Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, April 14, 2019

04/14 Links: The myth of 'land for peace'; Assange’s anti-Semitism revisited; Louis Farrakhan Is Not a Fringe Lunatic; He Is Dangerous

From Ian:

Israelis, and friends of the Jewish State alike, are accustomed to the never-ending scorn the United Nations heaps on the Middle East’s only free democracy, never mind its desire for peace with all of its Arab neighbors. It may seem unfathomable then that the very same institution [UN] was ultimately responsible for the creation of Israel.

In 1917, Secretary Arthur Balfour simply expressed Great Britain’s view with favor for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

In contrast, the Mandate is the multilateral binding agreement which laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in the geographical area called Palestine, the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law.

The Mandate was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. The entire League of Nations – 51 countries – unanimously declared on that July 24th, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.”

The Mandate clearly differentiates between political rights referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity—and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. Nowhere in the document is there any granting of political rights to Arabs.

Article 2 of the “Mandate for Palestine” document, calls to place the country “Under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

Article 5 of the “Mandate for Palestine” clearly states that "The Mandatory [Great Britain] shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power." The territory of Palestine was exclusively assigned for the Jewish National Home.

Assange’s anti-Semitism revisited

Assange himself has spoken about Jews several times, with plain and heartfelt hostility. The first occasion was in 2011, when he phoned Ian Hislop, the editor of the British satirical magazine Private Eye, to complain about a piece that highlighted Assange’s friendship with a notorious character named Israel Shamir. (A Russian Jew who converted to Orthodox Christianity, Shamir has been writing unhinged missives denouncing Judaism and Zionism for the last 20 years, mostly for far-right websites.) By running the item, Assange said, Hislop had joined an international conspiracy against WikiLeaks led by journalists, all of whom, Assange emphasized, “are Jewish.” When Hislop challenged this invocation of a classic anti-Semitic trope, Assange suddenly replied, “Forget about the Jewish thing.”

But Hislop didn’t forget, and Assange promptly accused him – as is the fashion among those charged with making anti-Semitic statements – of engaging in a smear campaign. Those who gave Assange the benefit of the doubt on that occasion were, however, stumped in 2013, when WikiLeaks employee James Ball resigned from the organization precisely because of Assange’s relationship with Shamir, whom he described as “an anti-Semitic writer … and a man with ties and friends in the Russian security services.” Then, in 2016, four years into his residency at the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange picked up on the social-media meme of placing parentheses symbolizing an echo chamber on either side of the names of Jewish writers.

“Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers? Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) & have black-rim glasses. Bizarre,” Assange said on Twitter, in a routine example of anti-Semitic dog-whistling. Shortly afterward, and getting a taste of his own medicine, a private message sent by Assange in which he insulted the Jewish journalist Raphael Sutter was leaked online. “He’s always been a rat,” Assange said of Sutter. “But he’s Jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.”

It would seem, then, that what most agitates Assange about Jews is their clannishness and tribalism, their habit of sticking together politically, their notorious practice of smearing critics as “anti-Semites” and their penetration of the establishment. It’s probably not coincidental that these supposed traits are exactly what Shamir detests about Jews, too, as will be demonstrated by a quick perusal of his ravings.

The antisemitic tweets of murdered Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi

Khashoggi also showed some genuine interest in the makeup of Israel, tweeting in June 2011 about the role of Iranian Jews in the country. In a tweet that same month, he wrote about the “desperation of the Jews to deny the Protocols.” Belief in the antisemitic forgery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion has remained common in the Middle East in both Arab nationalist and Muslim Brotherhood circles up until the present day. Former Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser and Hamas both pushed conspiracies regarding the text. These conspiracies were also advanced by Malaysian President Mahathir Mohammed in a 2003 speech to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. As such, Khashoggi would have been familiar with this view.

In December 2011 and July 2012, he referenced the marginalization of Jewish women by “religious Jews,” and the “superstition of the Jews” in reference to Israel and prayers at the Western Wall, calling Jews “deceivers” or “swindlers.”

In August 2012, he argued in relation to Israel: “There is no land that God has made for a people,” noting that while Jews defeated the Canaanites, the Romans defeated the Jews, and it was Muslims who made the land “for all religions.” He was also skeptical of Jewish heritage in the Land of Israel, a theme that returns several times in his tweets. In July 2014, he referred to Jews in Israel as “usurpers,” implying they had stolen or occupied the land.

In September 2012 – when a controversial anti-Islamic video in the US led to riots in Egypt and Libya, and to the murder of the US ambassador in Benghazi – Khashoggi was asked why it was permitted to have a film critiquing Islam in the US., but not questioning the Holocaust. “The reason,” he replied, “is that the Jews passed legislation that criminalized the [questioning] of the Holocaust, while even Catholics failed to criminalize the abuse of Christ.”

On September 13, 2012, he tweeted, “If this was skeptical of the Holocaust, America would not allow it to be published, because the Jews succeeded in obtaining a law that would prevent it in America and Europe.” There is no such law in the US preventing Holocaust denial, but Khashoggi used the false claim to attack Jews.

Father Manuel Musallam is a prominent Palestinian Arab priest and former head Department for the Christians of the PLO Foreign Office. He has been a Fatah activist for decades.

In a recent interview in Palestine Today, he says explicitly that the Palestinian ambition is to take over Israel.

