Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The prophet of 1949

An absolutely amazing Page One editorial from the Palestine Post of March 9, 1949. The author, David Courtney, was a non-Jewish British journalist who penned Column One in the 40s and 50s for the Palestine/Jerusalem Post.

The column could have been written today.

Cross-posted to Palestine Post-ings.

Media analyzes Ahmadinejad - and gets it wrong

The liberal media has analyzed the Iranian madman's comments and settled on the least problematic explanations possible. Breathe easy, the New York Times has spoken!

Its first analysis is that Ahmadinejad wants turn back the clock to the 1979 Iranian revolution - and then the Times admits that Iranian unity didn't occur until the Iraq/Iran war, so that doesn't make sense.

Then the Times posits that he wants to isolate his country so he can more easily move Iran's nuclear program forward (why exactly he wants to do this, the Times doesn't explain). But if this was true, the Iranian "news" agency would not be bending over backwards to find allies who agree with him and to negotiate with Europe - see this, this, and this just from today. A significant part of Iran's press is obsessed over international relations.

And finally the august NYT contradicts it's own analysis yet again:

The anti-Israeli oratory also has roots in the president's domestic standing.

Some Iranian analysts say that by increasing the world's hostility, Mr. Ahmadinejad is hoping to reproduce that sense of internal unity.

Iranian analysts say he is also trying to satisfy, and perhaps distract, supporters who have begun to feel disappointed that he has not provided financial relief. Throughout his campaign, Mr. Ahmadinejad promised to try to redistribute the nation's vast oil wealth.

"His comments are more for domestic consumption," said Saeed Laylaz, an Iranian political analyst. "He wants to control the domestic situation through isolating Iran. Then he can suppress the voices inside the country and control the situation."

And then a couple of paragraphs later,the NYT demolishes its own argument:

With Iran facing a raft of problems - widespread unemployment, collapse of rural life as more people head to the cities, and a general sense of drift among the young - Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel have drawn little domestic attention.

So here we have three theories from "experts" where the NYT's own facts do not fit the theories, but amidst all the handwaving the reader gets the impression that Ahmadinejad has no interest in actually exploding nuclear weapons over any other country.

Here is a textbook case where liberal wishful thinking trumps facts.

The AP has a slightly better analysis, arguing that his anti-Israel and anti-semitic comments are"part of a strategy to keep anti-Israel sentiment alive in the Middle East." But even so, they uncritically quote an Iranian "hard-line lawmaker": "'The bottom line is he wants to keep anti-Israeli sentiments alive,' Afrouq said. 'He doesn't think of military action.' "

The real bottom line is that the media does not even want to admit the possibility that someone could be evil. This goes against all liberal thinking - no one is bad, just misunderstood.

No one outside of Charles Krauthammer mentions Ahmadinejad's messianic tendencies and his obsession with the second coming of the "12th Imam". No one wants to talk about how the year before his "World Without Zionism" conference he had a "World Without America" conference.

It appears to little old me, without reading Farsi, that Ahmadinejad is looking to move the center of the Islamic world to Iran - and his Islamic world is the of the Islamofascist variety. His threatening statements against Israel and the West are not meant for domestic consumption, rather for worldwide Muslims already being indoctrinated in hate against the West.

He does view the 1979 Iranian revolution as important because it was a victory of Islam over the decadent West, represented by the Shah. But Muslims look at it from a global perspective, not a national one. The surge of militant Islam is not a localized phenomenon. From an Islamist viewpoint, the entire world will become one ummah and a victory in Iran is just one step on the way to worldwide Islamic domination.

This is why the issue of "Palestine" is so important to him - it represents the closest encroachment of the hated West into the Muslim geographic center. But beyond that, the Westernization of Arab countries and Turkey are another threatening trend - witness his recent banning of Western music in Iran. By turning his country into a shari'a state, with the "pure" morality of Islam, Ahmadenijad is trying to influence and pressure other Muslim nations towards fundamentalism and zealotry. And he knows that he has a ready audience in Arab countries. His being elected president has, to him, given him a world stage to promote Shi'ite Islamic supremacy as interpreted by his religious leaders - and he is wasting no time to take advantage of his new prominence.

