Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: pay for slay

Showing posts with label pay for slay. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 06, 2022

Fatah Revolutionary Council meeting, chaired by Abbas, confirms support for terrorism. Media silent, as always.

The Fatah Revolutionary Council ended its tenth session in a meeting in Ramallah today, where it reiterated its support for terrorism.

The meeting was chaired by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

The slogan of the session was "Resisting occupation and settler colonialism by all legitimate means."

The final statement of the meeting said:

The increase in the pace of killing and cold-blooded executions, the blocking of roads, the demolition of homes, the establishment and expansion of settlements, and the continued detention of the bodies of martyrs, makes our resistance a binding national duty for all and an inevitable and irreversible choice. By all legitimate means guaranteed to us by international law, the occupation and its government bear the repercussions of the self-defense responses that our people and movement engage in in the field, and the international community must shoulder its responsibilities in providing protection for our people .

What does "by all legitimate means" mean? For that, you need to read the 2009 Fatah Platform, which is the most recent one published. The language is identical, but in the Platform, it is defined.

Fatah adheres to the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation by all legitimate means, including the right to use armed struggle . Such a right is guaranteed by international law as long as the occupation , settlement , and the denial of our inalienable rights continue .

So not only are they confirming that terror is legitimate and legal, but that any Jews who are murdered is Israel's fault ("the occupation and its government bear the repercussions of the self-defense responses that our people and movement engage in in the field.")

This mirrors a statement by the PLO Executive Committee earlier this month, where they said, "All forms of resistance are a legitimate right of our people that are guaranteed by international laws."

The Palestinian Authority is subservient to the PLO. This means that terrorism is the official policy of the Palestinian leadership.

The final statement also explicitly supports paying salaries (essentially life insurance policies) to the families of terrorists: "We will not abandon the families of our martyrs, no matter how great the sacrifices are and how great the pressures are."

The PLO and Fatah's support for terrorism is the least-reported story from a region where there are more journalists per square kilometer than anywhere else. These meetings aren't hidden from public view - they are widely reported in official Palestinian media.

The international media simply doesn't want the world to know that the PLO and Fatah are just as supportive of terrorism as Hamas is. There is an avalanche of articles about how supposedly racist and dangerous the incoming Israeli government is - and not a single one (save for one by the great Khaled Abu Toameh in The Jerusalem Post) that even hints about official Palestinian support of terrorism.

It is a conspiracy of silence to push a narrative of Israeli evil and Palestinian victimhood at the expense of the truth.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

12/05 Links Pt1: Glick: The Peace Processors Turn Against Peace; Reclaiming the Narrative: It was never about the territories; US Funds Arabs Who Want to Destroy Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Peace Processors Turn Against Peace

The purportedly "pro-peace" diplomats' most revealing recommendation related to Israel's Abraham Accords peace partners.

"The Biden administration," they wrote, "needs to inform the Abraham Accord countries—the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—that their evident lack of interest in the plight of the Palestinians will undermine their relationship with Israel and damage their credibility in advancing other regional objectives with the United States."

So to advance their anti-Israel agenda, the two men who built their careers through their supposed efforts to build Middle East peace, call for scuppering Middle East peace.

This tells us something very basic about the true nature of their work—and that of their like-minded colleagues—across the decades, and still today. It was never peace that they were after. "Peace," for them, was a fig leaf behind which they hid their true goal. That goal is clear, given that their noxious policy prescriptions are the same today as they have always been.

In the name of the vaunted "peace process," for more than 30 years Miller, Kurtzer, and their colleagues in the Washington foreign policy establishment pressured Israel to appease the Palestinians despite their anti-Jewish bigotry and terrorism. "In the interest of peace," they threatened and coerced Israel to concede its national and strategic interests in unified Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. The goal wasn't peace. The goal was to get the U.S. to implement anti-Israel policies.

Likewise, they aren't demonizing Israel's incoming government because they actually believe that any of the terrible things they attribute to Netanyahu and his colleagues are true. They are demonizing them because the utter failure of the "peace process" they helped orchestrate and oversee is now indisputable. They, like their friends in the Biden administration, openly admit the "peace process" is "moribund."

The intense demonization of Israel is the new fig leaf. It is also a way to justify capsizing actual Arab-Israel peace. If Israel is evil because it elected a fascist, racist, homophobic government, then everyone who supports Israel or lives in peace with it is also evil, fascist, racist, etc.

The Miller/Kurtzer op-ed is a conclusive demonstration that the so-called "peace process," which never led to peace, was a complete sham. They knew it all along, and they didn't care.

Peace is not the goal of the "peace processors." It never was. Their singular aim, for the past generation of fake "peace processing," has been to undermine and end the U.S.-Israel alliance and replace it with a set of hostile policies toward Israel. The natural end of their policies has always been clear: to promote Arab wars on Israel, delegitimize the Jewish state, and legitimize the Palestinian terrorists that seek its destruction. Their demonization of Israel's yet-to-be-sworn-in government is both instrumental and as insincere as their former love for "peace." Without the guise of a "peace process," the Washington poobahs have fabricated a new failing of Israel to serve as a new fig leaf. Supporters of the U.S.-Israel alliance should be wary of falling for their cynical act.

Reclaiming the Narrative: It was never about the territories - opinion

To be clear - in 1964, there was nothing “occupied” to be “liberated,” but that didn’t stop the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The false narrative of occupation and liberation began to spread well before there were disputed territories in Israel. The fact is, the antisemites who loathe Jews and Israelis simply do not believe in Israel’s right to exist at all, territories or not.

Facts are always important, and context is as well. The territories are disputed land. They were not “taken” or “stolen,” as some wish to falsely portray. In 1967 Israel was forced to fight a defensive war to stave off annihilation once again. It was from precisely those lands that Arab armies were massed in order to annihilate and put an end to the world’s only Jewish state.

Of course, today those territories have become a de facto impediment to peace, due to the false narrative that has now been shamefully accepted in the capitals of western Europe and certainly in the Democratic party in the United States. I am not naive; today, they are an impediment. That does not change the “fact” that they are not the reason for the lack of peace.

It is past time for liberals and progressives in the United States and Europe to acknowledge the historical and present-day realities. The Palestinian narrative of victimization has been all too easily accepted, and the facts have been ignored.

The fact that the Arabs rejected the United Nations partition in 1947. The fact that the PLO was chartered in 1964 precisely because they never accepted the UN, making Israel a sovereign Jewish state in the first place.

