Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Hamas newspaper asks if Jews really control the world economy. Guess the answer!.

Al Resalah, a Hamas newspaper, starts an article with an encouraging note:

Many Arabs and Muslims around the world are talking about how the Jews control the world economy and policies in major countries, Is this the actual reality from the evidence, or just conspiracy theories to justify the defeat of the Arabs and Muslims in the current situation nowadays?

The question is, Do the Jews control the world economy? What is the nature of this control?

Given that this is the photo accompanying the article, you know what the answer will be.

It starts off by saying that the Rothschilds are worth a trillion dollars, but some people say they are worth $500 trillion, more than seven times the value of the every other person and nation combined.

We go on to read that the family was not only behind JFK's assassination, but also Abraham Lincoln's.

They somehow manage to avoid being mentioned as the richest people in Forbes list, however. This may have to do with the fact that Jews own all the media worldwide. This is how Jews control everyone's minds. They even mention Wolf Blitzer.

Then comes a list of high tech and consumer products companies that Jews own or control or influence.

Too bad they cannot reach the obvious conclusion: that Jews also control Al Resalah, and Hamas altogether. Which Fatah has stated more than once, since every Arab habitually accuses his enemies of being Jewish. So at some point ISIS, Syria, Jordan, Hamas, Fatah, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Iran have been accused of being Zionist and/or Jewish by their enemies.

Anyway, the cute innovation that Hamas used in this article was to preface it with a pretense of skepticism and objectivity, which makes the conspiracy theories sound more legitimate. Kudos!

Walking down J-Street (part 3)

Another report from Messy57 (parts 1, 2)

"One thing you must understand is that when you support the BDS movement, you actually are helping Netanyahu, because Netanyahu is playing on that fear, that almost every Israeli Jewish citizen is feeling, that there is a possibility that the world will just turn against us,"— Stav Shaffir, ZU member of the Knesset.

That was a primary theme of the J-Street convention. I heard this over and over again. The vast majority of the attendees weren’t anti-Israel, they were anti-Bibi, and that was the general consensus: Israel good, Bibi bad. Another consensus was the necessity of a two state solution. What wasn’t agreed to is what shape of the borders for the two (three?) states are going to be.

The first session I attended the first morning was on “Israel as a neighbor”, which was presented by the New Israel fund. The speakers all were in favor of land swaps to keep most of the settlements intact. , it was the same with the main “plenary session”, called “The Choices Ahead, ” which had seven members of the Knesset (by my count, nearly a fifth of the entire Israeli parliamentary opposition was there) talking, and they all were very “hawkish” on security and lamented they didn’t get that message across.

Nobody was in favor of the green line as a permanent border. Not even the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who specifically stated that Israel needed secure borders. However, no speaker that I heard, and I missed quite a few panels so I can’t be certain about this, came out in favor of the Hamas plan or going back to Folk Bernadotte’s “1935 borders.”

What everyone did come out against a ONE state solution that the Arabs and the BDS crowd (and Bennett) are in favor of. Nobody came out in favor of a binational state of Palestine from the river to the sea (although Noam Sheizaf, the guy from +972, came close.)

The panels that I was most interested were the Arab-centric ones. The panel entitled “Gaza: The Human and Political Costs of Deprivation and Disunity” is a case in point. Yes, the situation in Gaza is horrific, and yes, most of the people on the panel blamed Israel (Howard Sulka, who ran an NGO there, gave the case why HAMAS started the last war but came to the conclusion that “we can’t be sure”), but nobody had a nice word to say about Hamas’ government of the area. Even Maha Mehanna, who is Gazan and has to go back, didn’t say anything good about them (She explained that Hamas was elected because the Fatah regime was so corrupt).

However, they did explain how they had to go through diplomatic hoops because Hamas is a terrorist organization that may not be talked to. The holes in the narrative were amazing to behold.

I attended the Iran panel, which was both fascinating and unedifying to the mx, before going to the next plenum: “Does Liberal Zionism Have a Future?”

This is an excellent question, DOES IT?

