Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Palestine Papers: Arguments about "two states for two peoples"

In the preparation for Annapolis, the Israeli and Palestinian Arab negotiators discussed what a joint statement might look like. Tzipi Livni wanted to say that the end-game is two states for two peoples - and the Palestinian Arabs objected, for reasons that they themselves detailed.

Here are some sections of the discussion:

Tzipi Livni: Two states is the ultimate goal of the process. But also part of the TOR [Terms of Reference document they are drafting.] Each state is the answer to the natural aspirations of its people.

Saeb Erekat: [Raises roadmap language regarding unequivocal duty to accept each state as is. Reads from the roadmap.]

TL: To say the idea that two nation states contradicts the roadmap..…

SE: [But we’ve never denied Israel’s right to define itself.]
If you want to call your state the Jewish State of Israel you can call it what you want. [Notes examples of Iran and Saudi Arabia.]

TL: I said basically that our position is a reference to the fact that each state is an answer to the national aspirations of their people.

Akram Haniyeh: There was an article in Haaretz saying that Palestinians would be stupid if they accept this [i.e. the Jewish state].

TL: Someone wrote the Palestinians?

Ahmed Querei [AA]: I want to say two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Tal Becker: That’s all? [Sarcastically.]

AA: Yes that’s our position. Two state solution living side by side in peace security stability and prosperity, Palestinian democratic state independent with sovereignty, viable with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is what we want to have. This small sentence.

TL: I just want to say something. ...Our idea is to refer to two states for two peoples. Or two nation states, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security with each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination...

AH: This refers to the Israeli people?

TL: [Visibly angered.] I think that we can use another session – about what it means to be a Jew and that it is more than just a religion. But if you want to take us back to 1947 -- it won’t help. Each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory. Israel the state of the Jewish people -- and I would like to emphasize the meaning of “its people” is the Jewish people -- with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3007 years... [The Palestinian team protests.] You asked for it. [AA: We said East Jerusalem!] …and Palestine for the Palestinian people. We did not want to say that there is a “Palestinian people” but we’ve accepted your right to self determination.

AA: Why is it different?

TL: I didn’t ask for something that relates to my own self. I didn’t ask for recognizing something that is the internal decision of Israel. Israel can do so, it is a sovereign state. [We want you to recognize it.] The whole idea of the conflict is … the entire point is the establishment of the Jewish state. And yet we still have a conflict between us. We used to think it is because the Jews and the Arabs… but now the Palestinians… we used to say that we have no right to define the Palestinian people as a people. They can define it themselves. In 1947 it was between Jews and Arabs, and then [at that point the purpose] from the Israeli side to [was] say that the Palestinians are Arabs and not [Palestinians – it was an excuse not to create a Palestinian state. We'’ve passed that point in time and I'’m not going to raise it. The whole conflict between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is not the idea of creating a democratic state that is viable etc. It is to divide it into two.] For each state to create its own problem. Then we can ask ourselves is it viable, what is the nature of the two states. In order to end the conflict we have to say that this is the basis. I know that your problem is saying this is problematic because of the refugees. During the final status negotiations we will have an answer to the refugees. You know my position. Even having a Jewish state -- it doesn’t say anything about your demands. …. Without it, why should we create a Palestinian state?

...There is something that is shorter. I can read something with different wording:
That the ultimate goal is constituting the homeland for the Jewish people and the Palestinian people respectively, and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination in their own territory.

The joint declaration at Annapolis did not include any wording about the Jewish people, but afterwards President Bush said "The [final peace] settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people...The United States will keep its strong commitment to the security of the State of Israel and its existence as a homeland for the Jewish people."

By the way, the Guardian definitely saw this memo, because it was the one that they and Al Jazeera misquoted as saying that Livni said she was against international law. (She didn't.)

Syria re-instates Facebook, YouTube access

From Asharq al-Awsat/AFP:

For the first time since 2007, Syrians can directly log onto Facebook and YouTube without going through proxy servers abroad, Internet users said on Wednesday.

The authorities issued no statements regarding the development, but Syria's leading media and technology entrepeneur, Abdulsalam Haykal, told AFP that the request to lift the block "had reached internet service providers."

"The process of lifting the ban will take time and may extend for hours or days, according to the supplier," he added.

Al-Watan, a newspaper close to the government, quoted analysts as saying that lifting the firewall on Facebook and YouTube demonstrated "the government's confidence in its performance and that the state did not fear any threat coming from these two sites nor others."

But they noted that some websites remain blocked, including selected blogs, the Arabic version of Wikipedia, and a number of foreign and Arab media.

It is an interesting move on Assad's part.

Palestine Papers: PLO denies that there is a "Jewish people"

My latest Palestine Papers scoop can be seen at NewsRealBlog.

You'll like it.

Reports that Hamas is arresting Islamic Jihad rocketers

Palestine Press Agency quotes Asharq al-Awsat is reporting that Hamas arrested 10 members of Islamic Jihad's Al Quds Brigades, to stop them launching rockets into Israel.

They also arrested three members of small Salafist groups for the same reason.

The article says that Hamas has been stepping up their patrols near the border and are searching for smuggled rockets.

The reason given is that Hamas does not want to give Israel an excuse for an invasion.

Wikileaks: Egypt opposition's frustration with US

A quite timely Wikileaks cable from January 2010:

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights Executive Director Hossam Bahgat urged the U.S. to "practice what it preaches" on human rights by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison. ... Bahgat asserted that many Egyptians believe the GOE has interpreted the current administration's relative "silence" on human rights and political issues as a signal of support.

Director-General of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Bahey Al-Din Hassan said he was unsure of what current U.S. human rights policy is. He expressed concern over lack of U.S.
public criticism of Syria for human rights violations, and U.S. support for Yemeni President Saleh while he represses his people. Hassan expected increasing GOE repression leading up to the 2010 parliamentary and 2011 presidential elections. Hassan said he was initially optimistic when the Forum for the Future was launched that it would strengthen partnerships between Arab governments and civil society. Instead, Hassan asserted, government-controlled NGOs have dominated the Forum. Hassan noted that because of this phenomenon, he has not participated in the Forum since 2005.

...Human rights lawyer Tarek Khattar asserted that U.S. support for the GOE encourages it to repress the Egyptian people. He contended that President's Obama June 4 Cairo speech has not
produced "any positive results" in Egypt. Women's rights activist Mozn Hassan criticized the President's speech for "equating women throughout the region with each other," instead of recognizing their differences. Human rights lawyer Atef Hafez complained that the U.S. denied him entry to the Guantanamo Bay prison to visit a prisoner he was trying to represent. Hafez also complained that the Guantanamo prison is still open despite President Obama's commitment to close it. Activist Mohammed Zarea called for the U.S. to urge the GOE to make significant changes to open up political life.

Noting widespread dissatisfaction with political leaders on all sides, "April 6" leader Ahmed Salah said the 2010 and 2011 elections represented the only opportunity for change, and pressed for more immediate action. He called for greater internal and external pressure on the GOE to increase freedom of assembly and expression, lift the State of Emergency, improve election procedures with electronic voting, and allow registration with national identification cards.

Regarding U.S. democracy promotion, the group called for continued support to civil society and "principled" pressure on the GOE. However, Sadat noted sensitivities over "outside interference" in both the regime and opposition camps. Al-Ghad Party Vice-President Wael Nawara suggested that external criticism should be matched with primarily economic "incentives" to encourage the government to commit to concrete democratic reforms.

In a separate meeting, Al-Ghad party founder Ayman Nour said Egyptians were ready for change and seeking leadership. "I'm banned from participating in the coming elections, but I will be part of the political fight," Nour asserted. Nour opined that the GOE's prevention of a liberal alternative to Gamal Mubarak strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood. He underlined the impact of the security services' interference with opposition political activity, and advocated increased U.S. pressure to highlight GOE restrictions. Nour urged A/S Posner to press the GOE to restore his own personal rights by allowing him to resume his work as an attorney or journalist, travel abroad and sell his assets. Nour thanked A/S Posner for the Department's November 6, 2009 public statement expressing disappointment at the GOE's decision to prevent him from travelling to the U.S.

The US had plenty of time to read the signals and work to reform Egypt in a safe way.

Report: Jewish woman gives birth in Ramallah hospital (updated)

Ma'an Arabic has a story (picked up by other media, including the PA's Ministry of Health) saying that a Jewish woman (last name Nasreen) was shopping in Ramallah with her husband and went into labor.

She refused to go to an Israeli hospital, and insisted to give birth at the local hospital instead.

The baby was premature, a boy weighing 2.3 kg.

Palestinian Arab plain-clothes police were in the delivery room.

