Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, February 17, 2017

02/17 Links Pt1: Glick: The Trump-Netanyahu alliance; A Bear Hug for All the Mullahs and Other Israel-Detractors to See

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The Trump-Netanyahu alliance

Given that at the heart of the two-state model is the conviction that Israel is to blame for the presence of Islamic terrorism and extremism, and that the only way to proceed is to establish a terrorism- supporting PLO state, it naturally follows that the policy’s adherents in the US cannot see any real purpose for the US alliance with Israel. It is also natural that they fail to see any potential for a regional alliance led by the US and joined by Israel and the Sunni states based on the common goals of defeating Iran and radical Islamic terrorist enclaves.
In other words, the two-state formula dooms its adherents to strategic myopia and defeatism while holding their strategic and national interests hostage to the PLO.
The insanity at the heart of the two-state formula, and the US and Israeli public’s desire to make a clear break with the strategic defeats of the past generation, makes its abandonment a clear choice for both Trump and Netanyahu. Abandoning it wins them support and credibility from their political bases when they need their supporters to rally to their side. And to the extent they are able to implement more constructive policies to defeat the forces of radical Islam, they will weaken the establishments that are working to undermine them.
By leaning on Netanyahu to help him to secure victories against the forces of radical Islam, and so putting paid to the bureaucracy’s most beloved policy paradigm, Trump can both secure his base and weaken his opponents.
So, too, by developing a substantive alliance with the Trump administration and increasing Trump’s chance of political survival and success, Netanyahu gains a formidable partner and makes it more difficult for the legal fraternity and its media flacks to bring about his indictment and fall.
Amazingly then, to a significant degree, the survival of both leaders is tied up with their success in keeping their promises to their voters and defeating their foes – domestic and foreign. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

Dr. Mordechai Kedar: New leader, same old terror

From Hamas' point of view, since Israel's defensive systems cannot stand up to a multi-rocket and missile attack launched from close range and from every direction, the strategy that Hamas has chosen will sooner or later lead to victory over Israel and the elimination of the Zionist project. Yehya al-Sinwar will be the leader, not manager, who will bring the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim masses after him to a major, final battle that will bring Israel to its knees and scatter the 21st century Jews to all corners of the earth, to the exile that Allah prophesied for them because of the their sins as enumerated in the 7th century Koran.
All that is left for Hamas to do, in addition to military preparations, is to encourage other forms of Jihad - economic, media, political, public and academic, so that Israel's international standing becomes shaky and its name is vilified around the world, while Hamas calls for the world to abandon and boycott Israel, punish it and pull all investments out of it using BDS. It intends to buy politicians, media and academic personalities using money from its Qatari friends, encourage the world to prevent moving embassies to Jerusalem and advance BDS decisions in international bodies that will proclaim that Jerusalem does not belong to Israel.
All these actions are intended to turn Israel into easy prey for military Jihad that will lead to its final destruction, to occur under the wise leadership of Yehye al-Sinwar and his deputy Khalil. Now that Hamas' sinister plans are clear as day, Israel - if it wants to survive - must challenge the new Hamas leadership in every way that can convince them and those who will be left after them to give up the dream of eliminating Israel. This is not an easy objective to attain, but it can be done using good Intelligence, exact measures and a firm decision by an Israeli leadership that looks ahead to what lies in store in the future.
In the Middle East, peace is granted only to those who are not vanquished and succeed in convincing their enemies that it worth their while to leave them alone. Hamas knows the rules of the game, and the question that is left open is whether the Israeli pubic realizes that the Middle East is not a place where acting according to the rules of the games played in other cultures allows for survival. (h/t Elder of Lobby)

David Singer: Bush, Obama, Russia, EU and UN buried under Trump Landslide

Obama proceeded to trash those commitments made with one of America’s closest allies with disastrous consequences for America’s foreign policy, its reputation and integrity.
Trump however had difficulty in reaffirming all of Bush’s commitments because one of them stated:
“ the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”
Trump doesn’t like long negotiations without any deal – and Trump wants to cut a deal.
Trump has accordingly ditched the Bush two-state solution – endorsed by Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It now joins the diplomatic graveyard housing other two-state solutions proposed by
* the 1937 Peel Commission
* the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan,
* the 1993 Oslo Accords and
* Israel in 2000/2001 and 2008.
The Arabs have missed yet another opportunity to end the 100 years old Arab-Jewish conflict.

Roger Cohen weighs in on this week's meeting between Netanyahu and Trump with his characteristic lack of knowing what he is talking about.

Here's the one example that proves that one simply cannot trust a New York Times columnist to say anything remotely true:

Netanyahu was explicit. He wants a Jewish state that retains “the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River.” That, he claimed, was what he’s been saying for years. Wrong. When he first reluctantly admitted the possibility of two states in 2009, he insisted Palestine be “demilitarized.” That’s not the same as total Israeli security control.

Bibi's 2009 speech didn't mention the Jordan Valley - but it didn't have to. That was part of Israeli demands way before Netanyahu. Yitzchak Rabin said it shortly before he was assassinated: " "The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term" Sharon also insisted on it. It was a well known position - for anyone who actually follows the news from Israel, unlike Roger Cohen who only pretends to.

In fact, Netanyahu said this explicitly in 2011 - not to the Israeli cabinet, but to a joint session of Congress!:

So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is absolutely vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.

So Netanyahu really has been saying it for years. Cohen just didn't bother to check his facts.

Because since he thinks he's an expert, he doesn't need to bother with such trivialities as truth.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Unbelievable spin in an attempt to smear David Friedman from AP:

David Friedman, President Donald Trump's pick to be U.S. ambassador to Israel, displayed an exhaustive knowledge of Israeli-Palestinian affairs during his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, but at times glossed over intricacies of the famously complex region. A look at some of his statements before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

FRIEDMAN: Asked about the Trump administration's position on a two-state solution, he said he would be delighted to see a peace deal giving Palestinians an independent state. But he acknowledged skepticism "solely on the basis of what I've perceived as an unwillingness on the part of the Palestinians to renounce terror and accept Israel as a Jewish state."

He said Palestinians had failed to "end incitement" of violence, and terrorism had increased since the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, intended to be a stepping stone toward Palestinian statehood.

