Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, May 21, 2020

The Manufactured Outrage over “Annexation” (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

Annexation. The word is spat out with such vitriol that one would think that what is contemplated is mass murder. From Mahmoud Abbas to Jordan’s King Abdullah, to the European Union, to Justin Trudeau, the condemnations, warnings, and threats continue to flow. And of course, Joe Biden had his say.

A few words about the reality behind the so-called “annexation.” To start with, nothing is being annexed. It is the reasonable position of the Israeli government that it is sovereign in Judea and Samaria according to international law; and you can’t annex something that already belongs to you. But wait, you say, virtually the entire world disagrees, as is pointed out ad nauseum by sources like the BBC and the NY Times. Unhappily for them and the Palestinians they empathize with, international law is neither a popularity contest nor subject to a majority vote in the UN General Assembly. It is quite possible that the Government of Israel is right and “virtually the entire world” is wrong. This isn’t an article about that, but if you are interested, here is a good one.

The government calls it “extension of Israeli civil law,” and that is because presently those parts of Judea and Samaria that are not under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are subject to a military government (this is the case whether residents are Israelis or Palestinians).
Those who are so up in arms about the proposal also like to say that “Israel plans to annex the West Bank.” The correct formulation is that Israel proposes to extend its civil law to certain parts of Judea and Samaria where Jewish communities exist, and to most of the Jordan Valley, with the exception of Jericho, with its large Arab population. It’s important to note that almost no Arabs live in the areas in question. Those that do will be offered full Israeli citizenship, just like the Arabs of Jerusalem – or Haifa, or Yafo.

The Jordan Valley has always been considered an area that must be under Israeli control in any permanent establishment of borders, because it is essential to Israel’s defense. No “two-state solution” that did not recognize this would ever be accepted by Israel. And neither would one which included the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the destruction of their communities in Judea and Samaria.

The furor over “annexation” is an excuse to attack Israel and the Trump plan, which is the first real breakthrough in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict since the unfortunate Oslo Accords institutionalized it.

The Palestinians have adopted a paradigm of the conflict in which Israel is entirely at fault. Justice, they say, requires that we vacate “their” land – in fact, if you asked them, they would say that this includes everything from the river to the sea; they believe they are being generous by just asking for Judea and Samaria (at least, for now). But this paradigm is wrong. In fact, we are the ones who have been excessively generous in repeatedly offering them large parts of the land, offers that were rejected because they did not provide a clear enough path to an Arab state in all of the land.

Mahmoud Abbas says that he wants a “two-state solution,” and “annexation” would make that impossible. But Abbas has always understood “two-state solution” to mean a virtually complete withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, including the expulsion of all Israelis from those areas. He also envisions the realization of a right of return (a made-up concept that doesn’t appear in international law) for the millions of descendants of the Arab refugees of 1948. He does not accept that even the portion of Israel that would remain in Jewish hands after such a “solution” would be a “Jewish state” or “the state of the Jewish people;” indeed, he has said several times that there is no Jewish people. Therefore, it isn’t inaccurate to describe Abbas’ two states as one exclusively Arab state and one multiethnic state that would soon have an Arab majority.
There is little likelihood that the Palestinians will abandon their paradigm and their concomitant demands, and none at all as long as they are led by the PLO and Hamas.

The Trump plan, which is the framework under which Israel is acting today, recognizes that the traditional two-state idea is a non-starter, which is why countless rounds of negotiation have failed. Therefore it does not require Palestinian agreement before starting the process that is intended to lead to permanent, recognized borders for Israel, and autonomy (although not full sovereign statehood) for the Palestinians. This is unacceptable to the Palestinians just because it makes it impossible for them to realize their actual goals, spoken only in Arabic, of replacing Israel with an Arab state.

The European Union and Obama Administration officials accepted the Palestinian paradigm, although – at least for public consumption – they also said that they supported Israel’s security and right to exist. Thus they constantly reiterate as a mantra “two-state solution.” This position is self-contradictory.

Joe Biden, who wants to be President of the US, also favors a “two-state solution” and opposes “annexation.” He must: to do otherwise would lose the left wing of the Democratic base, as well as put him on the same side as his opponent. I don’t know how he feels personally about there being a Jewish state, if he has ever asked himself this question, or indeed if he has any actual ideas beyond wanting to be President. But I do know that he lent himself to the Obama Administration’s attempts to pressure Israel.

Back in May of 2010, while Biden was visiting Israel – Obama himself chose to avoid Israel until his second term, traveling to some 33 countries before then – the EU-funded Peace Now organization in Israel reported to the Americans that a regional committee had taken a preliminary step to add 200 more housing units to an existing plan to build apartments for religious Jews in Ramat Shlomo, a neighborhood in Jerusalem that was outside of the Green Line. A total of about 1600 apartments were included in the plan.

Biden harshly condemned the announcement, but insisted that “There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.” However, after he returned to the US, the administration ramped up attacks on Israel, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Netanyahu in angry 43-minute phone call in which she accused Israel of “insulting” the US and Biden personally, blamed Israel for preventing negotiations with the Palestinians, and demanded additional concessions to the Palestinians, including the release of terrorist prisoners, to “build confidence.”

Like today’s row over “annexation,” there was a manufactured outrage, an international pileup on Israel for its stubborn intransigence. The difference is that today the American President supports us, rather than leading the charge against us. Today it’s easy to forget 2010, when it seemed that the pressure from Washington for dangerous, even suicidal, concessions would never let up.

For what it’s worth, no new housing was built in Ramat Shlomo until 2018, when some 500 apartments were built. The promise of 1600 new units that so angered Biden and Obama in 2010 is only now being kept.

05/20 Links Pt2: Palestinian Myths and Israeli Realities; Why isn't there an UNWRA for Jewish refugees from the Arab countries?; Spanish gov't cancels tolerance seminar by group accused of antisemitism

From Ian:

Israel’s Miracle — 100 Years Later

The San Remo Conference recognized, in a way unprecedented in modern times, the idea of a connection between the Land of Israel and the Jewish people, and certified it as part of the Mandate charter. This documentation contradicts later invidious claims that try to break the umbilical cord connecting the Jewish people to their historic homeland, and declare Jewish settlements in the mandated territories to be a violation of international law or even a “war crime.” Even George Orwell could not have articulated better such artfully groundless accusations.

