

Two interesting news items from Israel in the last few days should have gotten more attention. One concerned an Israeli offer to pull back its military operations from two of the largest cities in the West Bank. The other concerned rumors about an expansion of Israel’s governing coalition. While seemingly unrelated, they both reflect the reality of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But the lack of interest in either development either by the Obama administration or its media cheerleaders speaks volumes about the stark contrast between the facts and the obsessions of Israel’s critics.NY Times: UN Security Council Resolution Is The Best Way To Resolve Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
As we learned last week via Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, President Obama still thinks the obstacle to peace in the Middle East is named Benjamin Netanyahu. After more than seven years of picking fights with and carping about the Israeli prime minister, the president’s resentment about Netanyahu’s belief that he knows more about the conflict with the Palestinians than he does still rankles and he never misses an opportunity to vent it. According to Goldberg, the president believes Netanyahu “could bring about a two-state solution” that would create a lasting peace, but he won’t do it because “he’s too fearful and politically paralyzed to do so.”
This evaluation of Netanyahu is widely shared by the liberal press and was repeated by the New York Times editorial column yesterday. The Times blasted Netanyahu for skipping a meeting with the president and carped about the amount of military aid Israel is being offered by the administration in an attempt to compensate the Jewish state for an Iran nuclear deal that has imperiled the security of America’s sole democratic ally in the region. But the Times was even more interested in rehearsing Obama’s talking points about Netanyahu missing opportunities to create peace.
A non-binding United Nations Security Council resolution on the two-state solution may be the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, opined a New York Times editorial published Monday.Dissecting the New York Times’ Latest Netanyahu-Bashing — Factual Errors and All
“There are several options, but the best may be a resolution that puts the United Nations Security Council on record supporting the basic principles of a deal covering borders, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, security, and land swaps, but not imposing anything on the two parties,” the editorial said.
The paper condemned what it claimed were Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lackluster efforts in the peace process, saying that the Israeli prime minister has “never shown a serious willingness” to progress toward a peace deal, “as is made clear by his expansion of Israeli settlements, which reduce the land available for a Palestinian state.”
It also criticized Abbas as “a weak and aging leader who has given up on peace.”
The editorial claimed that President Barack Obama “may be presiding over the death of the two-state solution.”
Begin with the criticism “that Mr. Netanyahu’s government announced this decision in the media rather than to the White House.” Isn’t there something strange about a newspaper attacking a government for talking to the press? The strong suggestion is that the editors at the Times would prefer that journalists, and the news-consuming public, would have had to wait longer before learning newsworthy information. That the Times here is editorializing in favor of keeping journalists in the dark is evidence of the contorted logic that afflicts the rest of the editorial as well.Isi Leibler: A time for unity against dangerous new Obama initiatives
The Times calls the Netanyahu leak “not a surprise, considering the disrespect the prime minister has shown Mr. Obama in the past.” There’s no mention of the disrespect that Mr. Obama has shown Mr. Netanyahu, beginning with the president’s failure to stop in Israel during a visit to the Middle East early in his first term. Even PBS and former members of the Obama administration acknowledged that was a mistake.
The next paragraph describes Israel as “the top recipient of American aid.” That is not factually accurate. In recent years, America has poured far more money into attempts to secure and rebuild Iraq ($2 trillion) and Afghanistan ($1 trillion). Military assistance to Israel runs about $30 billion over ten years, a bargain by comparison. Adjusted for inflation, America’s post-World War II assistance to rebuild Europe, about $103 billion in today’s dollars, also is more than what America has spent on Israel over any comparable time span.
I have repeatedly maintained that there is a dire need for a broad unity government during these critical times. MKs Isaac Herzog, Yair Lapid and other opposition politicians provide fuel for our enemies by castigating the government. They would have a tremendous positive global impact were they to act responsibly and alter their approach, making it clear that the nation is united in its refusal to make further concessions that could undermine Israel’s security. Surely leaders of the principal opposition Zionist parties could temporarily maintain the status quo on domestic issues, suspend their parochial personal ambitions and agree to unite and confront our adversaries as a united people.
