Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

When the Muslims bargained away Jerusalem

An interesting passage in a book I just saw called The Jerusalem Question, 1917-1968, by H. Eugene Bovis.

Bovis was a Foreign Service Officer in the region for many years, and the book was published by the Hoover Institution in 1971.

From pages 114-5:

I guess the "Palestinians" of the 13th century didn't protest when the city that is supposedly their eternal capital was bargained away, just as they didn't protest when Jerusalem was under Ottoman, British and Jordanian control.

Perhaps their "love" of the city is of a more recent vintage.

Ray Hanania lies

Ray Hanania is one of the more moderate Arabs of Palestinian origin - an American-born commentator and sometimes comedian.

Yet he has no less of an urge to make up lies about Israel than his other PalArab comrades.

From the SW News Herald, copied from Palestine Note:

Jerusalem is a closed city. It has been for years. Every conqueror and occupier has restricted access to the city to certain people considered enemies.

The Ottomans did it. The Jordanians did it. And now Israel is doing it. Except that Israel is lying about it.

Israelis insist that Jerusalem is "finally" an open city. Yes, open to Jews from anywhere around the world and to most non-Arabs. But not to Arabs and especially not to Palestinians of the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Jerusalem under Israeli occupation is a closed city and the worst part about it is that most Israelis have closed their eyes and they don't care.

Israel's high powered propaganda machine - something the Arabs may not understand because they have no real professional communications at all - insists the "big lie" that Jews were banned from entering East Jerusalem after the cessation of fighting in the 1948 war and until Israel conquered it in their invasion in 1967.

That is an outright lie, of course. Jordan had the same policy that Israel has today. Exactly. Precisely. There is not a difference. During this Arab-Israeli conflict, ALL Arab countries banned Jews who had Israeli passports or who had visited Israel from entering their countries. They also banned pro-Israel activists. And that included East Jerusalem.

The Israelis focus on that fact without the accuracy, of course.

NOT BANNED, however, were Jews who did not travel to Israel and were from other countries who wished to visit East Jerusalem's Wailing Wall for religious, not political, reasons.

Jews prayed at the Wailing Wall all the time during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem.

The difference is that Jordan didn't spend any time with clever public relations spin or professional communications explaining what they were doing.

Really? Jews prayed all the time at the Wailing Wall between 1948 and 1967??

Since there were approximately zero Jews in Jordan during that time period - they were all kicked out in 1948, including families who lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, without asking them if they were there for political or religious reasons - this is an astonishing assertion. Even more so since the newspapers of the 1950s and 1960s mention many, many times that Jews - not Israelis, but Jews - were banned from the Old City under Jordanian rule.

I found a single exception. During Christmas week in 1957, the Jewish and Arab mayors of Jerusalem opened up the Mandelbaum Gate and allowed a handful of religious Jews to the Old City. The Canadian Jewish Review mentions the incident, saying that the Jews cried far more for the ruins of the destroyed and desecrated synagogues than for the Temple, and some Arabs took advantage of the commotion to try to free some Arab prisoners from jail, causing the experiment in equal access to be aborted quickly.

Outside of that, the contemporaneous media uniformly mentions that Jews were not allowed to the Old City. Typical was this NYT snippet from January 13, 1957:

And there is the Wailing Wall, where the Jews may come no longer, barred now, as Christians or Moslems were from other shrines in ages past...

The Sydney Morning Herald, December 22, 1951, says

There is only silence to-day at the Wailing Wall, which is the western end of the great platform on which stood the Jewish Temple.

Is there "only silence" at the Al Aqsa Mosque today, Ray?

As far as the ability of Jews to travel to the Old City through Jordan, Dore Gold writes that "Jordan further barred non-Israeli Jews from the Western Wall, demanding that tourists present a certificate of baptism before a visa would be granted."

Hanania is claiming that Israeli policy today exactly mirrors that of Jordan during those infamous 19 years, in not allowing Arabs or Palestinian Christians to visit their holy sites. As I showed previously, not only did Israel hand out over 10,000 permits for Palestinian Christians to visit, but Israel also hosted hundreds of Jordanian and Egyptian Christians during Easter week this year.

To say that this is "exactly, precisely" the same policy that Jordan had when the Old City was Judenrein is nothing short of an absolute lie. If such a policy had existed, there would have been more Jews visiting holy places during Passover than there were Christians during Easter under Jordanian rule.

And, as I also mentioned, the number of religious visitors in Israel's undivided capital Jerusalem during the Passover/Easter season increased from 10,000 in under Jordanian rule in 1967 to over 100,000 this year.

Muslim world freaks over Saudi preacher planned visit to J'lem

From Al Arabiya:

A prominent Saudi cleric announced on his television show that he will visit the occupied Jerusalem next week to support Muslim claims to the city, according to media reports on Monday.

"I will shoot the next episode of 'Put your Fingerprint’ show in Jerusalem," Sheik Mohammed al-Areefi said, adding that Muslims have an obligation to Jerusalem.
Sheikh Areefi promised through the Saudi-based Iqraa TV channel that the next episode of his show would introduce "surprises," including a visit to Jerusalem and reports that would "astonish" the viewers.

AP adds:

A Saudi official says a cleric who announced that he will visit Jerusalem for a TV episode on claims to the city will be punished if he travels there.

The state-owned Al-Watan newspaper on Wednesday quoted the passports office spokesman Lt. Col. Badr Malik as saying visiting Israel is prohibited and any violator is punishable under the law.

Sheik Mohammed al-Areefi told his viewers Sunday on his television show that he will visit Jerusalem next week to support Muslim claims to the city.

Associates of the cleric have since said he was misquoted and does not plan to take the trip.

An Asharq al-Awsat columnist is upset:

It’s not the controversy surrounding the announcement made by the Saudi preacher Dr. Mohammed al Arifi to visit Jerusalem to film an episode of his weekly program there that bothers me. Rather, what worries me is the following question to al Arifi, his supporters and others; what about the Arab journalists who want to cover the Sheikh’s visit and the moment he enters Israel? Will they be held accountable for normalizing [ties] with the enemy or not? Will the [news] agencies and the press of slogans launch attacks against the journalists? Will the satellite channels that broadcast religious preaching programs send their correspondents to Israel to cover the visit?

You see, he is placing other Arab journalists in an uncomfortable position because of their twisted policy not to cover news in Israel, so by definition he is being a childish publicity hound.

Finally, Asharq al Awsat reports:

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that they did not object to the Saudi cleric's visit, and that he could apply for an entry visa from the Israeli consulate in Amman.

