Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

08/27 Links Pt1: Benjamin Netanyahu: A Plan for Peace; Abandoning East Jerusalem would undermine both its residents and Zionism; Gazan terrorists fire mortar shells at Israel; IDF retaliates with airstrike

From Ian:

Could an Old Israeli Plan for Peace be America’s New One. Is America about to adopt the Israeli prime minister’s 20-year-old plan for a durable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians?

Of late, a new “villain” was introduced into political discussions about the future of the Middle East. There are those who said that the responsibility for a thousand years of Middle Eastern obstinacy, radicalism, and fundamentalism has now been compressed into one person—namely, me. My critics contended that if only I had been less “obstructionist” in my policies, the convoluted and tortured conflicts of the Middle East would immediately and permanently have settled themselves.

While it is flattering for any person to be told that he wields so much power and influence, I am afraid that I must forgo the compliment. This is not false modesty. The problem of achieving a durable peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is complicated enough. Yet it pales in comparison with the problem of achieving an overall peace in the region. Even after the attainment of peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors, any broader peace in the region will remain threatened by the destabilizing effects of Islamic fundamentalism and Iran and Iraq’s fervent ambition to arm themselves with ballistic missiles and atomic weapons. Let me first say categorically: It is possible for Israel to achieve peace with its Arab neighbors. But if this peace is to endure, it must be built on foundations of security, justice, and above all, truth. Truth has been the first casualty of the Arab campaign against Israel, and a peace built upon half-truths and distortions is one that will eventually be eroded and whittled away by the harsh political winds that blow in the Middle East. A real peace must take into account the true nature of this region, with its endemic antipathies, and offer realistic remedies to the fundamental problem between the Arab world and the Jewish state.

Fundamentally, the problem is not a matter of shifting this or that border by so many kilometers, but reaffirming the fact and right of Israel’s existence. The territorial issue is the linchpin of the negotiations that Israel must conduct with the Palestinian Authority, Syria, and Lebanon. Yet a territorial peace is hampered by the continuing concern that once territories are handed over to the Arab side, they will be used for future assaults to destroy the Jewish state. Many in the Arab world have still not had an irreversible change of heart when it comes to Israel’s existence, and if Israel becomes sufficiently weak the conditioned reflex of seeking our destruction would resurface. Ironically, the ceding of strategic territory to the Arabs might trigger this destructive process by convincing the Arab world that Israel has become vulnerable enough to attack.

That Israel’s existence was a bigger issue than the location of its borders was brought home to me in the first peace negotiations that I attended as a delegate to the Madrid Peace Conference in October 1991. In Madrid, the head of the Palestinian delegation delivered a flowery speech calling for the cession of major Israeli population centers to a new Palestinian state and the swamping of the rest of Israel with Arab refugees, while the Syrian foreign minister questioned whether the Jews, not being a nation, had a right to a state of their own in the first place. (And this at a peace conference!) Grievances over disputed lands and disputed waters, on which the conference sponsors hoped the participants would eventually focus their attention, receded into insignificance in the face of such a primal hostility toward Israel’s existence. This part of the conference served to underscore the words of Syria’s defense minister, Mustafa Tlas, who with customary bluntness had summed up the issue one year earlier: “The conflict between the Arab nation and Zionism is over existence, not borders.”

From the book A Durable Peace: Israel and its Place Among the Nations by Benjamin Netanyahu. Copyright © 2000 by Benjamin Netanyahu. Reprinted by permission of Grand Central Publishing, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

Why Have Israelis and Palestinians Failed to Make Peace

Israelis value security above all else, located as they are in a region filled with people, organizations, and governments that at best do not want them there and in many cases are actively trying to kill them.

In the quarter-century since the Oslo Accords, Israelis and Palestinians have failed to make peace. The responsibility for that failure belongs to the Palestinians.

The Palestinian entity in control of Gaza, the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas, says explicitly that it will never accept Jewish sovereignty and devotes its resources to terrorism against Israel.

Its putatively moderate counterpart in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has refused all offers to settle the conflict, which have included substantial territorial concessions.

The PA has never put forward a counteroffer of its own. It has done nothing to build the institutions of statehood other than deploying multiple police forces that repress political opposition. It has generated vile anti-Jewish propaganda that harks back to Europe in the 1930s and has sponsored the murder of Jews by publicly praising and paying the murderers. The Palestinians have thus clearly demonstrated that they are not "a partner for peace."

Assuring the Palestinians that they will pay no price - indeed that they will continue to receive generous Western political and financial support - for their unyielding and indeed violent refusal to accept the legitimacy and permanence of a Jewish state in the Middle East has helped to perpetuate the conflict.

Israel Thrives: Does Israel Need US Weaponry?

Israel has given to the US much to offset the foreign aid that has allowed Israel to maintain its security edge. And, of course, we appreciate that help and assistance. But, what about the future? I think over the next few years Israel will do its best not to be put in the situation that it was in during the last war in Gaza. Where a president Obama could hold Israel hostage by not allowing them to resupply smart weapons from storage facilities right here in Israel.

The agreement was that in payment for the US storing the tools of war in Israel, Israel would be able to re-arm without asking permission. Going back on that agreement was a surprise for Israel, and taught us a lesson. The lesson is, don't put your best pardner into the position where he can deny you the weapons you need to survive. Recently I read that in preparations for the next war Israel has been manufacturing, and storing bombs, missiles, ammunition, and more so that we don't put ourselves at risk. It is reported that we have 10 times the stored weapons that we had during the 2006 war in Lebanon. In the future, Israel will be less and less dependent upon the largess of the US and foreign aid. I think that we will, however, go into joint venture deals where weapons systems will be developed jointly. The US may supply the bulk of the financing, while Israel supplies the brain power, and real time testing under combat situations.

All of the above says loudly that Israel will be more like a co-equal with the US rather than a small nation dependent on the largess of a larger big brother. Never again will we be put in the position where a mission to destroy a target has to be canceled because we felt compelled to tell the US our plans. And, the US called the target to warn him. This was done by Obama, the leader of our so called greatest allie. We know that Obama isn't unique, there will be another one sometime in the future. For that reason we are more self-reliant than ever and will continue to be so.

The weekend that could have turned out differently if it hadn’t been for one bold move: pic.twitter.com/iYrgwjuv6V
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) August 26, 2019

What Is It About Palestinian Accountability That So Irks Tlaib and Sarsour? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

It all started with this comment by Jake Tapper, making a comparison between the rhetoric that led to the El Paso massacre and Palestinian incitement to terrorism.

