Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Ignoring elephants

In the reckless chase for Middle East peace, the number of elephants in the room is increasing exponentially. But the ability of the "peacemakers" to ignore them rises to the occasion.

Elephant 1: Hamas controls Gaza

Every peace plan includes Gaza in a Palestinian Arab state, and none of them has any provision on how to handle the fact that Gaza is a terrorist haven, in much worse shape since Israel uprooted the settlements there, controlled by a terrorist group that has no interest in restraining the even-more extremist terror groups that thrive there. Peace is impossible with this elephant, so it is easier to pretend it isn't there.

Elephant 2: Palestinian Arabs elected a terror government

In the only fair, democratic elections in the territories, the Hamas terrorists were chosen by the people. Poll after poll shows that Palestinian Arabs support terror in Israel itself. The elections proved that the conventional wisdom was wrong - and the conventional wisdom proceeded to ignore it.

Elephant 3: The current PA government was not elected

This corollary to Elephant 2 means that the current people negotiating for the Palestinian Arabs do not represent the people. Even if they sound moderate or compromising, they have no mandate. Negotiating with them is, literally, meaningless.

Elephant 4: The current PA government has almost no power

Outside of Ramallah, the Fayyad/Abbas government has little popular support and little power. The Nablus "clean-up" was an orchestrated fiction, as was the recent high-profile "surrender" of nine Al-Aqsa terrorists - who are now due to become upstanding, paid members of the security forces in three months.

Elephant 5: The PA is being kept alive by artificial methods

The PA budget is bloated from "payroll" of non-working workers - but if they would slash the payroll, the people on intrnational welfare would revolt. So the very basis of the organized Palestinian Arab workforce is a fiction being kept barely alive by ever-increasing infusions of cash with no real plan to fix the problem.

Elephant 6: Fatah remains a terrorist group paid by the PA

Despite the recent claims that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has dismantled, it is a joke meant to appease the wishful-thinkers. There has been no serious move by the PA against terror except for its tit-for-tat arrests of Hamas members in the West Bank, and its moves have been almost wholly cosmetic and aimed for Western consumption rather than real fighting against terror.

Elephant 7: The first - and second - stages of the roadmap were never implemented

The entire point of the road map was to slowly build confidence, starting with the end of terror and incitement on the Palestinian Arab side, afterwards building a "provisional" state and only then going to final-status negotiations. By skipping to Phase III as if the other two phases were already in place, the entire exercise is simply a joke. Incitement remains at full blast and the slight lull in terror is tactical, not a sea-change in Palestinian Arab attitudes.

Elephant 8: The PA's goal remains the destruction of Israel

Whether it is by "right of return" or not changing the Fatah charter or by printing map after map showing no Israel, even the most moderate Palestinian leader clings to the idea of destroying Israel, and looks upon a Palestinian Arab state as only one stage in the process.

Elephant 9: Jerusalem

Most Israelis want a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Most Palestinian Arabs refuse to accept anything less than all of Jerusalem as the capital of a Muslim state. The positions are not compatible and a compromise will not reduce the chances for violence - it will increase it.

Elephant 10: What happened to Gaza

Forgetting Hamas for now, the time period between Israel's dismantling settlements in Gaza and the Hamas takeover is instructive as to how Palestinian Arabs take advantage of territory they gain. They didn't build new houses or communities to reduce the "refugee camp" population, no schools or hospitals. They destroyed the greenhouses purchased for them by American Jews; they turned beautiful former settlements into training camps for terror - in other words, Israel's last major concession not only didn't help achieve peace, it ended up encouraging terror. Any claims that something similar wouldn't happen in the West Bank is the triumph of wishful thinking over experience.

These are off the top of my head - any others I should add?

Tel Aviv - United States President George W Bush, on landing in Tel Aviv Tuesday for his first visit to the area since he took office, said he saw a 'new opportunity' for peace in the Middle East.
'The US and Israel are strong allies. The sources of that strength is a shared belief in the power of human freedom. Our people built two great democracies under difficult circumstances,' Bush told dignitaries at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport.

'The alliance between our two nations helps guarantee Israel's security as a a Jewish state,' he said.

Bush also spoke out against extremism, saying that 'We most firmly oppose those who murder the innocent to achieve their poitical objectives.'

'We see a new opportunity for peace here in the holy land and for peace across the region.'

This is a pretty generic speech, but Ma'an Arabic, Palestine Press Agency and Palestine Today created headlines emphasizing Bush's description of Israel as a "Jewish state" and almost ignoring the rest.

