Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, February 04, 2020

Who says Palestinians are inherently violent? Palestinians! (and their "allies")

I was struck by this paragraph in a Vox article by an American of Palestinian descent, Hanna Alshaikh, whining about the "Peace to Prosperity" plan:

To hear Trump’s condescending, hateful remarks that promulgate a narrative that Palestinians are inherently violent and will only change if the United States and Israel unlock their “extraordinary potential” is insulting.

Here's is where Trump uses the term "extraordinary potential:"

During my trip to Israel, I also met with Palestinian President Abbas in Bethlehem. I was saddened by the fate of the Palestinian people. They deserve a far better life. They deserve the chance to achieve their extraordinary potential. Palestinians have been trapped in a cycle of terrorism, poverty, and violence, exploited by those seeking to use them as pawns to advance terrorism and extremism.

Is that condescending - or accurate?

Any unbiased reading of Trump's words show that he is saying that Palestinian Arabs are caught in a terrible situation not of their own making, but by their leaders.

The idea that Palestinians are inherently violent is not part of Trump's speech.

It is part of the Palestinian narrative itself. And it is a major part of the narrative of supposed "friends" of Palestinians.

After all, the very logo of the Fatah movement shows an automatic weapon, a rifle and a hand grenade (besides a map of "Palestine" that excludes all of Israel and the word "storm" in large letters:)

Palestinian heroes are terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi - people who have schools named after them.

Palestinian children learn from birth how wonderful "martyrdom" is. Official Palestinian TV hammers home the theme of children sacrificing themselves to kill Jews.

Supposed "friends" of Palestinians also tell the world that Palestinians are expected to be violent when something happens that they don't like. Here's an example from yesterday, but there are hundreds of examples of leftist and liberal Europeans and Americans and fellow Arabs who "warn" that Israel or the US cannot do something because it will result in Palestinian violence and terror.

But the most ironic example of all is that the author Hanna Alshaikh herself:

Coming of age in the Oslo era, I saw how these so-called “peace” plans only paid lip service to Palestinian self-determination without addressing the core problems of their suffering, and how their failure usually ended in victim-blaming — which Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, the architect of the administration’s grand plan, have regurgitated.

What followed was the Second Intifada, or “uprising,” a reaction to the world’s indifference to their struggle and the futility of plans like Oslo. Watching the news as a child, images of the ensuing violence were seared in my memory, offering my generation’s Palestinian diaspora a visualization of what we are up against as a people.

It was the first time many of us understood what it meant to be Palestinian: our love for each other, our love for freedom, and our grief over the loss of our compatriots, of futures stolen from our youth, the trauma we see in the eyes of our parents and grandparents.

Alshaikh is romanticizing the suicide bombs, the Jewish body parts hurled over the streets of Israel, the pizza shop and Passover seder and discotheque bombings, as a critical part of her own Palestinian identity!

Her love of violence is a part of her very identity as a Palestinian!

The only people who say that Palestinians have free choice to reject violence are the Israelis and the pro-Israel voices like Donald Trump's. The bitter irony is that the people that Palestinian voices consider condescending and hateful are the only ones who can articulate a vision of Palestinians who reject violence as part of their culture and who can live with Israelis not as enemies but as friends, eventually.

Such a vision would require authentic Palestinian Arab voices to be heard. The people who interact with Israeli Jews (sadly, since the first intifada, this only happens in very limited situations.) The majority of Palestinians who are disgusted by their leadership and their unwillingness to even consider real peace. The ones who look over the border and see their fellow Arabs in Israel prosper as doctors, pharmacists and high tech workers, working together with Jews every day.

The Palestinian Authority has been working hard to silence the voices of Palestinians who truly want peace. So have self-appointed spokespeople for Palestinians like Hanna Alshaikh. And they have been largely successful.

I'm sad that the village that Alshaikh's grandparents lived in, near the 1949 armistice lines, was torn down in 1967. There are two sides to the story - it was done to allow Israeli Jews to have safe passage to Jerusalem without fear of Arab ambushes. Alshaikh and her Palestinian compatriots are not interested in the world knowing that there are legitimate Israeli security concerns as well. The topic is worthy of debate, not a one-sided condemnation.

People who want peace listen to the other side's perspective. Unfortunately, for the most part the Palestinian side simply wants to spout propaganda about how evil Israel is, not to actually engage in dialogue for peace. (Look for a single pro-Israel or anti-Abbas op-ed in any Palestinian media in the West Bank, and compare with the op-eds that are pro-Palestinian in Israeli media.)

In the end it is Israel that wants peace, and the Palestinians who are indoctrinated into a mindset of conquering Israel. This article proves it yet again. Until the Palestinians who truly want peace and dialogue are empowered - which is one major component of the Peace to Prosperity plan - people like Alshaikh will do everything they can to thwart peace, and to justify their rejectionism with high-sounding principles.

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.

It was a REALLY bad day for Palestinian leaders, with news from Uganda to Sudan to a video of Palestinian girls dancing with IDF soldiers (updated)

Monday was a really bad day for Palestinian leaders.

Not only did Netanyahu meet with Ugandan leaders and it appears that Israel and Uganda will establish diplomatic relations, Uganda's president said he would consider opening up his embassy in Jerusalem if/when it happens.

Saeb Erekat denounced the idea of a Jerusalem embassy.

Then, Bibi met with the president of Sudan, which is a huge shift for Sudan.

Erekat said the meeting was a "stab in the back" for Palestinians. Fatah's Jibril Rajoub condemned the meeting.

Then there was news that Israel is trying to strike a deal to establish diplomatic relations with Morocco.

But perhaps the worst was this event.

Edy Cohen, an Israeli journalist, upset many Arabs by posting a video of what he said was Palestinian girls dancing with IDF soldiers.