After all, as I have mentioned before, Holocaust denial is nothing new in that part of the world. But when was the last time it made world headlines?

Ahmadinejad wants nothing less than to turn the world to Islamic extremism, and to be its leader. Threatening Israel can get attention - but destroying Israel would give him a legacy as well as energize the entire Muslim world behind his cause.

Because in the end, given a choice between the most liberal and Arab-loving Israel that Meretz could dream up and a crazed trigger-happy Muslim nutcase, the Islamic world has consistently sided with the nutcases.

Iran: Anti-semites? Us?

The Mehr News Agency has an amusing editorial defending Iran's tolerance towards its own dhimmi Jews:

No pogroms here
TEHRAN, Dec. 19 (MNA) -- With all the uproar about Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s anti-Zionist statements, it’s necessary to set the record straight by putting things in historical perspective.

A small Jewish community has been living in Iran for over 2500 years, and they have never been persecuted. Today they number about 25,000. The Iranian Jews have synagogues, observe their religious rituals, and have complete freedom of religion.

The Jewish community has one representative in the Iranian parliament, which is called the Majlis. Iran’s other religious minorities also have proportional representation in parliament. The Zoroastrians have one seat, the Armenian Christians have two seats, and one MP represents the Assyrian and Chaldean Christian communities.

Although life is not perfect for Iran’s Jews and there is some prejudice against them, there have never been pogroms against the Jews here. Can Poland or Russia say that? Can several other European countries say that? A careful examination of history shows that the Jews have actually been safer in Iran than in Western countries.

The Jews have never been banned from Iran, whereas they were banned in certain European countries. The Jews of Iran were never locked up in ghettos, as was the case in some European countries.

In 2500 years, not one synagogue has been destroyed in Iran. Jewish graveyards have never been desecrated in Iran. In contrast, this still occurs in some Western countries.

There has never been a Kristallnacht in Iran.

This amazing defense boils down to "We never did what the Nazis did, so you can't criticize us!"

Unfortunately, Iran does have more than its share of true anti-semitism. Beyond the fondness Iranians have for the Farsi edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, their Sahar TV aired programs accusing "Zionists" of stealing Arab children's eyes to cure blind Jewish children; and they have accused Iranian Jews of spying for Israel, gouging out the eyes of a 78-year old cantor and then executing him in one case.

And Iranian Holocaust denial has been above-ground for years, especially in the pages of the Tehran Times:

[The] Tehran Times seemed especially obsessed with the Holocaust. Perhaps “the biggest lie in history,” a 25 January 2001 article maintained, took formal shape during the Nuremberg trials, where a confession “obtained by means of torture” became “the cornerstone of the official Auschwitz version.” No one has ever asked “the Jewish swindlers,” who present themselves as “gas chamber witnesses” any critical questions. Yet, “the terrible accusation” of genocide, is based only upon “the lies of a handful of Jewish swindlers like Rudolf Vrba, Filip Mueller and Elie Wiesel,” and “the confessions of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess who was tortured for three days by his Jewish and British interrogators before signing the statement his tormentors had prepared for him” (Tehran Times, 17 Feb. 2001). There is “no documentary evidence for the gassing of even one human being in a German camp,” it added, and the German documents do not confirm “the Holocaust story,” in fact, they “directly refute it” (1 Feb. 2001).

But, hey, they have a point - any Iranian Jews who obediently paid the dhimmi "jizya" poll tax were treated like second-class citizens, much better than 1940's-era Polish Jews. And Islamic supremacism isn't anti-semitism, is it?

Haveil Havalim #49 posted

The eagerly anticipated First Anniversary edition of Haveil Havalim has been published at SeranEz.

Congratulations on all those who helped HH make it to this milestone, most notably Soccer Dad.

Is Ahmadinejad a chimp or an ape? A scholarly debate!

TEHRAN, Dec. 18 (MNA) -- The Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that the view expressed by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad that there are some doubts about the Jewish Holocaust is not something new and is a matter of "scholarly debate".