"You hear conservatives all the time — rightly so, in my opinion — talk about the tone set by people in the Arab world. Palestinian leaders talking about, and the way they talk about Israelis, justifying, in the same way you're doing, no direct link necessarily between what the leader says and the violence against some poor Israeli girl in a pizzeria — but the idea that you’re validating this hatred. You can’t compare the ideology of Hamas with anything else but at the same time, either tone matters or it doesn’t."

People seemed surprised by Tapper's comparison.

On the one hand, how often do you see the media actually call out Palestinian incitement of hatred against Israelis? Not only that, but Tapper also mentioned in passing the Sbarro Massacre, in which 15 civilians were murdered including 7 children and a pregnant woman, and 130 were wounded on August 9, 2001. The mastermind behind the attack, Ahlam Tamimi, is still given refuge by the Jordanian government, despite US demands that she be turned over to the US per the extradition treaty between the 2 countries.

Tapper's reference to "some poor Israeli girl in a pizzeria" is a reference to Malka Roth, who had dual US citizenship, on which basis her father Arnold Roth has been pursuing justice for his daughter.

On the other hand, there were those who are unused to seeing such a blunt reference to Palestinian terrorism, and were maybe more accustomed to newspaper headlines that tended to blame Palestinian attacks on the weapons used rather than on the people who wielded them.

Along came Tapper and violated the narrative.

Rashida Tlaib went after Tapper, claiming that Tapper was “comparing Palestinian human rights activists to terrorist white nationalists.”

To which Tapper replied:

Apparently, Tapper was too polite to ask Tlaib to clarify which Hamas terrorists she considered to be "Palestinian human rights activists."

Then Linda Sarsour took what these days is considered the next logical step, calling for Tapper to be fired.

We’re teaming up with Jewish Voice For Peace to let CNN President Jeff Zucker know that this kind of casual anti-Arab and Islamophobic bigotry—particularly in the aftermath of an explicitly anti-immigrant mass shooting—is unconscionable.

By inserting Palestinians and Arabs in a conversation about white supremacist violence, Tapper pushed the Islamophobic “terrorist” narrative about Muslims and Arabs that’s been mainstreamed over the past few decades.

Tapper is Islamophobic for criticizing Palestinian terrorists?

Check out this definition of Islamophobia -- from CAIR, no less:

Questioning Islam or Muslims is not Islamophobia

It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Equally, it is not Islamophobic to denounce crimes committed by individual Muslims or those claiming Islam as a motivation for their actions.

"A critical study of Islam or Muslims is not Islamophobic," former CAIR Research Director Mohamed Nimer wrote in 2007. "Likewise, a disapproving analysis of American history and government is not anti-American... One can disagree with Islam or with what some Muslims do without having to be hateful." [emphasis added]

Even if Tlaib and Sarsour do consider the arbitrary killing of unarmed Israeli men, women and children to be in defense of Palestinian human rights, those who disagree with that stand can point to CAIR in support of their right to disagree.

True, CAIR itself refuses to come out and clearly condemn Hamas terrorism, but that is a point for another time.

There is a second issue here -- one of a double standard.

We have seen people claim that Jews deflect criticism of Israel by saying that such criticism is in fact antisemitism. For some reason, those claiming Jews do this tend to forget to give actual examples. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they are right, that sometimes defenders of Israel label criticism of Israel as antisemitic purely in order to rebuff the argument and avoid having to address it.

Isn't this what we see happening when critics of actions by Muslims or Muslim countries are accused of being Islamophobic?

Take Jake Tapper as an example.

He is a journalist discussing current events with his guests and addressing the power of inciteful rhetoric. In particular, he compares the way Arab leaders "talk about Israelis" with the kind of heated rhetoric found among White Supremacists.

Does he have to do a comparison of the cartoons of both sides on his show to prove his point?

Are Tlaib and Sarsour so heavily invested in their defense of Palestinian Arabs that they cannot come out and condemn the Palestinian Authority and Hamas the same way Israelis condemn hateful statements and actions by their fellow Israelis?

Instead, Tlaib and Sarsour are upset that Palestinian terrorists get called out and their reaction is to claim "Islamophobia" -- and call for Tapper being fired.

Anything to avoid addressing the issue of how Palestinian leaders incite hatred of Israel, and the consequences.

Tapper's reference to the death of Malki Roth in the terrorist attack on the Sbarro pizzeria also points up an aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Sarsour once highlighted -- but now ignores.

In a 2011 article on Spectrum News, Sarsour showed then the kind of compassion for Israeli victims that she really does not exhibit today:

Closer to home, Sarsour has worked with an interfaith group called The Dialogue Project, through which she has come to understand those who have suffered on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"Her name was Robin, and her son died in one of the suicide bombings in a café,” says Sarsour. “And I never got to meet a person like that, and obviously I'm a mother so just hearing and seeing the emotions of someone who lost their child, obviously I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone, so it made me go home and kind of more look at this not from a political place, but look at — there's human beings being affected by this, too, and I never had that opportunity to really look at that."

These days, Sarsour is all about that political place.

These days, Linda Sarsour could easily show the kind of compassion that she briefly demonstrated back in 2011. She has made a conscious decision not to. Apparently, that does not fit the persona Sarsour feels the need to project.

So be it.

That may have something to do with a grudge Sarsour holds against Israel. From that same 2011 article:

She's been plagued by a 2004 article that's been circulating around the internet, an article Sarsour says is untrue.

It claims that at the time, she had family members in Israeli jails with ties to Hamas.

"I can't deny that people related to me have been in Israeli prison,” says Sarsour. “Does that mean that any of them were charged with crimes or they are terrorists or potential suicide bombers? Absolutely not. This is just the reality of Palestinians living under military occupation."

Sarsour is not the first to want you to believe that Israel puts Arabs in prison for no reason. And it does suggest an additional motivation to her animus to Israel.

Jake Tapper's comment provided the opportunity to speak out honestly about Palestinian terrorism and where it is taking Palestinian Arabs.

Tlaib and Sarsour rushed to make sure that such honesty and introspection was nipped in the bud.

A week after Tapper's comment, the Palestinian Authority was called upon to account for hate speech and antisemitism in its official statements and in its textbooks during their very first review by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva on Tuesday.

Could this be the first hints of Palestinian accountability?

Faster, please.

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.

Israel is again being vilified, this time for revealing last week that it has been working to find ways for Gazans to voluntarily move to Europe.

Israel is actively promoting the emigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and is working to find other countries who may be willing to absorb them, a senior Israeli official said Monday.

Israel is ready to carry the costs of helping Gazans emigrate, and would even be willing to consider allowing them to use an Israeli air field close to Gaza to allow them to leave for their new host countries, the official said, apparently referring to air force bases deep inside Israel.

The senior official, in Ukraine as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s delegation to Kiev, spoke on condition of anonymity.

It was not very wise to publicize this plan, given that Israel found no country in Europe willing to take Gazans voluntarily.