His tweet, in Arabic, said, "What makes me laugh the most is that the Palestinians dance with us in bars at night, and in the day they fool the (rest of the) Arabs, saying “You sold (out) the (Palestinian) cause, where are the millions (of Arabs coming to aid the Palestinians)?”

The song being played (probably overdubbed) includes lyrics like, "“Where are the Arab people?”, “Where are the millions?”, “Where is the Arab anger?”, “Where is the Arab honor?”“The sons of whores are relaxing while millions are miserable, there is a submachine gun in my heart that asks ‘Where are my (Arab) brothers’?” It is a song accusing Arabs of leaving the Palestinians in the lurch.

Among the people upset over this video was Prince Abdul Rahman bin Mosaed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who said it wasn't funny, adding "The question of the Palestinians is our cause and you are an occupier of the state of Palestine and our position will not change from your insults or obscene scenes from some misleaders or haters of Palestinians."

It is one thing for Palestinians to see Arab countries act in their own self-interest and align themselves with Israel. But to see their own daughters dance with the hated IDF?

That must really sting.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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

02/03 Links Pt2: #WeRemember: So should our journalists; Rise of far Right not the main source of antisemitism in Europe; Corbyn’s place in the history of antisemitism

From Ian:

‘#WeRemember: So should our journalists’

The leaders of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel make clear that their purpose is not peaceful change but the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, based on a double standard they do not apply to any other country. This squarely fits the international definition of antisemitism. Yet when reporting on BDS-related events, mainstream journalists rarely include this critical context, misleadingly casting the group as a peaceful protest movement.

When Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was denied entry to Israel in August 2019, most media painted her as a mainstream Democrat who happens to be critical of Israel, and omitted essential context: Just months earlier her own party had led the passage of House Resolution 241, “Condemning the antisemitic comments of Representative Ilhan Omar from Minnesota.”

Most media have been reasonably effective in providing context about the neo-Nazi and white supremacist backgrounds behind California synagogue shooter Robert Brewer and Pittsburgh synagogue shooter Robert Bowers, yet most failed to disclose that David N. Anderson, who shot and killed shoppers at a New Jersey kosher deli last month, was apparently inspired by recordings of the antisemitic preacher Louis Farrakhan.

Is it then any surprise that during this week’s ceremonies the BBC’s Orla Guerin equated Israel with Nazi Germany while reporting from Yad Vashem, Israel’s own Holocaust museum?

It is both the beauty and burden of the free world that hate preachers like Farrakhan, extremist organizations like the neo-Nazi and BDS movements, and fringe politicians like Ilhan Omar, have a right to express antisemitic views, as long as they don’t cross the line into the very specifically defined legal categories of incitement or defamation. However, the public should never mistake such hateful extremists for being “mainstream” or “reasonable,” and the free press has a professional duty to provide this context.

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis beautifully expressed the American philosophy: “To expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

In a healthy society, free speech cannot stand on its own, but demands even more free speech in the form of context, fact-checking and rebuttals. The result is that our safety as a society depends not only on politicians, judges and police, but also on the ethics and professionalism of our journalists.

Jeremy Corbyn’s place in the history of antisemitism

FARRAKHAN echoed Nazi language when he used the word “termites” to describe Jews. Farrakhan has said that “satanic Jews had infected the modern world with poison and deceit.” He has called Jews “poisoners and absolute evil.”

One only has to put these statements next to the most common definition of antisemitism – that of the International Holocaust Remembrance (IHRA) – to understand that Farrakhan is an antisemite. One can do the same with British politicians who are (part-time) antisemites such as George Galloway and Lady Tonge.

Doing so with statements and acts of Corbyn doesn’t get us very far. His antisemitism is greatly different, yet far more important than Farrakhan’s in view of the position he holds. That the act of calling two Arab movements which aim to commit genocide against Jews his “brothers” and “friends” is hugely antisemitic requires little explanation. Yet none of the definitions of antisemitism includes explicitly such extreme cases.

Upon becoming Labour chairman, Corbyn almost immediately appointed the Hamas supporter Seumas Milne as executive director of strategy and communications. His leadership led rapidly to an explosion of antisemitic statements by various elected party officials.

Corbyn nominally condemned antisemitism, yet Labour greatly underperformed in dealing with the complaints about it. From a BBC Panorama program one learned that he and his immediate staff even protected people who had made antisemitic remarks.

In order to understand Corbyn’s huge contribution to the contemporary history of antisemitism, one has to comprehend a basic issue about current times that are known as “post-modernity.” In it, many themes have fragmented in a multitude of tiny parts.

So has antisemitism. To define Corbyn’s antisemitism one can best say that he is a major post-modern antisemite, which expresses itself through many diverse acts and statements. Scholars of antisemitism will have to familiarize themselves with this new concept as it is recurring.

Corbyn’s indirect antisemitic impact is far larger than seems from the above. Telegraph columnist Zoe Strimpel, who is Jewish, recently wrote about the British chattering classes, “What no dinner party-attending Jewish person can now avoid noticing is that at elite social gatherings in Britain and the US, dressing up brazen antisemitism as a form of political morality has become cool, acceptable and easy.” Jeremy Corbyn is indirectly to a substantial extent at the origins of this disastrous development in the UK.

Stand With Us: Rabbi Sacks Speaking Out on Antisemitism

Rabbi Sacks Speaking Out on Antisemitism - We were thrilled to receive and screen this video message from the much-respected former British Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks at our International Conference.

Rise of far Right not the main source of antisemitism in Europe – study

The rise of the far Right in Western Europe is not the primary source of antisemitism in the region in recent years, a study from the World Zionist Organization’s Institute for Zionist Strategies found.

“The rise of the extreme right and antisemitism: Three European case studies” focuses on France, England and Germany, which have the largest Jewish populations on the continent, examining whether there is a correlation between the deterioration in those communities’ security and the rise of far-right parties.