It appears that Mrs. Nasreen is an Arabophile. She was born in Haifa as she lives in the Israeli-Arab village of Sakhnin with her (presumably Arab) husband, which would explain how she could go shopping in Ramallah to begin with.

Not only that but she expressed her desire for the child to get Palestinian Arab citizenship.

As a result, her hospital stay was free and Mahmoud Abbas sent her a bouquet of flowers, as the PA tries to use this episode as an opportunity to show that they love Jews who happily embrace their second-class dhimmi status.

UPDATE: Aussie Dave notices that she had converted to Islam.

Israel dismantling Huwwara checkpoint

From Ma'an:

Nablus Governor Jebrin Al-Bakri was informed by PA liaison officials that the Israeli military will begin immediately the removal of infrastructure for the Huwwara and Beit Furik checkpoints.

Al-Bakri told Ma'an that the news came early Thursday morning, and that the deconstructions would include the removal of dozens of concrete blocks and barriers. He said restrictions at the Za’tara checkpoint south of Nablus would also be eased.

The announcement came after what Al-Bakri said was eight months of negotiations with Israeli officials, saying that without freedom of movement through the northern West Bank, economic development would be impossible.

The Huwwara checkpoint has stopped terror attacks, including the 16 year old would-be suicide bomber seen in this CBS video, which mentions that the same checkpoint had stopped another child from bringing explosives into Israel the week before.

UN agency supports Arab media campaign that idolizes a terrorist (updated)

From PMW:

As part of a TV campaign to "support women's issues" in the Arab world, a TV clip presenting several "model women" was broadcast on more than 50 Arab TV stations including Palestinian Authority TV. One of the women promoted as role models for Arab women today is famous for her terrorist attack that killed dozens, and another is famous for celebrating the Martyrdom deaths of her children.

The clip was broadcast as part of the "White Hands Campaign - The largest media campaign to support women's issues," which is organized "by the Arab Producers Union for TV (APUTV) in cooperation with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)," according to the campaign's English website.
[accessed Feb. 9, 2011, http://www.whitehandsc.com/en/component/content/72.html?task=view]

Entitled The Model Woman, the clip honors different Arab women of the past, assigning to them various virtues and accomplishments. Dalal Mughrabi, who in 1978 led the most lethal terror attack against Israel, in which 37 civilians were killed, was venerated in the clip as a role model for "Martyrdom" and "victory over enmity". Al Khansa, a 7th century Arab poet, who celebrated her four sons' Martyrdom deaths in battle was praised as an example of "resolve" and "Martyrdom and giving".

The campaign's English website also states that "APUTV works under the umbrella of the Arab League, and through the Arab Ministers Information Council." And that "APUTV's official headquarters are in Cairo- Egypt."

UPDATE: The UN disavowed the commercial (h/t Samson)

Hasbara 2.0, part 2: What is good hasbara?

Part 2 of my series on hasbara is now up on NewsRealBlog.

Check it out!

UPDATE: It looks like the videos that were supposed to be embedded in the story did not make it in. Here they are:

Arabs to uproot 3000 trees - because they are too Jewish

From JPost:

The developer of Rawabi, a new Palestinian city being built in the West Bank, said he will remove some 3,000 trees donated by the Jewish National Fund and replace them with indigenous olive trees, Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported Tuesday.

Bashar al-Masri said that the city's identity is meant to be Palestinian and that Israeli elements are trying "to manipulate the issue," according to the report.

Masri's move came in response to a scathing op-ed published by Ma'an a day earlier by Jewish Israeli-born convert to Islam and member of Fatah, Uri Davis. In the op-ed, he slammed the decision to accept the trees from an organization whose mission "is the 'redemption' of lands in 'Eretz Israel,' including Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza and beyond for Jewish settlement."

Davis further criticized the species chosen to be planted by the JNF. Non-indigenous pine trees, he said "add insult to injury." "Rather than plant indigenous" trees, he added, "the tree saplings planted by the JNF in the area designated for the Rawabi projects are typically political-Zionist pinera (conifers)."

Interestingly, there have been conifers in Israel since the Jurassic era. I think that might qualify as "indigenous."

The Gharqad tree is the Koran's "tree of the Jews" that will protect them when all the other trees and stones tell believing Muslims where Jews are hiding so the Jews can be slaughtered according to the will of Allah. Some identify it as a boxthorn.

But it appears that Davis believes that this heretical tree is the conifer.

Palestine Papers: Jews legally own land in the territories

Here's another EoZ scoop that the Guardian could have broken - but decided not to.

In another bombshell document that the Guardian and Al Jazeera did not believe is newsworthy, in 2008 the PLO wrote a paper describing the legal rights of Jews to lands that they owned prior to 1948.

The intent was to have a position ready in case Israel brought the issue up in negotiations. It was not presented to Israel.

It is astonishing to read paragraphs like these from the PLO:

Jews who owned land have the right to have their land restored to them or to be compensated, if restitution is not materially possible. Jews are entitled to compensation for other material and non-material losses, including lost profits, lost income, etc. caused by their displacement and dispossession.

Of course, they hold this position because they do not want to appear hypocritical with their demands from Israel. (The PLO also includes an annex to list legal arguments that Jews do not have any rights to the land anymore, in case they need to use those arguments publicly.)

Some of the parts are fascinating. For example, it describes (and implicitly supports) the bigoted British policy of severely restricting the rights of Jews - and only Jews - to buy land before 1948:

In 1940, in response to Arab concerns regarding Jewish land ownership in Palestine, the British introduced restrictions on land transfers to Jews. Pursuant to the Palestine (Amendment) Order-in-Council of 25 May 1939, the High Commissioner was authorized to prohibit and regulate land transfers.23 Acting on these powers, the High Commissioner adopted the Land Transfer Regulations, 1940, which established three zones: Zone A (16,680 km2), where land could generally not be transferred except to Palestinian Arabs; Zone B (8,348 km2), where land transfers from Arabs to Jews required permission that was generally withheld; and land outside Zones A and B (1,292 km2), which could be freely transferred.24 According to the hand-drawn map annexed to the Regulations, what became Gaza and the West Bank was entirely Zone A, meaning that land transfers to Jews were, with few exceptions, prohibited.25 Britain apparently repealed these Regulations upon the termination of its Mandate (12 May 1948).26

Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan and Egypt essentially confiscated Jewish-owned land, against international humanitarian law:

The Custodian [of Enemy Property] held and administered Jewish-owned in the West Bank until 1967 according to the Trading with the Enemy Ordinance (as opposed to administering the land like absentee property according to the powers and rules of IHL).38 Some of these assets were used by the Custodian for public purposes, such as the establishment of refugee camps, the rehabilitation of refugees, and the setting up of army camps and marketplaces. In other cases, the property was leased to private individuals, who used the land for agricultural, commercial or residential purposes, depending on its characteristics.

...
By the Order Providing Regulations for the Administration of Jews’ Property in the Areas Subject to the Control of the Egyptian Forces in Palestine, No. 25 (issued in 1948, published in 1950), Egypt appointed a Director General to administer property owned by Jews who fled in 1948. The Director General used the parcels for public projects, including refugee camps for Palestine Arabs, or leased them for private uses.41

Finally, the document describes some specific lands indisputably owned by Jews - even according to the Palestinian Arabs.

[L]and located on Mount Scopus...was purchased from a British national in 1916. Boris Goldberg, a member of Lovers of Zion, paid for the land and took title in his name.51 He gifted the land to the JNF, which gave a 999-year lease to Hebrew University.52 Additional land was purchased on Mount Scopus from Raghib al-Nashashibi, Mayor of Jerusalem, and was used for the Hebrew University. Hadassah Hospital was also built on land purchased on Mount Scopus.53

...By 1946, the JNF acquired 72,300 dunums in the Gaza district, which encompassed more than present-day Gaza.

In 1930, a Jewish farmer from Rehovot, Tuvia Miller, bought 262 dunums of land in Dayr al-Balah in the Gaza sub-district. Miller eventually sold his land to the JNF in the early 1940s. The JNF then allowed settlers from the religious Ha-Poel ha-Mizrahi movement to build the kibbutz of Kfar Darom on the land in October 1946. They abandoned the kibbutz in June 1948.59

Stein reports a purchase of 4,048 dunums in Huj (Gaza sub-district) in 1935 but does not indicate the identity of the Jewish purchaser.60 Note, however, that the Palestine Partition Commission reported that, by 1938, only 3,300 dunums in Gaza were owned by Jews.61

In 1941, 6,373 dunums were purchased by the JNF around Gaza City, though it is unknown whether the purchase was permissible under the Land Transfer Regulations 1940.

The government of Palestine estimated a population of 3,540 Jews in the Gaza sub-district at the end of 1946. Information has not been found on the circumstances under which these Jews departed from Gaza in 1948.