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman reportedly said "throughout the years many people from countries like Libya, Indonesia and other countries that don't have relations with Israel have visited Jerusalem." He added that "all these visits were naturally coordinated with Israeli authorities."

Sources also informed Asharq Al-Awsat that Saudi cleric Muhammad al-Arifi is currently in the Jordanian capital, where he is delivering religious lectures at the Al-Isra University.

Informed sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that at the time of publication, Sheikh al-Arifi had yet to complete the procedures to obtain an entry visa to visit Jerusalem.

There is extreme secrecy surrounding the details of this visit, and the Iqra TV officials are refusing to clarify any information on this, saying that all details will be revealed on Friday by Sheikh al-Arifi himself during his next episode of "Da'Basmatak."

The source who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity also said that al-Arifi is not visiting Jerusalem as a propagandist or a media figure; however he refused to clarify the purpose of al-Arifi's visit. The source also denied any coordination with the Hamas movement with regards to this visit.

Al-Arifi's announcement received a lot of criticism, with many considering any visit that includes coordination with Israel to be part of normalizing relations. Sheikh Hamed al-Betawi, head of the Palestinian Scholars League and a preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque has called for Sheikh al-Arifi not to visit Jerusalem. In a statement published by the Muslim Brotherhood website Ikhwan Online, Sheikh al-Betawi, who is also Hamas's Spiritual Guide, said that "with all appreciation and respect towards Sheikh al-Arifi for the role that he has played in the service of Islam and for his support for the legitimate resistance; we object to this visit, because it comes at a time when the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains in the grip of occupation, and rather we hope that such a visit will take place following the liberation of Jerusalem."

Tunisian cleric issues fatwa on soccer prayer

A Tunisian sheikh has issued a fatwa against soccer players prostrating themselves in prayer after they score goals. According to the cleric, they are not appropriately dressed for prayer and it is not an appropriate venue for something that holy. Also, the players are not always appropriately facing Mecca when they do their game-time prostrations.

The practice of a thanksgiving prayer after scoring a goal is widespread in the Arab world, to the extent that the Egyptian team has been nicknamed "the worshippers."

Other clerics disputed this fatwa. An Egyptian cleric from Al Azhar University said that such prayers are appropriate, saying that such prayers are good publicity for Islam in front of the television cameras.

Behind the scenes at the Arab Summit

The Al Arab al-Youm newspaper published a fascinating exchange between Arab leaders behind closed doors at the Arab Summit in Libya late last month. It was reproduced by the Palestine Press Agency.

According to the reports, Mahmoud Abbas listed his demands for Arab support for his positions: use the UN to pressure Israel, support PalArab claims to Jerusalem ("there is no meaning to a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital"), keep pressuring the US not to allow any Israeli building in Jerusalem, 1967 borders "with slight exchange of land," rejecting any "cosmetic" Israeli moves like moving the separation fence or releasing prisoners, lift the "siege" of Gaza, force Hamas to reconcile with Fatah, and others.

Moammar Gaddafi responded with a demand that the Arab world declare the peace process dead and that they support Palestinian Arab armed resistance - without overt military support of Arab regimes. He also called for Syria to take the Golan back by force.

The Emir of Kuwait said that this was not a wise idea, in light of the diplomatic crisis between Israel and the US, saying that at the very time that the differences between Israel and America are at their widest, to go back to a military option would play into Netanyahu's hands.

The Syrian delegation initially said that they support the option of armed resistance as well, and saif that they have always supported Palestinian Arab military resistance.

Abbas responded that the "popular resistance" (with Palestinian Arabs throwing boulders) will continue as they occur in Nilin and Bilin every week, as he believes that such "resistance" is legal under international law, but the Palestinian Arab people are not yet at a stage that would allow them to use armed resistance, as the second intifada destroyed their ability to fight with weapons.

Abbas also called for a resumption of the official Arab boycott of Israel. He also challenged Gaddafi to say that if he supports a resolution that calls for Palestinian Arab armed resistance, he must also call for one that insists on Arab support for military action to recapture the Golan as well as Lebanese territory allegedly held by Israel. Gaddafi replied that he would send his tanks and planes to Syria to help "liberate" the Golan.

This then forced Syria's Bashir Assad to make a statement that surprised the audience saying that "peace is our choice, war is not our choice."

Follow up on Kuwaiti singer (updated)

I mentioned a few days ago about Emma Shah, a Kuwaiti singer who found herself severely criticized for singing a Hebrew song (Hava Nagila) in a Kuwaiti club.

It turns out that she has a YouTube channel where you can hear her French and Hebrew versions of Hava Nagila. Check out her nearly 20-second single high note that starts at around 2:55:

You can also see the Al Arabiya interview with her about this incident. It is in Arabic, but you can see a couple of seconds of her performing the song live before the interview:

UPDATE: Zvi found an English language report on the incident and comments:

Ema also appears to be free of insane hatreds. And she's willing to demonstrate this in public. In a society whose media is frequently critical of public displays of non-hatred of Jews or public acknowledgement that Jews exist and are human, that makes her a fairly impressive person to my mind.

Ema also responds that the poly-lingual Egyptian-Italian diva Dalida sang "Hava Nagila" (and also "Hine Ma Tov"). Ema dedicated her version of "Hava Nagila" to Dalida.

Here are 2 partial translations of Ema's interview responses, together with context. The Islamic scholar who led the attack on her in the press has attacked her before (see below). Maybe he's just obsessed with her. And since he says that she displays "alien attitudes that clash with the spirit, culture and values of the Kuwaiti society," the conflict is not limited to "Hava Nagila," and his accusations of pro-Zionism and the like are just the latest in an ongoing attack. What the guy really hates is her "attitude."

"Unfortunately, our media focuses on wars and problems, and not on meaningful work. I have written in Russian and performed in Arabic, English, Spanish, Japanese and French. Does that make me a spy for France or Britain?" she said acidly according to local media reports. -Gulf News, quoting Ema

I love her "attitude". I'm sure that Sheikh Awadhi really hates it when she uses logic.
"He had criticized me in the past for a song about Jesus, and I see no motive for his attacks on me," she said. "I am well versed in all religions, sects and creeds and I do not have a problem with anyone. I love all people and there are Christians and people with various religious beliefs in my audience," she concluded. -Gulf News, quoting Ema

Ema's detractors see her self-defense against their libel as "abuse" of freedom of the press (see the Toumi link above). They evidently believe that they have the right to lie about her (claiming that she sang insults against Arabs, which is a pathetic and laughable claim) but that she has no right to defend herself. That says an AWFUL lot about her detractors, doesn't it?