The Institute for Zionist Strategies is a nonpartisan research institution dedicated to preserving Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the spirit of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Researcher Nicolas Nisim Touboul studied two variables in each country: the electoral growth of right-wing parties, and the trends in levels of antisemitism.

There were several notable attacks in France in the past decade, including the murder of a teacher and three pupils at the Otzar HaTorah school in Toulouse in 2012 and the murder of four in the attack on the Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris in 2015. However, there was no clear trend of rising antisemitism in that time, with spikes in some years and a decrease in others. In 2003-2010, there were an average of 560 antisemitic incidents per year, and in 2011-2019 there were 444, according to official French records.

In 2011, Marine Le Pen won the leadership of the far-right National Front and it subsequently grew in electoral power. Touboul noted that the party rejected antisemitism, which “can be suspected to be a strategic decision to normalize the party,” but was serious enough that Le Pen expelled officials who made antisemitic statements, including her father, party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Spikes in antisemitism in France mostly coincided with Israeli military operations. For example, 29% of violent antisemitic incidents in 2009 happened in January, during Operation Cast Lead, and 24% of them in 2014 were in July, during Operation Protective Edge.

Overall, the report found that increases in antisemitic violence were more likely to be motivated by anti-Israel sentiment or radical Islam than far-right views in France over the last decade.

Global Antisemitism on the Rise: New York is Taking a Stand

Egypt claims tunnel to Gaza used by ISIS for Sinai attacks

Egyptian security forces announced the discovery of a smuggling tunnel from Gaza to the heart of Egyptian Rafah.

The tunnel was about 3 kilometers long.

Egyptian security sources said, "The tunnel is intended for infiltration of terrorist elements from the Gaza Strip to plant improvised explosive devices on the Egyptian side and to support terrorist elements supporting the ISIS organization in Sinai and transport weapons and explosives."

Egypt says it seized ammunition and explosives inside the tunnel.

Egypt has claimed that Gaza elements, almost certainly with Hamas' knowledge, are supporting ISIS attacks in the Sinai. Hamas strenuously denies any involvement, and it would be a fairly stupid thing for Hamas to do. So it is hard to know how much to believe the Egyptians, although if they recovered weapons in the tunnel, it it better to destroy it no matter whether they were being smuggled into Gaza or out of Gaza.

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.

Abbas rejecting the Triangle is more proof his goal is the end of Israel

One of the stranger aspects of the Peace to Prosperity plan was where it floated the suggestion that the Israeli Arab communities in the so-called "Triangle" section of central Israel could be transferred to Palestinian control.

The residents of the Triangle rejected the idea immediately. And so did Netanyahu's office.

But the response from Mahmoud Abbas is worth examining. He rejected it as well, saying "We know the purpose of this proposal and we will not accept it."

If Abbas wants a viable Palestinian state, why would he reject the lands and "Palestinians" that would come with it, taking away land from Israel?

The reason is the same reason he insists that the "Right of Return" is part of any agreement. He wants Israel to become more than 50% Arab so the Jewish state can die and be replaced with another Palestinian state.

The welfare and strength of his own state is not a concern for him. Abbas is not a leader of a state in waiting - a leader would do what was best for his people. To Abbas, and virtually all of the leaders of the Palestinian Arabs in history, every single decision must conform with one rule: that it can eventually lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

There is no other justification for Abbas to reject an offer of highly educated and trained Arabs, along with their land.

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

02/03 Links Pt1: The New York Times Dreads Peace; Why even the Israeli Left has embraced Trump's peace plan; Israel-Sudan ties on the agenda for Netanyahu’s Uganda visit

From Ian:

Rock, Paper, Scissors in the Middle East

On the Israel front, Trump nullified the 1967 lines, the cornerstone of the Arab rejectionist position that Obama had attempted to enshrine in UNSCR 2334. He did this by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and then by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The latter move eliminated the 1967 framework altogether with regard to Syria and Lebanon. As far as the United States is concerned, there are no more disputed territories: The land is Israel’s.

The current plan extends that same approach to the Jordan Valley, in addition to existing settlements. “If the State of Israel withdrew from the Jordan Valley, it would have significant implications for regional security in the Middle East,” the president’s vision states, expressing a positive desire for Israel to remain there. An extension of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley would therefore serve U.S. regional security interests. Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates’ acceptance of the Trump plan as the basis for any future talks between Israel and the Palestinians indicates that the United States’ regional allies have accepted the president’s nullification of the 1967 lines framework. The significance of this is that the Saudis and the Emiratis have accepted that the starting point for any movement going forward is not the so-called Arab Peace Initiative, which the Saudis originally sponsored almost 20 years ago, and which has subsequently been loaded with additional rigid language, especially regarding the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees, by rejectionists led by the Assad regime. The Trump peace plan is the new starting point.

The truth is, none of these frameworks matter anymore. Trump has made it clear that he is not bound by the fantasies of previous American peace processors—who today show contempt for the president’s plan even as they admit their own decades-long failure. Trump’s deal is designed to underscore Israel’s special relationship with the United States—and it slams shut the rusty gates of the peace processing factory for good. It doesn’t much matter how the Palestinians respond. The American position is not dependent on the outcome of future negotiations.

Israel’s political class now has a clear window in which to determine its own fate. Israel can then live with the consequences of its own choices.

The two-step solution

Let us imagine that Jordan changes its mind and agrees to become the Palestinian state in place of the one that fails to materialize pursuant to the Deal of the Century. This change of mind can come about either through the King's agreement or by his giving over the reins of leadersihp to someone who will.

Were this to happen, all Palestinian Arabs in both sides of the Jordan R. would become full Jordanian citizens. without restrictions. The two roads connecting the proposed “state” to Jordan would be completed facilitating transportation between the Palestinian Arabs on both sides of the Jordan R.

