Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

12/05 Links Pt1: Trump tells Abbas, Jordan king of ‘intention’ to move embassy to Jerusalem; Living with the Palestinian ‘No!’; It’s Time to Prepare a Military Option on Iran

From Ian:

Trump Delays Jerusalem Embassy Move Announcement

President Donald Trump will not announce Monday evening whether he will move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

The president faced a deadline Monday for deciding whether to move the nation’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but White House officials told reporters aboard Air Force One Monday evening that will announce his formal decision “in the coming days.”

Trump was expected to sign a waiver Monday that would push-off the relocation from Tel Aviv for another six months. The president campaigned for the presidency promising to relocate the embassy, a move many have expected since the first day he took office in January.

Congress passed a law in 1995 that ordered the U.S. embassy to be located in Jerusalem, but every U.S. president since the mandate became law has decided to delay it, arguing that a relocation must come through negotiations, not a decree.

Trump is slated to give a speech Wednesday that reportedly will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, that has some fearing violent backlash in the Middle East.

Evelyn Gordon: It’s Time to Prepare a Military Option on Iran

North Korea’s demonstration of a ballistic missile capable of reaching most of the United States prompted gloomy commentary in Israel about the failure to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program and, by analogy, the seeming impossibility of stopping Iran’s nuclear program. As Haaretz commentator Anshel Pfeffer put it, Kim Jong-un “proved that a dictator who wants a nuclear weapon badly enough,” and is ruthless and determined enough, “will ultimately achieve it.” Yet the North Korean example proves no such thing because it says nothing about the efficacy of the one tactic America never tried: military action, or at least the credible threat thereof.

North Korea has proven, if anyone had still any doubts, that sanctions and negotiations alone can’t stop a determined dictator from acquiring nukes. In contrast, the jury’s still out on military action. It has only been tried twice, both times by Israel, in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. And it’s still too soon to say conclusively that it worked. But at least so far, neither country has nuclear weapons.

Moreover, many of the arguments against military action are fatuous. Take, for instance, the claim that military action is pointless once a country has the know-how to build a bomb, because “You can’t bomb a people’s knowledge out of existence,” as New York Times columnist Roger Cohen said of Iran. That’s true, but it’s completely irrelevant. Knowledge is only one of many components needed to build a bomb. Get rid of the others–like Iran’s heavy-water reactor, its stockpile of enriched uranium, and its centrifuges for enriching more–and no amount of knowledge will suffice to produce nuclear weapons.

Then there’s the argument that military action does nothing but buy time. That’s far from self-evident. Some countries might conclude that the effort of rebuilding their nuclear program only to be bombed again isn’t worth it. But even assuming that’s true, buying time has also been proven to be the most sanctions and negotiations can achieve (except in the rare cases where countries actually agree to give up their nuclear programs.

Thus the relevant question is which course of action buys more time, because the more time you buy, the better the chances of an unexpected development—say, regime change in Iran—that could lead to permanent success. Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, for instance, bought just enough time for Iraq to make a critical mistake nobody could have foreseen: the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, which led to the Gulf War and America’s subsequent imposition of an intrusive and effective nuclear inspection regime.

MEMRI: Amman Friday Sermon by Ahmad Shahrouri: Only the Sword Will Resolve the Struggle with the Zionists

During a Friday sermon at the Al-Zaytoonah University Mosque in Amman, Jordan, Dr. Ahmad Shahrouri berated the "fraudulent politicians" for "wasting a hundred years of the life of the Islamic nation." "Nothing will resolve the struggle but pure swords in humble hands," he said. The November 3 sermon was posted on Dr. Shahrouri's YouTube channel. ...

Linda Sarsour's support of Saddam Hussein: So predictable! (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

Since I first began researching and writing about Linda Sarsour in the summer of 2016 – after she complained about the lack of support for the “Palestinian cause” at the Democratic National Convention – I have been a bit astonished that, whenever I come across some new information about her, it fits in amazingly well with what I’ve learnt about her previously.

The perhaps most striking example is one that goes back exactly 14 years. On December 15, 2003, the New York area paper Newsday ran a report about reactions from local residents to the capture of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The article begins with the view of an imam:

“Asked what should be done with the captured Saddam Hussein, an Iraqi-born leader of a mosque in Queens said the kindest thing would be a public hanging. ‘If you put him in the streets [of Baghdad] now, in a little while you would find him in pieces,’ said Fadhel Al-Sahlani, the imam, or spiritual leader, of the Al-Khoei Benevolent Foundation mosque.”