There were Jewish settlements north of Jerusalem called Atarot and Neve Yaakov, which were evacuated in 1948.65

A settlement called Bet Haarava, and Palestine Potash, Ltd., both located at the northern end of the Dead Sea, were situated on miri land leased by the government of Palestine and were evacuated in 1948.66

During the 1920s and 1930s, individual Jews and two Jewish-owned realty companies, Zikhron David and El Hahar, bought land in the hills around Hebron.67 Notwithstanding (and, actually, because of) the Land Transfer Regulations, 1940, which placed nearly all of the West Bank in Zone A, the JNF began purchasing land around Hebron in 1940. It acquired about 8,400 dunums by 1947, some of which was purchased from individual Jews and from Zikhron David and El Hahar. The settlements established on this land were called Kfar Etzion, Masuot Yitzhak, Ein Tzurim and Revadim. The JNF circumvented the prohibition on acquisition of land by Jews by creating front companies. Most of the Jewish-owned land around Hebron was held, as of 1948, by the JNF rather than by individual Jewish owners.68

Some 16,000 dunums of land were purchased by Jews before 1948 in the Etzion Bloc and Beit Hadassah.69

Himnuta bought land near Jericho and present-day Ma’ale Adumim. The funding in urban areas usually came from state coffers, while the purchase of agricultural land was paid for by the JNF.70

During the British mandate, the government of Palestine leased miri land on a long-term basis (50 or 100 years) to Jewish settlement organisations.71

By 1948, the concentrations of lands owned by Jews were in the old Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Hebron, on the periphery of Jerusalem, and in the Tul-Karem region and the Gaza Strip.72

* Apparently, 80% of Har Homa’s [Jabal Abu Ghneim’s] land is Jewish land purchased in the forties and before.73

The JNF lost land in the Dheisheh refugee camp in the West Bank as well, and this matter has been postponed for the eventual [peace] talks for over a decade.

Now, why wouldn't The Guardian or its partner Al Jazeera want to write about a paper that details Jewish legal rights to lands in the territories?

Could it be that these "news" organizations are more interested in manipulating the news rather than reporting it?

This paper doesn't merely hurt the PLO, as most of the papers that made The Guardian's pages were intended to do, but the entire Palestinian Arab national movement - and that's a big taboo in the newsroom of The Guardian. (Not to mention the inconvenient fact that Great Britain made laws specifically banning land sales to people based merely on their religion. Slightly embarrassing, no?)

This is one of the Palestine Papers stories they wanted to remain buried.

(Other Palestine Papers scoops here.)

Epic BDS fail: Intel invests another $2.7 billion in Israel

From Israel21c:

In an unstable business environment, where US companies are scaling back and weathering bad times, Intel has made a surprising business move. The chipmaker announced in January that it will invest $2.7 billion in its Israeli plant in southern Israel, which will produce next-generation 22-nanometer chips.

It is expected that 22-nanometer technology will make our computers faster, smaller and lighter.

Not willing to elaborate on what exactly this will mean for our everyday lives, Intel Israel's spokesman Koby Bahar tells ISRAEL21c that "it will be the most advanced technology" available.

"Intel decided to invest here because it's worthwhile," he says. "Because we have a good record for Israel and Intel."

Currently, Intel produces processors that run more than 80 percent of the world's personal computers. If you own a PC, chances are a part of it was produced in or developed in Israel.

We have yet to see would-be boycotters of Israel giving up their computers.

Britain's foreign minister finds Egyptian reason to bash Israel

The Times of London writes (behind paywall):

The Middle East peace process is in danger of becoming a casualty of the revolutionary tidal wave sweeping the Arab world, and Israel is putting itself at risk by failing to compromise, William Hague told The Times yesterday. Speaking on an emergency peace mission covering five countries in three days, the Foreign Secretary issued a blunt instruction to Israel to tone down the belligerent language used by Binyamin Netanyahu, its Prime Minister, since the uprising and protests, which have spread from Tunisia to Egypt and beyond.

... Mr Hague responded to increasingly militaristic pronouncements by Mr Netanyahu, who has been urging his nation to prepare for ‘any outcome’ and vowing to ‘reinforce the might of the state of Israel’. The Foreign Secretary said: ‘This should not be a time for belligerent language. It’s a time to inject greater urgency into the Middle East peace process.’

As Melanie Phillips writes:

Belligerent? Israel is currently petrified that, if Islamists come to power in Egypt and tear up its 30-year old peace treaty as the Muslim Brothers have said they will do, it will face the nightmare of a renewed threat of war from the south as well as from Iran/Hezbollah in the north and Iran/Hamas in Gaza. It will be thus encircled by truly ‘belligerent ‘ enemies. It will have to turn its entire military and strategic thinking upside down in order to defend itself against such a grim prospect – and yes, of course it will have to reinforce its defences. Even more young Israelis will have to be called up to army service and face the risk of death to prevent their country from being wiped off the map. For William Hague to represent the warnings by Israel’s Prime Minister that his country must now prepare itself for this terrifying eventuality as ‘belligerency’ is simply obscene.

Let us hear no more nauseating hypocrisy from Cameron or Hague about how they are Israel’s staunch allies. With ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?

The Times illustrated the story this way (via Honest Reporting blog):

What an interesting photo choice!

The culture of submission (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

A good piece in Financial Times (registration required) that explains well how Egyptian Muslims think - and why that makes real democracy a more difficult outcome.

Innumerable commentators have drawn analogies with the revolutions that swept eastern Europe in 1989.

This is to miss the profound difference between the western and the Muslim crowd. The people taking to the streets in north Africa and the Middle East have many motivations. But nothing unifies them more than the mass prayer of their religion – particularly the Friday prayer. It is the mosque as much as the street that is key to understanding this uprising.

...

Those who look forward to a 1989-style outcome – a peaceful transition to a secular, multi-party democracy – should remember how little experience the proponents of secular democracy have. The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since 1928, and draws on a 1,400-year-old tradition of submission....

The Mubaraks and Gaddafis of the Middle East are not an anomaly; they are the product of structural lack of freedom inherent in the crowd culture of the Islamic world. In this culture submission is instilled early on. If you are not allowed to talk back to your father, or teacher, or clergyman, submission to state tyranny becomes almost second nature. In such a setting, the methods to empower oneself – indeed to survive – are conspiracy, manipulation, intrigue and bribery. Those aspiring to positions of power fear that sharing it will weaken them and lead to humiliation. So once a position is achieved it is made permanent, from the lowliest bureaucrat to the president.

A culture that elevates individual submission oscillates between periods of apathy and occasional bouts of revolt. Arab leaders either rule for life, grooming their sons for succession, or end up having to flee.

So what can today’s Muslim crowds do to avoid the fate of all those mice who thought they glimpsed freedom but were in fact mere playthings of the cat?

The protesters must begin by acknowledging the factors that create an environment where tyrants thrive. For too long, outside forces have been the scapegoats of the Arab street. It is easy to blame the Zionists and America. It is harder to admit one’s own shortcomings.

But today’s crowds also need to articulate what they want. A participant in Egypt’s mass protests was asked on the BBC to comment on the leaderless quality of the demonstrations (February 4). His answer – “We don’t need a leader” – baffled the interviewer and no doubt most western viewers.

His aversion to leadership is understandable in the light of past Arab regime changes. Here, men who arrive as liberators have a way of morphing into dictators until the time when another man mobilises the masses to liberate the nation from their ex-liberator. The new man then rebuilds the old infrastructure of spies and torture chambers.

But is it realistic to have a leaderless revolution? In my view it is not. In the absence of leadership – which means not just one man but a legitimate command structure, as well as some kind of explicit manifesto – these protests will never achieve the truly revolutionary changes we saw in Europe in 1989.

Instead we shall see chaos and instability followed by a new era of authoritarianism; a brief democracy followed by a coup or a sharia government led by the Brotherhood.

So the crowd must become a real movement. They have to build civil institutions. They must hurry and compose a list of demands before they are dispersed. It is not enough just to ask for the despot to go. There need to be amendments to existing constitutions or new ones need to be written. And here America and Europe can offer help.

But when it comes to changing the culture of submission no one can help the Arabs but themselves. It is not their inexorable fate to be ruled either by dictators or by religious fanatics. They will achieve true freedom, however, only when they emancipate themselves from the peculiar power structure imposed on the Muslim crowd – by itself.

(h/t Silke)

Egypt bans Palestinian Arabs from entering country

The number of visitors to Egypt has dropped precipitously:

Minister of Civil Aviation Ibrahim Mannaa said on Wednesday that flights to Egypt have declined by 70 percent, which led to a sharp drop in profits.