On the other hand, YNet and the Jerusalem Post ignored the statement, Ha'aretz took note.

UNIFIL attacked by roadside bomb

Some strange, unidentified people tried to blow up a UNIFIL team in Lebanon:

RMEILEH, Lebanon: A roadside bomb exploded yesterday near a UN vehicle travelling along a coastal highway south of Beirut, lightly wounding two Irish peacekeepers.
It was the first attack on the expanded UN force in Lebanon since last summer, when six Spanish peacekeepers died after a bomb hit their armoured personnel carrier in June near the Israeli border in southern Lebanon.

In July, a roadside bomb struck a UN jeep near the southern port of Tyre, but there were no casualties.

Yesterday's explosion rocked the town of Rmeileh, near the southern coastal city of Sidon. Smoke was seen billowing from the scene.

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon's force commander adviser, Milos Strugar, said one vehicle was damaged in the explosion and two peacekeepers in the vehicle were "lightly wounded" and taken to a hospital.

Lebanese TV stations said the wounded peacekeepers were Irish.

Well, some people claim to know who did it:

Hezbollah said the purpose of the terrorist act is "crystal clear" and the Amal Movement of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri pointed fingers of accusation at Israel, saying the attack only served Zionist interests.

Meanwhile:

In another incident, the [Lebanese] army has denied Israeli reports that two rockets were fired yesterday into northern Israel from Lebanon.

Yet:

UN peacekeepers from Italy and France examined the remains of a rocket fired from Lebanon into the northern Israel town of Shlomit in one of two attacks reported yesterday. (EFI SHARIR/AFP/Getty Images)

Any chance that the UNIFIL was attacked for checking out the non-existent Katyushas?

Oxford U.'s idea of evenhandedness

From Oxford Union, quotes and links from Solomonia:

Event Name: Middle East Debate
Start Date: 24th Jan 2008 8:30pm

Description: This House Believes That The State of Israel has a Right to Exist

In Proposition -

* Norman Finkelstein ['Hezbollah represents the hope']
* Prof Ted Honderich ['...the Palestinians have had a moral right to their terrorism as certain as was the moral right, say, of the African people of South Africa against their white captors and the apartheid state']

In Opposition -

* Ghada Karmi [One State Solution]
* Ilan Pappe ['Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts.']

Let's get 4 people who are rabidly anti-Israel and have them "debate" each other as to exactly how much the audience is supposed to loathe the Jewish state! This way, we ensure that everyone sees all sides (of one side) of the issue.

A similar "debate" between two sides of the same side occurred in print last year.

Interfaith dialogue, Islamic-style

An unintentionally funny article in the Arab News by "Islamic scholar" Zeinul Abideen Al-Rikabi:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has urged Muslims to learn about Christian culture. This appeal, diplomatic as it is, is based on the assumption that Muslims are ignorant of Christianity, or at least know very little about it.

...Global human acquaintance and interaction is something endorsed by the Qur’an, and learning of the cultures of other nations is a primary asset among others.

So al-Rikabi goes on to prove the archbishop's point:

It is mentioned in the Qur’an: “And say we believe in God, the revelation given to us, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, as well as what was revealed to Moses and Jesus and all messengers of God. We draw no distinction between them and we submit to God.” As the verse states, belief in God and His Holy Books is contingent on belief in Jesus and his Bible. It is also mentioned in the Hadith that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever believes in One Allah and that He has no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and prophet, and that Jesus is His servant and prophet and His Word spoken unto Mary, and that God sent the Holy Ghost to him, and that Heaven is true and Hell is true; Allah will admit him into Heaven for whatever good deeds he has done.” As a result of this, Muslims possess broad and profound knowledge of Jesus and Christianity. This knowledge incorporates the belief that Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) preached a system of values, concepts, ethics, virtues, and teachings and tenaciously pursued its instillation in society and in human conscience.
The following are examples of these principles, concepts, and values that Muslims learn from the Qur’an:....

So this Islamic scholar is saying that, while Muslims do need to learn about other cultures according to the Koran, they already know everything they need to know about Christianity - from the Koran!

This is classic: a Muslim pretends to be interested in "interfaith dialogue" but he is only interested in proselytizing his religion as he pays lip service to another.

See also this posting about the Muslim concept of "dialogue."

Early nominees for next year's Dhimmi of the Year

From MehrNews (h/t Dhimmi Watch):

NEW YORK (MNA) – An academic delegation of Columbia University professors and deans of faculties plans to visit Tehran to officially apologize to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

The delegation plans to express regret for the insulting remarks Columbia University President Lee Bollinger directed at Ahmadinejad on September 24 in his introductory speech, the Mehr News Agency correspondent in New York reported.