THE FACTS: Not all Palestinians are the same.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, the group that formally represents all Palestinians, officially denounced terrorism decades ago, although attacks have continued to be a problem for Israel in the years since. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in office since 2005 and in charge of autonomous enclaves in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has spoken out against violence, saying it undermines Palestinian statehood aspirations.

Hamas refuses to renounce violence or recognize Israel. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip after seizing it in 2007 in a violent takeover and setting up a government there to rival Abbas' West Bank-based Palestinian Authority.

As far as Israel being a Jewish state, Abbas, current head of the PLO, says the Palestinians met their peace requirements by recognizing Israel, and it's not up to them to determine the religious nature of the state of Israel.

Friedman's statement was 100% correct. The Palestinians have failed to end incitement, the PLO still praises terrorists today despite pretending to be against terror have failed to renounce terror, the PLO's main faction officially says that terror is a legitimate right if it is not tactically wiseat this time, and all Palestinians still regard terrorists as heroes.

And the reasons Palestinians refuse to accept a Jewish state is because they want to ensure that they have a "right to return" to flood it with Arabs and destroy it demographically.

Friedman is right, AP is wrong and spinning furiously.

FRIEDMAN: Asked whether under Palestinian law the Palestinians were "rewarding terrorists" and whether there was an "increasing incentive" based on the number of people a terrorist murdered, said, "Exactly true."

THE FACTS: It's complicated.

Israel has long scoffed at the Palestinian fund for "martyrs," set up in 1967 by the PLO, arguing that the payments it makes are an incentive to kill Israelis. The fund makes monthly payments to roughly 35,000 families of Palestinians killed or wounded in the conflict with Israel and had a budget last year of $170 million, Palestinian figures show. Recipients include relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers.

But the fund doesn't pay people in advance to carry out attacks. The Palestinians argue the fund helps support Palestinian victims of Israel's occupation, including families of those driven to attack by the dire conditions of occupation or by a desire to avenge others killed by Israelis.

Friedman is 100% right. The PLO pays terrorist families, and terrorists know that their families will be taken care of (and that they would have automatic jobs when they get out of prison.)

Not paying them ahead of time is not the definition of incentivizing terror. Friedman is right, AP is obfuscating the truth.

FRIEDMAN: Asked about his connections to Beit El, a settlement of religious nationalists near Ramallah in the West Bank, Friedman said his affiliation had been as the president of a group called American Friends of Beit El Yeshiva, the U.S. fundraising arm of the settlement's Jewish seminary and affiliated institutions. He said the money he'd helped raise had gone toward educational facilities like dormitories, gymnasiums and classrooms.

"It primarily derives from my commitment to Jewish education," Friedman said of his involvement with Beit El. "The quality of those schools is excellent."

THE FACTS: It's true that the funds Friedman's group raises help support the settlement's educational activities. But Friedman appears to be playing down his family's long association with Beit El.

In addition to supporting Beit El's institutions, which include high schools and an Israeli military academy, Friedman has written numerous columns for Arutz Sheva, a right-wing news site affiliated with Beit El. It was in some of those columns that Friedman made controversial comments that have attracted attention since his nomination.

In Beit El, his and his wife's names are on the facade of the Friedman Faculty House, which the anti-settlement watchdog Kerem Navot says is built on private Palestinian land without permission from its Palestinian landowners.

Ap did not manage to contradict a single statement Friedman said. Writing for Arutz Sheva is not a violation of any law or US regulation. And trusting an anti-settlement group without fact checking it is irresponsible.

This is a travesty of a "fact check." AP has nothing to contradict Friedman so instead it throws a bunch of mud at the wall, hopes that some sticks, and calls the resulting mess "fact checking."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas has a new potential heir apparent.

Forrmer Nablus governor Mahmoud al-Aloul was appointed as the first ever vice president of the ruling Palestinian Fatah movement Wednesday night, marking him as a possible candidate to succeed Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Authority president.

Aloul, 67, apppointed by the Fatah Central Committee, is a close confidant of the 82-year-old Abbas. He is considered popular within the party, and was a long-time leader of Fatah’s armed wing before following the group’s leadership from Tunis to the West Bank in 1995 in the wake of the Oslo Accords.

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies notes:

Within Fatah’s upper echelons, al-Aloul assumed the portfolio of mobilization and organization within the party, and in that role he has had an active presence. He is frequently spotted leading protests in the West Bank, and in November of last year, he gave a speech where he declared: “When we talk about our enemies, we talk about the [Israeli] occupation and the United States.”

Al-Aloul has consistently stated that "armed resistance," meaning terror, is a "right" the official Fatah position.

In 2012 he said that "no one has dropped the armed resistance from his dictionary" and that Fatah’s political program had reaffirmed that “resistance is a legitimate right to resist the occupation.” He repeated this in 2013.

But he's stated this much more recently and explicitly as well. Last June, Al-Aloul emphasized that the Palestinians have "the option of resistance in all its forms in light of the fact that the peace process is stalled and the occupation continues its crimes," as reported in Palestinian media.

In November, on TV, he said:

Perhaps there are people who think that in the [recent] past the Oslo Accords took place and new and defined strategies were created that were connected to a realistic view of the situation. [However, this occurred] out of consideration for the balance of powers, and not as a strategic change. Some of the people thought that the essence of Fatah had changed, and that its strategy had changed…
Therefore, in the Sixth Fatah Conference - and we will again emphasize this in the political plan of the seventh conference – we passed a resolution that defines the identity [of Fatah], we called it a political declaration, and this declaration opens the political plan: … ‘Despite our adherence to the option of a just peace and our efforts to realize it, we declare that we do not renounce any option, and we believe that resistance in all its forms (i.e., including violence) is a legitimate right of the occupied peoples in their confrontation against the occupiers.’

In December, he declared that the PLO is not obligated to uphold the provisions of the Oslo Accords any more because he claims Israel is not upholding it, and this was another declaration made at the Seventh Fatah Congress.

I have not yet seen a list of all the declarations from the Seventh Fatah Congress last November, but from al-Aloul's statements it appears that they have not fundamentally changed from the platform from the sixth congress in 2009 which said exactly what he is saying, that terrorism is still a legitimate option but one that is not being exercised at this time for tactical reasons.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/16 Links Pt2: Is BDS a Bust?; Sweden's "Special Envoy" to NGOs to the Arab-Israeli conflict

From Ian:

Is BDS a Bust?