Jordan would take over the administration of Areas A and B and Gaza in place of the PA and Hamas. Jordan would also fulfill the role of UNRWA in providing education, welfare and health care to all the current day refugees.

Rather than build the tunnel connecting Gaza to the rest of the “state”, pursuant to the vision, at a cost exceeding $15 Billion, Jordan can invite all residents of Gaza and Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) to relocate to Jordan to receive these benefits. Also immigrants could be offered free housing in Jordan with international aid to sweeten the deal. It is not too far-fetched to believe that 2 million Arabs living in these areas could be incentivized to relocate to Jordan which is only 100 miles away or to any other country prepared to accept them.

It would not be necessary for Israel to give up any parts of its territory.

Israel would extend its law to all the lands west of the Jordan R including Gaza and the Arabs would become foreign residents in Israel with Jordanian citizenship.

The $50 Billion pledge in support of this vision could be provided to Jordan to enable it to become the home for all Palestinian Arabs and to provide them with jobs, education and healthcare.

Instead of investing in industrial parks in Area C in Israel to benefit the Arabs as proposed by Min Bennett and PM Netanyahu, these zones will rightly be created in Jordan thereby incentivizing Arabs to emigrate to Jordan.

This is a two step solution.

The first step is to change the vision as above set out.

The second step is to make Jordan, Palestine.

The New York Times Dreads Peace

When President Donald Trump’s peace plan was released, assuring Israel of sovereignty along the Jordan River, the security of settlements in Biblical Judea and Samaria, and the entirety of Jerusalem including the Old City under Israeli jurisdiction, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and Israelis in general) had every reason to exult.

But The New York Times had every reason to lament. Reporter Megan Specia, a story editor based in New York with little evident familiarity with the Middle East, Israel, or Palestinians, reported on the plan and its deficiencies (January 29). Her conclusion, that the proposal “strongly favors Israeli priorities,” is indisputable, as is her perception that it is “a sharp departure from decades of American policy.”

Worst of all, as the Times has repeatedly complained, “is American recognition of Israel’s claim over the Jordan Valley and all Jewish settlements in the West Bank.” After all, she writes in an endlessly reiterated Times cliché, “Most of the world regards the settlements as illegal.” They have “steadily encroached” on land, by implication, that is Palestinian — unidentified by Specia as the Biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

In their familiar duet of complaints about Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and settlements, Jerusalem Bureau Chief David Halbfinger and his colleague Isabel Kershner sadly concluded that a viable Palestinian state is now “quickly slipping away.” Rather than focus on the decades of Palestinian intransigence that have obstructed that possibility, they predictably (for the Times) blamed President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu for imposing their will on beleaguered Palestinians. President Mahmoud Abbas, they suggested, should “try to weather the storm” in the hope that Trump and Netanyahu will be defeated in forthcoming elections. That is also the Times’ endlessly reiterated hope.

The Times drumbeat continued. On the Opinion page, Nathan Thrall, widely praised for his plea (in The Only Language They Understand) to force compromise on Israel and the Palestinians, offered his own laceration of the Trump plan. It “gives Israel cover to perpetuate the status quo of occupation and sovereignty,” he complained, thereby “depriving millions of stateless people of basic civil rights and dispossessing them of their land.”

Thrall, clearly not enthralled by Zionism or Israel, refers to an “indigenous Palestinian population” whose rights to the Biblical Land of Israel have been ignored. He does not acknowledge that this “indigenous Palestinian population” did not assertively define itself in national terms until after the Six Day War in 1967, when the Jordanian land on the West Bank where they lived was returned to the Jewish people. He is convinced, without offering a shred of evidence or confronting evidence to the contrary, that Israel “illegally established settlements” in Biblical Judea and Samaria.

When the NYT says that Abu Mazen's life work has been to forge a peaceful 2 state solution with Israel do you think they're including his graduate school work blaming Jews for the Holocaust, his fundraising for the Munich massacre, & his decades working for terrorist PLO? pic.twitter.com/qnsQ0JevuE
— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) February 2, 2020

The "Peace to Prosperity" plan was doomed from the start. But it has, and will continue to, achieve a great deal.

It puts Palestinian political positions, which have been mostly aligned with the UN and Europe, on the defensive. They kept saying that they have international law on their side, but international law that is only enforced against Israel is not international law. Now there is a serious plan and pathway to peace and the Israel haters are forced to respond.

For the most part, the responses have been boilerplate. Absurd charges of it being an "apartheid plan" or "a one-state solution" are obviously not true to anyone who reads it, but these are the knee-jerk reactions because the usual suspects are waiting for some anti-Israel academic to come up with smarter counterarguments. (Both Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth and former HRW member Sarah Leah Whitson linked to Arab League description of the plan as "apartheid" as if that charge had validity.)

Many of the objections have been to the plan being seen as pro-Israel. Yet Palestinians were invited to participate, and moreover they are being invited to participate now to push back on whatever they want. They are refusing and this indicates not only that they do not have an answer to the plan, but they didn't even have a plan to respond to it with two years' notice. Without a counter-proposal (beyond the mantra of "1967 lines, capital in Jerusalem, right of return") they they prove they are not serious about peace.

Moreover, Jared Kushner's direct rebuke to the Palestinians for not accepting any previous plan is prompting an interesting response from many: they are saying that the previous plans were equally unsatisfactory, even though they were much more direct paths to an independent Palestinian state. It is easy in an era of Trump Derangement Syndrome to push back on the Trump aspect of the plan - many people would reflexively oppose anything with his name anyway. But when they say that the Clinton and and Olmert plans (as well as the Obama/Kerry framework), all rejected by Palestinians as vehemently as this one, are equally bad, they expose the truth that they were never interested in peace with Israel but in Israel's surrender. If Palestinians spurred peace ideas from the great liberal hero Obama, they will never accept peace.

