Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 24, 2011

Gazans attack Red Cross office for supporting Shalit (updated x2)

Palestinians threw eggs at the international Red Cross office in Gaza on Thursday to protest against a call for Hamas to show signs a captured Israeli soldier was still alive.

Dozens of angry protesters also chanted slogans against the International Committee of the Red Cross and ripped down and destroyed the Red Cross sign over the office.

They were protesting over a call earlier on Thursday by the ICRC, demanding that Gaza rulers show proof that Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured five years ago, is still alive.

How dare the Red Cross ask Hamas to do anything?

Meanwhile:

Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights groups issued a joint statement on Friday demanding that Gaza militants end "inhumane" treatment of an Israeli soldier they hold captive.

The declaration, signed by Israeli group B'Tselem, the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and eight others, comes as Israel marks the fifth anniversary of the capture of Gilad Shalit by three groups, including the current ruling party in Gaza, Hamas.

"Those holding him have refused to allow him to communicate with his family, nor have they provided information on his well-being and the conditions in which he is being held," the statement said in English, Arabic and Hebrew. "This conduct is inhumane and a violation of international humanitarian law."

So far I have been unable to find this declaration.

The B'Tselem site has a separate article calling for Shalit's release.

The Amnesty site likewise has an article demanding his release, but it felt necessary to refer to Israeli "human rights violations carried out on a daily basis against Palestinian men, women and children."

HRW does not yet have any press release about Shalit, although they have issued them every year on the anniversary of his abduction. In last year's they also felt it necessary to refer to Israeli restrictions on family visits to prisoners.

PCHR has nothing on its website about calling for Shalit to be released. Since their participation in this joint declaration is what is making headlines, it will be interesting to see when or if PCHR actually calls for Shalit's release on its own site or if this is another case of Palestinian Arabs saying one thing for Western consumption and another internally.

UPDATE: The letter is here. The only PalArab organization on the letter is PCHR. PCHR still does not have it on their website. (Which makes the fact that the letter was also written in Arabic sort of moot.) (h/t T34)

UPDATE 2: Challah Hu Akbar points out that this letter does not call for Shalit's release, only for him to be treated "humanely." Which means that PCHR is probably the only listed "human rights" organization that supports his being kept captive.

Gap between Hamas and Fatah remains wide (Toameh)

From Khaled Abu Toameh in Hudson-NY:

The Egyptian-brokered reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which was announced last month in Cairo, appears to have ended before it started.

It now turns out that the gap between the two rival parties remains as wide as ever, in spite of the accord. Hamas and Fatah continue to disagree on almost everything.

They disagree on who would head a new Palestinian unity government, on members of the government, on the government's political platform, on the future of the peace process with Israel, on security coordination with Israel, on the Palestinian Authority's relationship with the United States and European Union and on the role of the Palestinian security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

But there are other things where Fatah and Hamas do see eye to eye.

Both parties agree on the need to restrict freedom of speech and the media. The two Palestinian governments continue to display intolerance toward any form of criticism, regardless of its source.

Palestinian journalists and political activists who dare to criticize the governments in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip face arrest, harassment and intimidation. This explains why there is not a single Palestinian opposition newspaper in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas and Fatah also agree on the need for each party to stay in power at all costs. That's why they don't want to hold new elections. In many ways, the status quo is not bad for the two parties.

In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority continues to receive millions of dollars in financial aid from the international community. The Palestinian Authority's leaders hold Israeli-issued VIP cards that allow them to travel freely, especially to fancy hotels and restaurants in Tel Aviv.

The VIP cards also allow the Palestinian leaders to pass through Israeli checkpoints without having to wait in line together with ordinary Palestinians.

The status quo is also good for the Palestinian Authority leadership because it is no longer being held responsible for what happens in the Gaza Strip. For example, no one holds the Palestinian Authority responsible for the rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on Israel.

Hamas, on the other hand, has learned from the Palestinian Authority that, in order to stay in power, it must tighten its grip over the population in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas and Fatah agree that democracy and transparency is something that they can live without. They share the perception that repressive police states are the only way to control their people.

