Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 01, 2018

05/01 Links Pt2: Abbas says Jews’ behavior, not anti-Semitism, caused the Holocaust; Manipulating the Truth about Gaza; DR’s Eugenic Project to ‘Resettle’ Jews During WWII

From Ian:

Abbas says Jews’ behavior, not anti-Semitism, caused the Holocaust

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday said that the Holocaust was not caused by anti-Semitism, but by the “social behavior” of the Jews, including money-lending.

In a long and rambling at speech in Ramallah at a rare session of the Palestinian National Council, Abbas touched on a number of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories during what he called a “history lesson,” as he sought to prove the 3,000 year-old Jewish connection to the Land of Israel is false.

Abbas said his narrative was backed by three points made by Jewish writers and historians, the first being the theory oft-criticized as anti-Semitic that Ashkenazi Jews are not the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

Pointing to Arthur Kessler’s book “The Thirteenth Tribe,” which asserts Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars, Abbas said European Jews therefore had “no historical ties” to the Land of Israel.

He went on to claim that the Holocaust was not the result of anti-Semitism but rather of the Jews “social behavior, [charging] interest, and financial matters.”

Abbas also claimed Israel was a European project from the start, saying that European leaders such as the United Kingdom’s Lord Arthur Balfour restricted the immigration of Jews to their countries while simultaneously promoting the immigration of Jews to the Land of Israel.

Amb. Alan Baker: Manipulating the Truth about Gaza

Who Abuses Gazan Civilians?

In claiming that in three wars Israeli bombing damaged 240,000 Gazan homes, Beinart is cynically implying that Israel chose to willfully and arbitrarily bomb Gaza, for no reason. He overlooked the fact that the three wars were generated and initiated by the Hamas terror organization that governs Gaza, firing nearly 20,000 rockets and mortars from Gazan homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals, stockpiling weapons in private homes and schools, and turning clinics and hospitals into tactical control centers. Hamas used Palestinian residents of Gaza as human shields and even prohibited them from using the kilometers of underground attack tunnels as bomb shelters.

While admitting that Hamas is no “guardian angel,” Beinart subverts logic and presents an apologetic explanation for Hamas by blaming Israel for the Hamas terror: “Hamas did not force Israel to adopt the policies that have devastated Gaza. Those policies represent a choice — a choice that has not only failed to dislodge Hamas, but has also created the very conditions in which extremism thrives.”

In referring to the Israel’s naval blockade and prevention of the passage of dual-use products into the Gaza Strip, which Beinart claims is “a blockade that is not only cruel but in some ways absurd,” he failed to add that this blockade was justified by the United Nations in light of the inherent military threat posed by Hamas.

Beinart’s ultimate expression of moral bankruptcy, absurdity, and self-hatred is the concluding equation that he draws between the 2,000 years of yearning of the Jewish People to return to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinians’ “Great March of Return.”

Today, some call the broadcast of such canards “Fake News.” Beinart’s non-truths reflect the wise saying (attributed to Swift, Twain, Jefferson, etc.): “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is lacing up its boots.”

The boots are laced.

“16 killed, thousands injured, Israeli snipers line the border,” read the brief notification on my phone, and on that of millions of other conscious global citizens relying on the mainstream media for political and global knowledge. I, along with the pro-Israel community, cringed at each of the countless buzzing notifications informing the world of the events transpiring at the Gaza-Israel border in the recent weeks. We have a far greater depth of knowledge about the complexity of the conflict than the larger populace, who generally take less of a keen interest in the specifics of the conflict, and we know for certain that such a headline doesn't nearly encapsulate the Israeli narrative of the scene in Gaza. It fails to acknowledge that at least 80% of those dead are known associates with terror group, that the snipers exercised tremendous caution with live rounds of ammunition, opting for rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the violent demonstrations. And we know that Hamas leaders cowered behind the crowds of civilians thrust towards the border and that they monetarily incentivized the crowds to breach the border fence.

But who cares? What difference does it make what we know? We each only count for one person in a general election, each of us one pro-Israel voice in a sea of voters under the impression--established and reinforced by the headlines on their devices and in the papers--that Israel fires indiscriminately into a crowd of peaceful protesters.

And the misinformation and lack of perspective and adequate figures relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict truly comprises much of Israel’s public relations nightmare. With the concept of a news cycle over a period of time being rendered obsolete by the instantaneousness of today’s news, consumers absorb as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Per the Washington Post and the American Press Institute, “roughly six in 10 people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week. And, in truth, that number is almost certainly higher than that, since plenty of people won't want to admit to just being headline-gazers but, in fact, are.” And according to Forbes, 59% of the articles shared via social media sites are not first read by the ‘sharer.’ Similarly, Twitter has a CTR (click through rate) average across all of its users of 1.64%, meaning that less than one in fifty people elect to digest the information beyond the headline of the article. Media is an omnipresent force in society--particularly those news outlets with the clout and acclaim to sway public opinion on any given issue, where even a single sentence presented (like the lede of an article) can have a profound impact in its connotations and specific phrasing.