People like Haaretz' Amira Hass are clucking about how terrible Israel is for considering such a thing.

While no one doubts it is in Israel's interest to encourage Palestinian migration, these critics who claim to care so much about Palestinians are ignoring the fact that many Palestinians desperately want to leave Gaza and the West Bank - and some are willing to risk their lives to do so.

A month ago, two boats capsized off of Libya's coast, filled with 300 would-be refugees to Europe - including many Palestinians.

Nearly 1400 Palestinians managed to reach Greece in ramshackle boats so far this year alone.

An estimated 35-40,000 Palestinians have left Gaza in the past year alone. That's 2% of the total population of Gaza, and they mostly left through Egypt which has severe restrictions on how many can leave.

If the "pro-Palestinian" side actually cared about Palestinians, wouldn't they want a safe means that Palestinians could leave if they choose?

"Voluntary transfer" is phrased as if it is a means of ethnic cleansing, but it is voluntary. No one is forced to leave. Going through Israel, subsidized, to go to Europe - even though the plan has not worked out - is far more humane than forcing thousands of Palestinians to resort to going on rickety and dangerous boats. Even if Israel has ulterior motives, the plan is still more humane than any alternative.

For members of the supposedly progressive crowd, Israel's support for a plan that can save Palestinian lives is enough reason to oppose it. Think about that.

These critics don't actually care about Palestinians but only want more excuses to use them to attack 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.

The Palestinian Astronomical Society writes:

For the first time in history - the International Astronomical Union will allow Palestine to name a planet and a star outside the solar system!

We announce the launch of the Palestinian National Campaign to name a planet and a star outside the solar system for the first time in history, after the agreement of the International Astronomical Union to allow Palestine to name the planet and the star. All Palestinians can participate in this national campaign to choose the name for the star and the planet to represent our civilization, culture, history, hope and love for our homeland Palestine high in the sky.

They set up a site where Palestinians can nominate names. Here are the rules:

1. There must be a link between the names proposed for the planet and the star (for example the names of characters from the same story)
2. Not offensive, and not very similar to an existing name of an astronomical object
3. In addition, it is not permissible to suggest:
- Names of a commercial nature
- Names of individuals or places known primarily for political, military or religious activities
- Names of living individuals
- Names of individuals who died less than 100 years ago
The process must respect intellectual property: it should be possible to prove that existing names, when submitted, are free for public use (for example, are not subject to copyright as with names that have been created in fiction such as books, games and movies, etc.

The rules that the planet and star cannot be named after anyone who died less than 100 years ago and that they cannot be religious or political figures reduces the number of possibilities of non-fictional characters to very nearly zero.

The only exception I can find of a prominent person before the 20th century who supposedly self-identified as Palestinian is the 10th century geographer Al-Maqdisi or Muqaddasi (named after Jerusalem in Arabic which was in turn named after the Jewish Temple.) His father was a prominent architect so that is the only pair in human history I can think of that might qualify. There were a number of academics from Gaza and Ashkelon in the fifth century but I do not believe they identified as "Palestinian."

Even this initiative has a political component, of course. The Palestinian Astronomical Society's spokesperson Daoud al-Tarwa couldn't resist mentioning that the planet and star will be seen "in the sky high away from the barriers of the occupation," showing that in reality Palestinian self-identification today is virtually impossible without mentioning 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.

08/26 Links Pt2: Jewish Rabbis and Disloyalty; ‘The Squad’ Co-Sponsors Bill Claiming Israel Tortures Children; The Myth of Palestinian ‘Canaanites’

From Ian:

Jewish Rabbis and Disloyalty

Like the boy in the tale of the emperor’s new clothes, President Trump has once again spoken a taboo truth: Some American Jews seem to be more loyal to an increasingly anti-Jewish and far-left Democratic Party than they are to the Jewish people. That’s not necessarily an immoral position for most American Jews to take: As individuals, they have no concrete duty of loyalty to the Jewish people, and it is their absolute right to seek stronger allegiances through political, rather than through religious or ethnic affinity. But American Jewish leaders, picked and paid as such by the Jewish community, are in a different position. Those Jewish leaders whose fiduciary duty of loyalty is to the Jewish missions of their organizations, but whose primary loyalty is to the Tlaibanized progressive movement and the party that champions it, are betraying that duty in some truly indecent ways.

Consider Reconstructionist Rabbi Toba Spitzer. As president of the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis (MBR), and as the long-time rabbi of the cultish Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, Spitzer has aggressively promoted extreme left-wing causes. Many are direct threats to the Jewish community: embracing anti-Semitic Islamist extremists like Linda Sarsour, hostility toward the U.S. government, hostility toward the Israeli government, support for the anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street movement, support for the anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter movement, and open border refugee policies are some examples. Yet Rabbi Spitzer and the MBR insist that these causes are Jewish religious imperatives, even as they proclaim Jew-haters like the Hamas front group, CAIR, and the terror-affiliated Islamic Society of Boston to be their friends and allies. At the same time, Spitzer and the MBR demonize in vicious terms those fellow Jews who don’t agree with their political viewpoints.

Last year, Spitzer wrote that, when it comes to Israel, American Jews should ask themselves: “Do we believe that the physical continuity of the Jewish people supersedes other Jewish values?” In other words: Should the Israelis choose to die en masse instead of committing what Rabbi Spitzer feels is the unforgivable sin of perpetuating the fight with the Palestinians? Implicitly answering in the affirmative, Spitzer challenged the “existential narrative” of Israel, arguing that Jewish sovereignty -- and the Jewish lives protected by its existence -- should not supersede the Jewish values of “lovingkindness” (chesed) and “mercy” (rachamim) toward “supporters of Hamas” -- her words, not mine.

Rabbi Spitzer’s question, and the argument implicit in it, comes from ignorance. According to the Jewish canon, which deals with the laws of armed conflict at length, war against the likes of Hamas is literally a mitzvah. Beyond Judaism, the principle of individual and collective self-defense of life and property is a universal human value enshrined in the law of nations and in free sovereign legal systems like those of the United States. It is an inhuman demand, most often made by totalitarians, that a class of people die or submit to being robbed without putting up a fight -- for the good of another class or people. (h/t MtTB)

John Podhoretz: About This Whole Loyalty Business… A reflection on the discourse.

We American Jews are not disloyal when we turn our backs on Israel and insult its friends and treat them as though they are enemies–and when we treat its enemies as though they are our friends, Peter Beinart.

At best, we are blind fools who do not see how a mere twist of fate has kept us from speaking Hebrew as a first language as we ride on a bus headed toward Mount Scopus that will be blown up or ensanguined by a knife-bearing terrorist.

