Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, October 15, 2010

Jewish flexibility and Arab intransigence, 1947

Moshe Sharett (Shertok), the head of the Jewish Agency, spoke to the Special Committee on Palestine on July 17, 1947. He described an anecdote that he felt was illustrative of the difference between how Arabs and Jews think of co-existence.

The problem of mutual adjustment in this country is an extremely difficult one. Its solution entails a sense of realities, a capacity to accept facts. And it is essential in the interest of peace, in the long run, that certain facts should be very firmly fixed and that any idea that they can be disregarded or changed by threats, or by force, should be disregarded. I will illustrate by an example what I am trying to convey to you. I will take the case of the Municipality of Jerusalem.

There is a Jewish majority in the City of Jerusalem. Yet there has always been an Arab mayor at the head of the Jerusalem Municipal Council. As time passed this became anomalous. The city kept growing, so did its population, and its services developed. The Jews came to play a very important part in the administration of the city's affairs, and they felt that it was to their detriment, and they also presumed to think that it was to the detriment of the city as a whole, that they should be denied their fair share of the city's Government. They felt that they should all have a chance of being at the head of the Municipal Council.

Now, this problem engaged the attention of the Government and of both Arabs and Jews for a long time. Eventually the Government reached a certain decision and announced that decision officially. They worked out a scheme for the rotation of the Jerusalem mayoralty — a triple rotation — a Moslem mayor, a Christian mayor, and a Jewish mayor should serve in turn. The idea was not quite palatable to the Jews. It was particularly unpalatable because if you appoint as a Christian mayor a Christian Arab, then it means that the proportion is established of one Jew to two Arabs and the Jews are then in a way, in terms of time, if not in terms of space, relegated to the position or a minority. But the Jews realized, at least they tried to realize, the wider aspect of problem, the unique character of the city of Jerusalem, the associations which it carried, and they decided to acquiesce and accept that proposal. They informed the Government accordingly. Though they were and are a majority and felt entitled to having the post of the mayor permanently, in view of the past tradition, in view of the present associations, they declared themselves willing to cooperate in the implementation of that scheme. ...Mind you, that was not in the process of preliminary soundings or informal negotiations; that was after the Government had definitely committed itself by announcing officially that that was their decision.

The Arabs refused to cooperate. They rejected the scheme. They insisted on the office of Mayor remaining their exclusive possession — the exclusive possession of the Moslem community for all future.

The result was that the Government backed out — the Government retreated from the scheme — they dropped it. In retreating from the scheme they blamed their failure on both parties in equal measure. Un-qualified rejection and complete acceptance with certain additional desiderata, were represented by them in an official announcement as ranking equal — as if both parties refused to cooperate. They proceeded to disband the Municipal Council.

The Jewish councillors were ready to carry on. A Jewish gentleman was at the time acting Mayor and had been acting Mayor for years. There was no complaint whatsoever on the merits of the way he conducted municipal affairs. Yet, all the municipal councillors, including the Jewish councilors, were sent packing and a direct British rule was instituted in the City Hall of Jerusalem. For two years now Jerusalem has not enjoyed elementary municipal self-government. Municipal affairs are being ruled by appointed British officials.

Now what does it mean?

It means a premium on intransigence — a definite discouragement to face realities and to develop a spirit of accommodation to those realities. It is a victory for boycotting tactics. We all felt that the Arabs took that uncompromising attitude only because they knew that by so doing they would wreck the scheme — that they would force the Government to retreat. If they had the conviction that the Government would stick to its decision and that what they would then be facing would be that the conduct of municipal affairs would be exclusively in the hands of the Jews, and they would be left completely out, they would think twice before deciding on the attitude which they adopted. They would give in, and it would not mean in any sense sacrificing any legitimate rights. Although the Jews are a majority, the composition of the Council is fifty-fifty, between Jews and Arabs, .and they would have had their share of rotation of office of mayoralty. It would not mean any unwarranted concession — any undue concession on their part.