Trump has changed the debate from the old, tired "Israel must do more for peace" to "Palestinians must do something for peace." When the response is dismissive, even though some parts of the plan are clearly advantageous to them, it shows the world that they aren't serious players.

The most salient point is that the plan is aimed at helping the Palestinian people more than any previous plan has. When their leaders reject it out of hand, they are saying that the status quo- which they cry to the world is unlivable - is suddenly much better than a plan that gives them more than double the land they have, the ability to live without a single Israeli checkpoint, the ability to freely go to Gaza, and Gaza would have triple the land it currently has, as well as many other economic incentives. Palestinian leaders could try to grab their gains and negotiate for more - if they cared about their people. Palestinians already don't like their leaders and those that read the plan will have more reason to distrust them. (Incidentally, the Hamas-oriented Al Resalah actually translated the entire plan to Arabic and published it.)

So even if the plan fails as a roadmap to peace, the effects are wholly positive. It shifts the focus and the onus on the Palestinians, whose main response is "rage" and "less cooperation with Israel" even if that hurts their people. It exposes the truth about Palestinians to the world, including many of their Arab brethren. The Arabs pay lip service to the Palestinian cause but for the most part they have not gone beyond that for many years.

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.

Jamal Rayyan, a Palestinian anchor for Qatar-based Al Jazeera, tweeted a poll essentially asking whether Palestinians should create "special teams" to target Arab leaders who seem to support the American "Peace to Prosperity" plan.

The tweet translated to, "After the century deal revealed Arab faces, do you support the formation of Palestinian factions with special teams highly trained to deal with the symbols of Arab countries that are working to undermine the Palestinian national liberation movement in order to deter these countries? Your opinions are important # Palestine # Saudi Arabia # Emirates # Egypt # Bahrain # Gulf # Maghreb Arab"

Rayyan has 1.6 million Twitter followers.

His tweet angered social media users and he took it down after receiving over 900 responses in less than an hour for fear of being sued. People demanded Twitter delete his account for calling to assassinate Arab leaders.

Some people responded by saying that it was Qatar who was pro-Israel:

من الحاج ايدي كوهين الى اخيه حمد بن جاسم حاكم قطر الفعلي شكراً لمعالي رئيس حكومة دولة قطر 🇶🇦 السابق الشيخ حمد بن جاسم بن جبر آل ثاني على كلماته الطيبة عبر شاشة التلفزيون الفرنسي 🇪🇺🇫🇷 ومشاعره النبيلة تجاه الإسرائيليون 🇮🇱 تحية له .
⁦@hamadjjalthani pic.twitter.com/sZMHWuuiVb
— Dr. Mahmoud khidr (@khidr_m) February 2, 2020

Al Jazeera is often accused of being a mouthpiece for Qatar, whose foreign policy has been more pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood than the rest of the Arab world. Qatar also cooperates with Israel in bringing in far more aid to Gaza than all the other Arab countries combined - entire apartment complexes housing thousands have been built under Qatar's sponsorship.

(h/t Yoel)

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.

They lie and lie and lie.....

Iranians must have the "right to choose" between different political movements, President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday, as controversy grows over the disqualification of thousands of candidates in upcoming polls.

Speaking at the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during annual celebrations of the 1979 revolution, Rouhani, a moderate conservative, praised the political heritage of the Islamic republic's founder.

"The imam (Khomeini) insisted on the fact that people must participate in all elections and have the right to choose", Rouhani said during the address, broadcast on state television.

Controversy has been raging for the past fortnight, pitting the coalition that supports Rouhani's government against the Guardian Council, which oversees Iran's elections and is dominated by ultra-conservatives.

The council says it has barred some 9,500 potential candidates from standing in the February 21 legislative polls -- almost two thirds of the 14,500 hopefuls -- including 92 sitting MPs from of all political stripes.

Rouhani, paying homage the "father of republicanism in Iran", said Khomeini had refused to establish a "caliphate" and instead "chose the Islamic republic" after the victory of the revolution against the shah's rule.

Only approved people and parties can run in Iranian elections, meaning that the mullahs approve the candidates who will do what they want.

No, that's not democracy.

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.

Book review: God and Politics in Esther, by @YoramHazony

I already knew that Yoram Hazony was brilliant from his "The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture" and I have always wanted to read his book about Esther. I was not disappointed.

Megillat Esther is perhaps one of the best-known stories in the Hebrew Scriptures, but Hazony's analysis in God and Politics in Esther reveals themes and depths that I never imagined.

Hazony's main thesis is that Esther is a book about politics. More specifically, it is a blueprint on how Jews must act politically in the Diaspora, since Esther is one of the few Biblical stories that takes place primarily when Jews are under foreign rule. He presents Mordechai as being a master politician, becoming well known among King Ahashverosh's advisors and able to see things from multiple perspectives (his interpretation of the rabbinic assertion that Mordechai knew 70 languages.)

Esther, his cousin and adopted daughter, was his protege in understanding how to gain favor from those who know her. For example, when Esther was to be presented to the King to spend the night, she only wants to adorn herself according to the advice of Hegai, the king's chamberlain, and nothing more. Hegai has a vested interest in finding the perfect mate for the king, and he knows the king well, so Esther in this case trusts him implicitly, which makes him prefer her over the other girls, and helps contribute to the king finding favor in Esther as well.

Mordechai and Esther both want to use politics to their advantage, and Mordechai doesn't want either of them to make a big deal about their Jewishness. But things change when Haman becomes the king's vizier. Hazony explores the question of why Mordechai didn't bow down to Haman - why he suddenly was willing to make waves, and endanger the Jewish people, which is not a very political thing to do. After all, Jews are allowed to bow to royalty and to those close to royalty, as the story of Joseph shows.