Finally, Hamas and Fatah agree on the need to blame Israel all the time for the miseries of the Palestinians. Neither party is prepared to accept responsibility for any wrongdoing.

A new wrinkle in the unity sham has come up as well - that of Abbas trying to have it both ways.

He tells the Americans and EU that he remains the president, he appoints the prime minister and Hamas has nothing to do with the government.

But he tells his people and the Arab world that Hamas is a partner, that they are working together in forming the government, and that important progress is being made towards elections.

He needs to somehow tell both of these to the UN simultaneously, because declaring a state without Hamas proves that the state is a joke, and doing it with Hamas proves that the state supports terror. Either way, any Western country that recognizes "Palestine" under these circumstances is replacing reality with an extreme case of wishful thinking. (Any non-Western country that does it is engaging in modern anti-semitism.)

Maritime law expert: "Israel cannot and must not allow ships to Gaza"

An English translation of an article in Zeit Online:

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg is an international and maritime law expert who teaches at Europa-Universität Viadrina in Frankfurt [Oder]. He has also served as an adviser to the Turkel Commission that Israel established in the summer of 2010. The commission has been tasked with determining how and why violence erupted on 31 May 2010 between passengers on the Gaza humanitarian convoy and Israeli soldiers.

ZEIT ONLINE: The deployment of Israeli forces in May of last year against a humanitarian convoy headed for Gaza unleashed cries of protest worldwide. Now a second and far larger international convoy is on its way to Gaza – a convoy that aims to break Israeli’s sea blockade of Gaza. Is this blockade even allowable from a legal standpoint?

Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg: Well that depends on how you characterize the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. When jurists come together, they often disagree on this matter. But there’s definitely a consensus on one thing – namely that what you have here is an armed conflict. Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed.

ZEIT ONLINE: But doesn’t the conflict also have to involve two or more states?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. And the problem is that Palestine is not a state – at least not yet – which is why many feel that the conflict is not an international armed conflict. And if you take that view, then blockade laws don’t apply. But if you take an objective look at the relevant legal analyses, it’s readily apparent that the basic admissibility of the Israeli blockade has never been called into question.

ZEIT ONLINE: You yourself have characterized Israel’s action against the convoy in 2010 as being perfectly legitimate. Why is that?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If a blockade is allowable in this conflict, then it’s also allowable to take measures to set up such a blockade. There’s only one principle that characterizes a blockade: the principle of effectiveness. In other words, the blockade has to prevent ships from entering or leaving the blockade zone. If the blockade fails to do this even once, it is ineffective and thus immediately becomes legally ineffective as well.

ZEIT ONLINE: So this means that when it comes to this blockade, Israel is in a catch-22 situation, right?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Right. The Israelis simply can’t afford to let any ship through, if they want to prevent another ship from passing through the blockade zone a few hours later.

ZEIT ONLINE: The operators of the 2010 humanitarian convoy said right from the outset that the ships were headed for Gaza. Didn’t saying this make them subject to criminal prosecution?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The mere fact that they set sail for Gaza does not constitute a criminal act. But: if you come out and say, in a public forum, that you’re heading to Gaza for the express purpose of breaking the blockade, this is clear evidence of a blockade breaking attempt. And when that happens, the state that has imposed the blockade doesn’t need to wait until the ship in question reaches the 20 nautical mile boundary; instead, it’s got the right to intervene beforehand. Because the state that’s imposing the blockade is not only entitled but also duty bound to maintain its blockade.

ZEIT ONLINE: What do you think the people onboard the current humanitarian convoy are going to be facing?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Any ship that actually breaks the blockade simply has to reckon with the fact that that military force is going to be used against them. Plus the state that’s imposing the blockade is under no obligation to wait until someone actually crosses the blockade line. All that has to happen is for there to be clearly discernible intent – in which case measures can be taken long before the blockade line is crossed.