It has been a matter of considerable debate among zoologists and anatomists as to whether Iran's president Ahmadinejad is an ape or a chimpanzee. Here are some of the scholarly arguments on each side:

First, let's look at the anatomy of the president's face:

Notice the wrinkles surrounding his eyes and his prominent facial hair, as well as his obtrusive nostrils. Many prominent scientists feel that he bears a striking resemblance to Koko the baby ape:

However, his ritualistic behavior more closely tracks those of homosexual chimpanzees.

In this striking similarity, look at Ahmadinejad's facial expressions when he shows his mating ritualistic sexual affection for another male of his species:

Now look closely at the facial expressions of these chimpanzees:

DNA testing would, of course, solve this debate once and for all, but for various political reasons the Iranian zoo that houses Ahmadinejad is not allowing his blood samples to be taken at this time, despite protests by prominent zoologists and other scholars.

So, the scholarly debate rages on.

UPDATE: Others have researched this as well.

When PA has to choose between US and Hamas, guess who wins?

The "moderate" PA has an incredibly consistent record of siding with their supposed enemy Hamas against any Western or Israeli position.

Will the West ever wake up as to the PA's support of terror?

Notice also the cynical use of "democracy" to defend terror.

The Palestinian Authority and Hamas on Saturday rejected threats by the US House of Representatives to cut off financial aid to the Palestinians if Hamas is permitted to participate in next month's parliamentary elections.

The resolution, taken on Friday, calls on the PA to set criteria for the participation of Hamas and other terrorist groups in the elections for the parliament and warns of possible repercussions if it does not make sure Hamas obeys to these conditions before the elections.

The conditions set out by Congress for participation in the Palestinian elections require Hamas and other groups to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, to stop terrorism and condemn the use of violence, to stop incitement and to dismantle their terror infrastructure.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, urged the White House and the rest of the world not to endorse the position of the Congress.

'We call on the international community to impose pressure on the US administration and prevent it from complying with the decisions of the House of Representatives as this does not serve the peace process nor the US efforts to maintain peace in the area,' he said. 'The legislative elections will be held on time and all Palestinian parties have the right to participate in them. Otherwise, the elections wouldn't be democratic.'

"We categorically reject this decision," PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told reporters in Ramallah. "These are Palestinian elections and everyone should respect the democratic choice of the Palestinian people."

Erekat said that the PA's electoral law allows anyone above the age of 18 to run or vote in the elections, scheduled for January 25. "On the other hand," he added, "We have a law that forbids the use of weapons and incitement in mosques and churches. We reject the Israeli and American position and stress that the elections will be held on time."

Once upon a time, like three entire months ago, they had a law against the public display of weapons as well. And the esteemed moderate Mr. Erekat supported Hamas' running in elections based on the bizarre reasoning that running in democratic elections is tantamount to giving up weapons.

Once again, when given a clear choice between supporting the murder of Israeli civilians and banning it, the Palestinian Authority and Fatah choose murder.

Sudanese psychosis

Speaking of psychoanalysis....

Dec 17, 2005 (KHARTOUM) — In an interview led by the Iqra channel — an Islamic satellite TV -, the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir denounced American hostility to Arab and Islamic countries. He also said the international Zionist movement is using all means to eradicate Arabs and Islam and target all Muslim countries, including Sudan.

During the Iqra interview, al-Bashir pointed out that the confrontation will continue.

Can you say "projection?" I knew you could!

Best post?

As the JIB award nominations are underway, a number of bloggers are asking which of their posts were the "best" so they could nominate for "best post."

I think that in general, personal posts have a much greater chance of being "best post" than a political post, but it has caused me to start thinking about which of my posts from this year were the "best."

My historic articles based on articles from from the Palestine Post probably count as my "best" in the sense that the educate people about how this conflict began and they explode a number of myths. My first one, "The Historic Palestinians - A Very Simple Test" got a lot of attention and it did what it was meant to do - prove that the Palestinian Arabs were never referred to as "Palestinians", and in fact the term almost always referred to Palestinian Jews. What this implies as far as the entire history of Palestinian Arabs is left to the reader to decide.