In the immediacy of the technological age in which we live, with notifications popping up by the minute, and the needed brevity of the headline/lede to maintain reader-attentiveness while conveying a hasty picture of the situation, lots can be lost in translation. This sizeable fault in the media is much less prevalent with other major global disputes, like the American-North Korean tensions: It’s common knowledge that North Korea is bad and communist, while America is better and democratic, to put the matter simply. So when CNN reports that Kim Jong-Un has just tested the latest intercontinental ballistic missile, and it is capable of reaching Alaska, I immediately understand the danger posed and am not ambivalent when siding against North Korea.

But for issues not so black-and-white such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a simple headline can easily give off the wrong idea and formulate an opinion one way or the other, even if it’s not sufficiently substantiated, as is frequently the case.

As mentioned, headlines regarding events playing out in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict notoriously hold an anti-Israel slant--unintentionally or otherwise. Coupled with readers (or not readers, should I say) not bothering clicking on and considering the factual evidence, but instead relying on headlines, the already-harbored anti-Israel sentiment by tech-savvy, short-attention-spanned millennials and young voters can only trend upwards, shunning the facts in favor of convenience.

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.

Amnesty misses the good old times when Jews were defenseless (Petra Marquardt-Bigman)

By Petra Marquardt-Bigman

No matter how many atrocities are perpetrated all over the world, there is no worse atrocity than Israel defending its citizens – at least as far as Amnesty International is concerned. It seems that the “human rights” organization really misses the good old times when Jews were defenseless: last Friday, Amnesty told its more than one million Twitter followers:

“#Israel must stop the murderous assault on protesters in #Gaza, including killing and maiming 'Great March of Return' demonstrators who pose no imminent threat to soldiers. Countries must stop all military aid to Israel until this assault ends.”

To make sure everyone understood that the world’s only Jewish state behaved in ways that Jew-haters have always seen as characteristically evil, Amnesty posted another tweet echoing the medieval blood libel:

“Malicious tactics are being employed by the Israeli military who are deliberately using weapons of war to cause life-changing injuries to Palestinian protesters. Why are weapons still being sold to #Israel?”

On Facebook, where Amnesty has about two million followers, the organization shared the same posts.

And needless to say, there were not just social media posts, but also a lengthy statement under the title: “Israel: Arms embargo needed as military unlawfully kills and maims Gaza protesters.”

Just in case you were wondering: no, Amnesty doesn’t mention that Gaza’s Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar told a crowd of protesters near the border with Israel: “We will uproot the borders, we will pluck out their hearts, and we will pray in Jerusalem.” No word either about the fact that many of those killed were members of terror organizations; no word about the displays of swastikas (on Hitler’s birthday) or about the successful attempts to start fires across the border in Israel by releasing kites carrying burning rags or fire bombs.

Instead, Magdalena Mughrabi, Deputy Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, sounded as if she was a deputy Hamas spokesperson – according to her, the riots at Israel’s borders are just the peace-loving people of Gaza “demanding the right to return to their homes and towns in what is now Israel.”

Right, Ms. Mughrabi: now it’s Israel, but you can always hope it will eventually be Hamastan if Amnesty keeps working as hard as it can to rid the world of its only Jewish state.

So let’s conclude with a picture worth a thousand words to illustrate what Amnesty is cheering on.

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.

05/01 Links Pt1: Derisive response to PM’s exposé shows world still refusing to get real on Iran; Iran’s past lies are very important now

From Ian:

Iran’s past lies are very important now

Exposing Iran’s past lies is an important tool for inspectors in their pursuit of current truths.

On Monday Netanyahu said the new trove contains evidence that Iran’s Project Amad was “a comprehensive program to design, build and test 5 warheads, each with 10 kilotons TNT yield, for integration on a missile.”

Did the program go away after the JCPOA was enacted? If so, the 2015 deal deserves the accolades of those who continue chiming that the Iranian are “in compliance.”

But after establishing that the deal was based on past Iranian lies, and presenting new documentation to back it up, Netanyahu sounds more credible when he assesses that Iran is storing the material in a secret place “to use at a time of its choice to develop nuclear weapons.”

Especially that Tehran refuses to make the former head of the Amad Project, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, available for inspectors’ interviews. (Fakhrizadeh, a major player in Iran’s military research, is designated by the United Nations for international sanctions.)

The more we know about how Iran deceived us in the past about the depth of its program and its true intentions, the less we can confidently argue that Iran is currently in “full compliance.”