Sources at Cairo International Airport said 14 of the international airlines canceled their flights to Cairo on Wednesday due to a lack of passengers.

“Passengers boarding EgyptAir flights have dropped to 54 percent,” added Mannaa. “Losses during the past two weeks can only be calculated after all losses are identified.”

But there is one group of people that Egypt doesn't want at all:

Immigration officers have been instructed to bar Palestinians from entering Egypt, an official at Cairo airport said on Wednesday after 12 travellers were sent back.

"There are instructions to stop Palestinians entering Egypt. Twelve Palestinians were sent back to the places they came from on Wednesday," the official told AFP, on condition of anonymity.

A second airport-based official told AFP that airlines had been told not to bring Palestinian passengers to Egypt.

Of course, the Arab world will unanimously condemn this blatant discrimination against Palestinian Arabs, whom they care about so deeply.

Any time now.

(h/t Herb G)

Morning snippets

Just in case you don't already have enough to read....these will keep you busy all day.

Martin Sherman in YNet:

...[W]hy the Palestinians find themselves in the miserable state in which they are today: a chronic and cavalier disregard for the truth; an enduring propensity to blame others for their fate; and an obdurate refusal to take responsibility for their own actions - and inaction.

European Foundation for Democracy (German):

The Iranian rulers see in the new mass protests in Arabic states the reawakening of Islam and speak of the "new axis of Islam in the Middle East." They think that the Islamic revolution of 1979 was the beginning of the protests against the western and "Zionist" supremacy.

Shiraz Maher interview at Harry's Place:

[T]he Brotherhood might be marginal but it is neither bumbling nor benign. It is an astute movement watching [the West] betray the legitimate sentiments of young, ordinary Egyptians. That is what the Ikhwan is waiting for so it can pounce. A marginal movement could very suddenly find itself in the mainstream. I have good evidence from Alexandria that this is already starting to happen, and it is worth bearing in mind that the Brotherhood is much better organised there than in Cairo.

PMW translates the Muslim Brotherhood in their own words:

- "...Jihad for Allah is not limited to the specific region of the Islamic countries, since the Muslim homeland is one and is not divided, and the banner of Jihad has already been raised in some of its parts, and it shall continue to be raised, with the help of Allah, until every inch of the land of Islam will be liberated, the State of Islam will be established,..."

"... despite this, the [Muslim] Brotherhood is not rushed by youth's enthusiasm into immature and unplanned action which will not alter the bad reality and may even harm the Islamic activity, and will benefit the people of falsehood..."
- "... one should know that it is not necessary that the Muslims will repel every attack or damage caused by the enemies of Allah immediately, but [only] when ability and the circumstances are fit to it."

Khaled Abu Toameh in Hudson-NY:

Jordan's King Abdullah II has good reason to be worried about the future of the monarchy in the Hashemite Kingdom. If he fails to implement real political and economic reforms, Jordan could easily fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood group or turn into a Palestinian state.

Yoel Guzansky in Meria Journal:

The Gulf states' policy towards Iran's nuclear ambitions has combined elements of appeasement with a fundamental reliance on the United States as a defending and deterring force. Most Gulf states lack strategic depth, have small populations, and small, untrained armies. Moreover, their significant oil and natural gas reserves have made them the potential target for aggression and dependent on outside forces for defense. Despite the great wealth and inherent weakness of the Gulf states, they have remained largely on the sidelines in the international effort to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Jackson Diehl on how the White House ignored warnings on Egypt:

The White House was warned, publicly and repeatedly, that Egypt was approaching a turning point and that the status quo was untenable - not by an intelligence agency but by a bipartisan group of Washington-based experts who pleaded, in vain, for a change of policy.

The Working Group on Egypt was formed a year ago to sound the alarm about Mubarak's crumbling regime. The first sentence of its opening statement: "Egypt is at a critical turning point." The group is still issuing detailed proposals about how to handle the crisis. On Monday, it warned that the administration "may acquiesce to an inadequate and possibly fraudulent transition process in Egypt." Sadly, the administration is still not listening.

Also in WaPo see George Will.

Nick Cohen in "Jesus, I'm Turning into a Jew!"

British Jews are living through a very dangerous period. They are the only ethnic minority whose slaughter official society will excuse. If a mass murderer bombed a mosque or black Pentecostal church, no respectable person would say that the “root cause” of the crime was an understandable repulsion at the deeds of al-Qaeda or a legitimate opposition to mass immigration. Rightly, they would blame the criminal for the crime.

If a synagogue is attacked, I guarantee that within minutes the airwaves will be filled with insinuating voices insisting that the “root cause” of the crime was a rational anger at the behaviour of Israel or the Jewish diaspora.

Evelyn Gordon in Contentions:

Only a pathological obsession with Israel could lead administration officials to blame America’s economic woes of late 2009 on a minor war fought by a marginal trading partner a full year earlier. And curing such pathology lies more in the realm of medical science than political science.

Nevertheless, it’s vital to understand just how deeply it runs. For it is shaping, or rather misshaping, the West’s foreign policy every day.

Arabs again digging on the Temple Mount - and destroying priceless treasures.

Richard Cohen in WaPo:

Certain pro-democracy advocates in the Western media envision a transition period of months that will produce democratic bliss in the region. Not likely. The Middle East must first pass through somewhat the same process as did Central and Eastern Europe. Before World War I, it had no democracies. The region was ruled by monarchies.

After the war, nearly every state (the Soviet Union was the most prominent exception) was a democracy and one, the most culturally and politically advanced of them all, had an exemplary constitution and a resplendent bouquet of political parties. Nevertheless, this country reeled from Weimar Republic to Nazi dictatorship in virtually no time at all.

The rest of Central and Eastern Europe was different only in degree, not in kind. By the end of the 1930s, these countries were mostly right-wing dictatorships of one sort or another. It took another World War, a Cold War and lots of help for democracy to take root. Even so, some of these countries show twitches of recidivism.

To think that the Middle East will vault this process is endearing but dotty.

Jeff Jacoby:

If Egypt is to have any hope of a transition to a genuine constitutional democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood must not be treated as a legitimate democratic partner. For more than 80 years, it has been a fervent exponent of Islamic, not secular, rule; of clerical, not popular, sovereignty. Its credo could hardly be more explicit, or more antidemocratic: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

Myths and Facts:

Europe, of course, has the right to demand and ensure that before it accepts Turkey as a member of its Union, that country is capable of economic independence and stability and that it lives up to standards of democracy and rule of law, civil, political and social rights.

Israel has just as much right to demand from the EU and other Quartet members not to be forced into accepting a Palestinian Arab state on its borders which they themselves would not accept as a functional country.

At present, the international community, including the EU and the rest of the Quartet, is adopting a disturbingly low standard by which to judge PA readiness for statehood and should it continue upon its present course, it is highly unlikely that the creation of such a state will lead to the stability and prosperity so badly needed by the Palestinian Arab people, let alone bring about an end to the regional conflict.

The Guardian shows Wikileaks cables that indicate that Saudi Arabia does not have as much oil as it has claimed - it actually lied to get Western investments - and very soon it will not be able to pump as much oil as it needs to.

And, finally, Proud Zionist presents a new fictional BBC documentary in "Normal Israelis."

Any of these is worth their own blog post. I wish I had more time!

(h/t Zach N., Silke, DWM, SoccerDad, Yaacov L, DJK, Richard B, Emet)

An ad from London's Underground

Remember last year when the British Advertising Standard Agency banned Israeli tourism ads from showing photos of the Western Wall because that implied that it was in Israel?

Well, I just received this photo of an ad in London's Underground:

So the ASA has no problem with Turkey's occupation of North Cyprus?

(I'm fairly sure that the asterisk next to North Cyprus isn't referring to its occupied status, but rather to the fact that flights from Britain to North Cyprus stop off in Istanbul first.)

(h/t Folderol)

Egyptian protest jokes

Ma'an has a selection of jokes that are going around Egypt:

At Tahrir Square, one sign says "[Mubarak:] Leave, I miss my wife," while a second man proclaimed, "Leave already, my arm is hurting."
----
When it started raining in Tahrir Square, here were the reactions from various groups:

Muslim Brotherhood: No talk with system until rain stops
[Opposition leader] ElBaradai: Regime is fully responsible for rain in At-Tahrir Square
[Opposition party] April 6 Movement: Mubarak promised us safety, but he sent the rain to sink us
Al-Jazeera: Our correspondent has informed us that thugs are responsible for rain falls
Protesters: We caught rain drops and identified them as belonging to the Interior Ministry
[Government]Nile News Channel: What the traitor channels are broadcasting is not true, there is no rain in At-Tahrir Square.
----
Police are in the service of people; they boiled the water before spraying the protesters.
----
A group of surgeons went to Egypt to make an operation of a one of kind conjoined twins called Hosni Mubarak - and the throne.
----
Army commander to Hosni Mubarak: "Everything has come to an end, you should write a farewell speech for the people."