At worst, we are far lower than merely disloyal. We are acting as active collaborators with those who wish our destruction. Such people do not bother sorting out which Jew is full of deep feeling for Palestinian rights and which Jew is a settler seeking to annex the entire West Bank. What they see is a Jew, and the Jew should be dead, and that Jew could be you or your mother or your baby.

Clearly, Trump shouldn’t have wandered into this minefield. But spare me the outrage about Trump saying no Jew should vote Democrat. This isn’t about Jews. Trump thinks no person in America should vote Democrat. This is just part of his own evolution as a partisan since he was a Democrat until about five minutes ago. Now, he’s a Republican, so he thinks everybody else should be, too, especially because he’s sure he so wonderful. Why is this surprising? Every liberal thinks everybody should vote liberal. Every conservative thinks everybody should vote conservative. Every Jew thinks every other Jew should vote the way he does. You think you’re right and the other side is wrong. You can work to understand the opinions of others and respect them, but you still think they’re wrong. If you didn’t, you would vote the other way.

Donald Trump says things no president has ever said before, and many of his rhetorical innovations have not been good for our political life or our country. But in this respect, he’s just like everybody else these days. (h/t IsaacStorm)

Commentary Magazine Podcast: How Much Outrage Can Trump Generate?

Hosted by Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman
What was Trump doing talking about Jews and loyalty? Why does everyone have a cow every five minutes about what Trump says when he’s been doing the same thing for four years now? Whom does this help? Whom does it hurt? The whole podcast gang is back to offer maybe a little insight.

‘The Squad’ Co-Sponsors Bill Claiming Israel Tortures Children, And Parrots Other Terrorist Propaganda

Many Americans now know that Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar—two members of “the squad” of far-left congresswomen so much in the news—were recently barred from traveling to Israel to agitate for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Fewer know all four members of “the squad,” including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, have co-sponsored a bill that accuses the Jewish state of torturing children. Fewer still know the claims made in the bill originate mostly from a group that could be described as the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization.

The so-called “Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act“ was re-introduced in the House by Rep. Betty McCollum, whose congressional district neighbors Omar’s in Minnesota. Until recently, McCollum was considered a supporter of Israel, but a critic of its government.

In February, however, she condemned “[t]he right-wing, extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu and its apartheid-like policies,” adding “there are now members of Congress who are not willing to ignore the Israeli government’s destructive actions because they are afraid of losing an election.”

McCollum’s invective prompted Mark Mellman of the Democratic Majority for Israel to respond that Netanyahu “came to office in a fair and democratic election in which every Arab citizen of Israel had the same right to vote as any Jewish citizen.” Mellman added that “by suggesting that Jews have disproportionate influence on U.S. elections, the Congresswoman exploits an anti-Semitic trope widely used by far right forces from Czarism to fascism.”

McCollum’s bill, while not directly exploiting the anti-Semitic trope of blood libel, trades on the accusation that Israel treats non-Jewish children cruelly and inhumanely. The bill claims Palestinian children detained by Israeli defense forces suffer torture and physical violence, are deprived of lawyers and parents, not informed of their legal rights, and so on. (h/t MtTB)

Something both fascinating, enraging and terribly sad happened this past week.

Like the honest storybook child who pointed out that the “Emperor has no clothes,” President Trump said two words no one wanted to hear, pointing out a situation many recognize but most are afraid to mention.

Disloyal Jews.

With a piercing, instinctive understanding, Trump put a spotlight on an identity crisis in the Jewish community.

“Who am I being disloyal to?!”

An indignant American Jewish Democrat asked me, who he is being disloyal to. He was angry and he really didn’t understand – and that is what makes this issue so very sad…

Context

President Trump’s quote about “disloyal Jews” was part of a statement regarding Israel barring Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from touring the country, due to their active involvement in the BDS movement.

The media coverage, whether through sloppy reporting or deliberate spin, sparked rage and gave birth to numerous accusations against the President including:

· “He is invoking a classic antisemitic trope about dual loyalty” – the idea that Jews can’t be loyal to the land of their birth.
This idea is historically ridiculous considering that Jewish leadership always instructed Jews to be loyal to the laws of the land and not stand out too much because being too different from the neighbors put Jewish lives in danger.

· “This is just proof of how hateful and divisive he is”

· “He told Netanyahu to bar Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar from Israel to gain political points and Netanyahu did his bidding” – a comment that completely disregards Israel as a sovereign nation that makes its own decisions and actually has a law barring BDS supporters from entering the country

· He hates Tlaib and Omar because they are successful Muslim women

· “If he means we should be loyal to him or to the Republican Party he’s just insane and should be impeached”

Listening to what he actually said paints a picture, 180 degrees opposite of the media spin.

He was answering the question:

“Ilhan Omar said the United States should rethink its policy of aid towards Israel after she and Congresswoman Tlaib were denied entry… Should there be any change in US aid to Israel?”

His answer was unequivocal.

“No. And you should see the terrible things that Tlaib has said about Israel. And AOC +3… Omar is a disaster for Jewish people. I can’t imagine, if she has any Jewish people in her district that they could possibly vote for her.”

He proceeded to call out Rashida Tlaib’s tearful anti-Israel press conference, recalling her behavior at his campaign rallies before she became a Congresswoman:

“I saw a woman who was violent and vicious and out of control and all of a sudden I see this person who is crying because she can’t see her grandmother. She could see her grandmother. They gave her permission to see her grandmother but she grandstanded and she didn’t want to do it. That’s a decision of Israel… They [Israel] could let them [Tlaib and Omar] in if they want but I don’t think they want to. If you read the things they’ve said about Israel and if you look at their itinerary before they found out [that they would not be allowed to enter Israel], you take a look at their itinerary, it was all going to be a propaganda tour against Israel. So I don’t blame Israel for doing what they did. I had nothing to do with it but I don’t blame them for doing what they did. I think it would have been very bad to let them in. Including the four. I’m talking about all four but these two, Omar and Tlaib. I think it would be a very bad thing for Israel but Israel has to do what they have to do but I would not cut off aid to Israel. I can’t believe we are even having this conversation. Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this — even three years ago — of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people — I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation! Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.”

Antisemitic trope and disingenuous rage

Anyone who can understand English cannot possibly listen to what Trump said and believe there is a modicum of Jew-hate behind his words. In fact, all the accusations against him simply evaporate when you pay attention to what he said:

· He was speaking about AOC +3, not just Tlaib and Omar.

· He had nothing to do with barring the Congresswomen from Israel but he does understand and support Israel’s decision.

· Tlaib was given special humanitarian permission to visit her grandmother – on the condition she didn’t turn her visit into a BDS propaganda display. She refused, choosing hate over her grandmother.