Then we get a short summary:

“Opinions in the local Muslim community varied yesterday on what should be done with Hussein. The judgment depended largely on the national origin of the person interviewed. For instance, one woman of Palestinian descent said that Hussein, despite his many faults, was a hero to many people in her community. But those who lived in or around Iraq - and knew his brutality firsthand - were harsh in the judgment of the deposed dictator.”

Sorry, no prize for guessing who the “woman of Palestinian descent” was who spoke up for the widely loathed Iraqi dictator…

“Linda Sarsour, who is American-born and of Palestinian descent, said many Palestinians viewed Hussein as a hero because he steadfastly supported Palestinians in their struggle against Israel. She and other Palestinian New Yorkers felt humiliated by the way Hussein was caught and shown, disheveled and pathetic-looking, on international television, Sarsour said. ‘I think he’s done a lot of things he shouldn’t have done, but I was hurt. My Arab pride was hurt,’ said Sarsour, 23, of Bensonhurst. ‘Palestinians are under so much oppression and no other Arab country ever helped them.’”

Well, what can one say about Linda Sarsour’s “Arab pride”…

But it’s worthwhile recalling the context of 2003, when Linda Sarsour rightly described Saddam Hussein as a Palestinian “hero” who “steadfastly supported Palestinians in their struggle against Israel.” The support was primarily “financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and … money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000.”

This increase of payments to Palestinian terrorists was of course Saddam Hussein’s way to contribute to the murderous Al-Aqsa Intifada that was going on at the time, and it is very telling that Linda Sarsour was so willing to show her appreciation for Hussein’s efforts to encourage Palestinian terror attacks, which included many suicide bombings targeting buses, restaurants and shopping areas.

Let’s now turn to a very recent story: you’ve probably heard that longtime Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, who co-founded “Students for Justice in Palestine,” was recently caught sharing what has rightly been described as “insanely anti-Semitic memes.” When Berkeley condemned the tweets, Bazian came up with “[the] world’s least convincing apology;” one reason that his apology was so unconvincing is that he has a long history “of presenting anti-Semitism under the guise of anti-Zionism.”

So it’s of course entirely expected that Linda Sarsour is a fan…

As far as Sarsour is concerned, Bazian is one of those Muslims “who speak truth w/ courage & w/o apology;” she has also praised Bazian “for speaking truth to power & standing for Palestinians w/ the utmost integrity.” Last year, Sarsour described Bazian as “a revered leader in the Muslim community;” and just two weeks ago, Sarsour declared she was “proud” of Bazian’s relentless BDS activism.

On this last point, I actually agree with her: Bazian is clearly an exemplary BDS activist, and it’s easy to see why Sarsour would be so enthusiastic about him…

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

This story hit the wires this morning:

President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday Turkey could go as far as breaking off diplomatic ties with Israel if the United States formally recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a move he said would be a "red line" for Muslims.

Erdogan's going to be so upset at the US that he'll try to diplomatically punish - Israel?

It is interesting that no one in the news reports so far question the relationship between a potential US move and Turkey-Israel relations. After all, normally there is a host of diplomatic moves that nations can use against each other to express displeasure - calling the ambassador for a formal meeting, expelling diplomats and so forth.

Only in this case does it seem obvious - not only to Muslim leaders but to the news media as well - that punishing Israel for a US move makes sense.

The underlying idea is that the US is subservient to Israeli interests, and therefore a threat against Israel is the most effective way to pressure the US.

This is the sort of acceptable antisemitism that doesn't even raise an eyebrow when it comes from the Muslim world.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

US Embassy in Tel Aviv

Here' a partial list of the dire warnings being given by Muslim leaders in recent days over the idea of moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, within the areas that the world supposedly agrees is part of Israel.

