Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 08, 2011

The Telegraph takes a page from The Guardian

Mr Suleiman, who is widely tipped to take over from Hosni Mubarak as president, was named as Israel's preferred candidate for the job after discussions with American officials in 2008.

As a key figure working for Middle East peace, he once suggested that Israeli troops would be "welcome" to invade Egypt to stop weapons being smuggled to Hamas terrorists in neighbouring Gaza.

The details, which emerged in secret files obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to The Daily Telegraph, come after Mr Suleiman began talks with opposition groups on the future for Egypt's government.

Did Suleiman really say that Israel was welcome to invade Egypt? Does that even make sense?

Let's look at the memo, from December 17, 2007:

A serious political commitment, supported by dedicated and properly trained personnel, is key to progress. The Egyptians claim that they respond aggressively to Israeli intelligence leads, while both sides bicker over whether and how Egypt could deploy more Border Guard Forces. Meanwhile, the Egyptians continue to offer excuses for the problem they face: the need to "squeeze" Hamas, while avoiding being seen as complicit in Israel's "siege" of Gaza. Egyptian General Intelligence Chief Omar Soliman told us Egypt wants Gaza to go "hungry" but not "starve." Minister of Defense Field Marshal Tantawi and the Director of Military Intelligence MG Mowafy both pressed recently for the return of EUBAM monitors to oversee the crossing between Gaza and Egypt of Palestinians with urgent humanitarian circumstances. In their moments of greatest frustration, Tantawi and Soliman each have claimed that the IDF would be "welcome" to re-invade Philadelphi, if the IDF thought that would stop the smuggling...

The Philadelphi Corridor they are talking about is on the Gaza side, not Egypt (hence the terminology "re-invade.") Israel controlled the corridor before the disengagement from Gaza, when they handed it over to the PA, and then Hamas took it over when they took Gaza.

Certainly Suleiman made statements that would not endear him to the Arab street, such as saying that Egypt wants Gaza to go hungry but not starve (a statement that mirrors one that Dov Weisglass said in 2006 and was slammed for.) But it is absurd to say that Suleiman would welcome an invasion of his country!

For the Telegraph to push this lie is simply more Guardian-type advocacy journalism - misrepresentations of primary source documents specifically meant to influence Egyptians into thinking Suleiman was an Israeli patsy.

Arabs use Israeli technology to filter the Internet

From AllGov, picked up later by Al Arabiya:

The government of Egypt’s attempted crackdown on mass protests has been aided by an American firm that sells telecommunications software that allows the authoritarian regime to spy on citizens’ emails and cell phone communications.

Narus, located in Sunnyvale, California, sold the Egyptian government Deep Packet Inspection equipment, a content-filtering technology used to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones.

According to a Narus executive, owners of the software can record everything that goes through the Internet in their country, allowing them to read emails and attachments, view browsing histories and even reconstruct phone calls made over VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol).

Founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts to create and sell mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients, Narus is now owned by Boeing.

The Al Arabiya article (original link missing, copy here) says that Narus technology was used to shut the Internet down in Egypt altogether, which does not appear to be the case. I have no doubt that it is being used to monitor the network, though.

Moonbats have already started protesting at Narus offices.

Narus' website mentions that they help protect a number of service providers, including Telecom Egypt and Saudi Telecom.

Five Hamas members arrested in Egypt with weapons

Multiple Arabic media sources are reporting that police in El Arish, Egypt arrested five Palestinian Arabs and are holding them for 15 days.

They are charged with possession of weapons and ammunition, and attempted acts of sabotage that threaten the security of the state. They were also accused of infiltrating the Egyptian territories.

They were picked up on Saturday when they were traveling in a Mercedes. They were found with five hand grenades and three weapons that were marked "Al-Qassam Brigades - Hamas."

On Sunday, Hamas denied media reports that it was trying to fuel tension in Egypt.

PLO upset at Quartet statement

From Ma'an:

PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo told Kuwait news agency KUNA Monday that the latest Quartet statement on the peace process was "regretful" and fell short of the Palestinians' expectations.

The statement, which focused on getting sides back to the negotiating table as an "imperative" for regional stability, did not mention Israel's failure to stop settlement construction on Palestinian lands, an issue PLO negotiators say remains the stumbling block to a return to talks.

In their statement, the Quartet urged sides "to undertake urgently efforts to expedite Israeli-Palestinian and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, which is imperative to avoiding outcomes detrimental to the region."