It would have been nice had President Obama stated in his 2009 speech at Al-Azhar University in Cairo before the entire Arab world that Israel was legitimately remade sovereign once more, because of its historical roots, and not as he implied as some sort of “colonial implant” resulting from the guilt of western nations because of the Holocaust. With one line, this presumed brilliant President could have deconstructed the big lie. He chose not to.

The lack of peace has never been about the territories. Make no mistake; the West Bank and Gaza (which has been relinquished), along with the Golan Heights, are not the reason for the lack of peace in the region. This is what needs to be stated boldly and frequently. Israel should not be afraid to ruffle feathers. Israel should not be afraid to justify what took place in 1948 or 1967.

I am tired of Israel’s poor public relations posture and how this false narrative has permeated into some twisted sense of truth used to condone antisemitism. The Jewish people should not be afraid to engage in this debate to set the facts straight. We should not be afraid to offend sensibilities. I believe Israelis are ready for peace, but a peace that must be based on facts.

US Funds Arabs Who Want to Destroy Israel

What is disturbing is that a large portion of this incitement is coming from Arabs whose governments signed peace treaties or other agreements with Israel: Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians.

What is even more disturbing is that the hate against Israel is coming from Arabs who continue to benefit from unconditional US financial aid.

The Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, continues to spearhead the Arab campaign of incitement and delegitimization against Israel. In addition to the incendiary rhetoric, the Palestinian Authority does not hide its vehement opposition to any kind of peace with Israel.

In its latest tirade against Israel, Abbas's ruling Fatah faction claimed that the Israeli counter-terrorism measures, designed to save the lives of Jews and Arabs alike, are acts of "terrorism and war crimes." According to the logic of the Palestinian Authority, a terror attack against Israel is legitimate and the perpetrator is a hero and martyr, but an Israeli action to stop terrorism is illegitimate.

This is the same Palestinian Authority that maintains good relations with the Biden administration, which recently decided to upgrade US relations with Abbas and his associates....

[T]he allegation that Israel is committing "war crimes" can be seen as a direct call to Palestinians to engage in violence against Israelis. The "war crimes" libel is also intended for Western audiences as part of the campaign to delegitimize Israel and pave the way for prosecuting its leaders before international courts.

It is worth noting that since April 2021, the US has provided more than half a billion dollars in assistance for the Palestinians.

If the US thinks that showering money and concessions on the Palestinian leaders will lessen the tension, you heard it here first: this approach definitely will not work. All that will happen is that the hostilities will increase so that the bribes will increase. Giving hard, concrete gifts in exchange for soft promises is inevitably doomed from the start.

Palestinian TV encourages kids to become "martyrs"

We've seen this before, and we'll see it again. And the West will continue to ignore this open incitement to terror aimed at children from official Palestinian Authority TV:

Song: “Mother, in a new dress accompany me to [my] wedding. I came to you as a Martyr, O mother, O mother.”

Official PA TV host: “This song was spread on social media and shows one of the youths during the confrontations with the occupation soldiers in Hebron. Perhaps there is a message in it: That even the living youth will not return to their mothers alive, but will be married off in a procession as Martyrs.

The video from social media is shown.

Young Palestinian: “Mother, in a new dress accompany me to [my] wedding. I came to you as a Martyr, O mother, O mother.

[Official PA TV, A Tour of Social Media, Oct. 28, 2022]

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

"Pay for Slay" is very possibly the motive for last week's terrorist murders in Ariel

Muhammad Murad Souf, the terrorist who murdered three Israeli fathers last week in Ariel, may have been motivated by the Palestinian Authority's program of paying salaries to the families of terrorists, known as "pay for slay."

According to a fawning biography at Safa Palestinian News Agency, "Fate chose the 19-year-old martyr Souf, from the town of Haris, to be the sole breadwinner for his family after the death of his father, and he chose to end his life as a martyr in a commando operation that will be immortalized in history."

The article goes on to quote Souf's mother, saying,"May God be pleased with him. He left school to support us after his father died, and he was responsible for all the expenses of the house."

"His life was from the mosque to the house and from home to work, and he had no time for fun except for the time he spent when his friends visited him at home," his mother added.

The article notes that Souf's father died when he was in the tenth grade. He quit school to find work and support his mother and seven siblings. Muhammad was no the oldest sibling; his oldest brother Sami was already in law school at An-Najah University, which left Muhammad to become the breadwinner at around 16.

Souf first worked for Israelis at the Barkan industrial park, and then he got a job at a detergent factory at the Ariel industrial park.

One can only imagine the pressure that Muhammad felt to take care of his family, of his bitterness at missing out on enjoying his teenage years, at the little prospect of a happy marriage when he would have more mouths to feed, and at his older brother staying in school while he was forced to leave to become a common laborer.

"Martyrdom" sounds like a very attractive alternative, especially knowing that his family would no longer have to worry about affording to live. Palestinian Law No. 14, Articles 1 and 2, enacted by the PA in 2004, says that Soufs' family will receive a pension for life equivalent to triple the average West Bank salary.

That would be about 97,500 shekels a year, forever.

It is likely far higher than Souf's salary at Barkan, which was probably not much above Israel's minimum wage of 64,000 shekels a year (which in turn is still double the average Palestinian worker salary in the West Bank.)

If "Pay for Slay" didn't exist, would Muhammad Souf have wanted to risk his family losing their main means of support?

Given the choice of a thankless future doing manual labor and few prospects for any improvement on one hand, and an easy way to guarantee his family's financial security on the other hand - together with the knowledge that he would be instantly transformed into a national hero - is it any wonder that Souf chose to kill Jews and achieve martyrdom and paradise?

The Palestinian law paying "martyrs" is almost certainly responsible for the deaths of Tamir Avihai, Michael Ladygin and Motti Ashkenazi.

It is also notable that Souf went on Hajj recently, based on his photo. A 19-year old breadwinner for a family of 8 would no doubt find that difficult to afford. In retrospect, this looks like a "bucket list" item, an achievement that the religious Souf would want to earn before he dies. Israeli intelligence may want to look at the Palestinians who make the pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia to see if any of them are doing it beyond their means, as this may be an indication that they are also planning on a future windfall for their families.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

11/15 Links Pt1: Israel’s Partial Victory; Three killed, three wounded in Samaria terror attack; assailant shot dead; American Rabbis Blast Biden Admin for Funding Palestinian Terrorism

From Ian:

Daniel Pipes: Israel’s Partial Victory

These developments have two main implications for Israel.