As far as my own original articles, I barely remember them. But for some reason I still see occasional hits to an article from July entitled "Pavlov and the Terrorists" so perhaps it hit a chord with people.

Either way, the JIB awards are coming, so be sure to check out the nominations and vote for your favorites, or at the very least use them to discover other parts of the JBlogosphere.

Towards a psychoanalysis of Iran

Different cultures have different psychologies. While there are always exceptions, to a remarkable degree one can understand nations' actions by understanding their underlying cultural and psychological influences. And even though it may be popular academic theory that we are all the same, it doesn't take much to realize that this is not true.

The Arab psyche in regards to Israel is pretty simple, and I have touched on it in various ways a number of times. Briefly, it is not based on anti-semitism per se; rather it is based on Muslim supermacist ideology combined with Arab pride and territorialism. Since Jews are meant to be second-class dhimmis in this mindset, and since Arabs dominated "weak" Jews in the Middle East for many centuries, the idea that small numbers of Jews could not only control land that they consider Muslim but could repeatedly defeat the combined Arab armies is nothing less than catastrophic (hence, the name Nakba.) It is nothing less than an assault on their basic concepts of Islam and Arab power. The very existence of Israel is, every day, a reminder of their weakness and this is, in a nutshell, why there will never be real peace without a wholesale change to Arab culture.

Iran is a whole different animal. Iran is not Arab, and indeed in some ways Arabs regard Iran as another Israel, a foreign people who have claims on Arab territory. Also, Iran has many non-Muslims which breeds mistrust from the Arabs.

Iranians, in turn, look down on Arabs as well.

Iran seems to have a significant population that is very much against the Ahmadinejad flavored Islamicization - some seem to call it Arabization. This does not seem to translate into any love of Israel - Iran's anti-Israel stance appears to be fairly uniform. But the "moderates" do not like seeing the Iranian president pretend to obsess over Palestinians whom they could care less about. I do not have a way of measuring how many Iranians are in this "moderate" group.

So in Iran at least, many of the people and the government seem to have different psyches, even though the vast majority of Iranians are Shi'ite Muslims.

From the government press and Ahmadinejad's remarks, it seems that the Iranian regime is feeling very isolated and is desperately looking for validation from the world of Ahmadinejad's hate. A few times already I have found articles in Iran's press finding an obscure Indian professor or Lebanese MP who they quote as agreeing with them that Israel is racist or whatever. The open question is whether the validation that they claim from seeing leftists protesting in Europe is grasping at straws, or is it complete denial as to how isolated they really are.

The worrying part about Ahmadinejad is that he really does seem to have messianic tendencies. This article in the anti-government Persian Journal shows a scary tendency of Iran's president to try to hasten the coming of the "12th Imam":

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."

"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.

This indicates, first of all, that Ahmadinejad is even more irrational than he appears, and therefore less predictable - he could literally do anything to bring about his messianic imam.

It also may mean that he feels that the religious center of Islam is in Iran, not Saudi Arabia, and that any moves he makes would be to ensure Iran's predominance and leadership of Islam.

Israel is the one issue that the Muslim world agrees on, and Iran's fixation on Israel may be a way to take this leadership role in Islam.

His now regular threats against Israel, his clear pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the fact that he does not appear to fear a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario as long as it brings about his Mahdi all point to an extraordinarily dangerous and insane enemy who is uniquely impervious to diplomatic pressure.

Iran nuke roundup

It is by now clear that Iran is ruled by a messianic madman for whom the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is considered a good thing.

And Europe will do nothing, wishing, as Victor David Hanson puts it, “Hurry up, sane and Western Israel, and take out this awful thing — so we can damn you Zionist aggressors for doing so in our morning papers.”

Ha'aretz has a rambling analysis that talks about Israel's military options, and seems to concludes that only the international community can stop Iran militarily.

Meanwhile, Iran is running war games and testing out new missiles, and is keeping up its rhetoric:

Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar stressed that Iran will vigorously respond to any kind of aggression.
Making the remark while talking to reporters here in southeastern country, he referred to the threats by some Zionist regime officials regarding attacking Iran's nuclear sites, Mohammad Najjar said Iran's defense policy was quite defensive but stressed that Iranian "armed forces would provide a rapid, strong and destructive response if the country faced any aggression."