Before Haman, the king had a series of advisors that would help the king make the best decisions. After the episode of the attempted coup against the king that Mordechai foiled, Ahashverosh became more paranoid about his advisors, and he essentially hired Haman to be the only confidant. This changed the entire texture of the kingdom as Haman arrogated himself to be close to a deity himself, making all decisions as an all powerful being - an idol. This crossed the line from a politician that a Jew can work with to one who is a mortal enemy, as idol worship is abhorrent. Mordechai, essentially alone, started a one-man protest against the new order of Persia which only accelerated when Haman convinced Ahashverosh to destroy all the Jews.

Hazony brings numerous parallels between the events in Esther and those of other Jews who were in high political positions in foreign lands - mostly Joseph and Daniel. Interestingly, he is harsh on Joseph, who had to walk the line between pleasing Pharaoh and doing what is best for his people - if he crosses the line, his ability to help his family would plummet to zero, so he spends more time protecting his position than using it to full advantage.

Esther, once she understood the gravity of the situation, realized that she must risk her position to save the Jewish people, something Joseph never really did. Joseph's brilliance in saving Egypt was a contributor to the Jews ultimately becoming slaves; he saved them from immediate starvation but was too paralyzed to go beyond that. Esther risks it all.

Her plan is brilliant. She gives her husband reason to become jealous of Haman by inviting both of them to what should have been a romantic banquet for two, starting a chain of events where the king is unable to sleep that night, worrying about whether Haman is becoming too close to the Queen which prompts the events allowing him to be reminded of Mordechai's saving his life. When he asks Haman how to honor someone, his answer reveals to the king that Haman has unlimited ambition including to the throne itself. This all primes the king for the second banquet, which brought Haman's downfall.

But the story is not done. The king shows no interest in saving the Jews, and for two agonizing months Mordechai and Esther wait while Haman's followers prepare for all out war on Jews. Esther must once again put her life on the line to ask for a solution, one which he delegates to Mordechai to find a way not to contradict his existing edict.

God and Politics in Esther weaves through its pages an entire philosophy of politics itself. Beyond that, Hazony includes essays on antisemitism, the morality of the Jews' war on its enemies, and an extended treatise on how God is - and isn't - a part of the Esther story which famously doesn't mention God once. Hazony convincingly argues that there is no distinction between what we call "miracles" - unexplainable phenomena that help save Jews - and things that seem natural or prompted by man's actions. The Tanach says that "God was with" many men who did actions that seem to be quite natural. God may be hidden since the times of the Prophets, but He is there.

The ideas that Hazony brings applies to all eras. Rabbis famously studied the story of Jacob preparing to meet Esau before they would meet with despotic rulers to plead their case for the Jews; this book makes one think that Diaspora Jews who enter politics should closely study Esther.

Moreover, Jews who avoid politics even at the grassroots level should reconsider that decision. Change happens when you are willing to make waves and act independently.

Especially in these weeks before Purim, this is a book that will make you look at Esther in ways you never imagined.

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

02/02 Links: Fatah threatens anyone supporting the deal of the century; Rivlin chides Abbas for claiming Russian, Ethiopian immigrants aren’t Jews; Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie

From Ian:

PMW: Fatah: "We will defend Palestine with [our] blood and souls," "The deal of the century will not pass"

Abbas’ Fatah has responded vocally to US President Trump’s peace plan – “the deal of the century” – adamantly rejecting it and even implying Palestinians should engage in violence and “defend Palestine with their blood and souls.” The image above of the Dome of the Rock appeared in a post with the following text:

Posted text: “Not for sale
#The_deal_of_the_century_will_not_pass”

Text on image: “#Down_with_the_deal_of_the_century
Palestine
Is not a homeland that is sold and purchased
But rather a piece of the Quran
that we will defend with [our] blood and souls”
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Jan. 30, 2020]
Fatah also emphasized its ideology that it won’t give up any part of “Palestine” – a “Palestine” in which all of Israel is included. Abbas, as chairman of both the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, may assert that the Palestinians are only interested in a “Palestine” on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, but the messages from his own Fatah contradict this.

The image below shows that Fatah intends for “Palestine” to include all of Israel, and the accompanying text stresses this further. A man with a keffiyeh (Arab headdress) is lying on the PA map of “Palestine” that presents all of Israel as “Palestine” together with the PA areas. The man is covering the entire map with his body - from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – which rejects the existence of Israel in any borders. One of the man’s legs is crossed over the other, showing the sole of his sandal on which is written: “The deal of the century” – referring to US President Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan, which he revealed together with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Jan. 28, 2020. In Arab culture showing someone the sole of your shoe is considered an insult and scorn.

Text at top of cartoon: “From the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River”
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Jan. 30, 2020]

Palestinian Media Watch has documented that PA and Fatah leaders often use the expression “From the Sea to the River” to describe “Palestine” and deny Israel's right to exist.

Fatah also posted a cartoon reiterating Abbas’ statement after Trump’s announcement of the deal, calling for Fatah and Hamas to unite. The cartoon shows from left to right Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, Abbas, Islamic Jihad Movement leader Khaled Al-Batsh, and other Arab figures with their arms interlocked standing in a protective circle around the PA map of “Palestine.” On the map is written “Palestine” in English above the Dome of the Rock with a Palestinian flag flying over it.

Posted text: “#Down_with_the_deal_of_the_century”
Text at bottom of cartoon: “No to [Israeli] annexation of the Jordan Valley; Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine; down with the deal of the century”
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Jan. 30, 2020]

Fatah threatens anyone supporting the deal of the century

The PA about Jews visiting the Temple Mount: “Jerusalem will not be defiled”

Text on screen: "The occupation's forces and its settlers invade the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jerusalem will not be defiled."
[Official PA TV, Jan. 26, 2020]
The PA and its leaders claim all of the Temple Mount is an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, they view any presence of Jews on the mount as an "invasion." It should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount only enter some sections of the open areas, and do not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Israeli police ban Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount because of threats of violence by Palestinians.