ZEIT ONLINE: What form could or should such measures take?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Normally such measures unfold without any major problems. The state imposing the blockade stops the vessel, orders it to proceed to a specific port, inspects the ship’s cargo, and then turns the matter over to the courts. But if there’s resistance to the measures taken by the state that’s imposing the blockade, then this state needs to quell this opposition. Which means that any attempt to evade the blockade or the forces enforcing it needs to be met with reasonable force.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, was Israel’s reaction to the humanitarian convoy in 2010 a smart move given the humaniarian situation inGaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Well this is how it always is when it comes to such legal issues. In such situations, the actors don’t always act logically, or judiciously; nor are such actions necessarily the politically smart thing to do. A state that imposes a blockade is obligated to supply the civilian population in the blockaded zone with the goods they need in order to survive. But the Israelis have always done this. At the time of the humanitarian convoy in 2010, it was the same in that they said: Feel free to sail into the harbor; we guarantee that we’ll hand over your humanitarian cargo. But it was clear from the get-go that certain parties didn’t want that at all, because then they wouldn’t have achieved the same impact on public opinion.

ZEIT ONLINE: What would you advise the Israeli Prime Minister to do if the next humanitarian convoy approaches the boundary of the blockade zone?

Heintschel von Heinegg: If the Prime Minister wants to maintain the blockade, then he’s simply got to enforce it. If he doesn’t enforce it, it’ll be a dead letter; and then he’d have to resort to other measures; and then the legal situation wouldn’t be so simple. Because then he’d have to invoke the right of self -efense, which is often invoked in cases where it’s simply not appropriate to do so. Our [Germany’s] anti-terrorism operations are a prime example of this.

ZEIT ONLINE: Do you think the Israelis are going to react to this second convoy the same way they reacted to the first one?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think Israel is better prepared this time around. Last time they tried to approach the convoy ships in rubber dinghies and then climb onboard from these dinghies, in order to take control of the ships. And then they used helicopters. I suspect that the Israeli forces were simply unprepared for the resistance they met from some of the passengers on board those ships and were taken completely by surprise.

ZEIT ONLINE: Is the legal situation now more touchy due to the fact that there’s already been a conflict with a convoy?

Heintschel von Heinegg: I think the reverse is the case. I hope that the relevant legal principles won’t be misused again, since the law of armed conflict applies here – not a cockeyed human rights perspective. Also, Israel didn’t act at all capriciously the first time around. It would have been quite difficult for the Israelis to sink those ships without concerning themselves with the fate of the passengers and cargo onboard. Israel only took measures that were prescribed by law – namely preventing the ships from reaching Gaza. This was the most moderate measure available to them.

ZEIT ONLINE: People are suffering in Gaza, even though they have access to the goods they need in order to survive. Isn’t it legitimate for people to want to help the citizens of Gaza?

Heintschel von Heinegg: The motivation of the blockade breakers – regardless of whether they’re acting for virtuous or reprehensible reasons – is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. I, of course, have great respect for human rights activists who give of their time to pursue their goals, but you can’t get around the fact that there are certain legal boundaries. Also, I presume that these humanitarian actions are also publicity stunts aimed at mobilizing public opinion. No one would argue the fact that the citizens of Gaza have it really tough, compared to our own standards. But I don’t really see any pressing humanitarian need here.

ZEIT ONLINE: In your view, is there an alternative to these humanitarian convoys?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Sure there is. There are a few humanitarian organizations out there that have impeccable credentials that no one in their right mind would call into question – the most important one being the International Committee of the German Red Cross. If you really want to help the citizens of Gaza, you go to the Red Cross – an organization that the Israelis accept without hesitation.

ZEIT ONLINE: The border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was recently reopened. Do you think this will have a counterproductive effect on the naval blockade?

Heintschel von Heinegg: Israel has traditionally been able to rely on Egypt, and the border between Gaza and Egypt hasn’t been particularly permeable in the past. But this has changed. The strategic importance of the blockade in terms of protecting Israeli securityhas definitely declined. But nonetheless, the reliability of Israel’s maritime measures will not be affected in any way by the change in the status of the Gaza-Egypt border.