"The world will pay the price" for any change in Jerusalem's status.	Abbas adviser Mahmoud Habash
Will prolong tensions, chaos and violence	Abbas spokesman
Endangers the stability of the Middle East and the whole world	Arab League
It will nourish fanaticism and violence	Arab League
Stir tensions in the region	Egypt
Wiill unleash forces that cannot be contained	Hanan Ashrawi
Inflame sentiments and generating tensions and instability throughout the region and beyond	Hanan Ashrawi
Would transform into a religious issue	Hanan Ashrawi

Trigger anger across the Arab and Muslim world	Jordan
Would strengthen terror organizations in the Middle East.	Jordan's King Abdullah
Will be exploited by terrorists to stoke anger, frustration and desperation in order to spread their ideologies	Jordan's King Abdullah
Assassinating and destroying the peace process, completely.	Mustafa Barghouti
Will inflame the entire region	Nabil Shaath, Abbas advisor
Would heighten tensions in the region	Saudi Arabia
Cause a catastrophe	Turkish government
Destroy the peace process	Turkish government
Major catastrophe	Turkish government
New conflicts, disputes, and unrest in the region	Turkish government
Would not benefit Israel or any other country	Turkish government

There's one more quote that should be mentioned. Moving the embassy would cause “an explosion, an absolute explosion in the region, not just in the West Bank, and perhaps even in Israel itself, but throughout the region,.” according to John Kerry in 2016.

Kerry's quote is important because it shows how thoroughly Western diplomats have swallowed Arab threats as being sacrosanct, rather than eye them critically - the entire job of a seasoned diplomat.

The over the top rhetoric shows yet again that this is how Muslim leaders use fear and threats as part of their normal way of doing politics. Kerry's echoing those threats - and in fact, exaggerating them - shows that too many Westerners who should know better suffer from what Richard Landes calls "proleptic dhimmitude" - a condition where Westerners take what they believe to be pro-Muslim positions, even beyond what the Muslims themselves say in many cases, in anticipation of supremacist Muslim threats and demands.

They cannot understand the simple fact that these predictions from supposedly "in the know" Arab and Muslim politicians do not reflect reality on the ground, but they are meant to be threats against the free world - plain and simple. Not only that, but they are threats that can only come true when the very people who make the threats incite their people to follow through.

The deadline for President Trump's signing the waiver that every president has signed since 1995 on the Jerusalem Embassy Act has passed, without him signing it. But not all experts agree that it is a hard deadline. So the issue is still up in the air.

But no matter what happens, there will always be Western leaders eager to believe and submit to Muslim threats.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The myth of Israel's alliance with apartheid South Africa (Mida)

Nelson Mandela and Ezer Weizmann

This is a must-read article at Mida. Excerpts:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the State of Israel was never an ally of the Apartheid regime. It had relations as did many other countries. A simple review of the history of the two countries proves that and even reveals facts that are often overlooked.

As often was the case, Israel’s efforts to cooperate with third world countries was met with a fierce Arab opposition. ...

In an attempt to overcome this diplomatic isolation, Israel sent Golda Meir to Africa in 1957. Deeply moved by the challenges facing the young nations of Africa, Meir establishes Israel’s international development program known as MASHAV. The objective was to confront the problems of health, education, malnutrition, development of resources and the low status of women. As a consequence of the program, Israeli experts were sent to 33 African states.

In 1961 Israel voted against apartheid at the U.N. Oliver Tambo, the then head of the A.N.C., sent a letter to the president of Israel, Yitzhak Ben Zvi, thanking him for Israel’s actions.

This stand against apartheid by Israel angered Hendrick Verwoerd, the prime minister of the South African Nationalist government at the time. He dismissed Israel’s opposition to apartheid and declared Israel itself to be an apartheid state, maintaining that the Jews took the land from the Arabs “who had lived there for thousands of years.”

It is ironic that this historically distorted accusation, made by a racist prime minister of the apartheid regime, would be adopted today and repeated by the very people he oppressed, for the purpose of vilifying Israel.

A few months prior to his arrest in 1962, Nelson Mandela underwent military training by Mossad operatives in Ethiopia, using the non de plume David Mobsari. Nelson Mandela was in no way a lone participant in this Israeli covert program. Other anti apartheid movements and individuals were involved, including Potelkako Leballo the head of the P.A.C. (Pan Africanist Congress) military wing.