Then, in an apparently mentally unbalanced state, the Iranian Defense Minister had something to add:

He said Saddam's sad fate after attacking Iran should teach a lesson to the occupying Zionist regime officials.

The Iranian president, not to be outdone in his daily rant of bizarre fiction, made a speech:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Thursday said the world politicians and thinkers back Iran's justice-seeking spirit.

Making the remark in a meeting with thousands of university students, the president added, "Today mankind is in search of tranquility and sustainable peace, which could be materialized only through justice, spirituality, and monotheism."
Some countries have piled up their arsenals with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to keep dominating other countries, regretted Ahmadinejad adding they even embark on testing biological weapons on people in the name of pharmaceutical donation.

"They even openly confess to their acts and shamelessly say that ethics has no place in politics."

He said the unbiased scientists and scholars no longer believe that "liberalism or humanism schools" could ever provide man with sustainable peace, adding people in Europe and the US are also quite disillusioned with their governments in bringing sustainable peace.

I love it when a genocidal maniac talks about ethics.

Here's a troubling question:

Let's say Israel takes out some Iranian reactors. Iran will no doubt be happy to attack Israel. Who will join the war on Iran's side?

Syria, no doubt - Iran would send her troops through Syria. Hezbollah would start lobbing its arsenal of missiles into northern israel, and Palestinian Arabs would do the same from Gaza.

Jordan may have finally learned its lesson not to attack Israel just in the name of Arab unity.

But here is a sobering thought. The top arms buyers in the world, in 2002, were:

Saudi Arabia ($5.2B)
Egypt ($2.1B)
Kuwait ($1.3B)

How much can the US influence it's "friends" to stay out of a war against Israel?

Israeli sources discovered on Thursday that Palestinian police stationed at the Karni crossing planned on assisting in the carrying-out of a terrorist attack at the crossing. Fortunately, the attack was thwarted by Israeli security sources.

The policemen reportedly meant to allow the terrorists detonate a large bomb at the crossing while it was being scanned. The assault also was intended to include opening fire and throwing grenades, according to Israel Radio.

The best defense against Iranian nukes

A great sentence in a great post from AbbaGav:

We'll be watching for the human shields too. Grass roots organizations should be starting about now if they want to get here in time to chain themselves to the best buildings.

Thoughts on compromise, influence, independence, peace

SoccerDad starts with this post of mine and runs with it , decrying the current US administration as now acting in ways indistinguishable from previous ones, vis a vis Israel.

He comments:

The failing of most administrations when it comes to Mideast peace is that they put a premium on its success. This makes the cost of peace more expensive. The Palestinians loving the attention make sure that their demands are sacrosanct and Israel thus must bend to those to those demands or be obstructionist.

His second sentence is very accurate, but it is also partially Israel's fault. If only the Jews would remember their Talmud!

If two persons hold a cloak, one says, "I found it," and the other says, I found it," one says, "All of it is mine," and the other says, "All of it is mine," the first one shall swear that not less than one half of it belongs to him, the other one shall swear that not less than one half of it belongs to him, and they shall divide it. If one says, "All of it is mine," and the other says, "Half of it is mine," the one who says "All of it is mine" shall swear that not less than three-quarters of it belongs to him, and the one who says "Half of it, is mine” shall swear that not less than one-quarter of it belongs to him; the former shall take three-quarters and the latter shall take one-quarter.

If one party claims the entire item in dispute, and the other one says that they share it, the only thing a third party judge can do (absent other evidence) is splitting the difference. Since Jews are always looking to compromise for peace, and the Arabs aren't, this gives the Arabs a much stronger claim. Israel should have long ago defined their "red lines" in this battle. Unfortunately, thanks to Barak, the Israeli "red line" is pretty much the Green Line. This was perhaps the worst legacy ever left by an Israeli leader.