The panel, led by Peter Beinart, wasn’t very optimistic, and they rightly blamed Netanyahu, Leiberman and Bennet. Which brings everyone back to which two-state solution is the best one? That particular question wasn’t actually addressed, what WAS, was the status quo, which everyone considers untenable.

The villains were fingered as not just Bibi, Bennett et al, but the Republicans as well, who are working to alienate Liberals/Progressives from the entire Zionist project and declare the 69 percent of the Jewish vote that voted for Obama “self-hating Jews” and guilty of treason. Some of the issues were clearly articulated but not all.

Wet Winter Threatens J-Street's Supply Of Straw Men (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Tel Aviv, March 25 - The relatively heavy precipitation of the last several months in Israel has severely reduced the availability of dried grain stalks, the defining component of the straw men used by J-Street and its ideological allies in political rhetoric. If the trend continues, say experts, J-Street and its ilk will be forced to devote greater resources to the procurement of straw from alternative sources, necessitating cuts in other areas of activity.

J-Street has long relied on Israeli straw for the production of its arguments, which involve constructing an extreme or distorted version of an opponent's position, then demonstrating the weaknesses, errors, or absurdity, outright immorality of the straw man position, as if one has thus thoroughly undermined the opponent's argument.

For example, J-Street and its allies on the Israeli Left frequently resort to the contention that the Israeli Right as a whole refuses to accept a two-state solution, when in fact such rejection is the province only of the extreme fringe of the right wing. Painting the Right as irredeemably extreme serves J-Street as a classic straw man argument, using large quantities of the agricultural by-product.
Israel's climate has fluctuated over the last several decades, but the overall trend has been toward shrinking precipitation during the rainy season. That has contributed to plentiful stocks of straw - but this winter proved wetter than usual, cutting seasonal production of straw and forcing the producers of straw man arguments into fierce competition for the resource.

While some straw is available internationally, political and logistical constraints make most sources unavailable to J-Street. The organization's self-description as "pro-Israel," however disingenuous, discourages potential sellers in the Middle East from engaging openly with it, all but forcing J-Street to look for sourcing in the US, where shipping increases the cost.

Further exacerbating the shortage is the White House increasing its use of straw for the same purposes. The Obama administration has invested in the production of vast quantities of straw men for use in rhetoric about Iran, Binyamin Netanyahu, Republican leaders, and global antisemitism. While American domestic straw production is far greater than that of Israel, the sheer quantity of the material consumed by the White House and State Department in the last six years has driven up the price for other potential customers.

One option available to J-Street and its allies is to share the same straw men, but doing so would look amateurish, a fatal flaw in an organization aiming to portray itself as an indispensable, well-connected player on the international stage. Another possibility involves reducing certain non-essential activities to free up the necessary resources, such as explicit opposition to the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement. Jettisoning that opposition would not substantially alter the organization's ethos, says Middle East analyst N. T. Semitt.

"It's actually just a waste of time for J-Street to pretend it opposes BDS," she said. "Maybe one day they'll wake up and realize they're similarly encumbered by the notion of being 'pro-Israel' as well."

03/25 Links Pt1: Resetting the Peace Process; Matt Lee Grills State Dept On Treatment Of Iran Vs Israel

From Ian:

Resetting the Mideast Peace Process

Moreover, under current circumstances Israeli withdrawals would likely lead to establishment of a second “Hamastan” in the West Bank (or worse, an ISIS type regime) – not to a stable and peaceful reality.
So Netanyahu is accurately tapping into a mainstream, dominant Israeli mindset that is realistic and cautious. Indeed, if you factor out Israeli Arab and Haredi voters, one in every three Israeli voters opted for Likud.
For good reasons (born of bitter experience), Israelis distrust Palestinian intentions; for very good reasons, Israelis are wary of the Islamic terrorist armies that have encamped on the Jewish state’s borders; and for crystal-clear reasons, Israelis are suspicious and resentful of the Obama White House.
It has been this way ever since the Palestinian terrorist war against Israel of 2000-2004 (the second intifada); the rejection by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas of sweeping Israeli peace proposals three times over the past 15 years; the emergence of Iranian-dominated enclaves on Israel’s northern and southern borders following Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza; and Obama’s decision to wedge “daylight” into US-Israel relations while sprinting towards strategic partnership with Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran.
In truth, Herzog was no more likely to bring about establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian state over the next two years than Netanyahu is.
So it’s time for Israel to re-articulate its thinking about the process of achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. Netanyahu should capitalize on his sweeping victory to reset the diplomatic table by outlining a pragmatic process that Israel can participate in, and to draw clear Israeli red lines as to acceptable contours of a solution.
Doing so is especially urgent since Israel is already facing a renewed international campaign for West Bank withdrawals. The Obama administration is not-so-subtly threatening to throw its support behind a new United Nations Security Council resolution recognizing Palestinian independence and demanding rapid withdrawal to the 1967 lines (with some itsy-bitsy possible land swaps mentioned as a sop to Israel).