First, Israel won a victory over the Arab states, with their far larger populations, resources, economies, and diplomatic heft, a signal accomplishment that deserves far more attention than it has received. In 1994, for example, then–IDF Chief of Staff Ehud Barak argued that “in the foreseeable future, the main threat to the State of Israel is still an all-out attack by conventional armies.” This year, Israeli strategist Efraim Inbar insisted that the “idea that Jewish and Arab states will coexist peacefully…ignores the reality on the ground.” Granted, no Arab state signed a document of surrender or otherwise acknowledged defeat, but defeat was their reality. After going into battle with guns blazing in 1948, expecting easily to snuff out the nascent State of Israel, rulers in Cairo, Amman, Damascus, and elsewhere incrementally realized over a quarter-century that the scorned Zionists could beat them every time, no matter who initiated the surprise attack, no matter the terrain, no matter the sophistication of weapons, no matter the great-power allies. The fracturing of Arab-state enmity constitutes a tectonic shift in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

That said, lasting victory can take many decades to be confirmed. Russia and the Taliban looked defeated in 1991 and 2001, respectively, but their resurgences in 2022 put these in doubt.1 A parallel revival seems unlikely for the Arab states, but the Muslim Brotherhood could again take over Egypt, Jordan’s monarchy could fall to radicals, Syria could become whole again, and Lebanon could become a unified state under Hezbollah rule. We can say with confidence that the Arab states have been defeated at least for now.

That defeat raises an obvious question: Does it offer a model for Palestinian defeat?2 In part, yes. If states with large Muslim-majority populations can be forced to give up, that refutes a common notion that Islam makes Muslims immune to defeat.

But in larger part, no. First, Israel is a far more remote issue for residents of Arab states than for Palestinians. Egyptians tend to care less about making Jerusalem the capital of Palestine than installing proper sewer systems. Civil war has consumed Syrians since 2011. Second, states compromise more readily than ideological movements because of rulers’ multiple and competing interests. Third, governments being hierarchical structures—and especially the Arabs’ authoritarian regimes—a single individual (such as Anwar al-Sadat or Mohammad bin Salman) can, on his own, radically change policy. No one disposes of such power in the PLO or Hamas. Thus are state conflicts with Israel more tractable and more prone to change than the Palestinian conflict.

Fourth, despite claims about imperialist aggression directed against them, large Arab states never convincingly portrayed themselves as victims of little Israel, something the even littler Palestinians have done with great skill, making themselves the darlings of international organizations and senior common rooms alike, giving them a unique global constituency. Finally, long-ago peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the recent Abraham Accords have great importance in themselves but have next to no role in diminishing perfervid Palestinian hostility toward Israel. Likewise, the Palestinians’ groupies—Islamists, Tehran and Ankara, global leftists—completely ignore the accords. If only victimized Palestinians matter, the retreat of Arab states is irrelevant.

For these reasons, Arab states withdrew after just 25 years of leading the charge against Israel, but Palestinians keep going at 50 years.

The Abraham Accords at Year Two: A Work Plan for Strengthening and Expansion

Two years on, Jerusalem’s agreements with multiple Arab states have started to prove their durability; yet, argues Meir Ben-Shabbat, much still must be done to deepen these newly established relationships and to broaden them to include more countries. Ben-Shabbat notes those factors that have slowed such developments and suggests what both the U.S. and Israel can do to encourage them. He also stresses the role of Muslim-majority countries outside the Middle East:

While it is not counted among the Abraham Accords countries, Chad should also be noted in this survey of Israel’s changing relations in the region. Led by the late Idriss Déby, this nation made its way to Jerusalem on its own, neither with a regional framework nor a supportive U.S. position. Diplomatic relations were resumed in November 2019 but kept at a low profile. In May 2022 Israel’s ambassador to Senegal presented his letter of accreditation to Chad’s current president, Déby’s son Mahamat. The focus now should be on building trust in the peace process by manifesting the fruits of peace to the people in Chad. If the people see the balance sheet of normalization with Israel as negative, this could increase the risk of negative momentum, which could block and harm the achievements of the Abraham Accords.

Ben-Shabbat has several recommendations as to how Jerusalem and Washington can proceed in other arenas, among them:

First, do not take the Abraham Accords for granted or assume they are irreversible. The acts of signing the Accords did generate a true sense of celebration, gave rise to a new spirit, mobilized fresh energies, restored optimism, and offered new hopes. But as in matrimony, real life begins after the party, including the challenges of consolidating the relationship, enhancing and expanding it, preserving its vitality, its spirit, and its passion.

Second, change course on Iran. The U.S. administration should take the next steps from its current, growing expression of frustration and displeasure with Iran, given its involvement in the war against Ukraine. A firm approach toward Iran . . . would serve the broader interests of the American administration and respond to the main challenges the West faces: weakening Russia’s ability to pursue the war, taking actions to resolve the global energy crisis, reversing the Gulf states’ drift toward Russia and China, blocking Iran’s destructive ambitions, and enhancing the process of normalization.

American Rabbis Blast Biden Admin for Funding Palestinian Terrorism

The United States’ largest rabbinic public policy organization says the Biden administration is facilitating terrorism against Israel by injecting nearly half a billion dollars into Palestinian government organizations that incite violence against the Jewish state.

The Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), a pro-Israel advocacy group representing more than 2,000 American rabbis, slammed the State Department on Monday for its allotment of U.S. tax dollars to the Palestinian government, which is funding a program known as "pay to slay," in which money is funneled to convicted terrorists and their families.

The CJV says the State Department is engaged in a "blatant double standard" on support for terrorism, given its recent comments accusing Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir of "celebrating the legacy of a terrorist organization." State Department spokesman Ned Price called Ben-Gvir "abhorrent" for his recent attendance at a memorial event for murdered religious leader Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose far-right views spawned an eponymous radical organization that the United States designated a global terrorist organization.

The State Department’s willingness to criticize Ben-Gvir—who has repeatedly condemned Kahane’s more radical views—while refraining from offering similar criticism of Palestinian terrorism is evidence of the Biden administration’s bias against Israel, according to the rabbinic group.

"The State Department is funding the [Palestinian Authority’s] ongoing support for terror while rushing to wrongly condemn Ben-Gvir for attending a memorial service for someone who died over three decades ago," Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, CJV’s Israel regional vice president, said in a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon. "This reflects both an egregious violation of American law and a blatant double standard, at odds with the State Department’s proclamations of neutral and fair treatment. We can and should expect better from the U.S. government and its officials."