UN agency warns protection of Palestinian refugees threatened by US Mideast plan; appeals for $1.4 billion in funding

While appealing for $1.4 billion in funding for 2020, the cash-strapped U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) has warned that the U.S. Middle East plan is likely to lead to greater instability and uncertainty for the 5.6 million refugees it assists in the Israeli occupied territories and in other regional countries.

UNWRA reports it is facing the worst financial crisis in its history at a time of growing needs of the Palestinian refugees and great political uncertainty in the Middle East. Under the leadership of President Donald Trump, the United States, which had been UNRWA’s biggest donor, cut off $360 million in funding to the agency in 2018. The amount was nearly one-third of UNRWA’s budget.

Acting Commissioner General of UNRWA Christian Saunders said the agency received phenomenal support from other countries in 2018. But that support waned last year, causing a funding shortfall of $55 million.

He said Trump’s recently unveiled Middle East plan is causing another body blow to the humanitarian and protection needs of Palestinian refugees. He said that clashes that have erupted in the occupied territories and around Jerusalem after the plan was presented could be a harbinger of worse things to come.

“There are a lot of people that still are in a state of shock over the proposal. What will happen after that shock wears off, I do not know. We certainly have serious concerns that it will result in an escalation in clashes and in violence” he says.

A group of women in Doha are spearheading an initiative to put photos of the Dome of the Rock and slogans about Jerusalem on coffee cups in 23 cafes. Videos about Jerusalem are also being shown.

The reason is to remind young Arabs of how important Jerusalem is supposed to be to them.

Somehow, Jews don't need such an initiative to know how central Jerusalem is to the Jewish people.

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.

There has been an interesting clash in the media between Jared Kushner and Saeb Erekat that, when analyzed, shows that Kushner is right.

Kushner went on Arab MBCTV to defend the plan. As usual, no one can argue with what he says so they are upset over his tone which they claim is condescending. This interview does not sound condescending to me:

During the interview Kushner also slammed Erekat for being part of the problem:

"He says a lot of things that have turned out not to be true," Kushner told Egyptian journalist Amr Adib on MBC Masr's Al Hikaya political program. "The guy has a perfect track record at failing at making peace deals."

Kushner riled up Erekat and anti-Israel activists last week when he said, accurately, that Palestinians like Erekat have screwed up every previous opportunity for peace:

Jared Kushner, senior adviser to the President, says the White House's Middle East plan is "a great deal" and if Palestinians reject it, “they’re going to screw up another opportunity, like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence.” pic.twitter.com/ABAI3gKjig
— CNN (@CNN) January 28, 2020

Erakat tweeted after the MBC interview:

It is because of people like you who want to dictate rather than negotiate and who they thought could impose an apartheid Netanyahu plan on the Palestinian people forever. Ending the occupation, two states on the 1967 borders, otherwise is failure.

Yet as I noted, the 2008 Olmert plan gave Abbas everything he demanded - and more. Erekat admitted this himself:

“I heard Olmert say that he offered 100% of the West Bank territory. This is true. I’ll testify to this. He [Olmert] presented a map [to Abbas], and said: ‘I want [Israel] to take 6.5% of the West Bank and I’ll give [the PA] 6.5% of the 1948 territory (i.e., land in Israel) in return.’ [Olmert] said to Abbas: ‘The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the eve of June 4, 1967, was 6,235 sq. km. [I said to Abbas]: ‘There are 50 sq. km. of no man’s land in Jerusalem and Latrun.’ We’ll split them between us, so the territory will be 6,260 sq. km.” [I said to Abbas:] Olmert wants to give you 20 sq. km. more, so that you could say [to Palestinians]: ‘I got more than the 1967 territories.’ Regarding Jerusalem, [Olmert said]: ‘What’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish, and we’ll keep it an open city.’ Regarding the refugees, [Olmert] offered him [Abbas] 150,000 refugees … [Olmert] said: “The refugees’ right to return to the State of Palestine is your law. But regarding Israel, we will accept 150,000 refugees over 10 years. 15,000 [per year] over 10 years.”

So by denouncing all previous plans - which is in fact what many "pro-Palestinian" activists are doing in response to Kushner's CNN interview - Erekat is saying that his opposition isn't to Trump's plan but to every single previous plan as well for not going far enough.

The only possible interpretation is that Abbas' demands in 2008 were a lie, and he wanted to paint Olmert into a corner, not thinking he would (stupidly) agree to every demand for land and Israel taking responsibility for 1948 refugees and splitting Jerusalem. Abbas didn't want to end his claims on all of Israel down the line; he didn't want to stop at 150,000 Arabs "returning" - he didn't want to agree to anything that would leave Israel strong and viable.

Kushner is accurately pointing out that if Palestinians want a state, they can have one. In this plan, he notes, all the checkpoints will be gone - a Palestinian can travel through the entire state without seeing a single Israeli. Any Arab that wants to pray at Al Aqsa can do so. Details that were never dreamed of in previous plans are considered with the welfare of average Palestinians in the forefront of its philosophy.

Erekat's fuming response is, essentially, that nothing less than full Israeli surrender to the demands of those who claim they have nothing is acceptable - and that includes "return" to destroy the Jewish state. He is showing that his problem is not with Trump but with all previous plans, which fulfilled every ostensible Palestinian demand.

Erekat's words show that Palestinian leaders were never serious about peace or an independent state.And the Palestinian people are the ones who lose out because of the egos of Erekat and Abbas and all the rest.

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.

Abbas brandishes The Map That Lies at Arab League - but it is missing the fifth map

During the Arab League meeting, Mahmoud Abbas showed off The Map That Lies:

This is the map that Israel haters love to show off that completely misrepresents history, as I have explained in detail elsewhere.