Obama’s Pointless Israel Spats Illustrate Spite, Not Strategy

This has, after all, been a constant theme since the president took office in January 2009 determined to make a correction from what he felt was the Bush administration’s coziness with Israel. Throughout the last six years, with only a one-year break for a re-election campaign Jewish charm offensive, President Obama has picked numerous fights with Netanyahu government over settlement building and borders as well as the status of Jerusalem. The goal throughout has been to persuade Israel to take “risks for peace” involving retreating from the West Bank and dividing Jerusalem.
This struggle has been undertaken in the name of saving Israel from itself because as the president noted in his Huffington Post interview, he wanted to preserve Israel’s democracy. But, like his admirers among the crowd at J Street, at no point has the president chosen to hold the Palestinians accountable for their consistent rejection of Israeli peace offers or efforts to torpedo talks, such as the end run around negotiations and unity pact with Hamas that blew up the talks sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry last year.
Nor is there any answer to the widespread concern voiced by Israeli voters about what would happen if their country heeded Obama’s advice and withdrew from the West Bank, whether to the 1967 lines or not. After the example of Gaza, from which Israeli pulled out every last soldier and settler and which was then transformed into a vast terror base from which rockets are rained down on Israeli cities, why should Israelis believe a pullout from the West Bank end any differently. (h/t NormanF)

AP Reporter Grills State Dept. Spokeswoman

As the White House continues its attacks on Israeli Premier Netanyahu for things he never said, the Administration seems to be ignoring the Supreme Leader of Iran's calls for "death to America." When Associated Press reporter Matt Lee challenged State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki on the issue during Tuesday's press briefing, Psaki did all she could to avoid answering the question.
Lee: This has been raised before by other people, but I will ask it again now in this---the same context. When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing---in the middle of these negotiations is continuing to make statements like, “Death to America,” how is that not problematic for you? How is that not something---why are you just willing to let it slide basically, and you are holding the Prime Minister of Israel to comments that he made and since changed?
Psaki: Well, Matt, I think we would hardly put the Supreme Leader and the leadership of Israel in the same category. Israel is a strategic partner, a security partner---
Lee: Are you saying the Iranians can be trusted but the Israelis can’t? Is that what you are saying?

AP’s Matt Lee Grills State Dept. On Treatment Of Iran Vs. Israel

AP Reporter Grills State Dept for Obama Admin's 'Anonymous Whining' about Israel

How many of the women "civilians" killed were actually terrorists?

From The Times (UK):

Hadifa sold all her engagement jewellery to buy the battered AK-47 that she lovingly cradled as she talked about preparing for “part two” of the war with Israel. Her fiancé didn’t mind the extravagant purchase, she said, giggling: he is her battalion commander.

A 26-year-old student from Gaza City, Hadifa wears the black niqab and monochrome bandana of her battalion, the Nasser Salahuddin Brigades. She is part of a growing movement of female fighters in the conflict-ridden territory.

The 51-day war with Israel last year, which claimed the lives of 2,100 Palestinians, 66 Israeli soldiers and seven civilians in Israel, was not yet over, she said, and fighting would break out again “any day” now that the Israeli elections were over.