At the time of the Rivonia trial (1963-64) where Nelson Mandela and others were convicted of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment, Golda Meir, Israel’s foreign minister at the time called for leniency at the trial and the commutation of any death sentence.
...
During the 1980’s Israel was singled out as being the pariah in the international community because of her trade with South Africa. The figures however paint an entirely different picture. South Africa’s main trading partners in the 80’s were the U.S.A. $3.4 billion; Japan $2.9 billion; Germany $2.8 billion; the U.K. $2.6 billion. Israeli trade was a mere $200 million, which amounted to roughly 1% of South Africa’s G.D.P.

More revealing was South Africa’s $2 billion annual oil imports, none of which came from Israel obviously. So called supporters of the liberation struggle, namely Saudi Arabia, supplied $1 billion worth of annual oil imports. Barter deals with Iran and Iraq supplied $1 billion and $750 million annual oil imports respectively.

(h/t Yoel)

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/04 Links Pt2: Kontorovich: Anti-Israel Activists Subvert a Scholarly Group; New Palestinian Curriculum Praises ‘Martyrdom,’

From Ian:

Seth Frantzman: Ben Rhodes just blamed Israel and Saudi for MidEast tensions, revealing former Obama admin bias

The new Ben Rhodes tweet sheds light on the Obama administrations biases in the region. Obama has many ideas about the Middle East. In 2016 he had claimed the conflicts in the region were “rooted in conflicts that date back millennia.” He sought to reach out to the region, particularly Muslims, during his Cairo speech in 2009.

Amidst all the other noise out there, recent Saudi and Israeli moves raising odds of direct conflict that pulls in the US
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) December 3, 2017

He wanted to reduce the US footprint and pulled American troops out of Iraq, withdrawing them in 2011. He always want Iraq to have a pro-Iranian Shia “strongman” in the form of Nouri al-Maliki. In 2010 Obama supported Maliki to be Prime Minister of Iraq, even though his party was not the largest in the country. Washington thought a powerful Shia sectarian government would provide stability. Instead it inflamed tensions and led to ISIS taking over a third of the country in 2014. The US relied on Maliki, even though he was an anti-American fanatic collaborating with Shia militias and terrorists who had targeted US troops. In an interview in 2017 Maliki even accused the US of supporting ISIS, “the US and the Obama administration were behind the creation of ISIS to expel the government.”

Rhodes was involved in these discussions about how the US viewed the Middle East. He told PBS: “We’re not going to do this by ourselves, and we’re not going to do this for the region. We’re not going to have large U.S. forces on the ground to do this. The only way that you’re going to solve this problem is if you get the countries and governments of the region invested in it.”

Rhodes was involved in encouraging the replacing of Maliki in August 2014 as ISIS was overrunning Iraq. “The White House will be very glad to see a new government in place with prime minister Abadi at the lead of that government,” Rhodes said.

He also played a role in Syria after the Arab spring erupted in 2011 and a rebellion began against the Assad regime. Rhodes told PBS: “The president was willing to get engaged in support for the opposition in Syria, but he wanted to make clear that we understood there were limits as to how we could solve this problem with our military, and that we had to be very deliberate and careful when it comes to something like providing military assistance to an opposition group.” (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Eugene Kontorovich: Anti-Israel Activists Subvert a Scholarly Group

Emails unearthed in a federal lawsuit appear to show that the American Studies Association’s decision to boycott Israel was orchestrated by a small cadre of academics who infiltrated the ASA’s leadership to demonize the Jewish state.

The ASA website says the scholarly group “promotes the development and dissemination of interdisciplinary research on U.S. culture and history in a global context,” but in December 2013 it endorsed an academic boycott of Israel. The ASA’s leadership, called the National Council, backed the boycott resolution and put it to a membership vote. A third of the members voted, and two-thirds of those endorsed the resolution.

Last year four ASA members sued the organization, alleging the boycott violated its bylaws, the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act, and laws prohibiting nonprofits from exceeding their chartered purposes. Even putting legality aside, the boycott was out of step with the principle of academic freedom. The boycott generated an immediate rebuke from the executive council of the Association of American Universities.

The ASA sought to have the suit thrown out, arguing that legal challenges violate the group’s First Amendment rights—a claim commonly made by Israel boycotters. A federal judge rejected that argument in March and allowed the case to proceed.

A central figure in the boycott’s adoption was Jasbir Puar, an associate professor of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, according to emails cited in a public filing by the plaintiffs in the case. The emails appear to show that after joining the ASA’s nominating committee in 2010, Ms. Puar actively tried to stack the National Council with boycott backers.