She's human. She's not perfect. I hope that the Kuwaiti media does not brow-beat her into making some public show of anti-Jewish feeling. That would be sad.

I wish her the best of luck.

Also, an anonymous correspondent send me a translation of the Al Arabiya interview. Excerpts:

We witnessed much anger in the Kuwaiti street due to the choice of Kuwaiti actress Emma to sing in Hebrew, in one of the concerts in the capital. The young actress has confirmed that the song she sang at a ceremony on the stage of Club Kuwaiti had already been sung by actress Dalida in French and Hebrew, and at the time Emma did not know the exact meaning of the text of the song, but after the uproar Emma defended the song, saying it does not indicate any kind of abuse of the Arabs.

And with us from Kuwait is Emma. Why did you sing in Hebrew?

Emma: Yes, dear, the show, my dear, was not limited to Hebrew, I sang eighty percent of the songs in classical Arabic and five songs in English and two songs in French and a song in Spanish and part of a song in the Japanese language and part also in Hebrew, which simulated a humanitarian tour around the world from France Enrico Macias and Guevara in Argentina, Germany, Hitler and Mahmoud Darwish in the wall and Britain, Sir Arthur, Gibran Khalil Gibran and Iraqi Maarov Rusafi as well as the Rasputin of Russia and the various personalities, and also the Christ of the Christian and Jewish heritage of all.

Presenter: But some see what is the significance of the song Artist Emma in Kuwait, the Arab public does not know Hebrew, speak Hebrew, they do not know what message that you were trying to deliver to them.

Emma: Honey, is not important to take the significance of the Arab world, because this show [was meant for an audience that was]a group of intellectuals. I was not necessarily obliged to explain this kind of art to the general audience. The idea of this show was a type of anthropology, human science , we are talking about man in the human race, I want to communicate between all members of the human race, I want to remove these barriers, this ideological borders the troubled psychologically such as religious Islamic fanatics who are against women and against freedom and against liberalism and democracy that are the foundation of this problem. The problem is not the streets of Kuwait, the Kuwaiti street has no problem in this maelstrom.

Presenter: If you please, let's not get into the clergy, especially as there are none of them here to respond...

Emma: No, no, Dear, no no no no. In all articles that had attacked me, the Islamists are the ones who attacked me.

Presenter: I understand you, but allow me this question, perhaps what you sang came out of what is happening in Palestine and not out of the clergy (Islamists)

Emma: No dear, I am not involved in the question of Palestine..., I'm an artist, and my case is not Palestine, I have issues that belong to me, I am interested in my issues.

Presenter: Last question, are you satisfied with the singing in Hebrew?

Emma: Of course, what is the problem? This is freedom, personal freedom. I call upon the city which actually placed in the Kuwaiti Constitution Article 35 and 36 the ideas of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression and opinion and freedom to express one's opinion and to publicize it verbally, in writing or any other way that is desired.

Peaceful PalArab Passover

Here are some of the events that happened in Gaza while I was not able to post:

Three young men, aged 16 and 17, were injured when a rocket intended to land in Israel fell short in Beit Hanoun, Gaza. One was seriously hurt as shrapnel entered his head and he lost a hand (or a leg.) (UPDATE: 5 injured, English report here.)

Two smuggling tunnels collapsed, killing one and injuring six.

PCHR reported that two Gazans were abducted and tortured by Hamas over the weekend.

Taqiyya (Raymond Ibrahim)

An important article about the Muslim religious doctrine of deceit in wartime, by Raymond Ibrahim, was published in Middle East Quarterly. Excerpts:

Islam must seem a paradoxical religion to non-Muslims. On the one hand, it is constantly being portrayed as the religion of peace; on the other, its adherents are responsible for the majority of terror attacks around the world. Apologists for Islam emphasize that it is a faith built upon high ethical standards; others stress that it is a religion of the law. Islam's dual notions of truth and falsehood further reveal its paradoxical nature: While the Qur'an is against believers deceiving other believers—for "surely God guides not him who is prodigal and a liar"[1]—deception directed at non-Muslims, generally known in Arabic as taqiyya, also has Qur'anic support and falls within the legal category of things that are permissible for Muslims.

Taqiyya offers two basic uses. The better known revolves around dissembling over one's religious identity when in fear of persecution. Such has been the historical usage of taqiyya among Shi'i communities whenever and wherever their Sunni rivals have outnumbered and thus threatened them. Conversely, Sunni Muslims, far from suffering persecution have, whenever capability allowed, waged jihad against the realm of unbelief; and it is here that they have deployed taqiyya—not as dissimulation but as active deceit. In fact, deceit, which is doctrinally grounded in Islam, is often depicted as being equal—sometimes superior—to other universal military virtues, such as courage, fortitude, or self-sacrifice.

Muhammad said other things that cast deception in a positive light, such as "God has commanded me to equivocate among the people just as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations"; and "I have been sent with obfuscation"; and "whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr."[17]

In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya as a form of Islamic warfare. Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being that their intentions (niya) be pure.[18] During wars with Christians, whenever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral. Mukaram states, "Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids [crusades] of the Franks and others."[19]
That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love and war."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense. The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]
The perpetual nature of jihad is highlighted by the fact that, based on the 10-year treaty of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraysh opponents in Mecca, most jurists are agreed that ten years is the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels; once the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised. Based on Muhammad's example of breaking the treaty after two years (by claiming a Quraysh infraction), the sole function of the truce is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive:[33] "By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but warlike."[34] Hence "the fuqaha [jurists] are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims]."[35]

Even though Shari'a mandates Muslims to abide by treaties, they have a way out, one open to abuse: If Muslims believe—even without solid evidence—that their opponents are about to break the treaty, they can preempt by breaking it first. Moreover, some Islamic schools of law, such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[36] This is reminiscent of the following canonical hadith: "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better."[37] And what is better, what is more altruistic, than to make God's word supreme by launching the jihad anew whenever possible? Traditionally, Muslim rulers held to a commitment to launch a jihad at least once every year. This ritual is most noted with the Ottoman sultans, who spent half their lives in the field.[38] So important was the duty of jihad that the sultans were not permitted to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca, an individual duty for each Muslim. Their leadership of the jihad allowed this communal duty to continue; without them, it would have fallen into desuetude.[39]
This, then, is the dilemma: Islamic law unambiguously splits the world into two perpetually warring halves—the Islamic world versus the non-Islamic—and holds it to be God's will for the former to subsume the latter. Yet if war with the infidel is a perpetual affair, if war is deceit, and if deeds are justified by intentions—any number of Muslims will naturally conclude that they have a divinely sanctioned right to deceive, so long as they believe their deception serves to aid Islam "until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[49] Such deception will further be seen as a means to an altruistic end. Muslim overtures for peace, dialogue, or even temporary truces must be seen in this light, evoking the practical observations of philosopher James Lorimer, uttered over a century ago: "So long as Islam endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an insoluble problem."[50]

In closing, whereas it may be more appropriate to talk of "war and peace" as natural corollaries in a Western context, when discussing Islam, it is more accurate to talk of "war and deceit." For, from an Islamic point of view, times of peace—that is, whenever Islam is significantly weaker than its infidel rivals—are times of feigned peace and pretense, in a word, taqiyya.