Abed Rabbo told KUNA that he blamed Quartet Envoy and former British premier Tony Blair for the weak statement.

In fact, the Quartet statement did say

The Quartet regrets the discontinuation of Israel’s ten month moratorium on settlement activity and strongly reaffirms that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.

So once again, the PLO is lying.

What they are really angry about is that the statement called on them to resume negotiations, and they don't want to have their intransigence exposed for the world to see. They'd rather pretend that the "settlements" - with all of the building activity being within existing boundaries of the communities, none of them expanding into any areas that the Palestinian Arabs would end up with at the end of any negotiations - are the obstacle.

But perhaps they weren't happy that the statement also condemned rocket fire from Gaza.

Erekat accuses Qatar of investing in Jewish settlements!

The "Palestine Papers" has really caused Saeb Erekat to go off the deep end:

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat threatened Monday to expose official documents about investments he said proved that Qatar holds in companies that operate in illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.

More than 24% of the biggest Israeli companies in the Qarne Shomron settlement, located in the northern West Bank district of Qalqiliya, rely on Qatari investments worth millions of US dollars, said Erekat.

"The time will come in future to reveal these documents," he threatened.

The statement was the latest in a series of accusations targeting the Emir of Qatar Shaykh Hamadi bin Khalifa Ath-Thani, who was singled out for attacks in the wake of a series of aired documentaries on Al-Jazeera, which publicized in Arabic highlights from a set of 1,600 leaked documents from over 10 years of talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

Come on, Saeb, release this supposed proof. Why wait? I promise I'll blog prominently about it!

Erekat's speech got even better:

During his speech, Erekat reiterated earlier statements that the PA would officially complain to the International Federation of Journalists, saying that the complaint would be submitted in the following two weeks. The complaint would not "oppose scoops or getting information, but [stress that media] should avoid distortion," he said.

Erekat, master liar, wants the media to avoid distortion?

You can't even parody these clowns.

Thomas Friedman's version of "truth"

From Thomas Friedman's column in the NYT:

I’m in Tahrir Square, and of all the amazing things one sees here the one that strikes me most is a bearded man who is galloping up and down, literally screaming himself hoarse, saying: “I feel free! I feel free!”

In a region where the truth and truth-tellers have so long been smothered under the crushing weight of oil, autocracy and religious obscurantism, suddenly the Arab world has a truly free space — a space that Egyptians themselves, not a foreign army, have liberated — and the truth is now gushing out of here like a torrent from a broken hydrant.

...This is not a religious event here, and the Muslim Brotherhood is not running the show. This is an Egyptian event. That is its strength and its weakness — no one is in charge and everyone in the society is here....

You almost never hear the word “Israel,” and the pictures of “martyrs” plastered around the square are something rarely seen in the Arab world — Egyptians who died fighting for their own freedom not against Israel.

I have no doubt that Friedman is reporting what he is seeing and understanding in English, but he was not in Tahrir Square last Friday - when hundreds of thousands prayed together:

It is folly to deny the religious dimension here. Egypt's "seculars" are far more religious than Western secularists.

As far as no mention of Israel, John Rosenthal uncovered - just by doing regular Internet searches - many anti-Israel and anti-semitic messages at the protests:

And just today, the Palestine Times paper discusses some of the Arabic slogans that can be heard in Tahrir Square, including "Leave Mubarak, Tel Aviv is waiting for you!" and "Mubarak is a stooge selling gas to Israel."

One other joke going around the protests is that if you want to get Mubarak to leave, you have to speak Hebrew to him so he understands.

If Friedman wants to report the truth, just parachuting onto the scene for a day and relying on locals to translate is not the way to be a reporter. But his ego is so huge now that he is convinced that his limited perception is representative of what is going on and he fearlessly reports things as true when it is easy to find proof that he is missing large parts of the story.

(h/t SoccerDad)

The UK keeps the "refugee" lie alive

From Ma'an:

The UK on Monday announced a contribution of £1.5 million to UNRWA to assist Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

The UK development agency DFID said the funding would help the UN agency for Palestinian refugees to provide medical supplies to over a thousand families and ensure shelter for 3,500 families.

Over 425,000 Palestinian refugees are registered with UNRWA in Lebanon, and many were displaced again in 2007 during internal fighting in the country in 2007.

DFID Minister Alan Duncan said the support would help these families, especially during winter months, but added that it was not a sustainable solution.