"The great March of Return and its continuation reflects the state of the clash between the Palestinian resistance and the Israeli occupation forces, and the alarm bell in Israel continues to touch on the fact that the Palestinian did not forget and will not forget his land, country and villages. Jerusalem is the capital of Gaza, Jerusalem is Gaza, Gaza is the Palestinian right, Gaza is Haifa, Safad, Acre, Umm al-Rashrash (Eilat), Nablus, Galilee, and all of the land of Palestine."

Tellingly, he spoke at a rally in Jenin in 1993 meant to get Palestinians on board with the Oslo process that had begun only days earlier. The speaker before him at that speech, representing Fatah's youth group, "gave a short, passionate defense of the Declaration of Principles, arguing that gaining a foothold in Gaza and Jericho would be but an initial step in an eventual reclamation of all of Mandate Palestine and the return of all refugees." Musallam's speech was received even more enthusiastically and he ended it with a bastardization of Psalms: ‘If I forget thee, O Palestinian Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning.’ He now routinely refers to "occupation" as starting in 1948, not 1967.

This is five days before Arafat said the same thing on Jordanian TV:

Do not forget that our Palestine National Council accepted the decision in 1974. It called for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian land that is liberated or from which the Israelis withdrew. This is the fruit of your struggle, your sacrifices, and your jihad … This is the moment of return, the moment of gaining a foothold on the first liberated Palestinian land … Long live Palestine, liberated and Arab.

Everyone in Yasir Arafat's Fatah knew from the beginning that Oslo was a Trojan horse meant to take over all of Israel.

And yet the Western media and pundits and politicians still look at Oslo as the solution, rather than the first stage of the intended destruction of 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.

Abbas brags to new cabinet about 31 years of intransigence

Yesterday, Mahmoud Abbas gave a speech to inaugurate what he called the 18th government of "Palestine." (I have no idea how that is calculated.)

Most of the speech was boilerplate.

Abbas stressed that they will not accept any tax money from Israel as long as Israel deducts the salaries they pay terrorists, which he called a "red line."

Abbas said that that they will never accept a state that doesn't include Jerusalem or the 1967 "borders" that never existed.

Abbas claimed that the 12 year split between Hamas and Fatah is all Hamas' fault, and so forth.

Most importantly, he bragged about his intransigence and refusal to compromise one bit for peace, saying "We will not retract one word in the resolutions of the national councils since 1988 until today." That means that Abbas has refused to change one bit from Yasir Arafat's position throughout his entire leadership.

It also means that the PLO didn't make any meaningful concessions throughout the entire Oslo process.

He has said this numerous times before. Western media ignores not only Abbas' intransigence, but his glee over not being willing to compromise one iota for peace and relying, today, on terrorist Yasir Arafat's red lines.

One thing he said was slightly new:

Women wherever they are must take their rights. We must support them and develop their presence. Women are no less than men. They do not lack anything to be minister and president anywhere in Palestine.

Here is what the cabinet looks like: 20 men, 3 women.

One of the women is the women's affairs minister. The others are the tourism and the health minister.

The hypocrisy of his statement is of course not mentioned in Palestinian Arab media.

I am intrigued by the water bottle with the green cap next to Abbas.

A few years ago the government was embarrassed when it was shown they were drinking Israeli water at their meetings, and since then they switched to an Arab brand which can be seen on the table.

But at one point in his speech, someone poured Abbas some water from this other bottle - a bottle with no label on it.

Is he drinking water from an Israeli company that they removed the label from to avoid embarrassment?

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.

Last week, Airbnb backtracked on its November decision to de-list Jewish-owned homes in Judea and Samaria, causing lots of headlines and a new lawsuit by Palestinian Arabs against them.

How could Airbnb have avoided the controversy? By not caving to the blackmail by Amnesty International to begin with.

(Yes, it is blackmail - claiming that their business model was illegal and that they would be subject to international law sanctions if they don't do what Amnesty demands.)

The original Amnesty report targeted Tripadvisor, Booking.com and Expedia, besides Airbnb. Those other three companies politely told Amnesty that they provide travel information to everyone about everywhere, that they are transparent about where the attractions are and that they don't think they are doing anything illegal, which is a polite way of telling Amnesty that they were wasting their time.

As Booking.com told Amnesty (in the annex to their report):

Everything we do in terms of how we display information on Booking.com is focused on the customer and always in accordance with applicable law. Our geographic labeling of properties gives full transparency to customers about where an accommodation is located and we continuously update and optimise this information. By marking properties concerned as being in 'Israeli settlements' we provide transparency to anybody looking (or not looking) for accommodations in these territories.

In other words, don't try to tell or customer where they can or cannot go.

Only Airbnb caved to the Amnesty campaign - and now only Airbnb is subject to the hate mail and controversy.

Do the right thing to begin with and don't let others meddle with your business model. It seems obvious, and three out of the four companies targeted by Amnesty did exactly that. The fourth is paying a dear price for not following that rule.

Personally, I would like to see TripAdvisor threaten a lawsuit against Amnesty for modifying their logo to defame them:

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.

04/13 Links: Trump says Netanyahu election win means a ‘better chance for peace’; The Implosion of Jeremy Corbyn; Ilhan Omar, Con Artist; Elan Carr: Boycotting Israel is Anti-Semitic; EU's Collusion with Iran

From Ian:

The Implosion of Jeremy Corbyn

According to polling by The Jewish Chronicle, 85 percent of British Jews now think that Corbyn is anti-Semitic. And that was before this week’s bombshell: documents obtained by The Sunday Times showing that Labour failed to investigate hundreds of anti-Semitism complaints, and let hundreds more slide. The documents show not only that Labour’s procedures for investigating anti-Semitic incidents were—despite public assurances to the contrary—dismally subpar, but also that members of Corbyn’s office directly intervened in more than one in 10 investigations, despite having claimed that they were impartial.