(h/t Kenneth)

My quarterly request for donations

It is now officially summer, and so therefore it is time for me to ask my good readers to donate to EoZ.

I spend a great deal of time on the blog - research, writing, creating graphics, making videos, corresponding with readers via email as well as Twitter and Facebook, maintaining the site, and reading comments when I can. All of this is in my free time after my job, a couple of side projects, and a family.

Over the past six months or so, I've been actively working to take the blog to the next level. I created two successful poster series that went viral. I gave two lectures on Hasbara, and made them available online. I started a partnership with StandWithUs to help create original material for them, all of which are available on the blog.

(I was also a regular writer for NewsRealBlog, where I got paid for articles, but that site closed, ending a source of revenue.)

My short-term goal is to increase my readership and help spread the truth about the Middle East to a larger audience. Since the beginning of the year that audience has gone up about 50%, and now I regularly get 5000-6000 hits a day. My Alexa ranking went up from #219,000 in December to #131,000 today, and my Technorati ranking is regularly in the Top Ten or Top Twenty for all world politics blogs.

When you donate, you become a partner in this endeavor.

The easiest way to help is to donate with the PayPal buttons in the upper right of the page. You can give a one time donation, or, if you are a regular, you may want to subscribe to pay every month. If you think that the information you get here every day is worth more than what you get from a newspaper, please consider a donation comparable to what you might pay for a subscription to your local paper. I'll even try to increase the number of comics I publish!

There are other ways you can help. You can buy products from Amazon using the search engine on the right sidebar, and I get a small percentage of what you would pay anyway.

You can also buy products from the EoZ Store at Printfection.

Finally, if you are strapped for cash, you can click on any ads you find slightly interesting. Each click is worth between 15 and 50 cents and it costs you nothing. (Don't just click away for no reason; the ad system cannot and must not be abused.)

Thanks to all those who have donated or subscribed, and as always thanks to all of you for reading EoZ. It still amazes me that so many of you enjoy the blog and I will continue to try to make it as informative and entertaining as possible.

Last week, Angelina Jolie visited Syrian refugees in Turkey.

Not everyone was happy about this.

In an open letter to Jolie reproduced at a number of Arabic sites, a very angry but anonymous Palestinian Arab writes:

Dear Angelina Jolie, I saw you in Turkey, carrying gifts for Syrian refugees who were only a couple of days within the Turkish borders. Did you ask this International Foundation: How could such a decision be taken for the Palestinian people who were refugees for 60 years? Did you ask about the number of Palestinian refugees who were displaced from their homes to spread all over the world because of the usurping by a racist Zionist military of their right to their land?

"A basic question, my sweet: Do you even know where Palestine is?

How dare Jolie seem to care about anyone besides Palestinian Arabs, the Exclusive Licensed Refugees of the Middle East®?

How dare those upstart Syrians dare flee for their lives to another country, taking vital attention away from Palestinian Arabs! The media that could have been talking about a new flotilla was instead momentarily distracted by an actress helping non-Palestinian Arabs!

The nerve!

Was this satirical video produced by Palestinian Arabs - or Israelis?

On YouTube there is a satirical cartoon video representing the leader of the Al Qassam Brigades as a baby, playing with a doll that represents Gilad Shalit and refusing to give him up, even for all the prisoners.

Here is it translated into English:

While it appears that it was created by a disgruntled Arab, the Arabic media is claiming that this video is part of Israel's psychological warfare against Hamas.

No evidence is given.

The YouTube user who uploaded it, "FreedomForPrisoners," just joined the day he uploaded it.

After Shakira visited Israel, Egyptians call to boycott her

From ABC News:

Colombian pop singer Shakira promoted her global education campaign with a stop at a joint Israeli-Arab school in Jerusalem on Tuesday.

Kicking off Israel's third annual Presidential Conference with a plea for children's education worldwide, Shakira, a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador, said the Holy Land was the "perfect place to talk about how urgent it is to invest in education."