Price, in remarks late last week during the State Department’s daily press briefing, said that "celebrating the legacy of a terrorist organization is abhorrent; there is no other word for it. It is abhorrent." The State Department spokesman went on to criticize Israeli "right-wing extremists" and accuse them of promoting "violence and racism."

Price did not acknowledge the Palestinian government’s role in inciting and orchestrating deadly terror attacks on Israeli citizens, fueling the CJV’s calls of a "double standard."

11/12 Links: Lapid slams UN after pro-PLO measure advances, calls move 'prize for terrorist organizations'; To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

From Ian:

Lapid slams UN, calls pro-Palestinian vote 'prize for terrorist organizations'

Israel lambasted the United Nations on Saturday after a key committee approved a draft resolution Friday calling on the International Court of Justice to urgently issue its opinion on the legal consequences of supposedly denying the Palestinian people the right to self-determination as a result of Israel's actions since the 1967 Six-Day War.

The measure was vehemently opposed by Israel, which argued it would destroy any chance of reconciliation with the Palestinians.

"This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation. Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organizations and the campaign against Israel," Prime Minister Yair Lapid said in a statement, adding that "the Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral steps. They are again using the United Nations to attack Israel."

The vote in the General Assembly's Special Political and Decolonization Committee was 98-17, with 52 abstentions. The resolution will now go to the 193-member assembly for a final vote before the end of the year, when it is virtually certain of approval.

The draft cites Israel's supposed violation of Palestinian rights to self-determination "from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."

It would ask the court for an opinion on how these Israeli policies and practices "affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status."

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, is one of the UN's main organs and is charged with settling disputes between countries. Its opinions are not binding.

"Israel strongly rejects the Palestinian resolution at the United Nations. This is another unilateral Palestinian move which undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and may harm any possibility for a future process," Lapid tweeted and thanked that handful of countries that voted against the resolution with Israel. "We call upon on all the countries that supported yesterday's proposal to reconsider their position and oppose it when it's voted upon in the General Assembly. The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the corridors of the UN or other international bodies," he continued.

Jonathan Tobin: Don’t apologize for Ben-Gvir or anything else about Israel

When Netanyahu became prime minister again in 2009 and in the 12 years that followed, when there was no thought of Ben-Gvir being a minister, the same arguments about Israeli policies being oppressive and alienating American Jews were heard over and over again.

During this time, as the anti-Semitic BDS movement gain footholds on American college campuses and on the left-wing of the Democratic Party, there was no talk about Ben-Gvir or the evils of Israel being governed by right-wing and religious parties.

To the contrary, the so-called centrists of Israeli politics—Lapid and Gantz—were just as reviled by those who spread the “apartheid state” smear as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are today. The same claims about a mythical old “good” Israel being destroyed were made by those who opposed Netanyahu.

Those who think one Jewish state on the planet is one too many didn’t need Religious Zionists in Israel’s cabinet to be convinced that Israel shouldn’t exist. American Jews who are embarrassed by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were already embarrassed by Netanyahu and even some of his left-leaning opponents in the Knesset. Their failure to magically make the conflict with the Palestinians disappear has been cited by those who note a decline in support for Israel in the years since the collapse of the Oslo peace process, and even before that while the delusion that it might succeed was still alive.

This goes beyond the fact that the claims that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are fascists is without real substance. As I’ve noted previously, the talk about the winners of last week’s election being enemies of democracy is just an echo of the Democratic Party talking points about Republicans in the U.S. and just as specious. Whatever one may think of either man, their party doesn’t oppose democracy.

None of that matters because this discussion isn’t rooted in the facts about Israel or those who will make up its next government. Rather, it is an expression of unease with the reality of a Jewish state that must deal with a messy and insoluble conflict with the Palestinians as well as one where the majority of its Jews don’t think or look like your typical liberal Jewish Democrat.

Israel-haters will work for its destruction no matter who is its prime minister or the composition of the government. As has always been the case, the anti-Semites don’t need any new excuses for their efforts to besmirch and delegitimize the Jewish state.

One needn’t support Netanyahu or his partners to understand any of this.

Rather than apologizing for Ben-Gvir or the other aspects of Israeli reality that make readers of The New York Times cringe, those who care about the Jewish state and its people need to stop longing for an Israel which looks like them and embrace the one that actually exists. By buying into the disingenuous claims that this government will be less worthy of their support than its predecessors, they are merely falling into a trap set for them by anti-Semites.

Those who support the right of a Jewish state to exist should stop apologizing for it not conforming to some idealized liberal vision of Zionism, and understand that the people who voted for Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are just as deserving of respect and representation as they are.

Fred Maroun: To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

While Ben Gvir calls for Palestinian terrorists to be expelled from Israel, we know that Arab entities (including the Jordan-occupied West Bank and the Egypt-occupied Gaza) indiscriminately expelled all Jewish residents decades ago. We also know that Israel’s enemies are “bent on wiping the Jewish state and its inhabitants off the map” (as Canadian National Post columnist John Robson put it). As racist and as anti-democratic as Israel’s far right is, it is nothing compared to Israel’s enemies. That is of course cold comfort to those who are genuinely concerned about Ben Gvir and his ilk, but it points to a double standard.

Criticizing Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right while giving a pass to far worse Palestinian groups is a double standard. It sets high expectations of Jews while setting much lower expectations of others. It is obviously a form of antisemitism.

Using Ben Gvir to demonize Israel is not a new concept. Before Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right became popular, it was Netanyahu and his Likud party who were the favorite target of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was not born with Ben Gvir’s entry into Israeli politics, nor was it born with Netanyahu’s entry into Israeli politics. It has existed ever since Israel exists. Anti-Zionism was just as strong, and perhaps even stronger, when Israel was governed by socialists like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir.

In essence, there are two types of criticisms of Ben Gvir. There is the criticism that aims to make Israel better (or at least not worse). This criticism comes from Zionists in Israel and abroad. And there is the criticism that uses Ben Gvir as a new and more convenient way to demonize Israel. This criticism comes from anyone who hates Israel and does not give a fig about Israeli Arabs but looks on with glee as Ben Gvir weakens the fabric of Israeli society.