A century after the San Remo Conference, the Middle East is in the midst of substantial changes. Examining the Allied resolutions regarding the three Mandates in the Middle East from a contemporary perspective, it seems evident that the Mandates over Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq did not bring about the expected peace and prosperity, even after a century. Only violence, poverty, and continuing violations of fundamental human rights have governed these territories for the past 100 years. The future of the nation-states in these territories is as yet unclear, given the geopolitical turmoil erupting before our very eyes in the past decade, better known as the “Arab Spring.”

However, one case was different: The Jewish people established their nation-state in the Middle East 28 years after the San Remo Conference. This month also marks the 72nd anniversary of Israeli independence. The vision depicted by the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, his French counterpart Alexandre Millerand, Italian Prime Minister Francesco Saverio Nitti, and the other delegates to the conference coincided with the two-millennia old yearning of the Jewish people for a return to their land, resulting in a state worthy of its name.

The boldest of ideas envisaged in San Remo, to establish a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, was the one that measured up to historical expectations and proved to be a success. Indeed, of all the many resolutions by the international community pertaining to the Middle East during the past century, establishing the Jewish state has been by far the most successful, corresponding exactly to the vision and the hopes of the allied leaders gathered in San Remo.

Palestinian Myths and Israeli Realities

I like to deal in truth and reality, so here are some facts: Israel has never been called “Palestine,” at least not as a national political entity. And up until 1,420 years ago, there was no significant Arab population in this land — the ancient history of this land is demonstrably Jewish, Aramaic, and Syriac.

One need only consider the many “Palestinian” towns and villages that still carry Aramaic, Hebrew, and Syrian names.

Another truth is that Islam occupied the Levant by force, and imposed its own religion and culture in an effort to erase the region’s true Judeo-Christian heritage.

They call Israel and the Jews occupiers and colonizers — but it is Muslim Arabs who conquered, occupied, and colonized this territory, and over the course of 1,400 years, gradually transformed it into Arab Islamic lands.

But no matter what your views of the past are, Israel is today a reality. And we must recognize it for what it is — a nation working to restore its historic roots in this land. We as Arabs must stop relating to Israel by way of the antisemitic saying: “The Jews are the only people who have a history, but not a nation.”

Why isn't there an UNWRA for Jewish refugees from the Arab countries?

Last Friday, the Palestinians commemorated “Nakba Day,” as they do every year to describe the “disaster” of the founding of the State of Israel, especially the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem, a result of the war instigated by the Arab states against Israel on the eve of the declaration of its independence.

According to official data of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in the early 1950s, UNRWA took upon itself to resolve the needs of approximately 750,000 Palestinian refugees, despite this number being debatable. The UN coordinator numbered only 427,000 in Israel at the time, of which 360,000 required assistance.

Do you know the number of Jewish refugees who was expelled or escaped from Arab countries in the wake of that same Declaration of Independence? Eight hundred and fifty thousand.

I am not participating in the “Oppression Olympics” here, rather I’m pointing out the conflicting narratives. Even though in ‘48 there already existed a UN agency whose role was to protect and assist refugees (the UNHCR), a new and exclusive refugee agency was created for the Palestinians.

The reason for this was the immense pressure applied by the Arab countries on the UN, with the purpose of immortalizing the refugee crisis as part of the struggle against the State of Israel. This, is in spite of the fact that in a research report by the Institute of Palestinian Studies in Beirut, it was raised that the majority of the Arab refugees were not exiled during the war, and that approximately 68% of them left their home without so much as seeing an Israeli soldier.

The number of Palestinian refugees continued to grow with the years, and today stand at approximately 6.5 million people scattered between the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, according to UNRWA. Contrary to other refugees, in a method that is unprecedented, the status of Palestinian Refugee is passed on as an inheritance from generation to generation, and prevents any opportunity of a pragmatic agreement with them.

This, then, is the key to understanding the narrative: Israel’s enemies never intended to assist those refugees overcome their misery.
In order to fully grasp the absurdity, we must become familiar with the parallel story of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In 1945, there lived across the Middle East approximately one million Jews in Arab countries. Only a few years later, there remained just a few thousand.

The problem with the Deal of the Century is that like all peace plans before it, its premise is flawed. Trump’s peace plan is based on the idea that the Arabs prefer prosperity to killing Jews. The plan also presumes that Arabs will settle for some, and not all of the land. Finally, Peace to Prosperity is predicated on the notion of perpetual Arab refusal: that the Arabs will once again say no.

The first idea: that Arabs prefer peace, is flat-out false. The Arabs prefer death above all, as expressed in this PA textbook, in use since 2006:

“O heroes, Allah has promised you victory... Don't talk yourselves into flight… Your enemies seek life while you seek death. They seek spoils to fill their empty stomachs while you seek a Paradise as wide as are the heavens and the earth... Death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers. These drops of blood that gush from your bodies will be transformed tomorrow into blazing red meteors that will fall down upon the heads of your enemies."
[Reading and Texts Part II, Grade 8, p. 16]

The second idea: that Arabs will settle for bits and pieces of land is debunked an average of at least several times a day on American college campuses, every time a student (or Roger Waters) chants, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Or every time the PA broadcasts on its official media channels that all of Israel is "Palestine."

But the third idea, that the Jews are safe entering these negotiations because the Arabs always say no, puts the Jews in the position of negotiating in bad faith. This can only fan the flames of hatred against the Jewish people, leaving them vulnerable to accusations of insincerity and morally questionable behavior. Negotiating by pretense is not a good look for the Jewish people in a world rife with antisemitism.

We know that President Trump means well. Trump has done much to earn the gratitude of Israel and the Jewish people. But that doesn’t mean we have to look the other way when he tries to make a deal with a people who don’t want a deal, using Jewish land as the bargaining chip.