Well, to us that was a lesson. We are setting it as, an example not to follow.

Do these mindsets sound familiar? The Jews were willing to accept a compromise that was overwhelmingly skewed towards the Arabs, and the Arabs rejected it completely - because it would mean that the Jews gained something.

By any sensible measure, one would think that 2/3 Arab control of Jerusalem's mayoralty is better than zero. Yet the Arabs preferred that Jerusalem be under the full control of the British than two-thirds control by Arabs - because of that one third that would be Jewish!

This was not a logical decision. This is hate-based politics, where hurting your enemy is more important than helping your own people.

The question that needs to be answered is - has this attitude changed? Have Arab leaders matured to the point that they care more about helping their own than hurting their enemy?

Look at how the Palestinian Arab leadership are unwilling to lobby for equal rights of their people in Arab lands, instead wanting to use them as seething cauldrons of hate to pressure Israel for an eventual and illusory "right of return". Think about that: every Arab leader would prefer that millions of Palestinian Arabs remain stateless, and hundreds of thousands remain in "refugee" camps, rather than help them, because of the minute possibility that their very misery hurts the Jewish state.

The entire political philosophy of Palestinian Arabs is based on hatred of the other. In fact, their entire concept of "peoplehood" is defined in opposition to the other. After all, what are "Palestinians" if not "non-Jews whose ancestors lived in Palestine in the 1940s"? As long as their entire existence and history is defined in terms of countering Jewish political gains and not in terms of their own independent existence, there is zero chance for real, permanent compromise, and zero chance for real peace.

Today's irony

Moroccans are upset over a music festival to be held tomorrow in Agadir.

It is a major festival, boasting many international artists. Last year some 200,000 people attended and this year it will be broadcast to some 30 million viewers.

The problem? One of the singers is Yael Naim, who is Israeli (her song "New Soul" was used in an Apple commercial and was a top-ten hit in the US.) She served in the IDF - not in combat, but in the Israel Air Force Orchestra.

For these reasons, Al Quds al Arabi reports, a Moroccan anti-Israel group is upset. The "Moroccan National Working Group in Support of Palestine and Iraq" announced "that the participation of Yael Naim coincides with the escalation of Zionist crimes, with its racial terrorism and its determination to defy the international community, as well as its occupation of the remainder of the land in the West Bank and Jerusalem...[who are on their way to becoming] to the most racist state ever, an exclusive Jewish state."

The name of the music festival? "The Concert for Tolerance."

Latest Latma is a good one

Enjoy!

Al Azhar University admits Denmark did not apologize for cartoons

My skepticism about the Al Arabiya article claiming that Denmark Foreign Minister Lene Espersen had apologized to the Muslim world on behalf of her nation for the Mohammed cartoons seems to have been well-founded.

Not only has Denmark denied any such apology, but Al Azhar University admits that they made a "translation error" where the word "regret" was mistranslated as "apology."

Al Arabiya corrected the atory.

Egypt bans Hamas leaders from going on Hajj

The Egyptian authorities decided to prevent a number of Hamas leaders from entering its territory to perform Hajj.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said he was one of the people on the list. He said, disingenuously, that Hajj was a purely religious ritual that should not be affected by political considerations.

But as Palestine Press Agency points out, Hamas leaders have used Hajj as a way to meet with Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, to publicly speak out against Egypt, and to smuggle money back into Gaza. Also, Hajj pilgrims have in the past traveled to Iran for advanced terrorism training.

Others on the list are reported to include Dr. Salah Bardawil and Fawzi Barhoum.

Selling off daughters for $700

We've discussed before how rich Saudis take vacations in other countries, notably Egypt, and "marry" women for the summer.

The Arab News adds more detail to this disgusting practice - and it is not only the Saudis who are guilty:

About 900 children born to Egyptian women and Saudi men in what is commonly known as “misfar” or “tourist” marriages are abandoned by their fathers, said an Egyptian activist at a recent forum on human trafficking.