In 2005, a coalition of organizations claiming to represent Palestinian civil society issued a call to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel. Since then, the BDS movement has acted, in church organizations, on college campuses, and elsewhere, to make Israel the equivalent of apartheid-era South Africa; a pariah state. BDS has been active in the U.S., and COMMENTARY has covered many of its individual wins and losses. But it is worth pausing every now and again to consider its overall effect on American public opinion.
At least as Gallup measures it, that effect has been zero.
In 2005, 69 percent of U.S. adults held a favorable view of Israel and 25% held an unfavorable view. Today, those numbers are 71 percent and 25 percent.
A particular target of BDS has been young people, and polling has for some time shown that young people view Israel less favorably than their elders. In the 18-29 age group 63 percent view Israel favorably and 33 percent view Israel unfavorably. But BDS has focused on college campuses. “Israeli apartheid week” is, unbelievably, a feature of the American college landscape, and divestment votes, more often than not BDS fails, took place at 50 schools from 2012-2016. It is therefore surprising that young people view Israel so favorably. In spite of the longstanding leftward lean of our campuses, college graduates and postgraduates remain on par with non-graduates in their favorable views of Israel.
This year’s results are so far similar to last year’s, though Gallup has not yet released its findings concerning how 18-29 year olds view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For U.S. adults in general, though the numbers—62 percent sympathize more with the Israelis, 19 percent more with the Palestinians—are considerably better for Israel than they were when the BDS campaign began.

Michael Lumish: This Week on Nothing Left

This week Michael Burd and Alan Freedman speak live with Michael Lumish in the San Francisco bay area about the latest developments in the United States; we then speak live with Alex Ryvchin from the ECAJ in Sydney about a range of issues.
Following this we hear from Israeli political activist May Golan on Israel's illegal immigration problem, and finish with Isi Leibler in Jerusalem.
3 min Editorial: Anti-Netanyahu petition
14 min Michael Lumish in USA
50 min Alex Ryvchin, ECAJ
1 hr 11 min May Golan, Israeli political activist [ also check NL facebook page terrific interview with Hanity on Fox News]
1 hr 32 min Isi Leibler, Jerusalem

NGO Monitor: Sweden's "Special Envoy" to NGOs to the Arab-Israeli conflict

On February 15, 2017, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström announced that Sweden will be naming a “special envoy” to the Arab-Israeli conflict, tasked with working “full-time on the Israel-Palestine conflict,” responsible for establishing “contacts” in the region, and representing “Sweden in international talks.” According to Wallström, the sense that “hope can turn to despair” was repeated in her consultations “with almost 150 Israeli and Palestinian civil society organizations” during a December 2016 trip to the region.
Prior to this, during preparation for the January 15, 2017 Paris Peace conference, Sweden, “initiated and led” a “civil society component” as one of three areas of focus to further a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Emphasizing Sweden’s close relationship with highly politicized non-governmental organizations (NGOs), a diplomat stated that prior to the Paris conference, “We spoke to NGOs, associations, bloggers and other actors. Everyone apart from politicians. The results of our survey are by no means scientific, but I believe they reflect well the situation at hand…” (emphasis added).
This alliance with favored NGOs does not occur in a vacuum – for many years, Sweden has provided large-scale funding to many such groups.
In 2015, Sweden budgeted approximately $16.1 million to NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of these NGOs lead and take part in campaigns that are inconsistent with Sweden’s foreign policy goals of promoting peace and a two-state framework in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some groups have even used antisemitic rhetoric and have apparent links to terror organizations.
In addition, Sweden provides over $5 million, to the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (Secretariat) – a framework that supports NGOs that promote BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) and “lawfare” campaigns against Israel. (h/t Yenta Press)

Bnei Menashe in Indian airport en route to Israel

JNS reports:

Over one hundred members of India’s population of “lost Jews” are arriving in Israel this week, with hundreds more planning to make aliyah this year.

The Bnei Menashe community — which claims to descend from the Jewish tribes banished from ancient Israel in the 8th century BCE — have organized waves of immigrants to make the move to Israel through nonprofit Shavei Israel, which describes itself as the “only Jewish organization…actively reaching out to ‘lost Jews.'”

Michael Freund, the organization’s founder and chairman, said in a statement prior to Tuesday’s arrival of 30 Indian olim, “With God’s help, we will bring a total of more than 700 Bnei Menashe immigrants to Israel — the largest-ever airlift in a single year.”

Later this week, an additional 72 immigrants are scheduled to arrive, and, according to Shavei Israel, they will be living in the northern city of Nazareth Illit, which “already has a flourishing Bnei Menashe community.”

Arab media isn't happy about this.

The immigrants will live where the other Bnei Menashe have settled, in Nazareth Illit, the Jewish-majority city next to Nazareth. But Arab media are claiming that they are moving to "Arab Nazareth" implying that they are displacing Arab residents of the town - essentially calling them settlers.

Ramallah News is more direct, saying that they will be living in "occupied Palestine."

Arab antipathy towards Jews moving to Israel far predates the modern state of Israel, and they are still complaining about it. There are plenty of articles about French aliyah, Russian aliyah and so forth, exulting in years where there are fewer immigrants and upset in years that they increase.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Vic Rosenthal's Weekly Column

Wednesday, February 15. Prime Minister Netanyahu is in Washington, and will meet President Trump later today. At the same time, the American media is hyperventilating after the forced resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, over something to do with his contacts with Russia. I say this, because right now, nothing is clear – not what Flynn actually did and not why Trump fired him. All options, from Flynn truly conspiring with the Kremlin, to this being the beginning of a putsch against Trump orchestrated by the CIA and/or former Obama Administration officials, are open.

Poor Bibi, who would really like to talk about Iran, Syria and the Palestinians! Trump’s mind will not be on the Middle East if he thinks that his presidency is in danger (which in my opinion it is).

Bibi should understand Trump’s position quite well, since he himself is the object of a prolonged and vicious media and legal witch hunt, which I discussed in this column last week. This is apparently the fashion in modern “democratic” politics today: when you have a leader that powerful elites dislike but who is also so popular with the average voter that he can’t be defeated at the polls, then tie him up with a firehose-stream of accusations and scandals. If you can get him entangled in sticky legal spider-webs, so much the better (this is harder to do in the US, where an American president has much more power than an Israeli Prime Minister).