In every peace deal, current plan not excluded, it is always Israel who is called upon to make the important sacrifices; Israel that must give up bits and pieces of Jewish indigenous territory. All in the name of achieving every American president's impossible dream: peace in the Middle East.

Would that it could be so. But the Arabs “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” said Abba Eban in 1973, during the Geneva peace talks. With Trump’s peace plan, once again it is the Arabs who are offered opportunities. For they stand to gain, Israel to lose.

Anwar Sadat admitted as much. "After all, I got back … the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper," said Sadat in a 1980 interview appearing in the New York Times.

The Arabs get money, land, a state. The Jews get what? The absence of violence? A building freeze? Permission to say they are sovereign over their indigenous territories?

None of these things are real as compared to cash and land. The Jews get nothing but promises and statements of intent. They only give: only lose.

The Trump plan is well meant, but paternalistic. It tells the Arabs that if they behave for four years, they will get all the spoils of war: the money and the land. But if there are any violations, the deal ends, and Israel is off the hook from here on in as far as the Arabs are concerned, no muss no fuss.

But what practically, would this mean? That when Peace to Prosperity inevitably falls apart and Arabs resume their attacks on Jewish Israelis, that the violence directed at Israel will no longer be considered to be Israel’s fault? That everyone will stop blaming the victim of terror: Israel?

Is this our prize? Our spoil? And by the way, does anyone believe the world will sign off on this idea of Israel no longer being held accountable for the Arab violence against it? Or if the world does absolve Israel, will they mean it? Can Germany, for instance, be anything other than Germany—that is to say, incorrigibly antisemitic?

The main problem with Peace to Prosperity or any peace deal, of course, is that once the deal is concluded, it sets a precedent for the next round of failed negotiations. We know that whatever was on offer now, will not be enough the next time—that the ante will need upping for the next go-round.

Because that is how it always goes. Each successive peace plan is accompanied by ever more titillating tracts of (Jewish) land. And the world will keep pretending that the Arabs just want a state and will settle for less than all the land from the river to the sea. Peace to Prosperity, like all the other plans, makes this same pretense, speaking in the language of compromise, “Both Israelis and Palestinians have long-standing negotiating positions but also must recognize that compromise is necessary to move forward.”

But the only compromise stipulated, as always, is Israeli compromise. It is one-sided. It is Jews giving up their land. Both parties already understand this. And by the way, should the Jews refuse to "compromise," to give up Jewish land, all bets are off, negotiations fail, and the Arabs don’t get their money. So here again, the Jews are forced into an ugly choice, of a sinister bent: give up land or look stingy, mean, and ungrateful: a people who does not want peace.

Let’s imagine one possible outcome of Peace to Prosperity: that the Arabs promise to renounce violence and to recognize the Jewish State of Israel. Is it right or logical that the Jews should give up land—their most prized possession—for a promise and some recognition? Especially when we have never seen any indication of good faith from the Arabs or a renunciation of terror in all the years we have lived side by side if separate lives?

The text of Peace to Prosperity tells us that, “A peace agreement will be forged only when each side recognizes that it is better off with a peace agreement than without one, even one that requires difficult compromises.”

But the Arabs prefer death to peace with the Jews. They would rather die killing Jews. There is nothing anyone can give them that they would prefer to this outcome. Not money and not land. What room is there for compromise?

Word on the street is that the Jews can and should trust Trump, because he's been good to us thus far. And there is no doubt that Trump's intentions are good. He genuinely desires to make this deal: to make peace in the Middle East.

But this "deal" like all other deals, asks the Jews to give up Jewish land, as if Jewish land were something that might be bartered. This betrays a misunderstanding of the connection of the Jewish people to their land. The Land of Israel is central part to Judaism: an intrinsic part of God's covenant with Abraham.

The Jews are known as the People of the Book, and for having 613 commandments to observe, a people of rules and regulations. But a number of the commandments can only be performed in Israel. Forced to barter our land, we lose our religious liberty.

We recognize that no outsider can fully understand our connection to the land; not even a President Trump. But is it too much for us to ask the world to accept that our connection to the land exists—to stop asking the Jews to pretend or accept that Jewish land is fungible?

Indigenous territory isn’t something you can give away. Israel remains the indigenous land of the Jewish people, something holy and precious. We must not be so cavalier as to allow the land to be used as bait, and especially not assuming that the Arabs will once again say no.

President Trump no doubt means well, but it is wrong to treat the land with this way, to use it as currency. We must end the this situation in which Jews are asked to cut off bits and pieces of themselves. It's a sign of Jews in submission, and it's disrespectful to the land, as well.

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.

Israelis knew the British were supporting Arab forces in 1948

Haaretz published an interesting report over the weekend about how David Ben Gurion had intelligence from the French that the Arabs were going to attack Israel as soon as the British would leave, on May 15, 1948.

The report mentions a few examples of how the British helped the Arabs:

On the eve of the May 12, 1948, meeting of Minhelet Ha’am, Ben-Gurion received information from French sources to the effect that British intelligence officers and the British High Command in Egypt had succeeded in persuading King Faruq to reverse his earlier position and join the Arab war coalition.

...

Research in the archives of the French army, intelligence branch and Foreign Ministry has revealed many details about how British intelligence personnel and generals in Egypt manipulated Faruq to join in the war against Israel. Among other tactics, British agents made use of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Thousands of the organization’s members attacked and plundered Jewish and foreign property and demonstrated on the streets of the cities, demanding that the king order the army to take action to save Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and Palestine’s Muslims.

In the Negev, hundreds of the Brotherhood’s members operated against Jewish settlements. At the same time, the king was told that the Arabs’ conquest of the Negev would encourage the British Army to accede to his request to move its forces there from Egypt.

However, the most potent lure was the secret supply of weapons to the Egyptian army, in spite of the British government’s embargo on arms sales to the Middle East. In the second week of May, the French noted unusual visits by King Faruq to British army headquarters in Tel al-Kabir. Intelligence that reached the French indicated that the British officers promised the king that if he were to join the war effort, Britain would provide the Egyptian forces with the necessary weapons, ammunition and aircraft.