Read the whole thing.

h/t Joseph E

HRW followup

The Times (UK) article on HRW that I quoted from last week had a number of inaccuracies and other parts that HRW took exception to:

A Magazine article, “Explosive Territory” (March 28) by Jonathan Foreman, mostly about Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) work on Israel, requires clarification and correction. The magazine said that HRW had not published any report on the post-election abuses in Iran when in fact the organisation published one in February this year. Marc Garlasco, the former senior military analyst for HRW, was not the only person in the organisation who had military experience; a number of the HRW staff have military expertise. In the 20-year Kashmir conflict HRW has published nine reports, not four as the article stated. One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission but was not directly employed by that group, as the article suggests. Although HRW never produced a full report about the shelling at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in 2007 it did write three press releases, not one as the article stated. We regret the errors. Mr Foreman quoted a critic of HRW saying the group “cares about Palestinians when mistreated by Israelis but is less concerned if perpetrators are fellow Arabs”. In fact Human Rights Watch has reported on abuses of Palestinians by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Mr Foreman cited unnamed sources that said Mr Garlasco resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations. HRW and Mr Garlasco both say HRW never pressured Mr Garlasco to change his findings. We are happy to clarify HRW’s position.

NGO Monitor comments on the corrections in the same link:

HRW’s “corrections” to Foreman’s expose raise more questions and create more confusion, while avoiding core issues like credibility, bias against Israel, and the Garlasco gag order.

1) They claim that “a number of the HRW staff have military expertise” – what does this mean regarding credibility of combat analysis? Basic training, some time in front of a computer, etc. does not provide the “military experience” necessary to assess actions and weapons (drones, WP, etc.) in Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq. There is still no information to assess Garlasco's qualifications as HRW's "senior military analyst."

2) Regarding the employment of Lucy Mair in the anti-Israel MENA division: “One HRW researcher has had articles published by the Palestinian pressure group Electronic Intifada without her permission….” Mair published more than one article in EI. These have been on line for seven years, with no record of any objection by her. HRW’s response does not alter Foreman’s point that Mair was a highly visible anti-Israel propagandist before being hired by HRW.

3) Detailed HRW reports and accompanying media campaigns are not comparable to short press releases, whether on Kashmir or Palestinian terror. Reports indicate a major investment, while stand-alone press releases are quickly forgotten, as detailed in NGO Monitor research.

4) HRW officials assert that they “never pressured Mr. Garlasco to change his findings,” but they refuse to explain inconsistencies and changing “forensic” analysis in Gaza Beach and other examples.

Latter days of Passover open thread

I will be out of touch during the last days of the holiday, from now until at least Tuesday night.

Here's an open thread for you guys and gals to paste any interesting links you might find. (I do appreciate when people email me links; I might not use them all but it makes my life considerably easier.)

Chag sameach!

Jordanian Christians visiting Jerusalem for Easter under threat

Remember the absurd Reuters article that implied that Israel was doing everything it could to discourage Arab Christians from visiting Jerusalem, and that Israeli policies were keeping Christians from Arab countries away?

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Many of the Arab Christians flocking to holy sites in Israel this Easter Sunday come from neighboring Jordan.

But they do so at a price.

Those who make the trek – and, as part of a broader rise in religious tourism, more are making it every year – risk their professional reputation and their family’s disapproval.

For a country whose 1994 peace treaty with Israel was never accepted at the popular level, receiving an entry stamp, let alone a visa from Israel, is considered “treason” to the Arab cause.

But despite a growing movement to discredit those involved with the “Zionist enemy,” hundreds of Jordanians risk their careers and reputation to complete a pilgrimage to holy sites in Israel’s occupied territories.

“I cannot help it,” says Daoud Yazeed, a Jordanian Christian who disguises his pilgrimages as business trips. “Jerusalem is calling.”

In 2009, 15,000 Jordanians traveled to Israel, the most of any Arab or Muslim country. While a majority of them were visiting Palestinian relatives, a significant number are part of a growing trend of religious tourism.

According to tour operators, an increasing number of Jordanian Christians and Muslims – Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city – are taking part in all-inclusive week-long trips through Nazareth, Hebron, and Jerusalem, priced at $600.

But under the Anti-Normalization movement, spearheaded by Islamists and professional associations opposed to Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty – or “normalization” with Israel – those found to have normalized are disbarred from their union and lose their professional licenses, which are required by Jordanian law.

Families further face the public humiliation of being added to a once-publicized blacklist of individuals and companies that deal with the “Zionist entity.”
'Anti-normalization' activists

Anti-Normalization activists are determined to crack down on the practice this holiday to bring to light those who have “normalized with the enemy,” according to Muslim Brotherhood and National Anti- Normalization Committee leader Hamzah Mansour.

“This is supporting Zionist efforts to rid the holy lands and Palestine of its inhabitants, and it is forbidden,” he said.

He compared trips to Jerusalem to the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca which is considered the duty of every adult Muslim, pointing out that the journey is not required if a worshiper has poor health or a lack of money.

“Al Aqsa is occupied territory and you are not expected to pilgrimage to Al Aqsa. God understands,” Mr. Mansour said, calling on Jordanian Christians to pray in local holy sites this Easter to “support the local industry.”

According to the professional associations, they have yet to revoke union memberships over normalization. But the threat itself has deterred hundreds, if not thousands, from making the trip, or pushed their travel into secret, tour operators say.

Normalization, however, was the last of the concerns for Ramzi Mustafa, one of 200 Christian pilgrims from Egypt – the only other Arab country that has made peace with Israel – in the holy city this weekend with organized tour groups.
He said his participation in processions on Via Dolorosa on Good Friday is a way of showing support for the Palestinians and the need for peace, not support for “Zionism.”

And what do the Arabs of Jerusalem think about all this?

Nor do Muslim pilgrimages suggest support for occupation, says the head of Jerusalem’s holy sites, Sheikh Mohamed Azzam Tamimi.