Mubarak: "Oh! Where are they going?"
----
After the "Friday of Rage," the "Sunday of Martyrs”, and the "Week of Resistance," Mubarak might step down when it all rolled around to "Resurrection day."
----
Mubarak died and met the late presidents Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel Nasser in the afterlife. They asked him: Poisoned or assassinated? He replied: Neither, Facebook!

Saeb Erekat admits that Jews could never become "Palestinians"

Saeb Erekat was on Hardtalk this week. Unfortunately many countries cannot view the full interview at the BBC site.

But this clip is available, and it betrays the bigotry of even the moderate "Palestinian" leadership.

As Erekat dismisses the idea of a one state solution, he says:

I don't think Christian and Muslim Palestinians would convert to Judaism and become Israelis. I don't think that Jews would convert to Islam and Christianity and become Palestinians.

Since there are over a million non-Jews in Israel, his first statement betrays his hate for Israel and his propensity to slander Israel on British TV by implying that it is a Jewish-only state.

But the second statement shows that Erekat believes that Jews cannot ever be citizens of a Palestinian Arab state! Only Christians and Muslims could!

He could have framed it in national terms ("I don't think that Palestinians want to be citizens of Israel; I don't think that Israelis would want to become citizens of a Palestinian state") but instead his terminology shows that the entire Palestinian Arab national project is really about keeping Jews out of "Palestine," and in the short term limiting the areas that Jews could live, not building a state.

"Honor killing" news

From IOL News:

A Jordanian court on Sunday gave a reduced sentence to a 64-year-old man for killing his wife and two daughters last year over the woman's alleged “bad behaviour”, an official said.

“The court had initially sentenced him to life in prison, but it found mitigating factors and gave him instead a 15-year jail term,” the official said.

“The convict came home one night in March last year and saw a strange man secretly leaving the house. He got enraged and shot and killed his daughters and wife after she denied seeing any man.”

The official said the husband has told police he killed his wife because of her “bad behaviour”.

Murder is punishable by death in Jordan but in so-called “honour killings” courts can commute or reduce sentences, particularly if the victim's family or relatives agree to leniency.

Between 15 and 20 women are murdered in honour killings every year in Jordan, despite government efforts to curb such crimes.

Last month, a Jordanian court gave reduced sentences to a man convicted of stabbing to death his cousin for shunning his brother, and another for murdering his raped sister.

Another court in the Red Sea port of Aqaba jailed a man in January for two years for running over and killing his wife after “she threw a stone at him because he was upset that she bought a new car”.

And, on Tuesday:

A Jordanian man was charged on Monday with the premeditated killing of his sister to "cleanse the family's honor" because she became pregnant after being widowed, a judiciary source said.

"The attorney general charged a 26-year-old man with premeditated crime for having killed his 30-year-old sister, who was eight months pregnant 18 months after being widowed," the source said.

"The crime took place on Monday and the brother handed himself in to the authorities after stabbing his sister 35 times with a knife," the source added.

Murder is punishable by death in Jordan, but the courts often grant clemency in cases of so-called honor killings.

Parliament has twice refused to amend its penal code to increase the penalty in the kingdom for such murders, which claim the lives of 15 to 20 women a year on average.

Overnight cute

A ten day old female baby Hamadryas Baboon suckles from her mother, at the Ramat Gan Safari Park near Tel Aviv, Israel, Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011. Twenty year old Hamadryas Baboon named Scud gave birth to a rare red-haired female ten days ago at the Ramat Gan Safari Park near Tel Aviv, the first red-haired Baboon monkey to be born at the Safari Park in thirty years.

Hypocritical PA leaders have Jordanian citizenship

From JPost:

Senior Palestinian Authority and Fatah officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas and his two sons, have been given Jordanian citizenship, a top Jordanian politician disclosed on Tuesday.

The Palestinian leaders were given Jordanian citizenship despite the fact that the authorities in Amman have been revoking the Jordanian citizenship of thousands of Palestinians.

According to the Londonbased Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, a significant number of PA leaders are registered as full Jordanian citizens.

The paper pointed out that the leaders applied for Jordanian citizenship at a time when they were urging the Jordanian authorities to stop giving Palestinians Jordanian citizenship, in order to “consolidate their Palestinian identity.” The Jordanian government had justified its decision to strip Palestinians of their citizenship by using the same argument.

Al-Quds Al-Arabi quoted sources in Amman as saying that Abbas and his entire family carry Jordanian passports.

Other PA leaders who carry Jordanian passports include former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei, Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh and Fatah’s Muhammad Dahlan.

The paper did not say when the Palestinian officials were given Jordanian citizenship. PA spokesmen in Ramallah refused to comment on the report.

So the would-be president of "Palestine" maintains his citizenship in another country!

Yet he encourages Jordan to strip the citizenship from his people!

(h/t TLB)

Egyptian college argues over Mubarak posters

From Al Masry al-Youm:

A heated discussion broke out between the dean and vice dean of the University of Alexandria’s Faculty of Engineering over the removal of posters of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak which cover the wall of the dfean’s office.

Vice Dean Hamdi Seif had called for the removal of Mubarak posters from five faculty offices and replacing them with the Egyptian flag. Meanwhile Faculty Dean Adel al-Kurdi refused the proposal, claiming the posters were put up in accordance with official directives.

Seif said since Egypt is embarking on a new era, what he described as “outdated thoughts” must be deposed of. He went on to say that whether or not Mubarak remains in power, posters of presidents should not be hung on walls and that this practice is only found in third world countries with totalitarian governments.

“We spend thousands of pounds each year to renew the president’s posters in all institutions,” said Seif, pointing out that the Engineering Faculty alone had 15 old posters of the president in their warehouses and that replacing one poster costs LE500.

500 Egyptian pounds is about $85.

I wish I had that gig - selling posters of dictators to thousands of institutions that are forced to hang them, changing them every year, and charging inflated prices for them!

My blog for sale: only $10 million

If the Huffington Post is worth $315 million, then how much is Elder of Ziyon worth?

In terms of unique readers, HuffPo gets about 250 times the number of readers I get (unique readers per month.) So purely from that perspective, my blog is proportionately worth about $1.2 million.

But in terms of number of substantive postings, my rough estimate is that HuffPo publishes about 20 times the number of posts I make. Which would make my blog worth about $15 million.

Then again, you don't have to read a lot of fluff pieces on my blog, and no articles trying to get you to worship me the way that Arianna uses her site to promote her personal cult. I also have far more scoops that HuffPo does. So my blog's value is probably on the high end of that continuum.

Not only that, but the demographics that read my blog are an advertiser's dream. My readers generally have gone to graduate school and are older with more disposable income. Any way you look at it, EoZ is worth a fortune.

But, for you, I've got such a bargain!

For only $10 million, I'll sell my blog to any major conglomerate that wants it. I'll stay on as Chairman of the EoZ Media Group, and I would have to be able to hire a young, smart, energetic staff to work for me so that I can expand the brand and maximize your profits.

Major corporations pay big bucks for content, and I am a content generating machine. Not only that, I'm not nearly as partisan as Arianna.

So if you want a great bargain in cyberspace, look no further.

Al Jazeera tries to get into US

From the Huffington Post, by Wadah Khanfar, director general of Al Jazeera:

This has been an unprecedented month in Al Jazeera history. Transformational events in the Middle East have brought enormous demand for news about the region.

As director general of the region's largest TV network, I am proud to say Al Jazeera Network has been reporting from the region's hot spots well before they "mattered" in January 2011. From Sudan to Tunisia to Palestine to Egypt, our trademark "journalism of depth" has been on display for all who are able and care to see. ...

[I]n the United States, Al Jazeera faces a different kind of blackout, based largely on misinformed views about our content and journalism. Some of the largest American cable and satellite providers have instituted corporate obstacles against Al Jazeera English. We are on the air and on the major cable system in the nation's capital, and some of America's leading policymakers in Washington, D.C., have told me that Al-Jazeera English is their channel of choice for understanding global issues. But we are not available in the majority of the 50 states for much of the general public.

We believe all Americans, not just those in senior governmental positions, could benefit from having the option to watch Al-Jazeera English -- or not to watch us -- on their television screens.

What kind of American would be against freedom of expression? How can cable companies be so heartless?

But wait...he has another example of Al Jazeera's excellence in journalism:

Before Egypt's street protests exploded last week we made the historic presentation of the "Palestine Papers," an unprecedented leak of more than 1,600 records of secret negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Papers were produced by the newly formed Al Jazeera Transparency Unit, and became a world exclusive for both our Arabic and English broadcasts. It was also a top story of our colleagues and partners at the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom.