Speaking at the conference in Egypt, Aiman Abu Akeel, chairman of the board of trustees of the Maat Foundation for Peace and Development, said that the majority of men who visit Egypt looking for misfar marriages tend to be Saudi, followed by Iraqis, and that the women they marry are predominantly younger than them.

“Misfar” marriage refers to a union contracted so that a woman may join her “husband” for the period of time he travels in a foreign country.

The women in such unions are divorced after a short time ranging from a week to a month, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Yaum Al-Sabi reported.

Speaking at the same forum, Azza Al-Jazaar, the general organizer of the Anti-Trafficking of Egyptian Girls program, said that these young women do not know they are being treated like commodities.

Their fathers receive up to 4,000 Egyptian pounds from these men for trading off their girls, she said, adding that most of these girls are below 16 years of age. [That's about $700 - EoZ]

Statistics show that some SR100 million are spent on misfar marriages, which last for not more than a month, with 90 percent of Saudi fathers leaving behind children born out of such relationships.

However, Najeeb Al-Zamil, founder of the Back to the Roots Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that helps Saudi children abroad, said that although there are many such children in Arab countries, their suffering is less than that experienced by children born in non-Arab countries.

He added that these men abandon their families and children, as they fear what their relatives in the Kingdom will think.

(h/t Arthur)

Study claims scientific proof for "cycle of violence"

From The Boston Globe, an op-ed by Nancy Kanwisher and Anat Biletzki:

As the Israeli-Palestinian peace process once again crashes on the hard rocks of Middle East reality, it is worth stepping back to reconsider the conventional wisdom on this apparently intractable situation. In a paper we recently published in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,’’ we found that, in contrast to the perception on each side of the conflict that the other side is the aggressor while it only retaliates, in fact, both sides act in response to the other’s aggression.

Although anecdote and speculation are popular in discussions of the Middle East conflict, we used data and quantitative analysis to determine whether these perceptions are true. One data set was the timeline of Qassam rocket firings, compiled by the Israeli Defense Forces. Another was the day-by-day timeline of killings of Israelis by Palestinians and of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, compiled by the Israeli Human Rights organization B’Tselem. We tested whether the violent behavior of each side occurs in response to violence committed by the other side — or whether it is simply arbitrary.

We found that the violence on each side is not arbitrary. Instead, a few days after Palestinians kill Israelis, Israel retaliates by killing Palestinians, and in the few days after Israel kills Palestinians, the number of rockets fired into Israel increases. Thus, both Palestinians and Israelis are more likely to attack after they themselves have been attacked.

These findings refute the common view that because the conflict results from the immutably hostile character of the foe, there is nothing either side can do to stop it. Our data suggest that the conflict is not the inevitable result of the fundamentally violent character of either Israelis or Palestinians. Instead, the violence of each side is at least in part contingent on the behavior of the other side. So there is, in fact, something each side can do to reduce the violence directed against it.Our result may seem obvious: if both sides retaliate, then the Middle East is yet another part of the world where retaliatory “tit for tat’’ dynamics perpetuate conflict.

The authors of the study are a professor of neuroscience at MIT. Anat Biletzki is a professor of philosophy at Tel Aviv University.

Looking further at their methodology they use something called Vector Autoregression, the math of which I cannot hope to understand.

But read carefully what they say again in the parts I put in bold. They are saying that Israel retaliates to killings with killings - incursions, targeted attacks, whatever - and the Palestinian militants respond to Israeli killings with rockets.

There is a very important unstated fact that supports both these findings and the opposite conclusion:

When Palestinian Arabs mount a terror attack meant to have a high probability of killing Israelis - meaning, remote controlled bombs, or suicide bombings, or ambushes - it takes time for them to plan it. Usually one can expect a number of weeks between conceiving of an attack and the actual operation.