Personally, I believe Bibi when he says, “they won’t find anything because there is nothing.” But I also believe that he could be indicted for “nothing.” At least he is safe in the US for a few days, even if Trump gives him an expensive cigar or two.

The parallels between the precarious situations of Trump and Netanyahu are interesting, even though they are personally so different – and although Trump has been in office for less than a month, compared to Netanyahu’s multiple terms as Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister.

Both were elected in fair elections in which they defeated lackluster opponents. Nevertheless, both enjoy strong support from their bases and appealed enough to independent voters to win. Both are strongly, even viciously, opposed by a majority of media outlets and personalities, and by academic and artistic elites in their home countries; and both are considered enemies by the international Left. The previous American administration even tried to intervene in Israel’s recent elections against Netanyahu, and some of the same people may be involved in the effort to damage Trump.

Trump’s and Bibi’s opposition became used to wielding power, and did not give up the taste for it (although they have certainly had enough time to do so in Israel), and will use any means they can get away with to get it back from the leader that they view as an illegitimate usurper.

But now is a particularly inconvenient time for these two nations to be tied up by internal strife. It’s a cliché, but it’s true that the world is at a historical inflection point. America is the only power strong enough to stand up to the forces of darkness that are threatening to overtake Western civilization; and Israel is on the front line of this struggle.

Iran/Hezbollah, North Korea, Da’esh, the Muslim Brotherhood – these are the real threats. Putin might be one too. It is vitally important that the leaders of our nations focus on them, rather than on domestic insurrections by spoiled elites.

Could you give them a chance to do so, please? I promise that you can have another go in the next election.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/16 Links Pt1: Trump: Palestinians Must Stop The Hate If They Want Peace; Kontorovich: Jewish Settlements & International Law

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinian Assault on Freedoms

The Palestinians seem to be marching towards establishing a regime that is remarkably reminiscent of the despotic and corrupt Arab and Islamic governments.
By failing -- or, more accurately, refusing -- to hold the PA accountable for its crackdown on public freedoms, American and European taxpayers actively contribute to the emergence of another Arab dictatorship in the Middle East.
Palestinian professor Abdel Sattar Qassem, who teaches political science at An-Najah University in Nablus, is facing trial for "extending his tongue" against PA President Mahmoud Abbas and other senior PA officials.
Many Palestinians used to say that their dream is that one day they would have a free media and democracy like their neighbors in Israel. But thanks to the apathy of the international community, Palestinians have come to learn that if and when they ever have their own state, its role model will not be Israel or any Western democracy, but the regimes of repression that control the Arab and Muslim world.

Eugene Kontorovich: Jewish Settlements & International Law

Northwestern University Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich makes the case that Israeli settlements are not illegal under international law. A program of Zionist Organization of America.

PMW: Fatah official: Palestinians have "right" to use terror to "liberate our homeland"

A senior Fatah leader, Nabil Shaath, said three times in a short interview that the Palestinians have a right to use "armed struggle," the Palestinian euphemism for terror. In fact Shaath said that this right is "indisputable." [Fatah-run Awdah TV, The Story of a Photograph, Jan. 23, 2017]
According to Shaath, the goal of using violence is to "liberate our homeland," after which a "Palestinian Arab democratic state" will exist, and Jews, Muslims and Christians will live in "Palestine" together.
The fundamental condition under which the PLO and Fatah, the movement headed by Mahmoud Abbas, were taken off the list of terror organizations was that they had committed to giving up terror. This statement by a senior Fatah leader contradicts the PLO's commitment and is a reiteration that Fatah has never attempted to fulfill the terms for which it was removed from the list of terror organizations. As Shaath said, Fatah claims that violence against Israel, including the killing of Israeli civilians, is legitimate "resistance."

Fatah leader Nabil Shaath: The armed struggle is our right

Ariel is the largest town that is deep inside Samaria, smack in the middle of the northern part of what has been called the West Bank for the past few decades. Mrs. Elder and I had the opportunity to visit Ariel University last year.

Ariel's mayor, Eli Shaviro, is in the United States and I caught up with him. I asked him his opinion of what President Trump had said on Wednesday, and he said that he was happy that Trump was no longer committed to a two-state solution.

I asked him what his alternative was.

"I'd say today that the two state plan is not feasible. I believe that we have to take broad the common denominators (between the peoples); an example would be the economy, or health care. From our level, not the national/government level but the local level, these are things that we can create and move things in a positive direction.

"You can look at the Palestinians working in Ariel or in the Barkan Industrial park. In partnership with Ariel University we are building a large medical facility that will serve both Israelis and Palestinians. These are the things that both sides need, both us and the Palestinians.

"Once our neighbors begin to receive these services and benefits of neighbors working together, they will get to know us, and once they get to know us things can move in further positive directions."

"If you speak with a Palestinian and ask him if he would rather work in the Ariel Industrial Park, of course he would. But beyond there is a Palestinian Authority that is trying to prevent him from working there.

"That's why if you ask which way things are going, the change will happen from the bottom up and not from the top down.

"I agree we have to think about the future. But for now, it would be unwise to project the end-game, rather we need to work step-by-step towards a solution."

Shaviro is putting his money where his mouth is. Even before the major medical center opens in Ariel, he is building a clinic specifically for the Arab population in the area. He says that the Ariel industrial zone employs highly skilled Arab workers and managers, most who come from Nablus, who are treated absolutely equally with the Jews who work there.

Shaviro is not a religious man, so I asked him what his ideological reason was for wanting to live in a "settlement." He pointed out that most of Ariel is not religious, and neither is the university. "But it is impossible to overlook our past. Judea and Samaria are the land of the Jewish Bible. To one side of Ariel is the tomb of Joshua, to the east of Ariel is Shilo, the original capital of Israel. You cannot ignore that."

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have all come out deriding President Trump's statement that perhaps a two-state solution is not the solution.

All of these editorials make a basic implicit assumption: that Palestinians should have veto power over any solution - but Israelis shouldn't.

The NYT is most explicit:

His willingness, however, to lend credence to those who would deny a separate state to the Palestinians will certainly make peace harder to achieve. Palestinians have long sought their own state and are sure to reject the idea of having their lands annexed by Israel, even if offered some kind of limited autonomy.