According to a report of the French military attaché in Cairo, during the period of May 1-25, the British Army supplied the Egyptian expeditionary force with large quantities of weapons and equipment from its Suez Canal depots, including rifles, machine guns, field artillery, ammunition, water containers and other items.

Special emphasis was placed on strengthening the Egyptian air force: It received 16 Spitfires, a number of Dakotas, air-to-ground bombs and a great deal of ammunition. The British also agreed to replace planes that were damaged. For their part, the French suspected that British officers were directly involved in planning the Egyptian offensive.

Faruq’s decision was a pivotal event for Egypt and for the entire region. Israel was now forced to fight on several fronts simultaneously: The Egyptian army advanced from the south toward Tel Aviv, while the armies of Transjordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon attacked from the east and the north.

This was not that much of secret. Here are several articles from the May 20, 1948 Palestine Post - all about how the British were helping the Arab war effort against the Jews.

And from May 21:

And then there was this bitter page 1 editorial:

This all makes Israel's victory and survival in 1948 that much more impressive - it was indirectly fighting a superpower both on the military and political fronts.

05/20 Links Pt1: Netanyahu to Iran: Those who threaten Israel will be destroyed; ICC Blues, Sue the Palestinian Authority for Hamas war crimes; 1 out of 10 Israelis calls Jerusalem home

From Ian:

Netanyahu to Iran: Those who threaten Israel will be destroyed

Anyone who threatens Israel will himself be threatened, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khaminei via Twitter on Wednesday.

“Khamenei’s threats to carry out ‘The Final Solution’ against Israel bring to mind the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ plan to annihilate the Jewish People,” Netanyahu said. “He should know that any regime that threatens the destruction of the State of Israel faces a similar danger.”

Netanyahu’s tweet came in response to one from Khamenei, featuring a poster that reads: “Palestine will be free. The final solution. Resistance is referendum.”

Khamenei displayed the antisemitic poster in English, Farsi and Arabic on his official homepage.

The picture shows a conquered Jerusalem with photos of the late Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani.

The US and the EU classified Soleimani as a leading international terrorist. A US drone strike killed the Quds Force leader in January. He was responsible for the murder of over 600 US military personnel as well as Israelis.

The poster was released from Khamenei’s office to celebrate Quds Day, the annual Iranian regime rally calling for Israel’s destruction.

Khamenei also tweeted a screed against Israel, writing that "the Zionist regime was built based on oppression, lies, deception, bloodshed, massacre and trampling human rights" and compared "the Zionists" to "a cancerous tumor...masscring children, women and men."

The Iranian leader called for Muslims around the world to unite against Israel and US President Donald Trump's peace plan, which he called "satanic." He called for Palestinians to be armed.

US Secretary of State Slams ‘Disgusting, Hateful Antisemitism’ of Iran Regime Leader

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday blasted Iran’s titular “supreme leader” for a flurry of “disgusting and hateful antisemitic remarks” posted to his Twitter feed.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a series of tweets on Monday and Tuesday that viciously attacked the State of Israel as the “occupying Zionist regime” and described the Jewish state as a “cancerous tumor.”

Slamming neighboring Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia for moderating their stances toward Israel, Khamenei urged that Palestinians in the West Bank “must be armed, just as Gaza.”

The Iranian leader repeated the myth that Israel’s survival was dependent on external backing, as he denounced the “satanic” US for providing “unconditional, shameless support” alongside those “Arab and Islamic governments refraining from supporting Palestine.”

Addressing the Trump administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative, Khamenei mocked the US president as “Physician Trump” and called Pompeo “the lowly, ranting Secretary of State who keeps making illogical, nonsensical comments here and there.”

In response, Pompeo pointed out that a recent Iranian propaganda poster threatening a “Final Solution” to the conflict with Israel “invoked the Nazi call for the Final Solution.”

“I ask all nations: is this someone who can be trusted with deadly weapons?” Pompeo asked.

Yet again, it is left to U.S. (@SecPompeo) as sole voice of conscience to condemn the vile Antisemitic remarks from #Iran's @khamenei_ir. Meantime Europe, which just marked 75 years since end of Holocaust, looks other way, choosing instead to attack #Israel over 'annexation'. pic.twitter.com/RVH4Q2WeAb
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) May 20, 2020

In last 24 hours, #Iran's @khamenei_ir has referred to #Israel as a "cancerous tumor" and called for "The Final Solution" for the Jewish state.

Have you heard all those enlightened voices who didn't waste breath to condemn Israel over 'annexation' now condemn Iran? Me neither. pic.twitter.com/ptp7bgp91T
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) May 20, 2020

Thousands of Iranians ask Israel for asylum and help

The number of Iranians asking Israel for help has spiked in recent months, in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.

“Thousands of people are asking to come to Israel for medical assistance or to emigrate,” according to Yiftah Curiel, head of Digital Diplomacy at the Foreign Ministry.

The requests have arrived mostly through private messages on the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts in Persian, as well as from e-mails. Some have been made openly, in public comments on social media, but by accounts using pseudonyms.

Curiel said many of the messages are serious asylum requests.

“Sometimes they are from people who have been forced to flee and are refugees in other countries, or people who had to flee after expressing solidarity with Israel,” he stated.

One of the messages they received was from a 31-year-old man who said he “had to escape Iran because of the corrupt regime. I asked for asylum in Turkey, and my wife and 4-year-old daughter and I are in unlivable conditions; there is no one who can help. We have been abandoned and our lives are in danger.”

Iran's "final solution" for Israel appeals to the Left and to Nazis

Iran issued this poster ahead of Al Quds Day:

There is a lot to talk about - the Nazi-invoking use of the term "final solution," the glorification of terrorists, the direct call to terror as "resistance," the ignorance of the artist of the basic geography of the Temple Mount (the people and vehicles pictured would be suspended in mid-air above the archaeological park to the south of the Mount.)

But what is meant by the "referendum"?

It is am Iranian plan on using "democracy" to ethnically cleanse Jews.

In 2019, Iran presented a plan to the UN for a "referendum" on Palestine, where all "Palestinians" could vote as to what their state would be like:

The objective of the plan for a "National Referendum in the Territory of Palestine" is to provide the grounds for the people of Palestine to exercise their right to self-determination.