· Trump expressed deep dismay at the change in the Democratic Party -
Israel was always a by-partisan consensus and now they choose to support haters like Omar and Tlaib rather than doing what the Party always did – stand for Israel. He wasn’t attacking the Democratic Party as a representative of the Republicans. He was asking as an American, how the values of the Party became so perverted.

And antisemitism? I am old enough to remember Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton. None of them ever showed so much genuine concern for the well-being of the Jewish People.

The indignation and rage over Trump’s remarks are disingenuous and, well… enraging.

Identity politics

In a world of identity politics and intersectionality it is a tragedy that there are Jews who do not comprehend the basic truth behind what President Trump said.

The Jewish People are family. In a family, no matter how much you disagree, you are supposed to protect your relatives from attack by outsiders. Just think of the brother who bullies his sister but beats the snot out of anyone who treats her poorly. That is what family is supposed to do.

Donald Trump instinctively understands what so many American and even Israeli Jews have forgotten about their own identity. Watching the way he lives his life and who he trusts, it is obvious that Trump sees value and strength in blood ties (wives can be replaced, children cannot). It is his children who he trusts and counts on the most. That’s why it is easy for him to recognize that the Jewish People are one family and no matter how much we love the lands we were born in or have other issues of interest, family comes first – or at least it should.

One doesn’t get to choose your relatives. We don’t always like our family members. We Jews have family who bring us pride (like Gal Gadot) and we have the problematic ones (like crazy Uncle Bernie). But it’s not supposed to matter - no matter how far apart we live or how different our ideas are, when facing an external threat, family is supposed to defend its members (we can go back to fighting after the threat is dealt with).

That’s what Trump was talking about.

Family that doesn’t come to the defense of other family members, particularly when their lives are threatened, are disloyal:

Jews who heard Israel say the Iran deal puts our lives in danger and supported it anyway.

Jews who saw how Obama treated Israel and voted for him the second time too.

Jews who choose socialism over Judaism. Who choose local politics over the politics of survival of our people and the safety of our ancestral homeland.

Jews who say that the hatred is directed at Israel, caused by Israel and not at Jews.

Just like German Jews said: “We’re not Jews, we are Germans of the Mosaic faith (the faith of Moses).” Sadly it was their neighbors who taught them otherwise. Jews are Jews first, no matter how they self-identify.

Jews who blame terror attacks against Israelis on “the occupation” and Netanyahu rather than the terrorists and the leaders that poisoned the minds of young people, raising a generation to believe that murdering Jews is an honorable act – those Jews aren’t just disloyal to family. They are disloyal to the Jewish ideals of morality, justice and common human decency.

Donald Trump was talking about Jews who rush to stand in solidarity with Ilhan Omar and their “Muslim sisters” and don’t cry for Rina Shnerb.

Jews who choose those who hate and wish to destroy their family because it is the current fad in the Democratic Party. In my opinion that’s also disloyalty to America because America was founded on morality and acceptance of all people. Allowing a political party that represents half of the country to be led by people who incite hate, lie and front for actual terrorists is a betrayal of the entire American people, not just the Jews. Israel was always a bi-partisan issue. The security of Israel is in the best interest of the United States. Undermining this is bad for everyone.

THAT is what Trump was talking about when he said: “I can’t believe we are even having this conversation.”

Trump was gracious enough to give those Jews an excuse – possibly they are terribly ignorant about politics and don’t understand what is going on. That’s a much nicer possibility than willfully endangering and consciously betraying your own family.

I am less gracious.

Israel is wary of calling out disloyal Jews. Our numbers are so small, the idea that a large fraction of our people might break away from us is frightening. Considering the reality, I believe that it is worse to pretend the problem doesn’t exist and let the damage continue to be done from within by Jews who have turned against our family, who undermine our safety, delegitimize our history and side with those attempting to eliminate our future.

This isn’t a matter of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party. This is a matter of policies that have a direct and immediate effect on my family.

The years of Clinton-Obama foreign policy caused so much damage to Israel and the entire Middle East that it is mind-boggling. The amount of bloodshed that occurred is so shocking that the world, particularly Americans seem to have promptly forgotten all about it.

Endangering the State of Israel, empowering Iran, denying our right to self-defense and supporting the denial of our connection to our ancestral homeland and holy places via the UN are just the beginning. The rest of the Middle East suffered too, much more than Israel has. These are just a few examples:

· In Egypt - ousting Mubarak, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, looking the other way when Christians were slaughtered and delegitimizing Sisi

· In Iran – Remaining silent when the government shot young people in the streets during the Green Revolution, the Iran deal, enabling arms acquisition amnd shipment to Hezbollah, threatening Israel’s borders.

· In Iraq – leaving a vacuum which enabled the rise of ISIS and subsequent slaughter of thousands, genocide of Yazidis, sex slavery, torture organ theft and more

· The war in Yemen

· Destabilizing Libya, Benghazi… does anyone remember Benghazi and the time American soldiers were given the order to stand down when Americans were under attack?!

Anyone who wonders why most Israelis hated Obama and love Trump should reread the list above. Israelis are not crazy or stupid, we are judging by results.

I didn’t expect Trump to be a good President. He has surprised me beyond my wildest dreams. His actions have undone a lot of the damage done by the previous administration. He has fulfilled the broken promises of multiple American administrations. Over and over he has spoken out against Jew hate – in America and abroad.

To him I say, thank you Mr. President.

To everyone else I say, if you support a policy or a politician that puts my life and that of my family in danger, I have a problem with you. If you are Jewish and you do that, you deserve the title of “disloyal Jew.”

You are being disloyal to ME. My family. My friends. My neighbors.

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.

Lose-Lose

In any type of conflict, an ideal strategy is one that places your opponent in a lose-lose situation.

In military combat, this might involve trapping your enemy so that his army has only two choices: advance and be decimated, or retreat and get cut down while racing away in disordered flight. In the first Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf successfully shattered the Iraqi army not just through superior firepower, but through maneuvers that left his opponent no choice that did not involve annihilation.

Tactics that place your foe in a lose-lose situation are also common in other sorts of combat, such as the propaganda warfare carried out daily against Israel. For example, a rhetorical maneuver proponents of BDS like to use is the claim that the fight against them demonstrate their own success, leading to questions like “Why would Israel’s supporters put so much effort into fighting BDS is it wasn’t effective?”

The brilliance of this maneuver is that it places Israel’s friends in a lose-lose situation: either fight against BDS and be used as evidence of enemy strength, or ignore it – which effectively hands the field over to that enemy to do as they like.

