wryly satirical.
      Email Me
      Subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed

      Yisrael Medad is a revenant resident of Shiloh, in the Hills of Efrayim north of Jerusalem.  He arrived in Israel with his wife, Batya, in 1970 and lived in the renewing Jewish Quarter, eventually moving to Shiloh in 1981. 

      Currently the Menachem Begin Center's Information Resource Director, he has previously been director of Israel's Media Watch, a Knesset aide to three Members of Knesset and a lecturer in Zionist History.  He assists the Yesha Council in it's contacts with the Foreign Media in a volunteer capacity, is active on behalf of Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and is involved in various Jewish and Zionist activist causes.  He contributes a Hebrew-language media column to Besheva and publishes op-eds in the Jerusalem Post and other periodicals.

      He also blogs at MyRightWord in English and, in Hebrew, at The Right Word.

      Cheshvan 28, 5769, 11/26/2008

      Wow, There Is Rule of Law


      Oops. Israel Acted Unlawfully Against...a Jew

      It is now being reported that:

      ...the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the state acted unlawfully in removing far-right settler Noam Federman from the outpost he has set up - the so-called "Federman Farm" - near the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba.
      In his ruling, Judge Moshe Drori criticized the state for violating international law, insisting that the forced evacuation of the outpost was "disproportionate and unreasonable."

      "It is unclear why the state needed 100 policemen to remove one individual from a closed military zone that was sealed for 10 months without any prior warning, without any attempt at negotiation, and without checking on the claims of the other party in this case," the judge ruled.  "The petitioner (Federman) is not suspected of carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli towns, which is one of the purposes of the order, and the closure of the area is certainly not intended to apply to the petitioner, since the pretext for the evictin was to prevent 'terrorist infiltration,' and it is inconceivable that the petitioner can be placed into this category.

      And more:-  Federman can stay in Hebron

      ...the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the injunction to close the Federman farm near the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba does not apply to Noam Federman and his family...The ruling came after the State appealed the Jerusalem Magistrate Court's refusal to have Federman removed from the West Bank. Judge Moshe Drori rejected the appeal, and said it should not have been filed in the first place.

      In the 42-page verdict, Judge Drori harshly criticized the State and the police, and wrote: "There is no justification to prohibit the defendant (Federman) from living in the West Bank. It was not proven at all that there is any evidence in the case, and there are no grounds for arrest. Even if the State did prove the existence of the so-called evidence, the case still does not justify arrest".

      Following the ruling, Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced that his office would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

      P.S.

      Regarding my wife's blog post, where she wrote:

      "We had some British Foreign Office people over this morning, and they weren't here to taste my cooking. They weren't here to listen to me either,"

      Actually, I brought over Lorna Fitzsimmons, CEO of BICOM, a pro-Israel support group which for the first time, came to the Yesha communities to learn more about the issue first-hand, a great opportunity to make contacts and fix up future inroads and exchanges of news, etc.  We were at Migron, Amona and Shiloh.  They were quite open-minded and very interested in learning about an issue which is not that popular in the UK.  I am sure they learned a lot.


      Cheshvan 22, 5769, 11/20/2008

      Rule of Law, Not The Rue of the Law


      Everyone and his mother's uncle is demanding that the High Court of Justice decision that the Peace House in Hebron must be evacuated and its residents expelled.  "The law must be upheld!", say they.

      Of course, this is not really the law.  It is the interpretation of the law by a few persons with a law education who have been appointed, mainly by their fellow serving-on-the-bench peers, to be justices.  A few years ago or a few years hence and the decision could be different.

      But I would like to draw the attention of some of those hot-headed lawniks among us that the Army doesn't not have to evacuate the building.

      What, you gasp?  They don't?

      Sure.  After all, Gershon Solomon and his trusty Faithful of the Temple as well as other Temple Mount activists over the years have on occasion appealed to the High Court (Bagatz) to be to ascend, enter and pray within the Temple Mount precincts.  Prayer - no; but, at times, Bagatz, has instructed the police to permit them to ascend as individuals and in groups.  The police say okay but them a day before or even on the day, all of a sudden, they claim that, based on their intelligence sources, the Arabs are planning violent disturbances and the police cannot assure that public order will be kept and therefore, despite Bagatz, these persons cannot enter.

      Well, I say, that can be applied as a paradigm in Hebron's Peace House case.