Since the incident, the deans and professors from the faculties of history, anthropology, Middle Eastern studies, philosophy, and Islamic studies have criticized Bollinger’s behavior toward Ahmadinejad.

A member of the delegation, who requested anonymity, said the main goal of the visit is to meet the Iranian president and officially apologize to him.

UPDATE: They deny it.

Jihadist websurfing habits

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

But Rice on Monday clarified that the US believes that portions of east Jerusalem are considered to be "settlements" and that Israel must stop building there as part of its commitment to implement the first phase of the road map.

The land that Har Homa is on was legally purchased by Jews from Sheikh Shehade al-Faghuri, through an Arab middleman named Ibrahim al-Dajani, in 1944. (source: Army of Shadows)

"Accomplices to Terror" posters in Jerusalem

"Terrorists" poster in Gaza City

"How to Behead"

The IslamOnline website published a poem last week, without attribution and without comment, in its "Arts and Culture" section, called "How to Behead.":

Hold him
Tie the arms behind his back
And bandage his legs together
Just by the ankles
Blindfold the punk
So that he won't hesitate as much
For on seeing the sharp pointy knife
He'll begin to shake
And continuously scream like an eedyat
And jiggle like a jelly
Trust me–this will sure get you angry
It’s better to have at least two or three brothers by your side
Who can hold the fool
Because as soon as the warm sharp knife
Touches his naked flesh
He'll come to know what'll happen
It's not as messy or as hard as some may think,
It's all about the flow of the wrist.
No doubt that the punk will twitch and scream
But ignore the donkey's ass
And continue to slice back and forth
You'll feel the knife hit the wind and food pipe
But don't stop
Continue with all your might.
About now you should feel the knife vibrate,
You can feel the warm heat being given off,
But this is due to the friction being caused.

The reactions from Muslim readers on the site was mostly disgust and anger at Islam Online for publishing it. Some tried to say that the poem was intended to make Muslims think but the vast majority were clearly upset, just as much for the content as much as for the poor image it gives of Muslims altogether.

Now, IOL is asking readers to write their own poems in response. It still hasn't identified the author or why it decided to print it. IOL itself in the past has published fatwas that were unequivocally against beheading prisoners.

The "poem" itself was written by the self-described "Lyrical Terrorist," a woman who was convicted of a terrorism charge in the UK and received a suspended sentence. She loved downloading beheading videos as well.

Why would Islam Online publish such a poem anonymously, without comment, in its "Arts and Culture" section? If it wanted to editorialize about the justice or perceived injustice of the verdict it should have provided some context. From the furious reaction of readers, it does not appear to reflect IOL's own views at all (although it has published plenty of fatwas supporting suicide bombing in Israel.) As poetry, it is horrendous.

My guess is that this was just poor judgment on the part of the Arts and Culture editor, to try to stir up controversy or to prove that most mainstream Muslims are revolted by beheadings. So far, IOL hasn't explained itself even as it acknowledged the controversy.

The brilliant politics of the Gaza Strawberry Growers Association

Buried in the weekly UN report on Palestinian Arab civilians from December 25 comes this juicy tidbit:

Kerem Shalom crossing was open on six days this week for the entry of commercial and humanitarian goods. On 20, 23, 24 and 25 December, the crossing was open for the export of flowers. Since 18 December, and for the second time this month, the Palestinian strawberries association has blocked all exports of strawberries to protest against the limited amounts Israel has allowed them to export through the crossing (the first strike was between 7 and 11 December).

Israel allows the Gazans, supposedly under siege, to export flowers and strawberries to bring in much needed cash. The Gazan strawberry growers, however, are upset that they can't export as much as they want to.

So the net result is a lot of poorer Gaza farmers, a lot of rotting strawberries, and a lot more reasons to blame Israel rather than themselves for their own self-induced problems.

I wonder if the actual farmers whose incomes are affected by this decision had a vote in this matter or if it was another set of self-righteous and self-appointed "leaders" who pretend to speak on their behalf?

Bin Laden calls Nasrallah a traitor

In the transcript of the latest Bin Laden audiotape comes this interesting section:

After the eloquent speeches on pride, dignity and support for Palestine and having challenged the whole world to impose its will on them, Lebanon accepted the UN Resolution Number 1701. A tool in the hands of America, by accepting this they are accepting the entrance of the crusader armies into the land of Lebanon.