Palestinian women fighters have been active since the second intifada in 2000, but their numbers have swelled since the most recent Israeli offensive. All of Gaza’s fighting groups have female units, but the most efficient is the Nasser Salahuddin Brigades unit.

“There are more women than ever — we are now almost equal to the number of men. After this war we saw a huge increase of women signing up for the next fight,” said Om Adam, 40, a leathery-faced veteran fighter, and wife of a senior Salahuddin commander.

She said there were several hundred female fighters in Gaza, but no one knew the exact number because each unit worked in a secretive, 25-strong, cell-like structure. She agreed to meet The Times only after nightfall.

The women know only their comrades in their unit. Each cell is led by a female commander, who is assigned a male superior. The Salahuddin Brigade is thought to have at least 80 female combatants and hundreds of others who work in support roles.

Om Adam said that the women fighters had become increasingly important because they could move more freely, passing on weapons, food and information to the men, who might spend weeks almost entirely underground in Gaza’s intricate network of tunnels. “We act as the eyes and ears on the ground for the fighters, checking the streets before they move.”

Some were engaged in direct combat, said Om Khadija, 24, a female fighter who manned an RPG and several rocket launchers during the two months of fighting last summer. All the women recruits were trained to use and fix weapons, including sniper rifles, AK-47s, RPGs and M16s.

Om Adam signed up for a frontline role after her son lost both his legs and half of one arm when their home was bombed during the 2008-2009 war with Israel. She said that a shrapnel wound was still etched like a shark bite into his skull from the blast, which killed several other members of the family.

“Think of it as revenge. People have lost everything and live in appalling conditions here in Gaza. Either you die pointlessly and slowly, or quickly with purpose,” she said.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has forced many desperate youths who have nothing else to live for to join groups fighting Israel, according to Pernille Ironside, Unicef’s Gaza director.

I love how UN agencies justify people becoming terrorists.

...[P]overty is widespread — leaving people with little else to do but fight, Om Khadija said.

Sure. It's not like they can learn web design or languages or desktop publishing or any other freelance job that could be done with only an Internet connection. Nope, they have no other choice.

Her battalion trains three days a week, in a flexible schedule which works around the women’s domestic commitments. Training videos posted on YouTube show them wielding RPGs, all wearing voluminous black burkas and niqabs — but in battle and in the tunnels, some of which are reserved for women, they wear tunics and lose trousers for ease of movement.

“We have a rigorous fitness programme, like the guys, which involves everything from climbing to running through fire. We also study war strategies, English and technology,” said the young mother. “It’s only a matter of time until the fighting starts again. We’re training and re-arming. We’re fully prepared.”

Even if they weren't active combatants, it seems likely that some of the women killed in Gaza who are regarded as civilian were actually part of the terror infrastructure.

Here's video of the ladies. I like how the standard terrorist ski masks aren't modest enough for them.

(h/t Margie)

Jordan's parliament condemns dancing Jews (update)

The reactions to the "dancing Jews" story keep getting more bizarre.

A couple of days ago a number of Hasidim traveled to Jordan's airport and started dancing to wedding tunes as they were waiting for their plane, presumably to celebrate an impending or new marriage of one of them.

Even though no one at the airport complained and the others in the waiting area did not seem upset, video of the event went viral in the Arab world to widespread disgust,

Now, Jordanian parliament members are complaining and asking what the kingdom plans to do about this terrible spectacle of celebrating, dancing Jews.

MP Bassam Batos called the behavior disgusting and revolting and provocative and asked what the government had to do with the event.

(UPDATE:) MP Yahya al-Saud demanded a government response to "Talmudic rituals" at the airport.

Tareq Khoury asked if anyone if filing an official complaint, and demanded that the government translate the lyrics of the songs being sung.

I can help there!

The first song comes from part of one of the blessings given at a Jewish wedding:

[Blessed is G-d] Who created joy and celebration, bridegroom and bride, rejoicing, jubilation, pleasure and delight, love and brotherhood, peace and friendship.

The next song, from the same blessing, is going to make the Jordanians a little more uncomfortable, notwithstanding that it originally comes from the Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah 33:10-11, which is a prophecy that foretells the Jewish return to Israel and Jerusalem.