Netanyahu made his presentation after hosting new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Israel and after concluding a telephone call with President Trump Saturday. Contrary to instant commentary, Trump was not the target audience for the drama. Netanyahu made clear the US, as well as other close allies, already have the material Israel unearthed (the IAEA will get it soon, he added.)

Instead, by giving a pause to those, especially in Europe, who maintain that the nuclear deal is “working,” he forced them to try harder to “fix” the JCPOA if they want Trump not to “nix” it.

The deadline is May 12. Tick tock.

Stop playing make-believe

The information revealed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday was meant to prod the international community to stop playing make-believe around the Iranian issue. It essentially shows us that another Iran, benevolent and responsible, does not exist – rather only the same old Iran, dangerous and manipulative, which unrestrained will plunge the entire world into a hazardous tailspin. Israeli officials had poured over this material for several weeks.

Before it was made public, it was also transferred to the Americans, and now it will pass on to other friendly countries – specifically those signed to the nuclear deal with Tehran. Although none of this information is new or implicates Iran of currently violating the nuclear deal, peeling the Iranians' mask off isn't only geared toward pushing Trump to annul the deal (which is expected to happen May 12), but toward reforging an international coalition to again force Iran into a corner – among other means by exploiting its shoddy economy and deepening social rifts between conservatives and reformists. Israel has a double interest in this regard: First, Israel fears a nuclear Iran and wants to delay its path to a bomb as long as possible; and second, it hopes that exposing Iran's activities at this juncture will also disrupt its efforts to establish a foothold in Syria.

These interlocking tracks have yet to garner a great deal of empathy from a fatigued international community (outside of Washington) still hoping to find big and easy money in Iran. Consequently, Israel has been abandoned in this fight. Alone, it has had to gather the intelligence used to expose Iran's clandestine nuclear efforts (an extraordinary achievement by the intelligence community, spearheaded by the Mossad) and its activities in Syria.

Ben-Dror Yemini: Trump’s ‘madness’ may be doing the trick

The nuclear agreement with Iran is a bad agreement, mainly because it gave the Shi'ite country an open-ended ticket to a Middle Eastern expansion. Since the agreement was signed, Iran has turned into a regional power that controls—fully or partially—Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and influences Hamas as well. And its appetite is only growing.

It’s true that Iran is in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s true that the Iranian currency is collapsing. It’s true that there are different streams in Iran. But the thing is, as an exiled Iranian professor told me a decade ago, the Iranian regime doesn’t go by rational or conventional rules. Its logic is similar to Hamas’ logic: The most important thing is the damage inflicted on the enemy, regardless of the harm to Iran’s residents. That’s why it’s more important to invest a fortune in a military infrastructure in Syria than to solve Iran’s economic problems. Just like Hamas prefers to invest tens of millions of dollars in the industry of death than in the Gaza Strip’s reconstruction.

We must admit that the rational Western approach has failed miserably in the face of the North Korean and Iranian madness. Appeasement is perceived as weakness. So to make some kind of change, there may be a need for an American leader whose conduct is slightly “insane.” In this sense, contrary to what I myself thought, the Trump method may be providing to yield dividends. Kim wouldn’t have changed his stance if it weren’t for Trump’s tough stance.

Which leads us to the Palestinian arena. An American success vis-à-vis Pyongyang will weaken Tehran’s bargaining position, which in turn will affect Trump’s peace plan in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s possible, just possible, that the US is delaying the presentation of its peace plan until it reaches a much stronger position after the developments in the Korean and Iranian arenas.

In recent months, the Palestinians have adopted an ultra-scornful approach towards the US in general and Trump in particular. It’s possible that in a few weeks from now, they will meet a new Trump. Granted, that won’t make them give up fantasies like “the right of return,” and the right-wing government in Israel would not rush to accept a peace plan which includes conceding most of Judea and Samaria. But there is a difference between a plan presented by an inarticulate and rejected Trump and a peace plan presented by a president who has scored considerable achievements in the international arena.

We are in the midst of a fascinating diplomatic chess game. Trump is making unpredictable and unrecommended moves in every sphere, including moving the American embassy to Jerusalem. There’s no need to be one of his fans to admit that if he succeeds, we’ll be living in a slightly more civilized world. And I will be forced to eat my hat too. Inshallah.

J Street, founded back in November 2007, made no secret of its agenda in its beginnings. In 2009, co-founder Jeremy Ben-Ami admitted to New York Times journalist James Traub:

Our No. 1 agenda item is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.

Back then, there was also no secret about what kind of candidates J Street was going to support -- all you had to do was check their website.

o  In 2010, J Street endorsed 61 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2012, J Street endorsed 41 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2014, J Street endorsed 71 candidates - all Democrats
o  In 2016, J Street endorsed 73 candidates - all Democrats

That's 246 candidates J Street has endorsed during that time, and all of them Democrats.