To Zionists, Ben Gvir is dangerous for several reasons. He is likely to weaken Western support for Israel, he is likely to weaken Israeli democracy, and he is likely to increase Israel’s investment in West Bank settlements which make a one-state bi-national solution increasingly likely. To Zionists, Ben Gvir is a problem. But to anti-Zionists, these are all reasons to celebrate. To them, Ben Gvir isn’t a problem, he’s an opportunity.

They Say Biden Only Criticizes Israel Behind The Scenes -- The Same Place He Undermines It (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

President Joe Biden called Netanyahu to congratulate him on his victory, as he returns to serve as prime minister of Israel.

It only took a week, but a lot was made of the fact that a number of world leaders lost no time in contacting Netanyahu to wish him well, while Biden -- who likes to brag about his friendship with Bibi -- seemed to be deliberately delaying his congratulations.

And maybe he was.

In February 2021, CNN reported that Biden took his time after winning his own election before contacting Netanyahu -- and that was because Netanyahu had taken his time contacting Biden on winning the election in 2020.

And so it goes.

But we are told that Biden and Netanyahu are actually good friends -- after all, Biden tells us so himself. He has claimed that he once gave Bibi a photo inscribed with the words:

“Bibi I don’t agree with a damn thing you say but I love you.”

Whatever that means.

During Biden's last visit to the Middle East, he visited Israel and met with Netanyahu, even though he was no longer prime minister at the time, and shook hands with him, saying “You know I love you.” Ha'aretz reported that a member of the US delegation met with a senior Israeli figure and told him that Biden's comment had nothing to do with affection --

When the president tells Netanyahu, “You know I love you,” the interlocutor from Washington explained, the implicit continuation of the sentence is: love aside, but you know I don’t want to see you return.

In any case, no matter how the media and the pundits choose to describe their relationship, Biden supposedly limits his criticisms of Netanyahu and Israel to private communications, while publicly providing unwavering support for the Jewish state. Yet that has not prevented Biden from publicly calling Netanyahu "counterproductive" and "extreme right."

That may be something to keep in mind when Netanyahu confides to Mark Levin that

[Biden] always says, 'Bibi, I love you, but I don't agree with a word you're saying' — [and] I say to him, ‘Joe, sometimes I reciprocate that.'"

Netanyahu and Biden apparently each can give as good as they get.

And when it comes to Israel, not all the things that Biden says about the Jewish state are complimentary.

Two years ago, Channel 13’s Nadav Eyal provided excerpts from a classified memo detailing a meeting Biden had with Golda Meir in 1973. The media's major focus was on the revelation that Biden relayed to her the conversations he had with Egyptian leaders who told him that they respected Israel's military superiority. Weeks later, Egypt attacked Israel. Obviously, Biden is not responsible for Israel's lack of preparation and military intelligence at the time.

However, there are some other comments Biden made that seem to have been overlooked.

Speaking directly to Golda Meir, Biden not only claims that Israel has an outsized influence on the Nixon administration against its will, but also claims that the US Senate is afraid of crossing American Jews.

There is a certain brazenness there that would make Ilhan Omar jealous.

But Biden is known for his odd comments and gaffes. What about what he has actually done since taking office -- what do his actions indicate about his attitude towards Israel and what Netanyahu can expect?

Just last November, it was reported that the Biden administration wanted to reopen the US consulate for the Palestinian Arabs in its original location in Jerusalem, despite the fact that the establishment of such a consulate in Jerusalem would be a violation of the Oslo Accords.

This is the same Biden who in support of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, said

Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to choose their own capital. What gives us the right to second-guess their decision? For 47 years, we, and much of the rest of the international community, have been living a lie.

Yet here was the Biden Administration trying to create conditions that would imply a division of Jerusalem between Jews and Arabs.

Eugene Kontorovich put it in stronger terms:

"The US does not want to open a consulate merely to have a place for diplomatic connections with the PA [Palestinian Authority]. If that is all they wanted, they could easily do this by opening a mission in Abu Dis or Ramallah -- where most other countries conduct their relations with the PA... the purpose of opening the consulate is to recognize Palestinian claims to Jerusalem."

Actually, Biden himself was explicit when he visited Abbas during his visit to the Middle East:

Jerusalem is central to the national visions of both Palestinians and Israelis, to your histories to your faiths to your futures. Jerusalem must be a city for all its people.

One month later, the Biden administration seemed to have shelved the idea.

Another area that reflects Biden's attitude towards Israel is the appointments he makes to fill positions that influence policy in the Middle East.

o In February, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor invited nonprofit groups to apply for grant money in order to "strengthen accountability and human rights in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza." Not only would this strengthen those seeking to delegitimize Israel, but the appointee to head the program was Sarah Margon -- the former Washington director at Human Rights Watch who has openly supported boycotting Israel.
o  The White House appointed George Salem as chairman of the U.S. Agency for International Development's Partnership for Peace Fund board. Salem lobbied for the Palestinian government from 2015 until late 2021 and was registered as a foreign agent for the Palestine Monetary Authority. Under Abbas, the Palestinian government has been known for the way it has mishandled foreign aid -- especially exploitation of those funds for the pay-to-slay program.
o  The Biden administration appointed Elizabeth Campbell as a deputy assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. She is the former director of UNRWA, criticized for its use of textbooks promoting hatred of Jews and of terrorism in Palestinian schools.
o  Hady Amr serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs and Press and Public Diplomacy in the Biden administration. He is also in charge of US negotiations with Israel and Palestinian organizations. He was the lead author of a report published by the Brookings Institution in December 2018 that said that the US must "reconnect" with Hamas, "create a Palestinian unity government integrating Hamas" and "compel Israel to make major concessions" even if this would "endanger Israel" -- concluding that "should Israel prove uncooperative with American efforts, the United States could signal it will move ahead anyway."
o  Biden's nominee for a top role at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Tamara Cofman Wittes, was director of the Middle East Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. She promoted articles that criticized the Abraham Accords and discouraged Arab countries from normalizing ties with Israel before the 2020 election. She tweeted that peace between Israel and the UAE was a ‘new Naksa,' a setback. She also retweeted an article that called the Abraham Accords misogynistic, a “triumph for authoritarianism.”

ZOA head Morton A. Klein has his own list of anti-Israel appointees that Biden put into key positions within his administration.