The recent flare-up over two BDS-supporting Congresswomen visiting Israel put the Jewish state into a similar lose-lose situation: either bar the pair and have condemnations rain down or say “Yes” to the visit and allow your foes to travel the region ginning up hatred. While many pro-Israel activists helped blunt the effectiveness of this propaganda attack (by, for example, exposing the anti-Semitic nature of the organization that was sponsoring their Israel trip), that represented after-the-fact repair work in a situation where the enemy had already set the terms of engagement.

Unfortunately, I can’t think of many situations when Israel and her friends were able to perform this same trick. Perhaps this is because our opponents can count on a pliant media to parrot their messages while treating anything our side says with skepticism. Or maybe we lack the cynicism reflected in the other side’s willingness to use the suffering of others (including one Congresswoman’s own grandmother) to further their cause.

Israel’s limited options also reflects the power dynamic of the war against the Jews. While huge investment has been made in portraying Israel as powerful (and privileged), that has been done to mask the fact that the world’s sole Jewish state has had to do battle with 20+ Arab states allied with several dozen more Muslim ones who control not just half the world’s oil reserves, but also major international organizations like the UN. Given this, the majority of Israel’s energies must be invested in manning the siege walls, a defensive strategy that limits offensive choices that could pin down our foes in a lose-lose situation.

And then there is the reality that while Israel’s enemies are at war with the Jewish state, the reverse is not true. As mentioned previously, the dream come true for nearly every Israeli (and every Israeli supporter) is to see the nation living at peace with her neighbors. This is a worthy goal, but does not lend itself to the sorts of propaganda tactics used by enemies who want to see Israel become an object of hatred and ultimately destroyed.

That said, it is possible to isolate and brand an enemy (such as the BDS “movement”) that doesn’t necessarily require us to ferment hatred against those we ultimately want to live in peace with. The fact that most people on our side refer to BDS as anti-Semitic has already gone a long way to freeze that project and define it in our own terms. We might also be able to do a little Jiu jitsu at their expense, insisting that the very existence of their program demonstrates that Israel must be fabulously successful and beloved (otherwise, why run boycotts and divestment campaigns against it?).

The only trick with any techniques to place our opponents in a lose-lose situation in a propaganda war of their own making is to repeat our talking points incessantly, never replying to the other side’s charges and ignoring anything the other side tries to say in their own defense. This is obviously not the stuff of dialog, but dialog only takes place between people playing the same game and if the BDSers want to continue their propaganda warfare incessantly, our response should be an even more incessant counterattack.

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.

08/26 Links Pt1: Even Some of Israel’s Greatest Supporters Don’t Get the Middle East Conflict; Fabricating Palestinian History; Five Facts About Hebron You Won’t Learn on a Breaking the Silence Tour

From Ian:

Even Some of Israel’s Greatest Supporters Don’t Get the Middle East Conflict

In July, Israeli media reported that the Trump plan calls for a land corridor linking the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian Authority. It would be better called a terror corridor. Israel’s internal security services revealed recently that Hamas, more or less confined to the Gaza Strip, is pushing to create terror cells in the West Bank. An unrestricted land corridor, effectively cutting Israel in two, would make the job that much easier.

If Israel is nervous, Jordan is even more so. King Abdullah fears that the peace deal will make changes to Jordan’s status on the Temple Mount. Its control of the Muslim holy sites there is what gives the kingdom its religious legitimacy. Abdullah also fears the deal will propose some sort of confederation between the kingdom and the West Bank, which would undermine Hashemite rule and turn Jordan into a "de facto" Palestinian state.

In fact, when it comes to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the only thing worse than trying for an agreement is succeeding in making one. The Oslo Accords were a catastrophe for Israel. Land was handed over to a terrorist entity that proceeded to kill nearly 2,000 Jews in attacks the likes of which Israel had never seen. The Oslo process eventually led to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which has exposed the country’s south to incessant rocket attack and the torching of thousands of acres of fields. With one such "peace agreement," can Israel survive two?

Trump could end this madness with a tweet. He isn’t overly invested.

Confronted with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s remarks that a deal may be "unexecutable," Trump responded quite simply that he "may be right." Just last week, on August 18, Trump said, "It is tough to make a deal when there is that much hate."

Such comments could swiftly lead to the exits. "Hey folks, we got it wrong. One side isn’t interested in peace." It would mean an end to the painful tradition of one administration after another jousting at the same peace windmills.

Lies can sow enormous suffering. But they’re also like balloons. Sometimes it just takes a pinprick.

Fabricating Palestinian History

A book titled Palestine: A Four-Thousand-Year History, which seeks to trace modern Palestinian identity back many centuries before the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible were composed, might be dismissed out of hand as a work of quackery. But the author, Nur Masalha, has a doctorate from a British university and a post at London’s prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies. In a careful review, Alex Stein takes apart the book’s various distortions, half-truths, cherry-picking of evidence, insinuations, and logical leaps, of which a few examples suffice:
On . . . the enduring use of the name Palestine itself, [one of the book’s core arguments], Masalha provides no evidence to back up this claim. Nor does he identify the people or peoples who [supposedly] used the name Palestine so habitually. . . . [O]f the four specific examples produced to link the term Palestine to the Late Bronze Age (3300 to 1200 BCE), three are taken from the 7th century CE onward. Despite its presentation as a 4,000-year history, Palestine has a distinct bias toward the era that followed the Islamic conquest of the Levant in 636 CE.

Even when he is writing about the Bronze Age, Masalha strives to emphasize the Arab connection:

Arabic-language epigraphic evidence from Palestine east of the Jordan River is extensive, with some Arabic inscriptions dating from the Roman era and as early as 150 CE. In fact, Palestine is extremely rich in Arabic inscriptions, most of which date from the early Islamic and Umayyad periods.
A more relevant observation, especially in a chapter dealing with the Late Bronze Age, [which ended by] 500 BCE, would clearly be the numerous Hebrew inscriptions discovered by archaeologists and dating from that period.

Likewise, despite repeatedly insisting that his goal is to “read the history of Palestine through the eyes of the indigenous” in order to create a “pluralist” version of history as opposed to the version shaped by colonialism, Masalha goes to great lengths to minimize Jewish history in the land of Israel. As Stein puts it, “there is no room for Jews in Masalha’s ‘pluralist’ reading of Palestine’s history, other than as passive members of a ‘faith community’ living under Arab Muslim hegemony.” And as a historian explicitly hostile to imperialism and colonialism, Masalha has a notable blind spot, as evidenced by his discussion of “indigenous” vs. “settler-colonist” place names:

President Trump: When you leave the Middle East, do it with a big bang

THE ONLY way to prevent further decline in American capabilities, particularly in the Middle East, is to bolster deterrence. A withdrawal from the Middle East must be accompanied by steps that reduce the general impression of a weak US going home in defeat.