Through investigative and on-location journalism, our ultimate goal is to bring greater awareness, painting a more complete picture of the Middle East's realities. Armed with more information, we believe the people of this region and further afield can make better choices to guide their lives -- hopefully ones that will lead to a more peaceful and democratic future, regardless of where they live.

Al Jazeera's coverage of the Palestine Papers was riddled with lies, and with even more omissions. It was not journalism - it was advocacy. It was meant to embarrass both the Palestinian Authority and Israeli negotiators. They selctively quoted the papers to push their agenda.

While their Egypt coverage was quite dramatic, and frankly was great TV, Al Jazeera is acting in no less an advocacy role there as well. Perhaps it is a role that Americans are more naturally inclined to identify with, but it is still advocacy, not journalism.

It is also well known that the network will not say anything remotely critical of its sponsor, the Qatari emirate. Its news is skewed but AJ-English's bias is subtle enough that most casual TV viewers would not notice that they are being brainwashed.

So while Al Jazeera is recruiting useful idiots to push their pseudo-democratic cause, expanding their presence in America is not a good idea.

I am happy that Al Jazeera is on the web, and I visit their site. But to legitimize them as a major news network in the US on par with the others would be a big mistake. Their biased and anti-American views do not belong on US cable systems.

The Telegraph takes a page from The Guardian

From The Telegraph:

Mr Suleiman, who is widely tipped to take over from Hosni Mubarak as president, was named as Israel's preferred candidate for the job after discussions with American officials in 2008.

As a key figure working for Middle East peace, he once suggested that Israeli troops would be "welcome" to invade Egypt to stop weapons being smuggled to Hamas terrorists in neighbouring Gaza.

The details, which emerged in secret files obtained by WikiLeaks and passed to The Daily Telegraph, come after Mr Suleiman began talks with opposition groups on the future for Egypt's government.

Did Suleiman really say that Israel was welcome to invade Egypt? Does that even make sense?

Let's look at the memo, from December 17, 2007:

A serious political commitment, supported by dedicated and properly trained personnel, is key to progress. The Egyptians claim that they respond aggressively to Israeli intelligence leads, while both sides bicker over whether and how Egypt could deploy more Border Guard Forces. Meanwhile, the Egyptians continue to offer excuses for the problem they face: the need to "squeeze" Hamas, while avoiding being seen as complicit in Israel's "siege" of Gaza. Egyptian General Intelligence Chief Omar Soliman told us Egypt wants Gaza to go "hungry" but not "starve." Minister of Defense Field Marshal Tantawi and the Director of Military Intelligence MG Mowafy both pressed recently for the return of EUBAM monitors to oversee the crossing between Gaza and Egypt of Palestinians with urgent humanitarian circumstances. In their moments of greatest frustration, Tantawi and Soliman each have claimed that the IDF would be "welcome" to re-invade Philadelphi, if the IDF thought that would stop the smuggling...

The Philadelphi Corridor they are talking about is on the Gaza side, not Egypt (hence the terminology "re-invade.") Israel controlled the corridor before the disengagement from Gaza, when they handed it over to the PA, and then Hamas took it over when they took Gaza.

Certainly Suleiman made statements that would not endear him to the Arab street, such as saying that Egypt wants Gaza to go hungry but not starve (a statement that mirrors one that Dov Weisglass said in 2006 and was slammed for.) But it is absurd to say that Suleiman would welcome an invasion of his country!

For the Telegraph to push this lie is simply more Guardian-type advocacy journalism - misrepresentations of primary source documents specifically meant to influence Egyptians into thinking Suleiman was an Israeli patsy.

Arabs use Israeli technology to filter the Internet

From AllGov, picked up later by Al Arabiya:

The government of Egypt’s attempted crackdown on mass protests has been aided by an American firm that sells telecommunications software that allows the authoritarian regime to spy on citizens’ emails and cell phone communications.

Narus, located in Sunnyvale, California, sold the Egyptian government Deep Packet Inspection equipment, a content-filtering technology used to inspect, track and target content from users of the Internet and mobile phones.

According to a Narus executive, owners of the software can record everything that goes through the Internet in their country, allowing them to read emails and attachments, view browsing histories and even reconstruct phone calls made over VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol).

Founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts to create and sell mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients, Narus is now owned by Boeing.

The Al Arabiya article (original link missing, copy here) says that Narus technology was used to shut the Internet down in Egypt altogether, which does not appear to be the case. I have no doubt that it is being used to monitor the network, though.

Moonbats have already started protesting at Narus offices.

Narus' website mentions that they help protect a number of service providers, including Telecom Egypt and Saudi Telecom.

Five Hamas members arrested in Egypt with weapons

Multiple Arabic media sources are reporting that police in El Arish, Egypt arrested five Palestinian Arabs and are holding them for 15 days.

They are charged with possession of weapons and ammunition, and attempted acts of sabotage that threaten the security of the state. They were also accused of infiltrating the Egyptian territories.

They were picked up on Saturday when they were traveling in a Mercedes. They were found with five hand grenades and three weapons that were marked "Al-Qassam Brigades - Hamas."

On Sunday, Hamas denied media reports that it was trying to fuel tension in Egypt.

PLO upset at Quartet statement

From Ma'an:

PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo told Kuwait news agency KUNA Monday that the latest Quartet statement on the peace process was "regretful" and fell short of the Palestinians' expectations.

The statement, which focused on getting sides back to the negotiating table as an "imperative" for regional stability, did not mention Israel's failure to stop settlement construction on Palestinian lands, an issue PLO negotiators say remains the stumbling block to a return to talks.

In their statement, the Quartet urged sides "to undertake urgently efforts to expedite Israeli-Palestinian and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, which is imperative to avoiding outcomes detrimental to the region."

Abed Rabbo told KUNA that he blamed Quartet Envoy and former British premier Tony Blair for the weak statement.

In fact, the Quartet statement did say

The Quartet regrets the discontinuation of Israel’s ten month moratorium on settlement activity and strongly reaffirms that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.

So once again, the PLO is lying.

What they are really angry about is that the statement called on them to resume negotiations, and they don't want to have their intransigence exposed for the world to see. They'd rather pretend that the "settlements" - with all of the building activity being within existing boundaries of the communities, none of them expanding into any areas that the Palestinian Arabs would end up with at the end of any negotiations - are the obstacle.

But perhaps they weren't happy that the statement also condemned rocket fire from Gaza.

Erekat accuses Qatar of investing in Jewish settlements!

The "Palestine Papers" has really caused Saeb Erekat to go off the deep end:

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat threatened Monday to expose official documents about investments he said proved that Qatar holds in companies that operate in illegal Israeli West Bank settlements.

More than 24% of the biggest Israeli companies in the Qarne Shomron settlement, located in the northern West Bank district of Qalqiliya, rely on Qatari investments worth millions of US dollars, said Erekat.

"The time will come in future to reveal these documents," he threatened.

The statement was the latest in a series of accusations targeting the Emir of Qatar Shaykh Hamadi bin Khalifa Ath-Thani, who was singled out for attacks in the wake of a series of aired documentaries on Al-Jazeera, which publicized in Arabic highlights from a set of 1,600 leaked documents from over 10 years of talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

Come on, Saeb, release this supposed proof. Why wait? I promise I'll blog prominently about it!

Erekat's speech got even better:

During his speech, Erekat reiterated earlier statements that the PA would officially complain to the International Federation of Journalists, saying that the complaint would be submitted in the following two weeks. The complaint would not "oppose scoops or getting information, but [stress that media] should avoid distortion," he said.

Erekat, master liar, wants the media to avoid distortion?

You can't even parody these clowns.

Thomas Friedman's version of "truth"

From Thomas Friedman's column in the NYT:

I’m in Tahrir Square, and of all the amazing things one sees here the one that strikes me most is a bearded man who is galloping up and down, literally screaming himself hoarse, saying: “I feel free! I feel free!”

In a region where the truth and truth-tellers have so long been smothered under the crushing weight of oil, autocracy and religious obscurantism, suddenly the Arab world has a truly free space — a space that Egyptians themselves, not a foreign army, have liberated — and the truth is now gushing out of here like a torrent from a broken hydrant.

...This is not a religious event here, and the Muslim Brotherhood is not running the show. This is an Egyptian event. That is its strength and its weakness — no one is in charge and everyone in the society is here....

You almost never hear the word “Israel,” and the pictures of “martyrs” plastered around the square are something rarely seen in the Arab world — Egyptians who died fighting for their own freedom not against Israel.