"Jordanians and Egyptians, all Arabs should come and see the holy city,” he said, noting that due to visa restrictions most of the visitors are from Asia, not the Arab world. “We may be under occupation, but supporting our efforts is not normalization.”

Politics should not prevent Arab Christians and Muslims from traveling to the holy city, according to William Shomali, auxiliary bishop of the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, who welcomed all Arabs to take part in Easter services.

“Our dream is for all Arab Christians and Muslims to come and pray in the holy city,” he said, acknowledging the current situation has been “difficult” for Arab Christians across the region.

“They should come regardless of the political situation,” he said. “We should separate politics from religion, even if certain parties want to join them together; all have the right to pray in the holy sites.”

The Islamists in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere threaten those who want to come to Jerusalem for any reason - religious or to give cultural support for Palestinian Arabs. The PalArabs who they pretend to be supporting are unanimous in their desire for the visitors, even if they get an Israeli visa stamp.

It just goes to show once again that the people who pretend to care about Palestinian Arabs really only care about hating Israel, not supporting their Palestinian brethren.

It also shows that Israel welcomes these Arabs into the country, and it indicates that Israel is much more interested in freedom of religion for the holy sites under its control than Arab nations ever were.

By way of example, some 105,000 visitors were expected in Jerusalem this week, as opposed to the 10,000 or less that would come during Holy Week before the Six Day War. Any implication that Israeli policies have reduced the number of religious visitors to Jerusalem (as the Reuters article implied) is not only a lie, but an egregious lie.

Muslims arrested trying to pray in Cordoba church

An interesting story:

A confrontation between Muslim tourists and guards employed by the Roman Catholic bishop at the world-famous Cordoba mosque saw two people arrested and two guards injured last night.
Trouble broke out when the visitors knelt to pray in the building, a former mosque turned into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, where a local bishop, Demetrio Fernández, recently insisted that a ban on Muslim prayers must remain.
Half a dozen members of a group of more than 100 Muslims from Austria had started praying among the marble columns and coloured arches of the vast building when security guards ordered them to stop.
"They provoked in a pre-planned fashion what was a deplorable episode of violence," the bishop's office said in a statement.
Cathedral authorities said the guards had invited the visitors to continue viewing the inside of a 24,000 sq metre building that was once the world's second biggest mosque, but without praying.
"They replied by attacking the security guards, two of whom suffered serious injuries," the bishop's office said.
Local newspapers reported that a dozen police officers had been called into the building and that these, too, had been attacked when they tried to arrest the two visitors.
The local Diario de Cordoba newspaper quoted anonymous police sources as saying that a knife had been taken off one of those arrested.

The former mosque was itself built on top of a previous church, although it looks as if the church was purchased, not taken by force.

Look at the arguments that the Muslim community advances to justify their right to pray there:

A group of local Muslim converts have long campaigned for the right to pray at the mosque building. "The building is very big and the main cathedral occupies only a part of it," said Mansur Escudero of the Junta Islamica group.
"They publicise the building as a mosque because that brings in tourists, but they do not allow the Muslims who pay money to go inside to pray," he said.
Escudero said a space for Muslim prayers would not inconvenience visitors or disturb the cathedral and would promote dialogue and understanding between the two religions. He said there were frequent incidents of Muslims being prevented from praying.

So would these same Muslims support the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, which is large enough to accommodate a synagogue?

Sunday Chol HaMoed links

Latma's latest humorous video

Bibi rejecting 12,000 roses from American Christians so as not to offend Obama???

A "student brawl" at An Najah University causes the campus to close down. Sounds like it might not have been so minor...

Nice new reference site: 10 Facts about the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Israel allowing cement into Gaza, and Free Gaza buys a cargo ship at auction to bring more. Israel's is meant for the UNRWA, Free Gaza's cement is a bit more likely to go straight to Hamas.

And a couple of the links I have tweeted in the past few days (I tweet interesting articles and links that don't merit a full posting)-

Bad Hebrew Tattoos is an amusing site with at least one very funny example.

Jordanian arrested for organ trafficking from Yemen to Egypt. Egypt is an epicenter of organ trafficking.

Egyptians boycott film festival with Israeli director represented

From AFP:

Egyptian filmmakers who were to sit on the jury of a French film festival in Cairo are boycotting the event because of an Israeli entry, saying they refuse to normalize relations with the Jewish State.
Director Kamla Abu Zikri and actor Asser Yassin told AFP they were boycotting the "Rencontres de l'Image" festival organized by the French embassy's cultural centre (CFCC) in Cairo from April 8-15 after finding out that one of the directors, Keren Ben Rafael, is Israeli.
The festival program had not mentioned Ben Rafael's nationality, only that she graduated from a prestigious French film school.
The decision to quit "is not anti-Jewish, it is to protest against Israeli policies," Yassin told AFP.
"I respect France's freedom to choose the films it wants to show in a festival it is organizing, but I also have the right to take a decision which I feel is right," he added.
Egypt was the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel in 1979, but the decision has always been unpopular, particularly in cultural circles that reject such ties and refuse to show Israeli works in Egypt.
Abu Zikri said she withdrew because she rejects "any sort of normalization with Israel."
Filmmaker Ahmed Atef also resigned from the festival last week, prompting the CFCC to remove the Israeli film "Almost Normal" from the list of entries.
But in Paris the foreign ministry insisted that "the film in question is indeed on the program" of the event before the film reappeared on the CFCC list of entries on its website.

The film is listed now in the PDF brochure of the entries.

Here is an Arabic AFP article from the initial decision to withdraw the film before the French changed their minds. This French article details the sequence of events as well.

An Egyptian article by one of the boycotters is a bit more strident:

I was shocked when I read the brochure of the film program, which I received from the center, and was struck by the name of the director "Keren Ben-Rafael," whose film "Almost Normal" mentions events taking place in Tel Aviv. The name and description led me to do research into who this director is, to be surprised in what can only be described as a malignant attempt at infiltration of Israeli films into Egypt, with the assistance of a fifth column in Egypt, which is headed by those who do not hesitate in preaching and advocacy of the achievements of the Zionist film...

Kuwaiti singer criticized for singing in Hebrew

Emma Shah, a popular Kuwaiti singer, was strongly criticized today as news got out that she sang a Hebrew song at a Kuwait club.

Arab news sources talked about "outrage" in the streets after people heard about her song.

Shah struck back at her critics, saying that the song translates to "Come let us rejoice, to be happy, to enjoy my brothers, to enjoy."