May there soon be heard in the cities of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem, the sound of joy and the sound of celebration, the voice of a bridegroom and the voice of a bride.

OK, that's pretty Zionist, even if it predates modern Zionism by several thousand years.

The third song has only three words. From one of the zemirot sung on Shabbat, it takes on a dual meaning in this context:

שמחם בבנין שלם Gladden them with a complete structure

(h/t Nursemedic)

Hamas claims to have captured Israeli insect drones

From Middle East Monitor:

The Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas have seized electronic insects that were flying the skies of the Gaza Strip, according to Al-Majd, a security website close to Hamas.

Al-Majd reports that the devices are used by the Israeli authorities for spying and monitoring the positions and bases of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

It is also believed they are being used to search for Israeli soldiers reportedly kidnapped during the latest Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

An informed source told Al-Majd that Hamas electronic security units disassembled these insects and found pictures of the soldiers kidnapped during the war stored in their memories. They also revealed that they are being run and monitored via satellites.

"The electronic insects are the size of small birds and look as birds from far distances," the informed source said. "They can easily fly and enter into buildings and other facilities through very small holes and fly easily inside them."

The Al Majd article adds that the insect drones have GPS capabilities.

The illustration it uses is from a news story from 2011 on US research.

It was very smart of Mossad to deploy these larger mini-drones, in order to distract Hamas from the nano-drones, which are small enough to enter the noses of the Islamist leaders, burrow to their brains and then explode.

Whoa, sorry, I wasn't supposed to reveal that!

Of course, the story is bogus.

It is true that the US and Israel are working on insect-like drones. However, they are nowhere near production.

Gaza woman defends women's rights in Islam by showing her mastery of math

This is just too funny, from MEMRI:

In a recent TV interview, Tahani Abu Jazar, lecturer on Islamic law at the Islamic University in Gaza, defended the status of women in Islam, saying: "The woman does not have the same needs as the man." The man, she said, "uses the left hemisphere of the brain," whereas the woman "uses both parts of her brain." According to Abu Jazar, "this proves that the testimony of a man equals that of two women." The interview aired on the Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV channel on March 8, 2015 to mark International Woman's Day.

She should be happy that men are so tolerant of her:

In a Friday sermon delivered in the Aicha Mosque in Montpellier, France, Imam Mohamed Khattabi said: "No matter how much good you bestow upon a woman... Her selfishness drives her to deny it." The sermon was delivered on March 8 and posted on the Internet.

03/24 Links Pt2: NIF Given $1 Mil+ From State Dept; Hirsi Ali Confronts Jon Stewart About Islam

From Ian:

Edwin Black: Controversial ‘New Israel Fund’ Received More Than $1 Million From US State Department

The controversial New Israel Fund and its social change and political lobbying organization – known as SHATIL – have received more than $1 million from the State Department under a program designed to create political change, reform, and activism in the Middle East. The government program, Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), has extended more than $600 million in grants to political and social activists and reformers in 18 Middle East countries, mainly with unstable or challenged political environments in need of democratic improvement. “
MEPI supports organizations and individuals in their efforts to promote political, economic, and social reform in the Middle East and North Africa,” according to the agency’s official self-description.
The list of nations in which MEPI operates includes such countries as Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, and Yemen.
However, MEPI’s sphere of engagement also includes Israel – ironically the only pluralistic, stable, and democratic nation in the Mideast. Among the leading recipients for MEPI grants in Israel is the New Israel Fund and its SHATIL organization. The NIF is an international, US-based 501(c)(3) charitable organization that has generated intense acrimony within the Jewish community and Israeli establishment for its highly politicized activities.