"The most crucial decision we can make for a better tomorrow is how we educate our children," she said, speaking alongside her host, Israeli President Shimon Peres.

"How wonderful it would be if the world would act like a team. We have so many challenges ahead of us, so many problems to solve," she said. "This is the time to behave like a team, to wear the same T-shirts and to win the match of discrimination, to win the match of inequality and segregation."

Born Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll in Colombia, she has Lebanese roots. This is her first visit to Israel.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Shakira said she had great respect and love for the people of Israel.

"I'm very proud of my Lebanese heritage ... but it has nothing to do with the fact that I respect and have great affection for this country and the people of this country, both Israelis and Palestinians, and that's why I'm here, because I think that kids need us — kids don't understand about conflicts," she said.

Shakira said her experience in developing countries and charitable foundations persuaded her that investing in future generations was the answer.

"I am convinced that the road to peace has to be traveled hand in hand with education because that is the only way perhaps that we are going to achieve global stability and peace," she told the AP.

Of course, what she said is outrageous, hateful and bigoted, and she must be boycotted!

Which is just what a few new Facebook groups are calling for.

Shakira is scheduled to give a concert in November in Egypt, and some Egyptians are calling for a cancellation of the concert.

Four years ago, the pop star performed in Egypt at the foot of the Pyramids.

Molotov cocktails thrown at Israelis. Why don't we know about it?

Palestine Today quotes "Zionist sources" saying that several Molotov cocktails were hurled at an Israeli car east of Qalqilya.

No one was injured, so it is as if it never happened.

Not even the Israeli media bothers reporting such incidents in English (with the occasional exception of Arutz-7.)

This is a mistake. The impression in world capitals is that the Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria are behaving responsibly and that terrorism is a thing of the past. Incidents like the Fogel family massacre are presented as anomalies, the exceptions that prove the rule.

While the anti-Israeli side widely publicizes every minor incident, real or imagined, there is no similar English-language resource I am aware of that monitors and lists every case of rock throwing, firebombs and shootings against Jews. Neither is every case of fires set on Jewish lands and crops uprooted on Jewish farms systematically reported anywhere. The IDF will publish cumulative statistics and sometimes tweet specific incidents but the majority go unreported, at least in English.

The fact is that a Molotov cocktail is thrown with the intent to kill people. Guns are shot with the intent to kill people. Stones are thrown with the intent to injure or kill people. The violent intention is there and widespread.

Violent incidents, with deadly intent, happen every day. The lack of reporting on these incidents is a major shortcoming in the pro-Israel camp.

UPDATE: Kramerica found the monthly reports, from the Shin Bet:

Data regarding terror attacks in May 2011
Following is a regional distribution of attacks:

3 attacks in the Gaza Strip (66 in April); 44 attacks in the Judea and Samaria (19 in April); and 25 attacks in Jerusalem (16 in April).

Jerusalem and the Judea and Samaria area: Most attacks executed in May (64 out of 69) were in the form of firebombs (April: 32 out of 35).

Distribution of attacks according to regions and pattern profile:
Following is a distribution of attacks in May according to regions:

The Gaza Strip – 3 attacks: 1 rocket launching and 2 small arms shooting.

Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem – 69 attacks: 1 small arms shooting; 1 explosive device; 3 object / stone throwing and 64 firebombs (25 in Jerusalem).

Islamic Jihad leader Ahmed Mudallal has reiterated that Palestinian Arabs will not rest from their jihad until every grain of sand of Palestine is under their control.

He said that "Zionist terrorism will not deter the Palestinian people from trying to establish their state of the river to the sea through the resistance and jihad."

He added that the Palestinian Arabs cannot rely on the UN to give them what they demand, but it must come from jihad and resistance.

There isn't much room for interpretation in his words.

None of this is new, but good luck finding the Western media bothering to quote a leader of the second-largest terror group in Gaza.

Ashton: Israel cannot back out of Oslo (but the PLO can do what it wants)

From Ma'an:

EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton said Israel's foreign minister could not undo the Oslo Accords in response to a Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, in an interview with Israeli daily Haaretz published Thursday.