Besides, political leaders demonstrating a willingness to set aside short-term political advantage in order to promote the national interest would be acting in accordance with the desire of most Israelis and would gain considerable standing and support from the public. In our dysfunctional political system, accountability to the electorate is minimal. But under the present circumstances, public pressure could have an impact.
History will judge harshly those political leaders who, despite a virtual consensus, refuse to act in what is clearly the national interest.
Now is the time for our political leaders to stand up and be counted.
Q: What about LGBT rights in the secular and democratic state [you envision]?There you go. A one-state solution, so passionately pushed by "Students for Justice in Palestine" and other campus groups, would have no LGBT rights, few rights for women, limited rights for Jews, limited freedom of expression, and it would practice other forms of repression. Just like every other Arab state.
[Zahalka:] "This is an issue we don't comment on".
"Our society is not yet ready to deal with this issue", adds MK Zoabi, "in fact it's not ready do deal with simpler issues such as interfaith marriage. We're still fighting for basic social rights like freedom of expression and women's rights. As a society we're deteriorating. 30 years ago there were more freedom and progress. The hegemony of religious discourse is getting stronger".
The Jordanian parliament has passed a law prohibiting the sale and rent of real estate in the ancient city of Petra to Israeli citizens, following increasing reports of Israelis buying land in the city, the Jordanian daily al-Rai reported Tuesday.News stories in Arabic on the story show that the parliamentarians kept referring to the danger of Jews buying the land, not Israelis. But Jordan cannot easily ban Jews under the law.
The law differentiates between Israeli and other foreign investors, banning Israelis from renting or buying real estate in the entire Petra region, while allowing others to invest in land located outside Petra Archeological Park.
The law is an amendment to the Petra Development and Tourism Authority law and was submitted by two parliament members, Mahmoud Kharabsha and Assaf Shubki. It passed on Tuesday after a contentious meeting during which many parliament members voiced strong criticism against Israel, describing it as "the enemy" and "the oppressing entity" and emphasizing that Jordan should take revenge on Israel for its violations on Temple Mount.
MP Shubki told Turkish news agency Anadolu: "Our national sovereignty is more important than foreign investments and I will work together with my colleagues in parliament to enforce the law in all the regions in Jordan and not only in Petra.
"The Zionist enemy contaminates the Palestinian territories and does not respect any international humanitarian treaty. This law is a victory for the Palestinian people and it is the least we can do for them."
According to Jordan's Ministry of Tourism and Antiques, more than 100,000 Israelis visit Jordan per year.
MP Mahmoud Kharabsheh called on the government to enact a law prohibiting the sale of land to Jews in the Petra region.I have not heard of any Israelis actually trying to buy land in Petra, although it is a Biblically important area that attracts many Jewish tourists, causing consternation among Jordanian antisemites who accuse the Jews of planting fake archaeological artifacts there.
MP Kharabsheh that all Jordanians reject the idea of Jews owning lands in Jordan in general and in particular the Petra region.
Everyone is against the Jews because of their occupation of the Palestinian land, said MPs.
A number of members said, "The issue of land leasing in the Petra region must be limited to Arab nationals, and we may not lease land to the Jews and others."
VICE VERSA
A Frenchman once asked what difference there was between M. de Rothschild, the loan broker, and Herod.