A council candidate who said that Jewish members of Parliament were “Zionist infiltrators” was allowed to continue his campaign. Out of 863 alleged incidents detailed in the files, only 29 resulted in a party member being expelled; 145 resulted in a “formal warning”—which is largely meaningless—and 191 cases were resolved as requiring no action. The rest, the Times reports, are unresolved, including 249 that haven’t even been opened.

A Labour spokesperson said that the report “does not reflect the full details … and is not up to date,” a non-denial that did nothing to stem the bleeding. That evening, the Jewish Labour Movement—one of the party’s oldest affiliates, linked to Labour since 1903—passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn.

A year earlier, in March 2018, the story broke that Corbyn had been a member of three secret Facebook groups in which virulent anti-Semitic memes were sometimes shared. Understandable, perhaps, in radical campaign circles. My enemy’s enemy is my friend, right? We’re protesting an occupation, not forming a government. There’s nothing anti-Semitic about deploring Israel Defense Forces violence in Gaza, but if Palestine is your cause, sometimes you’re going to meet people who really just hate Jews—just like if Israel is your cause, sometimes you’re going to meet people who really just hate Muslims.

In one of the groups, Corbyn wrote supportively to the artist of a mural in London. It wouldn’t have been so bad—just a throwaway comment—except the mural depicted anti-Semitic tropes so blatant you could see them from space, hook noses and all. Corbyn trying to apologize was an agonizing sight. “I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on,” he said. “I am sincerely sorry for the pain which has been caused.” It was as if, in a lifetime of fighting for causes—framing the world as good versus evil—he never really learned how to say sorry.

Abe Greenwald: Ilhan Omar, Con Artist

You see? She’s just an all-loving, rage-filled, anti-Semitic victim of prejudice.

If you set aside the canned baby talk of her speeches and articles, her actions don’t reveal much in the way of understanding and compassion. Or was she “showing up with love” when she claimed that Americans who support Israel are guilty of “allegiance to a foreign country” and that pro-Israel American leaders are somehow being paid off to support the Jewish state, and that—lest we forget—“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel?” Are all these examples of what she sees as a “mission as humans to love one another”?

Whenever Omar gets called out for her anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism, she makes a steady retreat back to the faux-compassion and understanding, simultaneously vowing to “learn” from her actions and claiming innocent victimhood. It’s then that her liberal supporters seize on her sunny rhetoric and denounce all the criticism that’s come her way. That’s precisely what’s been happening since she was caught describing 9/11 as a null event.

The con artist will thrive as long her marks are willing to be conned. Which is to say, Ilhan Omar has a bright future in the Democratic Party.

Seeking Israel From the Left

Israel has always been a Rorschach test for the left, Susie Linfield argues in her new book about intellectuals' writings on the first decades of the Jewish home state. And she's right, if not quite in the way she may have intended the metaphor.

Yes, Israel is like a Rorschach test, in the sense that many people over the 70 years of the country's existence have seen in its abstract representation some strange specificity wrought by their own fervid imagination. But Israel is like a Rorschach test in another and more important way. Something disturbing is revealed when the symmetrical inkblots of a Rorschach test provoke descriptions of violence and hatred. And something just as disturbing is revealed when the image of Israel provokes ferocious anger and unrelenting hostility.

Which it does, for a large percentage of the left these days. In her introduction and conclusion, Linfield points out that Israel was created by people who were often socialists, and it enjoyed considerable support among leftists in the West into the 1960s. But somehow, these days, Israel faces a violent antipathy from the left. An important task for historians lies in exploring how that reversal came about.

Linfield, a journalism professor at NYU, is a self-proclaimed leftist worried about the ways in which anti-Zionism has led to a surge of anti-Semitism. And yet, despite her interest in the question of why the left has rejected Israel, she attempts something different in The Lions' Den. In essence, she attacks the premise. Examining the work of prior generations of prominent intellectuals and journalists, The Lions' Den suggests that Israel has always provoked strange notions in intellectuals.

The figures Linfield takes up are a gallery of prominent Jewish left-leaning thinkers from the 1940s on—especially in her chapters on Hannah Arendt, Arthur Koestler, Isaac Deutscher, Maxime Rodinson, I.F. Stone, and Noam Chomsky. She focuses as well on two further figures: Fred Halliday (the only gentile writer she takes up) and Albert Memmi (the Tunisian writer and only non-Westerner in the book). All of them were sometime Zionists, and all of them indulged anti-Zionism. By describing their intellectual journeys—and their intellectual peculiarities—Linfield hopes to illuminate the left's odd
relation to Israel.

04/12 Links Pt2: Melanie Phillips: We must call out the Muslims who hate Jews; Israel Rockets to the Moon While Its Enemies Launch Rockets at Civilians; Cornell Student Assembly Rejects BDS

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: We must call out the Muslims who hate Jews

Jewish leaders rightly call out the Labour party for failing to deal with the rampant antisemitism in its ranks. Yet they fail to hold the Muslim community similarly to account.