But Israelis are sure to reject the Palestinian demands for peace. As Mahmoud Abbas stated just today, here they are (and this is only a partial description of Palestinian demands):

President Mahmoud Abbas stressed that his administration adheres to the option of two states as well as international law and international legitimacy to ensure an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of the independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital to live in security and peace alongside the State of Israel on the June 4, 1967 borders.

Abbas specifically rejects Israel's two red lines described by Netanyahu, in either a one or two-state scenario:

The President stressed that persistence of the Israeli Prime Minister in his dictates regarding continuation of Israeli control over the eastern border of the territory of the State of Palestine as well as to demand recognition of Israel as a Jewish state are considered a continuation of the attempt to impose facts on the ground and to destroy the two-state option while replacing it with the principle of one state with two systems - Apartheid.

In Arabic, Abbas demands even more: the mythical "right to return," the freeing of terrorist prisoners, and more.

All of these are described over and over again by the Palestinian leaders as non-negotiable demands, meaning that they will reject anything less than what they want.

Yet the major media make the assumption that Palestinian rejectionism is legitimate and therefore, unless they get what they want, there can be no solution. The media also tacitly accepts the idea that Palestinians will naturally gravitate to terror if they don't get what they want, and gives those threats legitimacy.

But what about what Israelis want? None of these editorials even give Netanyahu's insistence on controlling the border with Jordan, of the Palestinians accepting that Israel is a Jewish state, or that incitement in schools and media against Israel end, as Israeli red lines that can be used to legitimately reject a Palestinian state.

Only Palestinians are granted veto power over any solution. Only their red lines are real.

The editorials all ignore the most fundamental fact of all: Israel's previous peace offers addressed every single one of their objections and warnings that Israel would become an "apartheid state." It wasn't the Israeli side that rejected peace - it was the Palestinian side, over and over again.

The Washington Post editorial is most interesting because it accidentally gives the best argument for keeping the status quo. It says that Trump's statement "increased the chances that one of the few relatively peaceful corners of the region will return to conflict."

Hold on: things are peaceful now without a Palestinian state?

Yes, there are occasional stabbings and shooting attacks and car rammings. But compared to the past, including during the Oslo process itself in the 1990s, things really are comparatively peaceful today.

The reason isn't because Palestinians have hope for a state. They stopped negotiating years ago. The reason is because they have autonomy and political power that they don't want to lose. They will not risk losing what they have in order to try to gain a state they are unlikely to get.

It is Hamas that is stopping rocket attacks, not a peace plan. The Gaza wars are what dissuades them from terror today, not a piece of paper. They want to hold onto power above all. This doesn't mean that they don't fantasize about spectacular terror attacks, but they are far more careful to make sure that they don't lose more than they could gain from any move they make - which limits their terror options dramatically.

The Palestinian Authority relishes the symbolism of statehood that it has, opening diplomatic missions, fielding Olympic teams and enjoying unparalleled respect at the UN. Its security forces are stopping terror attacks, not the "peace process" - because, like Hamas, it doesn't want to lose what it has.

This is the most peaceful the region has been since the 1980s, when Israel really did control the territories. Yet unlike the 1980s, it isn't because of the IDF - it is because the Arabs have something to lose and don't want to jeopardize it.

Who can realistically say that a Palestinian state, where they can field an army and openly promote terrorist attacks beyond what they do today, would have anything to do with peace? How can the Washington Post assume that "one of the few relatively peaceful corners of the region" would remain that way (or get better) when the side that openly supports and literally pays terrorists gets a state?

Palestinians who have consistently rejected reasonable peace plans and who still embrace terror today do not deserve a state as long as they remain intransigent.

"Two states" used to be a potential formula to reach a goal of peace. It failed. The mistake that the world is making is that it cannot distinguish between the goal and the means.

The goal remains peace, not "two states." As the Washington Post admits, right now there is more peace in Israel and the territories than Israel's neighbors enjoy, and things in Israel haven't been this peaceful for decades. There is absolutely no evidence that a Palestinian state would make things better - and there is considerable evidence that it would make things worse.

The status quo is not ideal, and Israel every day has to balance its security needs with ensuring that Palestinian Arabs have the best lives and most rights possible. Whether the world likes it or not, that is the best peace plan available today. As long as the Palestinians refuse to compromise, the status quo will remain the option that optimizes real peace.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Days after the election last November, I wrote:

The President isn't only about policies and laws and bills and strategy: The White House has a huge influence on American public opinion and how Americans view the world.

Americans will inevitably view the Middle East differently because no one that shares the Obama worldview will remain in the White House.

It will be shocking to the world the first time President Trump opines on the Middle East. But chances are that he will look at it without the obscuring clouds of years of lies about "settlers" and "Likud intransigence". If there is anything Trump loves to do, it is to burst the bubble of conventional wisdom.

...Maybe he'll ask, "Why, 23 years after Oslo, has the Palestinian Authority continued to teach hate on TV and in the classrooms?"

Maybe he'll ask, "If Palestinians want peace so much, why have they turned down every peace offer, and why did they respond to the Clinton plan with a war on Jewish civilians?"

Maybe he'll ask, "Why are people wanting to boycott the one country that does more for human rights than any other country in the entire Middle East"?

...These types of obvious questions - obvious to anyone who is not caught up in the previous narrative, that is - will create more positive change than any number of conferences or bills passed. The media will not be able to ignore the plain truths that they have been studiously ignoring for many years.

On Wednesday, my prediction came true.

Not only because President Trump publicly said that perhaps the two-state solution isn't the ideal. Not only because he spoke out about Arab incitement, and not only because he pointed out Israel is amazing for what it achieves while under attack.

As I predicted, the entire narrative has changed.

The New York Times published an op-ed by Yishai Fleisher, a "settler" who has a radio show in Israel (and who presented at the Hasby Awards last year.) He explained why he and his fellow settlers have felt that the two-state solution has been dead for years, but more importantly he discusses five alternatives that Israelis are aware of but that the mainstream media has all but ignored.

The first option, proposed by former members of Israel’s Parliament Aryeh Eldad and Benny Alon, is known as “Jordan is Palestine,” a fair name given that Jordan’s population is generally reckoned to be majority Palestinian. Under their plan, Israel would assert Israeli law in Judea and Samaria while Arabs living there would have Israeli residency and Jordanian citizenship. Those Arabs would exercise their democratic rights in Jordan, but live as expats with civil rights in Israel.