She said "I am a human being and should not be subject to the [illogical] limits set by other human beings. Unfortunately, Arabs refused to co-exist with others and with other opinions. We have racism and and fanaticism and hatred of ourselves and those around us."

Emma said she does not hate anyone and is knowledgeable on other religions and creeds, which makes her love all people.

A Gaza child "killed by Israel" miraculously comes to life

From Ma'an, March 30:

A child was shot and killed east of the Yasser Arafat International Airport in Rafah on Tuesday, medics said.

Muawiya Hassanein, director of ambulance and emergency services in Gaza, said Muhammad Zen Ismail Al-Farmawi, 15, was shot dead near the southeasterly border by Israeli forces, while local sources who wished to remain anonymous said the death may have been an internal matter.

Hassanein said ambulances had been unable to retrieve the body because of ongoing clashes in the area, while an Israeli military spokesman said he had no knowledge of the incident.

DPA adds witnesses to those who claimed the boy was killed:

A 15-year-old Palestinian boy was killed Tuesday near the border area between the south-east Gaza Strip and Israel, witnesses and security sources said.

Witnesses said that Mohamed al-Farmawi, 15, of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah was shot dead by Israeli troops after he approached the fence along the border with Israel, which lies east of the town.

Gaza emergency chief Mo'aweya Hassanein told reporters in Gaza that medical teams and International Red Cross Committee (ICRC) coordinated with the Israeli army to collect the boy's body.

Multiple witnesses and Gaza officials all agree that the boy was killed and even that his body was recovered. You can't do better than that, can you?

Apparently, you can. From Ma'an today:

Palestinian teenager reportedly killed by Israeli forces has returned home alive and well, his family said Friday.

It turns out Al-Farmawi was among 17 Palestinians detained by Egyptian forces shortly after the infiltrated the Egyptian side of Rafah via one of Gaza's numerous underground smuggling tunnels. The detainees, among them 12 minors, were returned to security forces at the border on Friday.

Relatives expressed "overwhelming happiness" that their son was unharmed during the violence, our correspondent reported from Rafah.

Just more evidence that the veracity of Gaza "witnesses" and Hamas officials is approximately zero. Not that this will stop reporters and NGOs and UN fact-finding missions from believing them the next time they lie, and the time after that, and the time after that....

Cleric on Egypt TV: "Heavy metal is Zionist"

A great clip from MEMRI, transcript here:

Interviewer: You like heavy metal music, but unfortunately, you have to deal with many misconceptions in our society, which views you, at times… Let’s be frank, people call you Satan worshippers. I am sure you’ve heard this. I was surprised to hear that some of your parties have developed into a national security issue.

[…]

Nirmin Magdi, fine arts student: Heavy metal is just music. It has nothing to do with Satan worshipping.

Bassem Ali, student of pharmaceutics: I would like to say something. It’s better to play guitar or have a hobby than watch porn films on the Internet.

Karim ‘Ammad, student of hotel management: Instead of accusing us of worshipping Satan or whatever, they should talk to us and try to understand the way we think.

[…]

Tuhami Muntasir, former advisor to the Mufti of Egypt: It has become clear that this is being funded, and that it is sponsored organized Zionist activity. They get money from various sources – maybe from Cyprus, maybe from Israel… What they do at their parties…

Interviewer: Do you get money from any source?

Karim ‘Ammad: If we did, would we be in such a poor state? What money? This is the first time I’m hearing this claim.

Tuhami Muntasir: I am talking about confessions of people who were caught…

Karim ‘Ammad: What you said sums it up. You’re talking about the past. Today there’s nothing…

Tuhami Muntasir: I am talking about confessions of people who were caught… I am not done yet.

Bassem Ali: Go ahead, finish.

Tuhami Muntasir: Let me tell you that the phenomenon that we are witnessing right now is a clear manifestation of a well-funded Zionist campaign, which is based on a “constitution” – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. With your permission, I am not done yet. Protocols of the Elders of Zion – that founding constitution… What does Zionism want to accomplish? You are an intellectual, and you know this. It wants to rule the world.

Interviewer: Let’s be reasonable.

Tuhami Muntasir: It wants to rule the world. Let me finish. It wants to rule the world. Zionism has means to do so, and it has priorities. The Zionists say: We will establish clubs and we will draw people, who have certain characteristics and who are willing to collaborate, and we will bring them to the top of the pyramid…

Interviewer: But they are not spies…

Tuhami Muntasir: The third priority of the Elders of Zion is drug trafficking, and facilitating the spread of abomination, so that societies become enslaved to their desires and urges…

Interviewer: Let’s return to the heavy metal fans…

Tuhami Muntasir: That way, the countries will collapse with no need to resort to weapons. Ruling the world is the real and stated goal of global Zionism.

Interviewer: The question that needs to be asked is what this has to do with these young people, who like heavy metal music, wear these clothes, and perform these rites?

Tuhami Muntasir: How can they say they like heavy metal, if they haven’t listened to Umm Kulthum, Abd Al-Halim Hafez, Farid Al-Atrash, Amr Diab, and all the other singers? This is beyond the question of whether you like this music or not. This has become an ideology. There is an organized ideology aimed at alienating and dissolving one’s identity.

I am willing to share that the heavy metal branch of the International Zionist Web is active and thriving, but not nearly as much as the rap and hip-hop branches.

Although this goes without saying, Tuhami Muntasir is also on the Zionist payroll. In fact, we invent people like him just so MEMRI has a lot of wonderful clips of moronic Islamic clerics. I could show you a photocopy of his paycheck, but it might get him killed and he is a very, very valuable asset.

White House looking to engage Hezbollah

A very scary article by Barry Rubin indicates pretty strongly that the Obama administration is looking to mainstream Hezbollah.

Can things get worse with the Obama Administration's foreign-and especially Middle East--policy? Yes, it's not inevitable but I have just seen personally a dangerous example of what could be happening next.

I have received a letter asking me personally to help with a research project. I have spoken to well-informed people who tell me that the statements I am about to quote are accurate. It is highly possible that the link with the Obama Administration is exaggerated, but this indeed does come from the White House's favorite think tank.

While not mentioning the names of those involved they are known for supporting the idea that Hizballah is really quite moderate. The letter says that this is a project for the Center for American Progress and that the results "will be presented to senior U.S. policymakers in the administration."

I am asked to participate by giving my opinions on how the United States can deal with Hizballah "short of engagement" and "would Israeli leaders see benefit in the U.S. talking with Hizballah about issues which are of crucial importance to Israel?"

Answer to first question: Oppose it in every way possible.