Clearly, fatal terror attacks are not responses to specific events where the IDF killed people, because it simply takes too much time for the PalArabs to mount such an operation. Therefore, their retaliations have been chiefly rocket attacks, something that takes little time to plan and implement.

Which means that, contrary to what the authors are implying, Palestinian Arab terrorists by definition instigate every non-rocket terror attack against Israeli civilians, and Israel indeed does retaliate. Yes, the terrorists fire rockets back for further retaliation, but the cycle dies down because most of them do not kill or injure anyone. If they are "lucky" and a rocket hits someone then the cycle can go another round or two.

Yet the clear piece of information that the authors miss is that the major terror attacks are not retaliatory, unless you expand the definition of "retaliation" to include the entire existence of Israel or of "occupation." Bombings are certainly not planned and implemented in the "few days" that the authors used to feed their mathematical models. Their methodology is fatally flawed because they do not take the time it takes to plan terror attacks into account.

Their airy conclusions, that if only Israel would stop retaliating then the terrorists would stop as well, are unfounded.

And a significant number of Hamas rocket attacks, at any rate, were not retaliatory for specific events. This can be seen from their own press releases. I don't know the percentages, but while many rocket attacks are stated as to be in response to specific events, others are more general.

For example, here is how they announce rocket attacks that are in response to specific events, from June 14th 2006:

Occupation forces continue to perpetrate war crimes against Palestinians. Last Friday, they killed 7 members of the same family and injured dozens of civilians on the Beit Lahya beach in the north of the Gaza Strip. And on Tuesday, nine civilians, including 2 children and 4 paramedics, were intentionally killed by occupation planes.

In response to these crimes, Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades continues the response to these crimes. At 04:00 today, Al-Qassam Brigades fired one Qassam rocket at the Sofa checkpoint, east of Rafah.

But for a different set of rockets a couple of weeks later, the press releases were far more general. From July 4, 2006:

Izzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades fired one Qassam Rocket at the occupied city of Asqalan north of the border of the Gaza Strip. The bombardment took place at 19:00 on Tuesday, July 4, 2006. The operation is a new development of the ongoing "Faithfulness of the Free" resistance campaign against the occupation assault on the Gaza Strip, in which occupation forces continue to attack civilian targets.

Even the rocket attacks cannot be said to be generally retaliatory for specific events, because Hamas is nice enough to tell us the reasons for the attacks!

For these two reasons, it appears that this study is fatally flawed in its approach, its methodology and in its conclusions.

Al Qaeda Magazine Wordle

I just downloaded a copy of the second edition of Inspire, the fairly slick English-language Al Qaeda magazine II got my copy here.)

But to save you time, here is a Wordle showing graphically how often various words are used in the magazine. It can save you a lot of time.

(h/t Zach for the idea)

Who knew that Ahmadinejad was such a Zionist?

Lebanon's Naharnet has been putting up short snippets of Ahmadinejad's speech in Bint Jbeil as it was happening, and here is their entry for 6:02 PM:

Today, the occupier Zionists have no choice but to return to their original homelands.

Well, there's only one original homeland for Jews, and the Zionists in Israel are already there. He must be talking about the Zionist Jews who occupy space in the US, Europe and elsewhere, and calling on them to make aliyah and return to their original homelands.

Maybe the next Nefesh b'Nefesh trip should name its plane of incoming Israeli immigrants after Ahmadinejad in honor of his inspiring words!

Nasrallah, 1989: Lebanon should become part of Iranian pan-Islamic state

Here is a video that MEMRI translated of Hassan Nasrallah, made in the late 1980s:

Hassan Nasrallah: What is the nature of the regime that Hizbullah wants for Lebanon at present, in light of the state of the country and the numerous sects? The preceding lectures have answered this question. Right now, we do not have a plan for a regime in Lebanon. We believe that we should remove the colonialism and the Israeli [occupation], and only then can a plan be implemented.