"[T]he only long term solution for Palestinian refugees across the Middle East is a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. The UK is continuing to work with both parties and the international community to achieve a just and fair two state solution."

That bolded statement is delusional.

As the Palestine Papers have shown (if unreported by The Guardian and Al Jazeera), even the Palestinian Authority privately recognizes that the vast majority Lebanese of Palestinian Arab origin will not all go to either Israel or to a Palestinian Arab state, but will need to be integrated into Arab countries and other nations.

The PA explicitly said in their position paper that it can't absorb them, and Israel will never take more than a token amount.

This means that even after a peace agreement, there is no solution for the vast majority of these stateless people besides naturalization in other countries - a move that Arab nations have been bitterly opposing for decades.

Everyone knows this - except, apparently, the Palestinian Arabs themselves, who are incited to hate Israel for 62 years rather than to hate the Arab nations that are jailing them today.

Rather than the UK continuing to repeat this lie, it is way past time for the truth to be stated publicly: Arab nations will need to naturalize their Palestinian Arabs, and every day they delay is a day that they are abusing their "guests."

No one benefits from the lie that a peace treaty will solve the problem, least of all the so-called "refugees" themselves. The West needs to tell the truth, and to hold Arab nations directly responsible for keeping millions of people stateless for over half a century.

The Real Realism of Israel (Jonah Goldberg)

From the LA Times, by Jonah Goldberg:

One of the few things that critics and friends of Israel can agree on is that Israel is a special sort of nation. It represents a special idea; it is different.

This is especially so for America's so-called realists. Whether they are sympathetic to Israel or scornful, they are convinced U.S. support for Israel fuels hatred and instability. Hence their obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

For instance, when then-national security advisor Gen. James Jones spoke in 2009 to J Street — the "pro-Israel" lobby that isn't very pro-Israel — he said that if he could solve just one problem in the world, it would be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the "epicenter" of U.S. foreign policy.

Such thinking falls somewhere between wild exaggeration and dangerous nonsense. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda remains dedicated to our destruction. Turkey, a once-staunch ally, is Islamifying. Russia is careening toward autocracy and China is on the march. Oh, and the United States is fighting two land wars. But the national security advisor's No. 1 priority was keeping Israelis from building houses in East Jerusalem? Really?

This too is the product of treating Israel like an abstraction. Obviously, hatred of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians (real and imagined) contributes to the Middle East's problems. But the simple fact is that Israel is not the source of the Middle East's problems, never mind the keystone to U.S. foreign policy challenges.

In Egypt, the popular uprising unfolding is not about Israel but about autocratic brutality, economic stagnation and skyrocketing prices. The same goes for Tunisia as well as the popular protests brutally crushed by Iran's mullahs in 2009. Turkey is not Islamifying because of the Palestinians. Al Qaeda surely hates Israel, but its roots lay in hatred of the Saudi royal family and the Islamist ambitions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

And yet the "realist" fantasy that an Arabs-first (or Muslims-first) foreign policy will yield rich rewards endures. The French have followed that advice for generations. They nurtured the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in exile. They give special preference to their former colonies. They pander to Arab sensibilities. And what has it gotten them? A lot of burning cars but few lucrative oil deals.

As we've recently been reminded, Israel is the only truly democratic regime in the region, and therefore the most stable. But, we are told, if we were only more conciliatory to corrupt dictatorial regimes and more sympathetic to the "Arab street," the region would be more stable. (Ironically, this is very close to Israel's own position, no doubt because it will take any peace it can get.)

No doubt this is what the solons of American foreign policy hear from their Arab and Muslim interlocutors. And it is certainly what the autocrats in the Middle East want everyone to believe, starting with their own subjects. Tyrants always want to focus on scapegoats, insults to national honor and shadowy enemies. Why apologize for skyrocketing bread prices when you can demonize the "Zionist entity"?

Addressing the real problems in the region is just too hard, particularly when any effort to take attention off the Palestinians is greeted with outrage from an anti-Israel industry that cravenly singles out Israel as the worst human rights abuser in the neighborhood. Israel puts Arab critics in the Knesset. Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia put them in jail or in an unmarked grave.

All of this would be just as true if Israel retreated to the 1949 armistice lines tomorrow.

Israel's actual realists know this because they can't afford the self-indulgent abstractions and the cynical lies that pass for "realism" outside its borders.

Pan-Islamism, 1883

From Oriental experience: a selection of essays and addresses delivered on various occasions, by Sir Richard Temple, 1883.