Reema Dodin [deputy director of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs]—who justified and even encouraged suicide bombings against Jews, organized anti-Israel rallies and spread Medieval-style blood libels, including the false claim that Israel denies Palestinian Arabs food, water and medical treatment; Maher Bitar [National Security Council official]—who organized the Palestine Solidarity Movement anti-Israel boycott conference at Georgetown University, at which he ran a session on how to demonize Israel; Karine Jean-Pierre [White House Press Secretary]—who helped orchestrate Democratic presidential candidates’ boycott of a major pro-Israel conference; Wendy Sherman [United States Deputy Secretary of State]—who negotiated the terrible Iran deal, praised secret concessions to Iran and downplayed PLO suicide bombings and other terror attacks on innocent Israelis; Avril Haines [Director of National Intelligence]—who signed a vicious letter falsely accusing Israel of violence, terrorism, and incitement; apologist for Hamas and Iran Robert Malley; and numerous others.

Klein also recalls that Biden praised Rashida Tlaib last year:

I admire your intellect, I admire your passion, I admire your concern for so many other people. You’re a fighter and God thank you for being a fighter.

He also notes that Biden resumed funding to Palestinian projects, in violation of the spirit -- if not the letter -- of the Taylor Force Act.

In fact, last month it was reported that the legal advocacy group America First Legal, a group of conservative lawyers and activists, filed a FOIA request for internal documents about US funding for the Palestinian Authority. The group claims that the Biden administration is violating US law by providing more than half a billion dollars to the PA. They claim the documents they are demanding will show an illegal effort "to undermine Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem."

And let's not forget about Biden and Iran.

Remember the tension we saw between Netanyahu and Obama?
The next 2 years might just make Netanyahu nostalgic for those days.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Today's car ramming terrorist was 54 years old. Is this something to worry about?

This morning, at a checkpoint near Beit Horon, a Palestinian rammed an IDF soldier with a van, seriously injuring him. The terrorist then exited the vehicle with an axe and attempted to kill the soldier who was lying on the ground.The officer managed to shoot the terrorist, killing him.

Here is security camera footage of the incident:

The terrorist in this case was Habis Abdel Hafeez Youssef Rayan, who is 54 years old.

It is unusual for a man of that age to be directly involved in a terrorist attack. What could be his motivation, and will this be the start of a new wave of older male terrorists?

According to the Palestinian Shams news agency, two of Rayan's sons are members of Islamic Jihad from the town of Beit Dukko. One is Qusay Rayan, who is in Israeli prison, and Assem Rayan, who was released from prison.

I assume this is Assem with Habis.

Abu Ali Express notes that someone named Ra’ed Yosef Rayan, of Beit Dukko, has been on a hunger strike for administrative detention and that detention was just extended yesterday. It seems likely that Ra'ed is another relative of Habis, but it seems unlikely that he would go on a suicide attack for a nephew's detention extension when his own son has been in prison for longer.

When young Arab women attack soldiers at checkpoints, it is often discovered afterwards that they had faced some sort of humiliation - often caught in an illicit relationship - and their "martyrdom" is an attempt to end their shame. We will not learn it from Palestinian media, but it is possible that Habis Rayan was facing serious business problems or bankruptcy, and this is a surefire method to ensure a salary for his family for as long as the Palestinian Authority exists.

One person isn't a trend, but we need to see if other older Palestinian men decide to follow Habis - especially since he is getting widely praised in Palestinian media as a heroic martyr.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

10/21 Links Pt1: Lapid: UN's CIO report is antisemitic and written by antisemites; Iran testing drones on Ukrainian civilians for future use on Israel

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Yair Lapid, Authoritarian and Unafraid

Under Israel’s constitutional law Basic Law – Referendums, to come into force all international agreements that involve the concession of sovereign territory require the approval of two-thirds of the Knesset or must pass in a public referendum. Since Lapid’s deal involves the concession of Israel’s territorial waters, under both the spirit and letter of the law, Lapid is supposed to submit the deal to the Knesset for two-thirds approval. In the event, Lapid tried to avoid even presenting the agreement to the Knesset for review. Although Attorney General Gali Miara Baharav issued an opinion that the agreement doesn’t need to be considered under the Basic Law – Referendums (for reasons that aren’t clear), she still insisted that the Knesset must approve the deal by a simple majority.

Lapid, for his part, doesn’t care what his attorney general thinks or what the law says. In response to a reporter’s question at the press conference, Lapid explained how he justifies his decision to act in clear contempt of the law and his attorney general and suffice with government approval of his radical deal with Hezbollah’s stand-in government in Beirut.

As he put it, “In light of the opposition’s unrestrained behavior, we have decided not to bring the agreement before the Knesset for a vote.”

That is, given that his political opponents oppose a gas deal that cedes Israeli territory and natural resources to its sworn enemy, under the gun, and just weeks before a national election, Lapid has decided that the Knesset is unworthy of the honor of approving his deal.

Several commentators have noted that Lapid’s statement demonstrated a contempt for his opposition. But the real problem with his statement, and the sentiment it expressed, is that it demonstrated an utter contempt for the most basic institution in Israel’s parliamentary democracy—the parliament, and for democratic norms.

Probably the worst thing about Lapid’s anti-democratic behavior is that his supportive press is letting him get away with it. While the CEC made Yesh Atid pay Channel 14’s legal costs, it didn’t require Lapid’s party to reimburse the television station for the fortune it paid to run a public campaign against Lapid’s efforts to shutter it. Channel 14 felt compelled to launch its campaign because for the most part, it received no support from its counterparts in the progressive, Lapid-supporting media. Israel Hayom, which changed its editorial line to support the Bennett-Lapid government was the only newspaper to express opposition to Lapid’s campaign against Channel 14. And it did it in a house ad, on page 20 of the paper. With the exception of two or three journalists on the right that broadcast for the other stations, Channel 14’s competitors either said nothing, or expressed support for Lapid’s effort to shut it down.

As for the deal with Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon, most of the media coverage has played down Lapid’s apparent breach of a Basic Law to ram his deal through on the eve of elections. Opposition to the deal has been painted in partisan colors, effecting the sense that the controversy over an agreement which requires Israel to make massive concessions in response to Hezbollah threats is nothing but electioneering.

It is impossible to know how the elections will pan out. There are always last-minute surprises. Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc is consistently polling between 59-62 seats, which makes it far from certain that Netanyahu will be able to form a coalition without making a deal with members of Lapid’s left-Arab bloc. But Lapid’s behavior since taking over the caretaker government makes one thing clear. If he forms the next government, the foundations of Israel’s democratic system and the basic freedoms that citizens of a free society expect, including freedom of the press and representative government, will be imperiled.