For sure, many Muslims are decent people. Indeed, a group called Muslims Against Antisemitism has taken out full-page newspaper adverts to show their solidarity with Jews. One of its organisers, Fiyaz Mughal, has said that “antisemitism from segments of Muslim communities needs to be challenged and robustly challenged.”

Jews, however, are not doing so. They regularly identify antisemitic threats from two sources, the left and the far right. But on the people from the Islamic world who pose the biggest such threat, they are all but silent.

Worse, some Jews are now even joining the manipulative campaign to camouflage Muslim antisemitism and extremism by claiming the biggest threat to the world is coming from the far right.

Certainly, there’s a growing threat from white supremacists. But this is vastly exceeded by the threat from the Islamic world.

Worse still, people on the left are now smearing all anti-Islamists by lumping them together with white supremacists under the labels of “far right”, “alt-right” and “Islamophobes”.

After the New Zealand mosques massacre a stupendously brave Muslim leader, Yahya Cholil Staquf, wrote: “It is factually incorrect and counter-productive to define Islamophobia as ‘rooted in racism’. In reality, it is the spread of Islamist extremism and terror that primarily contributes to the rise of Islamophobia throughout the non-Muslim world.”

Furthermore, the antisemitism of the left is being fuelled by the antisemitism of the Muslim world — which is in turn emboldened and incentivised by the refusal of the non-Muslim world to condemn it.

These are the vicious and lethal circles to which the silence of the Jewish community is making an unwitting contribution.

Melanie Phillips: Madonna chooses freedom singing at Eurovision

The singer Madonna has announced she’ll be singing at next month’s final of the Eurovision song contest in Tel Aviv before an estimated global audience of 180 million viewers. She intends to perform two songs, including a new one from her forthcoming album.

Cue all the too predictable outrage from those who demonize Israel. Jewish Voice for Peace launched a “Tell Madonna to Choose Freedom” campaign, claiming that “there’s no neutrality in situations of injustice,” and calling on the star to “stay home” and “lend your voice for freedom.”

Would that be the same Jewish Voice for Peace which blamed Israel and pro-Israel Jews for US police brutality against African Americans, thus sliding from its habitual vicious falsehoods about Israel into an antisemitic blood libel?

It would.

The Madonna furor is but the latest development in the campaign to boycott the Eurovision final. In Britain, cultural figures such as musicians Peter Gabriel and Roger Waters, actors Julie Christie and Miriam Margolyes, directors Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, and writer Caryl Churchill signed a letter calling on the BBC to push for the final to be moved to another country on the grounds of Israel’s “systematic violation of Palestinian human rights.”

Would that be the same as Caryl Churchill whose 2009 play, Seven Jewish Children, accused the Jews of inflicting upon others through the State of Israel the same kind of extermination that had been meted out to them, rooting this murderous trait in Judaism itself with lines such as this one: “Tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people”?

It would.

An open letter from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel suggested Madonna’s appearance would be used by the Israeli government “to mask its deepening oppression of Palestinians.”

What oppression would that be? The corruption of the Hamas regime in Gaza causing shortages of food and essential supplies?

Douglas Murray: Roger Scruton’s sacking exposes the Tories’ cowardice

So the New Statesman decided to interview Sir Roger Scruton. Perhaps there are those who think that Scruton should not have agreed to be interviewed by the New Statesman, the left-wing magazine being unlikely to conduct a fair interview. But Scruton was the magazine’s wine columnist for many years, and under the editorship of Jason Cowley the magazine has been a slightly fairer and less battily leftwards publication than it was of old.

But today the magazine’s deputy editor, George Eaton, took to social media to announce the results of what he is parading as a ‘gotcha’ interview. The interview – which Eaton conducted himself – was, he promised, positively crammed full with ‘a series of outrageous remarks’. Eaton later posted a picture of himself drinking champagne to celebrate the fate of his interviewee, with the caption “The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.” Eaton has since deleted the picture. Here it is.

So what are the ‘outrageous remarks’? It appeared that Scruton had said that Islamophobia is ‘a propaganda word invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue’. Which is true. He also said that ‘Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts.’ A fact which is also true. Obviously since the British Labour party became a party of anti-Semites it has become exceptionally important to pretend that anti-Semitism is equally prevalent on the political right in Britain and that to criticise any of the actions of George Soros is in fact simply to indulge in anti-Semitism equivalent to that rolling through the Labour party. A very useful play for the political left, but wholly untrue. Anyway, I say ‘it appears’ that Scruton said this because there seem to be a few journalistic problems here.

Though Eaton says that Scruton said the above I am not confident that this is so. For Eaton – who used to be the Statesman’s political editor – appears to have a somewhat Johann Hari-esque way with quotes. He claims, for instance, that what Scruton said about Soros was somehow a comment ‘on Hungarian Jews’. As though Scruton had attacked all Hungarian Jews, rather than one very influential and political man who happens to be a Hungarian Jew.

The amnesiacs of Oslo (David Gerstman)

Aaron David Miller, a former negotiator during the Oslo process, tweeted this as a comment on the Israel elections:

Bottom line from Israel’s April 9 elections — a deeply divided country torn between a real desire for change and the realities of dysfunctional politics; a cruel region and a Prime Minister eager to play to and upon a nation’s fears rather than its hopes.

In response, journalist David Gerstman gave Miller a much needed history lesson on Twitter:

In 1993, Israel agreed to accept the PLO as a negotiating partner for peace. The PLO agree to give up terror and negotiate in exchange for no longer being designated as a terrorist organization.