There has been for some years past, and there still is, a stir among the Muhammadan nations of the world. It is called "Pan-islamism" by Europeans: the word "islam" meaning the Muhammadan religion. As is well known, the Slavs of Europe, or their political leaders, have recently been writing and speaking of " Panslavism." This implies a general union among the Slavs living in Russia, in Austria, in European Turkey. In the same way "Pan-islamism" implies a general union among Muhammadans dwelling in the various countries of Asia and in some parts of Africa. This Pan-islamism, then, is a real movement, though perhaps it has not gone very far as yet. But no man can say to what lengths it may go. At all events, it deserves the watchful attention of Englishmen. For England, herself a Christian Power, has now more Muhammadan subjects than any Muhammadan Power in the world. Englishmen may perhaps be surprised to hear that, but it is the case. While Britain has been busy with her fields and her factories, her trade, her ships, and her colonies,—her sons have, within the last generation, raised up for her a dominion among the Asiatic Muhammadans. In the presence of that Anglo-Muhammadan dominion, the Sultan of Turkey, the Shah of Persia, the Grand Sherif of Mecca, must droop their flags. There are in India, Ceylon, and other British possessions, 50 millions of Muhammadan subjects or feudatories of the British Queen. In Afghanistan, Beluchistan, and other places there are 10 millions more under the political control of England. On the whole, then, the Anglo - Muhammadan dominion includes about 60 millions of souls. As compared Math that, the other Muhammadan Powers of Asia have altogether only 32 millions. This is exclusive of China, which has a body of Muhammadan subjects whose numbers are not exactly known. In Egypt and the rest of Africa there may be several millions of Muhammadans.

But it may be said that the mere numbers of the population prove little. What is the power and wealth of the AngloMuhammadan dominion as compared with that of the other Muhammadans? Well, as regards power, it is impossible to distinguish the Anglo-Muhammadan power from that of Britain herself. To describe the effective might of such a power, as compared with other nations, might savour of national vanity. We need not, therefore, dwell upon that. But as regards wealth we may remark that the agriculture of the Muhammadan peasantry of India, the navigation in the hands of her Muhammadan sailors and boatmen, the trade conducted by her Muhammadan traders, greatly exceed anything that can be shown by any other Muhammadan nation—indeed, by all other Muhammadan nations together.

Moreover, the Anglo-Muhammadan population is increasing fast, whereas in Turkey and Persia it is understood to be decreasing.

In all the counsels of political Muhammadanism, then, the British Sovereign is entitled to a place in the very first rank, as representing the dominion over the largest and richest Muhammadan population in the world.

In India the mass of the Muhammadans are peaceful, industrious, and loyal. It is well that Englishmen should realise this great fact. But it is also necessary for them to remember that among these generally sober-minded Muhammadans there are many persons of a different stamp. These are bigoted, even desperate; and nothing that we can offer will pacify them. Therefore Muhammadan troubles have from time to time arisen in India. The assassination of Chief Justice Norman at Calcutta, and of Lord Mayo at Port Blair in 1872-73, are instances fresh in the public memory. Bad as these events were, even worse things might possibly happen if England were to fall asleep. But if she remains wakeful they may, under Providence, be prevented.

It may then be asked, Why are the Muhammadans bestirring themselves in these days, and what is it that they are thinking about?