So much for the importance of bi-partisan support for Israel.

Instead, when J Street claims it is "The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans" -- it should admit that only Democrats need apply!

That page no longer exists.

Instead, these days there is a separate site, J Street Pac, which lists J Street Pac candidates. It lists the candidates according to name, state and office -- but unlike the obsolete page on the J Street site, this page does not list the party of the candidate.

So what kind of candidates is J Street going to support?

Since J Street claims to be pro-Israel, one would naturally suppose that J Street will make a point of supporting only those candidates whose pro-Israel bona fides are impeccable.

But then again, J Street's pro-Israel bona fides are themselves far from impeccable.

True, J Street claims to support Israel, that it is "pro-Israel, pro-peace".

But look at their record:

o Despite their repeated denials to the contrary, in 2008 and 2009 J Street received funding from George Soros, who is on nobody's list of top supporters of Israel.

o In 2009, Ben Ami claimed J Street "refuses to embrace" the Goldstone Report, which criticized Israel on its conduct during Operation Cast Lead (December 27, 2008 - January 18, 2009). But when a resolution was sponsored in Congress condemning the report, Goldstone circulated a document to defend it. The source of the report traced to Mort Halperin of the J Street advisory council. In 2011, Goldstone himself repudiated his own report.

o In fact, J Street went so far as to facilitate visits for Goldstone to the Hill

o Already in 2009, there were connections between JStreet and NIAC, a pro-Iranian advocacy group that would become instrumental in pushing the Iran deal -- which J Street still supports.

o More recently, last year J Street brought "Breaking the Silence" to speak during Yom HaZikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.

So if this is the kind of organization J Street is, we can expect that the candidates it supports reflect J Street's own anti-Israel animus.

Here is a recent example that proves the point.

On April 25, a letter signed by 3 Congressmen was sent to Ron Dermer, Israeli ambassador to the US to oversee the use of US tax dollars for humanitarian aid in Gaza:

Among the points the letter claims:

o There is a decade-old blockade of Gaza - not mentioning that the blockade was instituted as a response to the bloody Hamas coup that led to the increased threat of rockets and terror attacks. Also not mentioned is the millions of tons of food and supplies provided by Israel, a fact that challenges the claim that there is a "blockade"

o The threat to the water and electricity is mentioned generally, as if Israel is to blame for shortages, with no mention that the government is run by a terrorist organization, which should be held responsible for its actions -- but is not.

o Aid through UNRWA is referred to as having a security function, despite the numerous examples of the anti-Israel bias of UNRWA, as documented by Elder of Ziyon

o Israel denied their request in June 2016 to enter Gaza, a request they claim was without justification. It would be convenient for Israel to give a reason and justification for refusing the request, but the fact remains it is Israel's border and it has the right to refuse.

o The letter suggests that in refusing the request, Israel does not want them to see the worsening conditions in Gaza -- again implying that Israel is responsible for them.

The 3 Congressmen who signed the letter -- Pocan, Kildee and Johnson -- are supported by J Street. What else do we know about them?

The Washington Free Beacon reported that Representative Mark Pocan was identified as the member of Congress who last year anonymously reserved official Capitol Hill space for an anti-Israel forum organized by organizations that support boycotts. In the end, Pocan did not attend the anti-Israel forum he sponsored. A senior Congressional official was quoted as saying

[Pocan] chose to facilitate a pro-BDS smear campaign using taxpayer dollars without even showing his face at the event...As millions of Jews and non-Jews alike celebrate the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, Congressman Pocan and his J-Street lackeys are spending their time working to undermine the state of Israel.

Senator Mark Pocan official photo

Another of the 3 Congressmen, Representative Hank Johnson, referred to Israelis living in Judea and Samaria as...termites:

There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming.

Johnson's 2016 statement of "increasing" se ttlement activity is easily refuted by the facts. Keep in mind that Johnson is the one who claimed in 2010 that stationing 8,000 Marines on Guam would cause the island to "become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

As an apology for his dehumanizing comment, Johnson said his comment was a:

Poor choice of words – apologies for offense...Point is settlement activity continues slowly undermine 2-state solution.

Senator Hank Johnson official photo

As for Congressman Kildee, he was one of 3 Congressman in 2016 who met with Shawan Jabarin, an Arab terrorist affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Mark Pocan and Hank Johnson were among them. Such a meeting implies sloppy vetting - or worse.

Senator Daniel Kildee official photo

When you compare the statements and actions of J Street with those of Senators Mark Pocan, Hank Johnson and Daniel Kildee they do seem to be a good fit -- they all undermine Israel.

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.

From Jordan Times:

His Majesty King Abdullah on Tuesday attended the 2018 King Abdullah II World Interfaith Harmony Week prize ceremony at Al Husseiniya Palace and presented awards to the winners.
Launched by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in 2013, the annual prize is awarded to three activities or texts that best promote the values connected to the World Interfaith Harmony Week, which is celebrated in the first week of February and was launched by King Abdullah and unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2010.