Despite a rise in terror, by the end of 1995 Israel had removed its troops from the main Palestinian population areas in the West Bank, putting roughly 90% of Palestinians under the control of the PA, the PLO's successor organization.

In early 1996 Israel was struck by a wave of suicide bombings on buses, subsequently, Netanyahu was elected to his first term as PM.

After Netanyahu was voted out of office in 1999, his successor Barak met with Arafat in 2000 and offered the PA leader a peace deal. Arafat said no, and two months later started a bloody terror war.

In 2000 Israel withdrew all of its troops from Lebanon. The withdrawal was certified as complete by the UN.

Hezbollah built up its arsenal and terror infrastructure in southern Lebanon leading to a war in 2006 and remaining a significant threat on Israel's northern border.

Israel withdrew its troops and citizens from Gaza in 2005. Subsequently Hamas built up its arsenal and terror infrastructure leading to wars in late 2008, in 2012 and in 2014 and remaining a significant threat on Israel's southern border.

Palestinian leaders (Arafat in 2000 and Abbas in 2008 - at least) refused peace deals that would have ended the conflict.

Abbas refused to negotiate with Israel and pays terrorists, violating the principles accepted by Arafat.

In the first two cases (1996 and 2000) you were part of the team that shaped events. Now you're saying that Netanyahu plays to Israel's fears not hopes.

My God, Israel listened to you (and subsequently like-minded individuals) and paid a huge price for it. How dare you dismiss Israeli fears.

If Netanyahu resonates with the Israeli electorate, it isn't just that he understands it better than you do. It's also that Israelis see that they can't trust you and people like you to stand up for them when they do what you consider to be the right thing and suffer for it.

They see someone like you who demands that Israel makes peace for its own good and legitimacy, but pays little more than lip service to the idea that the Palestinians have any agency to make peace or moral responsibility to do it.

So please think long and hard before you mock the Israeli electorate for having fears.

It sometimes feels like there is an amnesia around what happened between Oslo and today, including the terrorism during the 1990s at the same time as the Oslo process.

The idea of Oslo and "two states" is so embedded in people's minds that they casually assume that Israelis who lived through the dark years that were direct consequences of the sunny predictions of peace are irrational, and those criticizing Israel without having the real fear of going on buses or to supermarkets are superior to the Israelis who know the pros and cons better than anyone.

It is worth reminding people that, today, Israel has less terror and the borders are quieter than perhaps at any time in its history. This is not because of the peace process - that only brought death. It is because of a priority placed on security.

Those so willing to bet Israeli lives on their personal attachment to a failed peace process are despicable.

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.

04/12 Links Pt1: Daniel Pipes: Anticipating Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’; Palestinians Preventing Peace Regardless of Who Won the Israeli Election

From Ian:

Attempting to Restart the Peace Process Will Do More Harm Than Good

For some time, reports have circulated that the White House plans to unveil its proposal for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) not long after the Israeli elections, meaning that its release might be imminent. Robert Satloff argues that the plan, developed under the direction of the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, should never see the light of day:

[The current] situation, in which Israel and the PA have strained political ties but effective security cooperation, has proved surprisingly resilient. Few love the status quo, but it is not so objectionable that either Netanyahu or Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has walked away from it. It may not have brought a final peace deal, but it has sustained the PA as a reasonably well-functioning governing entity—by regional standards—and protected the West Bank from becoming a platform for rocket and terrorist attacks against Israel. . . .

That surprisingly sustainable house of cards may finally come crumbling down if Abbas rejects the Kushner plan, which he has already given every indication of doing. . . .

[Furthermore, Kushner] likely assumes that key Arab states—led by Saudi Arabia—are poised to bless his plan, giving it vital backing that will compel Abbas not to reject it out of hand. But there are two problems with this assumption. First, the Saudis are unlikely to offer even a tepid endorsement of the peace plan without similar backing from Israel’s Arab peace partners, Egypt and Jordan, . . . both [of which] have shown spine in recent years in resisting Saudi pressure to take steps they view as contrary to their national interests, and endorsing a plan that earns a Palestinian rejection would almost certainly be a bridge too far. . . .

Finally, in addition to triggering a negative spiral in U.S.-Israel, Israel-Palestinian, and U.S.-Saudi ties, moving forward with the Kushner plan would distract from the president’s signature achievement in the Middle East: the unexpectedly effective impact of the so-called maximum-pressure campaign on Iran. . . . The Trump administration should not give Iran and its local Islamist allies a political victory by issuing a Middle East peace plan that is likely to earn swift rejection by the Palestinians and strong criticism even from longtime U.S. allies.

Daniel Pipes: Anticipating Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’

Ending the Palestinian claim to a “right of return” is Israel’s other illusory benefit. Just recall the farcical 1990s non-change of the PLO charter to drop its call for Israel’s destruction to anticipate the hollow theatrics ahead.

Second, despite the Palestinians gaining real and irreversible benefits (money, territory, legitimacy), they with certainty will continue their century-old pattern of rejecting Israel through campaigns of delegitimization and violence, as has been the case since the first Palestinian-Israeli agreement in 1993. That’s because Shimon Peres’ discredited “New Middle East” idea — that enriching and rewarding Palestinians makes them peaceable — underlies the reported Trump plan. Long experience, however, shows that these benefits make them more inclined to eliminate the Jewish state. In brief, the PA will pocket “Palestine” and intensify its anti-Zionism.