"I'm not sure that it's up to him to declare that Oslo is void really," Ashton said, adding, "I don't accept that Oslo is void, [if] so, it would be a different world."

The EU leader met with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Friday as part of tour of the Middle East and meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials in an effort to give peace talks a push.

Ashton confirmed reports that Lieberman said in their meeting Israel could back out of past agreements, including the Oslo Accords that established the Palestinian Authority, if Palestinians seek UN recognition in September.

Lieberman said "something to the effect," Ashton told Haaretz.

I'm not sure about the specific 1993 Oslo agreement, but a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Arab state is definitely an abrogation of the 1995 Interim Agreement that was part of the Oslo process under Article XXXI:

7. Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

It is also an abrogation of the 1998 Wye River Memorandum:

V. Unilateral Actions

Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement.

Not to mention the identical wording in the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum:

10. Recognizing the necessity to create a positive environment for the negotiations, neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Interim Agreement.

Apparently, the EU interpretation of the previous agreements between Israel and the PLO is that the PLO can violate the agreements with impunity but Israel must still adhere to them.

This is not exactly the textbook definition of an "agreement."

Murdered 13th c. Jewish family found in a well in England

From BBC:

The remains of 17 bodies found at the bottom of a medieval well in England could have been victims of persecution, new evidence has suggested.

The most likely explanation is that those down the well were Jewish and were probably murdered or forced to commit suicide, according to scientists who used a combination of DNA analysis, carbon dating and bone chemical studies in their investigation.

The skeletons date back to the 12th or 13th Centuries at a time when Jewish people were facing persecution throughout Europe.

They were discovered in 2004 during an excavation of a site in the centre of Norwich, ahead of construction of the Chapelfield Shopping Centre. The remains were put into storage and have only recently been the subject of investigation.

Seven skeletons were successfully tested and five of them had a DNA sequence suggesting they were likely to be members of a single Jewish family.

DNA expert Dr Ian Barnes, who carried out the tests, said: "This is a really unusual situation for us. This is a unique set of data that we have been able to get for these individuals.

"I am not aware that this has been done before - that we have been able to pin them down to this level of specificity of the ethnic group that they seem to come from."

Eleven of the 17 skeletons were those of children aged between two and 15. The remaining six were adult men and women.

Pictures taken at the time of excavation suggested the bodies were thrown down the well together, head first.

A close examination of the adult bones showed fractures caused by the impact of hitting the bottom of the well. But the same damage was not seen on the children's bones, suggesting they were thrown in after the adults who cushioned the fall of their bodies.

(h/t T34)

Another reason the "demographic threat" is meaningless

Once again, a top US official has warned about the supposed demographic threat facing Israel:

Chief Middle East Adviser Dennis Ross said at the President’s Conference in Jerusalem on Wednesday that the greatest risk at a time of sweeping change in the Middle East was to think that this was the time to sit still and “do nothing.”

Ross said that while he understood the impulse to “stand pat” and avoid taking risks, certain realities – such as demographic trends that will present Israel with the dilemma of being either a Jewish or a democratic state – could not be “wished away.”

Ross’s comments seemed a gentle criticism of voices in the Israeli government saying that at a time when everything is changing in the Middle East, this is not the time for Israel to take far-reaching risks, not knowing what will be tomorrow in countries such as Syria, Egypt and even Jordan.

Obama, in his speech on the Middle East at the State Department last month, made a very similar statement.

The argument is not new; it has been around for a long time. Simply put, the "demographic threat" argument is that if Israel does not give the territories to the Palestinian Arabs, then Israel will be faced with a majority of the people living in the area of the Palestine Mandate being Arab in a few years.

Others, notably Yoram Ettinger, have spent a lot of time debunking the basic argument that demographics are so much in the Arabs' favor.

But there is another more subtle issue with the "demographic threat" argument. It is based on a very flawed assumption. The people who make this argument may not entirely realize the logical flaws in their assertions.

Their assumption is that a Palestinian Arab state must be based on the 1949 armistice lines.