The judges for the awards included:

HB Patriarch Theophilus III – Patriarch of the Holy City, Palestine and Jordan, who has been fighting to annul the sales of church property to Jews in Jerusalem.

And also HE Sheikh Dr Ali Gomaa – former Grand Mufti of the Arab Republic of Egypt, who has preached:

One day this miracle will take place, when the Palestinians and all the Muslims will fight the Jews until even the stone and the tree will talk, except for the Ghardaq. That is what the hadith says. In Egypt, we have turned this into "Ghardaqa." The city of Ghardaqa is named after the Gharqad trees planted there. They changed the order of the letters, but it's the same thing.
[…]
Some people question the reliability of this hadith, but it is 100% authentic and will come true. Look how the Jews are planting Gharqad trees all over the West Bank. They know that it will protect them when they hide behind it. They believe these sacred texts, while some Muslims doubt them. But most of the Muslims believe in these texts and will continue to do so.

Yes, the people who judge a competition for religious tolerance are themselves intolerant. And they are chosen as representatives by supposedly moderate, tolerant Jordan.

This gives a slight idea of how entrenched antisemitism is in the Arab world.

Somehow I don't think the New York Times will be interested in this story.

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.

"If Jews have the right to a land, they have a right to return to Saudi Arabia too"

We have pointed out before the major reason behind today's Arab denial of Jewish peoplehood: that if they recognize Jews as a people and not merely members of a religion, then Jews have rights to the homeland of their ancestors. Since the Arabs claim the same land and their claim is far more recent, they must deny Jewish peoplehood - which is a clear manifestation of antisemitism.

In the words of the current editor of Ma'an News, "If we say that the Jews are a people, then there is no place for the Palestinian people on the land of Palestine."

In a piece in Arabi21, writer Rami al-Jundi shows that this logic scares Arabs in other ways. In an effort to discredit the Saudi Crown Prince Salman's seeming recognition of a Jewish people and their rights to a state, he notes that if that is true, then there is a "Jewish right to return to Bani Qinqaa Al-Nadeer and Khaybar" in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Jundi moans that "his declaration is a clear and unequivocal political recognition of the right of the Jews in a state in the occupied Palestinian territories, which is contrary to what Arab leaders have done over the past years. "

I am not aware of any Jews clamoring to return to Khaybar, the site that Arab antisemites like to remind us was a place that Mohammed massacred Jews. But the logic isn't that Jews aren't a people, but that if Arabs recognize them to be what they actually are then their own political positions are compromised, so better to push out a fiction of Jews not being a people.

This fear of Jews demanding a right to "return" to their old cities in Arab lands might make interesting leverage in other contexts, though!

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.

04/30 Links Pt2: Netanyahu: Iran ‘brazenly lied’ about nuclear program; What’s wrong with American Jewish liberals; Something Is Rotten in Israel: It’s the New Israel Fund

From Ian:

Netanyahu: Iran ‘brazenly lied’ about nuclear program, continued work after deal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of lying about its nuclear program in a speech broadcast live Monday, revealing information he said showed the Islamic Republic had for years worked on developing nuclear weapons, and continued to pursue such weapons even after signing the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

The premier, who has repeatedly called for the accord between world powers and Iran to either be altered or scrapped, said Israel had obtained 100,000 secret Iranian files “a few weeks ago in a great intelligence achievement.”

Speaking in English at the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu gave a presentation including videos and slides he said exposed Iran’s nuclear dossier.

“You may well know that Iran’s leaders repeatedly deny ever pursuing nuclear weapons,” he said, before playing clips of Iran’s supreme leader, president and foreign minister denying the country ever sought such capabilities weapons.

“Iran lied. Big time,” said Netanyahu, adding that the trove included a half-ton of material.

The cache, he said, contained “incriminating documents, incriminating charts, incriminating presentations, incriminating blueprints, incriminating photos, incriminating videos and more.

After Netanyahu’s speech, Trump says ‘I’ve been 100 percent right’ on Iran

Shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech detailing covert Iranian efforts to build a nuclear program, and with less than two weeks before his deadline to exit the nuclear accord with Tehran, US President Donald Trump on Monday said the deal was “unacceptable” in its present form.

Responding to Netanyahu’s broadcast in which the prime minister revealed that Israel had obtained 100,000 secret Iranian documents pertaining to the program, Trump said, “What’s happening today and what’s happened over the last little while and what we’ve learned has really shown that I’ve been 100 percent right.

“That is just not an acceptable situation, and I’ve been saying that’s happening,” he went on in the White House Rose Garden, alongside Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari. “They’re not sitting back idly; they’re setting off missiles, which they say are for television purposes? I don’t think so.”