Well, outside India, they feel that they are politically decaying. They are generally disposed to shut their eyes to that which is disagreeable. But they can no longer help seeing the strides which the Christian nations are making in wealth, power, and civilization. Thus they dread the advance of Christendom. The leaders among them look back wistfully to the great days when the Crescent drove back or bore down the Cross in many of the fairest and holiest regions of the earth. When the Cross rallied under Christian warriors, such as Charles Martel of France and John Sobieski of Poland, and stopped the Crescent in its career, they comforted themselves with the thought that South-Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, and a goodly part of Asia still remained to Islam. They perceive, however, that within the last hundred years the Christian power has been making inroads upon Muhammadanism in all directions. Yet some of them have been trusting that Allah and their prophet Muhammad would somehow draw once more the flashing scimitar to scatter the unbelievers. Others of them, again, who do not rely upon divine interference, have been dreaming that destiny (Kismet) would at last set all things right. Now, however, they are becoming aroused by the idea that Christian influence and authority are drawing so near as to threaten the very existence of Islam itself. The alarm is gradually growing in their minds. This alarm refers in the first place to their political power, but in the second place to their religion also. Possibly they might view with some sort of patience the loss of mere earthly dominion. But in their minds worldly power cannot be quite separated from religion. They all, from the highest to the humblest, revere their faith as pure and lofty. In fact, like many other faiths, it has in practice been often clouded over with mummery and superstition. Still there remains something of grandeur about it. In the hearts of its followers it is associated with splendid and glorious memories. Its triumphs of war, in politics, and in art, its efforts even in the cause of science, are well known to the upper classes, and are dimly understood by the multitude. It was skilfully contrived by Muhammad, its founder, to appeal forcibly to the notions and sentiments of hot-blooded races dwelling in sunny climes. Though it is really opposed to human progress, though it blights the prospects of civilization, and stunts the growth of society— yet it reigns in the affections of many millions of bright-eyed and strong-handed men. Such men will turn out to fight for it, and in the excitement of action will face death on its behalf. They used in former times to make converts by the sword; indeed, no religion has ever spread itself so much by force and indirect pressure as theirs. Strangely enough they continue to gain men over (though by gentler means) to their faith in Africa and in Eastern Asia.

The question then arises as to whether the Muhammadans have anything like a policy, while raising this movement of Pan-islamism. Is this stir merely a breeze ruffling the surface of the political waters, or does it portend a real storm? The answer depends, no doubt, largely on the conduct of the Western Powers. The Muhammadans have certainly got a general policy, which is this, to resist the further encroachments of the Christian States, to hold at least their own, and to keep what remains to them of the broad regions that submitted to the Prophet of Arabia. We must acknowledge, too, that this is reasonable in theory. In practice, however, a great power, such as theirs once was, does not yield to dangers from without so long as it is solid and prosperous within. It is the canker eating into the vitals of the State that makes them yield to foreign pressure. The Muhammadans probably are well aware of this also. They know that somehow their body politic is becoming feeble; that their lands are becoming less productive, that their cultivation is shrinking, that their flocks and herds are lessening. They see that famines come and decimate the people sadly, and that afterwards the population does not recover. They feel that there is something fatally the matter with them, but cannot make out exactly what it is. The feeling is aggravated by the sight of neighbouring nations in blooming health and vigorous life. All this is enough to make them despair, and at times they must be somewhat downhearted. But at bottom they are brave; and, while preserving an apathetic appearance, they have an enthusiasm burning within them. If common sense were joined to this enthusiasm, they would soon learn to set their social house in order, to give light and liberty to the people, to secure to every man the fruits of his toil whether of brain or of hands, and to spread abroad that sort of useful knowledge which makes people thrifty, self-reliant, and intelligent. If this lesson did not come to them by inspiration, they might gather it from the example of several among the Christian nations. They would doubtless wish to do this if they could, but they do not know how to set about it. So they drift on towards political ruin. Meanwhile they are becoming very uneasy under the prospect, and are thinking that some plunging struggle must be tried. Instead of looking their misfortune quietly in the face, and devising really workable remedies, they seem to believe that the first thing needful is to restore the energies of their religion. Reformations of sorts are thus undertaken. The Wahhabi revival in Arabia, of which the public has heard much, was an attempt of this nature. It is likely that similar movements may arise in various quarters; indeed, they are springing up already.

There might, then, be a rising in the Muhammadan world, outside the Anglo-Muhammadan dominion above described. Such a combined movement would manifestly affect British interests. It would of itself be serious indeed; still England is quite mighty enough to withstand or overcome it, if only she were left to herself. But would she be let alone? Obviously not. Other Christian powers would be naturally jealous of her acting singly. They would lift up their voices and put in their claims. Thus political complications would arise. In the midst of such complications any rash proceedings on the part of one or other of the Christian Powers might bring on a deadly quarrel within Christendom itself about the affairs of the Muhammadan world. That would indeed be an unseemly spectacle to be exhibited by Christianity in the presence of the heathen.

Such is the outline of political Muhammadanism on the whole, or "Pan-islamism," as it is beginning to be called.

Wikileaks: Brazil illustrates how to sacrifice principles for the Arabs

This 2009 Wikileaks cable discusses why Brazil, a country with a culture that is very much against restrictions on free speech, consistently abstains from any UN resolutions that are against "defamation of religion" - i.e., Islamic attempts to stifle free speech.