A second alternative, suggested by Israel’s education minister, Naftali Bennett, proposes annexation of only Area C — the territory in the West Bank as defined by the Oslo Accords (about 60 percent by area), where a majority of the 400,000 settlers live — while offering Israeli citizenship to the relatively few Arabs there. But Arabs living in Areas A and B — the main Palestinian population centers — would have self-rule.

A third option, which dovetails with Mr. Bennett’s, is promoted by Prof. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv. His premise is that the most stable Arab entity in the Middle East is the Gulf Emirates, which are based on a consolidated traditional group or tribe. The Palestinian Arabs are not a cohesive nation, he argues, but are comprised of separate city-based clans. So he proposes Palestinian autonomy for seven non-contiguous emirates in major Arab cities, as well as Gaza, which he considers already an emirate. Israel would annex the rest of the West Bank and offer Israeli citizenship to Arab villagers outside those cities.

The fourth proposal is the most straightforward. Caroline Glick, a Jerusalem Post journalist, wrote in her 2014 book, “The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan for Peace in the Middle East,” that, contrary to prevailing opinion, Jews are not in danger of losing a demographic majority in an Israel that includes Judea and Samaria. New demographic research shows that thanks to falling Palestinian birth rates and emigration, combined with opposite trends among Jews, a stable Jewish majority of above 60 percent exists between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean (excluding Gaza); and this is projected to grow to about 70 percent by 2059.

Ms. Glick thus concludes that the Jewish State is secure: Israel should assert Israeli law in the West Bank and offer Israeli citizenship to its entire Arab population without fear of being outvoted. This very week, Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, announced his backing for the idea in principle. “If we extend sovereignty,” he said, “the law must apply equally to all.”

Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, similarly advocates for annexation and giving the Palestinians residency rights — with a pathway to citizenship for those who pledge allegiance to the Jewish State. Others prefer an arrangement more like that of Puerto Rico, a United States territory whose residents cannot vote in federal elections. Some Palestinians, like the Jabari clan in Hebron, want Israeli residency and oppose the Palestinian Authority, which they view as illegitimate and corrupt.

Finally, there is a fifth alternative, which comes from the head of the new Zehut party, Moshe Feiglin, and Martin Sherman of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. They do not see a resolution of conflicting national aspirations in one land and instead propose an exchange of populations with Arab countries, which effectively expelled about 800,000 Jews around the time of Israeli independence. In contrast, however, Palestinians in Judea and Samaria would be offered generous compensation to emigrate voluntarily.

None of these options is a panacea. Every formula has some potentially repugnant element or tricky trade-off. But Israeli policy is at last on the move, as the passing of the bill on settlements indicates.

While it is unusual for the New York Times to publish something like this, from its perspective it is publishing a loony right wing rant so it can be called "balanced" against its usual Israel bashing, knowing that its readers won't take this seriously.

But now that the White House is publicly saying that perhaps the two-state solution isn't the best possible way forward, the mainstream media is forced to address the alternatives, even as they deride them.

AP published what would have been unthinkable a few months ago. Although it is skeptical and derogatory towards anything but the two state "solution" it has been forced to acknowledge that there are alternatives. So while it downplays them, it mentions some:

INTERIM AGREEMENT
Many Israelis have concluded that a final peace agreement with the Palestinians is simply not possible because the Palestinians are asking for the moon as a result of a feeling that they hold the demographic cards. It is not just about territory: the Palestinians still in theory demand a "right of return" to Israel proper for millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees living around the region and the world, which the vast majority of Jewish Israelis reject.
But perhaps a partial deal is possible whereby the Palestinians would not have to forego future claims but for now get their state on, say, 80% of the West Bank, with some sort of preferred access or new regime in the Old City of Jerusalem? Even the current nationalist Netanyahu government would probably accept such a thing, but the Palestinians have ruled it out, fearing the temporary would become permanent. To get them to agree would require massive global and Arab world pressure, and risks huge internal conflict among the Palestinians.

The article also looks at versions of the "one state" solution, a version of the "Jordanian option," a partial unilateral pullout and the status quo. The analysis is flawed but that's not the point - the needle has moved and the conventional wisdom of the Obama White House and the mainstream media is no longer so conventional.

No matter what happens from today onward, this is a sea change in the dynamic, and suddenly more creative solutions - such as the one that Netanyahu seemed to suggest at the press briefing, of a more regional peace deal where the Arab nations benefit and the Palestinian issue is put in a more proper perspective - become more viable.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

A danger on the horizon for textbooks

I noticed this business story on Bloomberg:

Top Hat, the Canadian education technology startup, completed a new round of funding to give it more firepower to go after textbook publishers like Pearson Plc.

Top Hat is one of a handful of startups trying to find ways to disrupt the traditional textbook publishing industry, dominated by companies like Pearson, Cengage Learning Inc. and McGraw-Hill Education Inc... All of these firms have added digital educational materials to their range of products, but the transition has been rocky.

Even as the big publishers work to increase the proportion of sales that come from digital products, they’re still largely dependent on physical books.

That’s a weakness Top Hat Chief Executive Officer Mike Silagadze said he’s trying to exploit.

In November, they launched an online content marketplace, where professors can create course materials and sell it around the world. The idea is to cut out the publisher and let professors sell directly to students and each other, Silagadze said.

“It fundamentally breaks the publisher’s traditional model of producing content,” he said. “Our aim is to disrupt the paradigm the publishers have created over the last 100 years.”

I'm all for progress, but in this case there is a huge danger that the professors who sell their content directly will be more biased than traditional publishers whose texts must go through numerous reviews before they invest the money into publishing them.

It is more than likely that a professor or teacher who is anti-Israel will publish shoddy, half-baked materials and with this peer-to-peer system his or her customers will buy based on style, not content. Unless there is more oversight than is being reported here, this model has the potential of spreading lies without even a modicum of peer review.