Pro-Palestinian Groups Attack Administration Nominee for Opposing Israeli Boycott

Leaders of major American Jewish organizations are rallying around Kenneth L. Marcus, the nominee for Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights, as pro-Palestinian groups denounce him for opposing the BDS movement.

Marcus, an attorney, previously served in the Department of Education’s civil rights division and then was staff director of the US Commission on Civil Rights, before founding the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law in 2011.

The US Campaign for Palestinian Rights is mobilizing its members against the nomination, arguing that Marcus’ efforts against BDS activity on college campuses were intended to “repress college students from organizing for Palestinian rights.”

The anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) recently announced that “over 100 faculty members” at unnamed universities had signed their petition against the Marcus nomination. The petition claimed that because of Marcus’ anti-BDS efforts, “students and faculty [on unidentified campuses] fear studying Palestinian history or advocating for Palestinian rights.” But JVP officials have not responded to multiple requests from JNS.org for a list of the alleged signatories.

And a number of Jewish organizations this week endorsed Marcus.

“B’nai B’rith strongly supports the nomination,” the group’s director of legislative affairs, Eric Fusfield, told JNS.org. “Kenneth Marcus has been a champion of civil rights, especially combating anti-Semitism on college campuses. He understands this pervasive social problem in all its manifestations.”

Video: John Bolton on North Korea/Iran nuclear threat, December 3, 2017

More of my (poor quality) video from the Bet El dinner Sunday night.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

This morning, USAID announced that Israel is its newest partner in the "Power Africa" program meant to provide electricity for the African continent.

At the ceremony marking the occasion (video), which was little reported, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke. It is worth reading because these are the stories that do not make it into the media.

Here's what he said:

It's a pleasure to be with all of you this morning, literally and figuratively. This is bringing light, and every time that an African mother will turn on the light or turn on a heater for some water for her children part of Israel will be there.

It's a great, great development and it comports with a vision that I have which is to have Israel come back to Africa and have Africa come back to Israel. It was a wonderful partnership in the' 60s, derailed, now back on track and full force. This locomotive is going very fast. In the last 18 months I have been three times to Africa I have to tell my African friends that it you know it's been three days since I saw African diplomats and I'm getting giddy. This is something that is born about not merely by the friendship of governments.

You know we we conduct polls on the Internet. It's quite startling. We conduct polls and we asked in 54 countries in all the continents, "So, what do you think of Israel? Do you think it has values? Is it an asset you think your countries will benefit from contacts with Israel?"

So we get startling results that reflect the change in Israel's international position because of our technological prowess in bettering the lives of people in so many areas. Energy is one of them, but water, agriculture, IT security, all the elements that are important for the in maintenance and development of a good life, a good safe life. We see that countries around the world, that governments appreciate it. But what we found in this poll is that the people appreciated us. Guess where we got the highest marks now? David don't be offended, the US is way up there, but guess who's at the top? The people of Africa! They recognize the benefit of partnering with Israel and that's a tremendous development. It means that what we're doing, what we're developing here is a partnership not only of governments but of peoples, and what the people understand is that cooperation with Israel just as it helped agriculture in Africa in the '60s [we] can now help every realm of life in the beginning of the 21st century. It's a remarkably positive development.

We're going to continue this step after step after step. We believe in Africa. I believe in Africa. I believe in the partnership with Africa and what better partnership can we have than having USAID, the US government, Israel and the African countries working together to
secure a better future.

The the most important thing is to be to the point, and you know that Hebrew is a very compact language. When you translate Hebrew into English it's about a third longer. So in the beginning of the Bible there are two words in Hebrew; okay it takes four words to say it in English, but I'll say and it summarizes everything that we're doing here: "Let there be light."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

12/04 Links Pt1: The method to Trump’s madness on Jerusalem may make sense; Palestinians: More Missed Opportunities

From Ian:

MEMRI: Emirati Writer Al-Habtoor: Now Is The Time To Make Peace With Israel, In Order To Resolve Palestinian Issue And Join Forces In Fighting Iran

In an article in the English-language Saudi daily Arab News titled "A Window Has Opened for Middle East Peace — Let’s Grab the Chance," prominent Emirati businessman and writer Khalaf Ahmad Al-Habtoor states that the Arabs and Israel currently have a vested interest in settling their differences and making peace, in order to join forces in fighting their common enemies: Iran and its allies. He stresses, however, that such cooperation between Israel and the Arabs will be difficult without making progress towards the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To this end, he advises both the Palestinians and Israelis to put aside their grievances and unrealistic expectations, and work together to find a pragmatic and feasible solution to the conflict. Addressing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, he urges him to turn to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, in whom he will find true allies for advancing peace with the Palestinians and also for fighting Israel's and the Arab's common enemies.