Embassy has raised the issue of Brazil's voting record on "defamation of religions" several times in the Department of Human Rights and Social Affairs (DDS), Ministry of External Relations (MRE). The last time was with DDS Chief (A/S level) Minister Glaucia Gauch. Brazil has not disagreed with a single argument in our previous demarches and non-papers. The response has been always the same: the concept of "defamation of religions" is repugnant to Brazilian values and principles, and it is inconsistent with Brazilian law and international law. For those reasons, Brazil cannot and will not support a resolution that purports to punish the "defamation of religions"; instead, Brazil consistently abstains.

When asked why Brazil does not vote against a resolution it finds totally objectionable, Gauch responded that it was enough to abstain. In the GOB's view, Brazil is taking a principled but practical position on the issue, not desiring to offend OIC countries, in particular powerful ones like Iran, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia with which Brazil is attempting to deepen relations. Moreover, obtaining a permanent seat on the UNSC remains Brazil's overriding foreign policy goal. As a result, the GOB prefers to avoid antagonizing countries and groups of countries whose votes might be valuable in a future election.

In a similar vein, an earlier set of memos detail the Arab-South America Summit held in 2005 in Brazil, which turned into a farce as radical Arabs hijacked the session to put out outrageously anti-Israel and anti-American statements, leaving the major reasons for the summit (economic cooperation) in the dust.

By the time of Cast Lead, Brazil had already cast its lot with the radical Arabs.

The Brazilian government heavily criticized Israel's actions against HAMAS in Gaza, after originally suggesting it might take a more nuanced approached with its initial statements. President Lula, backed by most Brazilian media outlets, harshly criticized both Israel and the United States, and, while stressing that HAMAS bore some responsibility, minimized the group's actions. ...

According to Minister Rodrigo Amaral de Souza, chief of staff to Undersecretary for Political Affairs for Africa, Asia and the Middle East Ambassador Roberto Jaguaribe, Brazil's statements are motivated by three objectives: to reestablish the ceasefire, to allow for humanitarian assistance to go into Gaza, and get the parties back to the peace table following the process laid out at the Annapolis conference. Asked whether Brazil recognized the incongruence of asking Israel to halt its actions and return to the status quo ante knowing that HAMAS did not abide by the ceasefire in the first place, Amaral sheepishly recognized that Brazil understood Israel faced a difficult situation, but Brazil was primarily concerned that Israel's actions were threatening the progress of Annapolis and would create an irreversible momentum in a direction away from peace. Amaral also added that because Brazil has no relationship with HAMAS, it rarely addresses its actions officially.

Brazil's ambitions to become an important world player and to strengthen economic ties with Arab countries can be seen to clearly influence its actions - which it then justifies in terms of human rights.

Not that Brazil is alone in doing this, but the Wikileaks cables show its hypocrisy in stark terms.

Iranium: The Movie

The movie Iranium, about the Iranian nuclear threat, is online for a limited time.

You can register and see the entire movie for free by just clicking below and typing in your email address.

Palestine Papers: PLO distinguishes between "Wailing Wall" and the Kotel

One of the more interesting papers released in the "Palestine Papers" is something called The End Game, which is a presumably US (or perhaps Israel)-written outline of what a final agreement would look like, along with PLO comments. Meaning that it was meant to encapsulate "what everyone knows" the final agreement would be like. It was written in April 2008.

Here's one section of the main document:

The Capital of the State of Palestine will comprise essentially of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem including the Holy Site of Al-Haram over which the State of Palestine will have sovereignty 9. Israel will have sovereignty 10 over the Western Wall 11, the Jewish Quarter and parts of the Armenian Quarter 12. The City of Jerusalem will be an open city, Capital for both Israel (Yerushalayim) and Palestine (AlQods)13.

The PLO's notes:

9 The sentence, as drafted, is both overly vague and problematic. The proposition that Arab areas will be Palestinian while Israeli settlements in “East Jerusalem” will be Israeli suggests that the Israeli definition of municipal Jerusalem is the starting point. This runs counter to the Palestinian position (and numerous UN resolutions) that Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank is illegal and that the base line of 1967 must also apply in East Jerusalem.

The PLO position on Jerusalem is that East Jerusalem, along the 1967 borders and within its pre-occupation municipal lines shall be the capital of Palestine, and West Jerusalem shall be the capital of Israel. This articulation of the position is intended to define the Palestinian Capital in the agreement with Israel to include the Old City and its surroundings. Any possible future expansion of the city post-statehood will be subject solely to the discretion of Palestinians.