Implementation Mechanisms:

All people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews will have the right to participate in the referendum.
Representatives of the people of Palestine from among the Muslim, Christian and Jewish will assume the primary and managerial role in all planning and implementation phases of the Plan.
With a view to facilitate the participation of all Palestinians, particularly the Palestinian refugees in this referendum, the global project for comprehensive identification, census and identity registration of all Palestinian citizens in Palestine and other countries will be implemented. An international authority with the participation of the representatives of the people of Palestine will be mandated to implement this project.

Some Jews will be allowed to participate, along with millions of Arabs who never lived in Palestine. But which Jews?

The implementation of this Plan includes four main phases:

Enforcing the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their historical homeland.
Holding a national referendum among the people of Palestine, including the followers of all religions, who inhabited in Palestine before the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, for the self-determination and determination of the political system.
Establishing the political system determined by the majority of the people of Palestine.
Deciding on the status of the non-indigenous residents of Palestine by the political system elected by the majority.

So the plan is to set the clock back to 1917, and only the descendants of people who lived in the areas of what would later become British Mandate Palestine at that time would be allowed to vote.

Get it? Nearly all of the Jews who live in Israel now cannot vote, but all the descendants of Palestinians who now live elsewhere can.

Then, after the huge Muslim majority is firmly in control, they can decide what to do with those disgusting, subhuman Jews who immigrated to Israel after 1917, most fleeing persecution from a different set of antisemites.

This is similar to the plan that socialist Left antisemites want to see, but they call it a "binational state."

I wonder what democratic decision the Muslims would come up with for the 7 million Jews who live in "Palestine" now and who would not get to vote on their own fates?

Whatever it is, I'm sure that the original coiners of the term "final solution" would approve.

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 EU's hypocritical use of "international law" that only applies to Israel

The EU's High Commissioner Josep Borrell tries very hard to appear even-handed and pro-peace in regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But when he pushes fictions in official press releases, the EU's real antipathy towards Israel shines through.

International law is a fundamental pillar of the international rules-based order. In this respect, the EU and its Member States recall that they will not recognize any changes to the 1967 borders unless agreed by Israelis and Palestinians. The two-state solution, with Jerusalem as the future capital for both States, is the only way to ensure sustainable peace and stability in the region.

There are no such things as "1967 borders." On April 3, 1949, Israel and Jordan signed an armistice agreement and a boundary was drawn between them with a green marker on a map - but it was explicitly not meant to be a border, and Israel maintained the right to claim lands to the east of the Green Line.

It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

This is the only source for the "1967 borders."

Most diplomats are careful not to call the 1949 armistice lines "borders" because they know this history. They use the word "lines" or "boundaries". The EU's use of the word "borders" here is a conscious lie - and contrary to the precious "international law" that the EU claims to want to uphold.

Jordan abrogated this 1949 agreement by attacking Israel:

No warlike act or act of hostility shall be conducted from territory controlled by one of the Parties to this Agreement against the other Party.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 makes clear that any actual borders must be "secure" - and Jordan's attack in 1967 showed that the 1949 armistice lines were not secure for Israel.

The EU and the UN have gone way beyond this already egregious fiction of "1967 borders" with another fiction: that the lands on the east side of the Green Line, including in Jerusalem, somehow belong to a Palestinian entity that never signed this armistice agreement.

Certainly nothing Israel and the PLO signed during Oslo presumed that the 1949 lines were the borders between two states. The only legal way Palestinians can claim ownership of any land whatsoever is by agreement with Israel. This is basic international law, and law that Borrell knows quite well. Yet he has the nerve to invoke "international law" to take away Israel's legal claims, indicated in the 1949 armistice agreement, and to award the Palestinians land that in no way can be said to belong to them.

Borrell's hypocrisy doesn't end there:

We strongly urge Israel to refrain from any unilateral decision that would lead to the annexation of any occupied Palestinian territory and would be, as such, contrary to International Law.

Yet the EU encourages Palestinians to make unilateral decisions to claim land, especially in Area C, by illegally building there. Indeed, the EU directly helps them build villages in Area C from scratch in areas that the EU insist are occupied - which means that according to the EU's own interpretation of international law, Israel alone has the rights to give out building permits in those areas as the belligerent occupier.

I was given a tour of these ramshackle structures, many with EU flags on them, in 2016:

Here is a time lapse animation I made a few years ago of illegal Palestinian building in Area C near Jerusalem that the EU encourages - haphazard, dangerous structures with no infrastructure, slapped together on any empty land they can find.

The EU says anything that Israel does unilaterally is illegal - but it directly supports these unilaterally built illegal structures and blatant land grabs in areas under Israeli control. These structures violate international law under existing, signed agreements.

Borrell's invocation of international law that only applies to Israel, but doesn't apply to the Palestinians nor to the EU itself, is breathtakingly hypocritical.

EoZTV: Jonathan S. Tobin on Abbas' folly and more

Last night on EoZTV I interviewed Jonathan S. Tobin, editor in chief of JNS and writer in numerous publications. We spoke about Mahmoud Abbas' folly, King Abdullah's choice, whether Israel will extend sovereignty over parts of the territories, Joe Biden's likely stance on Israel if he would become president and the difference between the Israeli left and J-Street.

05/19 Links Pt2: EU Parliament condemns PA textbooks that promote hate and violence; The Forgotten Jewish Refugees from Arab Land; Dead Sea Scrolls secrets revealed live online this week

From Ian:

European Parliament condemns PA textbooks that promote hate and violence

The European Parliament passed three resolutions that condemn the Palestinian Authority for using school textbooks that promote hate and violence.

The resolutions were passed Thursday as amendments by the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control in a budgetary report, according to the EU Reporter, and passed by a vote of 402-263, with 13 members abstaining.

Among the issues covered by the budgetary report, which was dated March 3, is the use of EU funds transferred as foreign development assistance.

One of the resolutions calls on the European Commission to make sure that “no Union funds are used to finance textbooks and educational material which incite religious radicalization, intolerance, ethnic violence and martyrdom among children.”