The American leader also declined to share whether he’s decided to walk away from the landmark agreement by May 12, the next deadline to waive sanctions against the Islamic Republic under the deal. Trump last signed those waivers in January, but he said he would not again unless Congress and European allies amend the pact.

“We’ll see what happens,” he said. “I’m not telling you what I’m doing, but a lot of people think they know. On or before the 12th, we’ll make a decision. That doesn’t mean we won’t negotiate a real agreement. You know, this is an agreement that wasn’t approved by too many people, and it’s a horrible agreement for the United States, including the fact… that we gave Iran $150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash.

“You know what we got?” Trump continued. “We got nothing. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t negotiate a new agreement, we’ll see what happens.”

The Duplicitous Diplomat: Seven Deceptions Iranian FM Zarif Told Face the Nation

4) “We never wanted to produce a bomb.”

Later on Zarif reiterated this, saying, “Iran commits itself never to develop a nuclear weapon.”

In fact, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran had sought to develop a nuclear weapon until 2003. The IAEA, in 2015, prior to implementation of the nuclear deal in January 2016, determined that Iran was attempting to design a nuclear weapon at least until 2009. Iran also failed to answer all of the questions asked of it about its nuclear program by the IAEA prompting The New York Times to observe, “Iran’s refusal to cooperate on central points could set a dangerous precedent as the United Nations agency tries to convince other countries with nuclear technology that they must fully answer queries to determine if they have a secret weapons program.”

Iran has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past and no matter what’s written on a piece of paper (that Iran never signed), Iran can be expected to do so in the future.

Ottoman archives recognize Al Aqsa mosque built on area of Temple

Elder of Lobby noticed this in the Ottoman Imperial Archives:

Let's look at that caption a little closer, shall we?

I guess this is when the Muslims that claim there was never a Jewish Temple on the site regroup and decide that Solomon was a Muslim.

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.

PLO tells their people to keep resisting until Israel is destroyed via "return"

The Western media has been downplaying the meaning of "return" in the weekly Gaza "Great Return March" riots.

But to Palestinian Arabs, the meaning has always been clear. They intend to "return" to take over Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias and Nazareth more than they want an independent state in the West Bank.

Here is a poster that the PLO - the official representative of the Palestinians to the world - has released for "Nakba Day":

When they say that there is "no alternative to return" they know, and their people know, exactly what that means.

Yasir Arafat said this about "return" in 1980: "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations… We shall not rest until the day when we return to our home, and until we destroy Israel."

Nothing that the PLO has done since then, including Oslo, has contradicted this basic position. And for proof of that - see what Arafat said after Oslo.

In 1995, in a speech celebrating the birth of his daughter, he said, "The Israelis are mistaken if they think we do not have an alternative to negotiations. By Allah I swear they are wrong. The Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice until either the last boy and the last girl raise the Palestinian flag over the walls, the churches and the mosques of Jerusalem."

In 1996, in a speech to Arab diplomats, he said, "The PLO will now concentrate on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps... We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. Jews will not want to live among Arabs. I have no use for Jews. They are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under Arab rule."

Also in 1996, Arafat is quoted as saying in a speech in Stockholm, “We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilled to redeem our land!”

The PLO has never, ever repudiated Arafat's words. On the contrary, it and Abbas has emphasized how they have not changed their position one bit since 1988.

If they wanted to build a country, they would welcome all Palestinians into the areas they control. They wouldn't want to send them to an enemy country that they teach their children routinely kills them.

But this poster, just like Arafat's statements, proves that the intent of the Palestinian leadership was never to build a nation but to destroy one.

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.

04/30 Links Pt1: Netanyahu make ‘significant’ announcement on Iran’s nuclear program; Glick: Time to Leave the Iran Deal; Trump 'seriously considering' letting Pollard move to Israel

From Ian:

Netanyahu to announce ‘significant’ new info on Iran’s nuclear program

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will announce a “significant development” regarding Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers in a live speech at 8 p.m. Monday, his office said.

Netanyahu will give the statement at the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv.

According to Hadashot news and Channel 10 news, Netanyahu will reveal intelligence information, based on a large cache of documents recently obtained by Israel, which he believes proves Iran has duped the world regarding the state of its nuclear program.

Channel 10 reported that Netanyahu will speak in English, in order for the announcement to reach a worldwide audience.

Ahead of his remarks, Netanyahu cancelled a speech he was to make at the Knesset and his Likud party called off its weekly faction meeting due to the security tensions. The opposition Zionist Union and Yesh Atid parties withdrew their proposed no-confidence vote in the government. Given the “sensitive” security situation, it was appropriate to “show a unified front,” said Zionist Union MK Yoel Hasson.