And you can be certain that some politically biased professors will jump at the opportunity to spread propaganda as textbooks - not to mention they can make money doing it.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

02/15 Links Pt2: A View From The Frontlines; Phillips: A most deplorable analogy; Douglas Murray Speaking at the Israel Rally in London

From Ian:

A View From The Frontlines

In the summer of 2015, just three days after I moved to Israel for a one-and-a-half year stint freelance reporting in the region, I wrote down my feelings about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A friend of mine in New York had mentioned that it would be interesting to see if living in Israel would change the way I felt about it. My friend probably suspected that things would look differently from the front-row seat, so to speak.
Boy was he right.
Before I moved to Jerusalem, I was very pro-Palestinian. Almost everyone I knew was. I grew up Protestant in a quaint, politically-correct New England town; almost everyone around me was liberal. And being liberal in America comes with a pantheon of beliefs: You support pluralism, tolerance and diversity. You support gay rights, access to abortion and gun control.
The belief that Israel is unjustly bullying the Palestinians is an inextricable part of this pantheon. Most progressives in the US view Israel as an aggressor, oppressing the poor noble Arabs who are being so brutally denied their freedom. “I believe Israel should relinquish control of all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank,” I wrote on July 11, 2015 from a park near my new apartment in Baka. “The occupation is an act of colonialism that only creates suffering, frustration and despair for millions of Palestinians.”
Perhaps predictably, this view didn’t play well among the people I met during my first few weeks in Jerusalem, which even by Israeli standards is a conservative city. My wife and I had moved to the Jewish side of town, more or less by chance —the first Airbnb host who accepted our request to rent a room happened to be in the Nachlaot neighborhood, where even the hipsters are religious. As a result, almost everyone we interacted with was Jewish Israeli and very supportive of Israel. I didn’t announce my pro-Palestinian views to them —I was too afraid. But they must have sensed my antipathy. (I later learned this is a sixth sense Israelis have.)
Because my first few weeks in Jerusalem I found myself constantly getting into arguments about the conflict with my roommates and in social settings. Unlike waspy New England, Israel does not afford the privilege of politely avoiding unpleasant political conversations. Outside of the Tel Aviv bubble, the conflict is omnipresent; it affects almost every aspect of life. Avoiding it simply isn’t an option. (h/t Yenta Press)

Douglas Murray Speaking at the Israel Rally in London

Melanie Phillips: A most deplorable analogy

Now an analogy is being drawn between Britain’s decency over the Kindertransport and its supposed absence of decency over today’s European migrant crisis. Many, not least within the UK’s Jewish community – including, astoundingly, some of its religious leaders – have made much of the supposed analogy between these migrants and the Jewish refugees from Nazism. The refusal to take not just a greater number of Dubs children but also more adults migrants, they claim, is on a par with the refusal to accept refugees from the Holocaust.
I’m appalled by this analogy. Neither the Syrian civil war, brutal and unspeakable as it is, nor any other current conflict can be compared to the Holocaust.
That was the attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish people, along with the mass murder of other groups. Unlike today, there were no refugee camps from whence to pluck these victims to provide them with a better life. They were simply deprived of life altogether. The Holocaust was an attempted genocide. Today’s migrant crisis is part of a mass movement of people, not all of them refugees, which threatens to engulf western Europe.
It is absolutely nauseating that the Holocaust is being used in this way as an emotional bludgeon, so that anyone who supports restrictions on today’s migrants is not only attacked as a heartless monster but also for somehow betraying the memory of the victims of Nazism.
In fact this analogy itself diminishes the Holocaust. It is not just offensive. It displays an inability to make vital moral distinctions. It uses excruciatingly complex global dilemmas as a platform for self-centred grandstanding.
And it is simply incomprehensible, tragic and unforgivable that some who are making this comparison are Jews themselves.

What motivates a journalist to slant an article against Israel? This has never seemed a particularly difficult question. But let’s take a look at some of the possibilities. Consider it exercise for the mind. Like doing stretches. How many scenarios can you come up with?

A writer might slant an article against Israel:

· Because an editor demands he do so and it’s hate on Israel or lose your job.

· As a forever rebellion against all things Jewish, to spite the Jewish journalist’s parents/upbringing.

· As an expression of xenophobia

· Out of ignorance

· Because of antisemitism

· Because the Arab journalist’s goal is to acquire Israeli land and this is part of his narrative/agitprop

· Because of intersectionality, in the case of the leftist writer

· To get page views and advance one’s career, since hating Israel is ever popular

· Out of jealousy—the journalist doesn’t really hate Jews, but every time he gets passed over for a promotion, it’s someone Jewish and this is his way of getting back, gosh darnit

If you examine the above list, it boils down to ignorance, the acquisition of goals, or hatred.

Now a journalist who is ignorant is guilty, guilty, guilty of the worst sort of journalism. A writer is supposed to do homework. He’s supposed to track down credible sources in support of what he writes. He is supposed to gather facts. A journalist at a loss to find the data he needs says so or leaves it out of his piece. If he offers a theory because he cannot find cold, hard, data, he says it is a theory.

So no. No excuse for ignorance.

Let’s look at the acquisition of goals. Here we’re talking about someone who maybe doesn’t care one way or the other about Israel, but his newspaper tells him what editorial stance to take and by golly, that’s the position he’s going to adopt, that is if he wants to keep his job at, for instance, the New York Times. Or maybe it’s a writer just starting out and he’s going for sensational, because he wants to make it to the top. What better way to get there than smearing the world’s favorite target? Is this okay, then? Can we say that in the case of professional goals, the ends justify the means?

No. No we can’t. People are supposed to have integrity. Even if it means losing your job or staying stuck in a rut. There are things you can do, and things you can’t. Slanting articles is beyond the pale.

It’s just wrong.

Perhaps the writer is an Arab journalist who supports a worldwide caliphate for religious reasons? He wants Israel, all of it, as part of the ummah. Or perhaps he is an Arab who has been fed with his mother’s milk the idea that the Jews stole his land. Or maybe the journalist is heavy into all sorts of leftist causes like gay marriage and third-trimester abortion which means that struggling against the imagined “occupation” is just one more leftist cause, indistinguishable from the others, nothing personal, you understand.

Is this okay? No. It’s not. Any time you have to lie, which is what slanting an article is—a lie—you’re showing that the truth is not in your favor. If it were, you’d use it. Where you instead use media bias as a tool, you need to do some self-examination and do some deep thinking about your values.

And then we come to hatred: is it okay to slant an article because you hate that the entire world hates you for being Jewish and you want to prove you’re not like those other ZIO Jews?