Third, should Israelis complain to Trump about that delegitimization and violence, he will likely respond with annoyance: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is now “off the table” and they should move on. Should they persist, his predictable rage will damage not just Israel but also the anti-Iran campaign and anti-Islamist efforts in general.

In short, the reported plan repeats the great miscalculation of traditional Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy by asking too little of Arabs and too much of Israelis. I predict that it will fail, just as did those of Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama.

Therefore, Americans concerned about Israel, Iran, and Islamism need to prepare for the imminent unveiling of what could be a problematic plan. Yes, so far, Trump has been “the most pro-Israel president ever,” but as the Bible reminds us, “put not your trust in princes.”

Nine Jewish groups ask Trump to restrain Netanyahu on West Bank annexation

Nine Jewish groups, including five associated with the Reform and Conservative movements, wrote to US President Donald Trump asking him to preserve the two-state solution in the face of a pledge by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to annex West Bank territory.

The letter is unusual, if not unprecedented, in mainstream Jewish groups pleading with a US president to take steps to restrain an Israeli prime minister.

“We believe that it will lead to greater conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, severely undermine, if not entirely eradicate, the successful security coordination between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and galvanize efforts such as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement that are intended to isolate and delegitimize Israel,” said the letter released early Friday to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “It will create intense divisions in the United States and make unwavering support for Israel and its security far more difficult to maintain.”

The warning that annexing territory would “create intense divisions” in the United States was significant coming from the leadership of the two largest religious streams in the United States, with a combined membership that would constitute an overwhelming majority of synagogue-going Jewish Americans.

There is no occupation. The PA/PLO and Hamas are not interested in giving their people self-determination. The “two-state solution” is dead as a result of it. You don’t have any say in how Israelis dictate their own sovereignty. These are facts you and your party must face. https://t.co/qybUEcSIvB
— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 12, 2019

Four Jewish Democrats warn Israel not to annex West Bank territory

Four Jewish Democrats in the US House of Representatives known for their ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee warned Israel not to annex West Bank territory, days after Benjamin Netanyahu’s election-eve pledge to do just that.

The statement by Reps. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., Ted Deutch, D-Fla. and Brad Schneider, D-Ill., did not name the Israeli prime minister, but alluded to his pledge on the eve of elections that he would extend Israeli law to all Jewish settlements in the West Bank, even those in remote areas, that would diminish the prospects of a contiguous Palestinian state. Netanyahu won the elections.

The statement signaled a warning from the party’s most pro-Israel wing that retreating from the two-state solution would be catastrophic for efforts to maintain close ties between Democrats and Israel. There is an emerging argument among Democrats on whether to become more sharply critical of Israel under Netanyahu.

“As strong, life-long supporters of Israel, a US-Israel relationship rooted in our shared values, and the two-state solution, we are greatly concerned by the possibility of Israel taking unilateral steps to annex the West Bank,” said the statement released early Friday.

No, @DaoudKuttab, there is no "double jeopardy" in having celebrity terrorist Ahlam Tamimi face trial in the US (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Isn't it amazing how blessed social media is with so many experts in International Law?

This is especially true when it comes to Israel.

You can always find people who have never been there, show absolutely no knowledge of the land, its people or its history -- yet are perpetually prepared to offer their expert opinion on the knottiest issues.

On the other hand, you can also find people in the Middle East who believe themselves expert in matters of international law when it comes to countries far away, such as in the US.

Take Daoud Kuttab.

Kuttab, a Palestinian Arab, is a journalist and a former professor of journalism in Princeton.
So he knows a thing or two about journalism -- but not about international law.

During the August 9, 2001 Sbarro massacre, masterminded by Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi and carried out by Izzadin al-Masri, 15 people were murdered, including 8 children and 130 were injured. Another victim remains in a coma. Three of the victims were Americans, including Malki Roth.

Tamimi was caught and her remorseless grin while exulting in retelling the story of her terrorist attack appears all over YouTube.

Tamimi was sentenced to 16 life terms.

And that should have been the end of her story.

However, Gilad Shalit was kidnapped on June 25, 2006, by Hamas terrorists who extorted Israel and refused to release Shalit (even refusing visits from the Red Cross) until Israel agreed to exchange over 1,000 Arab prisoners for Shalit's release on October 18, 2011.

Ahlam Tamimi was one of those prisoners.

Tamimi did not complete her sentence. Nor did she receive a pardon.

Ahlam Tamimi release was a conditional commutation. All those released were freed on the condition that in the future they do not engage in either terrorism or incitement of terrorism. In fact, dozens of the terrorists who were released under the Shalit ransom deal have since been sent back to prison to serve out the remainders of the terms over the past five years due to their violation of those conditions.

For her part, immediately upon her release, Tamimi began violating the terms of her commutation by inciting terrorism by giving interviews where she has rejoiced in her terrorist attack and its results, bragging that she would commit that massacre of children again if she could.

But since she lives in the welcome arms of Jordan, Tamimi is untouchable and out of the reach of justice.

At least until the US Department of Justice unsealed an indictment of Tamimi for her role in murdering US citizens. As per its 1995 extradition with Jordan, the US requested that Tamimi be handed over for trial.

Since then, Jordan -- which has treated Ahlam Tamimi like a celebrity, despite her deliberate murder of children -- has given a number of excuses for not complying with their treaty with the US.

One of those is Double Jeopardy, that because Ahlam Tamimi was tried and convicted in Israel, she cannot be tried by the US and therefore the extradition treaty does not apply.