However, even if a much smaller Palestinian Arab state is created, one that takes into account Israel's security requirements, then the demographic issue disappears as well.

Over 95% (perhaps as many as 98.5%) of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank live in Areas A or B.

If there is going to be a Palestinian Arab state, it will include all of Areas A and B.

In other words, over 95% of the Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria already live in areas that would become part of a Palestinian Arab state under any Israeli peace offer, right or left wing.

To put it bluntly: if Mahmoud Abbas declared a Palestinian Arab state in Areas A and B (and Gaza) today, even though they take up less than half of the West Bank, the demographic issue disappears.

So the "demographic threat" is a fantasy. If the Palestinian Arabs would accept any of Israel's peace offers, their state - no matter what size - would eliminate this threat.

The viewpoint that Israeli intransigence is creating a demographic threat is exactly backwards. It is Palestinian Arab refusal to compromise with Israel - and bring freedom to their people - that is artificially creating and aggravating this issue.

In fact, this threat is part of a Palestinian Arab strategy to pressure Israel to make concessions, because Palestinian Arabs have insisted on an "all or nothing" approach to peace with Israel. The slightest compromise on their part would create a Palestinian Arab state that would take away this so-called threat completely.

The world has swallowed this "all or nothing" thinking, believing that Palestinian Arab insistence on its maximal demands cannot be modified. So the world tends to conflate the "demographic threat" with "1967 lines."

If President Obama and Dennis Ross and J-Street and Americans for Peace Now and Walt and Mearsheimer and Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen and Jeffrey Goldberg and a host of other pundits and politicians are so concerned over this supposed threat, the only logical thing for them to do is to pressure the Palestinian Arabs to accept a compromise that would give them a state as soon as possible, and to dismiss their maximal demands that they have made since Oslo. It is PalArab stubbornness that has kept this threat in the forefront of the conversation. Even the smallest state would ensure that this threat disappears.

Because the demographic threat is not a result of Israeli intransigence - it is directly because of the Palestinian Arab refusal to compromise.

Links!

Flotilla commentary:

Major news media to be on flotilla - at Commentary and YNet

Gaza boat sails into fantasy world of desirable despots at National Post

Flotilla should go to Syria, not Gaza at the Irish Examiner

Flotilla fools are scamming you, from Sydney Morning Herald

A site where you can volunteer to help combat news bias when the flotilla finally sails from 5 Minutes for Israel

And in other news:

Burqa battle in Australia - Herald Sun and Fox

Greek anti-semitism

More on Interpal at Harry's Place

And here's one of those British Palestinian Arab moderates we hear so much about.

BBC's Big Question asks the wrong question at Raymond Cook

The story of a happily married couple who were on the Kindertransport

And a nice cartoon from Hezbollah:

(h/t jzaik, Israel Muse, Ian, T34, sshender, Challah Hu Akbar)

Bil'in wall being moved - plus an outrageous phrase at CNN

From CNN:

Four years after an Israeli high court initially ruled that the path of the barrier separating Israelis from Palestinians around the West Bank village of Bilin needed to be rerouted, the Israeli military Wednesday began to dismantle parts of the controversial fence.

Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli central command, told CNN that "We are in advance preparations for removing the old fence so there (are) some elements that are being removed." He acknowledged that the action was being taken in adherence to a subsequent 2008 Israeli court ruling which found sections of the fence had been built illegally on Palestinian land.

"We are implementing the court ruling to the letter," he said. "We negotiated with those that appealed to the high court and sat down with them and basically drew out the new contours for the security fence."

The barrier in Bilin has become the focus of a weekly protest that has been going on for over six years, pitting Palestinians and international activists against Israeli soldiers. Hundreds have been injured in the protests and a number of demonstrators have been killed.

So will the weekly Bil'in protests end when the wall is rebuilt, since they accomplished their putative goal?

Only if you believe that their goal is really to protest the fence, and not to protest Israel's very existence. And if you do believe that, prepare to be disappointed.