JCPA: World Vision: Strategies for Fund-Raising and Support for Hamas

WORLD VISION AND HAMAS
The overall effect of World Vision’s media appearances and publicity regarding the fighting in Gaza in 2014 obscures the fact that, on four separate occasions over the past decade (2006, 2008–2009, 2012 and 2014), Hamas initiated wars that it could not win against a country that cannot afford to lose. During these armed conflicts, Hamas has endangered the lives of Palestinians, especially children, by launching rockets from schoolyards and by using hospitals as command centers for its leaders. As we have noted above, Hamas summoned civilians to the rooftops of buildings after a warning that these buildings would soon be under attack. Moreover, Hamas launched rockets at civilian populations. A Palestinian Authority official in the West Bank has called this a crime against humanity.10 Furthermore, during the war in 2008–2009, Hamas diverted food and fuel from their intended recipients as part of its policy of increasing the suffering in the Gaza Strip in order to make Israel look bad.11 It has used cement and other building materials allowed into the Gaza Strip—ostensibly for the benefit of Palestinian civilians—in order to construct tunnels that can penetrate Israel and serve as a means to kidnap Israeli soldiers and civilians.
The policies of Hamas are intended to create a humanitarian crisis. It has succeeded in doing so. As an “advocacy” organization, World Vision is obliged to point this out and to hold Hamas accountable. However, WV contributes to the propaganda war against the Jewish state conducted by Hamas by directing almost all of its criticism against Israel and by protecting Hamas from condemnation. Thus, World Vision helps Hamas in its use of what Alan Dershowitz refers to as “the dead baby strategy.” To be sure, World Vision occasionally criticizes Palestinian elites, but it does so cautiously and even-handedly. During the fighting in 2014, Kevin Jenkins, president of World Vision International, criticized Hamas’ rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. His comments, however, often were followed by a condemnation of Israel, thereby effectively minimizing his critique of Palestinian leaders, as follows: “If we are to keep our moral compass, the world must make it clear that those firing rockets into Israel and bombing homes in Gaza are doing wrong.” The above statement presents a false moral equivalence between Israel, which acts in self-defense, and Hamas, which initiates the attacks on Israel and seeks the destruction of the Jewish state.

Hirsi Ali Confronts Jon Stewart About Islam

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose new book Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now was released this week, was interviewed by Jon Stewart on his Daily Show Monday night, and proceeded to educate the host as to the need for Islam to be reformed. The interview began with Stewart mocking the title, asking, “Why does Islam need a reformation …now?”
Hirsi Ali replied, “Because too many people are dying in the name of Islam, too many women live under oppression, too many Jews are being demonized, too many gays are being killed in the name of Islam, too many Christians are being killed in the name of Islam. I think it really has … the answer is to have the reformation now.”
Stewart, unsatisfied with the world-wide killing of non-Muslims as a reason to reform Islam, retorted, “Aren’t we having the reformation now?” asserting that Martin Luther wanted a “purer form of Christianity.”
Hirsi Ali pointed out that there are a growing number of people wanting to reform Islam, and said bluntly to Stewart, “I hope you stand with them.”
Stewart, cornered, struck back by asserting, “I think people single out Islam as though there is something inherently wrong with it that wasn’t wrong with other religions … If Christianity went through almost the exact same process … I get the sense that you think Islam is different from other religions.”
Hirsi Ali had a ready response: “Christianity went through that process of reformation and enlightenment and came to a place where the mass of Christians, at least in the Western world, have accepted tolerance and the secular state, the separate of church and state, respect for women, respect for gays.”

A walk down J-Street, part 2

Messy57 is continuing his report from the J-Street Conference.

With dozens of panels to choose from, it was difficult to choose which ones to go to, and as with a lot of these things, there were scheduling conflicts galore. So I decided to go to the major ones (and those I could find). But first, I needed a cup of coffee…

There was a buffet with bagels and cream cheese. Grabbing some of that and a cup, I went down to the lobby where they had the “huckster room” as these areas are generally known, and looked at the booths set up by various groups.

What I found was mostly innocuous, but what really piqued my interest were all the maps….

Now I love maps, I’ve got a huge collection and there in front of me was a gold mine. Most countries have at least two sets, one for the tourists and international community and one for the nationalists and internal use. Such is the case with Israel.