The following are excerpts from his column:
"The human race [has been]... successful in resolving the bitterest of conflicts. Who could have imagined that Germany and Japan would become two of the closest US allies, or that the Berlin Wall would fall and free Soviet satellite nations from communism? Humanity always finds a way forward on the path to peace, with one exception — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has dragged on painfully in one form or another since the birth of the Israeli state, condemning millions to misery.

"This untenable situation has resulted in serial wars between Israelis and Arabs, and the failure to reach an accord is not for the want of trying on the part of mediators. In 2000, a Palestinian state was close to being a reality but was thwarted by leadership changes in Israel and the US, where voters delivered hawks.
Any efforts in that direction since then have been nothing more than token. Palestinian hopes have been dimmed and most fear they have been abandoned by the community of nations and by a Palestinian-fatigued media.

Palestinians: More Missed Opportunities

The PFLP, like Hamas and other Palestinian groups, makes no secret of its goal to "liberate Palestine, from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea." All should be commended for their honesty. If anyone has any doubts, their plan means the total destruction of Israel. Thus, as chairman of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas cannot say that he represents the entire organization. He has no leverage with the PFLP, DFLP and the remaining terror groups operating under the umbrella of his PLO.

And now we come to the million dollar question: Does Abbas really represent all of Fatah? The answer is simple and clear: No. Over the past few decades, Fatah has witnessed sharp divisions and disputes, resulting in a number of splinter groups that broke away and are now openly challenging Abbas's leadership and policies.

While Abbas is making noises about a peace process, his own Fatah faction is inciting violence and calling for the destruction of Israel. While Abbas is talking about his interest in achieving a two-state solution, his partners in the PLO, including the PFLP and DFLP, are openly calling for the destruction of Israel and advocating an armed struggle. While Abbas is claiming that he is the legitimate president of the Palestinians, many Palestinians, including senior officials in his Fatah faction, are legitimately stating he has no mandate from his people to sign any agreement with Israel.

The method to Trump’s madness on Jerusalem may make sense

In the end, perhaps only a president so completely divorced from diplomatic reality and utterly indifferent to international opinion could do it. Despite the difficulties and the manifest dangers involved with keeping America’s promise—enshrined in U.S. law passed by Congress—to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, President Donald Trump may actually do it sometime in the next week.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the State Department had informed U.S. embassies around the world about a plan to make the move and to begin planning for how to deal with the protests that would inevitably follow.

For U.S. diplomats living abroad—especially those in the Middle East or working in any Muslim-majority country—this is no joke. If Trump makes good on the pledge, the response from the Arab street will likely be nasty and might rival or even exceed the destruction, violence and even murder that resulted when a Danish newspaper published a few satirical cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed. Egged on by Iran and other radical Islamists, protests will be massive and will carry a hefty price tag.

This is why most observers, including those sympathetic to Israel, have been skeptical about talk of an embassy move. Few thought even a president as unconventional as Trump would do something that virtually everyone in the foreign policy establishment as well as moderate Arab nations thinks would not only create a crisis, but also preclude any progress toward a two-state solution or peace.

Why then is Trump contemplating something the smart people are convinced is foolish? The answer from his critics—whose numbers increase every time he lets loose with an ill-considered tweet or statement—is that he is an ignorant fool. Yet, as with those obnoxious tweets, which distract his foes from policy issues and amuse his fans, there may be a method to the madness. It’s entirely possible that Trump is either being guided to or is stumbling along a path that could be saner than the supposedly safer course steered by his predecessors on Jerusalem.

During my semi-monthly foray into Twitter, I noticed an activist friend discussing a familiar dilemma that arose (again) in the context of the recent New School outrage where anti-Semites like Linda Sarsour took it upon themselves to publically define anti-Semitism to exclude all of the bigoted things they say and do to make Israelis (but just the Jewish ones) seem like monsters.