Do people realize that these armies are the other face of the coin of the Zionist-American coalition? The Secretary General of the Hezbollah party, Hassan Nasrallah deceived the people. He welcomed these armies publicly and promised to make their mission easy despite the fact that he knows very well that those armies are coming to protect the Jews and to close the borders for the faithful Mujahideen. He has perpetrated all these crimes due to the desires of the countries that provide the “good” and “uncorrupt” funds that we mentioned before. So why are they not considered traitors?

Jihad Unspun, who translated this, almost certainly (purposefully or accidentally) mistranslated the last sentence as plural rather than singular - Bin Laden calling infidel countries "traitors" makes no sense, but in context he is clearly calling Nasrallah a traitor.

By the way, my posting this is more evidence that the Zionists are actively creating divisions among the otherwise unified Muslims.

Zionists promoting lesbianism in Egypt!

From Al-Arabiya:

Religious scholars in Egypt are outraged by a lesbian scene in a new movie, telling audiences to stay away from the sinful flick and calling for the director and actresses to be prosecuted.

Preacher and Islamic Studies professor at Cairo University, Dr. Abdel-Sabour Shahin accused the new movie, Hina Maysara (Until Further Notice), of spreading homosexuality and promoting debauchery.

He called on authorities to prosecute the director of the movie and the two actresses, Ghada Abdel-Razeq and Sumaya Al-Khashab, who enacted the lesbian encounter on the big screen.

Shahin claimed the movie is part of "a Zionist and American conspiracy" which uses this sort of movie to destroy the moral fabric of society.
Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University also expressed their indignation at the movie and supported Shahin's call for a clampdown.

Preacher Youssef Al-Badri told the Kuwaiti paper Al-Ray that the lesbian scene is proof of the moral disintegration of Egyptian cinema. He appealed to Al-Azhar to toughen censorship on art and media outlets, saying "This is its role, and it gave it up."

Professor of Islamic Law at Al-Azhar Elwi Amin said watching sex scenes -- whether gay or heterosexual -- in movies is considered a sin. Amin claimed there is no lesbianism in Egypt and said there would never be.

"Many people in Egypt do not even know what the word 'lesbianism' means. This is the influence of immoral Western culture which controls the media."

Those cunning Zionists!

It's interesting that Al-Azhar University's job is censorship for the nation.

Morning links....

Multiculturalism breeds intolerance
A British Pakistani bishop ignites a firestorm by stating the obvious.

Montreal Gazette multiculturalism
Critiquing an op-ed that blames "society" for Aqsa Parvez' death

The Arab "Right of Return" to Israel
Rachel Neuwirth explodes myths

I'll try to update throughout the morning....

UPDATE:
Sometimes the middle of the road is just roadkill
Soccer Dad takes on Bradley Burston

Book review: "Army of Shadows : Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948"

When used in wartime, the word "collaborator" is a loaded term. Like the words "traitor" and "treason," "collaborator" is pejorative by its nature, but its negative implication is only in the subjective context of the labeler.

Hillel Cohen, in his fascinating book "Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948," consciously uses these words in the context that Palestinian Arabs use the words today. As a firm member of the post-Zionist historians, perhaps this is not surprising, nor his use of the word "Nakba." But to Cohen's credit, despite his constant use of these terms without scare quotes, he is an honest enough historian to show that the supposedly treasonous behavior done by countless Palestinian Arabs between the Balfour Declaration and the founding of Israel was often anything but.

Reading this book, with Arab appellations being applied to situations where the Arabs end up looking very bad, is an exercise in whiplash. The exact same facts could have been used in a book called "Arab-Zionist Friendship, 1917-1948" but Cohen's use of the pejorative lends a sense of unreality to his terminology.

The book itself is a remarkable historical work, with much use of recently declassified Israeli archives showing the extent of the early Zionist Shai intelligence operations and methods, together with the large numbers of Palestinian Arabs who, to some extent, decided to work with the Jews rather than shun them, often at the cost of their lives.

"Army of Shadows" follows a roughly chronological history of Arabs who willingly sold land to Zionists, who traded with them, who worked for them and who at times employed them, even who married them. It follows the rise of Hajj Amin al-Husseini and elaborates on how his anti-Jewish policies often alienated the silent majority of Arabs and sometimes drove them to become even closer to the Zionists. It shows an overlooked aspect of the messy history of the competing desires of the Husseini-style Arab absolutists, Nashashibi-style pragmatists (who were no less nationalist), the pro-Abdullah camp who wanted a federation with Transjordan, the Arab labor unions, farmers, village elders, land dealers, economic opportunists, criminals, loyal friends to Jews. Yet, again, Cohen's terminology is exclusively the one used by the most extreme Husseini camp, and is now considered normative by Husseini's political heirs of Fatah and Hamas. In some ways, that terminology is almost Orwellian newspeak where it has become forbidden for today's Palestinian Arabs to even think that there could be something positive about cooperating with Israel.