From Jewschool

J Street itself was giving out maps. These were big and were relatively detailed and had the green line easily visible in, what else?, green. Now Israeli maps don’t show the green line. While most showed the Gaza strip and some showed “Areas A and B”, not a single one shows the Green line. J Street was giving these out to be posted in synagogues and Hillels and the like because it’s important to understanding what the situation is. Maps are good for things like that.

Other groups were also giving out maps. For example The New Israel fund had one showing all it’s current projects, such as promoting healthcare for the poor and the rights of Reform and Conservative Rabbis, fighting growing inequality between rich and poor in the land of the Kibbutz and the like, and the most interesting was their blurb supporting “the women of the wall” movement. I say it’s strange because they show the Old City in Israel and don’t mention, as the BDS movement (which NIF claims to be very much against) likes to, that the Kotel is in “illegally occupied Palestinian territory”.

(On a side note, when I asked them about their participation in the lawsuit against the PLO, they said the their witness for the terrorists, Michael Sfard, was actually a ringer who’s testimony deliberately helped the plaintiff.)

“Americans for Peace Now” has a slick, two-sided map with “East Jerusalem“ on one side and the West Bank on the other, which shows the where all the “settlements” are. It also shows the Barrier wall. The Jerusalem side attacks “Ideological tourism projects” that threaten to transform the conflict into a religious conflict where no compromise is possible” I thought that was pretty funny.

The best of the bunch (on a technical level at least) was B’Tselem’s. It was detailed and easily color-coded. You can see the facts on the ground much better than on the other maps. They weren’t there,

Only the “Open Hillel” table seemed to be genuinely pro-BDS. The guy was really defensive. So was one fellow who said that Hamas was merely elected to the “municipal administration” of the district and wasn’t really the government. (You can’t really argue with these people without being tempted to punch them in the face).

The “Kumbaya” people were promoting neighborliness and understanding between Jewish and Muslim Israelis for the most part and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. However they generally make excuses for the Palestinians, such as Bikom, which does some amazing maps, who tried to explain why the Arab Jerusalemites, who can vote, don’t (they don’t want to look like they accept Israeli sovereignty).

After filling up my knapsack with give-aways and my face with food and coffee, I went to listen to the speeches….

The two-state straw men

From J-Street to Haaretz to Washington, you keep hearing the same refrain: Israel's right wing does not want a two state solution, and without a two-state solution Israel is doomed.

A recent example comes from Amos Oz in Haaretz:

We’ll begin with the most important thing, with a matter of life-and-death for the State of Israel: If there will not be two states here, and fast, there will be one state here. If there will be one state here, it will be an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. If there will be an Arab state here, I don’t envy my children and my grandchildren.

I said an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River. I did not say a binational state: With the exception of Switzerland, all the existing binational and multinational states are creaking badly (Belgium, Spain) or have already collapsed into a bloodbath (Lebanon, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union).

If there are not two states here, and fast, it’s very possible that, in order to avert the emergence of an Arab state from the sea to the Jordan River, a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand.

Such a dictatorship will be short-lived. Hardly any dictatorship of a minority that suppresses the majority has survived long in the modern era. At the end of that road, too, an Arab state, from the sea to the Jordan River awaits us, and before that perhaps also an international boycott, or a bloodbath, or both.

I have news for Mr. Oz and J-Street and President Obama: Practically everyone on the right wants to divide the land into Israeli and Palestinian parts. Practically everyone wants the Arab side to have the fullest autonomy possible, and many if not most even would accept statehood under the right circumstances.

The only differences are the exact borders and the ability of the Palestinian Arab state to wreak havoc on the Jewish state..

Pretending that the ultra-right is the only component of Israel's Right is a straw man, and one that it is way past its due date. But Amoz Oz fully subscribes to it with his frankly absurd yarn of "a dictatorship of fanatic Jews will rule here temporarily, a dictatorship with racist features, a dictatorship that will suppress both the Arabs and its own Jewish opponents with an iron hand." I know he is a novelist, but I didn't know that adding fiction to one's argument augments it.

Oz' article is filled with similar straw men that have no basis in reality:

A great many Israelis, too many Israelis, believe – or are being brainwashed into believing – that if we only take a very big stick and beat the Arabs with it just one more time, very hard, they will take fright and once and for all let us be, and everything will be fine.