The discussion was not over the event itself, but how to react to it since going after the panelists or the New School faculty that decided such an event was a great idea would inevitably trigger accusations against Israel’s supporters of censorship.

This situation is yet another example of the strategy Israel’s defamers use to put their opponents in lose-lose situations where we are faced with either protesting their latest outrages - making us vulnerable to accusations that we are attacking free speech - or doing nothing and letting our foes get away with whatever they want.

There is a simple and a complicated answer to how to respond to provocations knowing that accusations of censorship are inevitable if we use our free speech rights to speak the truth or defend against BDS BS.

Starting with the simple, years ago a grizzled veteran of professional politics taught me that you’re going to get whacked just as hard for “buying the election” if you raise and spend $5 or $500,000 to defeat an opponent. Given that, why not live with accusations and a half-a-million-dollar war chest vs. the same accusations and a pittance?

Over my decade and a half in the BDS game, I’ve learned that our side will always be characterized as enemies of free speech, whether we organize a massive protest or simply write a subdued letter to the editor. So there is really nothing to be gained from shying away from trying to bury the other side. In fact, strategies that might seem like overkill (such as passing state and national legislation against a BDS program that has yet to gain any purchase in the US) communicate to opponents that (1) we take their accusations of censorship as seriously as they take our accusations of hypocrisy and bigotry; and (2) we are willing to do what it takes (and then some) to defeat them.

A different issue the New School event brought up has to do with who has the initiative. Are we destined to have to wait until our opponents commit the next outrage, and then be left with no options other than to respond?

This gets us to the more complex answer to the original question of what to do when the next anti-Israel grotesque shows up in our face, a question that boils down to the whole “offense vs. defense” debate that tends to paralyze the Jewish community when dealing with BDS and similar issues.

As I’ve discussed a number of times, the pro-Israel community is subject to regular fights over whether or how we can “go on the attack” and force our opponents to respond to us, rather than “playing defense” by responding to their provocations and campaigns time and time again.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it presumes our only options are to respond to our enemy’s vicious assaults or become our enemies by launching our own assaults that force Israel’s enemies to respond to our (true) accusations (such as accusations of bigotry, sexism, homophobia and totalitarianism directed at the Arab world), or shaming opponents by pointing out their ties to terrorism or hypocrisy vis-à-vis human rights.

While there is enormous satisfaction in “turning the tables” on your foes, there are a number of reasons why this never tends to work for us, all of which boil down to issues of asymmetry. Specifically, while Israel’s enemies are at war with the Jewish state and its supporters, we are not at war with them. We do not, for example, want to see our opponents destroyed, and thus will never be able to build and sustain decades-long campaigns to vilify Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims in the way those groups have sustained their decades-long attack on the nation they want eradicated.

So are we left with no options then to get into a defensive crouch and hope those that hate us will eventually see the error of their ways and leave us alone?

The answer to that question is too long to include in a pair of summarizing paragraphs (although my complete response can be read here). But to sum these arguments up in a few quick sentences: the whole offense-vs-defense argument demonstrates a lack of historical understanding of the nature of warfare which leaves us unfamiliar with the kind of war – a siege war – we are actually fighting.

For a siege (like the one we find ourselves in) is a form of warfare, regardless of which side of the siege line your find yourself on. And fighting a siege war involves all the martial values of courage, cleverness, steadfastness and creativity since both the besieger and besieged have strengths and weaknesses that can be capitalized on or exploited. Understand this and you are well on your way to understanding our options when the next outrage hits.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

2.1 million human bombs aimed at Israel

The 2017 Global Humanitarian Assistance Report has a graph showing the countries that host the most refugees and internally displaced persons in the world:

Yes, "Palestine" is counted as hosting 2.1 million refugees or IDPs, the tenth highest number in the world.

The numbers come from UNRWA, meaning that they are all considered "refugees."

That's 46% - nearly half - of all Palestinian Arabs under Palestinian Authority rule that are considered to be displaced from their homes.

Where are their "real" homes? Israel, of course.

The entire report talks about how much aid countries get, and as always, the Palestinians receive a disproportionate amount of aid compared to other countries on a per capita basis. They receive over a billion dollars a year of international aid.

But not one dollar of that aid goes towards permanently settling the "refugees" in "Palestine!"