Meaning that the PLO, for all its supposed flexibility, was not giving up any part of the Old City, but perhaps just granting access to some Jews to their homes and holy place under Arab rule.

10 The Wailing Wall is part of the western wall of the Haram Al-Sharif, which must be under Palestinian sovereignty. Therefore, granting Israel sovereignty over the western wall or sections thereof would run counter to that. Israel’s primary interests are to preserve the religious significance of and Jewish prayer rights at the Wailing Wall, which can be met by other means short of granting sovereignty over the Wall to Israel (e.g., prayer/access rights, administration rights over the surface of the Wailing Wall, etc.)

Pretty self-explanatory and it again shows that the supposed flexibility of the PLO did not extend to the sovereignty of the Kotel.

Now, they try to cut down the size of the Kotel (short for Kotel HaMaaravi, "Western Wall," the Hebrew name of the Wall for at least a thousand years:)

11 Should be the “Wailing Wall” rather than “Western Wall”. The entire Western Wall is 470 meters long, whereas the Wailing Wall portion, on which Jews practice their religion, is just 60 meters long. It should be noted that prior to the occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 the length of the Wailing Wall section of the western wall was 28 meters. Following its occupation of East Jerusalem, Israel demolished all the houses of the Maghriba uarter adjacent to the wall in order to expand the area of the Wailing Wall to its current length of 60 meters length and to create a plaza in front of it. It should also be noted that currently there are many Palestinian houses attached to western wall from the northern edge of the Wailing Wall to the northern edge of the western wall.

The Arabs are pretending that the open plaza of the Kotel is the only place that is holy to Jews, when in fact the entire Temple Mount and supporting walls (as well as all of Jerusalem!) are holy. In the PLO's formuation, the Kotel ha-Katan (which is actually holier than the section of the wall visible on the plaza) as well as other places that Jews worship would become Jew-free - just the way the Mufti wanted it.

12 The Jewish Quarter nowadays is comprised of the historical Jewish quarter, along with the Palestinian Maghriba quarter and other Palestinian houses that were demolished by Israel. “Parts of the Armenian Quarter” is overly vague and, as such, opens the door to the further expansion of the Jewish Quarter. Furthermore, most houses currently occupied by Jews in the Armenian Quarter were seized illegally by settlers.

What is the "Palestinian Maghriba" quarter? It appears to refer to the supposed Mughrabi quarter, which was defined after 1967 as the section in front of what is now the Kotel plaza. Before 1967 I cannot find any mention of this supposed "quarter," let alone any mention of it being "Palestinian."

For the past several hundred years Jerusalem had four quarters (hence, the name "quarter"). As Encyclopedia Britannica wrote in 1888:

There are now four quarters: —that of the Moslems (including the Haram) on the north-east, the Jewish quarter on the south east, the Armenian quarter on the south-west, the Christian on the north-west. The quarters are bounded by David (or Temple) Street, running east from the Jaffa gate, and by the street running north and south immediately east of the Holy Sepulchre (called Marat el Yehud on the south and Tarik Bab el 'Amud on the north).

Britannica goes on to show that the PLO's attempt to limit Jews to the Jewish Quarter is against history as well:

The quarters are not, however, exclusively occupied by any nationality, many rich Jews having houses in the Armenian and even in the Moslem quarter. In the 12th century the present Moslem quarter was occupied by the Jews, and called the Juiverie.

Even the enlightened, intelligent and moderate PLO negotiators prove here their bigotry and tendency to lie.

Introducing "Prophet Puffs" breakfast cereal!

In a comment to this posting, Rob in Madison proposed some new Islamic breakfast foods, including "Prophet Puffs - now with extra Sharia!"

Ever since I read that, I could not rest until I created it:

Let the fatwas begin!

Horrid pictures of crowded Gaza

Palestine Today has a photo essay of what it calls "Gaza youth practicing their hobbies in liberated territories:"

All I can think of is "Just like Darfur."

When Arabs visited Israel

This is amazing. From the Toledo Blade, August 26, 1970:

In the years after the Six Day War, tens of thousand of Arabs were allowed - and encouraged - to visit Israel. And they did! Arabs even organized tours to Israel!

Which just goes to show that the hate of Israel in the Arab world has been orchestrated by the Arab leaders, and a generation of incitement has had its effect. But if there was true normalization, without the anti-semitism and Israel hatred in the Arab state media, things might be much different.