Answer to second question: What the [insert obscene words I don't use] do you think they would say!

The letter continues:

"As you've noted, some like John Brennan [advisor to the president on terrorism] is already thinking about a more flexible policy towards Hizballah and it would be extremely useful to get your views on this to ensure anything decided is done properly."

I read this letter-and that impression is confirmed by those knowledgeable about this project and those involved-as saying that the Center for American Progress is going to issue a report calling for U.S. engagement with Hizballah, and that it has been encouraged to do so by important officials in the Obama Administration.

The phrase "to ensure anything decided is done properly," I take as a give-away to the fact that they are going to push for direct dealing with Hizballah but want to be able to say that they had listened to alternative views.

They merely, I am told by those who know about this project, intend to talk to some who disagree for appearances' sake and throw in a sentence or two to give the report the slightest tinge of balance.

The person heading this project has already endangered the lives of brave Lebanese. For example, he claimed without foundation that Christians were planning to launch a war on Hizballah, providing a splendid rationale for Hizballah to murder opponents on the excuse of doing so in self-defense. Accepting Hizballah rule is defined as the Christians recognizing they are a minority and trying to get along with their Muslim neighbors.

In other words, those opposing Hizballah are presented as aggressors while Hizballah is just the reasonable party that wants to get along. Moreover all this leaves out the community, about the same size as the Christians and Shia Muslims, that has been leading the resistance to Syria, Iran, and Hizballah: the Sunni Muslims.

In short, the person directing the project talks like a virtual agent of Hizballah and its allies, basically repeating what they tell him.

Read the whole thing.

Incredible Reuters bias in article on Easter in Jerusalem

From Reuters:

As a boy growing up in Jerusalem, Yacoub Dahdal saw Christians from all over the Middle East converge on the city at Easter time to walk in the footsteps of Jesus.
Thousands would be hosted in the homes of the city's residents. Many would depart the city as godparents to newly born Jerusalemites baptized during the pilgrimage season.
"It was a festival with every meaning of the word," said Dahdal, now aged 72 and a senior member of the Palestinian Christian community in Jerusalem. "The Egyptians would come by train, the Lebanese and Syrians by bus," he said.
"Imagine when you were down in the Old City, you would hear all the different accents: Lebanese, Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, mixed together," he said. "It was a real joy."
Today, he reflects on a very different Easter atmosphere in a city where tension is often more apparent than spirituality.

OK, let's see how things are different:

The home where he was born in the Old City's Muslim quarter, just a short walk from the First Station of the Cross, is today adorned with Israeli flags and houses settlers who have moved in since Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.

So the existence of Jews in a city that they had lived in for centuries is a major problem for people who celebrate Easter?

What else?

Since that conflict, the flow of pilgrims from neighboring Arab states has dried up. Syria and Lebanon remain in a state of war with Israel. Few Egyptians or Jordanians make the trip, though their governments have made peace with the Jewish state.

And who, exactly, is stopping them from making this trip? It certainly isn't Israel, which would welcome them. Yet the tone of the article, especially the previous paragraph non-sequitor, implies that it is Israel.

Christian pilgrims still fly in for Easter, from Germany, Peru or Russia, as tourists on a once-in-a-lifetime visit who are largely unaware of Israeli restrictions -- apart from the obvious fact that police seem to be around every corner.

Reuters has not as of yet mentioned any restrictions. And, in fact, thousands of Christians do fly in from other countries - Christians who would have had much more difficulty in visiting Jerusalem before Israeli rule.

But the number of Palestinian pilgrims has fallen to a fraction of its former level. Local Christians warn that centuries-old traditions are at risk of dying out.
Israeli security measures, they say, have obstructed their access to Jerusalem and its holy sites, chief among them the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, revered as the site of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Ah, so Israeli restrictions are supposedly keeping the Palestinian Christians out. Of course, Israeli restrictions apply to Jews and Muslims as well as to where they could safely go in Jerusalem, and security is a real issue, as there were riots in Jerusalem a mere couple of weeks ago. But Reuters can't be bothered to believe that Israel is justified in what is clearly an injustice, even one that Reuters cannot quite define.

Palestinians who live in the West Bank, including Bethlehem, and the Gaza Strip -- also occupied by Israel in 1967 -- need a permit to get into Jerusalem.
Israel says it has issued 10,000 permits to West Bank residents this year as an Easter goodwill gesture. Five hundred were issued to Christians in Gaza, who number several thousand.

Israel has given out over 10,000 permits for Palestinian Christians to come to Jerusalem. The implication is that this is a huge reduction from the number that came in the 1940s. We'll see if that is true.

As a result, there has been a big drop in local participation in Easter week ceremonies, say Christian figures. Last year, for example, no more than a few hundred Palestinians made it to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the ceremony of Holy Fire, when believers gather to witness the emergence of candles lit by a miracle in the tomb of Jesus.

Though it falls on the Saturday before Orthodox Easter, local Christians of all denominations have attended the ceremony for generations in what has always been a major community event.

But how many?

"There used to be thousands, or tens of thousands," said Qupty. "Today, last year, if I said hundreds, I'd be exaggerating," he said.

If tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians descended on Jerusalem in the good old days, it should have been mentioned in the newspapers.

Here is a report from 1955, when Jordan controlled the Old City of Jerusalem:

So in the good old days, some 5000 pilgrims from all nations managed to get to Jerusalem for the festivities - half of the number of permits that Israel gives to Palestinian Christians alone this year!

Palestine Post archives from the 1930s and 1940s mirror the same facts - a few thousand pilgrims would come every year.

Some years the turnout would be worse than usual for various reasons - construction, or war, or riots.

In 1938, for example, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was closed due to to public safety concerns over the danger of parts of ot collapsing. That year they had expected 4000 Copts and 700 Orthodox pilgrims.

(Before the British took control of Palestine, the annual Easter services would often turn violent as the competing Christian sects would fight over who has ownership and precedence of various holy sites.)

In other words, contrary to what Reuters writes, the number of pilgrims attending Holy Week services has increased significantly under Israeli rule. And even the number of Palestinian Christians allowed to participate is higher than the number that attended when Jerusalem was under British or Jordanian rule.

All of this is happening at the same time that the number of Christians in the Palestinian Arab territories has been reduced significantly in recent years because of Islamic persecution. This little fact was also omitted by Reuters.

Reuters has put together a hugely inflammatory and biased report that uncritically parrots the complaints of Palestinian Arabs without even bothering to check the most basic facts.

Revisiting the elephants in the room, plus one more

PA prime minister Salam Fayyad was interviewed in Ha'aretz where he went into some detail about his plan to unilaterally declare a Palestinian Arab state next year.