Our plan, to which we, as faithful believers, have no alternative, is to establish an Islamic state under the rule of Islam. Lebanon should not be an Islamic republic on its own, but rather, part of the Greater Islamic Republic, governed by the Master of Time [the Mahdi], and his rightful deputy, the Jurisprudent Ruler, Imam Khomeini.

[...]

[I was asked] about Hizbullah's relations with Iran and with the leadership of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. As far as we are concerned, these relations... I am one of the people working for Hizbullah and its active apparatuses. I would not have remained for a single moment in any apparatus of Hizbullah if I were not absolutely convinced that these apparatuses are connected, through a certain hierarchy, to the Jurisprudent Ruler and Leader, whose decisions are binding.

As far as we are concerned, this is axiomatic. Diplomatic and political statements are not what is important in this case. Ayatollah Karroubi cannot simply admit: Yes, Hizbullah are our people in Lebanon. This is inconceivable, both politically and media-wise. Our essential and organic relation with the leadership of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Rule of the Jurisprudent is axiomatic, as far as we are concerned.

We belong to this path, we make sacrifices for its sake, and we expose ourselves to dangers, because we are convinced that the blood we shed flows for the sake of the Rule of the Jurisprudent.

[...]

Should the Jurisprudent Ruler be the one to appoint the leaders, and bestow legitimacy upon them, in all Muslim countries? Yes, because his jurisprudence is not limited by geographical boundaries. It extends to wherever Muslims may be.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad's trip to Lebanon, especially southern Lebanon, is staged more like a prince who is checking on his provinces than a head of state on a visit to another country.

(h/t Jed)

Ahmadinejad: "The Mahdi will come to liberate Palestine"

Al Arabiya (Arabic) reports that Iranian president Ahmadinejad delivered a speech today in Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon, a few kilometers from the Israeli border.

In the speech he declared that "the Mahdi will come here, accompanied by Jesus Christ" to liberate Palestine and allow the millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to move there in his wake.

I don't know about that theology. From all available evidence, it sure seems like Allah favors Israel.

After all, he allowed Israel to be created to begin with, dispersing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the process. He set up matters so that the Arab countries would treat their own brothers as second-class citizens. He pushed the Jews to create an economic miracle with few natural resources, while he gave the Arab Muslims billions of barrels of oil that they squandered with nepotism and corruption, often leaving their own people in abject poverty while rich oil sheikhs jet set around the world. He gave the Israelis the ability to enter the top tier of the world's cultural elite. He defeated the combined forces of the Muslim Arab world against Israel a number of times, sometimes in embarrassing ways (unless you want to claim that Allah backed the losing side, which makes no sense.)

Maybe the Mahdi has already come, and he set up the state of Israel as a miraculous, shining example of how a people can overcome adversity.

Maybe the Mahdi was David Ben Gurion!

And more administrivia

I just saw that I was quoted at The National Interest website, along with some heavy hitters, in a rundown of posts about Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon.

My ego was then deflated when I saw that my Alexa ranking is higher than that of The National Interest, even though that is a real magazine with real subscribers.

So they will get more hits from my mentioning them here than I will get from their mentioning me!

I never realized that CafePress has competition. Just to try it out, I opened up a store at Printfection, (It still needs a lot of tweaking, but it is live.)

One advantage of Printfection is that I can sell an unlimited number of items, as opposed to Cafepress' free store. So if I come up with an interesting graphic, I can sell it in some 40 forms, from T-shirts to mugs to mousepads.

To test it out, I created this image, saying "I Love Israel" in three Hebrew, English and Arabic::

If you like it, you can order products with this graphic right now.

I can create a section for every design, so if this works out, I will start to port my existing designs to the new store.

Check it out!

Finally, Mazel Tov to EBoZ (x2) and to Other Brother of Ziyon and their families!