      The police and/or Army can report back that in their estimation, violence or unruly behavior is liable to develop and it would be better not to follow through with the court's decision.

      Hey, it works for the Arabs.  Why shouldn't it work for the Jews?



      Cheshvan 19, 5769, 11/17/2008

      Here Comes The Siege?


      According to Haaretz:

      "European diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity as a fresh economic offensive on the West Bank settlements has not been officially approved, said Miliband has been trying to muster support in Brussels for tougher implementation of existing customs regulations in the hope that settlements, a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, could be placed under a siege that could help hasten their dismantlement"

      A siege?

      So, do we call for international solidarity?

      And, as we can't ask friends to come in by sea on boats from Cyprus, maybe we'll need to dig tunnels?

      But, of course, this is a very nasty, immoral approach.

      We're not allowed to lay siege to Gaza claim the Europeans, Sec'y of State Condi Rice, International Solidarists and other loonies but, they are more than willing to consider Jewish civilian residency in Judea and Samaria as more evil and more responsible for the lack of peace than Arab terror.

      Here's a recent document on the British orientation (that was a pun)

      We've got our work cut out for us.

      P.S.  Can't read the letter?  Go here.  And here for update and background.



      Cheshvan 13, 5769, 11/11/2008

      Caption This


      And check out my comments on Ehud Olmert's remarks yesterday: Zionism Interruptus.

      (couldn't transfer the text to here)



      Cheshvan 9, 5769, 11/7/2008

      Has Condi Rice Gone "Terrorist"?


      Has Condi flubbed it, joining the side of the terrorists?

      Condoleeza Rice has turned out to be either insolent, cruel or plain not quite that smart regarding the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the area the League of Nations set aside for the reconstitution of the historic Jewish national home, an area illegally removed by the British Mandatory power and which they Arabs in several wars and riots tried to take away totally.

      Yesterday, she met the press with Tzipi Livni in Herzlia

      and, among other things, had this to say:-

      "Let me just close by saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one that should be resolved and should be ended because it will be so important to Palestinians to live in their own state and for Israel to live alongside a democratic neighbor who can help to secure the peace.

      The United States is fully committed to that goal, and I remain committed to that goal until the day that we leave office. But I want to say that I am very grateful that in the last almost eight years now we have been able to move a situation which, at the time when President Bush came to office, was the second intifada, with hundreds of Israelis under siege, with Palestinians dying in large numbers, a situation in which the thought of peace between Israelis and Palestinians was one that was quite distant with the undeniably important, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to reach peace at Camp David."

      Oh, only Pals. were dying? No Jews?

      And weren't a good few of those Pals. dying by their own hand in suicide bombing attacks?

      And aren't Jews still dying, stabbed by Pals., shot at by Pals., being run over and crushed by Pals. and being rocketed by Pals.? Here, yesterday, before you spoke:

      Palestinian Authority terrorists in Gaza fired a Kassam rocket at the western Negev city of Sderot Thursday morning in a continuation of a spate of attacks on southern Israel.

      and this morning:

      Southerners woke up to another day of rocket attacks Friday, as Palestinian terrorists fired five Kassams at western Negev neighborhoods. The rockets landed in the Sderot, Eshkol and Sha'ar Hanegev regions. No one was wounded and no damage was reported. One of the Kassams landed near a kibbutz reservoir, while a second hit the fence surrounding another western Negev kibbutz. The other rockets hit open areas.

      And she continued to "explain" that flub:

      I do want to emphasize again that in 2001, when President Bush came into office, we had a raging intifada, we had Israel under siege.

      Siege? Just a siege? Just a raging intifada.  A bit euphemistic, no? The background to this ignoring of dead, wounded, maimed Israelis is gone, missing from her remarks? No, it isn't. Not at all.

      Here's her world-view, in plain sight:

      There were still people who talked about, well, there are freedom fighters and then there are terrorists. The President laid that aside for all time.

      Ah, but Condi, they are and there still are terrorists. Not freedom fighters at all. It is not a simple dispute about linguistics or semantics. You can't just lay that aside. That is the core of the conflict.  The Arab poitical terror started in 1920 and has nothing to do with Judea and Samaria or the "harrassment" you keep refering to as an excuse for that terror.

      And, in ignoring the Jewish dead, Condi, you may have joined the side of the terrorists.



      page: 1 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38