I have no doubt that Friedman is reporting what he is seeing and understanding in English, but he was not in Tahrir Square last Friday - when hundreds of thousands prayed together:

It is folly to deny the religious dimension here. Egypt's "seculars" are far more religious than Western secularists.

As far as no mention of Israel, John Rosenthal uncovered - just by doing regular Internet searches - many anti-Israel and anti-semitic messages at the protests:

And just today, the Palestine Times paper discusses some of the Arabic slogans that can be heard in Tahrir Square, including "Leave Mubarak, Tel Aviv is waiting for you!" and "Mubarak is a stooge selling gas to Israel."

One other joke going around the protests is that if you want to get Mubarak to leave, you have to speak Hebrew to him so he understands.

If Friedman wants to report the truth, just parachuting onto the scene for a day and relying on locals to translate is not the way to be a reporter. But his ego is so huge now that he is convinced that his limited perception is representative of what is going on and he fearlessly reports things as true when it is easy to find proof that he is missing large parts of the story.

(h/t SoccerDad)

The UK keeps the "refugee" lie alive

From Ma'an:

The UK on Monday announced a contribution of £1.5 million to UNRWA to assist Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

The UK development agency DFID said the funding would help the UN agency for Palestinian refugees to provide medical supplies to over a thousand families and ensure shelter for 3,500 families.

Over 425,000 Palestinian refugees are registered with UNRWA in Lebanon, and many were displaced again in 2007 during internal fighting in the country in 2007.

DFID Minister Alan Duncan said the support would help these families, especially during winter months, but added that it was not a sustainable solution.

"[T]he only long term solution for Palestinian refugees across the Middle East is a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. The UK is continuing to work with both parties and the international community to achieve a just and fair two state solution."

That bolded statement is delusional.

As the Palestine Papers have shown (if unreported by The Guardian and Al Jazeera), even the Palestinian Authority privately recognizes that the vast majority Lebanese of Palestinian Arab origin will not all go to either Israel or to a Palestinian Arab state, but will need to be integrated into Arab countries and other nations.

The PA explicitly said in their position paper that it can't absorb them, and Israel will never take more than a token amount.

This means that even after a peace agreement, there is no solution for the vast majority of these stateless people besides naturalization in other countries - a move that Arab nations have been bitterly opposing for decades.

Everyone knows this - except, apparently, the Palestinian Arabs themselves, who are incited to hate Israel for 62 years rather than to hate the Arab nations that are jailing them today.

Rather than the UK continuing to repeat this lie, it is way past time for the truth to be stated publicly: Arab nations will need to naturalize their Palestinian Arabs, and every day they delay is a day that they are abusing their "guests."

No one benefits from the lie that a peace treaty will solve the problem, least of all the so-called "refugees" themselves. The West needs to tell the truth, and to hold Arab nations directly responsible for keeping millions of people stateless for over half a century.

The Real Realism of Israel (Jonah Goldberg)

From the LA Times, by Jonah Goldberg:

One of the few things that critics and friends of Israel can agree on is that Israel is a special sort of nation. It represents a special idea; it is different.

This is especially so for America's so-called realists. Whether they are sympathetic to Israel or scornful, they are convinced U.S. support for Israel fuels hatred and instability. Hence their obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

For instance, when then-national security advisor Gen. James Jones spoke in 2009 to J Street — the "pro-Israel" lobby that isn't very pro-Israel — he said that if he could solve just one problem in the world, it would be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the "epicenter" of U.S. foreign policy.

Such thinking falls somewhere between wild exaggeration and dangerous nonsense. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda remains dedicated to our destruction. Turkey, a once-staunch ally, is Islamifying. Russia is careening toward autocracy and China is on the march. Oh, and the United States is fighting two land wars. But the national security advisor's No. 1 priority was keeping Israelis from building houses in East Jerusalem? Really?

This too is the product of treating Israel like an abstraction. Obviously, hatred of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians (real and imagined) contributes to the Middle East's problems. But the simple fact is that Israel is not the source of the Middle East's problems, never mind the keystone to U.S. foreign policy challenges.

In Egypt, the popular uprising unfolding is not about Israel but about autocratic brutality, economic stagnation and skyrocketing prices. The same goes for Tunisia as well as the popular protests brutally crushed by Iran's mullahs in 2009. Turkey is not Islamifying because of the Palestinians. Al Qaeda surely hates Israel, but its roots lay in hatred of the Saudi royal family and the Islamist ambitions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

And yet the "realist" fantasy that an Arabs-first (or Muslims-first) foreign policy will yield rich rewards endures. The French have followed that advice for generations. They nurtured the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in exile. They give special preference to their former colonies. They pander to Arab sensibilities. And what has it gotten them? A lot of burning cars but few lucrative oil deals.

As we've recently been reminded, Israel is the only truly democratic regime in the region, and therefore the most stable. But, we are told, if we were only more conciliatory to corrupt dictatorial regimes and more sympathetic to the "Arab street," the region would be more stable. (Ironically, this is very close to Israel's own position, no doubt because it will take any peace it can get.)

No doubt this is what the solons of American foreign policy hear from their Arab and Muslim interlocutors. And it is certainly what the autocrats in the Middle East want everyone to believe, starting with their own subjects. Tyrants always want to focus on scapegoats, insults to national honor and shadowy enemies. Why apologize for skyrocketing bread prices when you can demonize the "Zionist entity"?

Addressing the real problems in the region is just too hard, particularly when any effort to take attention off the Palestinians is greeted with outrage from an anti-Israel industry that cravenly singles out Israel as the worst human rights abuser in the neighborhood. Israel puts Arab critics in the Knesset. Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia put them in jail or in an unmarked grave.

All of this would be just as true if Israel retreated to the 1949 armistice lines tomorrow.

Israel's actual realists know this because they can't afford the self-indulgent abstractions and the cynical lies that pass for "realism" outside its borders.

Pan-Islamism, 1883

From Oriental experience: a selection of essays and addresses delivered on various occasions, by Sir Richard Temple, 1883.

There has been for some years past, and there still is, a stir among the Muhammadan nations of the world. It is called "Pan-islamism" by Europeans: the word "islam" meaning the Muhammadan religion. As is well known, the Slavs of Europe, or their political leaders, have recently been writing and speaking of " Panslavism." This implies a general union among the Slavs living in Russia, in Austria, in European Turkey. In the same way "Pan-islamism" implies a general union among Muhammadans dwelling in the various countries of Asia and in some parts of Africa. This Pan-islamism, then, is a real movement, though perhaps it has not gone very far as yet. But no man can say to what lengths it may go. At all events, it deserves the watchful attention of Englishmen. For England, herself a Christian Power, has now more Muhammadan subjects than any Muhammadan Power in the world. Englishmen may perhaps be surprised to hear that, but it is the case. While Britain has been busy with her fields and her factories, her trade, her ships, and her colonies,—her sons have, within the last generation, raised up for her a dominion among the Asiatic Muhammadans. In the presence of that Anglo-Muhammadan dominion, the Sultan of Turkey, the Shah of Persia, the Grand Sherif of Mecca, must droop their flags. There are in India, Ceylon, and other British possessions, 50 millions of Muhammadan subjects or feudatories of the British Queen. In Afghanistan, Beluchistan, and other places there are 10 millions more under the political control of England. On the whole, then, the Anglo - Muhammadan dominion includes about 60 millions of souls. As compared Math that, the other Muhammadan Powers of Asia have altogether only 32 millions. This is exclusive of China, which has a body of Muhammadan subjects whose numbers are not exactly known. In Egypt and the rest of Africa there may be several millions of Muhammadans.

But it may be said that the mere numbers of the population prove little. What is the power and wealth of the AngloMuhammadan dominion as compared with that of the other Muhammadans? Well, as regards power, it is impossible to distinguish the Anglo-Muhammadan power from that of Britain herself. To describe the effective might of such a power, as compared with other nations, might savour of national vanity. We need not, therefore, dwell upon that. But as regards wealth we may remark that the agriculture of the Muhammadan peasantry of India, the navigation in the hands of her Muhammadan sailors and boatmen, the trade conducted by her Muhammadan traders, greatly exceed anything that can be shown by any other Muhammadan nation—indeed, by all other Muhammadan nations together.

Moreover, the Anglo-Muhammadan population is increasing fast, whereas in Turkey and Persia it is understood to be decreasing.

In all the counsels of political Muhammadanism, then, the British Sovereign is entitled to a place in the very first rank, as representing the dominion over the largest and richest Muhammadan population in the world.