No. It’s not okay to sacrifice your people and smear your land, your inheritance, because you want to be liked, you want to be a citizen of the world. That’s your burden to carry always, and you need to carry it with pride! They hate us because they envy us. They hate us because they can’t supplant us.

Do not choose the wrong side here. Strive to be a mensch! That is all there is, really. Our integrity is who we are in the end.

The other types of hatred that drive people to smear Israel? They don’t bear discussion here. We all know that hatred is an ugly thing that should be repulsed by all good people. Period.

Embed from Getty Images

And so it was that when I wrote my piece, Booth and Eglash: A Pathological Hatred of Israel, I felt secure in deciding that Booth and Eglash were motivated by hatred in their Israel-related articles:

When one sees the byline of William Booth and Ruth Eglash on a Washington Post article, what follows, one knows, is going to be a very ugly piece about Israel. There will be the pretense of balance, but the slant will always be there and the direction of that slant will never favor Israel. You read their stuff and you have to wonder what's wrong with them, the authors. Their regular and willful distortion of the facts must, by design, be born of deep-seated hatred for the Jewish State.

Now if the articles were balanced and at least factually true, we might have given Booth and Eglash a pass. We might have said they are writing what they write for the sake of truth. . . We could have ascribed a certain logic to reporting true but ugly news about Israel, and called the authors "truth seekers." (Even though nitpicking on Israel is kind of a strange thing to do, considering the slaughter going on next door in, for instance, Syria.)

With Booth and Eglash, however, what you've got is something far from the truth, something at a distant remove from decency and basic journalistic standards. What you've got instead is two authors pushing a single agenda and passing off selected half-truths as cover for their naked hate of Israel.

It's pathological.

It was a process of elimination. Eglash is Jewish. The Washington Post may be a media outlet that leans to the left, but it does carry articles by Eugene Kontorovich and Jennifer Rubin, who write honestly and positively of Israel.

Therefore, Eglash has made a choice when she contributes to biased articles about Israel and the choice is not in Israel’s favor. The descriptive language, the lack of context and selective context are too out there to ignore.

Booth? Well, he too, has made a choice that appears to have nothing to do with his getting ahead in his career, since, as noted above, he could have been a Jennifer Rubin or a Eugene Kontorovich writing good and truthful things about a good and truthful nation.

Is everything about Israel good?

Of course not. But we’re not talking about Israel’s warts. We’re talking about MEDIA BIAS.

Here is a recent example of a Booth article to which Ruth Eglash contributed: Netanyahu is Urged Not to Use the Words Palestinian State When He Visits Trump.

The first sentence:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likes to boast to his boisterous cabinet that no one understands the Americans better than he does.

“Likes to boast?” “Boisterous cabinet?”

This piece is not presented as an opinion piece but as a straight news piece about the Middle East. Yet here we have Netanyahu’s character described. He is described as someone boastful, someone who LIKES boasting. And the Knesset is described as “boisterous” like so many ragtag pickpockets sent out into the streets of London by Fagan, to steal and trick the people.

It’s already “Jewy.” If you see what I mean. It's a kind of character assasination.

Does it end there, the bias? If it did, we might give a pass. But no. There’s this:

His education minister and coalition partner, Naftali Bennett, leader of the pro-settlement Jewish Home party, has pressed him to abandon his tentative commitment to the two-state solution, which Netanyahu first announced in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009.

“Tentative commitment?” On what basis the use of the word “tentative” to characterize Netanyahu’s commitment? Is that fact, or is that opinion? Because if it’s fact, there needs to be a link or reference to a source that proves the point. Otherwise, it’s opinion. And if it’s opinion, it doesn’t belong here, in a straight news piece.

So let’s take a look at the text of Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech:

I told President Obama when I was in Washington that if we could agree on the substance, then the terminology would not pose a problem. And here is the substance that I now state clearly:

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

We took a look at the actual text, because Booth and Eglash made the assertion, without offering proof. Which already says something. It says they’ve got no good reason to use the word “tentative.” Because if they had a good reason, they would have offered the text of the speech as their source.

As you can see, Bibi was firm. He said, “I now state clearly,” and so forth. There is nothing tentative there. Which is why the source for this contention, this descriptor that slants the piece, is missing. It doesn’t serve their point, their slant.

We could continue to analyze the article in depth, pointing out each descriptor as I did in my earlier piece about Booth’s and Eglash’s bias, but there is a broader point I wish to make.

Back in December, I tweeted the link to my piece about Booth and Eglash only to be virtually bitch-slapped by the managing editor of Honest Reporting.

@epavard @BoothWilliam @washingtonpost Absolutely appalling. I can personally vouch 4 @reglash who is anything but an Israel hater.
— Simon Plosker (@SimonPlosker) December 15, 2016

@epavard @washingtonpost @reglash & while I don't always agree with @BoothWilliam, he is one of the most professional journos out here.
— Simon Plosker (@SimonPlosker) December 15, 2016

@epavard @washingtonpost @reglash @BoothWilliam Is hatred something u attribute 2 everyone whom u disagree with?
— Simon Plosker (@SimonPlosker) December 15, 2016

@epavard @washingtonpost @BoothWilliam On the basis that I've known @reglash 4 over 20yrs, ur suggestion that she hates Israel is offensive.
— Simon Plosker (@SimonPlosker) December 15, 2016

@epavard @washingtonpost @BoothWilliam @reglash How can u rationally critique someone's work and then assume it's driven by hate?
— Simon Plosker (@SimonPlosker) December 15, 2016

Plosker tweeted: How can u rationally critique someone's work and then assume it's driven by hate?

This is what I have tried to answer in this week’s column, after seeing several more such collaborative articles from the Washington Post’s Booth and Eglash that betray a bias against Israel.

There are the descriptors (boisterous, boasting, tentative) where none belong. There is selective omission of facts that are needed for context as referenced in my earlier piece on Booth and Eglash. There’s no getting around it. It is what it is. Media bias.

And I don’t see any good reason for media bias whatsoever, especially for such seasoned reporters as Booth and Eglash, working for a media outlet that does have pro-Israel writers among its staff. I don’t have a way to excuse the bias against Israel when I see it. And neither should you.

Media bias. It’s what you use when you’re trying to get ahead, you don’t know better, or you’re filled with hate. And there’s no excuse for any of this.

Whatsoever.