“It is,” he was told, “that Herod was the King of the Jews, and Rothschild the Jew of the Kings.” -
What is most jarring is Obama’s tendency to distort the views of his detractors to the point of dissembling by reframing their original positions. He perfected this formula on critics of his maddening approach to Syria, including senior members of his administration, by belittling their proposals for establishing no-fly zones, or protected safe havens in Syria, as “half-baked” ideas or “mumbo-jumbo” proposals. Obama told Goldberg that his critics say, “You called for Assad to go, but you didn’t force him to go. You did not invade.” But Mr. President, who asked you to invade Syria? Could you please name one serious critic who said so? Obama speaks expansively and derisively about the “Washington playbook” and what he describes as the foreign-policy establishment’s “credibility” fetish; the playbook, according to Obama, tends to prescribe militarized responses to different crises in order to maintain America’s credibility. But credibility, particularly for a great power, is the coin of the realm. And it need not be purchased by force every time.Elliott Abrams: The U.N. Sinks Further into the Anti-Israeli Muck
Obama boasts that he is “very proud” of the moment, on August 30, 2013, when he retreated from his threat to punish the Assad regime militarily following its mass murder of more than 1,400 innocent Syrian civilians, many of them children, with chemical weapons. He may view that date as his day of liberation from promises he made to help people who have been at the receiving end of weapons of mass destruction. But for millions of Syrians, August 30, 2013 is a day that shall live in infamy.
It may seem hard to believe that the United Nations can hold any new surprises when it comes to unprincipled attacks on Israel, but never despair: There is always farther to fall.Jennifer Rubin: Former apartheid state can attest that Israel is not one
For more than 20 years, the U.N. Human Rights Council has had a dedicated “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” (Needless to say, there’s no U.N. Special Rapporteur for the condition of Tibetans or Cubans; only Palestinians.) Now, the incumbent Israel-Hater-in-Chief is leaving and his replacement must be chosen.
This being the U.N., what kind of candidate will they choose? Be careful, now: The position’s entire purpose is to condemn Israel, so it’s important to disqualify anyone who might examine the evidence in an unbiased search for truth. Heaven forfend. Much better to choose someone whose anti-Israel bias is absolute.
And this being the U.N., that’s what they’re doing.
A new report billed as the “the first empirical study of its kind providing objective confirmation of student reports of widespread antisemitism, as well as evidence that the primary agents of antisemitic activity are anti-Zionist students and faculty boycotters and that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) is the strongest predictor of anti-Jewish hostility on campus” confirms a number of disturbing trends, including a strong correlation between anti-Zionist student groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and anti-Semitism; between the presence of faculty who have expressed public support for an academic boycott of Israel and anti-Semitism; and between BDS activity and anti-Semitic activity.
With regard to BDS activity:
“56% of schools with evidence of BDS activity had one or more incidents that targeted Jewish students for harm, whereas of the schools with no evidence of BDS activity, only 23% had incidents targeting Jewish students. In fact, schools with more incidents of BDS activity tended to have more incidents that targeted Jewish students for harm.
95% of schools with BDS activity had one or more incidents of anti-Semitic expression, whereas of the schools with no evidence of BDS activity, only 33% had anti-Semitic expression. Schools with more incidents of BDS activity tended to have more incidents of anti-Semitic expression.”Ironically, in the real world, the post-apartheid government of South Africa wants closer relations with Israel on trade, water and technology. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director General Dr. Dore Gold is in South Africa to do just that. A readout of the meeting between Gold and his counterpart states: “The discussions focused on the relations between the two countries and the sides agreed on improving cooperation between the two countries.
One of the most intriguing findings in the sweeping Pew survey of Israel released last week was a sharp rise in the proportion of Israeli Jews who said settlements are beneficial to Israeli security. As recently as 2013, the survey noted, a plurality of Israeli Jews (35 percent) accepted the global consensus that settlements harm Israel’s security. But in the new poll, an even larger plurality deemed settlements beneficial to Israel’s security – 42 percent, up from 31 percent in 2013. Only 30 percent deemed settlements detrimental, while 25 percent said they make no difference to Israeli security. This shift in public opinion reflects both a growing conviction that Israel’s security requires the Israel Defense Forces to remain in at least part of the West Bank, and a growing recognition that settlements are the anchor keeping the IDF from leaving.MEMRI: Incitement To Terrorism By Palestinian Civil Society Organizations That Receive Foreign Funding
Three significant events occurred between the earlier poll, conducted in March-April 2013, and the latest one, conducted from October 2014 to May 2015: the Gaza war of summer 2014, the virtual collapse of UN peacekeeping forces on the Golan Heights, and the failed Israeli-Palestinian talks led by Secretary of State John Kerry. All had a major impact on how Israelis understood their own security.