His plan has dovetailed with noises coming out of the White House and the EU, and there seems to be growing enthusiasm for this move.

A couple of times over the past two years I published lists of "elephants in the room" that the wishful thinkers like to ignore. Fayyad is saying all the right things for Western consumption, but how do his statements hold up against the elephants?

Elephant 1: Hamas controls Gaza
Fayyad dismisses this in two paragraphs that don't say anything of substance:

People in Gaza are looking at us as well, and saying they also want to have a better life. Look at how fragmented we are in the West Bank, but Gaza you can cover from north, south, east, and west 10-20 times a day. What took us a year to do in the West Bank can be accomplished in two months in Gaza.

"Who would have thought a couple years ago there would be this transformation in the mind-set? Not many thought that possible. All you have to do is travel beyond Ramallah and see for yourself. It's a changed reality.

He is ignoring Hamas completely, implying that a declared state will magically make Hamas disappear and melt into the PA. The only problem is that there is no basis to believe that in reality. His declared "state" would include a territory that is ruled by terrorists, and he would demand that the world recognize it as if it was under PA control.

In addition, the only change in PalArab West Bank mindset, as far as I could tell, is economic, not political. I have yet to see a single example of Arabic comments on stories about Gaza aggression that are remotely peaceful. Plenty of people hate Hamas but no one is against killing Jews to the extent that they would say so publicly.

And the economic boom in the West Bank is because of Netanyahu, not Fayyad.

Elephant 2: Palestinian Arabs elected a terror government
Elephant 3: The current PA government was not elected
Elephant 4: The current PA government has almost no power
Elephant 5: The PA is being kept alive by artificial methods

All of these issues are continuously ignored. There are no elections on the horizon. The last elections not only chose Hamas for a national government but also for practically every local government outside Ramallah. The legality of the current PA is questionable even within the PA's own laws. And the PA still gets the bulk of its support from the West, not from its own people.

Fayyad has been working on building institutions, a move that was decades overdue. But he has no political support from within. He has no following. He is not a member of Fatah, and in the end, Fatah is the power behind the PA - and the PA is not independent but it answers to the PLO, another little fact that the West is unaware of or ignores.

Elephant 6: Fatah remains a terrorist group paid by the PA

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has been keeping a lower profile but it has not been dismantled. In Gaza, Hamas has arrested much of its leadership, but in the West Bank it is simply waiting for the opportunity to re-emerge.

Elephant 7: The first - and second - stages of the roadmap were never implemented

Fayyad's plan is explicitly rejecting the roadmap and is a unilateral action. This means, of course, that Israel could do the same. If Israel annexes the large settlement blocs - a move that the vast majority of Israelis support - then the declared Palestinian Arab state would start off without any borders.

Elephant 8: The PA's goal remains the destruction of Israel

I don't believe that this is Fayyad's goal, but it is Abbas' goal, as can be seen by his actions. It is Fatah's goal and it is the PLO's goal. And in the end, Abbas is Fayyad's boss.

Elephant 9: Jerusalem

It might have moved to the forefront, so it is not as ignored as it was, but it remains the major point of disagreement. The PA's requirements on Jerusalem is an indication that a state is not its goal, as a state could function just fine with Ramallah as its capital. Their insistence on Jerusalem is simply meant to disassociate Jerusalem from Judaism.

Elephant 10: What happened to Gaza when Israel withdrew

Gaza could have become a Singapore when Israel left. Instead, it became Afghanistan. The only thing that has kept the West Bank relatively stable over the past few years has been the presence and threat of the IDF - but the world has forgotten what the West Bank was like while the intifada raged and the "peaceful" PA was in charge.

Elephant 11: Palestinian Arab "unity"

Unless the PA gives up on Gaza, Hamas has effective veto power over any moves made by the PA. Any "unification" agreement - which is no closer today than it was last year or two years ago - would inevitably mean that the PA positions would harden to accommodate Hamas. And Hamas is never going to give up on its desire for destroying Israel sooner rather than later. Just they would then have access to more American weapons.

Elephant 12: The Palestinian Arab "diaspora" and Arab intransigence

Fayyad states that his state would welcome Palestinian "refugees." This means that the Arab policy of not granting statehood to those who choose not to move to "Palestine" would become untenable. This would mean that Arab nations like Syria and Lebanon would have a choice: offer citizenship to the hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" who live within their borders, or force them all to move to "Palestine" where they would quickly overwhelm the existing infrastructure.

And very possibly radicalize the minority who really does accept Israel.

This elephant will grow large indeed.

Elephant 13: Economics

This is something that has improved. Even so, the Palestinian Arab economy is far from self-sustaining and the attitude of entitlement is still there, especially in the camps that many still live in - even under PA control. Add the thousands of new residents and we have a big problem.

Elephant 14: Gaza demographics

Gazans are still having lots of kids, and nowhere to put them. Most will not want to move to the West Bank, where the culture is different, and Egypt won't take them. they will continue to use this to pressure Israel even if somehow Gaza comes under the PA.

Elephant 15: Palestinian Arab leaders never showed interest in independence

If we take Fayyad at his word, then exactly one has. As mentioned, he has no constituency within his own people. He was never even elected.

And it is hard to take Fayyad at his word, when he answers a question this vaguely:

Q: What are you doing to stop incitement against Israel?

A: Incitement can take the form of many things - things said, things done, provocations - but there are ways for dealing with this. We are dealing with this.

Too bad he cannot give a single example.

Fayyad points to another very large elephant that hadn't been mentioned:

Elephant 16: A unilateral Palestinian Arab state would be militarized

In the interview Fayyad says the Palestinians want an independent and sovereign state, emphasizing they are "not looking for a state of leftovers - a Mickey Mouse state."

This is a codeword for a full army and full control over airspace. Fayyad's state would allow him or his radical successor to invite Syria to position anti-aircraft weapons within its territory; to shoot missiles at El Al planes landing a few miles from the Green Line, or to get a few thousand tanks poised to cut Israel in half.

Iran already effectively controls Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They would use the nascent state of Palestine to position themselves on the West Bank as well. Just like the PA ran away from Gaza at the first sign of trouble, so would they abandon their state to Iranian proxies and Islamic terrorists.

Their will to defend themselves is not nearly as strong as their will to destroy Israel, a desire that has been inculcated in them for generations. Palestinian Arab nationalism is a fundamentally weak and externally-imposed construct. Iran is poised and anxious to take advantage of the chaos that would follow a unilaterally declared state.

But the West is ready to risk Israel for that elephant as well.