Comments on comments

I've been fairly proud of the community that comes to this blog, and for how much better it generally has been than, say, the average Guardian message threads.

Lately, however, it seems that the comment section has been going downhill, and no one benefits when that happens.

There has been a significant increase in comments - over 250 before noon today - and I cannot monitor them all. Many of them are pointless, many of them are insulting, and many of them have been unsubstantiated out-and-out lies.

I would prefer that the comment section remain unmoderated, mostly because I don't want to waste my blogging time with being a referee.

I request:

* Avoid personal attacks and insinuations altogether. Period.
* If someone says something particularly offensive, flag it as offensive. If enough people flag it the comment will disappear.
* If your comment will not illuminate the discussion, don't bother posting it. Even if your adversary appears to have the last word.
* If you are making a factual claim that others dispute, back it up with verifiable facts that others can check.
* A little humility goes a long way. If someone proves you wrong, admit it. It is remarkable how much more legitimacy one gains by admitting mistakes.
* As much as possible, give commenters the benefit of the doubt.
* If you believe a commenter is a troll and is not interested in serious debate, do not feed him or her. Ignore and flag instead.

Let's keep the signal to noise ratio as high as possible, because if the comment section turns into a cesspool, I'll have to remove it.

And if you need to let me know something, email me. I cannot keep track of all the comments at the current rate and I am missing many of them.

(I've added the above guidelines to the FAQ.)

Hunger strike time!

From the Al Qassam website:

Palestinian detainee Yehya Ibrahim Sinwar, head of the senior leadership of the detainees, said that Hamas detainees in the Zionist jails are preparing for [a hunger] strike inside their jails.

Sinwar said in a private message sent to his comrades of detainees and was obtained by Al Qassam website "We believe that this strike inside the jails will be a Watershed in the history of the detainees."

He added that the strike will be announced inside the jails when he announces that he entered the strike.

Sinwar said in his statement "The food during the strike will be water and salt only."

The Palestinian detainees have demands to be obtained from this strike "Our demands are concentrated in returning the isolated detainees to the jails, solving the problem of preventing visits, solving the problems of children and female detainees and solving the problems of health, education, punishment and conditions of life.

At the end of his letter, Sinwar demanded the supporters of the Palestinian detainees cause inside and outside Palestine to do their duty and organize a campaign to support them.

In the very first days of this blog, back in August 2004, Palestinian Arab prisoners started a similar hunger strike.

It sort of fizzled when Israel released a videotape showing that their leader, Marwan Barghouti, covered up the window and door of his cell with a cloth and then sat down and ate. The prisoners claimed victory when they ended the strike but it appears that they didn't get a single concession.

PLO chief shows tiny flexibility; retracts under fire

From Avi Issacharoff in Ha'aretz:

Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said on Wednesday that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem.

"It is important for us to know where are the borders of Israel and where are the borders of Palestine. Any formulation the Americans present – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders." [Abed Rabbo stated in an interview with Ha'aretz]

Which means that Abed Rabbo told Ha'aretz that if the Americans force Israel to accept the 1949 armistice lines as their borders without any deviation, then the PLO will accept Israel as the Jewish state.

Hamas and other Palestinian Arab leaders were livid:

Gaza government spokesman Taher An-Nunu said Abed Rabbo's statements did not represent the Palestinian national consensus, and gave dangerous concessions to Israel. Further, he said the statements betrayed Palestinian refugees by undermining their right to return to their land.

An-Nunu said Abed Rabbo's comments proved that the current PLO leadership could not be trusted to act in the interests of Palestinians, and called for the restructuring of the organization.

Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) First Deputy Speaker Dr. Ahmed Bahar said Abed Rabbo should be prosecuted before a Palestinian court for his betrayal of the rights of the people, the blood of the martyrs, and Palestinian national principles.

Bahar said in a press statement on Wednesday that Abed Rabbo has violated all principles of national Palestinian agreement and opened the door to new division among the Palestinians. He added that the statements place an imminent and substantial threat in front of Palestinian reconciliation.