Palestinians must make peace or shut up, Saudi crown prince said to tell US Jews

At a meeting with Jewish leaders in New York last month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman castigated the Palestinian leadership for rejecting opportunities for peace with Israel for decades, and said they should either start accepting peace proposals or “shut up.”

Citing what it said were multiple sources, Israel’s Channel 10 News on Sunday night quoted what it said were remarks made by the crown prince at the meeting that left those who were present “staggered” by the ferocity of his criticism of the Palestinians.

“For the past 40 years, the Palestinian leadership has missed opportunities again and again, and rejected all the offers it was given,” the Saudi leader reportedly said.

“It’s about time that the Palestinians accept the offers, and agree to come to the negotiating table — or they should shut up and stop complaining,” he reportedly went on.

Prince Salman also told the US Jewish leaders that “the Palestinian issue is not at the top of the Saudi government’s agenda” and elaborated, “There are much more urgent and more important issues to deal with — such as Iran,” according to the TV report.

Officials: Trump 'seriously considering' letting Pollard move to Israel

US President Donald Trump is “seriously considering” changing the parole conditions of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to allow him to come to Israel, Israeli officials said at The Jerusalem Post Conference in New York on Sunday.

Pollard was paroled from prison in November 2015 after serving 30 years of a life sentence for spying for Israel, America’s ally. But his parole conditions prevent him from leaving New York State and moving to, or even visiting Israel.

In a recent conversation with a visitor to New York, Pollard revealed that he and his wife, Esther, were suffering from poor health and had dealt with significant medical challenges over the past year.

Asked if he had hope that the Trump administration would commute his sentence and allow him to go to Israel, Pollard told the visitor he met on the street: “I am praying for a miracle. I just want to come home.”

Intelligence Services Minister Israel Katz said allowing Pollard to come to Israel would be another welcome gesture by the Trump administration when the US Embassy moves to Jerusalem.

“In order to make the celebration even happier, I would like to ask our great friend President Trump to give the Israeli public one more present and to allow Jonathan Pollard to come to Israel and celebrate with us in Jerusalem,” Katz said.

The price even a non-intentional embrace of anti-Israel propaganda places on the believer was brought home to me during a recent conversation with a good friend, whose opinion I respect on all matters, who was aghast at the bloodletting at the Gaza border over the last month.

Interestingly, she was willing to accept that the thousands of rockets shot from Gaza into Israel over the last decade constitutes acts of war, and was even willing to believe that Hamas was responsible for civilian casualties on its own side if it placed its rockets in civilian locations. And, with a little cross-examination, she was ready to give up her original assertion that the tunnels Hamas has been digging incessantly into Israel were not a means of civilian resupply, but rather tools of war.

But neither of these understandings could budge her from the opinion that Israel’s use of live fire to protect its border with Gaza was appropriate or legitimate. “You don’t shoot people,” she kept coming back to. In other words, she believes that the IDF has the right and responsibility to arrest, detain and do whatever other non-lethal things it could to protect the people it defends from harm, but that shooting should be a last resort to be applied only when actual lives are in danger.

Now keep in mind that my interlocutor is a decent and moral person, as well as being highly intelligent. But as we went through a series of logic-based arguments regarding the difference between war and crime fighting, the fact that a majority of those killed were jihadi fighters, or nature of the Hamas regime and its primary role in creating Gaza’s misery, I was clearly unable to shake her of the belief that undergirded her primary response to current events: that you shouldn’t shoot people if you don’t have to.

And you know what? She’s right! In the ordinary course of life, and even in policing and warfare, you shouldn’t shoot people if other effective choices are available. But given that non-shooting options, like the construction of a separation barrier in the West Bank (which all but eliminated casualties from both terror and the fight against it) has become Exhibit A for the Israel = Apartheid propaganda slur, it’s not at all clear that promises to judge Israel less harshly if it does something to defend itself other than what it’s doing right now will ever be kept.

Getting back to Gaza, it continues to surprise me just how many false things one must believe to accept the anti-Israel narrative. For instance, images and video that incontestably show the violent nature of the Hamas-inspired marches is on display for all to see. But this must be put aside in order to declare the marches and the marchers “peaceful,” or non-violence must be redefined to make room for Molotov cocktails, incendiaries, swastikas, and the occasional live ammunition.

One must also believe that even if rocket fire and the digging of infiltration tunnels – the primary activity of those who govern Gaza – might be warlike, this new tactic (charging the border week after week) is peaceful.

And I won’t even mention the things that didn’t come up in our conversation, such as Hamas’ attitude and behavior towards women, gays and religious minorities (never mind its medieval beliefs about Jews), things that should appall anyone who believes in the rights of such groups to not suffer humiliation, torture and death – not to mention the rights of the individual to live as he or she likes.