David Singer: Roth confounds UN, USA & Australia: Two-State solution “is gone” Kenneth Roth – recently retired Executive Director of Human Rights Watch – has undermined the continuation of the policy espoused by the UN, USA and Australia for the last 20 years supporting the the creation of a new Palestinian Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history (two-state solution).

Addressing a recent discussion hosted by the Washington-based think-tank - Arab Center - Roth declared:
“The two-state solution is great but it's gone”

Roth’s bombshell admission was followed by this statement made by Hady Amr - US deputy assistant secretary for Israeli and Palestinian affairs:

"We remain committed to rebuilding our bilateral relationship with the Palestinian people, with the US president's goal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,"

In reversing Australia’s decision to recognise western Jerusalem, later revoked, as the capital of Israel – Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said:
“Australia is committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders. We will not support an approach that undermines this prospect.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been repeating a similar mantra since 2017:

“A two-state solution that will end the occupation and, with the creation of conditions, also the suffering even to the Palestinian people, is in my opinion the only way to guarantee that peace is established and, at the same time, that two states can live together in security and in mutual recognition,”

This blinkered approach by the UN, USA and Australia has seen each of them refusing to acknowledge – let alone discuss – the merits of a new alternative solution emanating from Saudi Arabia in June : Shredding the failed two-state solution and calling for the merger of Jordan, Gaza and part of the 'West Bank' into one territorial entity to be called The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine whose capital will be Amman – not Jerusalem (Saudi Solution).

10/12 Links Pt2: Alan Johnson: On Amnesty’s Antisemitic ‘Apartheid’ Report; Kontorovich: Israel should not sign a cultural agreement with Europe

From Ian:

Alan Johnson: On Amnesty’s Antisemitic ‘Apartheid’ Report

This new introduction to the updated 2022 edition of The Apartheid Smear (forthcoming), originally published by BICOM in 2013, critiques a recent Amnesty International report, one of a crop of very similar ‘reports’ published by NGOs and UN bodies in 2021 and 2022 that smear Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state [6]. The introduction is organised in three parts, critically examining in turn the analysis, politics, and methods of Amnesty’s report.

Why is it so important for opinion formers and policy makers who seek peace via the two-state solution to reject the Amnesty Apartheid Report?

Because it has long been understood by democrats on all sides that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible without the hard work of mutual recognition and peacebuilding, negotiations and compromises, and, eventually, a lasting settlement based on a division of the land and an institutionalisation of the democratic right to national self determination of both peoples.

Some way-stations on the journey to peace have been Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, Taba, Annapolis, and the Kerry-Obama talks. Yes, the last inch of the journey, as the saying goes, is a mile deep, but there is no real-world alternative to trying again to traverse it. Today, that effort will proceed in the more hopeful context of the Abraham Accords, a historic series of agreements between Israel and several surrounding Arab states. For an extensive collection of some of the most creative and expert thinking from Israelis, Palestinians and others about how to recommence that journey to peace see Rescuing Israeli-Palestinian Peace: The Fathom Essays 2016-2020.

However, while a negotiated two-state solution remains the only viable way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by recognising the right of both peoples to national self determination, right now the gaps between the sides remain significant, and there is insufficient trust, or political will, to build the kind of relationships between the leaderships that might allow those gaps to be bridged.

In the real world, which is found at some distance from NGO-UN Reportland, the task of Britain, along with other European states, the US and Arab leaders, is not to make Israel an international pariah as the Amnesty report would have us do, but to prevent further deterioration on the ground, lower tensions, and find ways to improve the situation. This approach may not be well suited to winning applause from a campus audience, but it is well suited to encouraging a recommencement of the peace process down the line. The analysis, politics and methods of the Amnesty report would take us in the opposite direction, and should be rejected as a political dead-end by opinion-formers, policy makers and, not least, Palestinians.

Mainstream Jewish Organizations Don’t Have Leftwing Antisemitism “Under Control”

While the Jewish community is playing the short game, doing what it’s always done to win the moment, radical social justice warriors are playing the long game—what activists call “the long march through institutions”—in inculcating a stark ideological worldview that portrays anyone with power or success (success is a function of power, in this worldview)—America, Israel, Jews, Asians, men, etc.—as oppressors. Schools are teaching students to see people’s identities as markers of privilege and power and to “recognize and resist systems of oppression.” The problem is that the ideologues who are driving the agenda define the oppressor as anyone perceived to be powerful and successful, and the oppressed as anyone they deem powerless and, hence, unsuccessful. It’s a highly simplistic, binary worldview.

With this ideological software running through our kids’ brains, the school system does not have to even utter the word “Jew” or “Israel” for Jews and Israel to be ultimately implicated in oppression. Indeed, this is already happening. Survey data shows a strong correlation between progressive political attitudes on oppression and antisemitism on the left. The Jewish Institute for Liberal Values commissioned a poll of 1,600 likely voters. Survey respondents were split roughly between Democratic and Republican voters. Respondents were asked: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? America is a structurally racist country in which white Americans, and white-adjacent groups who emulate white culture (like Asian Americans and Jewish Americans), have unfair advantages over minorities which must be addressed to achieve equity?” The poll revealed that those on the far left were much more likely to agree with the statement, an indication that progressive ideological attitudes about structural racism are fueling antisemitic and anti-Asian sentiment (viewing Jews and Asians as privileged).

The ideologues are rewiring the way young people think so that they’ll adopt their worldview, including the view that Israel is a “settler-colonialist” state. They are, in effect, laying the groundwork for the Berkeley Law Schools of the future, when there will be more true believers on their side, at which time the future Dean of the Law School will face more pressure from radical activists and less pushback from us.

For Jewish organizations to effectively counter the long-term threat, they must come to terms with the underlying ideology that powers progressive antisemitism. They cannot, on the one hand, pretend to support this oppressor/oppressed binary, as many did in the California Ethnic Studies controversy, and, on the other, hope and pray that such a stance doesn’t ultimately manifest in the portrayal of Jews and Israel as oppressors. As long as radical social justice ideologues are experiencing success pushing a program that simplistically divides the world into oppressed and oppressors and condemns anyone who doesn’t agree with them, we are going to have major antisemitism problems, in ever greater frequency and intensity.

The sooner the Jewish community comes to terms with this reality and stops playing footsie with radical forces, the sooner we can develop strategies and tactics aimed at winning the long game.