The place to make a stand is regarding Iran. Obama cut a deal with Iran that only encouraged its quest for hegemony and drive for nuclear weapons, while buying time in the hope that Iran will not harass the United States. In contrast, Trump understands that the Islamic Republic of Iran is an enemy of the US and that it is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon. But his hopes for forcing Iran to change its policies under diplomatic and economic pressure, while pursuing a policy of US disengagement from the Middle East, are unlikely to be realized.

The only way to leave the Middle East with as little as possible damage to US standing and security is to leave with a big bang. Washington must instill fear in the hearts of its enemies.

Despite the significant reduction in American military capabilities, the US still has enough punch to punish regional opponents and to generate fear. The US still possesses a strong enough air force to conduct a short campaign to destroy the critical Iranian nuclear installations.

Such military action would also delay nuclear proliferation, an important goal for the US, encourage US regional allies and discourage its opponents.

Indeed, action against a nuclear-aspiring Islamist Iran would reverberate beyond the Middle East and send a clear signal to anti-American forces all over the world.

Enhanced deterrence would prevent further Iranian provocations and would buy the US time to put its house in order and get serious about being a superpower.

Is Arab Israeliness A Thing? (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Two years ago, David Hazony -- founding editor of The Tower -- described the potential bond between Israeli Identity and the Future of American Jewry. He proposed that Israeli culture could energize the American Jewish community. A key part of this is Israeliness:

Today, on a patch of land dreamed about for millennia, millions of Jews are living a different Jewish life. And they are doing it in a way that continues to preserve identity across generations. And increasingly, that unique approach to life and history and identity are exporting themselves—their cultural products, their innovation, their very life essence—to America.

But now it seems that Israeliness does not have to be exported in order to expand its impact.
In fact, the sense of identity offered by Israeliness may not even be limited to Jews.

In describing what he calls The Israelification of Israeli Arabs, Druze Israeli poet and essayist Salman Masalha points to a survey by Sicha Mekomit before the previous election. That survey found that

a deep process of Israelification is underway in Arab society. Forty-six percent of respondents defined themselves as Israeli Arabs, 22 percent as Arabs, 19 percent as Israeli Palestinians and only 14 percent as Palestinians. In other words, 65 percent affixed the term “Israeli” to the way they define themselves.

Contrary to prevailing conceptions, it turns out that the Arab public yearns to participate in determining the political and social agenda of this country.

Masalha wrote his article for Haaretz.

Another writer for Haaretz, Alexander Yakobson, continues that thought that Arab citizens seek ‘Israeliness’ and goes further, quoting from other findings from that same survey that Masalha didn't mention.

For instance:

76 percent of Arabs say relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel in everyday life are “mostly positive” and only 18 percent described them as negative (compared to 53 percent and 33 percent, respectively, among the Jewish respondents). And 94 percent of the Arabs surveyed agree there is a Jewish people as well as a Palestinian people (while 52 percent of the Jews surveyed said there is a Palestinian people and not just a Jewish people). [emphasis added]

This sense of Israeliness does not negate a Palestinian Arab identity.

Yakobson admits the need to be careful when evaluating surveys, especially when dealing with a single, individual one. After all, a lot depends on the way questions are phrased, and there are other surveys where the sense of a Palestinian identity is expressed more strongly. But despite those reservations, Yakobson believes the overall picture described by the survey Masalha cites does in fact correspond with dozens of surveys over the years.

He believes he can reconcile these 2 sides of an Arab identification with Israel while maintaining a Palestinian Arab identity as well:

My conjecture is that the Arab public votes as it does, first and foremost, because most of them accept the Palestinian national narrative that the Arab parties represent. However, in its attitude toward the state, most of this public does not draw the natural emotional conclusions from this narrative.

The implication is that there is a sense of pragmatism at work here.

Sure, there are good pragmatic reasons for Arabs to prefer living in an Israeli state rather than a Palestinian one, but Yakobson another poll, the 2018 Israeli Democracy Index, according to which 51 percent of the Arab respondents went so far as to say they are "proud to be an Israeli."

That is more than just pragmatism.

He concludes that on the one hand the Arabs accept the Palestinian narrative and will continue to vote for those who promote it, while at the same time these same Arabs do not represent what that Palestine narrative implies.

While, neither the Arab nor the Israeli leadership can make claim to total allegiance from the Israeli Arab population, the Israeli government has an opportunity "to make it easier for the majority of Arab citizens to realize their desire to integrate more fully into Israeliness without forgoing their distinct identity."

That is good news when it comes to the Arab Israelis.
But what about the Palestinian Arabs?

On that score, David Goldman suggests that The‌ ‌Palestinian‌ ‌Problem‌ ‌Is‌ ‌Dying‌ ‌of‌ ‌Natural‌ ‌Causes‌ -- literally -- on account of the failure of the oft-threatened "demographic bomb" to go off, as predicted by those who advised Israel of the urgency of making peace before Jewish Israelis become a minority in their own country.

Instead, the opposite was true.

Goldman quotes an article he wrote for the Asia Times, where he suggested that instead of making peace with a Palestinian Arab population "heavily tilted towards hot-headed youngsters", Israel should instead wait and take advantage of the declining Palestinian fertility rate which would raise the average age of the West Bank population. Comparable to the situation in Northern Ireland, the militants "would find themselves married with mortgages."

As proof of that potential for integration and peace, Goldman writes about the 5,800 Palestinian Arabs working at technology companies on the West Bank. He describes the booming Israeli software sector outsourcing to the West Bank, with Palestinian software companies filling orders for Israeli firms. Ariel University, located in Samaria, is a the top school for Palestinian computer science students and he brings quotes of the positive experience of Arab students who find that politics and academic studies can be separated.

Combined with Masalha and Yakobson the picture Goldman paints of the potential for peace is an encouraging one -- let's just hope that it is more successful than last time.

Last time?

An article last month in Haaretz describes the time When Arabs Were Invited to Live the Zionist Dream. The program was called Pioneer Arab Youth:

Young Arabs, mostly boys, from the country’s north were invited to live, study and work on kibbutzim. They left their village homes alone and spent years in these communities – working, eating and sleeping alongside the Jewish kibbutzniks. In some cases they made the move with their family’s blessing, but others were rebelling against their parents and their society.

The Arab Pioneers learned Hebrew, danced the hora, raised the Israeli flag, sang “Hatikva,” the national anthem, and in some cases even took Hebrew names. Some began relationships with Jewish girls and aspired to assimilate into the kibbutz society. Others wanted to learn new agricultural methods with the aim of returning home and improving life in their villages. A few of them tried to realize a dream and establish an Arab kibbutz.