CNN ends the story with this sickening paragraph:

Many Palestinians refer to the barrier as the "apartheid wall" and view it as nothing more than a land grab by Israel to help support and expand settlements in the West Bank. The Israeli government chooses to refer to it as the "security fence," necessary to protect its citizens from what it views as terrorist attacks.

"What it views as terrorist attacks"? CNN was already making clear that it was writing that sentence from the point of view of Israel, so that extra Reuters-style disclaimer to imply that people blowing themselves up in restaurants might not really be terrorism is beyond disgusting.

Note also that there are plenty of Jewish communities, with tens of thousands of people, beyond the fence. How exactly does the fence help "support and expand" those settlements?

(h/t Yasher-El)

A peek into the Bizarro world of Hezbollah

Here is most of a fairly typical article in Al Manar (Hezbollah/Lebanon) that highlights the difference between the worldviews of Hezbollah, and those of normal people:

Member of the Baath parliamentary bloc in Lebanon MP Assem Qanso said that the conspiracy against Syria has failed in achieving its goals. He expressed belief that the campaign against Syria was not new, and put it in the framework of the economic, military and political blockade on the resistance path against the American-Zionist scheme.

The Lebanese lawmaker told Al-Manar Website that the recent developments in Syria come in the framework of the international political, economic and military blockade against the resistant country. He explained that Syria, like Iran as well as the Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, was targeted by the so-called international community because it belongs to the resistant anti-American and Zionist scheme path. He admitted that the latest battle was the strongest, but kept it in the same context of the American-Zionist scheme.

Qanso said that the immunity of the national and Arab Syrian people was enough to put an end to the crisis. In this context, he also pointed out Syria’s history with Arabism since the days of Sultan Basha Atrash. “The Syrians are the most immune people at the patriotic level,” he said.

While noting that Americans and Europeans failed in breaking the patriotism of the Syrian people, Qanso noted that “unlike the case in Yemen, Libya and other places, they also failed to break the Syrian ideological army.” He emphasized that “the Syrian army remained united and faced, with full determination, the Salafist groups that were militarily and financially supported by Lebanon, Turkey and Iran.”

The Baath Party MP expressed belief that the conspiracy has failed in achieving its goals, adding that the crisis was reaching its end. Meanwhile, he praised the Russian and Chinese role that prevented the United Nations from imposing sanctions against Syria through the Security Council (UNSC). Qanso said that “this great stance consolidated Syria’s national stance and thwarted all attempts to overthrow its resistant regime.”

Answering a question, Qanso said that “all the symbols of resistance against the American-Zionist plot will be targeted by the so-called international community that will always attempt to break their steadfastness. He expressed belief that these attempts would have no limits at all, but added that the Resistance has proven that it was able to change the balances everywhere.

Asked whether the conspiracy against Syria has ended, Qanso said: “It was a difficult experience, but we’re the victorious ones, God willing, thanks to our resistance and steadfastness.”

Turning to the local developments, Qanso was asked whether he would give the government a vote of no-confidence at the parliament as he was quoted as saying last week. He said that he would follow the recommendations of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah. “Everything will proceed according to the recommendations of Sayyed Nasrallah,” he explained. “We will remain behind Sayyed Hasan until death,” he pointed out.

Qanso also said that the new majority would overcome all the difficulties and challenges. “We will also triumph the US and Israeli agents in Lebanon, i.e. the March 14 forces,” he added. He said that he would not give these forces any value or consideration from now on.

Qanso warned against some groups seeking sabotage in the country, in reference to Hizb Ut-Tahrir which is holding anti-Syria demonstrations in the north. “Those people have been prepared since a while for such incidents. They are worse than Takfiris and Salafis,” he said. “They are extremists. I know them since 1956. They have links with the English intelligence and work for the Americans.”

So now we know that Syrian protesters are Zionist and American stooges, and that the Lebanese March 14th opposition is filled with Zionist and American stooges and spies.

More interestingly, the socialist Baath party in Lebanon has been magically transformed into a Shiite group that slavishly follows whatever Nasrallah says.