Martin Kramer "Semites, Anti-Semites, and Bernard Lewis: The Life and Afterlife of a Seminal Book"

Martin Kramer is a historian of the Middle East and Israel at Tel Aviv University and the Walter P. Stern Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was the founding president of Shalem College, a liberal arts school in Jerusalem, and a visiting professor or fellow at Brandeis, Chicago, Cornell, Georgetown, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the Wilson Center. He earned his degrees from Princeton, under the supervision of Bernard Lewis. Among his many publications on Islam, Israel, and the Middle East, Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America (2001) has been widely discussed and influential.

Jared Kushner reveals why Trump was turned off by Abbas

CNN Arabic quotes an episode in Jared Kushner's book Breaking History that I couldn't find in any English-language articles. The quotes are obviously translated from English to Arabic and back, so they will not be exact quotes from the book.

The President was scheduled to meet with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the West Bank. Abbas came to the White House in May, told the president he was ready to negotiate, and expressed confidence in Trump as an arbiter of a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. We were impressed, but we were still waiting to hear more. Just before we left, Ambassador Friedman showed Trump a video of Abbas making serious threats towards the Israeli people.

Friedman's message was clear: Be careful with Abbas - he tells you he's for peace in English, but look carefully at what he says in Arabic. Tillerson saw what was happening in the video and got angry, claiming he was dishonest. Friedman replied: ' Are you saying he didn't say these things?' Tillerson had to admit that they were Abbas's words, but he was angry that he was losing control. It was important for the president to see all sides of the issue, especially since he was hearing from so many respectable businessmen that Abbas was a serious man who genuinely wanted to make peace.

During the bilateral meeting in Ramallah, Abbas recited the same talking points he had used during his last visit to the White House. It was as if the first meeting never happened. He failed to show any progress on the issues he and Trump had previously discussed. Trump was disappointed. He was furious and did not mince his words: 'You pay those who kill Israelis. This is official government policy. You have to stop this. We can make a deal in two seconds. I have the best players on it. But I want to see some action. I want to I see it quickly, I don't think you want to make a deal.'

Abbas became defensive and complained about Israeli security. Trump replied: 'Wait: Israel is good at security, and you say you're not going to take security from them? Are you crazy? Without Israel, ISIS can take over your territory in about twenty minutes. We're spending so much on the military. Everyone in this region spends a fortune on security. If I can get high-quality security for free to America and save the cost, I'll take it in a second'.... After witnessing Abbas' stubbornness, I understand better why 12 former presidents tried and failed in reaching a peace agreement.

This sounds like Trump - and Tillerman, and Friedman, and Abbas himself. It is consistent with what Friedman wrote in his memoir about the meeting with Trump. The Jerusalem Post said that the businessman who had tried to convince Trump that Abbas was peaceful was Ronald Lauer, which is sort of amazing - he used to be a Netanyahu supporter but had a falling out, but to hate Netanyahu so much as to tell Trump that he should accept Abbas as a peaceful statesman is almost beyond belief.

CNN Arabic contacted the Palestinian foreign ministry to comment with no response.

It is interesting that this was not reported in English-language CNN. Apparently, criticizing Abbas in English does not fit the narrative.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Mahmoud Abbas will tell UN that terrorists are heroes

Mahmoud Abbas told Wafa News Agency that he plans to tell the world how heroic the terrorists who are in Israeli prisons are in his address to the UN in September.

"The presidency affirmed that the Palestinian people and their leadership stand with the heroic prisoners in their battle in which they defend the dignity and sanctities of their people," the statement said.

The statement went on, "President Mahmoud Abbas is constantly following the suffering of the heroic prisoners in the prisons of the occupation, and that their issue is at the top of the agenda along with the right of return, the state and self-determination. ...These prisoners are heroes and symbols of the Palestinian people. We are proud of them and their steadfastness and adherence to the justice of their cause."

Palestinian immorality is so entrenched, so much a part of their ethos, that no one blinks at the demand that terrorists be released so they can attack Jews again. So much so that Abbas knows he can say this to the entire world without criticism.

Notice that releasing the prisoners and the fictional "right of return" to destroy the Jewish state are listed before statehood in his list of demands. Because killing Jews and destroying Israel are higher priorities for the "moderate" Abbas than actual statehood.

−

World Bank, IMF continue to avoid recommending the Palestinians stop Pay for Slay

Don't tell me how to spend the money the West sends me!

The International Monetary Fund visited Israel and the territories this month to give advice on helping the Palestinian economy.

They issued a final statement with a summary of their findings. But there was something missing:

A single word about the Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund or the other programs that pay terrorists and their families.

The PA spends about $270 million every year on prisoner salaries and "martyr" family payments, a significant chunk of the PA budget altogether (a few years ago, it was 8%, it has probably increased since then.) It is nearly 2% of the total Palestinian GDP!

This is similar to the April World Bank report that also didn't mention "Pay for Slay" as a potential target for cost cutting.

Mahmoud Abbas has said many times that the top priority of spending for the Palestinians is on paying these terrorists - more than healthcare, more than education, more than retirement benefits.

That appears to be the reason the IMF and World Bank don't bother making the recommendations to cut a program that throws hundreds of millions of dollars away annually to terrorists and their families - because they know that the PA will ignore them. But that is a profoundly bad reason - their job is to make the best recommendations they can, and then report if the PA refuses to comply.

By hiding a huge source of the PA's financial woes, these world financial organizations are not doing anyone any favors. On the contrary - they become complicit in supporting terrorism.

Say the truth, and let the PA defend the indefensible.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

Palestinian leaders deliberately avoid condemning Jerusalem attack

In recent days, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas:

- Offered condolences to Egyptian leaders on the tragic church fire

- Offered condolences on the assassination of a Fatah military leader in Lebanon by unknown people

- Called three terrorist prisoners who were recently released by Israel

- Congratulated Chad's leader for its independence day, as well as those of Ecuador and Singapore

- Offered condolences to the families of three terrorists killed in Nablus by the IDF

- Condemned Israel for its "continued aggression against our people"

With this busy schedule of statements and phone calls, his choice not to condemn a terror attack in Jerusalem that targeted religious Jews is not an oversight. It is a deliberate decision.

Because Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority support, tacitly or explicitly, every terror attack.

The only time they condemn terror attacks is when they are pressured to do so by the United States. Otherwise, while they don't issue congratulations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they definitely don't issue condemnations.

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!