In the 1920s, there were some Arab parties who were explicitly Zionist - the Muslim National Associations and later the Farmers' Parties. Cohen brings some evidence that Zionists were instrumental in helping these parties start and grow, but he implies that there would not have been any pro-Zionist sentiment altogether without this outside influence, a much weaker argument (and one that is slightly demeaning to Arabs, that they could not possibly have been independently anything but anti-Zionist.)

Cohen irritatingly ascribes noble motives to Arabs who want to become and remain friends with Jews, but he almost never gives the Jews the same credit. He consistently emphasizes the Zionist intelligence organization and how it manipulated Arabs but doesn't seem to think that it was possible that Jews could honestly be friends with the Arabs without ulterior motive. The paradox is that Cohen himself grew up friends with neighboring Arabs and those friendships helped him to go into the field of history; his enlightened post-Zionism cannot admit the possibility that early Zionist Jews could possibly have been as open-minded as he himself is.

But for all his faults, Cohen is scrupulously honest - he does not hesitate to tell anecdotes and facts that contradict even his own assumptions and biases. Even as he describes Husseini-style nationalism as being normative he is quick to mention that their opponents also felt they were acting with the best interests of their people in mind, and that they even accused Husseini of being the traitor to their cause.

The 1929 riots ended the explicitly Zionist Arab parties but there remained a significant number who were willing to work more covertly with the Zionist establishment. Some were opportunistic or greedy, some were idealistic, some were simply loyal to their friends. The collaboration included finding land that was for sale, providing intelligence from the Husseini nationalist camp, and quietly championing a more pragmatic relationship with the Zionists who many thought were too powerful to defeat anyway. The Husseini clan was most concerned about land sales, yet they often engaged in such sales themselves.

It was a combination of the Husseinis' intransigence, hypocrisy and their own terror campaign against their political rivals that paradoxically ended up pushing more Palestinian Arabs away from the extremist nationalism of the Husseinis. They didn't become Zionist but they were more willing to accept partition and accommodation. Yet even during the darkest days where the Husseinis were assassinating political rivals and suspected collaborators based only on suspicion, land sales to Jews continued and even increased. Even after the White Paper severely resticted land transfers, the Arabs and Zionists found loopholes to continue to sell land to Jews.

Early in the book, Cohen appears to conflate pan-Arab nationalism with Palestinian Arab nationalism - the former of which was far better established than the latter - and somewhat weakens his case when he claims that most Palestinian Arabs were nationalists. But by the end, when he takes a closer look at Palestinian Arab nationalism and its failure to stop collaboration with the Jews, he gets closer to understanding the truth - that specifically Palestinian Arab nationalism was always a shallow movement that didn't interest Palestinian Arabs themselves enough to fight and die for their own cause. Palestinian Arabs were more loyal towards their clans and villages than towards any sort of national cause, and even the nationalists were split between the absolutists, the ones that favored partition, the pan-Arab Greater Syrians and the Abdullah-oriented "Jordan option" advocates. (The relative ease in which the West Bank Arabs allowed themselves to become annexed to Jordan shows that the purely Palestinian Arab nationalism was weak even in their epicenter.)

Often, the outside Arab armies seemed to be more interested in fighting Zionism than the supposed victims of Zionism themselves. Cohen brings a number of examples where Arab villages fought to keep outside forces away, and many made peace pacts with nearby Jewish settlements. These pacts are part of the reason many Arabs stayed safely in Israel.

Cohen's reasons for the failure of Palestinian Arab nationalism dwells on these divisive factors and the relative success of Zionist intelligence and organization. He is too post-Zionist to entertain the notion that Palestinian Arab nationalism's failure was because it was from the start a negative movement, not a positive one - it was always more to stop Zionism than to build an independent Palestinian state. This is the real reason that it was so shallow and vulnerable to so many divisions - it was not an ideology so much as a violent reaction to a different ideology. No national movement can sustain itself if it is based mostly on the negation of another national movement.

Despite its flaws, this well-researched book is a very important addition to the history of the Palestinian Arabs and of Zionism.