Daoud Kuttab agrees:

Kuttab is no lawyer, and clearly has no knowledge of the principle of Double Jeopardy -- and the exceptions that apply to it.

Arnold Roth, the father of Malki Roth, has written that he has spoken to legal experts who told him that Double Jeopardy does not apply in this case because Tamimi would be tried in a different country and with different charges.

Let's take a look at some sources.

Start with The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to Article 14, Paragraph 7:

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.

On the actual extent of this principle, we have the explanation of The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which is a UN body of 18 experts established by a human rights treaty -- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee explains Double Jeopardy:

IX. Ne bis in idem ["Not twice in the same thing"]

Article 14, paragraph 7 of the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights], providing that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country, embodies the principle of ne bis in idem. This provision prohibits bringing a person, once convicted or acquitted of a certain offence, either before the same court again or before another tribunal again for the same offence.

...Furthermore, it does not guarantee ne bis in idem with respect to the national jurisdictions of two or more States.¹¹⁶ This understanding should not, however, undermine efforts by States to prevent retrial for the same criminal offence through international conventions. [emphases added]

According to this, it is clear that Double Jeopardy does not apply when:

o the accused is brought to trial before a different national jurisdiction or State, or
o the accused is tried for a different offense

What about that footnote, number 116?

It gives 2 examples from previous opinions handed down by the Committee where it rejected the application of Double Jeopardy: Communications No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, para. 6.4; No. 204/1986, A.P. v. Italy, para. 7.3.

In Communications No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, para. 6.4:

6.4 The author has claimed a violation of article 14, paragraph 7, because he considers that a retrial in Iran in the event of his deportation to that country would expose him to the risk of double jeopardy. The Committee recalls that article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant does not guarantee ne bis in idem with respect to the national jurisdictions of two or more states - this provision only prohibits double jeopardy with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State See decision on case No. 204/1986 (A.P. v. Italy), declared inadmissible 2 November 1987, paragraphs 7.3 and 8.. Accordingly, this claim is inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

In Communications No. 204/1986, A.P. v. Italy, para. 7.3:

7.3. With regard to the admissibility of the communication under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has examined the State party's objection that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, since article 14, paragraph 7, of the Covenant, which the author invokes, does not guarantee non bis in idem with regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more States. The Committee observes that this provision prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State.

Clearly, Double Jeopardy is not an absolute and has exceptions when dealing with more than one state. Double Jeopardy then does not apply when the United States wants to try Ahlam Tamimi after she was already tried in Israel

Note that above the Human Rights Committee did say:

This understanding should not, however, undermine efforts by States to prevent retrial for the same criminal offence through international conventions

This does not contradict what has been said so far -- that sentence is talking about a case of "retrial for the same criminal offense." That is not the case here with the US extradition.

That is because the US charge against Tamimi is not murder, it is "conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals outside the U.S., resulting in death".

Interestingly, the DC Circuit Court that indicted Tamimi is the same one that handed down a ruling in 2017 rejecting the application of Double Jeopardy in the case of United States v. Trabelsi -- the case of Nizar Trabelsi, who fought extradition from Belgium back to the US to face charges after he had actually finished his prison term in Belgium. That court is well familiar with the principle of Double Jeopardy -- and when it does not apply.

On a side note, there is the argument by Washington lawyer Nathan Lewin, who was a federal prosecutor and deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He suggests another reason why Double Jeopardy should not apply in the extradition of Ahlam Tamimi:

Also, former federal prosecutor and Washington lawyer Nathan Lewin argues that just as Double Jeopardy does not apply when a fugitive flees, it should not apply in this case where Tamimi was let go because of extortion.

There is no issue of Double Jeopardy here in the extradition of the Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi to the US.

The only thing that is really in jeopardy is justice.

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.

How much do Jewish leftists really want peace between Israel and the Arab world?

The New York Times featured a letter from a (Rabbi) Mordecai Schreiber, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida:

As an Israeli and an American, I am appalled by the re-election of an Israeli prime minister who blocks the road to peace with the Arab world, and by the current political culture in the United States, which has turned this country into George Orwell’s “Big Brother” nightmare in which lies are truth and war is peace.
I used to be very proud of both countries. I no longer am.

Schreiber was born in Haifa and became a Reform rabbi at Hebrew Union College in 1965. He's written numerous books and articles.

And yet he seems somehow unaware of the amazing things Benjamin Netanyahu has done to bring Israel and the Arab world closer than they have ever been.

Before Netanyahu, the idea of multiple government ministers visiting the UAE or hearing Hatikva play in that country was fantasy.

The idea of a state visit by the Israeli prime minister to Oman was equally unthinkable.

Bahrain's foreign minister openly talks about establishing diplomatic relations with Israel.

Israel and Morocco trade keeps increasing, to $37 million in 2017 alone, while Israeli company Netafim opened up a subsidiary in Morocco.

Either Rabbi Schreiber is unaware of all of this happening under Netanyahu's tenure as prime minister - or his idea of what peace between Israel and the Arab world should look like is twisted.

Too many American Jews are brainwashed by the idea that the only road to peace between Israel and its neighbors is a Palestinian state. In fact, the facts prove the opposite - when Israel gives more and more concessions to Palestinians, the more they demand and inflame the Arab world to be on their side.

Similarly, when Israel acts like a strong, sovereign nation, the Arab world respects it and wants to partner with it. The much derided nationalism that causes such fear in certain quarters is regarded as a positive in the region Israel finds itself in.