It is not surprising that a known serial liar will push the Map That Lies.

What is funny, though, is that no one who pushes that map will ever add another frame to it, comparing areas controlled by the Palestinians today with what they would control under the Trump plan. Because the Trump Plan roughly triples the amount of land under Palestinian control!

If the point of the Map That Lies is to show how much land Palestinians supposedly lost over time (of course, this is a lie, since under Oslo is the first time they ever controlled any land), then the Trump Plan shows how they can do much, much better - if they wanted to negotiate instead of just say no to everything.

(h/t Adam L)

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

02/01 Links: Ben Shapiro: When ‘Never Again’ Means Nothing; Abbas says Palestinians cutting all ties with Israel, US; Arab League unanimously rejects Trump’s ME peace plan; Weekend at Bernies

From Ian:

Ben Shapiro: When ‘Never Again’ Means Nothing

The truth is that #NeverAgain has become a virtue signal for many on the modern left, who are more than willing to greenlight the genocidal anti-Semitism of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, and the Iranian regime, among others. Islamic anti-Semitism, in their view, is not true anti-Semitism; it’s just religious conflict, or territorial disagreement, or anti-Zionism.

When such ideological disagreements result in open calls for the murder of Jews … well, that’s going a bit too far, but it’s understandable. After all, modern Jews—particularly Zionists, who insist on a Jewish state to ensure the survival of their people—are rather bothersome in real life, unlike those dead Jews from World War II, who aren’t any more real than their old black-and-white photos, and whose survival is no longer at issue.

It’s easy for radical leftists and their Islamic allies to spout #NeverAgain while proclaiming that today’s Jews aren’t like yesterday’s Jews. All of which is why Israel’s continued existence provides both a thorn in the side of modern anti-Semites and why Israel’s continued existence is so necessary.

Vague expressions of upset over an event that took place 75 years ago are no substitute for the hard-nosed defense of Jewish survival that Israel represents. And Jews should remember that when they decide to blind themselves to the real and present anti-Semitism of the Omars, Tlaibs, and Corbyns.

Holocaust education is not a miracle drug to immunize us against hatred

What were totally forgotten or ignored by all the speakers were two topics that can best be described as the “unfinished business of the Holocaust.” I am referring specifically to the issues of justice and restitution, which are neither identical nor equivalent, but have two important similarities. In both cases, there have been highly significant partial successes, but much more could and should have been done, which has not yet been done. Both are still continuing but the chances of any additional major successes are almost non-existent as far as justice is concerned, and only slightly better in terms of restitution.

I mention these two issues because they have a direct impact on future efforts to defeat antisemitism, and are part of the problems we continue to face in this regard. Justice is a genuine deterrent to crime and had more of the perpetrators of Holocaust crimes been punished, it’s likely that antisemitic crimes would not be as prevalent as they are today. The same can be said as regards restitution. The more property returned to Jews, the stronger the warning against harming Jews – since in both cases the root of these crimes is antisemitism.

I am certain that many of the leaders who ignored these issues would dismiss this argument by pointing to the passage of so many years since the crimes were committed, but the passage of time in no way diminishes the crimes of yesteryear, and the guilt of those who murdered and robbed. The problem is that it is always easier to stick to virtually meaningless platitudes about memory and remembrance rather than pledge to tackle unpopular problems which obligate difficult practical solutions. So of course remembering the Shoah and Holocaust education are important and beneficial, but they have to be accompanied by legal measures against antisemitic crimes and the determination that the perpetrators of such crimes will never benefit from them.

"Anti-Semitism is just like racism -- it's hate. And hate anywhere should never be tolerated... We have to be loud every time we see something that is anti-Semitic." -@NikkiHaley pic.twitter.com/OhWqFGp0OR
— Stand For America (@standamericanow) January 31, 2020

Yishai Fleisher: The Myth Of Arab Buy-In

However, while these Arab countries feel pressure to line up with Israel to defend their strategic positions, as leaders of Arab nationalism and authentic Islam, they still need to publicly save face.

That is why the Trump plan smartly kept the “two-state solution” on the table so that Arab states could pay lip service to the creation of a Palestine. This allowed Arab representatives to sit at the White House in their traditional robes as the deal was being unveiled. Yet the real effect of Arab states accepting the tenets of the deal was not the creation of an independent Palestine at all. Rather, it was the recognition of Israel as a legitimate Jewish entity in the Middle East — with its capital in Jerusalem and with rights in Judea and Samaria.

Shocking! And with regard to Palestine, the Arab states heard and acquiesced to the call on Palestinians to disarm, to stop paying for terror, to stop incitement — to basically give up the war with Israel. This was truly revolutionary. By agreeing to an Israel in the “West Bank” and also a defanged Palestine, the Arab states, quietly and without public pronouncement, essentially agreed to an end of hostilities with the Jewish state.

The Palestinian leadership, naturally, is up in arms. But it is not only their former Sunni Arab state allies who have turned their backs on them — it is also the proverbial Arab street. Many “West Bank” Arabs are tired of the pointless war with Israel and are tired of the corrupt Palestinian Authority. It is for this reason that there have barely been any protests against the “Deal of the Century” — just as there was a muted reaction to the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by the Trump administration.

Yet, while many Arabs want to end hostilities, it is a mistake to pine for public Arab buy-in. Israel is anathema to both their Arab nationalism and a core tenet of Islam — and if they must swallow the existence of Israel, they prefer it play out as coercion, or at least a gradual and quiet acceptance rather than voluntary proclamations of “peace in our time.” In the end, helping the Arab world transition from war to cooperation is a delicate task and it will surely benefit Israel. But the Muslim world, which is hungry for prosperity, modernity, and reform, stands to gain even more.