The resolution adds that the European representatives are “concerned that problematic material in Palestinian school textbooks has still not been removed and is concerned about the continued failure to act effectively against hate speech and violence in school textbooks.”

Money allocated for textbooks should “be used for drafting and teaching curricula which reflects UNESCO standards of peace, tolerance, coexistence, and non-violence,” the resolution said.

Jerusalem Day 2020: Examining the city's developing ecosystem

On Friday, Israelis will celebrate "Jerusalem Day," marking 53 years since the city's reunification in the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War. This year, Start-Up Nation Central, in partnership with the Jerusalem Development Authority, the Ministry for Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, is sharing insights and data about the unique technological ecosystem which came about in the capital of Israel and the role that the Jerusalem ecosystem is playing in the global fight against COVID-19.

Jerusalem is usually thought of as a city with rich history and culture, comprised of old neighborhoods, narrow passageways and exotic fragrances. One might not expect that alongside its rich history and culture, Jerusalem has evolved in recent years and has become a magnet for entrepreneurial activity and cutting-edge innovation.

According to Start Up Nation Central, there are currently 405 active companies in the Jerusalem ecosystem, a 102% growth since 2012. In 2019 alone, $233.5M were invested in Jerusalem-based companies and start-ups, a 21% increase from the year prior.

While most Jerusalem-based companies are considered "small-medium" with 92% of them having under 50 employees, many of Israel’s largest tech exits originated in Jerusalem. The best example of this is Intel’s acquisition of the Jerusalem-based company Mobileye for $15 billion.

"This proves there are ecosystems developed outside of Israel’s Center that can function, prosper, and be part of the economic growth in Israel's periphery," says Wendy Singer, Executive Director at Start-Up Nation Central.

There are several factors that help prosper a culture of innovation and success in Jerusalem. First, is the city's diverse population – secular and religious, Jews and non-Jews, men and women, Israeli-born and new immigrants. Diversity and inclusion are two values highly cherished by technology companies around the world, understanding that the more diverse team a team is, the more diverse ideas are conceived. It should come as no surprise that diverse companies perform better. Drawing on the city’s diverse demographic makeup, there has been a movement to train and integrate the Israeli Arab and ultra-Orthodox communities into the tech sector, thereby creating an innovative model being studied by foundations and governments in other countries.

Second, is the presence of world-ranked academic institutions like the Hebrew University for Life Sciences and Computer Sciences, and Bezalel Academy for Arts and Design or Hadassah College. There is a strong leaning in the city towards the Life-Sciences, of which Jerusalem’s students constitute over a quarter of all students in Israel studying this field. The nexus point between technology, design, and science, results in great creativity and human capital, attracting the eyes of global audiences.

Jerusalem divided: 1947

During the war, my father, Mordecai Chertoff, was an editor at the Palestine Post and simultaneously, a member of the then illegal Haganah. A godsend to the army, his press credentials gave him the freedom to move about the city with unfettered access to almost every location. Referring to his press pass in a letter to his parents during the summer of 1947, he wrote that his “little green book is almost armor-plate.” Mordecai used this freedom to visit and sketch British positions and sensitive security points, especially within Bevingrad. There are many such sketches in the Haganah Museum (although I did not find any that were definitely his work).

The third dimension of the complex situation in Jerusalem was the frequent curfews imposed by the British on the Jewish neighborhoods, usually following attacks by Jewish underground groups. From January 1, 1946 through October 20, 1946 Jewish Jerusalem was under curfew for 57 days. This includes the dusk to dawn curfew following the bombing of the King David Hotel (16 days) as well as other curfews, some lasting 22 hours/day.

With the departure of the British and the removal of the security zones in mid-May 1948, the fight for Jerusalem began in earnest. The battle for the Old City occurred during the second half of May. During the night of May 18-19, the Palmach managed to take the Zion Gate entrance to the Old City but were unable to hold it. Ten days later, the Jewish Quarter surrendered and was systematically destroyed by a mob. It would be nineteen years before Jerusalem would once again be an integrated whole.

Today, Jerusalem is a unified city. And while it would be an overstatement to claim that it is a model of racial harmony, Jews, Christians, Muslims and other ethnic groups, nevertheless coexist peacefully. Holy sites are open to all, Arabs and Jews share Railroad Track Park leading to the “First Station” commercial center, Arabs and Jews work side by side in many shops and business and perhaps most importantly, teams of Arab and Israeli doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health workers, together battle the Coronavirus with excellent results. The fissures that once divided Jerusalem continue to slowly fade.

We've mentioned the Ramadan TV series "Umm Haroun" that has been causing so much controversy because it treats Jews in Arab countries as regular human beings.

A new outrage came from an incident in the latest episode.

A Kuwaiti Muslim and a Kuwaiti Jew who are brought before a British police officer - this is when Great Britain controlled Kuwait - who asks them, through a translator, about why they were fighting. The Muslim guy said that his son took the Jew's daughter, and the two ran away and got married. The British police officer then asks what's the problem, since they are from the same country. The Muslim then says that the Jew's lineage is not honorable enough because, well, he's a Jew.

To this the Jew replies with the part that is getting everyone upset. He says that the Muslim is not honorable enough for him, and adds that ever since Jews were defeated at Khaibar (by Mohammed,) Jews have been oppressed and wronged in the Muslim world.

So while no viewer ha a problem with a Muslim saying that Jews have a tainted lineage, they are upset at a Jew saying that Jews have been oppressed by Muslims. In addition, people are complaining that saying that Mohammed oppressed Jews is an insult to Mohammed himself, which is completely unacceptable.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

Tracking another PLO lie: "957,000 refugees in 1948"

The Negotiations Affairs Department of the PLO tweeted this on Friday:

957,000? Where did they get that number from?