It is hardly a coincidence that the worst terror spree in Israeli history happened immediately following Palestinian rejection of a peace plan - a peace plan that was pushed not by Donald Trump but by a popular Democratic, president to be as fair and realistic as possible. Clinton knows the reason the Palestinians don't have a state, and it isn't because of Israel.

People like Schreiber seem to believe that the intifada is proof not of Palestinian rejectionism but of Israel not giving them enough. This is a very sick mentality. And it is one that J-Street and US media continue to push today.

Does the J-Street type crowd really want peace? Their silence over Israel's and Netanyahu's incredible accomplishments with the Arab and Muslim world indicates that they are not the ones who seek peace at all. They are so wedded to the discredited idea that the only path to peace is through a dysfunctional and terror-worshiping Palestinian leadership that they willfully blind to Israel's repeated attempts at achieving peace.

Including being blind to a peace framework that Netanyahu himself supported and that Palestinians rejected.

Perhaps Rabbi Schreiber will realize one day that Israel isn't the obstacle to peace - its "peace partner" is.

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.

Turkey loves the Palestinian "cause" - but it hates Palestinians

In February, Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan assured a delegation of Arab Knesset members that Turkey will not “turn its back” on the Palestinian cause or people, adding that Ankara will share "all means available" for ending the occupation and establishing peace.

In March, Turkey's foreign minister said that defending the Palestinian cause is a top priority for Ankara.

Hamas has praised Turkey, saying, "Along with a few other countries, Turkey has stood by the Palestinian people, despite the rush by a number of Arab states to normalize their relations with Israel."

Turkey might love "Palestine," but it seems to have a big problem with Palestinians.

And a young man is now dead as a result.

Mohammed Abu Shamla, originally from Gaza, fell from a balcony while trying to escape as police raided the hotel he was staying in with many other Palestinians in Didem last weekend. He died this morning.

According to witnesses, Turkish police raid the hotel practically daily, looking for Palestinians to arrest for being in the country illegally. Usually they look for Syrian refugees of Palestinian descent but they also arrest Gazans or anyone else Palestinian. On Saturday, the police fired tear gas into the hotel rooms, including rooms with women and children. (Tear gas can be fatal when used indoors.)

Haaretz reported something similar last year:

In Turkey, many Gazans have no option but to stay illegally beyond their tourist visa. They live a life of paranoia, trying to avoid security checkpoints in the streets, at which Arab-looking pedestrians are usually stopped and asked a single fateful question, to which the wrong answer might mean harassment, incarceration or deportation: "Are you Syrian?" Gazans are mostly let off the hook.

A Gazan friend was stopped and checked three times in one day, and the last time he was asked if he was Syrian, he sarcastically answered, "I wish if I had that honor." He was held for an hour in detention for his impertinence.

According to EuroMed Monitor, some 8000 Syrian Palestinians live illegally in Turkey, but many thousands more seem to have gone there from Gaza last year when Egypt opened the Rafah crossing.

The Turkish government, like much of the rest of the Muslim world, loves the Palestinian cause - but only as long as no one asks it to do anything for actual Palestinians. It claims to have the greatest sympathy for people in Gaza, but that is only as long as they remain in Gaza.

The Arab and Muslim world only love Palestinians when they can be used as cannon fodder against Israel. But treating them as human beings is not a priority - because Palestinians living happily outside Palestine are useless to advance the "cause."

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.

04/11 Links Pt2: On verge of space history, Beresheet fails to land safely on Moon; BDS founder Omar Barghouti denied entry to US; The Well-Financed War on Birthright Israel

From Ian:

On verge of space history, Beresheet fails to land safely on Moon

Israel almost rewrote the lunar history books on Thursday evening as spacecraft Beresheet (Hebrew for Genesis) failed to land safely on the Moon.

Millions around the world tuned in live to watch the SpaceIL vessel, carrying an Israeli flag and a nano-Bible, descend to the Moon’s Mare Serenitatis (Sea of Serenity), but the State of Israel fell just short of becoming only the fourth member of a prestigious club of nations to complete the formidable task of landing a spacecraft on the lunar surface.

SpaceIL lost contact with the spacecraft only minutes before it was due to complete the historic landing – a feat previously achieved only by the United States, Russia (then the USSR) and China – after an epic seven-week, 6.5 million km. journey since Beresheet, an ambitious project developed by SpaceIL and Israel Aerospace Industries, blasted off from Cape Canaveral, Florida on board a SpaceX rocket on February 22.

For 48 days, Beresheet’s ground crew watched, monitored and executed every maneuver of the spacecraft from a control center at IAI’s Yehud headquarters. Once in position to descend, the landing maneuver – split into two phases of decreasing horizontal velocity and then vertical velocity – commenced but failed to land safely after contact was lost.

“If it at first you don’t succeed, you try and try again – and we’ll try again,” said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the control center.

“We reached the moon, but we wanted to land more safely. The attempt alone is a huge achievement. An Israeli satellite will one day land on the moon.”

Beresheet takes a selfie minutes before touching down on the moon .

XPRIZE to award $1 Million Moonshot Award to SpaceIL team for them to continue their work and pursue Beresheet 2.0. Space is hard!!! ⁦@xprize⁩ ⁦@TeamSpaceIL⁩ pic.twitter.com/J4Zo5eaYMT
— Peter Diamandis (@PeterDiamandis) April 11, 2019