For his part, PLC Secretary, Mahmoud Al Ramahi, said Abed Rabbo has no right to speak for the Palestinian people, who have put forth enormous sacrifices to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state without backing down on even one inch of land.

Hamas leader, Dr. Salah Al-Bardawil, said in press statement that Abed Rabbo’s remarks are a “national crime”, adding that Abed Rabbo only represents himself.

Arab member of the Israeli Knesset Jamal Zahaliqa called on the PLO to remove its Secretary Abed Rabbo from office in light of his statements.

“Neither Yasser Abed Rabbo nor anyone else has the right to sell the rights of the Palestinians in the interior [1948-occupied Palestine], or to waive the rights of the refugees abroad, or confer legitimacy for that by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state,” he said.

In light of all this criticism, even though US State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley reacted positively to the suggestion aa a start of a negotiation, Abed Rabbo retracted/denied the statement. Palestine Today says that Abed Rabbo, in the face of withering criticism, denied making that statement, and Ma'an says that he denied speaking to Ha'aretz altogether, saying he only spoke to AFP.

While I have problems with Ha'aretz, Avi Issacharoff is a good reporter and I believe him over Abed Rabbo any day.

Guess who else recruits spies in Gaza?

Al Majd (The Glory"), a pan-Arab nationalist newspaper in Jordan that features a picture of Nasser on every page, is reporting that Egypt has been recruiting spies from among those who are traveling through the Rafah crossing - on behalf of the PA:

Palestinian sources revealed that Egyptian intelligence is currently intensifying its efforts to recruit a large number of Palestinian Gazans as they pass through the Rafah border crossing, who are subjected to bargaining aimed at turning them into intelligence agents

The sources confirmed that Egyptian intelligence is coordinating this with the Palestinian Authority, collaborating with Israel, and that the objective of reducing the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and weaken Hamas security, and to ascertain where the captured soldier Shalit is being detained.

Sources said that interrogations are aimed mainly at Gazans returning from Syria, including asking: How long did you spend in Syria, or any other country? Did you meet Syrians or Iranians? Do you know anyone in Hamas or Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah? Where you are staying in Syria? ... [as well as questions about] Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The sources said that most of the Gaza travelers who are under the age of the age of forty are referred to the Egyptian state security service, where they are offered temptations of money and promises to provide many services if they cooperate, and at the end of the session they are given telephone numbers to call the Egyptians and to tell them any activities related to Hamas and al-Qassam Brigades and government agencies in Gaza, or anything concerning relations between the [resistance] factions and Syria, Iran or Hezbollah.

The phone numbers go to Egyptians who are working in the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah.

Jordan stripping more Palestinian Arabs of their rights

Jordan's Al Majd newspaper reported Monday that Jordan has been quietly removing (or not renewing) "yellow cards" from Jordanians of Palestinian origin.

Jordanians of Palestinian origin have been steadily losing their rights ever since 1988. They replaced their passports with "yellow cards" that were effectively travel documents that were valid for 5 years, and "green cards" that were valid for two years.

Over the past few years this discrimination has accelerated. Jordanian officials give roundabout reasons for this, all of them coming down to that this is a way to help bring about a Palestinian Arab state - so of course it is for their own good.

HRW wrote a report on this discrimination last February.

Yossi Klein HaLevi on Israel and the "settlers"

In the Wall Street Journal, a more nuanced view of the Jews of Judea and Samaria - from someone who does not support them. I don't agree with much of what he says, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is helping explain the deep divide between Israel's Left and the European/American Left - something that most journalists simply do not understand:

Two issues related to West Bank settlements are on the current agenda of Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak. The first is Mr. Barak's attempt to persuade the Netanyahu government to extend a freeze on settlement building. The second is his attempt to legalize two houses in a tiny West Bank settlement called Hayovel that were built without government permission and face possible demolition.