The only place that this number is mentioned was in an UNRWA report from 1950. Yet even then, in the chaos of trying to set up a new agency with thousands of people attempting to pretend to be refugees in order to get free food, UNRWA knew the number was wrong:

In May, the first month of its active life, the Agency, with more than 950,000 names on its refugee lists, attempted to cut ration distribution to 800,000, but so many debatable cases were brought forward and so much adverse discussion arose that it was decided that 860,000 rations were the minimum feasible to distribute unless the Agency was to leave itself open to grave criticism on humanitarian grounds....Although many fraudulent cases have been discovered, it is important to remember that the deductions are made from the names inherited from the Agency's predecessors.... It is regretted that, despite its earnest desire to do so, the Agency has to date been unable to remove many undeserving individuals from its relief rolls. It has no illusion about the unpopularity of its endeavours in that direction. It feels little hope that it will meet with any co-operation in its efforts toward the goal set. Conferring refugee status on non-refugees in the first instance has created a situation that cannot be ignored, but removing it exposes the Agency to unwarranted and unfair criticism from the misinformed public as well as fanatical opposition on the part of the undeserving recipient and his friends and supporters.

In the report for 1951, UNRWA went further:

One of the first tasks undertaken by the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East was to organize a census operation to determine who should and who should not receive relief. In spite of these efforts,... it is still not possible to give an absolute figure of the true number of refugees as understood by the working definition of "a person normally resident in Palestine who has lost his home and his livelihood as a result of the hostilities, and who is in need". ...A further difficulty is that, whereas all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence, and as the birthrate is high in any case, a net addition of 30,000 names a year is made to the relief rolls. In spite of this, a considerable reduction has been achieved and many false and duplicate registrations weeded out. By June 1951, there were 876,000 persons registered on UNWRAPRNE relief rolls compared with 957,000 when the Agency took over.

But UNRWA admits even today that even this 876,000 number is wrong - today it says there were 750,000 refugees in 1950.

According to UNRWA's estimates from 1951 of births, if 30,000 new "refugees" were being born every year, in 1948 there would have only been 690,000.

This lower number is supported by an earlier UN report which said, in October 1950:

The estimate of the statistical expert, which the Committee believes to be as accurate as circumstances permit, indicates that the refugees from Israel- controlled territory amount to approximately 711,000. The fact that there is a higher number of relief recipients appears to be due among other things to duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute.

This number would support an estimate of about 650,000 in 1948 assuming 30,000 births a year.

At any rate, the PLO is lying, as usual. No one on the planet has ever claimed 957,000 refugees in 1948, and even UNRWA didn't claim that number in 1950 - just that this was the number of people who were listed on their rolls, many falsely.

And it is not only the PLO - the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics has also quoted the bogus 957,000 number as fact.

The entire Palestinian leadership is a mythocracy.

05/19 Links Pt1: Israel: The Settlements Are Not Illegal; Caroline Glick: King Abdullah's empty threats; The Duma lesson; Lebanon’s Interwoven Fantasy Worlds All Lead to War With Israel

From Ian:

Israel: The Settlements Are Not Illegal

Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired (Art. 26.1) and that the exercise of these rights shall be free from discrimination of any kind (Art. 2). — UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007.

Among others, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Luxembourg voted in favor of the Declaration. Since 2007, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, who voted against, formally endorsed the Declaration in 2010. In their relations with Israel, these states cannot claim that the Declaration does not apply to Israeli Jews, since such position would amount to blatant racial discrimination.

[I]t cannot seriously be contended, as the EU, France, Britain, Russia, China and other states do, that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal and that annexation is contrary to international law. This position is political, not legal.

Article 80 of the United Nations Charter (1945) recognized the validity of existing rights that states and peoples acquired under the various mandates, including the British Mandate for Palestine (1922), and the rights of Jews to settle in the Land of Palestine (Judea-Samaria) by virtue of these instruments. (Pr. E. Rostow). These rights cannot be altered by the UN.

"Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements...nothing in this Charter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties." — Article 80, paragraph 1, UN Charter)

Does the Term “Annexation” Even Apply?

The territory that was to become British Mandatory Palestine was designated as a future Jewish National Home 100 years ago at the post-World War I San Remo Conference.
This history is pertinent to the debate that has emerged about Israel retaining parts of the West Bank this year in fulfillment of the U.S. peace plan.
This is commonly referred to as "annexation" and states have pointed out that they oppose the annexation of someone else's territory. But can you annex territory that has already been designated as yours?
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus was an act of aggression. The Russian invasion of Crimea was an act of aggression. Israel in the West Bank is an entirely different story. International law draws a distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an act of aggression.
In addition to the designation of these territories as part of the Jewish national home, one must remember that the West Bank was captured by Israel in a war of self-defense in 1967. That makes all the difference.
It would be more correct not to use the term "annexation" but rather "the application of Israeli law to parts of the West Bank."

Caroline B. Glick: King Abdullah's empty threats

If Jordan abrogated the peace deal, Israeli water and gas transfers would obviously cease. And since Israel's sovereignty plan will be undertaken in the framework of the US peace plan, it is hard to imagine that US support for the kingdom would be unchanged in the event that Jordan abrogated its peace deal in retaliation for Israel's move.

All this is not to say that Israel's relations with Jordan are stable. Anti-Semitism is almost universal in Jordan. And support for the peace with Israel is non-existent. The Hashemite monarchy itself is deeply unpopular.

It is possible that one day, with his back to the wall, Abdullah will abrogate the treaty. It is equally possible that one day he will be overthrown and that the successor regime will abrogate the peace treaty with Israel.

Facing this state of affairs, Israel's proper response is not to set aside the sovereignty plan, which among other things, secures Israel's long border with Jordan by applying Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley. The proper response to Jordan's enormous hostility – a state of affairs that existed long before the sovereignty plan and the Trump plan were conceived – is to draw up detailed contingency plans for the day after the Hashemites are overthrown or the peace treaty is abrogated.

In his remarks at the Foreign Ministry, Ashkenazy rightly praised US-Israel relations. "The United States is Israel's closest ally and the State of Israel's most important friend," he said.

During his visit with President Donald Trump in the White House in January, according to a senior American official, Gantz committed himself to implementing the Trump peace plan, including the sovereignty plan.

To preserve US-Israel relations, Ashkenazy and Gantz need to uphold that commitment. Failure to do so is liable to undermine Israel's credibility as a stable ally among administration leaders and other friends of Israel in Washington.