Hundreds of millions of that aid, in fact, goes towards the exact opposite goal: to maintain the refugee status of 2.1 million people who live within the borders of their declared state!

It means that the Palestinian Authority doesn't want nearly half of its people to live in its own borders. It wants 2.1 million of the people it pretends to represent and care about to be used as weapons against Israel's existence.

2.1 million tiny human bombs.

But this also means that the Western nations, when they fund UNRWA, they are funding the very project that is being used by the Arabs to destroy Israel over the long term. They pretend that they are sending humanitarian aid towards a vulnerable people, but they are not stepping back and asking - why are these people vulnerable, living in an entity that is fairly average for Arab nations economically?

The EU (and US) funds lots of programs for the Palestinians - to learn governance, to improve their court systems, to enhance their police forces, to work towards equal rights for women. Yet not a penny is being used to reduce the "refugee" and "IDP" population of the territories, a basic human need in every single other country with a large refugee population.

So, yes, the EU and US, by pretending that UNRWA's "Palestine refugees" are really refugees, are contributing to the Palestinian goal of destroying Israel demographically by pretending that each of those 2.1 million people - and millions more who really are languishing in camps in Lebanon and Jordan and Syria - are truly refugees who cannot possibly ever lose that status unless they overrun Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The New York Times has a bombshell report:

In a mysterious trip last month, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, traveled to Saudi Arabia’s capital for consultations with the hard-charging crown prince about President Trump’s plans for Middle East peace. What was said when the doors were closed, however, has since roiled the region.

According to Palestinian, Arab and European officials who have heard Mr. Abbas’s version of the conversation, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman presented a plan that would be more tilted toward the Israelis than any ever embraced by the American government, one that presumably no Palestinian leader could ever accept.

The Palestinians would get a state of their own but only noncontiguous parts of the West Bank and only limited sovereignty over their own territory. The vast majority of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which most of the world considers illegal, would remain. The Palestinians would not be given East Jerusalem as their capital and there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

... the prince had offered to sweeten the agreement with vastly increased financial support to the Palestinians.

The reaction to this plan by everyone is to reject it out of hand. The highlighted portion of the NYT article shows that even the reporters cannot help but to say that the plan is unworkable - consciously taking as a given that the Palestinian demands for Jerusalem as their capital and ceding large areas where Jews already live as well as giving up on the nonexistent "right of return" are non-negotiable.

And it isn't only Hamas being quoted as being dead-set against such a plan.

[W]ord of the plan has worried even some of the United States’ closest allies, who are eager for clarification from the White House.

An adviser to President Emmanuel Macron of France, speaking on condition of anonymity, said French officials had heard a version of some of the Saudi proposals, which sounded very similar to Israel’s opening bid and not acceptable to Palestinians.

He said that France had told the Americans that if they wanted to start discussions, they should proceed, but should remember that France and many other countries also have interests and concerns in the region.

Jerusalem and "right of return" to Israel - both of which have nothing to do with the possibility of an independent Palestinian state - are considered by Westerners to be reasonable demands by Palestinians, so much so that floating an idea of a Palestinian state without those two orthogonal demands is considered absurd by Western leaders.

What's wrong with this picture? Palestinians have never had their own nation, and they are yet again being offered one for free - but their other demands that have nothing to do with nationhood are considered by people who supposedly thirst for a real peace to be reasonable, and Israeli concerns that both of those demands are unacceptable are dismissed.

The world has accepted Palestinian propaganda as fact.

Details of Salman's plan aside, it shows that the goal of Palestinians is, as always, not to have a state. their desire for an independent state is the biggest myth of them all. They could have one. They could have had one a half dozen times over the years.

Their goal is the "right of return" to destroy the Jewish State demographically and control of Jewish holy places in Jerusalem to destroy the Jewish State spiritually. The demand for a state is secondary, not primary.

The problem is that decades of Palestinian "red lines" over those two issues that have nothing to do with statehood are considered to be part and parcel of the Palestinian state that Westerners pretend is needed to push for a wider regional peace.

Palestinian propaganda since 1967 has made the entire world believe the myth that these two issues are critical to a two-state solution, not proof that Palestinians aren't really interested in a two-state solution. Prince Salman is showing that the emperor has no clothes - and the entire world is saying that he is insane and Abbas is clothed in the finest of silks and gold-threaded fashion.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.