“The Jews we had met until then were part of the cruel suppression by the military government,” Mahmoud Younes recalls in a conversation at his elegant home in the town of Arara in the Triangle’s Wadi Ara area. Sitting next to an expressive painting of a dove of peace, he continues, “Suddenly we were sitting with Jews as equals. Eating with them in the [communal] dining room, working. A different Israel.”

The movement, which was an initiative of the left-wing Hashomer Hatzair youth movement, existed from 1951 until 1966, the same year that military rule over the country’s Arabs ended. At its height, around 1960, it had 1,800 members and 45 branches in Arab villages. The participants had a uniform – the standard dark blue Hashomer Hatzair shirt with a white string, along with a kaffiyeh and aqal (headband). They also had their own emblem, in the form of a proud youth movement member standing under an Arab-style arch, and they had a variation of the movement’s slogan: “hazak vene’eman” – be strong and loyal – instead of “hazak ve’amatz” – be strong and brave. The Arab movement members took part in hikes, in May Day parades, even in Independence Day folk dancing.

Members of the Pioneer Arab Youth movement, 1956. Credit: Hashomer Hatzair Archive

Jews and Arab youths dancing the debka on Kibbutz Yakum near Netanya, 1955. Hashomer Hatzair Archive / Yad Yaari Research & Documentation Center

According to Avraham Ben Tzur, one of the founders, "the intention was not to turn them into Jews, but into pioneers."

he had taught his wards about the fate of the Jewish people and their need for a state, and at the time saw no contradiction between the national aspirations of the Jews and the Arabs. “The intention was to educate for positive Arab nationalism, not aggressive nationalism that would turn against Zionism, but one espousing historical and literary values.”

Some of the members took what they learned on the kibbutz and brought that know-how back to their Arab villages:

o In 1956, a cooperative vegetable garden called “The Pioneer” was founded in Kafr Yasif.
o In Taibeh, an agricultural cooperative called “The Hope” was established. It included a plan for setting up a cooperative movie theater, that never came to fruition.
o In 1957, a water-drilling project that Younes established in Arara.

According to historian Shaul Paz, the leaders of Hashomer Hatzair “wanted to believe that, just as a new Jew was being created, so, too, a new Arab would be created, one who could be a socialist, a pioneer and a kibbutznik as well.

But in the end, despite the original promise and success, there was disillusionment.

According to one former member of the Pioneer Arab Youth:

“the coexistence was forced, not genuine. Coexistence is expressed in everyday life, in deeds, not in theories. It was hypocrisy per se, and I think that the same hypocrisy exists to this day. The kibbutzim believe above all that this is a Jewish state and that the Jews in it are more privileged than the Arabs and have priority in everything.

Though the Arabs interviewed did not see it, it may be, if the surveys are accurate, progress has been made since then.

Maybe in part because of the demographics that Goldman refers to.
Maybe it is a function of time -- and realizing that neither the Arabs nor the Jews are going anywhere.

At least it is a start.

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.

Drone that attacked Hezbollah in Beirut does not seem to be Israeli - but whose was it? (update)

Arab media yesterday uniformly blamed Israel for the drone that exploded at a Hezbollah media office in Beirut. Al Jazeera's report was typical:

Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri has said two Israeli drones, which came down in the Hezbollah-dominated southern suburbs of Beirut, amounted to an open attack on the country's sovereignty and an attempt to foment regional tensions.

"The new aggression ... constitutes a threat to regional stability and an attempt to push the situation towards further tension," Hariri said on Sunday in a statement from his office.

Speaking later on Sunday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said the fall of the two Israeli drones marked a dangerous development.

"The latest Israeli development is very, very, very dangerous," he said in a pre-scheduled televised speech.

Earlier, Mohammed Afif, a Hezbollah spokesperson, said a small, unmanned reconnaissance drone fell on the roof of a building that was housing Hezbollah's media office in the Moawwad neighbourhood in Dahyeh suburb on Sunday.

He said a second drone, which appeared to have been sent by Israel to search for the first drone less than 45 minutes later, exploded in the air and crashed nearby.

"We did not shoot down or explode any of the drones," Afif told The Associated Press news agency.

The thing is, this does not sound like an Israeli attack in the least. Israel has nothing to gain by attacking as minor a target as a Hezbollah media office or to attack heavily populated Beirut altogether.

Times of Israel notes:

The release of photographs of a drone that crashed in the Lebanese capital Beirut early Sunday morning cast doubt on the claim by the Hezbollah terror group that the craft belonged to the Israeli military, with some Israeli analysts speculating that the unmanned aerial vehicle was in fact an Iranian model.

Several well-connected Israeli commentators, including a former IDF general, said the drones appeared to be of an Iranian origin.

Former head of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin, who now heads the esteemed Institute for National Security Studies think tank, speculated that the drone may have been part of a plot by Tehran to send armed drones into northern Israel to bomb military installations and national infrastructure, an attack that the IDF said it foiled late Saturday night with a series of airstrikes in Syria.

The photo released by Hezbollah shows a quadcopter-style drone, more like one from a hobbyist than an army:

Quadcopter drones are used by Iranian-allied forces, and they can be used by professional armies in specific circumstances, but nothing about this situation makes it seem likely to be Israeli.

Typically, quadcopter drones can only be aloft for a half hour or so and require someone controlling it from relatively close by. If a professional army uses quadcopter style drones it would be more for a soldier to gain real time intelligence than to be a suicide mission. The best commercial drones have a range of less than 10 kilometers, but the distance from Israel's northern border to Beirut is over 60 km - and the chances that the IDF would put a soldier on the ground closer to Beirut for such a nebulous target seems very small.

Military drones meant to bomb a target are almost invariably fixed wing drones, which can go much longer distances and can carry a much larger payload.

Nothing about this attack points to Israel.

If it wasn't from Israel, than who sent it?

Yadlin's guess that this was an Iranian drone and meant to be part of the operation that was meant to be launched mostly from Syrian territory is possible but also seems unlikely. At the very least, the Israeli intelligence that uncovered the Iranian plot would (or should) have known about this one, but they wouldn't have the range to hit Israel from Beirut either. The Iranian drones that were hit by Israel in Syria looked like fixed-wing drones, not quadcopters. Houthi drones being used more recently are also fixed-wing.

Could an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese group have been testing a booby trapped commercial drone and they chose a time when everyone would blame Israel? Could it have been a Hezbollah drone that went bad?

It seems almost certain that this explosives' laden drone was launched from within a couple of kilometers of Beirut. This means that someone else is testing or using quadcopter drones for small scale attacks within Lebanon. Hezbollah (and Iran) might be blaming Israel to avoid thinking about a threat closer to home.

UPDATE: Times of London has a plausible scenario where there was an extremely high value target in that building, meaning that it would indeed be worth the risk for a precision quadcopter drone strike - either from Lebanon or the Mediterranean.

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.