The war solidified an Israeli consensus that the unilateral pullout from Gaza was disastrous, with even opposition leader Isaac Herzog admitting that “from a security perspective, the disengagement was a mistake.” There were two reasons for this. First, despite two previous wars with Hamas since the 2005 disengagement, Israeli casualties in both were low enough that on balance, the pullout seemed to have saved soldiers’ lives. This time, military casualties were so high (66 soldiers killed) that, as I explained in detail here, keeping the IDF in Gaza would actually have cost fewer lives than leaving did. Second, while Hamas had bombarded Israel with thousands of rockets and mortars ever since the pullout, it had previously mainly targeted the south. During the 2014 war, sustained rocket fire for the first time hit the center of the country, where most Israelis live.
Some Palestinian civil society organizations operating in the West Bank that receive funding from Western countries, institutions, and foundations are openly expressing support for terrorism. They express this support with ceremonies exalting terrorists, with public displays of support for attacks and their perpetrators, by lionizing terrorists, and by posting inciting content on social media.Increasing Signs that Hamas, Not Frustration, Is Behind the New Intifada
The following are several examples of such organizations:
The Palestinian Bar Association Awards Honorary Attorney's Certificate To Muhammad Al-Halabi, Who Killed Two In Jerusalem; Encourages Participation In Stabbers' Funerals
The Palestinian Bar Association is the official body for Palestinian attorneys in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[1] It receives regular funding from the EU, and has received aid from the EU Police Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support (EUPOL COPPS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and UN Women.[2] It also maintains cooperation ties with the International Legal Foundation (ILF).[3]
On October 10, 2015, the bar association announced that it would be posthumously awarding an honorary attorney's certificate to Muhannad Al-Halabi, who was killed after stabbing two people to death in the Old City of Jerusalem on October 3, 2015 and wounding a woman and a two-year-old baby.
The latest wave of terror in Israel may not be conducted by “lone wolves,” as is commonly believed, but guided by the hidden hand of Hamas, a leader terror researcher has reported.
Shaul Bartal of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies wrote that obscuring the genesis and motivations of such attacks is a common Hamas tactic. The Iran-backed terror organization is “aware of the many advantages and the protection that deception and obscuration provides its operatives, their families and the organization’s institutions,” he wrote. “The Sunni organization uses the concept of concealment (‘taqiyyah’) which is more common in Shiite Islam, in order to make political and propaganda gains, mostly in order to change its image as a terror organization and present itself to the world as a legitimate organization.”
While Bartal acknowledged that “lone wolf” terrorists carry out their attacks “without any proven connection or direct order from the organization they belong to,” he found connections to Hamas in many cases.
Asked whether Hamas supported the killing of Israeli civilians, [Meshal] replied: "It is wrong to frame the problem this way, because Hamas, the Palestinian movements and the Palestinian people are just defending themselves. It’s a defensive war, we are defending our sons, our children, our wives, our places of worship, our land."In other words, yes, he does support the murder of Israeli civilians, but doesn't like to use that terminology to Western media. (France 24 of course didn't follow up, asking how stabbing random Jews, Arabs and tourists can be considered defensive. Reporters really are absurdly deferential to terrorists tht they manage to interview.)
Buy EoZ's books!
PROTOCOLS: EXPOSING MODERN ANTISEMITISM
If you want real peace, don't insist on a divided Jerusalem, @USAmbIsrael
The Apartheid charge, the Abraham Accords and the "right side of history"
With Palestinians, there is no need to exaggerate: they really support murdering random Jews
Great news for Yom HaShoah! There are no antisemites!