The houses were built by two war heroes. Major Eliraz Peretz fell in a skirmish on the Israeli-Gaza border a half year ago; Israelis were especially touched by his story because his older brother died in Lebanon 12 years ago. The second hero, Major Ro'i Klein, was killed in Lebanon in 2006 after leaping onto a grenade to save his men.

Fallen soldiers have a sacrosanct status here. Demolishing the houses that Peretz and Klein built for their families seems to Israelis, whatever their politics, an unbearable act of ingratitude. Even the bitterly anti-settlement movement Peace Now informed the Supreme Court that while it seeks the removal of illegal houses in Hayovel, an exception should be made for these two dwellings. "We are not indifferent to the feelings of the public on this matter," a Peace Now spokeswoman explained.

The story of the Peretz and Klein houses has significance beyond what it tells us about Israeli sensitivities. Increasingly, Israel's military elite is coming from West Bank settlements and, more broadly, from within the religious Zionist community that produced the settlement movement and passionately supports it.

Perhaps 40% of combat officers are now religious Zionists (not to be confused with ultra-orthodox Haredim), nearly three times their percentage in the general population. In the early 1990s, the number of religious combat officers was barely 2%. The newly appointed deputy chief of staff, Yair Naveh, is a religious Zionist.

Once it was kibbutzim, or collectivist farms, that produced the nation's combat elite. Now it is the religious Zionist community that raises its sons to sacrifice. Every Sabbath day the same scene is repeated throughout the settlements: Young men wearing knitted skullcaps precariously pinned to close-cropped hair gather outside the synagogue and exchange stories from their combat units—while their younger brothers eavesdrop and decide which units they will one day join.
...

The "settler" has assumed a near demonic image around the world, but most Israelis know that only a radical fringe is responsible for uprooting Palestinian olive trees and vandalizing mosques. Most settlers are part of the mainstream. Israelis encounter them in the army, in the workplace, and in the universities.

Shaul Mofaz, a leader of the pro-withdrawal party, Kadima, was a founder in the mid 1970s of the Elkana settlement in the northern West Bank. Mr. Mofaz's party colleague, Knesset member Otniel Schneller, still lives in a settlement.

Crucially, few Israelis regard settlers as interlopers on another people's land. The political wisdom of the settlement project is intensely debated here, but only a leftwing fringe denies the historic right of Jews to live in what was the biblical heartland of Israel.

Still, while settlers remain widely appreciated for their idealism, their political agenda has become a minority position. The left has won the argument that ending the occupation is an Israeli existential need. If Israelis believed that peace were possible, a majority would opt for painful compromise and support West Bank withdrawal.
...

And if the international community wants to understand why the Israeli public doesn't share its antipathy toward the settlers or its urgency to uproot settlements, a good place to begin is with Mr. Barak's effort to legalize two houses on a West Bank hilltop.

(The only way to read full WSJ articles is to first find them on Google News and then click on them - you cannot directly link to them.)

Stuck on a train. Open thread!

Thanks to local commuter train problems, each and every one of you get a free open thread to play with!

Limited time offer!

Michael Totten totally rocks

Michael Totten is a rare Middle East journalist.

First of all, he actually reports - he doesn't repeat what other reporters are saying, but he comes to his own conclusions, first-hand.

Secondly, he knows what he is talking about.

Thirdly, he can write well about what he knows, and he is not shy about writing a lengthy piece to ensure that his words are not going to be ambiguous because of some editorial position.

And fourthly, he has a knack of finding really smart people to interview, people who can explain the mentality behind the players of the Middle East poker game. After reading his interviews - really, more like transcripts of bull-sessions between two smart and interesting people - I just wish I was there to hear them first-hand, to discuss the points made further, to enjoy the tangents and meanderings of their discussion which often illuminate more than the main topic at hand.

Just read his latest, with Israeli writer David Hazony.

(h/t Silke)