In India the mass of the Muhammadans are peaceful, industrious, and loyal. It is well that Englishmen should realise this great fact. But it is also necessary for them to remember that among these generally sober-minded Muhammadans there are many persons of a different stamp. These are bigoted, even desperate; and nothing that we can offer will pacify them. Therefore Muhammadan troubles have from time to time arisen in India. The assassination of Chief Justice Norman at Calcutta, and of Lord Mayo at Port Blair in 1872-73, are instances fresh in the public memory. Bad as these events were, even worse things might possibly happen if England were to fall asleep. But if she remains wakeful they may, under Providence, be prevented.

It may then be asked, Why are the Muhammadans bestirring themselves in these days, and what is it that they are thinking about?

Well, outside India, they feel that they are politically decaying. They are generally disposed to shut their eyes to that which is disagreeable. But they can no longer help seeing the strides which the Christian nations are making in wealth, power, and civilization. Thus they dread the advance of Christendom. The leaders among them look back wistfully to the great days when the Crescent drove back or bore down the Cross in many of the fairest and holiest regions of the earth. When the Cross rallied under Christian warriors, such as Charles Martel of France and John Sobieski of Poland, and stopped the Crescent in its career, they comforted themselves with the thought that South-Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, and a goodly part of Asia still remained to Islam. They perceive, however, that within the last hundred years the Christian power has been making inroads upon Muhammadanism in all directions. Yet some of them have been trusting that Allah and their prophet Muhammad would somehow draw once more the flashing scimitar to scatter the unbelievers. Others of them, again, who do not rely upon divine interference, have been dreaming that destiny (Kismet) would at last set all things right. Now, however, they are becoming aroused by the idea that Christian influence and authority are drawing so near as to threaten the very existence of Islam itself. The alarm is gradually growing in their minds. This alarm refers in the first place to their political power, but in the second place to their religion also. Possibly they might view with some sort of patience the loss of mere earthly dominion. But in their minds worldly power cannot be quite separated from religion. They all, from the highest to the humblest, revere their faith as pure and lofty. In fact, like many other faiths, it has in practice been often clouded over with mummery and superstition. Still there remains something of grandeur about it. In the hearts of its followers it is associated with splendid and glorious memories. Its triumphs of war, in politics, and in art, its efforts even in the cause of science, are well known to the upper classes, and are dimly understood by the multitude. It was skilfully contrived by Muhammad, its founder, to appeal forcibly to the notions and sentiments of hot-blooded races dwelling in sunny climes. Though it is really opposed to human progress, though it blights the prospects of civilization, and stunts the growth of society— yet it reigns in the affections of many millions of bright-eyed and strong-handed men. Such men will turn out to fight for it, and in the excitement of action will face death on its behalf. They used in former times to make converts by the sword; indeed, no religion has ever spread itself so much by force and indirect pressure as theirs. Strangely enough they continue to gain men over (though by gentler means) to their faith in Africa and in Eastern Asia.

The question then arises as to whether the Muhammadans have anything like a policy, while raising this movement of Pan-islamism. Is this stir merely a breeze ruffling the surface of the political waters, or does it portend a real storm? The answer depends, no doubt, largely on the conduct of the Western Powers. The Muhammadans have certainly got a general policy, which is this, to resist the further encroachments of the Christian States, to hold at least their own, and to keep what remains to them of the broad regions that submitted to the Prophet of Arabia. We must acknowledge, too, that this is reasonable in theory. In practice, however, a great power, such as theirs once was, does not yield to dangers from without so long as it is solid and prosperous within. It is the canker eating into the vitals of the State that makes them yield to foreign pressure. The Muhammadans probably are well aware of this also. They know that somehow their body politic is becoming feeble; that their lands are becoming less productive, that their cultivation is shrinking, that their flocks and herds are lessening. They see that famines come and decimate the people sadly, and that afterwards the population does not recover. They feel that there is something fatally the matter with them, but cannot make out exactly what it is. The feeling is aggravated by the sight of neighbouring nations in blooming health and vigorous life. All this is enough to make them despair, and at times they must be somewhat downhearted. But at bottom they are brave; and, while preserving an apathetic appearance, they have an enthusiasm burning within them. If common sense were joined to this enthusiasm, they would soon learn to set their social house in order, to give light and liberty to the people, to secure to every man the fruits of his toil whether of brain or of hands, and to spread abroad that sort of useful knowledge which makes people thrifty, self-reliant, and intelligent. If this lesson did not come to them by inspiration, they might gather it from the example of several among the Christian nations. They would doubtless wish to do this if they could, but they do not know how to set about it. So they drift on towards political ruin. Meanwhile they are becoming very uneasy under the prospect, and are thinking that some plunging struggle must be tried. Instead of looking their misfortune quietly in the face, and devising really workable remedies, they seem to believe that the first thing needful is to restore the energies of their religion. Reformations of sorts are thus undertaken. The Wahhabi revival in Arabia, of which the public has heard much, was an attempt of this nature. It is likely that similar movements may arise in various quarters; indeed, they are springing up already.

There might, then, be a rising in the Muhammadan world, outside the Anglo-Muhammadan dominion above described. Such a combined movement would manifestly affect British interests. It would of itself be serious indeed; still England is quite mighty enough to withstand or overcome it, if only she were left to herself. But would she be let alone? Obviously not. Other Christian powers would be naturally jealous of her acting singly. They would lift up their voices and put in their claims. Thus political complications would arise. In the midst of such complications any rash proceedings on the part of one or other of the Christian Powers might bring on a deadly quarrel within Christendom itself about the affairs of the Muhammadan world. That would indeed be an unseemly spectacle to be exhibited by Christianity in the presence of the heathen.

Such is the outline of political Muhammadanism on the whole, or "Pan-islamism," as it is beginning to be called.

Wikileaks: Brazil illustrates how to sacrifice principles for the Arabs

This 2009 Wikileaks cable discusses why Brazil, a country with a culture that is very much against restrictions on free speech, consistently abstains from any UN resolutions that are against "defamation of religion" - i.e., Islamic attempts to stifle free speech.

Embassy has raised the issue of Brazil's voting record on "defamation of religions" several times in the Department of Human Rights and Social Affairs (DDS), Ministry of External Relations (MRE). The last time was with DDS Chief (A/S level) Minister Glaucia Gauch. Brazil has not disagreed with a single argument in our previous demarches and non-papers. The response has been always the same: the concept of "defamation of religions" is repugnant to Brazilian values and principles, and it is inconsistent with Brazilian law and international law. For those reasons, Brazil cannot and will not support a resolution that purports to punish the "defamation of religions"; instead, Brazil consistently abstains.

When asked why Brazil does not vote against a resolution it finds totally objectionable, Gauch responded that it was enough to abstain. In the GOB's view, Brazil is taking a principled but practical position on the issue, not desiring to offend OIC countries, in particular powerful ones like Iran, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia with which Brazil is attempting to deepen relations. Moreover, obtaining a permanent seat on the UNSC remains Brazil's overriding foreign policy goal. As a result, the GOB prefers to avoid antagonizing countries and groups of countries whose votes might be valuable in a future election.

In a similar vein, an earlier set of memos detail the Arab-South America Summit held in 2005 in Brazil, which turned into a farce as radical Arabs hijacked the session to put out outrageously anti-Israel and anti-American statements, leaving the major reasons for the summit (economic cooperation) in the dust.

By the time of Cast Lead, Brazil had already cast its lot with the radical Arabs.

The Brazilian government heavily criticized Israel's actions against HAMAS in Gaza, after originally suggesting it might take a more nuanced approached with its initial statements. President Lula, backed by most Brazilian media outlets, harshly criticized both Israel and the United States, and, while stressing that HAMAS bore some responsibility, minimized the group's actions. ...

According to Minister Rodrigo Amaral de Souza, chief of staff to Undersecretary for Political Affairs for Africa, Asia and the Middle East Ambassador Roberto Jaguaribe, Brazil's statements are motivated by three objectives: to reestablish the ceasefire, to allow for humanitarian assistance to go into Gaza, and get the parties back to the peace table following the process laid out at the Annapolis conference. Asked whether Brazil recognized the incongruence of asking Israel to halt its actions and return to the status quo ante knowing that HAMAS did not abide by the ceasefire in the first place, Amaral sheepishly recognized that Brazil understood Israel faced a difficult situation, but Brazil was primarily concerned that Israel's actions were threatening the progress of Annapolis and would create an irreversible momentum in a direction away from peace. Amaral also added that because Brazil has no relationship with HAMAS, it rarely addresses its actions officially.

Brazil's ambitions to become an important world player and to strengthen economic ties with Arab countries can be seen to clearly influence its actions - which it then justifies in terms of human rights.

Not that Brazil is alone in doing this, but the Wikileaks cables show its hypocrisy in stark terms.

Iranium: The Movie

The movie Iranium, about the Iranian nuclear threat, is online for a limited time.

You can register and see the entire movie for free by just clicking below and typing in your email address.