Ashkenazy acknowledged that through his peace plan, President Trump, "presents us with a historic opportunity to shape Israel's future and its borders."

Israel mustn't permit King Abdullah, and his empty threats stand in its way to seizing that opportunity now.

Amb. Alan Baker: Can Jordan Revoke Its Peace Treaty with Israel?

It is highly unlikely that Jordan would want to take such a step, especially in light of the fact that a unilateral act by Israel of applying law or sovereignty to parts of Judea and Samaria, even if not favored by Jordan, would not constitute an act of aggression against Jordan’s sovereignty or territorial integrity and as such would not be grounds for revoking the treaty.

Since the issue of the status of Judea and Samaria is, in article 3, specifically excluded from the border delimitation provisions of their respective territory, Jordan cannot claim that unilateral application of law or sovereignty by Israel in such territories constitutes a violation of the peace treaty or grounds for its revocation.

Since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty determines such basic bilateral components of their relationship such as the delineation of the international border between them (article 3), bilateral security arrangements (article 4), full diplomatic and consular relations as well as normal economic and cultural relations (article 5), it would appear to be virtually impossible to regress backwards from peaceful to hostile relations, unless one side conducts an act of aggression against the other.

Some of the central components of the peace relationship represent interests that are vital to Jordan such as water allocations (article 6), economic relations (article 7), Jordan’s special historic role in Muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem (article 9), freedom of navigation and access to ports (article 14), and civil aviation and rights of overflight, including Jordanian overflight of Israeli territory to reach points in Europe (article 15). To cancel or revoke such vital components would not serve the interests of Jordan and would undermine its very stability.

The parties agreed, in article 25, to fulfill in good faith their obligations without regard to action or inaction of any other party and independently of any other instrument inconsistent with the peace treaty.

Should Jordan wish to solve a dispute with Israel regarding the application or interpretation of the peace treaty, article 29 establishes a dispute settlement mechanism of negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration.

Peace Now US to feature liar Saeb Erekat in briefing call. Let the threats begin!

Americans for Peace Now is happy to welcome one of the most egregious liars on the planet to a conference call:

West Bank Annexation: The Palestinian Leadership’s Perspective - Briefing Call with Dr. Saeb Erekat

Friday May 22, 2020, 2:00 pm (Eastern Time)

An Israeli government decision to annex large parts of the West Bank would threaten the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations and the future of the Authority (PA). The PA has recently threatened to renounce all agreements with Israel if the Israeli government proceeds with its plan to apply sovereignty to parts of the West Bank. Some analysts predict that such an Israeli measure might cause the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Some predict another eruption of violent protests in the West Bank.

What would annexation mean for Palestinians? How would their leadership react to such an Israeli step? Does Mahmoud Abbas’ PLO have a plan for reacting to annexation on the world stage? Would the Palestinian Authority’s security cooperation with Israel collapse? Would the PA collapse?

Addressing these and other questions would be veteran Palestinian diplomat Dr. Saeb Erekat, the Secretary General of the PLO’s Executive Committee, who for many years served as the Palestinian chief negotiator with Israel.

Erekat is not there to offer predictions or insights into the PLO reactions to any Israeli moves. He is there to threaten the world with lies about how the PLO will respond.

We know this because we've seen this play before. It wasn't that long ago that Erekat went before Western media to threaten the PLO's response to any possible move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

In 2016, Erekat said that the embassy move would be "sending this region to more chaos, lawlessness and extremism." When the media ignored that threat, he added that:

The PLO will immediately revoke its recognition of Israel

The prospect of a two-state solution will be over

Any hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace in the future will vanish

Erekat would immediately resign as the chief Palestinian negotiator

All American embassies in the Arab world would be forced to close by the infuriated Arabs

These weren't predictions nor promises. These are threats.

Guaranteed, Erekat will repeat these threats now, even though not one of them came true last time as a result of the embassy move. (The two state solution was killed by the PLO many years ago.)

Erekat still heads the Negotiations Affairs Department. The Palestinian Authority still cooperates with Israel. The Arab world shrugged off the embassy move.

This time, the PLO is using the same tactics, and is also enrolling Jordan and the EU to pressure the US and Israel with more threats. Americans for Peace Now doesn't want Erekat to tell them the truth either - they want him to give them ammunition to go to members of Congress with confident predictions backed up by a high-ranking liar.

The Washington Post reports that a major cyberattack on Iran’s Shahid Rajaee port terminal appears to have originated in Israel, in retaliation for cyberattack traced to Iran on Israel's water distribution networks last month.

That April 24 attack was not successful but Israel's presumed response was to send an unmistakable message to Iran - don't even try to get into a cyberwar with Israel unless you want to have your entire economy crippled.

The Shahid Rajaee port terminal is Iran's most important commercial port, handling nearly 150 million tons of cargo last year. Some 50,000 ships dock there every year. It is important not only for Iran's own imports and exports but also as a means to transport goods through Iran to points further east. It is also situated at a "Special Economic Zone" where it is easier for Iran to trade with other countries with less paperwork and foreign currency restrictions. The port is strategically located at the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

The hack caused miles-long traffic jams on highways leading to the port, and there were still dozens of container ships waiting off the coast to dock days after the event.

Israel's presumed message was unmistakable: If Iran wants to launch a cyberattack on Israel, Israel has the ability to cripple Iran's economy without firing a single bullet. Iran has eight ports available to the world, and Israel could as easily shut all of them as one of them.

At a time when Iran's economy is already reeling from US sanctions and the coronavirus, it can ill afford to start a cyberwar with Israel.

In some ways, this message to Iran was starker than the hundreds of airstrikes Israel has hit Iranian targets with in Syria and elsewhere. While those strikes show Israel's unparalleled intelligence capabilities, this cyberattack hits much closer to home for Iran. Iranians might not care much about airstrikes a thousand miles from home but when critical goods cannot be imported it affects everyone.

The Washington Post characterized this as a tit-for-tat attack, but that is not what it was. It was a message that Iran would be foolish to even think about retaliating.