In trying to understand how good and smart people can believe bad and stupid things, I keep coming back to the concept of ruthlessness. While you can see a description of the phenomena here, and a much longer one in this series, it is easiest to sum up the concept with its most vivid example.

After World War I, the loss of a generation left the nations of Europe exhausted, demoralized and ready to consider any alternative superior to war. In theory, this laid the groundwork for finding new ways to settle disputes other than armed conflict. But, in one of history’s typical ironies, it also meant anyone ready to trigger another war would have enormous leverage over those who wanted to avoid war at all cost.

Thus, Adolf Hitler’s choice to threaten to reignite the continent if his territorial demands were not meant was not the act of a crazy monster, but rather the rational calculation of a ruthless actor who was ready to do every day what others could not even contemplate.

Today, when war is even more destructive and attitudes towards it even more hostile, most people can’t contemplate that this beast called ruthlessness still drives the decision making of political actors. Accepting that Israel’s enemies deliberately put their own civilians at risk in order to either kill or malign Jews and maintain power means accepting that ruthless actors are still doing things that decent people have trouble even imagining.

And one way of not thinking about something that puts your whole world view in jeopardy (especially a world view which hopes for an end to armed conflict altogether) is to strip away the dark corners of reality, replacing difficult moral choices – especially those that arise when faced with a ruthless foe – with comforting bromides, like “shooting people is bad.”

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.

Israeli reporter Barak Ravid writes in Axios:

In a closed-door meeting with heads of Jewish organizations in New York on March 27th, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) gave harsh criticism of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), according to an Israeli foreign ministry cable sent by a diplomat from the Israeli consulate in New York, as well three sources — Israeli and American — who were briefed about the meeting.

The bottom line of the crown prince's criticism: Palestinian leadership needs to finally take the proposals it gets from the U.S. or stop complaining.

According to my sources, the Saudi Crown Prince told the Jewish leaders:

"In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining."

MBS also made two other points on the Palestinian issue during the meeting:

He made clear the Palestinian issue was not a top priority for the Saudi government or Saudi public opinion. MBS said Saudi Arabia "has much more urgent and important issues to deal with" like confronting Iran's influence in the region.
Regardless of all his criticism of the Palestinian leadership, MBS also made clear that in order for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to normalize relations with Israel there will have to be significant progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

We've noted rumors of this sort before, and we've observed the definite change in behavior by the Saudis towards the Palestinian leadership over the last several years, this is the most reliable source for current Saudi thinking about Palestinian leadership yet.

(h/t 20committee)

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.

From the New York Times:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Israel Sunday in the midst of the worst crisis in relations between Israelis and Palestinians in years, but he did not meet a single Palestinian representative and mentioned them publicly once.

For decades, American diplomats saw themselves as brokers between the two sides, and secretaries of state typically met Palestinian representatives on regional tours like this one. When relations between the two sides deteriorated, the United States sought to bridge the divide.

No more.

No one at the State Department called Palestinian leaders to ask for a get-together with Mr. Pompeo, according to Palestinian officials.

Finally, in paragraph 4, the NYT explains possibly why Pompeo didn't try to talk to Palestinian leaders:

And that may be because the Americans knew the answer they would have gotten: No.

In January, Vice President Pence tried to visit the Palestinian leadership and he was rebuffed. And the method of refusing to meet him was calculated to be an insult to him and to the United States.

Since then, the Palestinian leaders have led the charge in trying to isolate the US at the UN, with anti-US Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

But the New York Times has no bad words to say about what this tells us about the Palestinian rejection of the peace process. No, only the US is blamed:

“No meeting in Ramallah on his first visit sets an ominous tone about prospects for any progress, or even dialogue, with the Palestinians,” said Daniel B. Shapiro, an American ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration.

Aaron David Miller, a former negotiator for the United States in the Middle East, said Mr. Pompeo’s seeming indifference toward the Palestinians “at the very least suggests a casual disregard of the Israeli-Palestinian explosion that may be building and the U.S.’s inability or unwillingness to influence the course of events.”

It is possible that Shapiro and Miller - who are no idiots - also blamed the PLO's intransigence in their interviews, but the New York Times isn't interested in assigning blame anyone but members of the Trump administration.

Oh, and that headline that implies that Pompeo is the one who said they have "nothing to discuss" was actually a quote from a PLO official, in paragraph 6.

Would it have been better for Pompeo to have publicly announced he wanted to meet with Abbas, to be humiliated again?

Apparently that is what the New York Times wants.

To the editors of that newspaper, the Palestinians have no responsibility for their actions. On the contrary, their anti-peace actions are considered reasonable.

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.

US ambassador visits Arab high tech leaders in Nazareth

This is the sort of thing that US ambassadors have done in Israel for a long time, but since the world likes to label David Friedman as an anti-Arab settler or whatever, it is fun to show that he wholeheartedly supports Arabs in Israel .

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.