Back to Soccer Dad's first sentence quoted above, though - I look at it a little differently. The reason that the US always ends up pressuring Israel and giving the Palestinians a relatively free ride is indeed because the US puts a premium on solving the problem - and the US only has influence over Israel because of the billions of dollars it gives annually.

This is not the entire problem - Egypt regularly thumbs its nose at the US and still gets billions every year as well. The problem is that Israel feels indebted to the US because of the money and feels she must bend over backwards to make her "good friend" happy. That's what friends do.

The Palestinians have no such pressures. The EU could play a role here but it usually refuses (although yesterday there was a hopeful sign.)

Let's step back. What things did Israel do over the past few years that reduced violence?

Taking the war to the terrorists.
Building the barrier.

These moves were successful in making Israel safer (and consequently making Palestinian Arabs safer.) Any "truce" only came about because Israel was successful in doing these things.

And the world community was against both of them.

World pressure (including US pressure) on Israel is almost always counterproductive to true peace.

The only way to reduce this pressure, specifically from the US, is for Israel to plan to wean itself from American dollars. Absurd agreements like Rafah should never have happened, and if it wasn't for US dollars to Israel, they wouldn't have.

Israel is no longer acting as an independent state; rather as an extension of the US. This is not only a tragedy for the Zionist dream, it is counterproductive to real peace.

The Perdana "Peace" Conference

Right now, another worthless anti-American, anti Israel conference is taking place in Kuala Lampur. It is called the Perdana Peace Conference, and it has attracted some corporate sponsors.

Speakers include:

Najwa Jalamneh, a 15-year old Arab girl who "disclosed continued atrocity and criminal acts of the Zionist regime citing the horror and crimes being perpetrated by occupiers in Palestine;"
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, who writes "Israel is racist" articles;
Antisemitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad;
George Galloway, who has said that Zionists control the media;
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who blames Christians for Muslim terror;
Mass murdering Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe;
and many more self-appointed "peace" activists.

Sponsors of this hatefest include Dell Asia and Nestle.

"Obstacles to Peace"

How many times have we heard that the Jewish settlers who live beyond the Green Line are obstacles to peace? A quick search finds here,
here, here, here, and literally hundreds of other times that this phrase was used in reference to Jewish settlements, often by the State Department and the White House.

Well, now these supposed obstacles are gone from Gaza, so we must be that much closer to peace now, right?

The Palestinian Authority, instead of housing citizens in the Gaza communities abandoned by Israel, has turned them into training camps for armed factions. N'vei Dekalim is used to launch rockets.

Many of the 21 communities emptied of their Jewish residents last summer have now been turned into full-fledged military training camps of the ruling Fatah group and of other Islamic terror groups. According to the groups, the communities also act as recruitment centers for the “people's army” being funded by Fatah.

Two Kassam rockets were fired from Gaza, mid-day Tuesday, toward Israeli towns in the western Negev. A Hamas official told the World Tribune that the rockets were fired from former Jewish towns that have been converted into launching sites for the war against the Jewish State.

Last month, the PA official in charge of interior affairs, Nassar Yusouf, toured the training camp erected on the remains of the community of N'vei Dekalim – which was the largest of the Jewish towns in Gush Katif. Yusouf planned to declare the area a closed military zone, but soon realized that armed hordes from his own Fatah faction had set up a military infrastructure in the place.

It must be an oversight by the major media outlets and our Department of State, but not once have I seen terror training camps in Gaza referred to as "obstacles to peace." Not once have I seen anyone in the mainstream press or officials from the US or EU utter the obvious truth that terror is far more an "obstacle to peace" than Jews who want to live on historically Jewish land.

It is mind-boggling that after the Gaza debacle, where the pseudo-statelet is well on its way to becoming Hamastan, that people think that peace is closer now than it was six months ago.

There is only one obstacle to peace - the fact that the Palestinian Arabs, and the Arab and Muslim world at large, cannot accept the idea of Jews living in the Middle East in positions of power, even if Israel was the size of a tablecloth.

Solving that problem will not bring peace, but it is a necessary precondition of peace. Making more concessions to people who ultimately want you dead or dhimmified is the worst sort of wishful thinking.