Really? What major figure, with a serious following, says this? Perhaps Oz gets his impression of the right wing from anonymous Facebook posts..

The right wing and the settlers tell us that we have a right to the whole Land of Israel. That we have a right to the Temple Mount. But what, actually, do they mean by the word “right”? A right is not what I want badly and also feel very strongly that I deserve: It is what others recognize as my right. If others do not recognize my right, or if only some of them recognize my right, then what I have is not a right but a demand.

That is precisely the difference between Ramle and Ramallah, between Haifa and Nablus, between Be’er Sheva and Hebron: The whole world, including most of the Arab and Muslim world (apart from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran), recognizes today that Haifa and Be’er Sheva are ours. But no one in the world, other than the settlers and their supporters in the American far right, recognizes that Nablus and Ramallah belong to us. And that is the difference between a right and a demand.

What? American Jews want to take over Ramallah and Nablus? Outside of the right to worship at Josephs' Tomb, I certainly haven't heard anyone say they want to take over those areas again.

It is just another straw man.

But let's look at what Oz says about rights.

Perhaps in his narrow viewpoint, Jews do not have the "right" to the Temple Mount or to live in Gush Etzion. But neither do Palestinians.

Their demands for the holy places of Jerusalem and the rest of Judea and Samaria are not rights either - but demands. Oz doesn't explain how Palestinian demands are any more valid than Jewish demands, except for "the whole world says so so it must be true."

If there are competing demands on these areas, then the Israeli side must do its utmost to ensure that traditional holy sites and existing Jewish communities are protected and kept as part of Israel. That is not an option - that is what states do. They assert their claims vigorously to protect their heritage and their people.

But to people like Amoz Oz and the rest of the Haaretz crowd and the J-Streeters getting high on their hate of Likud this past weekend and the Peter Beinarts of the world believe that Palestinian demands are the same as a Palestinian veto on what the final borders would be.

All these people who claim to be "pro-Israel" are in fact doing everything they can to sabotage Israel's bargaining position and to tell the enemy (and, yes, they are and will remain the enemy) that they only have to wait long enough for these supposedly pro-Israel Jews to give them everything they demand eventually.

This isn't about having two states. It is about abject surrender to the enemy's maximal demands. It is the height of stupidity.

If you want straw men, here's one for you: A Palestinian state whose borders are exactly in Areas A and B.

But, I hear everyone sputter, that's impossible! They'd never accept that!

And here is the difference between the leftists who pretend that they are the only ones who accept the concept of two states and reality. The leftists are willing to accept all Palestinian Arab demands as if they are rights. But this minimal Palestine solution also solves the demography problem that everyone says is the biggest issue and a sure-fire bet for future Israeli apartheid.

If both solutions solve the demographic problem, which is apparently the key concern of Israelis worried about their future as a Jewish state, then why are so many of them demanding the maximal Palestine solution?

The reason is, very simply, because the Palestinians would never accept that solution.

Let's go beyond that glib answer, though. Why won't they accept that solution? Mostly because so many Israelis like Oz already are willing to give them so much more for free! If all Israeli Jews were as adamant about the lands of their ancestors as Palestinians are about wresting them from Jews, then the two-state solution would be much closer to reality.

If these supposed lovers of Israel really cared about the Jewish state as much as they pretend, they they would be in the forefront of fighting for the best possible outcome, not the worst.

You don't hear anyone from J-Street or Haaretz lamenting that Palestinians rejected previous peace offers - offers that would have solved the demographic problem very well, thank you. No, they still blame Israel for not going far enough. Which proves that, for these hypocrites, they don't give a damn about "apartheid" or the population issue - if they really did, they'd be the first ones to be writing articles about how Palestinian Arabs have blown their opportunities for peace, not how right-wing Jews are the bogeymen. They would be the first to insist that Palestinians for once make historic compromises, not that Jews keep doing that over and over under the everlasting threat of another Palestinian veto.

That is how people who are truly pro-Israel would act.

Instead, they cling to their straw men and hate.

One must wonder why that is.